-
Oh m11, happens in Stella
-
07-09-2018 07:10 PM
-
No worries Matt.
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
My point was very minor, not major. Naturally.
-
I've been working on something similar from a book called Melodic Shapes for the Modern Improviser.
It's all various ii V I
In minor, the ii is m7b5; the dominant chord varies, and the resolution is to the m7. Of course, they could have used a different resolution (my own preference is melodic minor, meaning m6 or minmaj).
This book really addresses the iim7b5 and dominant chords - lots of lines incorporating notes you might not expect. For example, I opened the book at random and found a line starting on the downbeat of Dm7b5, and the first note is a B. Since the chord has a C in it, that's not the most obvious choice.
When I started practicing just based on the theory I put many fewer non-obvious notes in my lines. The book has been ear opening compared to that.
-
Don't forget Imi. Originally Posted by VKat
All are valid, this is art, not chemistry.
And - in minor, the MiMaj7 is the minority choice. The top 2 are Imi and Imi7.
But most of the playing action is on the II and V.
-
I'm guessing that the parenthesis are helpful in some situations, like Bb9 vs B(b9). And then, also used in cases where there isn't any real ambiguity -- done so that there's consistency throughout all 12 keys. Originally Posted by christianm77
I'm curious about how it evolved in a different way, but I've never heard anything about that.
BTW, I took my examples from one of Chediak's Bossa Nova books.
-
You don't. If you listen to Wes long enough, resolution to the 9th seems quite "normal", in fact, after an hour of Wes, going to your guitar and resolving anything to, say, the root would be almost painful! Originally Posted by VKat
-
+1 Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
The thing about extensions is they are also superpositions. I like to think of jazz as a layered music, so if we play 5, 7 and 9 on a A minor chord, I would look at that as playing the V triad, E, on Am.
Now people might interpret that as an upper structure triad, so the E is a triad made of 5,7 and 9, but my understanding might be more like, we play the V chord of the minor key over the I minor, so it's layering I-V over I. Not a resolution, more like leaving something unsaid.
In the same way, playing a Am7 is layering a C triad on Am
Now, you might like to view these choices as harmonic upper structures, but it's a different way of hearing them.
-
In terms of notes, absolutely right, of course. But an Am7 chord is an Am7, not a C, and an Am9 is an Am9, not an E.
The fact that the notes beyond the simple Am triad of, say, an Am9 spell an E chord isn't really the point, in my view. In fact, the actual note of E is shared. It's the 5th of Am and the root of the E major triad, so there's no clear demarcation between the Am and the E major. It's not even a distinct E chord added to a distinct Am chord since one note is shared.
I mean, I wouldn't describe an E major triad as an Am9 chord without the A and the C, would you?
although somebody will probably find a way to do it :-)
-
There are common phrases where we have just the E triad say on Am, ending a phrase. For instance: Originally Posted by ragman1
In terms of notes, absolutely right, of course. But an Am7 chord is an Am7, not a C, and an Am9 is an Am9, not an E.
The fact that the notes beyond the simple Am triad of, say, an Am9 spell an E chord isn't really the point, in my view. In fact, the actual note of E is shared. It's the 5th of Am and the root of the E major triad, so there's no clear demarcation between the Am and the E major. It's not even a distinct E chord added to a distinct Am chord since one note is shared.
I mean, I wouldn't describe an E major triad as an Am9 chord without the A and the C, would you?
although somebody will probably find a way to do it :-)
E' F' C' | E G# B' for instance on a resolution in A minor for example.
That last bit of the phrase can also be understood as the 5 7 and 9 on the Am chord of course.
Context is everything, and there are different ways of looking at things. Superposition/vertical relationships/melodic.
The Jordan/Stephon thing is closer to the concept of superposition, but with some important aspects of vertical CST style harmony considered.
OTOH Barry Harris AFAIK has no conception of upper extensions in his teaching AT ALL (correct me if I'm wrong.) The Barry thing is just 'this chord or triad from the scale' usually a purely melodic conception in line building... And superposition with relaxed vertical considerations, Bmaj7 on G7 and all of that.
