-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
08-02-2024 06:40 AM
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
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.
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
"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.
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
Bmaj7#5 has a G+ triad in it"
Hmm, guess I was thinking of a different chord.
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
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
-
Originally Posted by StevenA
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 ProLast edited by henryrobinett; 09-20-2024 at 11:42 PM.
-
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
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
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.Last edited by pamosmusic; 08-02-2024 at 05:52 PM.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
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.
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
As you were.
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
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
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by CliffR
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.Last edited by pamosmusic; 08-03-2024 at 10:30 AM.
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
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
-
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...
Last edited by Jonah; 08-07-2024 at 09:59 AM.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Which Pickup in Borys
Today, 04:24 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos