Mark Levine: The Phrygian Mode and the Susb9 Chord

[JonR]

Just messin' around and I played a Gb9sus to a C Lydian type chord and it sounded really nice. I'm on my way out the door right but later I'll post the voicings.

(The Gb9sus's top voice is the root on the high E, 3rd fret, the C Lydian's top voice is the #11 on the 2nd fret of the high E)

You mean "Gsusb9", I take it, not "Gb9sus":

Gsusb9 = G C D F Ab (G7sus4 with a b9)
Gb9sus = Gb Cb Db Fb Ab (Gb dom9 sus4)

What voicing are you using for the Gsusb9? (I'm finding it hard to get the root on top E with all the other notes present. It seems to me as if it would be more like Fm69 (same notes), or a kind of Dm7b5 with an 11th. As with most sus chords, if the root is not on the bottom its identity becomes debatable.)

[Spirit59]

Yeah JonR, I agonized over how I should notate that chord because I didn't want anyone to think it was Gb, but I always see b9sus written, so I was torn...

Here's what I was playing - the bass notes might not get played, depending....'specially with doubling the root like that in the first chord...

There's also no b7 in the first one either, but I still use it as a "Phrygian chord"....maybe I'll get a disqualification.....

[JonR]

Yeah JonR, I agonized over how I should notate that chord because I didn't want anyone to think it was Gb, but I always see b9sus written, so I was torn...

Here's what I was playing - the bass notes might not get played, depending....'specially with doubling the root like that in the first chord...

There's also no b7 in the first one either, but I still use it as a "Phrygian chord"....maybe I'll get a disqualification.....

It's a shame to lose the F (it would resolve well down to E in traditional manner), but that's a nice sounding chord.
Personally, I'd want it to move in a more connected way to the Cmaj7#11 - see thumbnails below.
The first one lacks an E in the Cmaj9#11 (making it Gmaj7/C), but keeping that in makes the chord pretty much impossible on guitar. The second complete Cmaj9#11 is definitely impossible on guitar* - but sounds a lot better (IMO).

IMO, I'd call the first chord Fm69/G. I realise it's the same thing as Gsusb9, but it highlights the similarity to a minor IV chord, which is how I think it's working. Just a matter of perspective I guess.

* except as a rootless voicing, 12-10-9-7-7-x

[Ron Stern]

JonR, many thanks for your thoughtful and informed reply.

"This mode [E phrygian] appears as though it would be played over an E-7 chord. C, the b6 of E-7, sounds very dissonant
against the chord, as you'll hear when you play figure 3-44" [E-G-B-D chord in left hand, with a C in right hand, above the D].
"You usually play C on E-7 only in diatonic progressions such as III-VI-II-V (E-7, A-7, D-7, G7, in C major), where the C in the E-7 chord is
played only as a passing note."
- IMO, that's confusingly phrased, because - if it's a passing note - the C isn't "in" the Em7 chord.

That's true, although I didn't pick up on it. My problems were: In the first place, I wouldn't think to play E Phrygian over Em7 as the iiim7 of C, because that's just pretending that you're not playing in Ionian. And if I did think to play E Phrygian over Em7, I wouldn't dwell on the C, because that is playing Ionian, so why call it Phrygian? You can dwell on the C in any mode of C, so why is only one mode a problem?

Is he trying to say that if you want a Phrygian sound over iii7, it has to be a different mode than the Phrygian of I, because the tonic will be the b6 of the iii7? And/or, hey, check out this other Phrygian, it's good over the iii7? But even taking all that on faith, how does he get, a few sentences later, to subbing in a susb9 for a dominant chord?

He goes on:
"The Phrygian mode is usually played, not over minor 7th chords, but over susb9 chords." [his italics]
Now, that's an assertion. He says "is" - not "can be", or "should be". So we need evidence! (He does give examples of course, but they're
less than convincing - see below.)

I don't know if I care how many people do it. I just want to know what's being changed to what, in what context. Til then it's useless to
me.