In the harmony teaching, the concept of borrowed notes and so on is independent from the concept of upper extensions.
Anyway, in practice, it can be useful to look at things both ways, although BOTH Barry and Jordan are pushing me strongly in the direction of tonicised superposition. Which in English means - we hear the E triad on Am, not the 5, 7 and 9.
When it's a bigger structure, we hear that in superposition. Am9 on D7, for example, not D13.
-
Ted Greene used to call that "Chord Chemistry". Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
I think he knew what he was talking about.
I want you to help me with a specific example. Let's take 'Autumn Leaves' - what could be simpler?
In bars 5 to 8 (counting from the first complete bar) we have | Am7b5 | D7 | Gm | Gm |. The long melody note held over bar 7 is a plain and boring 'Bb', the 3rd od Gm.
Without sending me elsewhere please give me your list of 'string of pearls' options to "enhance" the harmonic content of bar 7 with the plain old Gm.
Please keep in mind the following: assume you are making a backing track to play over and you want to clearly and explicitly define a "colorful" harmony.
However, I may be totally wrong regarding how two seasoned Jazz guitarists would gig together. Please enlighten me on the subject. The one who plays the rhythm part at the moment - would he really play a "colorful" chord in the situation I've just descrtibed above?
Since the melody note is a fundamental one there are various options to "enhance" the harmony.
I honestly don't know how two professional Jazz guitarists would interact in that situation. I can imagine a couple scenarios. Which of the 2 is most realistic? Here it goes:
- The head is played by a "solo man" with a long held Bb over Gm:
1. The "rhythm man" of the moment plays some colorful GmX harmony below to enhance the overall sound.
I see no other valid "Jazz" option for this situation.
- The impro is played by the "solo man" and there are no restrictions in terms of the melodic content:
1. The "rhythm man" of the moment plays simple Gm triad in bar 7 and lets the "solo man" of the moment colorize the harmony with his line.
2. The "rhythm man" of the moment provides explicit sophisticated harmonic content on demand (or as a surprise?) to the "solo man" and the soloist's line needs not to contradict the underlying harmony.Last edited by VKat; 07-12-2018 at 01:47 PM.
-
Melodic Shapes for The Modern Improvisor - Home | Facebook
This links to the FB page of the book I mentioned. It shows a page from the book. Some of the pages have lines which are more "inside" than this one, but it varies a lot.
The reason I mention it is that this strikes me as a better way to learn this material than memorizing, say, which upper structure triads can be applied to which chords. In my experiencing, starting with theoretical considerations like that resulted in finding narrow ways to negotiate the chords. In contrast, starting with over 100 well thought out lines demonstrating the same sounds makes more sense to me. A lot of the lines incorporate notes I otherwise would have avoided, since they fall outside of the theoretical constructs.
Another small point is that the authors are reed players. A lot of the lines lay poorly on guitar, which I see as a strength of the book for guitarists. It gets you playing lines that don't fall easily under the fingers. Good for reading too, since you sometimes have to think about fingerings to get them up to high tempo, and there are a lot of accidentals.
Disclosure: I know the authors, which is what led me to the book, but I paid full price for my copy.
-
I'm wondering why no one has corrected the glaring error in this. An Am9 doesn't contain an E major triad, it contains an E minor triad. The 5, 7 and 9 of Am is E, G and B, not G#. Originally Posted by christianm77
What do you mean 'the' harmony teaching? Whose? When? How? Why?In the harmony teaching, the concept of borrowed notes and so on is independent from the concept of upper extensions.
It does look as though we're in a position where anyone can play literally anything over anything and call it modern harmony.
-
I think everyone assumes he means 5 7 9 vs Originally Posted by ragman1
5 b7 9?
5 M7 9 is the implication.
-
7 of Am9 is G. The b7 would be F#, not G#. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
(I do actually use a m/M9 chord (i.e. x06557) but I don't think that's what's at issue here).
