Maj7 arpeggio over Dom7 chord question

[Christian Miller]

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.

Did he even have a lead sheet for that matter?

[pamosmusic]

Did he even have a lead sheet for that matter?

Im trying to be generous here, Christian.

[StevenA]

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

Hi ,
I realize that your distaste for that maj7/b7 clash comes from an artistic, aesthetic, aural preference even though it has been a staple for decades and Pat Metheny stating that he hears the maj 7 clearly over a dominant chord. But there does seem to be some theoretical and actual support for using it. Looking at F# over G7 gives the tonality (albeit briefly) of the V (Dmaj) which can readily precede the V7 of the I. May also exist as a leading tone. Plus, there seems to be a compositional split in jazz blues between a Imaj and a Ib7 tonality that begins the tune thus inviting each others substitution. Often times when following transcriptions that show harmonic rub, I ask myself what the player knows(intends) that I don’t.
Certainly don’t want to miss out.

[Mick-7]

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.

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.

I didn't say that Evans necessarily wrote the chord on the lead sheet, the topic is substituting a Maj.#5 for for a Dom.7th chord, so presumably he'd do that while improvising. But in reviewing transcriptions of his solos, I have yet to see it. Maj.7b5, yes, but it's enharmonic for a Dom. 13th chord, e.g., Gmaj.7b5 = A13. Of course Gmaj.#5 is not all that different, you could call it Eb#5#9, but that's the b5 sub again going to D or Dm.

"Bmaj7#5 has a G+ triad in it"

Hmm, guess I was thinking of a different chord, i.e., B/G, no maj.7th (A#), that was the Coltrane voicing Christian mentioned.
Bmaj7#5 > Cmaj.7b5 (or 7#11) does sound better to me though.

[pamosmusic]

I didn't say that Evans necessarily wrote the chord on the lead sheet, the topic is substituting a Maj.#5 for for a Dom.7th chord, so presumably he'd do that while improvising. But in reviewing transcriptions of his solos, I have yet to see it. Maj.7b5, yes, but it's enharmonic for a Dom. 13th chord, e.g., Gmaj.7b5 = A13. Of course Gmaj.#5 is not all that different, you could call it Eb#5#9, but that's the b5 sub again going to D or Dm.

You do like to correct folks you’re talking to about what the topic is, which is a bit odd.

Bmaj7#5 has a G+ triad in it"

Hmm, guess I was thinking of a different chord.

oops.

[Mick-7]

You do like to correct folks you’re talking to about what the topic is, which is a bit odd.

Only because we had two different strands of conversation going in this thread [or I thought of them as such]: (1) improvising with chord arpeggios; playing chords over chords, and (2) chord substitutions; chords instead of chords. Now you and Christian are saying that you don't distinguish between the two - whatever.

[pamosmusic]

Only because we had two different strands of conversation going in this thread [or I thought of them as such]: (1) improvising with chord arpeggios; playing chords over chords, and (2) chord substitutions; chords instead of chords. Now you and Christian are saying that you don't distinguish between the two - whatever.

Pretty sure we’ve been talking about chords over chords most of the whole time.

Anyway, chord substitution is often used to refer to just that practice. For clarity, when you talk about replacing one chord with another as an arranging or compositional device, that’s generally referred to as “reharmonization”

In practice, reharmonization is really only used to refer to when a chord has been replaced with another that is functionally different. Say, Abmaj7#5 for the first phrase in All of Me. Or maybe when the function is the same but the bass motion is dramatically different, like Coltrane on But Not for Me.

But even then, there’s so much overlap between Things a Soloist Might Play on the Fly, and Ways You Might Rewrite That Cadence, that it’s often a distinction without a difference

[henryrobinett]

Hi ,
I realize that your distaste for that maj7/b7 clash comes from an artistic, aesthetic, aural preference even though it has been a staple for decades and Pat Metheny stating that he hears the maj 7 clearly over a dominant chord. But there does seem to be some theoretical and actual support for using it. Looking at F# over G7 gives the tonality (albeit briefly) of the V (Dmaj) which can readily precede the V7 of the I. May also exist as a leading tone. Plus, there seems to be a compositional split in jazz blues between a Imaj and a Ib7 tonality that begins the tune thus inviting each others substitution. Often times when following transcriptions that show harmonic rub, I ask myself what the player knows(intends) that I don’t.
Certainly don’t want to miss out.

The only places I personally know of the maj7 clash in dom7 chords is a Shorter tune. Can’t remember the title. Dance Cadavers? And some Mingus and Ellington tunes. But at least in the Mingus he didn’t call them that. He justified it calling it a raised 14. He and many of his contemporaries went to the 17th and beyond.

Btw I LOVE the Maj7#5 chord. As I said I write a lot of music with this chord and improvise with it in mind as an extension or sub for MAJOR chords, not dominant. Soloing as well as comping in a trio or where I’m the only comping instrument. And for as long as I’ve been writing with it, since the mid 80s, I’ve never had one musician interpret it as a dominant chord. And I’ve had a lot of Evans acolytes play them. I’ll see if I can post one of my songs which is almost an etude on C/A flat type chords. It’s a great sound for a major. I can see using it in place of a dominant in a trio. Ok. I’ve actually done it briefly. But like I might sometimes sub a minor in place of a dominant. But I see it as I see it. Part of the major chord family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[henryrobinett]

If anyone’s interested here Threnody. Piano part with melody. The Major7#5 chords are not dominant. They’re MAJOR. That’s why they’re not called Dominant 7#5 chords. Anyway.

Dropbox

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[pamosmusic]

If anyone’s interested here Threnody. Piano part with melody. The Major7#5 chords are not dominant. They’re MAJOR. That’s why they’re not called Dominant 7#5 chords. Anyway.

Dropbox


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Okay this is really interesting.

And that Dmaj7#5, going up by half-step, there would be the resolution I was talking about too. A synonym for Bb7#5#9, though a cooler way of expressing it.

And for what it’s worth, I was using “dominant” to refer to dominant family chords. Chords that resolve to I, rather than a chord put in the dominant position of a scale, or a chord constructed as 1 3 5 b7.

[pamosmusic]

Apropos of nothing, I was getting de ja vu from this whole conversation and remembered making this video a year ago, when I went down the same rabbit hole with a certain forum member insisting that F#/Gb simply could not work on a dominant. I decided to give it a go in the most unforgiving way possible.

Medium tempo full rhythm section backing track … repeated ii-V-I in C major, playing straight up Gb major scale stuff every single time I hit the G7, leaning on the Gb whenever I got there (though I recall Christian pointing out that I treat it more like an F# much of the time).

Obviously this sort of thing works better when used tastefully, rather than on every single chord where there’s an opportunity. But it was an exercise.

[Mick-7]

Okay this is really interesting.

Because that D/Bb would be, more or less, the chord we were referring to earlier right? Bb D F# A resolving to Eb (in your case Ebm). And the Bmaj over G7 sound that we thought was out would be G F B D# F# … though maybe I’m being generous by not including the fifth in that G7 chord.

And that Dmaj7#5, going up by half-step, there would be the resolution I was talking about too. A synonym for Bb7#5#9, though a cooler way of expressing it.

And for what it’s worth, I was using “dominant” to refer to dominant family chords. Chords that resolve to I, rather than a chord put in the dominant position of a scale, or a chord constructed as 1 3 5 b7.

I haven't played Henry's piece but it may confirm the point I made earlier that you rejected, which was: "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."

All of his maj.7th "avoid notes" are in the bass line (bass notes of the slash chords) and many times repeated as a pedal point, which changes the chords harmonic character.

[pamosmusic]

I haven't played Henry's piece but it may confirm the point I made earlier that you rejected, which was: "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."

All of his maj.7th "avoid notes" are in the bass line (bass notes of the slash chords) and many times repeated as a pedal point, which changes the chords harmonic character.

I mixed up one of those chords anyway … Bb/D resolves to Bm which is still cool but not what we were talking about.

As you were.

[Christian Miller]

Okay this is really interesting.

And that Dmaj7#5, going up by half-step, there would be the resolution I was talking about too. A synonym for Bb7#5#9, though a cooler way of expressing it.

And for what it’s worth, I was using “dominant” to refer to dominant family chords. Chords that resolve to I, rather than a chord put in the dominant position of a scale, or a chord constructed as 1 3 5 b7.

Ooooh the metaphysics of functional relationships in harmony!

What does it all mean?

Are Db7 and Bb7 really the same thing? Is Dm6 minor or dominant? (Or both?) Do functional subs work both ways?

Should we care? Is it all just counterpoint?

(I have NFI btw, just some things that come up.)

FWIW I think harmony is basically normative most of the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolflen]

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.

ahhh..and move that lil auggie triad through its inversions and they all like C major & company

[CliffR]

Do functional subs work both ways?

Seriously, do they? Are they commutative/associative? I always get those two mixed up.

[pamosmusic]

Seriously, do they?

I think they do.

Why not?

Some context is necessary … the ole ear, I suppose.

Half diminished for dominant certainly works both ways.

Major and relative minor do too.

Major for minor off the third would be context dependent.

If you see a turnaround of one sort, you can usually play a different turnaround over it.

Major for minor off the third is context dependent.

i think broadly speaking it’s true, but gotta use the ears.

EDIT: I’m going to keep adding these as I think of them.

- The family of four, or important chords, etc, all sub reasonably well for each other.

G7, Bm7b5, Dm7, Fmaj7

We throw those all over the dominant on the regular. G7, Dm7, and Fmaj7 are pretty routinely used over that half diminished. The Bm7b5 and Fmaj7 are of course inverted Dm6 and rootless Dm9, while the dominant kind of a m6/9 … though more straightforwardly we often just ignore the minor and play dominant over it in a ii-V. Dm7 is F6 and half diminished of #4 is a pretty common sub for major. That G7 over Fmaj7 is the only one that raises an eyebrow but it’s basically a triad pair.

[CliffR]

I think they do.

Why not?

Some context is necessary … the ole ear, I suppose.

Thanks Peter! I suspected as much. But I trust my ear as much as I'd trust a pyramid scheme salesman

[henryrobinett]

Often I think people WAY over think things. THINKING is the curse of improvisation. Finding the simplest solutions are the most useful solutions I have found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jonah]

Personally, I see no advantage to thinking of chord arpeggios vs. just thinking of all of a chord's altered tones. In fact, the latter is less complicated

Hard to say...

I think the whole idea of such conceptions is much connected with the guitar tuning.
It is not that visual (I think everyone (even experienced sight-readers and players very well familiar with the fretboard) happen to 'discover' some new voicing on 'occasion' which almost never happens with the piano for example (as they just choose the notes they want to play).
So the players develop various 'pattern' conceptions like 'one chord over another' etc.

Of course pianists also use superimposed conceptions but normally they do it litterally: i.e. they just put a triad above another triad and usually it is also clearly separated visually. Otherwise they mostly think in terms of voice-leading/extensions/alterations - actual notes.

(by the way in open tunings I tried (like baroque lute or Russian 7 string guitar) I notices that it is visually much closer to keyboard - you think more of just notes rather than shapes...)

What I noticed with some (students/beginners especially) that thinking in 'superimpositions' often imply some restriction (they litterally think of the arp and its notes, and often cannot cut some out or go outside of it) but also some movement (as the implied chord means a few notes and some direction)...
And if they think in terms of extensions - much depends on personal musical creativity and imagination - and the extention is just one note... often they just do not know what to do with that. It is like too much freedom...

[henryrobinett]

I always think chord tones and altered tones. Most often it’s assisted by arpeggios which are essentially the same thing as chords. It’s easier to see the full outline that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ragman1]

It's a lot easier than that. Look at the chord + melody + tune-as-a-whole and play what it says. Anything else is invalid whether you're playing chord tones, arpeggios, scalar lines or available tensions. It's just music and it fits or it don't.

[rpjazzguitar]

When a line catches my ear and I stop to figure it out, oftentimes it's pretty clearly a juxtaposition of one chord over another. That is, the soloist is outlining a different chord from the one being played by the rhythm section. I've often become convinced that's how the soloist was thinking.

So, to take a simple example, the soloist plays the chord tones of Gb7 while the rhythm section plays C7.

More complicated examples might involve completely reharmonizing the tune. Then the soloist plays on the reharmonized changes while the rhythm section plays the original changes.

A simple, completely vanilla line against the reharmonized changes may sound wickedly hip against the original changes. Every good outside line is a good inside line against some set of changes.

To practice it, you write in your solo changes on the original chart, get a backing track of the original changes -- and then solo with your new solo changes over the original changes.

This is how Hermeto Pascoal taught it.

Tbh, I rarely do this, but I wish I did it more.

[henryrobinett]

It's a lot easier than that. Look at the chord + melody + tune-as-a-whole and play what it says. Anything else is invalid whether you're playing chord tones, arpeggios, scalar lines or available tensions. It's just music and it fits or it don't.

It’s a lot easier than what? Who were you referring to? I rarely do just that. I try to pull myself out of and through the song. But the song is only a vehicle for me, unless it’s much more than that. And that would be if it’s my own composition where it has a very personal place. On standards I rarely copy or take my cues or directions from the melody as much as I do from the harmonic and rhythmic structure of the song.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ragman1]

It’s a lot easier than what?

Than a lot of the confusing ideas on how to do a tune here. I've always thought the what-to-do isn't that difficult, the problem is being able to do it tastefully.