-
AHA!
Originally Posted by JonnyPac
You are making the assumption that the Cmaj chord implies the scale CDEFGAB.
Granted, in western music this is almost always the case, and our ears have been "trained" to accept this. However, in jazz, when a chord is written just as "C", it doesn't necessarily mean Cmaj7. My guitar teacher, to teach me a lesson, used to really emphasize the dominant 7 in his solos when a chord was simply written as a major chord, because I would always voice it as a maj7 chord. Then afterwards he would yell at me to stop assuming that the chord has a major 7.
So, ASSUMING that we are absolutely in the key of C major, you are correct
-
01-02-2011 07:53 PM
-
I'm a huge Radiohead fan. Their songs have been covered by a few great contemporary jazz pianists. I have some of Muse's stuff too. I think this kind of music has some jazz potential. I know they use few 7th chords, and that does open up the harmony more than typical rock. Though most indi/post-rock is still triad based, they use a lot of extensions in the melodies and lead lines. The extensions are usually very inside and modal. I really enjoy it sometimes. Sigur Ros is my fav. Guitar with a violin bow and high pretty volcals, very relaxing stuff. Originally Posted by timscarey
Oh yeah, Tortoise too. That's almost jazz. It's awesome innovative stuff.
***
Thanks guys, you are so kind. I'm still here till this resolves. I don't like conflict.
-
I think that "having jazz potential" is not the same thing as being jazz. That being said, even a lot of jazz gets away from functional harmony. That also would not be a great example from which to learn functional harmony. Even a lot of classical gets away from functional harmony - so that too would not be a great example from which to learn functional harmony. But there are great examples in jazz and classical from which to learn functional harmony. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Pop/rock, on the other hand, very often does not use true functional harmony, and when it does it's often .... er how do I put this delicately? ... clumsy? Block voicings, unresolved tensions, bad (or non-existent) voice leading, repetitive modal vamps, non-harmonic melodies, etc. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. Rock/pop is it's own aesthetic and has the right to make up it's own "rules." When I say it's handling of harmony is "clumsy," that is only by the standard of jazz/classical, and that is not a fair way to judge it. It would be like a classical trumpet player listening to Randy Brecker and complaining because he is playing behind the beat. But jazz has a different aesthetic and cannot be judged by classical's playing aesthetic. The same is true of harmony.
But that leaves pop/rock as a dubious source to learn traditional harmony as jazz or classical sees it. It would be like trying to lean ballet by taking tap dancing lessons Yeah, you'll pick up a few good things, but you'll also pick up some bad habits (relative to ballet.) If you want to learn jazz harmony, study jazz. If you want to learn classical harmony, study that. If you like pop, go ahead and listen to it. If it inspires you, go for it. But just understand that their "rules" of harmony are often very different. True, some modern jazz incorporates some of the same ideas, but that is the jazz that is getting away from functional harmony. Again, nothing wrong with that, it's just different.
Peace,
Kevin
-
There's no reason to feel guilty about it. I like doing pop tunes for jazz. I'm writing up and arrangement of "I Wish" to do with a bass player. I do the Herbie Handcock version of "Scarborough Fair" all the time. There are a few Beatles tunes in there too. I think that it's a great thing to do. The ones that I enjoy doing are the pop tunes that come closest to functional harmony, since that's what I like in jazz too. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I know that, Kevin. Call it a guilty pleasure!
I'm not saying not to like or use pop tunes, just don't expect to learn the "rules" of harmony from them - because they do a lot of things that don't fit in the traditional jazz harmonic language. (But then again so does a lot of modern jazz.)
Peace,
Kevin
-
KS I like your general point - to teach trad. jazz harmony, learn trad jazz. To teach pop harmony, learn from pop. Etc.
In one sense you could say that there are few universal harmonic rules - just things that apply in certain genres. Half of the V7 chords in a blues resolve to IV7
-
I can understand the derivations but as a Rock/Pop composer I prefer to be able to EXPAND everything into one key as much as possible, conceptually, not implying modulations or temporary modulations every time there's a flat II major chord or a minor iv or a flat VI major in a major key.
Last edited by Robertkoa; 01-07-2011 at 01:35 AM.
-
Greetings and interesting points. I also enjoyed your stacked fourths lesson. First off let me embarrass myself in a way that I'm proud of by saying that to a Beatleophile such as myself the (Parallel) keys of Cm and C are one key... The key of C! Why would I need to run all the way to the 2nd tone of the relative major OF the parallel minor to "borrow" a IVm when it's right there as the IV(m) of the parallel minor and... what a happy coincidence, it's Dorian! I'm so comfortable with this chord I'm not going to borrow it at all, I'm going to appropriate it to my happy little key of C and use it anytime... anytime that is that I'm not already trying to express Dorian on the I (i -whatever). But that's just me, I can't yet prove it on a musical staff! As to your odd scale - the Lydian Diminished scale (I think it's a fine name! Outside thinkers they were), I found a very interesting set of places to use it I think quite MELODICALLY, and I would be curious to see what anyone thinks that is willing to run through it. Note that the scale sometimes will, but will NOT ALWAYS INCLUDE THE TONIC of the given modality. Lydian Diminished scale - 1 2 b3 #4 5 6 7
Ionian (modality) IIm V7 I, etc. Play Lyd. Dim from the I (melodic lydian?)
Dorian Im IV7, etc. Play Lyd. Dim from the bIII
Phrygian I (or Im) bII bIII IVm, etc. Play Lyd. Dim from the bVI
Lydian Ima7//// VIm//// IIIm//// #IVm7b5// VIIm7//
(sorry - my first attempt at a "Lydian progression") Play Lyd. Dim from the V
Mixolydian I7 Play Lyd. Dim from the bVII
Aeolian Im IVm bVII bIIIma7 Play Lyd. Dim from the bIII (again)
Locrian wherever you might use it, substitute Lyd. Dim. a tritone away
-
-
On the other hand, plain old F Ab C Eb is just fine over a IV minor chord. Pat Martino plays his famous Pat Martino lick over not only the IV minor chord but superimposed over the V chord. The IV min it turns out is just a variation of the V chord. With a plain old Dorian it's like a V11b9#5. Sounds just fine to me.
-
Just a completely off the wall suggestion ( Originally Posted by JonnyPac
), but if one's purpose is to make single-note lines that "fit" the composers intentions (what you might call the composer's "linear" harmony), then why not rasie the odds to 100% and use the reduced melody and chord tones as a pitch collection? That way, you can avoid the possibility of playing a clunker or not-original-intent note, which following along the designated CST finger pattern will give you sometimes. If, after using the actual melody, one wishes to "build" (ie add harmonic color not intended by the composer), build in a deliberate and orderly way, adding or changing one or maybe two notes at a time to the composer's pitch collection? Ah, the heck with it, just play your favorite scales.
So, what's the verdict? Is the IVm a IVm?Last edited by Aristotle; 04-19-2011 at 09:09 AM.
-
I don't think you'll ever get an answer on this forum. Originally Posted by Aristotle
If you're talking scales, I don't know. Someone else can take that one. I just think that if you're talking real-world-non-improv harmony, I IV I and I iv I seem to function exactly the same way. They've been used by composers for several hundred years(?) in otherwise benign harmonic contexts to suit the whim of said composer or sometimes preceded by a major IV to add a little harmonic movement in a cadence. [Is IV I a real cadence anyway? In modern terms isn't it more of a sub? I didn't say that. Go away ancient thread!]
Given their long tradition and use in even the simplest tunes, my ear doesn't hear them as being a huge change in tonality. Their certainly much more mundane than the most common secondary dominants.
-
I IV V and I iv V are worlds apart. Not sure what you're saying.
-
I'm talking about function. The minor IV sounds like a IV and is often used in similar ways to its major counterpart. When I hear a minor IV, I don't think, "There's a ii7 of a new key". It's often resolving the way a IV chord would. Originally Posted by jzucker
Edit: I just saw that you used I IV V in your example. That's not quite what I was talking about.
-
disagree. Minor IV sounds *NOTHING* like major IV and is a completely different function. Minor 4 is actually a substitute for an altered dominant chord in many bebop tunes. It's really a suspension of the bVII7 chord (i.e. Bb13) in the key of C. Nothing like a IV chord.
Incidentally, this is why I hate "paper" theory.
-
I agree minor and major four courds sound completely different. However, function depends on context. Both can be used as part of a plagel cadence, however in jazz, the minor four (fm) its 2 - 5 (fm-Bb7) or just the 5 (Bb7) are often used for the same purpose. A plagel cadnce using the major four is very uncommon in jazz but if found more fequently in triad - based music. So if we limit ourselves to jazz only I would agree that those two chords are comepletly different in sound and in function, if this were 1750, there might be more of a discussion. IMHO.
-
Right but this is a jazz forum and i believe it's 2011 so hopefully we're discussing it's use within the last 50-60 years. Originally Posted by timscarey
However, major IV as a sub for V is extremely common in jazz. The major IV chord is an inversion of the iim7 chord and is just a suspension of the V chord. (i.e. G7sus)
Remember, all diatonic chords in a given key are essentially synonyms / inversions of any other chord in that key. What makes it interesting is when we superimpose the diatonic chord sequences from other related keys.