-
Parent scale isn't the reference for using numbers like this. So, it isn't helpful to think of Am9. We still refer to C and G as being the b3 or b7. It's intervallic. So, b7 equals the minor seventh interval, regardless of parent scale. Otherwise, you'd have to say what parent scale is every time you talk about a note . The thing is, you can talk about playing a b3 note over any chord, even if it ISN'T minor etc, because it's a fixed intervallic reference. Originally Posted by ragman1
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
Please don't ignore my question in post #61. I'm waiting on the answer with hope and patience.
Also I have another question regarding the min 6/9 functioning as a tonic minor chord which seems to be quite common.
Minor 6th might be voiced as this from Root up: R-b3-6-9 and in C-minor that would be C-Eb-A-D.
I played that chord and I've noticed how unstable and tense it is because of the tritone between b3 and 6, that is Eb-A.
I honesstly can't understand how this dissonant harmony can function as a tonic chord. Can anyone please explain that to me?
-
If the 7 is G and the b7 is F#, then, what interval is G#? In your system it would be the #7 -- which is a term I've never heard, anywhere. Originally Posted by ragman1
I understand the statement, "the 7th degree of A dorian is G". But, if you talk about a chord, like Am9, the G is the b7. F# is the 6th and G# is the major seventh. Otherwise, you'd have to specify which minor scale you're using as a reference.
-
I understand that, but Am9 has been the point of reference all along. By 5, 7, 9 we mean E, G and B. If not, then I'm quite lost and not in the least bit embarrassed by it. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
But even by that reckoning b7 would be G natural, not G#. Or, by saying 7 in the previous conversations, do you (plural) mean G#? So 5, 7 and 9 on Am does mean an E major triad?
Even if that's the case, my points in the previous post stand. E and Am aren't two distinct chords since they share a common note.
And why would one want to play E G# B over A C E G anyway unless it was just a quick V chord filler? That's OK, it works, it's an old blues trick. Or is this what you've been talking about all along?
-
Couldn't put it better myself :-) Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
NOT MINE!
-
The problem is that G B D F ought be called G(b7). But, for historical reasons and for brevity we called it G7 and F is the 7.
Notably the 7th degree of Gmaj is F#, while the 7th degree of Gmixo is F.
If we were talking about Am7, I would expect it to have a G because chord names work that way.
Scale degrees don't work that way.
When someone wrote that the V in Am is E, I was thinking it was E7. But, the poster meant Em.
I don't know what's right, but every time on a bandstand somebody told me to go to the V, it meant a 7th chord unless otherwise specified.
-
Yeah, I meant Am9(maj7) not Am9 but these thoughts could equally apply to Am9/Em-on-Am. That's why I wrote out the note names, to try and be clear. 7 refers to maj7.
'the harmony teaching' refers to Barry's, sorry if that wasn't clear from the context.
-
I did say V triad. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
It's an unfamiliar way of looking at things, and apologies if I don't have the time to edit everything to theory book level to aid comprehension (plus I make a lot of mistakes!) Happy to answer any queries someone might have if they are genuinely interested in learning more of my madness :-)
But, TBH, I think anyone interested in this type of thinking should spend a few weeks with Jordan's materials. The concept of tonicisation of US triads I think is really important. If you look it into that, and of course, Barry, I don't really have anything much to add.
-
Just one more thing (sorry!) - I would suggest that the natural (or major!) seventh is a more common 'resolution' note on the I minor than flat (or minor!) 7.
I can't think of many examples where a line resolves to b7 on a I minor chord in a II-V-I. Maybe someone here has an example.
-
I think that would sound like you were heading somewhere else in a single note line. Originally Posted by christianm77
Tunes do use m7 as a tonic, Blue Bossa being a common one. But, I don't think ending the tune on the b7 would sound like the tune was clearly over.
Reply With Quote
Grant Green, What is This Thing
Today, 01:59 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading