Cmaj7 to C#dim7th

[pamosmusic]

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.

Will they? With everyone referencing Blues for Alice? I can’t really help that.

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

You’re too kind.

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 - %

You should take a look at the way Bird plays over blues for Alice. His first chorus, that first line (transposed to D) he literally plays Dmaj7 — Bbo7/F#7 — D7 — rest

The second time through he plays the Bm7 a bit.

The third time through, he trades the Bbm out for something like Bo.

The way people actually play blues is often by treating the three main phrases as units and trading units out as they please. You have to use your ear. And you have to play the tune — so if you just play Dm blues licks over the tune it won’t sound like Wave or Blues for Alice. But if you just ride the changes and don’t know what they’re doing there it’ll also probably sound bad.

Thats (part of) what Christian was talking about when he said people often don’t really understand how blues actually works. This is extremely common.

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.

Didnt say it was easy.

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

You don’t see the utility. Say la vee. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

[ragman1]

Well, I know all that, mostly. I didn't say I couldn't play it, though!

I know Parker plays BfA in three sections, as it were. Personally, I tend to do that with any blues, simply because it scans properly. It feels right that way and doesn't really work any other way (like four lines of three chords).

if you just play Dm blues licks over the tune it won’t sound like Wave or Blues for Alice. But if you just ride the changes and don’t know what they’re doing there it’ll also probably sound bad.

Absolutely. But I wasn't really talking about people who understand all that, I was thinking of those who'll think in terms of a standard blues, if that's the right word.

I shouldn't think there are many people, including myself, who can dash off Blues For Alice in that bebop style. But I've never heard anyone play Wave like a straight-ahead bebop tune either. Do they exist? Probably!

[pingu]

Moving swiftly on ….

Any one got some good ideas
for bar 6 of Bye Bye Blackbird
in F

over the Abo
seems to require a different approach
maybe ? more old school maybe ?

[Christian Miller]

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 mean diminished seventh chords been conveying "outness" since the 1700s... for instance over a pedal.

There's other ways to do it, is probably what Mick meant I guess? It can end up sounding like a silent movie if you aren't careful. It's such a strong sound, it's like truffle oil.

When Barry Harris passed away, Ethan Iverson wrote an obit in the Nation that characterised him as the diminished chord guy in stark contrast to every pianist after Bill Evans that avoided the sound.

To the extent that we can attribute a split in the harmonic approach of the jazz community in such broad terms (we can't, but go with it) - it would be that dim chords hark back to an era before bebop even - looking back to songbook harmony, pre war jazz and the music of Brahms, Chopin, Bach and so on. In contrast the use of added note and colouristic harmony under the influence of Bill Evans signals a different approach, albeit one that has become the dominant school for several decades now, and I would include Mick as someone important for bringing that sort of approach into the guitar world.

It's notable that the diminished chords in tunes tend to vanish during the bop era and later - the reharmonisation of Stella is a classic example. It's rarer to hear the #IVo7 in bar 5 of a blues as well as time wears on. Increasingly the sound is reified as 'old timey' in tunes like Doxy.

OTOH it's also noticeable that many players don't seem to be taught the traditional diatonic context of diminished chords, instead relating them to the diminished scale. The implication seems to be that they are not that important any more - and you can sub them for a II V that sounds 'hipper' and more modern anyway. I remember Reg saying something like that explicitly. To him the old school thing sounds 'muddy.' But Rembrandt might seem muddy if you are used to Marc Chagall, I guess.

Nowadays I think players are more interested in the old song book harmony. Perhaps because it's no longer something that's part of mainstream music and therefore no longer perceived as corny and commonplace.

The diminished scale on the other hand has the nice quality of being substitutable for basically any dominant chord, resolving or colour, and allowing you to use big variety chord structures that aren't diminished on both diminished and dominant chords (and by extension minor and half dim chords). Which reminds me that I should get back to it.

[pamosmusic]

Moving swiftly on ….

Any one got some good ideas
for bar 6 of Bye Bye Blackbird
in F

over the Abo
seems to require a different approach
maybe ? more old school maybe ?

A lot of lead sheets put D7 there.

Or you can leave the diminished and go back to the first couple pages of this thread … it’s I biiio ii V … which is the same progression being discussed in the OP

[pamosmusic]

Well, I know all that, mostly. I didn't say I couldn't play it, though!I

Oh well pardon.

know Parker plays BfA in three sections, as it were. Personally, I tend to do that with any blues, simply because it scans properly. It feels right that way and doesn't really work any other way (like four lines of three chords).

You seem to be missing the operative thing. The first phrase is — I … get to IV. The second phrase is IV … get to V. The third phrase is V … get to I.

