Maj7 arpeggio over Dom7 chord question

[pamosmusic]

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

To be fair to Henry, we changed the subject and he was just responding to the last place he had participated in the conversation.

This is an internet forum, after all. Not oral arguments.

[Bop Head]

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

You mean this?

[Christian Miller]

I tracked down the video.

Citation not given! It does sound Bill Evansesque to me though I must say.

I’d have to listen to a load of Bill Evans and see if i can spot this sound. Which would be a terrible chore of course ;-)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

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?.

I do hear that progression as a type of cadence. It closes the phrase off and then when you hear the next section it feels like a new musical thought, very much how a cadence usually closes out the second A section of an AABA standard.

However the Eb bass keeps it from feeling fully resolved. If you have the last chord in root position it feels more conclusive.

But that said maybe the appeal is that it doesn’t sound as conclusive as a V-I. The move in jazz even fro the early days has been to subvert functional harmony like this for something more colouristic, especially in the music of the 60s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

I do hear that progression as a type of cadence. It closes the phrase off and then when you hear the next section it feels like a new musical thought, very much how a cadence usually closes out the second A section of an AABA standard.

However the Eb bass keeps it from feeling fully resolved. If you have the last chord in root position it feels more conclusive.

But that said maybe the appeal is that it doesn’t sound as conclusive as a V-I. The move in jazz even fro the early days has been to subvert functional harmony like this for something more colouristic, especially in the music of the 60s.

Yeah, I was comparing it to more conventional jazz harmony, the constant pedal point in Naima is the stabilizing element.

Re: the Maj7#5 chord, the only Bill Evans tune I know of where he uses it is "Bill's Hit Tune" but it's not functioning as a dominant chord, but as a subdominant or substitute tonic chord.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah, I was comparing it to more conventional jazz harmony, the constant pedal point in Naima is the stabilizing element.

Although extended pedal textures are nothing new. Take a Bach example, BWV999 where you have an extended pedals and moving chords over the top. It’s still reasonable to analyse the harmony as if there wasn’t any pedal bass but also acknowledge the effect of the pedal to the piece.

It’s also a classic bass player move to pedal V on something like the A section of rhythm changes.

Anyway I have no trouble hearing what Chris Whiteman is doing as a sub for II V I

Really a II V I is exposition-conflict-resolution, three act story structure. The conflict is not meant to be ‘nice’ and the nature of the conflict and its artful resolution is what makes a story interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

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

This is interesting. But also, you might bear in mind that’s it’s an extremely idiosyncratic way of conceiving of lines.

[henryrobinett]

To be fair to Henry, we changed the subject and he was just responding to the last place he had participated in the conversation.

This is an internet forum, after all. Not oral arguments.

Yes. I rarely take the time to follow internet discussions laterally. Apologies, but no. No apologies. I think I quoted what I was responding to? I guess I didn’t. Yet substituting- not chords- is my specialty as a soloist. So just figured it was germane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Christian Miller]

I had a jam with a friend today and he mentioned the B—>C thing as a Coltrane thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

This is interesting. But also, you might bear in mind that’s it’s an extremely idiosyncratic way of conceiving of lines.

True, I don't have this book (link below) but, judging by what I know of Dave's methodologies, it sounds like a more practical application of them. Chromatic Enhancements of the Major Scale - Dave Creamer

[Mick-7]

I tracked down the video.

Citation not given! It does sound Bill Evansesque to me though I must say.

I’d have to listen to a load of Bill Evans and see if i can spot this sound. Which would be a terrible chore of course ;-)

I haven't watched this video yet so don't know exactly what application of the Maj.7#5 he discusses, but in "Bill's Hit Tune," Evans uses the Maj.7#5 something like this [using open strings for more pianistic voicings]:

CM9#5 > FM7#11: x-3-0-1-0-0 > 1-x-2-2-0-0

Does that sounds like a V7-I resolution to you?

To me it sounds more final if you reverse the progression like say:

FM7#11 > CM7#5: 1-x-2-2-0-0 > x-3-2-1-0-0

[pamosmusic]

I haven't watched this video yet so don't know exactly what application of the Maj.7#5 he discusses, but in "Bill's Hit Tune," Evans uses the Maj.7#5 something like this [using open strings for more pianistic voicings]:

CM9#5 > FM7#11: x-3-0-1-0-0 > 1-x-2-2-0-0

Does that sounds like a V7-I resolution to you?

To me it sounds more final if you reverse the progression like say:

FM7#11 > CM7#5: 1-x-2-2-0-0 > x-3-2-1-0-0

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's referring to "places where Bill Evans writes this tune in his chart," but rather to Bill Evans using this chord in place of the dominant when the chart might suggest a dominant chord be played instead.

[Christian Miller]

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's referring to "places where Bill Evans writes this tune in his chart," but rather to Bill Evans using this chord in place of the dominant when the chart might suggest a dominant chord be played instead.

Yes indeed, hence the term ‘chord substitution’.

