Cmaj7 to C#dim7th

[Mick-7]

The dimmaj7 chord shows up a lot in Brazilian music. But, in this case, what would you call it if you want a Bb in the bass? Maybe Gdim#7/Bb? Seems awkward.

Yeah, I think it would normally be notated as Gdim/Bb. People don't normally write Gdim#7, just as they don't write Gm#7, they write Gm which implies Gm6 & Gm#7, the Im chord, versus Gm7 for the IIm chord.

You're thinking of this chord? (yes, I see you mentioned it)
C dim#7 | x-6-x-5-7-7 | - often used with: | x-6-x-5-7-5 |

I usually use it as a 13b9 chord as you said:
C13b9 | (8)-x-8-6-5-5 | and | (8)-x-8-9-10-9 |

P.S. - You said this chord doesn't contain the b9th, it's there: Bb(7th)-Db(b9)-E(3rd)-A(13th). You could add the root on the bottom E string.

Doubling the 3rd makes it sound prettier:
| x-7-8-6-5-5 | or | x-7-8-7-5-5 | (C13)

[Christian Miller]

I never learned to think that way. Maybe I should have.

But, meanwhile, I think of that chord as an A13b9/Bb. Not exactly right because of the absence of a 9th. The B doesn't sound good to me in that chord. On guitar, I don't play the A. It's easy enough to add it at the top of the chord, but I don't think it sounds very good in the soprano position. And, I don't play the B, which is possible with some stretching.

OTOH, on piano, the chord sounds better to me with the A in the middle of the voicing than it does without the A. That would be Bb G A Db F#. So, to my ear, A13b9 (no 9) sounds fine and that's the way I plan to continue to think about it.

For soloing, that's 5 chord tones. And, the tonal center is still D or D-adjacent. The rest by ear.

Well as dig says it’s a blues, it goes to IV in bar 4. So, this is one of those things Reg might call a chord pattern? Instead of going just D7 G or A-7 D7 G you have Bbo7 A-7 D7 G which is a classic songbook progression


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

Well as dig says it’s a blues, it goes to IV in bar 4. So, this is one of those things Reg might call a chord pattern? Instead of going just D7 G or A-7 D7 G you have Bbo7 A-7 D7 G which is a classic songbook progression


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That seems right. I still like the F# at the top of that diminished chord, which seems to complicate the naming of the chord, especially if you want a Bb in the bass.

So, it's a slight variant of the chord pattern you suggest.

Behind the solos, I get D^7 Eb9sus (or A7b9/Bb add6 - or whatever you want to call it) sliding into D7sus.

Or something like x5767x 6x567x 5x557x 10_x 10_9 8 (quickly moving the G to an F#) to Gmaj7 at the 10th fret Gm6 F7#9 B7b13 (dropping the G and then F#) Em9 Bb7 A7 Dm9 G13.

[ragman1]

Through no fault of your own, no doubt

Oh, doubtless.

I'm sure the thing can be twisted any which way but that's why theory's such a pain in the ass. Even I can say Em7's a sub for CM7 so it's really Ebo - Em7 just the like other ones so ya boo sucks I'm right, etc, etc.

But the truth is that the harm m doesn't work so well as the dim over a passing chord. It's a fact.

And I still don't like this triad idea. I like lots of notes to play with in a bar, not just three or four. Unless the triads are slipped in with the other stuff. I do that anyway, for what it's worth!

[Mick-7]

That seems right. I still like the F# at the top of that diminished chord, which seems to complicate the naming of the chord, especially if you want a Bb in the bass. So, it's a slight variant of the chord pattern you suggest.

Behind the solos, I get D^7 Eb9sus (or A7b9/Bb add6 - or whatever you want to call it) sliding into D7sus..

