Understanding Charlie Parker through triads

[Boston Joe]

That's it man!

Now if you're open to treating it as a D-7 instead of a D-6... once you're feeling comfortable with the F (minor 3rd), try adding the C note (minor 7th). The C note will BEHAVE as the b6 against the E triad, so you will likely hear it wanting to resolve down to the 5th, the B. If you can hear that and play with it... try putting all 5 notes together and you have a pentatonic scale built on tension and resolution. You could also take it one step further and add the A note if you want, the 5th of D-7. That note will actually behave like the sus4 sound... the 4 wanting desperately to pull down to the major 3rd of the E triad.

I'll try it. The BH thing has got me thinking of all tonic minor chords as minor 6ths, but I'm all for trying an alternate approach.

Question: So, in the second bar, there's a E>A turnaround. Would you derive triads for both chords or just work with the A?

[jordanklemons]

Jordan -

Thanks for the long reply. I realised you were busy the other day. Hope health stuff is OK. I meant to ask before.

I don't think I said 'vanilla' as such, rather that 3 notes might prove limiting in soloing terms. I know you are saying put in another note, a tension note, to up it a bit.

Incidentally, let me ask about that to make sure. The number to the right of your chord symbol - i.e. (F-)/4 over an Eb7 - is the extra note.

Is that the 4 of the Bb scale (Eb)? Or the 4 of the Bb scale from root F (Bb)? Or the sus4 of an Fm chord (Bb)? Or the sus4 of the Eb7 (Ab)? Or which note? I admit to some confusion there.

I understand about the freedom and harmonic possibilities triads provide vs. scales etc.

I understand that the same scale (C maj emphasising the C major triad tones) over certain root notes alters the feel/sound/positioning of the notes. In fact it may cease to be a 'C scale'.



But you did actually say 'I'm going to put this into F melodic minor...'. but you used Ab as the root. I'm not sure why you chose Ab as the root (!) but that might explain why it sounded a lot different than if you'd used F as the root.

High notes carry, so I guess the ear still hears the 'tune', especially in a reharm, regardless of the underlying sound. We'd still recognise 'Happy Birthday' even if there were completely random chords behind it.

But the other way around is probably more interesting. I'd say that was the attraction of triads. In a solo the tune goes on a back-burner but the underlying harmony is the same. If we play, say, a G or Dm triad over G7, it'll sound pretty straight. But an E maj triad won't...

In a way, this resembles the way substitute pentatonics are used, like Bbm pent over G7, etc. Although triads may open up more possibilities.

Hey thanks ragman. Yeah, the health stuff is the health stuff. I have little to complain about these days. Still issues, but I'm very fortunate! Thanks for asking. And apologies if I misunderstand things. It's online, typed out communication. Bound to miscommunicate with folks in this format.

Yes, the number to the right of the triad is notated in relationship to the triad. The idea comes from the fact that in solfeggi, each of the 12 syllables (notes) has an energy, a function, a vibe, a role. When we base our melodic ideas off of a specific triad, it causes the root note of that triad to behave like 'do' in the melody... even if it's different from the root note of the harmonic chord. Once that melodic 'do' is set, the triad will function as the 1, 3, and 5 of that melodic structure... which means that any other note added to it will MELODICALLY behave in relationship to that melodic triad. So if we're playing over the Eb7 with an F minor triad, everything melodically revolves around F-Ab-C. So if we add the 4 we're talking about the 4 of F minor. Because that extra note is going to behave like the 4 of a minor scale... even though it's not the 4 of the Eb7 chord. This all looks and sounds far more complicated then it is to the ear. The ear will hear it as so simple it won't even register as something worth noticing. Until we think about it and then we'll realize there's a massive problem between what our intellect is telling us and what our ear is hearing.