Anyway, his examples begin (3-46) with an Absusb9 chord from Duke Ellington's "Melancholia" (1953). This is to show how
Duke anticipated a lot of the so-called "new" sounds of 1960s jazz. Duke's Absusb9 resolves to a Dbmaj7. IOW, it seems to be functioning as a
V7, albeit with an alteration - which he notates as A natural (not Bbb), fairly low, a semitone above an Ab in left hand (Db-Eb-Gb above).
ML says the "Absusb9 chord comes from the Phrygian mode of the E major scale". Whoops! (Actually he inserts a footnote excusing the
enharmonic mismatch.)
But more importantly - and I take it this is your argument - where's the evidence that that's where the chord "comes from"? Certainly, with
some enharmonic adjustment, the chord can be harmonised from the E major scale. But it can also "come from" the C#/Db harmonic minor scale.
Or C#/Db harmonic major, for that matter.

Actually, I skipped the Duke Ellington example because (1) I still didn't understand (a) the proposition or (b) the context in which it's
supposed to operate and therefore (2) I went to the Freddie Hubbard thinking, oboy, a 2 5 1, that's a context sufficiently familiar that the
operation of the theory must appear clearly. Immediately I ran into the same general problem, it would seem, that you describe as to the
Duke Ellington:

But more importantly - and I take it this is your argument - where's the evidence that that's where the chord "comes
from"?

OK, so skip the Duke and let's check out Freddie:

Fig. 3-47: Freddie Hubbard's line is simply chord tones: D-C-G-Eb-D. Could be D phrygian (Bb major). Certainly no other
major scale mode contains those notes. But what about G harmonic minor or (less likely admittedly) G harmonic major? (There is an F# at the
end of the bar, but only as an anticipation of the maj7 of the G.)

I look at it this way: the passage is a 2 5 1 in G. For the V he subs in a susb9 on the V's root. This immediately abandons the context of
tonic vs. iii7, said to be the very foundation of the theory. Anyway, over the new chord we have a line which is from a different key. I
call that a key change.

The rest of your comments are beyond me, as I'm stuck on p. 49. I've saved them, thanks.

But this still bugs me:

ML doesn't say that a sus chord always includes the 3rd. He only says it can, and that it's a "myth" that it needs to
exclude the 3rd. (p.46)
He makes a good case (IMO) for adding the 3rd on top of a sus chord, but the implication (of course) is that it's a mixolydian sus: the 3rd
being major. (And the 9th in those cases is major too.) True, he does only give one example from recordings: a Wynton Kelly chord, voiced F-
Bb-Eb-G-A from bottom to top.
The chord is still a "sus" - in his estimation - because of the largely quartal voicing, and the overall sound of the chord. The optional 3rd
on top is a decoration.

That's a generous interpretation, inserting qualifications Mr. Levine doesn't use. What he says is "A persistent myth is that 'the 4th takes
the place of the 3d in a sus chord."

"In a sus chord" means in any sus chord, i.e. regardless of context, i.e. always. If it's always a myth then it's never true. The truth
therefore must be that the 4th never replaces the third. Stated positively, a sus chord always contains the 3d.

[Ron Stern]

One really simple explanation is modal interchange. Levine does not acknowledge that device AT ALL!

G and Bb Major are actually G and G Minor parallel keys. Bb is the relative major of Gm. D Phrygian is the iii of the key of Bb. The iii is a sub for V7 as far as ML goes, though I explained to Spirit, the M3 is implied creating "Phrygian Dominant", etc.

1. I don't know modal interchange
2. If it's needed to understand Mr. Levine it's for him to say so.

[Ron Stern]

I don't think he is wrong. He is explaining that D phrygian is the 3rd mode of Bb major: you play the Bb diatonic notes to get D Phrygian. He also is saying that many musicians use the Dsus b9 chord as a dominant chord,, in the key of G . It is another issue.