You have to use yer lugholes to work that out I’m afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's referring to "places where Bill Evans writes this tune in his chart," but rather to Bill Evans using this chord in place of the dominant when the chart might suggest a dominant chord be played instead.

o.k.... actually, I'm not at all sure one can make a theoretical rule about this because from what I've heard the voicing of the M7#5 chord will make or break whether it sounds like a dom.7 chord.

[Christian Miller]

[pamosmusic]

o.k.... actually, I'm not at all sure one can make a theoretical rule about this because from what I've heard the voicing of the M7#5 chord will make or break whether it sounds like a dom.7 chord.

Nahhhhhh.

This sounds like one of those things jazz players say when it starts to sound too much like there aren't any rules.

[Mick-7]

I'm not at all sure one can make a theoretical rule about this because from what I've heard the voicing of the M7#5 chord will make or break whether it sounds like a dom.7 chord.

Nahhhhhh. This sounds like one of those things jazz players say when it starts to sound too much like there aren't any rules.

o.k, my statement was half-fast I should have added that the chord the Maj.7#5 is resolving to is the other (more important) half of the equation, since no chord is an island. That is, an Maj.7#5 chord can sound like a Dom.7th relative to some chords but not others. The progression that Christian mentioned, which was a Maj.7#5 chord to a Maj.7 chord 1/2 step up, doesn't sound like a V7>IM7 resolution to me, e.g., BM7#5>CM7. Maybe it would in a particular progression, but I have yet to hear an example of one.

[pan60]

@ Christian Miller
maj7#5 will be my new fav for a bit.

[pamosmusic]

o.k, my statement was half-fast I should have added that the chord the Maj.7#5 is resolving to is the other (more important) half of the equation, since no chord is an island. That is, an Maj.7#5 chord can sound like a Dom.7th relative to some chords but not others. The progression that Christian mentioned, which was a Maj.7#5 chord to a Maj.7 chord 1/2 step up, doesn't sound like a V7>IM7 resolution to me, e.g., BM7#5>CM7. Maybe it would in a particular progression, but I have yet to hear an example of one.

Thats a pretty standard altered device. Classic of the hard-bop days.

That Bmaj7#5 is (enharmonically) all the pretty stuff from the Ab melodic minor scale. So that’s not really a particularly adventurous example for G7, even.

I don’t use it much just because the arpeggio's kind of hard for me to play for some reason, and I’m lazy. So I usually opt for the Fm7b5 or AbmMaj for some of the same stuff.

[rpjazzguitar]

Eb G B D is right out of Cmelmin.

Per Mark Levine, it is the same chord as every other melodic minor chord, which means it's interchangeable with a Cminmaj7, D7susb9, F7#11 etc, up to Balt.

So, that group of notes is going to have a lot of usages. As G/Eb or Ebmaj7#5, I can hear it easily as leading to a Ebmaj7 (and have used it in similar harmony), because that occurs in a tune I play, Serrado by Djavan.

It feels like a delay in the resolution of a ii V. It sort of takes the place the V chord. In that tune, in the original key of F, it's Gm7, Fmaj7#5, Fmaj7, E7sus and eventually Am7.

Anybody have more examples of maj7#5 usage?

[Mick-7]

Thats a pretty standard altered device. Classic of the hard-bop days.

That Bmaj7#5 is (enharmonically) all the pretty stuff from the Ab melodic minor scale. So that’s not really a particularly adventurous example for G7, even.

I don’t use it much just because the arpeggio's kind of hard for me to play for some reason, and I’m lazy. So I usually opt for the Fm7b5 or AbmMaj for some of the same stuff.

Oh, I'm no longer talking about playing chords over chords, but about the topic that Christian and Henry raised, which is substituting a Maj.7#5 for a Dominant 7th chord. The example given was subbing Bmaj7#5 for G7, i.e., Bmaj.7#5 (not G7) > Cmaj.7. And we were wondering if/when Bill Evans subbed the M7#5 for a Dom.7 chord.

Dbmaj.7#5 > Cmaj.7 sounds like V7 to I (Db is a b5 sub for G7) but I don't hear Bmaj.7#5 > Cmaj.7 functioning like that.

rpjazzguitar, Fmaj7#5 & Fmaj7 have only one note that differs, can't see it serving as anything other than a passing chord.

[Christian Miller]

I mean what it comes down to is ‘do I like the way it sounds?’ (Or not)

So I don’t really acknowledge a difference between chord subs and playing over chords. It’s kind of the same stuff and any voice leading idea can be expressed as a line. You need to be able to express harmony in your line - be it the vanilla changes, something related or even something unrelated - rather than simply playing something that simply ‘fits’ with the chords. (Which is pretty much what Peter has been saying.)

It’s also worth bearing in mind Bill Evans was not ‘playing over chords’ most of the time as he was most often the sole harmonist on his records (with one notable exception being his records with Jim Hall)… and neither is Chris W in that video. (And tbf neither do I on most gigs…)

Tbh the ‘playing over chords’ discourse I think stems from an unholy fusion of backing tracks and chord scale theory. The former is a standard practice tool for most beginner to intermediate players (though maybe less so advanced players?) and the latter emphasises taking soloing choices from pitch sets suggested by written chords on a one to one basis.