It's a symmetrical dim voicing so you can move it around like:
Gm#7/A13b9 | x-x-5-3-2-2 | > Am11 | x-x-2-2-3-3 | > D7#9b13 | x-x-4-3-1-1 | >

[PMB]

Well as dig says it’s a blues, it goes to IV in bar 4. So, this is one of those things Reg might call a chord pattern? Instead of going just D7 G or A-7 D7 G you have Bbo7 A-7 D7 G which is a classic songbook progression


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Change that I chord to its relative minor (Dmaj7 to Bm7) and it becomes even more so:

Bm7 Bbo7 Am7 D7 G

[pingu]

I think someone else mentioned this
already but the Wave melody
it work surprisingly well over
Blues for Alice changes (in D)

bar 2 could be
C#m7b5 F#7b5
or could be
C#o for the whole of bar 2

works well,
interesting i didn’t understand
Reg’s comment about Wave
being a blues till just now

[pingu]

in post 71 Christian you said

“If I’m soloing on it, I’ll be playing bebop stuff with a b9 on it and not stressing about the scale. Probably C7 going to the third of A7
and then into D7”

does that imply you’d be thinking
of the chord in bar 2 as C#o ?
(this also chimes in with the Blues for Alice changes on Wave idea above)

I guess it must be that, but I just wanted to check

[ragman1]

So what? Does this mean we play Wave with groovy minor pentatonics, double stops and lots of bendy notes?

I get very fed up with people proclaiming it's 'really a blues'. It's not the usual jazz blues and even if it were it wouldn't help. Wave isn't easy to improvise over but it's probably easier than Bird blues or Blues For Alice.

Nothing against you, pingu, just ranting.

[Christian Miller]

TIL the harmonic major was a concept in the later 19th century (and not in fact invented by jazz teachers in the 1970s lol) which makes sense as that b6 in major sound is such a hallmark of 19th century music.

[Christian Miller]

in post 71 Christian you said

“If I’m soloing on it, I’ll be playing bebop stuff with a b9 on it and not stressing about the scale. Probably C7 going to the third of A7
and then into D7”

does that imply you’d be thinking
of the chord in bar 2 as C#o ?
(this also chimes in with the Blues for Alice changes on Wave idea above)

I guess it must be that, but I just wanted to check

Yes, I guess so!

[pamosmusic]

So what? Does this mean we play Wave with groovy minor pentatonics, double stops and lots of bendy notes?

I get very fed up with people proclaiming it's 'really a blues'. It's not the usual jazz blues and even if it were it wouldn't help. Wave isn't easy to improvise over but it's probably easier than Bird blues or Blues For Alice.

Nothing against you, pingu, just ranting.

It’s pretty doggone close to a Bird Blues actually.

And yeah … knowing something is a blues has a lot of utility. When you listen to people play blues, they’re often playing phrase by phrase. So the first phrase of a blues could be blues licks, it could be the I chord, or it could be I IV #ivo back to I, or anything on up to a Coltrane matrix or Alice changes.

So knowing Wave is blues changes — and intentionally so — gives you a lot of other ideas besides just holding on to one change after the next

[Christian Miller]

So what? Does this mean we play Wave with groovy minor pentatonics, double stops and lots of bendy notes?

Well yes, I don't play a jazz blues like that lol.

So, fair, 'just a blues' isn't really a term I understand. When you have blues tunes that look like Dance of the Infidels on one hand and Night Train on the other, I don't think it means very much.

That said the melody of the song does reference the blues.

What doesn't help is I don't think a lot of people have a clear idea of a basic jazz blues or its substitutions. There's a book one could write on just that. Probably someone's done it?

[pamosmusic]

Well yes, I don't play a jazz blues like that lol.

So, fair, 'just a blues' isn't really a term I understand. When you have blues tunes that look like Dance of the Infidels on one hand and Night Train on the other, I don't think it means very much.

That said the melody of the song does reference the blues.

What doesn't help is I don't think a lot of people have a clear idea of a basic jazz blues or its substitutions. There's a book one could write on just that. Probably someone's done it?

Ever seen that wild matrix in the back of some of the David baker books?

It covers a whole page in tiny print and has all the substitutions he could think of for each bar.

[James W]

What doesn't help is I don't think a lot of people have a clear idea of a basic jazz blues or its substitutions. There's a book one could write on just that. Probably someone's done it?

This is pretty good -

Jazz Blues Soloing for Guitar: A Guitarist's Guide to Playing The Changes on a Jazz Blues (Learn How to Play Jazz Guitar) : Alexander, Mr Joseph, Pettingale, Mr Tim: Amazon.co.uk: Books

[Christian Miller]

This is pretty good -

Jazz Blues Soloing for Guitar: A Guitarist's Guide to Playing The Changes on a Jazz Blues (Learn How to Play Jazz Guitar) : Alexander, Mr Joseph, Pettingale, Mr Tim: Amazon.co.uk: Books

First chord of basic structure Bb7. CLANG! WRONG!