He says they're one issue. He goes from the tonic conflicting with the b7 of the iii7 to the Phrygian being played "not over minor, but over susb9 chords" without a new heading, a new paragraph, in fact, with only one sentence intervening between the two. And that sentence is not, "And here's something not directly related . . . "

[Ron Stern]

Ron,

Are you familiar with the terms 'relative minor' and 'tonic minor'? The relative minor shares the key signature while the tonic minor only shares the root. . . . You can look at the other modes the same way. You have relative modes and you have tonic modes.

This is to me one of the great wonderments of music theory. The only terminology I know is the terminology I invented, because I've found no other and gave up the search.

The first way -- modes of a scale, all the modes have the same notes, just in different orders. The key does not change.

The other way -- each mode of the scale has a unique pattern of whole and half steps; take one of those patterns and make a new scale from it. The key changes. To what? I haven't invented a name yet. But it's a new key for sure because the notes aren't the same as the orig. They couldn't be, and if they were, what would be the point?

[jzucker]

I like a variation of the pentatonic scale for that. Over G7, take the 2nd mode of the F pentatonic scale

G A C D F

And flat the 9th.

G Ab C D F

Or take a G pentatonic scale and alter it to pentatonic dominant

G A B D F

and then flat the 9th

G Ab B D F

[JohnW400]

Nice ones.

I like the kumoi scale for b9sus4 especially harmonized. C D Eb G A. The second scale fits Ron's D9sus

Ron,

It is a new key. The point is when you look at a chord and try to associate a scale with it. Now I'm not from the chord scale school of thought but it does have it's place until you can learn to recognize what sound your going for.

After you've studied a few scale systems you can start to think of them as type and quality rather than by some Greek name. (ex, Dominant 7 # 11 sound, Minor seventh b5 w/ a natural 9th sound)

I think you might be better off spending some time in a different book. I would even say to take a lesson or two with somebody that could answer some of your questions and clear up some of the issues you're having.

You have a lot of questions and you probably get a lot of your answers here, but not enough of them.

[JonR]

JonR, many thanks for your thoughtful and informed reply.

And thanks for you courteous response. Nice to see some politeness around here...

That's true, although I didn't pick up on it. My problems were: In the first place, I wouldn't think to play E Phrygian over Em7 as the iiim7 of C, because that's just pretending that you're not playing in Ionian.

Exactly. This is one of the problems I have with Levine: he mixes up modal and functional terms. That obfuscates rather than clarifies.
E phrygian mode has nothing to do with C major. (Well, obviously it shares the same notes, but that's all.)
A IIIm chord in key of C is just that: a III chord in C ionian mode.
For it to be worth calling "phrygian", it would be need to be a I chord in E phrygian.

Is he trying to say that if you want a Phrygian sound over iii7, it has to be a different mode than the Phrygian of I, because the tonic will be the b6 of the iii7? And/or, hey, check out this other Phrygian, it's good over the iii7?

Well, I don't know what he's trying to say. It seems that as soon as you dig a little into what he actually is saying, it falls apart.
(I used to really like this book, but the more I read it - again - the more fault I find with it.)

But even taking all that on faith, how does he get, a few sentences later, to subbing in a susb9 for a dominant chord?

Well, to be fair, he is quoting the use of a susb9 chord as a V7 from an actual recording. That (at least) is not his idea.
The question is - does it help to think of that chord (used in that way) as phrygian?

I don't know if I care how many people do it. I just want to know what's being changed to what, in what context. Til then it's useless to
me.

I think my point was that - in a "jazz theory" book - we need first of all to be sure that we are paying attention to jazz practice. Jazz theory should be based on what jazz musicians actually do: not on what an author thinks they might do, or could do.
Levine seems to be at pains to quote recorded examples at every opportunity, which gives his book a real sense of authority (very convincing for a newbie). However, when you look closely, a lot of these examples are either ambiguous, or don't illustrate the concept at all.
Once we are sure we have spotted patterns in what the musicians are doing, then we can start to ask ourselves what we call these things, whether they align with traditional harmonic theory, etc, and how they might be applied or perhaps adapted.

I look at it this way: the passage is a 2 5 1 in G. For the V he subs in a susb9 on the V's root. This immediately abandons the context of
tonic vs. iii7, said to be the very foundation of the theory. Anyway, over the new chord we have a line which is from a different key. I
call that a key change.

IMO, it's a result of the substitution, as you say. The passage shows a b9 and a 4 over the chord - which omits the 3rd.
I don't think Levine is saying it's a different key (and neither would I) - it's just an alteration to the dominant chord, albeit a slightly unusual one.
However, the real point is that there is (still) no justification for interpreting that example as "phrygian". Yes, one could play phrygian mode (of the root) over that chord. But that's not what Freddie Hubbard did (not clearly anyhow); and we don't know what he was thinking.

That's a generous interpretation, inserting qualifications Mr. Levine doesn't use. What he says is "A persistent myth is that 'the 4th takes
the place of the 3d in a sus chord."

"In a sus chord" means in any sus chord, i.e. regardless of context, i.e. always. If it's always a myth then it's never true. The truth
therefore must be that the 4th never replaces the third. Stated positively, a sus chord always contains the 3d.

I didn't intend a generous interpretation, it's just the way I read that passage. At one point he says "jazz pianists often include the 3rd in sus chords" [my italics]. That implies they don't always, and therefore the chord need not include the 3rd. (It needn't omit it either, which is his main point. The "myth" is that the chord must omit the 3rd; that doesn't mean the opposite is the case.)
IOW, he doesn't mean to give the impression that you're getting.
(But then, of course that's his fault for not being clearer...)

[Ron Stern]

Ron,

It is a new key.

What is ?

[JohnW400]

What is ?

This

. But it's a new key for sure because the notes aren't the same as the orig. They couldn't be, and if they were, what would be the point?

sorry, Thought you were asking a question. Disregard it.

[JonR]

I like the kumoi scale for b9sus4 especially harmonized. C D Eb G A. The second scale fits Ron's D9sus

Indeed - because it's simply the arpeggio.
Those are (with one exception) the notes played (according to Levine) by Freddie Hubbard in the passage we've been discussing. Ie, it's not "Ron's" Dsusb9, but the one we were talking about.
In fact it was a descending D-C-G-Eb-D lick, in 8th notes, over a left-hand chord close-voiced D-Eb-G-A, from bottom to top.
Levine says this is a "phrygian" chord ("this is from the Phrygian mode of the Bb major scale") - even though, from its context between Am7 and Gmaj7, it's clearly some kind of V7 chord in G major.

As I see it, there is no sensible basis for that assertion. Maybe Hubbard was thinking "kumoi", as you say? But maybe he was just thinking "b9sus", maybe as some kind of parallel minor reference. (It's common enough in jazz to use a minor key ii-V to resolve to a major tonic.)

Ron,

It is a new key. The point is when you look at a chord and try to associate a scale with it. Now I'm not from the chord scale school of thought but it does have it's place until you can learn to recognize what sound your going for.

I think I agree, but I would always be looking at some kind of deviation from the diatonic key scale before I started looking for specific chord scales.
I certainly don't look at a chromatic chord and think "new key" straight away. Even a secondary dominant is only "secondary".

If it's a chord with no apparent function in the current key - and no clear connection to the following chord - then I would consider what other notes would fit between the chord tones. I guess that's a kind of "chord scale" thinking, but I would probably consider diatonic notes first - sticking with key scale if possible, or at least trying to associate it with chords ether side in some similar way. (Using the notes from those chords as preferred passing notes.)

Of course, this is in the context of functional harmony, where chords link in progressive chains. Modal harmony is different, and that's where CST belongs. In this example (Dsusb9 in key of G major), I would be looking at an F# as a passing note, not the F you'd get from phrygian mode. I wouldn't rule out phrygian as an option (it might sound fine, and one could think of it as G natural minor scale if one wanted a contextual link), but I'd still think of it as a dom7 chord.
IOW, the governing question is; how does it resolve to the next chord? The argument - and there IS one - for using an F natural (ie D phrygian) would be that you can resolve it up to the F# on the Gmaj7, or down to the E. It wouldn't be "because it sounds cool on this Dsusb9".

[Ron Stern]

Levine says this is a "phrygian" chord ("this is from the Phrygian mode of the Bb major scale") - even though, from its context between Am7 and Gmaj7, it's clearly some kind of V7 chord in G major.

Man, that's what I've been trying to say. For sure it's a 2 5 1 in G. The first question, and unavoidable, is whether that matters. If it does then how and why does the sub for V come from the third mode of Bb? True, Bb is the Aeoloian mode of of G but Aelian is a minor mode and this is a major chord. The third mode of Aeolian is Phrygian, is that the deal? Either way, how does it all relate to the fundamental premise of the theory, which is that there's a clash between iii7 and the tonic?

If it doesn't matter that it's a 2 5 1 in G, the only thing that can matter is that the root is D. Fine, that's the 5 in a 2 5 1 in G. How does the theory tell you to change dominant to susb9? The question after that is, what's Phrygian about it -- right?

[JonR]

Man, that's what I've been trying to say. For sure it's a 2 5 1 in G. The first question, and unavoidable, is whether that matters. If it does then how and why does the sub for V come from the third mode of Bb? True, Bb is the Aeoloian mode of of G but Aelian is a minor mode and this is a major chord. The third mode of Aeolian is Phrygian, is that the deal? Either way, how does it all relate to the fundamental premise of the theory, which is that there's a clash between iii7 and the tonic?

If it doesn't matter that it's a 2 5 1 in G, the only thing that can matter is that the root is D. Fine, that's the 5 in a 2 5 1 in G. How does the theory tell you to change dominant to susb9? The question after that is, what's Phrygian about it -- right?

I'm right with you. The "phrygian" business is simply beside the point in this case.
As I said, it's possible to play D phrygian on that chord (or call it G minor or Bb major if one prefers). But why would you? What's the advantage in thinking like that?
I'm not saying one shouldn't think that way; or that Levine is full of shit! (Some might...) Just observing that he hasn't made any kind of case for it.
1. he hasn't talked about the dominant function of the chord.
2. hasn't compared it to the usual D7
3. doesn't seem to have recognised that Hubbard is just playing an arpeggio, not a scale line. (OK, he's substituted a susb9 for a dom7 - but why?)
4. hasn't found any other example of a player using a phrygian mode run on a susb9 chord. (The Miles clip is phrygian mode, but on a pedal note, not a chord.)
I'm a little surprised at the last point. I haven't checked out Wayne Shorter's occasional use of susb9s, and what he played on them. (Memo to self: must do that...)

He even goes on to say (p.49): "A beautiful example of Phrygian harmony is the Ebsusb9 chord that McCoy Tyner improvises over during the intro to John Coltrane's "After the Rain" (figure 3.48)." - and he just gives us the chord! (Eb-Fb-Ab-Bb-Eb - no 7th, notice.) OK, I can see that as "phrygian harmony" - but no quote from the improvisation!
The paragraph continues: "Coltrane and McCoy also play Phrygian scales on susb9 chords on Coltrane's "Crescent"."
They do?? Then why can't we see them on the page, instead of that highly debatable (and totally unhelpful) Hubbard clip? Huh?

He's coming across like some vague dude: "Uh, yeah, man, Phrygian is like totally cool. All those cats used it. Er... so here's a Freddie Hubbard susb9 line... see what I mean, man??" Like - NO I don't!

So I guess all I'm saying is that Levine - despite that astonishingly impressive listening list at the end of the book - is remarkably lazy in building a case for his theoretical concepts. The excerpts from recordings are great - EVERY jazz theory book should include such things, and many don't - but often don't support his assertions.
That throws doubt on a lot else of what he writes.

Eg, I was wised up some while ago on his dismissal of harmonic minor. He claims not to have heard great players use it. But there's plenty of Charlie Parker solos where certain phrases can be interpreted as harmonic minor. In this case, ML was being very strict about identification: just having a b6 and maj7 (and m3) in the line is apparently not enough; we must (he seems to say) hear the b6 and maj7 used next to each other, to get that distinctive aug 2nd interval. In Bird's lines he tended to use the b6 high in the phrase and the maj7 low, so they didn't rub up against each other in that distinctive HM way. So ML felt justified in not recognising it as harmonic minor, and (presumably) seeing it as some other kind of scale, maybe a mixture of 2 or more, maybe with an odd chromaticism. Seems perverse to me!

[JonnyPac]

Love the post JonR.

[jonasfixe]

Why do you use A natural minor on E7?

Using A natural minort over dominant E chord will give you the following notes: 1, b9, #9, 11 (sus note), 5, b6, 7

It is kind of an "altered" scale, it misses the major 3rd, but sounds good. Try it on a spanish progression, like Am G F E7.

PS: Also take a look at JonR great posts!

[JonR]

Using A natural minort over dominant E chord will give you the following notes: 1, b9, #9, 11 (sus note), 5, b6, 7

It is kind of an "altered" scale, it misses the major 3rd, but sounds good. Try it on a spanish progression, like Am G F E7.

PS: Also take a look at JonR great posts!

Thanks for the compliment, but personally I wouldn't use that scale on E7, for one main reason: no G#. That's a fundamental omission. (The G as #9 is good, of course.)

Out bete noire Mark Levine (anyone got a doll we can start sticking pins in? ) would also point to the "avoid notes", A and C. They are fine as passing notes (as he would be at pains to admit), but the fact that jazz players seem to choose altered scales or diminished scales on minor key V7s suggests that they DO want to avoid them if they can. (Why else make such bizarre, out of key choices? The E HW dim scale contains A# and C#, for heaven's sake!)

IOW, I would START with the chord tones. Of those, G# is possibly the most important of all. That HAS to be present - not necessarily in every phrase I'd play, but as part of the material. So if I'm thinking "scales" (which I don't much), any scale I would consider would need to have a G# in it.
And because I think in chord tones, having E, D and B would also be handy (B being the least important).
Beyond there, I'm looking at passing notes that make for cool connections between chord tones (and may or may not be diatonic to the key - hello A# and C#), and also for what notes make for cool resolutions on to the next chord. ("Cool", of course, is what I say it is. )

That might end up as A harmonic minor; or as E altered (F melodic minor), or E HW dim, or even A melodic minor. It wouldn't end up as A natural minor - although I could play a phrase consisting of notes that coincidentally come from that scale.
However, another possibility would be A minor pent (which is of course a subset of natural minor) or A blues scale. This would - IMO - require some bending on an E7 chord, and probably the avoidance of the A. E minor pent - another subset of A natural minor - might also be a choice, again with some bending of the G.
IOW, I could choose A natural minor if it included bending the G - but then is it really A natural minor any more?

[whatswisdom]

Using A natural minort over dominant E chord will give you the following notes: 1, b9, #9, 11 (sus note), 5, b6, 7

It is kind of an "altered" scale, it misses the major 3rd, but sounds good. Try it on a spanish progression, like Am G F E7.

PS: Also take a look at JonR great posts!

Thanks. The only thing I don't get is the b9. C = #9, right? Where is the b9? B from A natural minor = 9.

[jonasfixe]

Thanks. The only thing I don't get is the b9. C = #9, right? Where is the b9? B from A natural minor = 9.

Those tones refered to the Dominant chord, in this case E7.

E is 1
F is b9
G is #9
A is 4 (or 11)
B is 5
C is b6
D is 7

[whatswisdom]

Those tones refered to the Dominant chord, in this case E7.

E is 1
F is b9
G is #9
A is 4 (or 11)
B is 5
C is b6
D is 7

Got it, joao. Thanks!

[Ron Stern]

Again, many thanks, JonR. Between this and doing the taxes I really thought I might lose it there for awhile.