I did mentioned going into F melodic minor. Absolutely. I did that primarily to help communicate ideas to you and others who are used to thinking in terms of a scale. To me, all I was thinking about was a C major triad. I know that when I put a C major triad over an AbMaj7 shell voicing, it produces an Ab+Maj7. So the tension notes I added (in the way I think) we're being taken from what makes sense from the standpoint of filling out the harmony. But they're all in relation (in my mind) to the C major triad. I would never argue that the notes don't add up to create what we would normally call an F melodic minor scale. The problem is that the F note is a melodic tension note, and so is the Ab note. Both of those want to pull to a C major triad note in my ear. So if I jump straight for playing within a scale shape that's built on F (or even Ab if we're thinking about the 3rd mode), I'd completely miss out on what the notes really want and how best to create that tonality. In my ear, that tonality is actually based around the C note and the C triad. So if I were working with a student, I might tell them, "Let's experiment with (C)/2." That means, play the C triad notes and add the 2 against it (the 2 of C... so the D note). It should sound like Do-Re-Mi-So. Very simple set of notes that will create very simple melodic ideas. But in terms of jazz harmony, what we're actually playing chord tone wise is 3rd-#11-#5-Maj7... that's a pretty rich set of notes harmonically. We're just organizing them into something that allows for a very simple melodic expression within the depth of that extended harmony.

[jordanklemons]

I'll try it. The BH thing has got me thinking of all tonic minor chords as minor 6ths, but I'm all for trying an alternate approach.

Question: So, in the second bar, there's a E>A turnaround. Would you derive triads for both chords or just work with the A?

The 2nd bar of stella? You mean the Eø7 to A7?

There's a lot of freedom for choices to be made in all of this. My usual go to is to look at the melody, analyze it to find the triads at work, be respectful of the harmony that's happening as well (which means analyzing over EVERY chord), and then improvise from those triads. But yeah, we could absolutely shift the puzzle pieces around. We could just think about the E, or just about the A. We could also look at where it's all headed and utilize THAT triad. It appears that we're headed towards the D minor resolution... so we could glob the ii V together and just use a D minor triad and add tension notes from that perspective. We could also super impose multiple chords within each measure and come up with a really tricky movement of triads to get really out and create tons of movement. Different options yield different sounds and vibes. But my go-to to get started is to just follow the tune's melody, specifically in relation to the tune's chords.

I do that partly because that's what Stefon like to do, and part because from my time studying with Sco and especially Peter Bernstein, I'm a bit of a tune snob and try my best to put my ego aside and pull as much juice out of the melody as possible. I find that to be the most musically satisfying place to begin from.

[Boston Joe]

Very simple set of notes that will create very simple melodic ideas. But in terms of jazz harmony, what we're actually playing chord tone wise is 3rd-#11-#5-Maj7... that's a pretty rich set of notes harmonically. We're just organizing them into something that allows for a very simple melodic expression within the depth of that extended harmony.

I think this is why I've been interested in the concept even when it hasn't worked too well for me. A simple entry point into a complex system, in addition to making it accessible for a bear of very little brain such as myself, but is also a thing of elegance just on its own.

[Boston Joe]

The 2nd bar of stella? You mean the Eø7 to A7?

There's a lot of freedom for choices to be made in all of this. My usual go to is to look at the melody, analyze it to find the triads at work, be respectful of the harmony that's happening as well (which means analyzing over EVERY chord), and then improvise from those triads. But yeah, we could absolutely shift the puzzle pieces around. We could just think about the E, or just about the A. We could also look at where it's all headed and utilize THAT triad. It appears that we're headed towards the D minor resolution... so we could glob the ii V together and just use a D minor triad and add tension notes from that perspective. We could also super impose multiple chords within each measure and come up with a really tricky movement of triads to get really out and create tons of movement. Different options yield different sounds and vibes. But my go-to to get started is to just follow the tune's melody, specifically in relation to the tune's chords.

I do that partly because that's what Stefon like to do, and part because from my time studying with Sco and especially Peter Bernstein, I'm a bit of a tune snob and try my best to put my ego aside and pull as much juice out of the melody as possible. I find that to be the most musically satisfying place to begin from.

I actually meant the second bar of Alone Together, but I think the explanation holds up.

I was thinking that I could try something like putting the E/b2 triad in the first bar, then having something for the A7 in the second bar, then we're back to D minor in the third bar, so find a different triad to use there. So when the tune comes back to the same chord, I'm somewhere else. Good plan?

[jordanklemons]

I actually meant the second bar of Alone Together, but I think the explanation holds up.

I was thinking that I could try something like putting the E/b2 triad in the first bar, then having something for the A7 in the second bar, then we're back to D minor in the third bar, so find a different triad to use there. So when the tune comes back to the same chord, I'm somewhere else. Good plan?

