Generalizing over ii - V Chord Progressions

[princeplanet]

As novices we trained ourselves to hit both, only to realise that the greats seldom did, they either played V over both, or sometimes ii over both. Me, I've been in the habit of playing V over both, but sometimes feel the need to play ii, or spell out both.

One example where V doesn't work (for me at least) is the ii - V in blues for bar 9 when :

F6 / Bb9 / F6 / Cm7 - F9 / Bb9 / B dim / F6 / Am7 - D7b9 / Gm7 / C9 / F6 - D7b9 / Gm7 - C9 /

It never sounds ok to me to play an "e" against the Gm7 in that context, much better with an "f" there. In fact, continuing to land Gm7 chord tones against the following bar (C9) seems ok and ditto for bar 12.

I guess in most cases in tunes where the ii-V happens in a single bar it's not a problem either way, but the important cadence in bar 9 of a blues sounds like you're temporarily resolving to the Gm7 in a featured kinda way, even though it itself is part of the next ii-V resolving to the tonic.

So was just curious to know what you guys do in general for your ii-V's, do you tend to favour the ii or the V or is it either/or depending on the moment? Are there times you feel you have to "spell" out both? Or times when you can't get away with just one or the other?

And how about that bar 9 in Blues, how do like to address it? If you're like me your favourite moves change from time to time (which keeps it interesting, right? ), this week I'm really digging leaning on the 9th for Gm9 and following it with the same note (a) against the C13. It's perty....

[goldenwave77]

I was looking through Randy Vincent "Line Games" and came across this discussion of 2-5's that made a lot of sense.

He says....look at the 2, 4, 5 and 7 chord in most progressions. They all have the 4th note of the scale...the classic "avoid" note in a major scale...so therefore all these chords sound somewhat unresolved IF we emphasize this 4th note....so...in a bebop vein, we play over any of these chords and add extra notes (if needed) to land on that 4th on a strong beat and make it sound unresolved....so any of these can kind of get us where we need to be...to get the slightly out sound

Looking at it this way, Joe Pass's statement that 2-5 can be "just 5" makes a lot of sense.

[joe2758]

To keep it short, I just play V. I play the ii arpeggios and things, but think of it as part of the V

[princeplanet]

But are there times for you when V won't cut it? (check out the bar 9 in the Blues),

[joe2758]

Not yet. For 9th bar I'll play two bars of V7, or a bar of V7 over the two and a bar of V7's tritone over the V7. However, like I said the ii is part of the V for me, so it could easily happen to play a line that is ii even if I'm thinking V. who knows, every player thinks differently as far as I can tell

[joe2758]

Jimmy Bruno said something like "soloing using the same chord that the rest of the group is playing all the time is like writing on white paper with white chalk."

So I do things like play the tri tone of the V7 and the bands can play the V7, or bIII7 of the V7...then to me there is color. As opposed to the band plays triton sub and we solo on the tritone sub

[princeplanet]

OK, but please try this, play a line that resolves to the E note at the beginning of bar 9. That e being the all important 3rd of C9 is gonna be in a lot of your devices, patterns lines etc if you've worked up material for all your V stuff. Sure, you can land on the Bb or other chord tone and tip toe around the e, but it's just plain better to outline Gm7/9, the line will be stronger for it.

I'd be surprised if someone can point to an example where the 3rd of the V is played as the first note of bar 9 and it sounds good. It can't in this context, it's an important chord, not transient like many 2-5's are. To ii or to V, it's an old debate, and it simply gets down to personal preference most of the time, but there are gonna be instances where any "rules" you've made for yourself just won't work. I'd like to learn about folks' take on this, as well as any other examples.

Context is everything.

[pauln]

Gm7 / C9 / F6

try chromatic triad movement...

Dm (D F A over Gm7)
Dbm (Db E Ab over C9)
C (C E G over F6)

although the "e" likes to wait until the shift off of the Gm7, if the "e" is part of a line phase it may resist being over the Gm7 much less; try this...

Ascending E diminished line across the Gm7 - C9 - F6

E Bb C Db over Gm7
Eb E Gb G over C9
A over F6



Try fancy chords that "unload" the major and minor sounds a bit...

x x 8 10 10 8 for Gm7
x x 8 9 9 8 for C9
x x 10 9 8 8 for F6

Or do something "awful" and pedal the avoid note four of G throughout... which sounds fine

C11 8 x 8 7 6 x for Gm7
C9 8 7 8 7 8 x
Fmaj9/C 8 8 10 9 8 8 for F6


Now my own perspective is that the whole "two - five" thing is overdone - it's possible to see two-fives all over the music at the loss of much of the best sounds in jazz. If you listen to End of a Love Affair, it starts with three sets of two - five - one, with the ones changing to the twos for the subsequent two - five - ones... yet, Wes does not treat them as two - five - ones at all. He transforms them into something else, and part of why I like his playing is that he seems to have learned how to avoid the obligatory two- five sound and transcend it with a more melodic line approach.

