Maj7 arpeggio over Dom7 chord question

[Bobby Timmons]

Well altered sounds don't have to by definition be pattern based. Although that's a common usage. I'd argue that modern players should be able to sound lyrical with altered devices, not only in devices. And the greats absolutely could sound natural using altered devices. Ever heard of Monk? :P

[pamosmusic]

I tend to use altered tones as passing or ornamental notes, a means to improvise phrases that flow over the chord changes. I don't usually hear lines in terms of altered tone sets, e.g., altered chord arpeggios, and there are very few musicians who can make this strategy sound natural vs. sounding like a gimmick: "insert this scale pattern here." I find pattern playing shredders to be an absolute bore.

I don't think I said "patterns." And you can play "major stuff" that sounds like, say the first bar of Au Privave, not like a pattern at all.

It's a pretty well established way of deploying vocabulary and of getting more outside sounds while maintaining some melodic integrity. So I would say that most players make this sound convincing. The simple version is Charlie Parker playing straight up Fmajor7 stuff over a G7, rather than targeting the Gsus9 or whatever in some abstract way.

For what it's worth, using altered sounds as passing or ornamental notes can have the effect of diminishing their impact. Part of the appeal of putting the colorful notes inside triads or seventh chords or something placed as an upper structure is that they sound like chord tones. Which is to say, they sound like color, and not like passing notes.

[Mick-7]

Well altered sounds don't have to by definition be pattern based. Although that's a common usage. I'd argue that modern players should be able to sound lyrical with altered devices, not only in devices. And the greats absolutely could sound natural using altered devices. Ever heard of Monk? :P

By "altered device" you mean what? Would you call playing, say, a Bmaj.7 arpeggio chord over G7 a device? And I did say "very few" can do it well, it's safe to say we could include Monk in that group.

I don't think I said "patterns." And you can play "major stuff" that sounds like, say the first bar of Au Privave, not like a pattern at all.

It's a pretty well established way of deploying vocabulary and of getting more outside sounds while maintaining some melodic integrity. So I would say that most players make this sound convincing. The simple version is Charlie Parker playing straight up Fmajor7 stuff over a G7, rather than targeting the Gsus9 or whatever in some abstract way.

We were talking about altered chord tones, I don't see how your comment is relevant to that?

For what it's worth, using altered sounds as passing or ornamental notes can have the effect of diminishing their impact. Part of the appeal of putting the colorful notes inside triads or seventh chords or something placed as an upper structure is that they sound like chord tones. Which is to say, they sound like color, and not like passing notes.

They may or may not sound colorful vs just out of place, it would depend on how they are used.

[pamosmusic]

We were talking about altered chord tones, I don't see how your comment is relevant to that?

It's spot on point, oddly enough ... by way of the thread which was asking about "Bmaj7 off G7" ... which is the tritone sub of Fmaj7 off G7. We don't know what Bird was thinking, but it's hard to imagine he was thinking of Gsus9 when he played Fmajor7 over G7, and of G7#9(maj7) over the G7. Conceptualizing things as upper structures –– or as small sounds deployed to make bigger sounds –– means that I can play a smokin' Bird lick off Fmajor7 and get the inside sounds, and instead of reinventing the wheel to get an outside altered sort of sound, I can just play the same lick off Bmaj7. When I think of this way, my vocabulary is twice (thrice, four-times, whatever) as useful and I can spend my time getting more vocabulary together, rather than trying to reconceptualize every chord as its own thing.

They may or may not sound colorful vs just out of place, it would depend on how they are used.

Yes. Obviously. Which is why conceptualizing them in a way that taps into the vocabulary you already know is a massive advantage. Because the vocabulary is already there.

[Mick-7]

It's spot on point, oddly enough ... by way of the thread which was asking about "Bmaj7 off G7" ... which is the tritone sub of Fmaj7 off G7.

I think that's a stretch since FM7 is the IV chord in C major and it's chord tones are diatonic to the scale. I mean, you're saying that a diatonic chord is the b5 sub of a nondiatonic chord, but that's backwards thinking (literally). There is only one note in the BM7 present in the C Major scale = B.