;-)

so, the book is fine if you want to learn a bunch of subs and so on, that's not really what I'm thinking of.

The basic structure - and already embellishments and substitutions - can be heard in the music of King Oliver and Louis Armstrong in the 20s. What followed built on that. Wave, Blues for Alice, Dance of the Infidels, whatever.

Most of the people writing these books seem to be interested in analysing jazz harmony primarily through the lens of modern jazz theory, starting maybe with bebop (although not really), so chords have to be some sort of seventh chord, not plain triads where the nature of the seventh is up to improviser, and so on. It becomes largely around pitch sets and chord symbols in concordance with the jazz is taught today, but not melodic units and basslines - the lore of the blues (I'm not even talking about folk blues aspects here).

But I really think learning early jazz really helps with understanding why later jazz is the way it is. This isn't a perspective that is much represented in jazz theory books.

So I vaguely get a notion to write something - but then that stuff is on the records. Is writing a book really in the spirit of it?

[James W]

First chord of basic structure Bb7. CLANG! WRONG!

;-)

so, the book is fine if you want to learn a bunch of subs and so on, that's not really what I'm thinking of.

The basic structure - and already embellishments and substitutions - can be heard in the music of King Oliver and Louis Armstrong in the 20s. What followed built on that. Wave, Blues for Alice, Dance of the Infidels, whatever.

Most of the people writing these books don't seem are analysing jazz harmony primarily through the lens of modern jazz theory, so chords have to be some sort of seventh chord, not plain triads where the nature of the seventh is up to improviser, and so on. It becomes largely around pitch sets and chord symbols, not basslines and melodic units. And so on.

But I really think learning early jazz really helps with understanding why later jazz is the way it is. This isn't a perspective that is much represented in jazz theory books.

Au privave springs to mind as a blues with the major 7th in the melody.

But yeah the book is good for some things but for others the info is best taken with a pinch of salt.

[Christian Miller]

Au privave springs to mind as a blues with the major 7th in the melody.

I would say it's more common than not in Bird's music. Bird really seemed to like

F6 | G-7 C7 (or Bb7) | F6 | C-7 F7 |
Bb7 | % | F6 | A-7 Ab-7 |
G-7 | C7 | F6 | G-7 C7 ||

reserving the dominant sound for the later part of the first 4 to create movement to IV much as the early guys did, and then very much the dominant sound on the Bb7. But then he does that in confirmation too, so it's not just a blues thing.

The minor sideslip in bar 8 isn't often in charts even for tunes like Moose the Mooche and Billie's Bounce where that's clearly what they are playing.

He did also play D7 there, but the sideslip clearly relates to Blues for Alice changes which I hear as

F6 | E-7 A7 | D- | C-7 F7 |
Bb7 | Bb-7 | A-7 | Ab-7 |
G-7 | C7 | F6 | G-7 C7 ||

And it relates back to the basic blues you can hear on many of the pre war records.

F6 | % | % | F7 |
Bb6 | % | F6 | % |
C7 | % | F6 | C7 |

But you'll find examples from other composers who have dominant chords and minor blues sounds more. Bird does use these when improvising.

Quite often Bird is playing the major mode while the piano is playing dominant chords - and so on. So Bird's own approach is not necessarily the be all and end all of bebop even. People played blues in a personalised way.

But yeah the book is good for some things but for others the info is best taken with a pinch of salt.

At continual risk of sounding like I'm on my high horse, this is why I'm disappointed by most books these days, but if others get things out of them that's great.

The thing that doesn't disappoint me is the music itself. But you can't listen to everything. It's always nice when someone points something out - in a chill way - that they've heard that's different from the usual thing that people do on a tune. Doesn't mean you have to do it, but often I find myself preferring it. So maybe books have a role.

[ragman1]

Oscar Peterson blues. Or so someone said.

G7 - C7 - G7 - Ab7/Db7
C7 - % - G7 - B7/E7
A7 - D7 - G7 - D7

[Mick-7]

But I really think learning early jazz really helps with understanding why later jazz is the way it is. This isn't a perspective that is much represented in jazz theory books.

So I vaguely get a notion to write something - but then that stuff is on the records. Is writing a book really in the spirit of it?

Sounds like a book you could write, Christian, i.e, the evolution of jazz harmony with references to recordings that illustrate the various stages of its progression. You appear to be qualified to write such a book, and I think there'd be a market for it (I'd buy it).

[Christian Miller]

Sounds like a book you could write, Christian, i.e, the evolution of jazz harmony with references to recordings that illustrate the various stages of its progression. You appear to be qualified to write such a book, and I think there'd be a market for it (I'd buy it).

That's kind. The late Alan K said something similar. It would be a huge project!

I think if I've learned something it's that I do best when I pick things that aren't over ambitious. A history of changes for the blues would be more manageable.

[Mick-7]

A history of changes for the blues would be more manageable.

That would be fine and useful, in fact, no doubt a bigger market for it than a "history of of jazz harmony" monolith that would only interest music nerds.

[Bob_Ross]

re: what is the blues?

Two quotes (paraphrased) stand out to me:

Tom Hojnacki, a professor at the New England Conservatory of Music back in the 90s when I was getting my Masters in Composition there, once said "The blues is basically 'Oh, we're here' ...followed by 'Ah, now we're somewhere else, a little farther away from here' ...followed by 'Ah-ha, we're back to here!' ...and then 'Oh my, this is about as far away from here as one can get!' "

Frank Drake -- aka Arthor Weinstein (as the former he's a reasonably well-known bluegrass mandolinist in New England; as the latter he's a semi-unknown avant-jazz composer/performer) -- once characterized the blues as "A little bit of This...then a little bit of That...back to some more of This...then Holy Crap Where'd This Come From?!?!"

Assigning chord names/harmonic functions to those three areas is just drilling down to specifics...some might claim, unnecessarily.

[Bob_Ross]

Matter of interest, what do you do with dim chords?

And that question reminds me of an interview I read a couple years ago -- I wanna say it was with Bill Connors, but the more I think about it it might've been one of the younger, more contemporary guys...Ben Monder? Julian Lage? I forget now! But it was someone who took a few guitar lessons with Mick Goodrick -- and that guitarist-whose-name-I-forget said (I'm paraphrasing again)

"So Mick and I are jamming, just improvising freely, and after it's all over Mick asked me 'Why did you use so many diminished chords?' and all I could say was 'well, what else can I do to convey outness?' "


I will confess, I (probably all too often) will use symmetrical diminished patterns as a way to navigate a harmonic passage that would otherwise require too much micro-management of pitch material...like, I know this is gonna sound a bit out for a while, but it has a trajectory of its own that will sound wonderfully kinetic in the moment, and gloriously satisfying when it finally resolves.

iow, I'm lazy.
Thanks, Octatonic Man!

[ragman1]

It’s pretty doggone close to a Bird Blues actually.

Of course it is. But when it's proclaimed that 'Wave is really a blues' it's extremely misleading because they're going to think of the standard three or four-chord type of blues.

It isn't, far from it. I know you know all this but I'm saying it here anyway for those who don't.

The Bird blues is Charlie Parker's reharm of the usual 12-bar jazz blues. It starts with a M7 chord, not a dominant, and goes through all kinds of chromatic ii-V's till the end.

In the Wave key of D maj, that's like this:

DM7 - C#m7b5/F#7 - Bm7/E7 - Am7/D7
G7 - Gm7/C7 - F#m7/B7 - Fm7/Bb7
Em7 - A7 - DM7/B7 - Em7/A7

Compare with Wave, which is actually much simpler... except I've left out all the extensions/alterations on the chords, sometimes two in a bar.

DM7 - Bbo - Am7 - D7
GM7 - Gm6 - F#7 - B7
Bm7/E7 - Bb7/A7 - Dm7/G7 - %

So, yes, it's a blues but it's not standard. Anyone who thinks they can play Wave because they can get round an ordinary 12-bar is fooling themselves. For one thing Wave is a fairly fast tune, you've barely done one chord and you're on to the next. Second, it's a bossa nova tune, not a blues tune. And it's not easy to solo over, believe me.

So -

knowing something is a blues has a lot of utility... So knowing Wave is blues changes — and intentionally so — gives you a lot of other ideas besides just holding on to one change after the next

I'm afraid I don't agree. Wave is no walk in the park whether it's 'technically a blues' or not.