There is tons of flexibility in how you might go about doing that and people change them out on the fly.

A bass player might be playing blues for Alice in the first four — and the soloist might play I - IV #ivo - I7 - bV7

or any number of other things. There’s a balance between playing the song and making your solo sound like the song itself — playing the melody, hitting some of the idiosyncratic changes — and using the freedom that a blues form provides.

So Wave can work sort of the same way.

Absolutely. But I wasn't really talking about people who understand all that, I was thinking of those who'll think in terms of a standard blues, if that's the right word.

It is a great service you do.

I shouldn't think there are many people, including myself, who can dash off Blues For Alice in that bebop style. But I've never heard anyone play Wave like a straight-ahead bebop tune either. Do they exist? Probably!

Im not really sure what this means

[Mick-7]

Moving swiftly on ….

Any one got some good ideas
for bar 6 of Bye Bye Blackbird
in F

over the Abo
seems to require a different approach
maybe? more old school maybe?

Red Garland with Miles plays Am7-D7(b9) rather than Abo7 there (to Gm7). Or the F^7 (bar 5) is an Am7, to D7 (bar 6), to Gm7, etc.

[pamosmusic]

Red Garland with Miles plays Am7-D7(b9) rather than Abo7 there (to Gm7).

Whoa whoa whoa — so what you’re saying is that they sub out the biii diminished for a VI7 chord?

gasp.

[Mick-7]

Whoa whoa whoa — so what you’re saying is that they sub out the biii diminished for a VI7 chord? gasp.

I think you said it yourself earlier, Peter, D7 and not Abo7, see the addendum to my post. But h/w dim. scale over D7b9 would include: Ab-B-D-F.

[pamosmusic]

I think you said it yourself earlier, Peter, D7 and not Abo7, see the addendum to my post.

I was joking because this is a really common thing that seemed somewhat controversial earlier in the thread

[Mick-7]

I was joking because this is a really common thing that seemed somewhat controversial earlier in the thread

Oh right, the whole Abo7 vs Ao7 thing.... we didn't declare a winner to that fight, did we?

[pamosmusic]

Oh right, the whole Abo7 vs Ao7 thing.... we didn't declare a winner to that fight, did we?

Two chords doing the same job. Doesn’t need to be a winner.

[pingu]

playing D7 seems odd in bar 6
with the melody note being G !
——————
also sorry Pamos but
I can’t see D7 subbing for Abo
(Ao maybe or F#o maybe)
——————

Here we go again !
some of us on here seem to think
this is very easy and obvious

sorry if I’m pushing the dim thing
too much , but it’s still presenting
mysteries to me ….

of all the theoretical options
presented , when i actually try them
out on BBBlackbird , i think I’m
finding G7b9 , G HW dim ideas the most ‘correct’

work in progress tho

[pingu]

Oh right, the whole Abo7 vs Ao7 thing.... we didn't declare a winner to that fight, did we?

I believe that Abo Ao dichotomy is the
main source of my confusion

if I play an Abo arpeggio there in the
tune …. it sounds good
(maybe because it’s subbing for
G7)

also
if I play an Ao arp there it also
sounds good
(maybe because it’s subbing for
D7 or F#o)

???

[pamosmusic]

I believe that Abo Ao dichotomy is the
main source of my confusion

if I play an Abo arpeggio there in the
tune …. it sounds good

also
if I play an Ao arp there it also
sounds good

???

Because both chords are doing the same job. They voicelead well to Gm7.

Ta da

[pamosmusic]

playing D7 seems odd in bar 6
with the melody note being G !
——————
also sorry Pamos but
I can’t see D7 subbing for Abo
(Ao maybe or F#o maybe)
——————

Here we go again !
some of us on here seem to think
this is very easy and obvious

sorry if I’m pushing the dim thing
too much , but it’s still presenting
mysteries to me ….

of all the theoretical options
presented , when i actually try them
out on BBBlackbird , i think I’m
finding G7b9 , G HW dim ideas the most ‘correct’

work in progress tho

Theres no “I can’t see D7 subbing for Abo” … it just literally does. As Mick mentioned, that’s what Miles used much of the time. It sounds good.

Abdim sounds lovely going to Gm7 in Bye Bye Blackbird. Red Garland uses D7, which also sounds lovely going to Gm7 in Bye Bye Blackbird. Therefore: Abdim and D7 both work going to Gm7 in Bye Bye Blackbird.

If you want to think about it theoretically, you’re using the wrong theory. Just try to voicelead the chords. Think about it as a part writing exercise, rather than a chord scale exercise.

Ab diminished voiceleads well to Gm7

Ab down to G … B down to Bb … D is a common tone … F is a common tone.

A or F# diminished also voiceleads well to Gm7

F# up to G … A down to the G … C down to Bb … Eb down to G.

Its two different sounds — Ab dim has this feeling of collapsing into Gm7 and A dim has this feeling of pressing into Gm7 in a more traditional dominant tonic kind of way.

When you have two chords that are there to accomplish the same goal, or go to the same chord — you can very very very often sub one out for the other in that context.

It doesn’t mean that “D7 is a good sub for Abdim.” If the Ab dim is resolving to Am, then D7 probably won’t work well because D7 doesn’t pull the ear to Am. But when Abdim is going to Gm7, the D7 can work in its place.

Grant Green does this at the end of his third chorus on Green St. It’s a pretty common sound.

[pingu]

Because both chords are doing the same job. They voicelead well to Gm7.

Ta da

yes they both do !
doesn’t that seem odd to you ?

maybe the subs are working two
completely different ways see my
edit of my post #115 below

Edit yes I see your good explanation below , thanks

[pamosmusic]

yes they both do !
doesn’t that seem odd to you ?

maybe the subs are working two
completely different ways see my
edit of my post #115 below

Not really.

How many chords can go before Gm7?

Its kind of a ridiculous question to ask because its context dependent and any number of chords could sound good in any given context.

Voiceleading solves all.

If you can find a 7th chord that would require any voice to move more than a whole step to voicelead to a Gm7, I’ll Venmo you $10.

Itd have to be some kind of cluster or something. Anyway - point is, when chord scale theory hits a wall, voiceleading almost always works. Voiceleading isn’t a stand in for harmonic analysis; rather it’s the other way around

[Christian Miller]

What you use depends on the melody too

If you have the melody on the 1 of the key, then your choices are a dead non descript BORING VIm7, an old school bIIIo7 or a VI7#9.

The last chord seems to involve telling off for some reason. Levine, Barry, doesn't matter. They tell you off for different reasons.

Best avoided haha

bIII13 is a nice choice too. For some reason I don't feel as naughty playing that as a VI7#9? No idea why, if the bass is on VI it's a VI7alt.

And then obviously there's the more radical rhearm options but they'd possibly clash more with the bass.

OTOH if the melody is on degree 3 you'd want to avoid the bIIIo7....

And so on.

When it comes to soloing... it's a passing chord innit.

Do what you like, but if you are playing with another comping instrument you may need to be more careful depending on how big their ears are. Trio, or Quartet with sax, bass and drums for instance, you have more freedom.

[Mick-7]

I believe that Abo Ao dichotomy is the
main source of my confusion

if I play an Abo arpeggio there in the
tune …. it sounds good
(maybe because it’s subbing for
G7)

also
if I play an Ao arp there it also
sounds good
(maybe because it’s subbing for
D7 or F#o)

???

The simple answer is that the diminished scale includes both chords:

[Christian Miller]

Itd have to be some kind of cluster or something. Anyway - point is, when chord scale theory hits a wall, voiceleading almost always works. Voiceleading isn’t a stand in for harmonic analysis; rather it’s the other way around

Quite.

There's this geriatric video of Kurt comping a blues. Strong/Weak. The weak chords are all on beat 3 and don't necessarily have anything to do with one another - instead they voice lead in various ways to the target chord.

And then all the bop lines where people play bIIIo7 on V7 and things like that. I can feel a 'no-one teaches this' Chase Maddox style thumbnail coming on haha... but they do teach it. At least djg says they do.

Maybe just Ritchie Hart and Peter Bernstein.

Actually I have no idea, anyone?

I just watched that video and was like 'ooooooh'

[pamosmusic]

The simple answer is that the diminished scale includes both chords:

Attachment 122202

or

OTOH it's also noticeable that many players don't seem to be taught the traditional diatonic context of diminished chords, instead relating them to the diminished scale. The implication seems to be that they are not that important any more - and you can sub them for a II V that sounds 'hipper' and more modern anyway. I remember Reg saying something like that explicitly. To him the old school thing sounds 'muddy.' But Rembrandt might seem muddy if you are used to Marc Chagall, I guess.

[pingu]

Pamos said I asked a ‘ridiculous
question’
then
Ragman says less ‘stupid talk and
more trying it out Pingu’ ….

I’m just trying to discuss diminished
harmony here ….

not to get myself diminished !

[pamosmusic]

Pamos said I asked a ‘ridiculous
question’
then
Ragman says less ‘stupid talk and
more trying it out Pingu’ ….

I’m just trying to discuss diminished
harmony here ….

not to get myself diminished !

I most definitely did not say you asked a ridiculous question.

I just posed a hypothetical question and said my own question would be a ridiculous question.

[pingu]

Ok sorry , misread you Peter
thankyou for clarifying that