Oh oh, I see. Well there are always options. I can't promise this will sound musical as I've never tried it... but one thing I've found is that the best melodies tend to break down into really simple "chord progressions" when viewed as triads. In other words, the melodic triads can be played alone and will just sound smooth and musical. Which makes sense, because of the triads sound good, then the melodies that are produced from them should as well.

What if you lumped together the E-A movement as just an A7 and treated it with an A major triad and then resolved all of it to D minor triad in the next measure. Then your melodic progression is E -> A -> D minor.

Again, no idea if it'll sound cool or if it would be something I'd actually use myself... but it could be worth trying just based on the circle of 5ths movement it creates in the melodic progression.
¯\_(?)_/¯
j

[Boston Joe]

Oh oh, I see. Well there are always options. I can't promise this will sound musical as I've never tried it... but one thing I've found is that the best melodies tend to break down into really simple "chord progressions" when viewed as triads. In other words, the melodic triads can be played alone and will just sound smooth and musical. Which makes sense, because of the triads sound good, then the melodies that are produced from them should as well.

What if you lumped together the E-A movement as just an A7 and treated it with an A major triad and then resolved all of it to D minor triad in the next measure. Then your melodic progression is E -> A -> D minor.

Again, no idea if it'll sound cool or if it would be something I'd actually use myself... but it could be worth trying just based on the circle of 5ths movement it creates in the melodic progression.
¯\_(?)_/¯
j

I'll give it a shot. So far I've only messed with static relationships. No movement.

[Jonah]

I'm not sure, to be honest. This happened last night about ten minutes before I had to run off to rehearsal, so I didn't really have a lot of time to think about it.

The best I could say is that I heard them as distinct but related. If you look at "E add F" in the context of D minor, you get the 2nd, 3rd, b5th and 6th. So you've got three chord tones and one natural extension, so it's not that far off the basic chord to begin with. But because the triad sound is so strong, I could hear E as "home", and it's the 9th, so it's not such a weird note to emphasize.

It was definitely an "a-ha" moment, but one related to the ear. Not a theoretical one that's easy to explain.

Yeh...
I was just wondering about your experience...

Presumably without actual cotext for me it would sound as Phrygian progression...

D-6 sounds like II with anticipation of V (B is 5th of V).
E major triad over it clashes with F in D-6 makes it sound like Phrigiyan cadence (not jazz one Phrygian but authentic)... all together it makes b7 and 11 in E major

You see I believe lots of things depends on phrasing and accents

Here you can make youself hear D minor triad as home...
or A minor triad (or A major triad) as 'home' too - even if you do not play it

[Boston Joe]

D-6 sounds like II with anticipation of V (B is 5th of V).

I can see why you'd say this, but I've always understood -6 chords to be treated as I-. It's D-7 that sounds like II to me. (All the BH stuff I've been doing). (In other words, I feel that the 6 implies the natural 7 - a harmonic or melodic minor sound as opposed to a dorian one. I hear the E>F and then the leap to G# as very Harmonic Minor sounding. Maybe I'm missing something here, but we've already established that I'm kinda slow. ) In any case, the phrases I was coming up with sounded mostly like E and the accompaniment was sort of a D minor "sauce" (You'll have to excuse me using all these technical terms) poured over everything.

I find it useful to keep the harmonic and melodic progressions mostly separate, at least for now. As I'm just starting to be able to hear the melodic progressions, I need to keep that in the foreground. If I start trying to mess with the implications of the whole construct at once, I'll be in over my head very quickly.

[ragman1]

if we're playing over the Eb7 with an F minor triad, everything melodically revolves around F-Ab-C. So if we add the 4 we're talking about the 4 of F minor. Because that extra note is going to behave like the 4 of a minor scale...

Well, that's what I thought because that's the obvious one but I wanted to check. So if we got (C)/2 over, say, an Ab7 (I'm just taking that) it would still be D because the C maj triad is treated as the C maj scale regardless. I hope that's right.


And the rest I've got. Thanks :-)

[jordanklemons]

Well, that's what I thought because that's the obvious one but I wanted to check. So if we got (C)/2 over, say, an Ab7 (I'm just taking that) it would still be D because the C maj triad is treated as the C maj scale regardless. I hope that's right.

I wouldn't use a C major over an Ab7 chord as that would tonicize the G note, which is the major 7th of the Ab chord. Christian (and maybe BH) would be into that. For me... that wouldn't be one I'd use. At least not well into practicing with these ideas. I would treat this one as a very advanced tonality to play with... if I messed with it at all. I'd stick with more common and less problematic tonalities first.