Similarly, he makes tri-tone subs and going altered also sound less obvious... In my playing I strive to do these things, too. The deepest jazz sounds to me are those that tend to conceal their underlying conceptual mechanics as opposed to revealing an obvious focus on two - fives, tri-tone subs, altered, chord tones on strong beats, etc. (the usual suspects).

[princeplanet]

Gm7 / C9 / F6

try chromatic triad movement...

Dm (D F A over Gm7)
Dbm (Db E Ab over C9)
C (C E G over F6)

although the "e" likes to wait until the shift off of the Gm7, if the "e" is part of a line phase it may resist being over the Gm7 much less; try this...

Ascending E diminished line across the Gm7 - C9 - F6

E Bb C Db over Gm7
Eb E Gb G over C9
A over F6



Try fancy chords that "unload" the major and minor sounds a bit...

x x 8 10 10 8 for Gm7
x x 8 9 9 8 for C9
x x 10 9 8 8 for F6

Or do something "awful" and pedal the avoid note four of G throughout... which sounds fine

C11 8 x 8 7 6 x for Gm7
C9 8 7 8 7 8 x
Fmaj9/C 8 8 10 9 8 8 for F6


Now my own perspective is that the whole "two - five" thing is overdone - it's possible to see two-fives all over the music at the loss of much of the best sounds in jazz. If you listen to End of a Love Affair, it starts with three sets of two - five - one, with the ones changing to the twos for the subsequent two - five - ones... yet, Wes does not treat them as two - five - ones at all. He transforms them into something else, and part of why I like his playing is that he seems to have learned how to avoid the obligatory two- five sound and transcend it with a more melodic line approach.

Similarly, he makes tri-tone subs and going altered also sound less obvious... In my playing I strive to do these things, too. The deepest jazz sounds to me are those that tend to conceal their underlying conceptual mechanics as opposed to revealing an obvious focus on two - fives, tri-tone subs, altered, chord tones on strong beats, etc. (the usual suspects).

Nice post, and some pretty interesting concepts, a lot to unpack... Agree that the aim is to transcend the binds of ii-V through strong melodic lines that superimpose their own compelling logic (Wes!).

Almost convinced that you can indeed make an e sound half decent against bar 9, but I'd still like to hear recorded examples from the greats... Still, with a bit of creativity, you can play any note over anything (Benson!), I suppose, but if one's playing is mostly more "in" than "out", certain (seemingly innoccouos) dissonances will sound out of place. Context.

[pauln]

Thanks, yes, always context... but maybe hearing that context from a particular perspective?

To me, Wes never really sounds "outside", but never sounds typically inside either; he places simple things in orientation to the music that gives them an emergent harmonic complexity while maintaining a melodic feel through phrasing and rhythm, just wonderful.

My favorite Wes quote is from an old TV show where he has just played a song and afterward he is being interviewed by the host... who asks him, "What's that first chord you play in that song?" Wes, smiling, mumbles the incredible response: "I dunno, heh... I just cool".

[joe2758]

Here’s some shit from charlie parker playing bar 9 of blues



to demonstrate not tiptoeing around the V’s 3rd

[rpjazzguitar]

The difference between the ii and the V7 is one note. It's the 7 of the ii going to the 3 of the V7.

Or, in C, it's the C in the Dm7 resolving to the B in the G7.

So, if you want to sound very inside, you make sure to hit the C going to B. Otherwise you play notes from the Cmajor scale.
You might think Dm9 to G13.

If you want to take it a little bit further out, you probably focus on the extensions of the G13. To illustrate, you decide to hit some altered fifths and ninths of the V7. Lots of ways to do this, including simply knowing the notes. But, some people might prefer to think Abm triad (adding the ninth is nice too). And, if you're going to play Abm over G7, then you might think of Am7 over the Dm7. 5, 7, 9, 11, so it's pretty consonant and leads nicely to the Abm. The C to B move is contained therein.

If you want to go even further away from the traditional sound, there are probably even more ways to do it. One approach might be picking a target note within each chord and then building something around it. Say, you decided to target E in the Dm9 and Eb over the G7. You could decide to play an Emajor triad leading to an Eb major triad. That will sound "out" over the Dm and then create a G13b9. This one does not do the C to B move. Instead there's a B in both. That will create some tension over a straight ii V comp, which you may or may not like.

The point here is that what you do depends on how adventurous a sound you're trying to create. If I were trying to play in an older style and keep things tame, I'd outline the C to B and stick to chord tones or the C tonal center. In a different context I'd think about something fancier.

[DS71]

He says....look at the 2, 4, 5 and 7 chord in most progressions. They all have the 4th note of the scale...the classic "avoid" note in a major scale...so therefore all these chords sound somewhat unresolved IF we emphasize this 4th note....so...in a bebop vein, we play over any of these chords and add extra notes (if needed) to land on that 4th on a strong beat and make it sound unresolved....so any of these can kind of get us where we need to be...to get the slightly out sound

Looking at it this way, Joe Pass's statement that 2-5 can be "just 5" makes a lot of sense.

