The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I think Pat Martino is the jazz guitarist most identified with the concept of "minor conversion" (or "convert to minor") approach to single line improvisation. Pat's "Linear Expressions" is a great book for delving into this.

    Some teaching about the playing of Wes Montgomery (Adrian Ingram's, for example) stress his use of minor lines over dominant chords. (In other words, thinking of, say, D- for ii and the V7 chord in C. That is the simplest example.)

    Werner Poehlert talks about how much modern / mainstream jazz (-he was writing a few decades back now) works off the minor 7th chord shape. (Curiously, he refers to this as the "reed style" as opposed to "horn-like".) He argues that this approach is rooted in the guitar's design and that it is something players might well work out (to some extent at least) on their own without thinking of it as anything special but rather "just the way I play." Poehlert's books are interesting because they are chock-a-block with diagrams, many for piano and many for guitar and bass. (He played guitar but his material, esp "Basic Harmony", is not just for the guitar. Though he does use tab because he a big part of the approach is built upon specific fingerings.)

    A few common examples: using Dm7 over both the ii and V in C. More interestingly, Dm7 over the ii, Fm7 over the G7 and Em7 over the C. (It gets way more involved than this, but if you get this much out of it, you'll be glad you took the time.)


    There is much more to the approach than I have said here. I'm curious about it and wonder what others have discovered (or learned) about it. Also, who else teaches this approach?

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    I use this a great deal, I worked it out years ago. Not from Martino but by playing around with it.

    As you say, most chords can be translated into minor forms. For example FM7 = Am, F6 = Dm, FM7#11 = Em, and so on. Gm7 is Gm and so is C7 - unless you want a b9 sound in which case Bbm, or alt sound in which case C#m.

    One has to be aware whether a minor shape needs a Phrygian, Dorian or melodic minor treatment. Am for FM7, for example, is Phrygian because of the natural F and Bb. Bbm and C#m should be played as melodic minors.

    M7b5s are played with the minor off the 3rd, so Gm7b5 = Bbm (melodic). So Gm7b5 - C7alt - Fm7 = Bb mel - C#m mel - Fm.

    The advantage is that they're very easy to play and remember. Also one can introduce blues sounds easily. They're also easy to shift and double up, like Gm/Bbm - Am for C7 - F.

    This doesn't mean one never plays dominant chords/sounds either, it's what fits best at the time. Also, there aren't really any minor subs per se for diminished and augmented sounds, although one can use b9 and alt sounds in the right places.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Pretty sure every jazz guitarist comes to the point where they finally do the exercise of looking at harmonies which the major and minor triads may express within different contexts... one notices triads serving various harmonic roles from learning and playing tunes. Which context list do you think has the more harmonies one uses the most in jazz?


    D F# A contexts:


    D
    A#+M7
    C#sus4#5addb9
    F#m#5
    C6sus2b5
    F6addb9
    Bm7
    GM7sus2
    E9sus4
    D#mM#11
    A13sus4
    AM13sus4




    D F A contexts:


    Dm
    C#+addb2
    Asus4#5
    F6
    C6sus2sus4
    Bm7b5
    G7sus2
    E7b9sus4
    A#M7
    F#mM7#5
    D#M#11sus2
    AMb13sus4

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    I thought there would be more interest in this. O, well. I've been wrong before!

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    I find superimposing triads and 4 note chords to be a lot more useful than true "minorization," which always comes out noodly in my hands...

    but I suspect it's not the fault of the method

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Barry Greene teaches the minor approach, and I believe he got it from Pat Martino.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    I thought there would be more interest in this. O, well. I've been wrong before!

    I'm interested, but there isn't that much to say about it.


    Steve Khan makes passing mention of using a Dorian based approach in his 'Pentatonic Khancepts' book, but he doesn't go into any detail. Of course he's also associated with Martino, having put out his own book of Martino transcriptions.

    Jimmy Bruno was pushing Dorian fingerings before he became anti-mode. But that was only over the ii V stuff he was using to teach, not in any "convert everything to minor" context.

    Many players reference minor pentatonic when it comes to superimposing over chords (E minor pentatonic over Cmaj7 etc.). Khan does in his book. I've seen stuff by Frank Gambale and Scott Henderson doing the same. That's probably outside the idea of "minor conversion" or "minor approach" though. It's probably closer to what most guys do with arpeggios.


    I was originally attracted to the idea because I've spent so much time playing Dorian based stuff over blues influenced rock that it seemed like a doorway into jazz fusion style playing. I'm not sure if that way of thinking is holding up over time for me though. I keep finding myself wanting to approach things based on the root of the chord rather than converting.

    .

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by FwLineberry
    I'm interested, but there isn't that much to say about it.
    Don't tell Werner Poehlert! His "Basic Harmony" runs over 500 pages and this is a big part of it. His "Basic Mediantic" book (based on the more thorough "Basic Harmony") is about 150 pages.

    Poehlert wrote in German and the English translation may be accurate but it is unidiomatic. A few central concepts: "Permanent-Fifth Descent & its Re-interpretations", "Unity of Material & Movement, "Unity (Fusion) of Major & Minor", "Unity of the Fifth & the Half-Step" and "Fifth-descent within one chord."

    Both books are out of print and used copies can run a few hundred bucks. Too rich for my blood. I have them from the library (inter-library loan) and have made some progress but had to return the shorter book already and only have the longer one for anoter week or so. (Plenty enough time to read a 500-page book but nowhere near long enough to absorb such content as this, esp it requires a lot of experimentation on one's instrument.)


    By the way, the use of minor shapes is based on convenience of FINGERING. It's not an attempt to make everything sound minor. (Not saying you said that but it's a common misconception.)

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    Don't tell Werner Poehlert! His "Basic Harmony" runs over 500 pages and this is a big part of it. His "Basic Mediantic" book (based on the more thorough "Basic Harmony") is about 150 pages.



    I should have said, "I don't have much I can say about it."



    By the way, the use of minor shapes is based on convenience of FINGERING. It's not an attempt to make everything sound minor. (Not saying you said that but it's a common misconception.)

    I wonder how much of that drives even Martino's approach. I seems like in the end you're just thinking about what to play over x chord.

    I was just checking out some of Dana Rasch's stuff and he insists that you need to base everything off of the major and dominant pentatonic. Those two scales get fleshed out to become the major scale and the Lydian Dominant scale. Then you memorize all these formulas for applying the stuff. Over an altered dominant, for example, you play Lydian dominant up a b5th. How is that any better than playing melodic minor up a 1/2 step... or just learning the altered scale over the chord?

    If you're playing the scale all over the fingerboard, anyway, what you call it is just mental gymnastics. Instead of learning two ways to play the same set of notes, you've learned one way plus a formula you have to remember and learn to apply plus you still have to associate the notes you're playing with the chord you're playing it over.


    .

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Minor pentatonics over everything...


  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by FwLineberry
    I should have said, "I don't have much I can say about it."

    I wonder how much of that drives even Martino's approach. I seems like in the end you're just thinking about what to play over x chord.
    For Poehlert, the same "mediant" (basic mediant or blues mediant, two different-- though related--things) can be used over several chord changes, so you have LESS to think about.

    Pat Martino's lines work this way. The first "activity" in Pat Martino's book "Linear Expressions" is a line based on a Gm7 shape at the 3rd fret. It's related to Bb Major. But you can play the line, as is, over the opening ii-V-I of the bridge to "Satin Doll" (G-, C7, FM7). It not only works, it sounds very good. It doesn't sound like a rudimentary exercise either, it's really good stuff.

    Also, and this is something Poehlert talks about but I haven't heard anyone else talk about, the way the mediants relate to one another makes it easy to shift from one to another.

    A simple example.
    For Dm7 / G7 / CM7 you can play Am7 over all three. This will keep you from making any mistakes but it won't be the most grabby stuff.
    You can also play: Dm7 (that mediant, which is, for Poehlert, a D minor pentatonic: D- F-G-A- C-D) over the Dm7 and G7 chord and then Em7 over the CM7. The move from Dm7 to Em7 is a short distance, a simple shift.

    You can also do Dm7 over the Dm7, Fm7 over the G7 and then Em7 over the CM7. That move from Fm7 to Em7 is also easy. It lays out nicely on the guitar. (The moves from mediant-to-mediant in jazz standards tend to be smaller than the moves from root to root. Also, one mediant may be used over several chords.)

    Many more complicated progressions allow for similar movements. (Actually, Poehlert seems to think that progressions that may look complicated are actually simple progressions disguised via common substitutions.)

    The goal in the end is to have what Poehlert calls the "chamelon scale" (all 12 notes) available in any situation, and to be able to move effortlessly from one to another as the harmony of a tune shifts.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Minor pentatonics over everything...

    That's what I'm talkin' about! Thanks, Cosmic.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    That's what I'm talkin' about! Thanks, Cosmic.
    Vic's example is easier to grasp if played more schematically, at least at first. He's already a few extra steps ahead from the beginning, so it helps to backup and grasp just how the mechanics drive the results.

    Pentatonics by their very nature and structure tend to be kind of "angular" sounding, often the entry for a "fusion" sound in jazz. You can take advantage of this by playing them more schematically, as a motif, in order to better hear how the individual notes' roles are being changed with respect to the fingering positions.

    Also helps to have an actual song with which one is familiar and within which it is easier to hear and recognize what is going on in the interaction between the shifty pents and the progression harmony.

    Take the bridge of Masquerade from the Ebm7...

    (leading in with Fm7 - Edimb6)

    Ebm7 - D9#11 - Dbmaj7 - Bb(13)
    Ebm7 - D9#11 - Dbmaj7 - Dbmaj7

    Dm7 - Db(9#11) - Cmaj7 - Cmaj7
    G7sus4b5 - G7b13#9 - C7b13 - E7b13#9

    The shifty pents played schematically here means simply descending arps to clearly sound the notes. Don't try to assign anything to the pent notes, just play the pattern (ignore that Bb minor pent has a tonic of Bb, start the motif from the top of the fingering pattern, Db... sounds hard headed but you'll see why in a moment)

    Ebm7 play Bb minor pent descending from Db
    D9#11 play B minor pent descending from D
    Dbmaj7 play C minor pent descending from Eb
    Bb(13) play Db minor pent descending from E

    You should hear something "coming"... by the second Ebm7 with the top starting notes of each arp having chromatically ascending up to E...

    That second Ebm7 really wants to hear something falling from the F...
    F Db Bb Gb (Fmaj7)
    ... then the D9#11 wants to hear something falling from the E...
    E C A Gb
    ... then the Dbmaj7 wants to hear from the Eb...
    Eb C Ab F

    Then when the whole thing shifts down to Dm7... shift what you just did down as well.

    Dm7 so E C A F
    Db(9#11) so Eb B Ab F
    Cmaj7 so D B G E

    This sounds so natural because by starting the shifty pents schematic, they automatically reveal the chromatic lines, which then emerge to take on their own melodic relationship to the progression harmony, and so induce you to hear "what's coming" and push the motif out of the pents altogether to learn something new and powerful.
    Last edited by pauln; 04-27-2019 at 01:17 PM.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Emily Remler minorized everything. She's talks about it in her jazz and Latin improvisation dvd in a very easy to understand way.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    For Poehlert, the same "mediant" (basic mediant or blues mediant, two different-- though related--things) can be used over several chord changes, so you have LESS to think about.

    Could you give Poehlert's definition of mediant? I'm having trouble parsing that term with any meaning I know for it in this context.



    Pat Martino's lines work this way. The first "activity" in Pat Martino's book "Linear Expressions" is a line based on a Gm7 shape at the 3rd fret. It's related to Bb Major. But you can play the line, as is, over the opening ii-V-I of the bridge to "Satin Doll" (G-, C7, FM7). It not only works, it sounds very good. It doesn't sound like a rudimentary exercise either, it's really good stuff.

    I think his lines in the book work over the ii and the V, but I don't agree they work over the I. They sort-of work played off the major 3rd over maj7 chords and don't work well at all played off the major 6th of a maj7 chord (the other option he suggests). This is just my opinion of course based off of a lot of me trying his lines over various static chords and chord progressions.

    I haven't had a chance to go through his video examples where he plays lines over actual chord progressions.


    Also, and this is something Poehlert talks about but I haven't heard anyone else talk about, the way the mediants relate to one another makes it easy to shift from one to another.

    Again, not sure I get the meaning of mediant, here. Can you clarify?



    A simple example.
    For Dm7 / G7 / CM7 you can play Am7 over all three. This will keep you from making any mistakes but it won't be the most grabby stuff.

    You can also play: Dm7 (that mediant, which is, for Poehlert, a D minor pentatonic: D- F-G-A- C-D) over the Dm7 and G7 chord and then Em7 over the CM7. The move from Dm7 to Em7 is a short distance, a simple shift.

    I agree in principle. My point was that you can just as easily, or even more easily, play C major scale over all three chords and not have to do any converting or shifting.


    You can also do Dm7 over the Dm7, Fm7 over the G7 and then Em7 over the CM7. That move from Fm7 to Em7 is also easy. It lays out nicely on the guitar. (The moves from mediant-to-mediant in jazz standards tend to be smaller than the moves from root to root. Also, one mediant may be used over several chords.)
    This coincides with Martino's having you work 'up a minor 3rd down a minor 2nd' chord cycles in his line studies.


    Many more complicated progressions allow for similar movements. (Actually, Poehlert seems to think that progressions that may look complicated are actually simple progressions disguised via common substitutions.)

    This is probably more where my interest lies. I'm not really interested in playing over ii V I progressions. I'm more attracted to Martino's basing everything off of diminished and augmented chords than his minor conversion at this point. I'm attracted to symmetrical ideas.


    The goal in the end is to have what Poehlert calls the "chamelon scale" (all 12 notes) available in any situation, and to be able to move effortlessly from one to another as the harmony of a tune shifts.

    I can agree with this in principle as well... many paths to the same destination. I'm trying to figure out for myself whether this type of stuff has any real advantage or if it's just another way of looking at things.

    .

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Minor pentatonics over everything...


    Scofield touches on this same pentatonic move in one of his earlier videos, except he's using it over a ii V I in G. (A minor over Amin7, Bb minor over D7 and B minor over Gmaj7)

    .

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Minor pentatonics over everything...

    This is one of the best short video lessons I ever saw. Kudos to Vic Juris.

    He explains clearly and simply how to get some classic sounds.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by FwLineberry
    Could you give Poehlert's definition of mediant? I'm having trouble parsing that term with any meaning I know for it in this context... Again, not sure I get the meaning of mediant, here. Can you clarify?
    The usual way is to show like this:

    do = tonic

    re = supertonic
    mi = mediant
    fa = subdominant
    so = dominant
    la = submediant
    ti = leading tone
    do = tonic

    Unfortunately that way makes it look like subdominant is so called because it is the one just below dominant with respect to pitch. Looking at mediant and submediant you can see that is not why, but most people know about dominant and subdominant before they know about mediant and submediant, so the error is easy to make.

    The whole thing makes more sense if instead of a tonic to tonic way of looking at it one instead puts the tonic in the middle, reverses the order, and looks at everything in relation to the tonic.

    so = dominant
    fa = subdominant
    mi = mediant
    re = supertonic
    do = tonic
    ti = leading tone
    la = submediant

    so = dominant
    fa = subdominant

    In relation to the tonic:

    the dominant is the fifth above
    the subdominant is the fifth below

    the mediant is the third above
    the submediant is the third below

    the super tonic is the second above
    the leading tone is just a suggestive name for the second below

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    The usual way is to show like this:

    do = tonic

    re = supertonic
    mi = mediant
    fa = subdominant
    so = dominant
    la = submediant
    ti = leading tone
    do = tonic

    Unfortunately that way makes it look like subdominant is so called because it is the one just below dominant with respect to pitch. Looking at mediant and submediant you can see that is not why, but most people know about dominant and subdominant before they know about mediant and submediant, so the error is easy to make.

    The whole thing makes more sense if instead of a tonic to tonic way of looking at it one instead puts the tonic in the middle, reverses the order, and looks at everything in relation to the tonic.

    so = dominant
    fa = subdominant
    mi = mediant
    re = supertonic
    do = tonic
    ti = leading tone
    la = submediant

    so = dominant
    fa = subdominant

    In relation to the tonic:

    the dominant is the fifth above
    the subdominant is the fifth below

    the mediant is the third above
    the submediant is the third below

    the super tonic is the second above
    the leading tone is just a suggestive name for the second below


    I'm well aware of all that, but I can't seem to make any sense of the statements made regarding the same mediant applied to various progressions, or basic mediant vs. blues mediant.

    .

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by FwLineberry
    I'm well aware of all that, but I can't seem to make any sense of the statements made regarding the same mediant applied to various progressions, or basic mediant vs. blues mediant.

    .
    Maybe in reference to what the theorists call mediant mixture... has to do with the modern use of both the major third and minor third, together, in songs - like using the minor third in the melody line with the major third in the chord harmony, and then this analysis extends to include the blue notes (microtonal).

    Or maybe since we construct major chords as a minor 3rd over a major 3rd, Poehlert is noticing this and using the word "mediant" to describe the connection between major and the minor up a major third?

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Actually I would not call it a minor approach.... superimposition is kind of local thing... when you think of superimposing one chord over anotehr to get extensions and alterations...

    But minor for me is relationship... specific movement and voice-leading dofferent from major.

    I do nto know much about Pat Martino's approach but from what I heard he is a bit deeper into real minor than just superimposition



    A few common examples: using Dm7 over both the ii and V in C. More interestingly, Dm7 over the ii, Fm7 over the G7 and Em7 over the C. (It gets way more involved than this, but if you get this much out of it, you'll be glad you took the time.)
    I do not see it as a minor approach. Superimposition. And in that context it does not matter for me if it is minor or major chord... I would not cathegorize it that way.

    For example playing line based on

    Dm7 - Bm7b5 - Am7 over G7-C quite common

    Dm7-E7-Am over Dm7-G7-C

    Dm7 - B7 -E7 over Fm7 - Bb7

    It may be only B7 over Fm7 I am just writing the whole thing to show where it comes from...

    Basically it is superimposition too, but on the key level not just one chord.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Simplification is a great concept and technique but don’t let it prevent you from doing the work of learning all and everything you should know about how every chord is constructed. You should know every note that makes up any particular chord, and which diatonic major, minor, and half diminished triad is built off of every note in that chord. Don’t let the concept of “minorizing” be an excuse for limiting more thorough knowledge of harmony. You should just as soundly know how to apply major triads and 7th chords over minor chords.
    I suggest the OP check out Garrison Fewell’s JazzGuitar Improvisation: A Melodic Approach.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whiskey02
    You should just as soundly know how to apply major triads and 7th chords over minor chords.
    Absolutely. Minorisation (or whatever one calls it) is just one tool among many. It's not supposed to be just a quick 'n easy way to play solos. And it's not that quick 'n easy either :-)

    But it doesn't surprise me at all that so many well-known players have used it. It is pretty useful.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    How would you apply the pentatonic approach to, say,

    E7, A7, D7, G7?

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    How would you apply the pentatonic approach to, say,

    E7, A7, D7, G7?
    Em blues over the whole lot. But it would depend on the situation.