And the rest I've got. Thanks :-)

Yep, this is the general idea that helps guide all of the different possibilities I've discovered using this stuff over the last three years. I'm guessing I will continue to find applications as I continue my own studies.

[ragman1]

I wouldn't use a C major over an Ab7 chord

I know, neither would I. I just wanted a scenario where the 2 as D wasn't in dispute.

Listen, that's maybe the second time I've asked a question and then said I already thought I knew the answer. I'm not trying to play tricks on you. It's just that, if someone floats an idea or theory, and I think it has mileage, I want to be quite sure I know what's going on. I hope you don't mind. It doesn't mean I'm going to guess the answer every time! A lot of this stuff I worked out for myself a long time ago in any case through sheer experimentation.

I mean, I've been playing Dm, Em, Fm, E, Cm, Bbm, etc etc, over G7 (for example) for ages. But when I first heard about triads it was mostly triad pairs and that got very complex. It wasn't a question of just doing the IV and V, it went a lot further than that. In fact, it was so complex I gave up on it for some time. Players were sticking in all kinds of things (like 4 or more major, minor and/or augmented triads over a couple of bars) that didn't seem to make a lot of sense but worked musically.

But can I go on anyhow? I hear what you say about wringing everything possible out of the melody in triadic terms. But what would you do if a melody is very sparse? Take, say, the first 4 bars (or even the first 8 bars) of ATTYA. There's so little melody there. Would you just use the prevailing chords to play with? Or take the bass note and see what fit? Or go back to the usual scales, arps, and all that?

In fact, how do you decide what to use over a given tune? Is the melody always the guide? Most melodies are pretty diatonic to the chord, usually. So if you wanted to go further than the obvious subs for minors, doms, and majors, and wanted to make it sound modern and interesting without simply being way out and weird, how would you start?

I have to say I'm fairly intrigued, hence the interest.

[christianm77]

G/#4 on Ab7

[christianm77]

Then you can resolve to Ab/6 on Dbmaj7

[ragman1]

G/#4 on Ab7

God, this is like Mornington Crescent.

Let's get this right. You're saying G maj triad with a #4, which would be GBC#D, over Ab7. Resolving to F over DbM7.

Well, there's no question you get lots of dissonance. Not sure I'd play it myself :-)

Don't do that, Samantha

[ragman1]

I think you can probably use the maj7 of a dom chord in blues playing. Take G7, C7, D7. All the sounds mush into each other so an F# over a G7 and/or C7 might be all right in passing because the ear adjusts the sounds to fit. It's quite clever really.

Certainly a natural F over D7 works, so does a natural B. It's probably fine over the C7 too provided it's not prolonged.

But this isn't triads, of course.

[christianm77]

God, this is like Mornington Crescent.

Let's get this right. You're saying G maj triad with a #4, which would be GBC#D, over Ab7. Resolving to F over DbM7.

Well, there's no question you get lots of dissonance. Not sure I'd play it myself :-)

Don't do that, Samantha

You love it!

[Boston Joe]

Oh oh, I see. Well there are always options. I can't promise this will sound musical as I've never tried it... but one thing I've found is that the best melodies tend to break down into really simple "chord progressions" when viewed as triads. In other words, the melodic triads can be played alone and will just sound smooth and musical. Which makes sense, because of the triads sound good, then the melodies that are produced from them should as well.

What if you lumped together the E-A movement as just an A7 and treated it with an A major triad and then resolved all of it to D minor triad in the next measure. Then your melodic progression is E -> A -> D minor.

Again, no idea if it'll sound cool or if it would be something I'd actually use myself... but it could be worth trying just based on the circle of 5ths movement it creates in the melodic progression.
¯\_(?)_/¯
j

I thought the A Major triad sounded a little plain, so I made it A+/7 Which ends up sounding like 2/3 of a whole tone scale. But I kept working that movement from E/b2 to A+/7. It works. Here's an interesting thing, though: I found that either quad worked over either chord. You could literally play the first six bars of Alone Together just going back and forth between those two quads at random.

[Boston Joe]

God, this is like Mornington Crescent.

I had to google that. Now I'm going to have to go find some videos.

[ragman1]

I had to google that. Now I'm going to have to go find some videos.

It was a radio show called 'I'm sorry I haven't a clue', originally compered beautifully by Humphrey Lyttleton the jazz trumpeter. They did lots of silly things with the help of the lovely Samantha who didn't exist...

Mornington Crescent was always the last game and is completely meaningless. Contestants try to get to Mornington Crescent (a London tube station) via other tube stations as though they were playing a board game. The moves were accompanied by oohs, ahhs, and gasps of approval from the audience even though it was all entirely random. But, perhaps at a signal from the producer, someone eventually reached Mornington Crescent and won to tumultuous applause.

It was absolutely one of the most entertaining shows on at the time and very funny in its own quietly intelligent way.

It was probably better heard rather than seen but they did video some of it.

And there are others if you follow the YouTube links.

[ragman1]

Sorry, Jordan, this is all, I promise!

[Boston Joe]

I believe the American version of this would be something like Calvinball

[christianm77]

The Cones of Dunshire

[jordanklemons]

Listen, that's maybe the second time I've asked a question and then said I already thought I knew the answer. I'm not trying to play tricks on you. It's just that, if someone floats an idea or theory, and I think it has mileage, I want to be quite sure I know what's going on. I hope you don't mind. It doesn't mean I'm going to guess the answer every time! A lot of this stuff I worked out for myself a long time ago in any case through sheer experimentation.

I have to say I'm fairly intrigued, hence the interest.

I'm glad you spelled that out, thanks. Honestly, I was pretty confused by where you were coming from since you seemed to be showing interest with your questions, but then would follow your question by saying you get the rest. Kind of left me unsure where and how to meet you. Engage fully, or back up a little and let you go with your current understanding. This was helpful to read.

But can I go on anyhow? I hear what you say about wringing everything possible out of the melody in triadic terms. But what would you do if a melody is very sparse? Take, say, the first 4 bars (or even the first 8 bars) of ATTYA. There's so little melody there. Would you just use the prevailing chords to play with? Or take the bass note and see what fit? Or go back to the usual scales, arps, and all that?

In fact, how do you decide what to use over a given tune? Is the melody always the guide? Most melodies are pretty diatonic to the chord, usually. So if you wanted to go further than the obvious subs for minors, doms, and majors, and wanted to make it sound modern and interesting without simply being way out and weird, how would you start?

My best answer to this is that if you're genuinely curious to learn more, you should come hang in the study group. It's free. We mostly break down standards and come up with the melodic triads and then study them to attempt to get people improvising over tunes with all of these ideas. We also dig into a new fully-extended chord every month together. I personally feel the best way to learn to use this stuff is to study individual fully-extended tonalities (to get an idea of how they work and the basic break down of harmony/melody within them) and then to study fully melodic progressions within tunes. This current month we took a break from that to look at a ii V I from Bird... same idea, just not as small as an individual tonality, and not as big as a full tune.

The more individual tonalities we know, and the more we understand how the primary and secondary quadratonics are organized within them, the easier it becomes to spot melodic triads within the tune. So if I see a particular chord tone over a particular chord, I know what my basic options are pretty quickly. And I have zero issue with it being a root position triad. I actually love those sounds. But often times there may be more options.

First 8 of ATTYA would be interesting. I've been playing this tune so long I actually have never bothered analyzing it. We could definitely utilize root position triads for a lot of this tune... but even then, I likely wouldn't fall into "basic" scales and arpeggios, as for me, once I started to hear tension and resolution moving within chords and progressions, I still rely mostly on that. So an F minor triad over an F-7 chord is still being interpreted in my mind not as some type of F minor mode, but as the triad with functioning tension notes around it.

Without TOO MUCH sitting and shedding to make sure I love it, just with the intellectual understanding I have of the tune and melodic triads... I would likely use something like this for the 1st 8 bars for a fairly 'in' and 'traditional' vibe. We could get more experimental to make it more modern if we wanted... but this would likely be my starting point...

|| (Ab)/2 | (Db)/2 | (C)/b2 | (C-)/4 | (F-)/2 | (F)/2 | (G)/7 | (E-)/4 | % ||

[ragman1]

I believe the American version of this would be something like Calvinball

Ha! It's a little like Flook, the cartoon strip that Humphrey used to draw. By the way, you know that show was so good it lasted 40 years or something? It even continued after HL died.