Man, thanks for sharing that. I've been doing stuff like this but this is a great post.

[princeplanet]

Here’s some shit from charlie parker playing bar 9 of blues



to demonstrate not tiptoeing around the V’s 3rd

Hey Joe, appreciate you going to the trouble to find these, and yeah, trust Bird to make a chump outta me But with these examples he kinda is tiptoeing around the 6th of the minor chord, or telegraphing an early resolution, maybe. Either way, he certainly isn't playing the 6th on the first down beat, which is kinda what I was getting at. It's because I have a ton of V7 stuff that begins on it's 3rd that I notice this issue, cos all of it doesn't work on this particular bar of ii (bar 9 of blues), although in other contexts it's fine. Of course I have material that starts on the other chord tones, as well as non chord tones (diatonic as well as chromatic), so it's not a problem (although I prefer Gm9 material here), but I was just curious to know of other exceptions where a V doesn't sound so great over a ii..

But getting back to those Bird examples, just goes to show how a master often defies theoretical logic to come up with lines the rest of us would simply never think of... The Omnibook lives!

[bako]

Gm7 | C7 is a paper conception as opposed to the many possibilities of what the rhythm section might actually play.
What they do influences the way notes are understood.

[joe2758]

Prince, no one can argue with your ear! no one will convince you it sounds right if it doesn’t.

I agree with Bako that it’s a rhythm section thing. I play the ii when comping (or not).

and like i said before i have some “ii language” built into my V stuff that i may use if there’s a ii or if there’s not a ii.

But yeah, our ears won’t let us play shit (at this point) aside from mistakes

[ragman1]

So was just curious to know what you guys do in general for your ii-V's, do you tend to favour the ii or the V or is it either/or depending on the moment?

Both, depending on the next chord.

A V resolving to the I usually gets either the iv - i.e. Dm - Fm6 - CM7 - or Galt. Same in a minor key: Bm7b5 - E7b9 - Am7 = Dm6 - F mel - Am7 or 6.

Sometimes I superimpose a backdoor over it - i.e. Dm7 - G7 - CM7 = Fm6 - Bb7 - CM7. Often over a backdoor I put back the regular V - i.e. Bb7 - CM7 = G7 - CM7.

If the V doesn't resolve to the I it generally gets a continuation of the ii - i.e. Dm7 - G7 = Dm6 - %. I don't use that if it resolves to the I because it doesn't sound right, it's not final enough. But a non-resolving V can also take an altered sound too.

Other variations over the V are a diminished scale or arp (7b9, 13b9) or wholetone. Also the relative minor (modal interchange) over the V can be effective - i.e. C harm over G7. And there are all the blues sounds, Gm or C blues. They can be used almost anywhere.

Or you can ignore the G7 altogether and just play some sort of C 'end phrase' over it. Always works.

As for bar 9 of the blues I think I agree with you about the F, otherwise you're pre-empting the C7 sound.

[princeplanet]

Both, depending on the next chord.

A V resolving to the I usually gets either the iv - i.e. Dm - Fm6 - CM7 - or Galt. Same in a minor key: Bm7b5 - E7b9 - Am7 = Dm6 - F mel - Am7 or 6.

Sometimes I superimpose a backdoor over it - i.e. Dm7 - G7 - CM7 = Fm6 - Bb7 - CM7. Often over a backdoor I put back the regular V - i.e. Bb7 - CM7 = G7 - CM7.

If the V doesn't resolve to the I it generally gets a continuation of the ii - i.e. Dm7 - G7 = Dm6 - %. I don't use that if it resolves to the I because it doesn't sound right, it's not final enough. But a non-resolving V can also take an altered sound too.

Other variations over the V are a diminished scale or arp (7b9, 13b9) or wholetone. Also the relative minor (modal interchange) over the V can be effective - i.e. C harm over G7. And there are all the blues sounds, Gm or C blues. They can be used almost anywhere.

Or you can ignore the G7 altogether and just play some sort of C 'end phrase' over it. Always works.

As for bar 9 of the blues I think I agree with you about the F, otherwise you're pre-empting the C7 sound.

Nice little summary of some options. I also like the back door and have a slew of alt ideas I might use over 2-5, but min iv6 is basically rootless Vb9/11 and sounds intriguing, must check it out... As for your continuation of ii for unresolving V's, interesting that you see Dm6 as a ii sound. To me it's very much a V sound (rootless V9).

[ragman1]

ii for unresolving V's, interesting that you see Dm6 as a ii sound. To me it's very much a V sound (rootless V9).

It's not really a solid V sound because playing Dm7 over G7 emphasizes the sus4 of G7. To my mind playing Dm7 - CM7 isn't intuitive. Dm - G7, yes.. G7 - C, yes.. Dm - C, no.

Say you had: Em7 - A7 - Dm7 - G7 - CM7.

I'd happily continue playing Em over the A7 (which is lydian dominant) but I wouldn't carry on Dm over the G7 because it sounds too floaty. I'd change it to something more final, like an alt or IVm sound.

But there's no law :-)