[pamosmusic]

I think that's a stretch since FM7 is the IV chord in C major and it's chord tones are diatonic to the scale. I mean, you're saying that a diatonic chord is the b5 sub of a nondiatonic chord, but that's backwards thinking (literally). There is only one note in the BM7 present in the C Major scale = B.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

Are we really arguing that upper structures, or super-imposing chords or whatever is something that most players can't make work? It's something you'll find in transcriptions of literally every jazz player ever to jazz.

[Mick-7]

I don't know what you're talking about here.

Are we really arguing that upper structures, or super-imposing chords or whatever is something that most players can't make work? It's something you'll find in transcriptions of literally every jazz player ever to jazz.

I thought the topic of discussion was playing sets or series of altered tones (chord arpeggios or whatever) over diatonic chords, e.g., F#M7 over G7 was suggested, a chord that has no notes diatonic to C major (well, only F/E#). This is a far cry from playing upper structure chord tones such as FM7. What's more, it's an artificial construct vs, say, hearing that a b5, #5, #9, or whatever, would sound good in a particular phrase.

[pamosmusic]

I thought the topic of discussion was playing sets or series of altered tones (chord arpeggios or whatever) over diatonic chords, e.g., F#M7 over G7 was suggested, a chord that has no notes diatonic to C major. This is a far cry from playing upper structure chord tones such as FM7. What's more, it's an artificial construct vs, say, hearing that a b5, #5, #9, or whatever, would sound good in a particular phrase.

I guess correction ... the original post was about Dbmaj7 over G7 and the discussion went pretty quickly to Bmaj7 instead.

But still ... upper structures still give can give you "altered" sounds.

Upper structures off the altered scale (or tritone's minor or whatever) are super common:

Fm7b5 over G7
Abm(maj7) over G7
Db7 over G7
Eb7 over G7

Upper structures off the tritone are also super common:

Db7
Fm7b5
Abm7
Bmaj7

I'm not sure what makes these things "artificial constructs" considering that they show up in transcriptions on the regular. These things are super common. What makes unusual sounds like these work is that they're implied by super straightforward things that our ears recognize and that lend themselves to the beboppiest of bebop vocabulary.

[Mick-7]

I guess correction ... the original post was about Dbmaj7 over G7 and the discussion went pretty quickly to Bmaj7 instead.

But still ... upper structures still give can give you "altered" sounds.

Upper structures off the altered scale (or tritone's minor or whatever) are super common:

Fm7b5 over G7
Abm(maj7) over G7
Db7 over G7
Eb7 over G7

Upper structures off the tritone are also super common:

Db7
Fm7b5
Abm7
Bmaj7

I'm not sure what makes these things "artificial constructs" considering that they show up in transcriptions on the regular. These things are super common. What makes unusual sounds like these work is that they're implied by super straightforward things that our ears recognize and that lend themselves to the beboppiest of bebop vocabulary.

Fair enough, but to play devils advocate, is this any different than saying anything goes as long as it makes musical (aural) sense? - because I think you've covered every note in the chromatic scale there.

[pamosmusic]

Fair enough, but to play devils advocate, is this any different than saying anything goes as long as it makes musical (aural) sense? - because I think you've covered every note in the chromatic scale there.

You won't like my answer.

[Mick-7]

You won't like my answer.

Is that a yes?

But what did you mean in this post (below) when you said, "I wish I could get altered sounds"?

If you think of upper structure arpeggios then all the upper extensions of a chord become something you already know and have already established vocabulary for.

I wish I could get altered sounds.

I could learn the melodic minor scale or focus on targeting a new set of extensions.

Or I could just play that minor lick a half step up from the root.

[pamosmusic]

Is that a yes?

But what did you mean in this post (below) when you said, "I wish I could get altered sounds"?

It was a yes.

And that was a hypothetical. Maybe I should of put quotes around it or whatever.

If a person wants to get altered sounds, they could try and develop new vocabulary over a new thing, or they could just use what they have in a different way. The latter is generally easier.

[Bobby Timmons]

By "altered device" you mean what?

Whatever you're referring to.

Would you call playing, say, a Bmaj.7 arpeggio chord over G7 a device?

Yes, that kind of thing.

And I did say "very few" can do it well, it's safe to say we could include Monk in that group.

Not very few can do it well. I'd say most pros these days can sound natural with altered or out devices. Watch the Smalls or Mez cam and listen to what they do. It's part of the language to be able to use out stuff and not only as pattern based, as part of the development of a natural solo.

[Bobby Timmons]

Yeah no, what Peter is saying on this page is absolutely correct. If you disagree with that, it basically just shows you haven't transcribed or analyzed transcriptions at all. :P

[CliffR]

... by way of the thread which was asking about "Bmaj7 off G7" ... which is the tritone sub of Fmaj7 off G7. We don't know what Bird was thinking, but it's hard to imagine he was thinking of Gsus9 when he played Fmajor7 over G7, and of G7#9(maj7) over the G7. Conceptualizing things as upper structures –– or as small sounds deployed to make bigger sounds –– means that I can play a smokin' Bird lick off Fmajor7 and get the inside sounds, and instead of reinventing the wheel to get an outside altered sort of sound, I can just play the same lick off Bmaj7. When I think of this way, my vocabulary is twice (thrice, four-times, whatever) as useful and I can spend my time getting more vocabulary together, rather than trying to reconceptualize every chord as its own thing.... Which is why conceptualizing them in a way that taps into the vocabulary you already know is a massive advantage. Because the vocabulary is already there.

I know I said earlier Jens had explained the BM7 off G7 to me (but in a different key), but it's only now, reading this, that I understand the real value and generality of this idea. Thanks Peter!

[Christian Miller]

It’s hard to know what people long dead may have been thinking except when it’s covered in interviews when they were alive (and even then - surprise surprise - there are many famous quotes that tune out not to have been said by the person in question at all!)

But when it comes to jazz harmony, I do know the principle of chord substitution has a longer history than chord scale theory. Examination of jazz lines from the pre Berklee era reveals a lot of usage of simple triads and chords superimposed on basic chords to create more colourful sounds and this goes way back, to the 1920s.

I expect these were internalised as rules of thumb and the theoretical context of these ideas being drawn from chord scales came much later. The earliest I’ve been able to track down is (possibly) Tristano in the late 40s but his chord scale approach is not root based, but sub based (for instance melodic minor on the V, bVII and bII)

As for the root based approach (chord scale = chord quality, eg Cm7b6 = C aeolian) that Rosenwinkel and Adam Rogers appear to use - I can’t say how old that is. I would guess it’s post Berklee, but I lack info to say for sure.

However you conceptualise these sounds - as subs, fragments of chord scales, upper structures etc - you still need to practice them in specifics. You still need to get used to making tritone, bVII subs etc on dominants to get them in your playing and ears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

But what did you mean in this post (below) when you said, "I wish I could get altered sounds"?

And that was a hypothetical. Maybe I should of put quotes around it or whatever.

Still not sure what you meant.... was your point that the natural tendency is to play something consonant with the chords one is hearing and therefore most of us need to use "devices" such as altered chords and scales to hear "out of the box"?

Yeah no, what Peter is saying on this page is absolutely correct. If you disagree with that, it basically just shows you haven't transcribed or analyzed transcriptions at all. :P

It's true that it's been a very long time since I've done any serious transcribing (= writing down what I heard), so I'm probably behind the times. But even when I was transcribing a lot, my analysis of what I transcribed was usually simple, pretty much just: "that phrase sounded good over this chord." I had been playing for years before I paid attention to theory.

[pamosmusic]

Still not sure what you meant.... was your point that the natural tendency is to play something consonant with the chords one is hearing and therefore most of us need to use "devices" such as altered chords and scales to hear "out of the box"?

No. This is a pretty time-tested part of jazz pedagogy. Like ... swing era time-tested.

It's generally easier for people to think of smaller, less-complex sounds and apply them creatively, than for someone to think of dissonant complex sounds.

Here's an example.

Let's say I taught a student the Cry Me a River lick, which is a classic minor lick. I have them play it in different keys and with different fingerings. They're very excited that they know it, and then they look at, say, Take the A'Train and go ... "crap, there aren't that many minor chords in the song."

I don't go ... yeah, you can play a great lick over bar 5, but that's it. We'll need to go learn some major and dominant licks.

What I do, is I teach them how to apply that minor lick over every chord in the tune. Over the major chords, play minor off the sixth. Over the dominant chords, play minor off the fifth. Over the half-diminished chords, play minor off the third. Over the minor chords, just play minor. So then they can sit down with that one lick they know, and play over take the A' Train. Using the Cry Me a River Lick off:

Am -- Am -- Am -- Am --
Dm -- Dm -- Am --- Dm --

B section:

Dm -- -- -- --
Am -- Dm --

This teaches them two things ... the first is that anything they learn is way more useful than it seems at first. The second is that, when you start looking at these tunes, they can be much simpler than they seem at first. As they get more minor vocabulary under their fingers, they start learning some major licks and how they apply over different chord types. Dominant is a little different, but that too.

So when someone wants to learn all this altered dominant stuff, they just take that lick they know already, and they move it up a tritone, or a minor third, or major sixth, or whatever you want to do with it. They can still play the Cry Me a River lick and get a super hip outside dominant sound. Rather than having to go and learn an entire new scale, or new chord type or whatever. They should learn those things too, eventually, but it's secondary to the vocabulary.

[rpjazzguitar]

This thread is touching on some things that I think are important.

I studied quite a bit with several different teachers before anybody spoke directly about improvising on one chord (or sequence) while the rhythm section was playing another.

The hippest line I ever played in my life was when I was reading a nicely reharmonized chart and the rest of the band was playing the vanilla chart - which I didn't realize. I played my usual inside stuff, but it sounded beautifully outside against the original harmony. Eye opening.

Hermeto Pascoal taught to write in several alternatives above each chord symbol (I can't recall the ones he recommended to begin with) -- and then play on those, not the original harmony. Eventually you learn the sounds and how to get them and you don't need to write anything down any more.

And, every good outside line would be a good inside line against different harmony.

So, to take a simple and commonplace example, if the chord is G7 going to Cmaj7, you can play on an Abm(add9). m(add9) a half step up. Easy to remember and easy to find on the neck. Ab B Eb Bb. b9 3 b13 #9.

Off the top of my head I don't know, say, the top 10 list of this sort of trick (technique?) in jazz. That would be interesting. I think the Abm(add9) thing would be on the list. Certainly tritone subs. Charlie Christian seemed to like a Cm arp against a D7.

There's Warren Nunes type I and type II chords. Type I is Cmaj7=Em7=Gmaj7 (more or less)=Am7 and Type 2 Dm7 = Fmaj7 = G7 = Am7 = Bm7b5 Chords are interchangeable within a type.

There's Mark Levine's dictum that all melodic minor chords are the same chord. So that Cminmaj7 = Dsusb9 = Ebmaj7#5 = F7#11 = G7b13 = Am7b5 = Balt. More or less -- there are different ways to build those chords, but the idea is that any random group of notes from the right melmin scale may work. By the way, this encompasses the Abm(add9).

Anyway, the options quickly get potentially overwhelming, so Hermeto's approach which introduces a limited number at a time makes sense.

[StevenA]

For those who like books, may I suggest trumpeter David Berger’s Contemporary Jazz Studies. I have Vol.2 and it shows a harmonically dense group of subbed arps from all forms that have been previously mentioned in this thread. If you want to add to this kind of vocabulary, it’s a fantastic book.
(It took me a while to realize that the chord symbols over each measure isn’t from the tune, but what he is thinking when improving)

[Mick-7]

I never really used a licks based vocabulary approach to improvising, thought mostly in terms of borrowing from the chromatic (12 tone) scale in developing my lines. Then I took some lessons from a guitarist named Dave Creamer, which nudged me further in that direction.

I recently found an article he wrote for Guitar Player magazine (circa 1989) on the subject, it is attached. And he has a couple of books for sale on his site: Books by Dave Creamer

[henryrobinett]

There’s also B/G as a dominant chord which I have heard called the Bill Evans dominant, but I’m pretty sure it predates Bill.

The B—>C move is super strong as a resolution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting. I write with this chord a LOT but for me it’s Lydian #5. Almost never, actually never a dominant chord. And the guys in my band, all deeper than me in terms of jazz pedagogy, interpret it that way. Major +5. Sometimes I can use it as a dominant passing weird chord. But dominant FOR ME has to have a flatted 7th. Thats why Bmaj7 over G7 just doesn’t work for me. I have to resolve that maj7. Now sometimes hanging on the maj7 on a dominant chord has an erie, bluesy tone. But that’s not what I hear. Doesn’t work for me, regardless what bop master says. I do play Bmaj7b5 over G7, but never the other. I’m just saying it does not work for me. At all. lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Christian Miller]

Interesting. I write with this chord a LOT but for me it’s Lydian #5. Almost never, actually never a dominant chord. And the guys in my band, all deeper than me in terms of jazz pedagogy, interpret it that way. Major +5. Sometimes I can use it as a dominant passing weird chord. But dominant FOR ME has to have a flatted 7th. Thats why Bmaj7 over G7 just doesn’t work for me. I have to resolve that maj7. Now sometimes hanging on the maj7 on a dominant chord has an erie, bluesy tone. But that’s not what I hear. Doesn’t work for me, regardless what bop master says. I do play Bmaj7b5 over G7, but never the other. I’m just saying it does not work for me. At all. lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Aka - the Girlfriend Chord.

Btw I don’t have a musical example of Bill Evans actually using this chord in this way - I’ve only heard it called ‘the Bill Evans dominant’ in a YouTube video. But example that springs to mind in Coltrane music. This resolution from Naima always intrigued me

A/Eb G/Eb Abmaj7 (that’s what in Trane’s original lead sheet)

The G —> Ab also reminds me of what I’ve heard called a cadential diminshed chord, eg Eb7 Abo7(maj7) Abmaj7

In this specific context I sometimes hear more mode III of B harmonic minor (Ionian #5??) than Lydian Augmented if I’m sitting on it. Probably for that reason; it relates it to the G/Ab (the Nasty Chord, bit of Yin and Yang I guess). But either is good.

Tbh I’m not that into functional theory beyond a point - becomes like forcing square pegs into round holes with some of this stuff. But I just see resolving dominants as a way of getting from A-B anyway and there are other routes. Bit like how people swap out diminshed chords for ii V’s and things.

Perhaps it’s not a dominant because it doesn’t have a key dominant characteristic. (But then we call Bb7 C a backdoor dominant and that doesn’t have the leading tone/3rd of the chord. But perhaps that note is less important in jazz than the b7?)

I also notice it seems a characteristic of a lot of more modern jazz to ‘soften’ the dominant by omitting at least one of the guide tones. Upper structure triads on dominants do this for instance. (Well I say modern, but Monk was doing that stuff haha.)

In terms of ‘what will go in place of a dominant’ in jazz it’s an interesting sound, and I use it a lot. But then I rarely play with piano.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[henryrobinett]

I always pivot off of the b7 in a dominant chord. It gives me a lot of variables. On G7 - F half diminished triad, m7b5, full diminished; Abm6, Fb5, Fma7b5, Bb7, Bmajb5, Db, Db7, Db+7, Dm, Eb2 and variations, etc. but the way my mind works for subs in Dominant it pivots off the b7. The other major 7 are color tones of great exceptions and only work for me as brief passages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mick-7]

Btw I don’t have a musical example of Bill Evans actually using this chord in this way - I’ve only heard it called ‘the Bill Evans dominant’ in a YouTube video. But example that springs to mind in Coltrane music. This resolution from Naima always intrigued me.

A/Eb G/Eb Abmaj7 (that’s what in Trane’s original lead sheet)

I wouldn't call that a resolving cadence, the song is cyclical, has an Eb to Bb pedal point throughout the entire tune, and there is no final resolution until the final I-IV-I. cadence. Maybe you have a better example?

Also, you (actually Henry) have just changed the subject, which was about playing altered chord tones over chords, not about chord substitutions.