As a result it seems people often have it in their heads that the changes in the lead sheet must be pedantically realised at all times in terms of scales and arpeggios, and subs that ‘fit’ this or that scale according to some jazz manual.

while this is certainly a useful practice activity, it’s not how the music actually works, where often entire chordal movements are superimposed on top of others. So you end up in a similar place such as a Tonic function chord, but the sax and piano may take different routes to get there.

Additionally a real playing situation with a comping instrument they can listen to what’s being played and *comp*liment (geddit?) what the soloist is doing using the power of not being an Aebersold play along. (Conversely if you have someone who sees comping less as an opportunity to engage in musical dialog and more as an opportunity to play their favourite lush voicings you will find your options more constrained.)

The recorded history of jazz is full of moments like this - and of course moments where the chords and the melody (or even the two hands of a pianist lol) ‘clash’ harmonically and resolve - and it doesn’t even stand out to the casual listener.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

rpjazzguitar, Fmaj7#5 & Fmaj7 have only one note that differs, can't see it serving as anything other than a passing chord.

Right. The C# goes to C.

In Serrado it is held for several beats and is clearly heard. Seems important to the harmony of the tune. I don't know if it qualifies as a "passing chord" or, if not, what it should be called. It's at the end of the A section of Serrado in the version I recall.

The take away is that if you have a Gm7 going toward F, you can play A/F aka Fmaj7#5 between the Gm7 and the F. I find it to be a useful sound and, for whatever reason, it was easy to hear and identify. So, it got right into my playing.

As far as substituting maj7#5 for dominant, it seems to me that Mark Levine's approach is relevant. Since it's a part of the melodic minor scale and Levine says all melodic minor chords are the same chord (which seems to work well when I do the subs) -- then:

Cminmaj7
D7susb9
Ebmaj7#5
F7#11
G7b13
Am7b5
Balt

If all these are the same chord and you're using one of these voicings as a dominant, then you can substitute Ebmaj7#5 for any of the others.

Of course, that's on paper. When you try them some of them are more ear twisting than others, but they all can work. But, the proof is in making a song sound good.

As far as Bmaj7#5 going to C, it's different but I can get it to sound okay in a simple ii V I. Per Levine it's out of Abmelmin and therefore is the same chord as Galt.

[Christian Miller]

Right. The C# goes to C.

In Serrado it is held for several beats and is clearly heard. Seems important to the harmony of the tune. I don't know if it qualifies as a "passing chord" or, if not, what it should be called. It's at the end of the A section of Serrado in the version I recall.

The take away is that if you have a Gm7 going toward F, you can play A/F aka Fmaj7#5 between the Gm7 and the F. I find it to be a useful sound and, for whatever reason, it was easy to hear and identify. So, it got right into my playing.

As far as substituting maj7#5 for dominant, it seems to me that Mark Levine's approach is relevant. Since it's a part of the melodic minor scale and Levine says all melodic minor chords are the same chord (which seems to work well when I do the subs) -- then:

Cminmaj7
D7susb9
Ebmaj7#5
F7#11
G7b13
Am7b5
Balt

If all these are the same chord and you're using one of these voicings as a dominant, then you can substitute Ebmaj7#5 for any of the others.

Of course, that's on paper. When you try them some of them are more ear twisting than others, but they all can work. But, the proof is in making a song sound good.

As far as Bmaj7#5 going to C, it's different but I can get it to sound okay in a simple ii V I. Per Levine it's out of Abmelmin and therefore is the same chord as Galt.

Bmaj7#5 is pretty basic. You probably play it already.

x x 5 4 4 6
Aka G7#9b13 (no 7th)

Also - don’t sleep on the shell voicings. These all have a Bmaj7 (no 5) upper structure

3 x 3 4 4 6
3 2 1 3 x x
x 8 9 8 11 x (G7b13#9 rootless)

I daresay you’ve played some of these before?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Oh, I'm no longer talking about playing chords over chords, but about the topic that Christian and Henry raised, which is substituting a Maj.7#5 for a Dominant 7th chord. The example given was subbing Bmaj7#5 for G7, i.e., Bmaj.7#5 (not G7) > Cmaj.7. And we were wondering if/when Bill Evans subbed the M7#5 for a Dom.7 chord.

I think you were the only one wondering this, and considering this is jazz and Bill Evans played mostly trio, I’m not sure what the difference would be. For all we know, every time he played it, he’d handed Scott LaFaro a leadsheet that had it written on it. This is jazz, so it doesnt matter what was written, but rather what was played.

Do we know whether Charlie Parker had a Bdim7 written on a leadsheet somewhere every time he played that instead of G7 in a solo? No. Do we care? Also no.

That Bmaj7#5 thing is a common sound. People use it. Not sure what the difference is if they wrote it.

Dbmaj.7#5 > Cmaj.7 sounds like V7 to I (Db is a b5 sub for G7) but I don't hear Bmaj.7#5 > Cmaj.7 functioning like that.

This is somewhat odd, but could be explained by a mild case of Jazz Brain, since it’s more fun to talk about b5 subs of G7, than to notice that the Bmaj7#5 has a G+ triad in it. You might be thinking too hard.