For example over a G7:
Diatonic to C
Cmaj7 Dm7 Em7 Fmaj7 G7 Am7 Bm7b5
From the IVmin perspective
EbMaj7 Fm7 Gm7 Abmaj7 Bb7 Cm7 Dm7b5
From the Abm7 perspective
Gbmaj7 Abm7 Bbm7 Cbmaj7 Db7 Ebm7 Fm7b5
etc., etc.,Last edited by jzucker; 04-19-2011 at 01:12 PM.
-
IV as a sub for V? Hmmmm. Interesting. I'm not sure that I've ever noticed that in a tune. I dig the idea. Do you have a tune or two that uses that as an example?
In terms of chords being synonyms, I always think of it as two groups.
In C
CMaj = Amin = Emin (phrygian)
Dmin6 = Fmaj(b5) = G9 = B half-dim
So I guess I just answerd my own question, except that I still can't think of a tune that uses it.Last edited by timscarey; 04-19-2011 at 01:25 PM.
-
Any tune that has a non altered V chord. Originally Posted by timscarey
F A C E (IV maj7) is simply a V9sus chord.
-
Okay, I see what you are saying. I see how its that same notes, but the bass player is still playing a G, and the chord type is still G7, its just a suspended dominant. In the case of the minor four cadence, the root of the minor four chord is the chord name and bass note. I feel like in the world of rootless voicings, a distiction should be made.
While Am11 could just be called an Eminor chord, the name would suggest that it is functioning as an A minor chord.
Fmaj7/G.... that must the the answer, because inevitably the reader will have a strong leaning twards Fmaj7 harmony and it doesn't box it in to being a straight "G chord"
Interesting.
-
I'm not a big theory debate guy, but my understanding is that if it's subbing for another chord it's functioning as that chord and not a IV. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
In the key of C, Fm7 most often resolves to Bb, but I wouldn't use that as an example of the function of a IV chord. It's functioning as a ii7 of Eb. It's true that it's nothing like a IV chord in that context as well. Saying a chord is "subbing for" another chord is essentially the same as saying it is "functiong as" another chord.
-
No it doesn't. What's your data source for that empirical statement? Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
If the chord progression is going back to C then the Fm7 is a substitution for a G7.
Not true unless there is an Ebmaj modulation following it.but I wouldn't use that as an example of the function of a IV chord. It's functioning as a ii7 of Eb.
Right. Applying principles of chord movement from the baroque period to jazz is not always the best practice.It's true that it's nothing like a IV chord in that context as well. Saying a chord is "subbing for" another chord is essentially the same as saying it is "functiong as" another chord.
-
Alright, dude. I did those last couple of responses from my phone. Maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant, "If the key of the moment is C and one encounters an Fm7 chord (or any other non-diatonic minor 7 chord) it will function as ii7 of Eb more often than any of the other options." I don't have a source in front of me, and I'm not going to look anything up for the sake of this discussion.
I'm pretty sure that Leavitt discusses it in his Modern Guitar Method book in a section on what to play over non-diatonic m7 chords. Something to the effect of "the ear hears a non-diatonic m7 chord as a ii7...play dorian." Without looking it up I'm pretty sure you can find something in "Hearing the Changes" by Jerry Coker and friends confirming that the most common use of m7 chords is as a ii7 in a new key. I don't believe either of these books were written during the time of J.S. Bach.
I'm sorry if I implied anything other than the idea that I was referring to a modulation. I wasn't talking about going back to C. I was talking about the "key of moment" before the modulation. Originally Posted by jzucker
Fm7 Bb7 is a modulation. That's what I intended. Looking back, it probably wasn't clear. Originally Posted by jzucker
If you see Fm7 Bb7 in a tune which "at the moment" is in C, it's not functioning as a IV. Sure, it has a diatonic letter name, but it's in a different key at that point and has a different function.
Back to your example, if an Fm7 is subbing for a G7 chord, is it really functioning as a IV chord? I would say it's functioning as a dominant chord, G7.
-
ok bro. If Leavett said it, is must be right. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
In the meantime, in 1945 Bird wouldn't have been caught dead playing dorian over bar 2 of yardbird suite. Oh yeah, sorry . That must not be a ivm7 chord either.
-
For the record, this was one of the first threads I started and I have changed my tune since. Minor iv and ii of the parallel minor key are both F Dorian: same shiz. F MM makes sense for less key signature modification. I think both chords are used as frequently as each other. You can avoid all of the questionable notes to play it safe, yes. Call it "min iv" call it "hnshfgusaegflui", in the end it's the sound we all know and use well.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale