-
I don't think this fella spent much time worrying about whether f#m7b5 was a dominant in disguise.
The first eight bars are a lesson in what you can get away with by playing just one note
Last edited by Fred Pepper; 04-09-2012 at 07:43 PM.
-
04-09-2012 07:40 PM
-
So, I am just a beginner at this analysis stuff, so don't laugh too hard. But I was listening to the the original version a bunch of times and here is what I hear. Remember the singing has been going on for a while before you get to where the real book begins as this is from a musical. So when we get to the F#min7b5, we have already been going a while. And it really sounds like the F#min7b5 brings in a key change there to Eminor. What about the F-7? Well, it seems likely, Porter already had the chromatic melody idea in mind, so he just stuck that in there; and what is so wrong with a chromatic resolution to Eminor? Ah, but he isn't going to stick around long. The diminished chord it seems is where the real deception comes in. It allows him to continue his chromatic run, and quickly resolve back to D-7. (I did 24 hours of music theory this weekend and I read somewhere that the whole point of using diminished chords was to create strong resolutions.) So anyway, maybe this analysis ain't very good, but it sure sounds like a key change to me.
(Not sure how much this helps my case, but evidently, on all of the early recordings, the first chord is a bVImaj7, so the F#-7b5 is the only half diminshed chord in the song originally.)Last edited by jster; 04-09-2012 at 08:07 PM.
-
Great Jens! I'd hire that drummer in a minute!
Originally Posted by JensL
So here's a video of me playing a few choruses on the song.
Bear with me that my guitar tech did not tune my 3rd string too well and my camera man is not so good with a phone...
Jens
-
Not a key change, IMO. A temporary tonicization maybe - with F#m7b5 as a "secondary supertonic". Originally Posted by jster
IOW, the F#m7b5 does sound like a ii for the Em7 (as mentioned), but it's not a modulation because it never settles on Em7 (Em7 itself is a non-tonic leading elsewhere). But the Fm7 - as you're kind of saying - works against that.
I've said this above, but a classic secondary dominant (V/iii in C) would be B7, which would harmonize the melody fine; but he's deliberately not chosen that (nor its tritone sub, F7). The Fm7 keeps it ambiguous, as does the Ebdim7.
You're right about diminished chords and resolutions, but this isn't one of the classic moves.
The most common one is from a viidim7, which would be C#dim7 in this case (=Edim7, Gdim7, A#dim7). It has the same dominant function (relative to Dm) as A7 does.
The next most common move is a "common-tone diminished", ie from one with the same root as the target chord, which would be Ddim7 (=Fdim7, G#dim7, Bdim7).
This one - Ebdim7 - is the only other dim7 there is.
There's actually a similar move in Jobim's "Corcovado": the second chord (following D7/A, or Am7) is G#dim7 resolving to Gm7.
One explanation for that - and it works in this case too - is that it's a sub for the dominant of the previous chord.
In Night And Day, then, we can say Ebdim7 (or rather D#dim7) is the vii7 chord of Em.
So you could (arguably) analyze F#m7b5-Fm7-Em7-Ebdim7 as:
ii7-biim7-i7-viio7 in E minor!
- which actually supports your idea of a modulation (albeit temporary) to E minor. After that, of course, the sequence goes right back to the ii-V-I in the home key.
IOW, we don't - in this analysis - need to relate Ebdim7 to Dm at all.
(However, calling Fm7 a "biim7" is more than a little dubious, IMO
)
That's true. Substituting Abmaj7 with Dm7b5 is just a typical jazz move: inserting ii-V-I's wherever possible! Originally Posted by jster
Personally I think I prefer Abmaj7 (although the improv scale would be the same).Last edited by JonR; 04-09-2012 at 09:12 PM.
-
@Reg, Jake and Jazzpunk: Thanks!
@JonR and Jster:
I know I have a fundamentalist belief in the classical analysis so that is maybe why this is coming across as lecturing, sorry for that.
I analyzed the row here:
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theor...tml#post217093
Night and Day is a standard. As a rule you can assume that standards are made up of clear functional progressions. They (almost never anyway) don't suddenly out of nowhere modulate to another key. And if you check out harmony you can actually assign a function and a name to every chord that is in there and understand what it's role is and how it moves to the next chord etc. etc.
It saves you a lot of time wondering what Fm7 is doing in Cmajor. To me it is like discussing what that Bb7 is in a blues in F. (I know that might sound arrogant, but that's not my intention)
Apart from that you can discuss what you want to play on it. There are a lot of options, let's just look at a few:
Let's take the F#m7(b5).
It is diatonic to:
Gmajor scale (in the context it does not really matter if you think Em, D7, 6th degree of A min dorian or whatever. Same chord same notes/sound)
Emin harmonic
Amin Melodic
Gmin Melodic
Emajor Harmonic
They are all possible scales that contain the chord, some will sound more inside than others (one is F# altered)
F# diminished. (half whole)
I guess you could look at the messiaen modes and other symmetrical stuff and find a few options. The 4th and 5th mode would have a m7(b5) chord in there, they are quite spicy sounding and for my taste in this song/tempo not that useful. But that's just my taste.
We could construct some scales to fit the chord: F.ex F#m7(b5) arp + Fm7(b5) arp would yield an 8 note scale that fits: F# Ab A B C Eb E F
So would F#m7(b5) arp and Gm7(b5): F# G A Bb C Db E F
Check out John Ruocco if you want to learn more about this approach. It can take you to pure space cake 3000, but is very hard to hear (for me anyway..)
We could make pentatonic scales from any of the above. (Am6 penta springs to mind as an obvious candidate with no avoid notes..)
There are options enough. To me it is more important to understand the chord in the context and have an idea of what I hear (orlike to hear) on that chord in that context (#IVm7(b5) ). I mostly play a F#m7b5 with the notes of the Gmajor scale that is the most natural to me, since it is the close to Cmajor which is the key of the song. If i want to spice it up I usually just change the chord to F#minor7(9) or a dominant. The progression is by itself already moving so I don't feel a real need to color the chord that much. I more often just mess with the whold descending progression.
Sorry for the extremely long post, My kids are in day-care, I don't have to teach today and my coffe was extraordinary nice so I just ranted on and on...
Now I am going to work a bit
Jens
-
Eh? Originally Posted by JensL
C mel is B alt, fine over F#m7b5. Cm is also fine over Fm7 - and A natural wasn't played over it.I was in fact referring to the fact that you choose to play C mel min on F#m7b5 and Fm7
Ever heard the blues?How often does it make sense to take a scale with only the major 3rd and play it over a minor chord?Last edited by ragman1; 04-10-2012 at 09:59 AM.
-
JensL
Nice vid but I'd prefer to hear it over the chords. Who knows what you're up to?
Last edited by ragman1; 04-10-2012 at 09:57 AM.
-
No problem. I guess I'm an agnostic rather than a fundamentalist regarding classical analysis - Originally Posted by JensL
- but I'd agree if one is going to analyze a functional progression one needs to use the terms properly. I'm not really an expert there...
Sure. As I say, I'm no expert, but to me (and this thread is in danger of eating itself now)... Originally Posted by JensL
#IVm7b5 IVm III bIIIdim II V I
doesn't look like a functional analysis to me, just a description of chord type and root movement relative to the tonic.
I'm not really disagreeing, just wondering how that helps in understanding the progression.
Either we have a non-functional series of chords with mixed chromatic descents (culminating in a clearly functional ii-V-I) - a view I'm OK with - or we have some kinds of function there.
"#IVm7b5" is not a function AFAIK. (Just laying out my ignorance here, feel free to correct.
m7b5 chords - again AFAIK - function either as vii in major keys (dominant function), or - most commonly in jazz - as ii chords in minor keys (subdominant).
They're also inverted min6 chords, and in Cole Porter's day I suspect that bunch of notes would be seen as min6 more often than m7b5.
Not that that helps us much: Am6 and F#m7b5 both have subdominant function in E minor. (Am6 can have a tonic function in A minor, but that really isn't what's happening here...)
Anyway, the most likely interpretation - as has been mentioned - is ii in E minor. That's a secondary supertonic, or "ii/iii" in analytical terms; an interpretation supported by the appearance of Em as next-but-one chord.
However, that interpretation breaks down on the Fm7. That should be either B7 or F7, or D#dim7, if it was going to be a classic cadence to Em.
I like your observation about Fm7 as a minor IV resolving to C. Normally such a chord would have a maj7, but maybe we can overlook that, if we see the Em7 as a substitute for C. We know that iii has a broadly tonic function, and can be used as a sub for I.
That also throws a nice light on the Ebdim7. As you say, it's an inverted F#dim7. I was thinking of that - not totally seriously - as vii of E minor (ie dominant function following tonic); but - as Cdim7 - it also a "common tone diminished" function relative to C major. IOW, Cdim7 can resolve directly to C.
It doesn't in this case, of course - unless you regard it as a delayed resolution via the intervening Dm7-G7! (which I think is quite reasonable).
But really, overall, I don't think there's any one correct analysis of these four chords. IMO the appeal of the sequence lies precisely in its ambiguity, the fact that we can analyze it in several satisfactory (or near satisfactory) ways. Each perspective - including your observations about possible other scales on the F#m7b5 - throws a useful light on it.
I'm going to post it over on emusictheory - where the classical heavyweights hang out - and see what they make of it... (if anything)
-
That's a minor scale over a major chord. Big difference! Originally Posted by ragman1
(I know, sometimes I feel I only come here to argue... )
-
Not to the ear, the ear only hears the major/minor dissonance. If you listen carefully when I played the C mel the only notes played over the Fm7 were B and D. Check it out Originally Posted by JonR
That's a minor scale over a major chord. Big difference!
The question, to my mind anyway, is whether it sounds any good. if you listen to it and don't know exactly what's being played over what do you actually notice what's going on? I doubt it. If you wince at the awful cacophony that's another matter.
Anyway no one's commented on the use of Ab min pent over Fm7 yet! That's got an Gb and a Db in it! But you don't notice and that's the point.
-
There is something I have been overlooking. I don't think that the diminished chord actually goes to the ii-7 chord. In all the early versions, it goes bVImaj7-V7-Imaj7. And I think that when he leaves the diminished chord, he is going to bVImaj7 as well. Jon, is that any better as far as classic diminished maneuvers?
And Jens, no need to apologize to me. I'm just happy to add 2 cents. I am just trying to understand how you guys think about theory. I have been reading really basic theory about triads the last few days trying to come at jazz theory from the nuts and bolts of note resolution. Now you have an anlysis you like, but what exactly is the function of the iii chord for you? You skip that in your original exposition. Yeah it is in the key, but can you say more function wise.
Two last points. The tune really does have that little minor second dropping baseline Ab to G twice and then the F# to F to... . The real book version with the d minors obscures all that.
And, the real reason I like a temporary tonicization of Eminor is that if you were going to replace all four chords with just one chord, no other would work as well.
(And one other point maybe you guys could address. I was reading how the iii chord is so tricky that they leave it to the end at some Royal Academy in the UK because the leading tone is on the fifth and so it kind of drives you away from the main key. Maybe I'm understanding that wrong. Maybe that helps my case?)Last edited by jster; 04-10-2012 at 10:24 AM.
-
Much analysis going on here..
I like to simplify. Let's try to forget about the bassline for a minute and think of the melody and the harmony and the overall tonal center. Let's also forget about any Real Book/fakebook changes we have become accustomed to. Here's my take on this in the key of C.
Fmaj--Fminor--Cmajor--D7--Dmin--G7--C
Some other examples..After You've Gone, I Cant Believe That Your In Love with Me
Make sense to anyone? Before you agree or disagree pick up your guitar or go to a piano and play it that way...then let me know what you think
Just my take on it...Last edited by mike g; 04-10-2012 at 11:12 AM.
-
Ahh I see what you mean. It's a bit hard to be clear and explain everything in a forum post. Originally Posted by JonR
#IVm7b5 IVm III bIIIdim II V I
doesn't look like a functional analysis to me, just a description of chord type and root movement relative to the tonic.
I'm not really disagreeing, just wondering how that helps in understanding the progression.
Either we have a non-functional series of chords with mixed chromatic descents (culminating in a clearly functional ii-V-I) - a view I'm OK with - or we have some kinds of function there.
"#IVm7b5" is not a function AFAIK. (Just laying out my ignorance here, feel free to correct.
m7b5 chords - again AFAIK - function either as vii in major keys (dominant function), or - most commonly in jazz - as ii chords in minor keys (subdominant).
#IV or raised four is a function containg the #IVdim, #IVm7(b5), bIIIdim and sometimes also bVIdom7 chords. (I think I gave a few examples of songs in the post I linked)
In the same way IVm is a function, I guess you'd call it , subdominant minor?, containing IVm, bVIIdom7, bVImaj7, bIImaj7.
I think that came from the people writing the chords in the charts disregarding the bass. If you look at the piano arrangement it is has an F# (or rather an A since it is in Eb) in the bass. Somehow they always did it like that with the songbooks I have no idea why. Originally Posted by JonR
I don't think you are very likely to have a modulation in a standard without a real cadence, ie. a V-I. Look at All the things you are, I remember you or Have you met miss jones. They have modulations but they are all with cadences. Originally Posted by JonR
Thanks! This progression is actually used quite often as an intro and as an outro. I use it like that with singers to establish the tonality so to me (and the vocalists I play with) it is not ambigous at all. How you hear it I cannot say of course. But maybe try and play this before Days of wine and roses: Originally Posted by JonR
Bm7(b5) Bbm6 Am7 Abdim Gm7 C7. If you want to make it really clear you sub the C7 for a Gbmaj7 and keep F in the melody all the way.
Jens
-
Thanks! Why don't you just play along the chords along with me in the video? Originally Posted by ragman1
Nice vid but I'd prefer to hear it over the chords. Who knows what you're up to?
About changing the chord. I don't take a scale that does not fit the chord that is there, I play/think another chord. It is much more logical to the ear when improvising (to me anyway...). Originally Posted by ragman1
I don't see the point in an analysis where you end up with scales that are almost 50% avoid notes, then you can almost use what ever scale you want. Originally Posted by ragman1
Then you are better off just looking at each chord and going which major scale fits this chord, and use harmonic minor for the dim chord.
I did not listen that carefully to your video, my point is maybe also that you are making it more difficult when you are not including the 3rd of the chord in the scale.
JonR beat me to it. Originally Posted by ragman1
Jens
-
Comp along - he is very clearly articulating the changes and adding the `nome makes it even easier. Originally Posted by ragman1
JensL
Nice vid but I'd prefer to hear it over the chords. Who knows what you're up to?
-
How about we take the relative and parallel minor concept one step further.
1st four bars ... II V I , Parallel or C- to Cmaj
Bars 9, the F#-7b5 can be standard II of implied II V of III. Or if you want to take the parallel concept a little further... call the C... lydian or parallel subDominant... C- to C maj to... C lyd.
Then Bar 10 to Cmin... standard IV- chord
bar 11 to C maj...standard function sub.
Bar 12 to C dim. again using parallel concept, rather than simple passing, sub. or raised supertonic, common tone... analysis.
bars 13-16 back to Cmaj.
So you can have this cute functional harmony.
CMaj......tonic
C lyd......subdom
C-..........can be either subdom or tonic, however you want to spell
C ma......tonic
Cdim......Dom.
C ma .....Tonic
So the entire tune is compose using parallel minor concept.
So this is a joke analysis... but fairly easily justified using either parallel or even a pedal concept as organizing principle for composition... definitely not a jazz analysis, but could be used to organize an improvisation ... OK enough BS... sorry Reg
-
Well, I'd say if you raise the root you change the function. A #IV chord can't be subdominant in the usual sense. Originally Posted by JensL
Eg the #IVdim7 generally acts as a common tone diminished; or arguably a secondary dominant sub: eg, in key of C, when F#dim7 goes to C it's generally with a G bass (2nd inversion), ie a 6/4 chord, which is more like a suspended V in function.
Well, I would... Originally Posted by JensL
Again I think you may be pushing the definitions there. I'd agree IVm and bVImaj7 have subdominant functions (normally in a minor key, but transferrable to major); but I'm not sure about bIImaj7 and bVII7. They tend to go straight to I. Originally Posted by JensL
I realise they're not exactly subs for V7, and that going to I doesn't make them dominant!
I also understand that bVII7 is a common sub for IVm (especially IVm6 or maj7).
I admit I'm probably splitting hairs here... I don't know the classical chapter and verse for these things
OK, I see what you mean; the modulations (or tonicizations or whatever we call them) are all prepared. Originally Posted by JensL
But cadences needn't be V-I: tritone subs are pretty common.
Still, that's a little beside the point here. It seems to me that F#m7b5 starts as a typical preparation for a cadence to E minor - but like I said, the Fm7 subverts that, being no substitute for B7.
I mean the individual chord functions are ambiguous. And actually I don't hear it as pointing clearly towards C major, if that's what you mean. (If it does, that would be because presumably it's always used in a way that ends up there - ie our familiarity with a context, rather than an inherent property of the chords themselves.) Originally Posted by JensL
Well, Am7 has no F - so not exactly "all the way" Originally Posted by JensL
To my ears, that only becomes clearly key of F major once you get to the Gm7-C7. Try this:
Bm7(b5) Bbm6 F/A (to keep your F on top!) Abdim7 Gm7 Gbmaj7 F7 - Bb6
- now I'm in Bb major! (after all, a held F note can be a dominant...)
And of course the progression could turn other ways before then. (I suspect I'm not familiar enough with the "Night & Day" usage in other contexts to hear it pointing one way only.)
-
Right. (see above Originally Posted by Reg
)
Uh - OK, F#m7b5 is then the IV (or rather #iv) in C lydian, yes? Originally Posted by Reg
Uh-huh (twice) Originally Posted by Reg
Uh-huh again! Originally Posted by Reg
Best quality BS, if you don't mind me saying so! Originally Posted by Reg
I like "joke" analyses myself, they often spark a few left-field inspirations. This is "jazz" after all...
- and parallel major/minor switches (combined with a dry sense of humour) were almost Cole Porter's signature anyhow, IMO; I'm sure he'd be right with this kind of thinking.
-
Because it's too much like hard work. I want to sit there and listen to it. Originally Posted by JensL
Right, I see. I often do that too. I did it when I played Am over the F#m7b5, Cm over Fm7, and other places.About changing the chord. I don't take a scale that does not fit the chord that is there, I play/think another chord. It is much more logical to the ear when improvising (to me anyway...).
No, you can't just use whatever scale you want and that's the point! Does what I played sound like that? Of course not.I don't see the point in an analysis where you end up with scales that are almost 50% avoid notes, then you can almost use what ever scale you want.
Then you are better off just looking at each chord and going which major scale fits this chord, and use harmonic minor for the dim chord.
I can tell you exactly what scales fit each chord. I could give you at least three or four choices over each one, but I refuse to play like a technical book. It's no fun and it sounds too manufactured.
Obviously, yet you expect me to try to play with yours! That's the trouble with a lot of musicians, they're only interested in their own stuff.I did not listen that carefully to your video
You talked about this being a theory thread. I put in a full solo, with backing, and added notes about what I was doing. I didn't just post an unaccompanied clip of me playing some notes just to prove I could do it!
I have no idea if I did or not, I wasn't counting. I just played for six minutes and what happened happened. I put the directions in afterwards.my point is maybe also that you are making it more difficult when you are not including the 3rd of the chord in the scale
Actually it was probably a mistake to write that I played C mel over the Fm7. At the point that chord appeared I'd stopped and just played B and D. But those notes also appear in C mel. The fingers/brain just do it after all these years.
This music is supposed to be fun, nice to listen to, not just brain exercise!
I often reverse the blues sound. Why not? It doesn't have to always be minor over major. Depends how it's played.JonR beat me to it
-
@JonR:
Functions are not root dependent. in C major, C is tonic and so is Em7. So in the same way F can be subdominant and F#dim can be a sub dominant too. I think the strict definintion is that if it does not contain the leading note (so B in C major) it is not dominant, and F#dim is not tonic (since it is a dim chord and therefore not stable) and it is also not dominant ie. is it subdominant (it also contains the A which I'd guess is the marker for subd chords (or Ab in the minor case) ) Though I am not sure if that is that whole thing works.
Think about this one though: Dbmaj7 is Fm with Db in the bass. Look up neapolitan subdominant or neapolitan sixth.
With the #IV intro thing, that really is a standard cliché intro around here.
suddenly taking that to the 4th degree as tonic would probably cause a trainwreck.
It's so cliché that I cannot think of a famous recording where it is used, I'll have to get back to you on that.
Maybe Reg knows a recording of a standard with that intro? I am sure he knows that type of intro.
That's fine if you don't want to take my word for it you can always try to look that stuff up yourself. I am sure that there are books about it, I am not a theory teacher after all, I am a guitarist so while I use, hear and understand it I don't know all the rules and explanations by heart.
Jens
-
That is my point. Originally Posted by ragman1
I was never that interested in what you played (don't take that personally, It is about theory and analysis) I was interested in how you analyzed it and that your conclusions where less than ideal, and in my opinion misleading to others.
I am sorry if you don't like the video, but I am not going to make one with a backing track. If you want to discuss what changes you hear in the song you should be able to follow most of what I do, it is almost at zero on the freaky harmony meter as has been said by several others.
In the end you can play what ever you want. What does it matter what I think. I never told you what you can and cannot play. I just took issue with the analysis.
Jens
-
JensL
I'm not sure. Technically I was still playing C mel when the Fm7 came in but my ear was very selective. As I said, it's not done very consciously.I was interested in how you analyzed it and that your conclusions where less than ideal, and in my opinion misleading to others
The other directions were all very accurate. I played exactly what they said.
I did like it, you play well, but I was just wanting something behind the single lines, that's all. Never mind, you make up for it in the Traeben vidsI am sorry if you don't like the video
Last edited by ragman1; 04-10-2012 at 07:47 PM.
-
Me neither! Originally Posted by JensL
Personally I'd say F or D were stronger markers for a subdominant in C than A is. Certainly F (which belongs to both Dm and F). A is more ambiguous as it can be part of Am, which has tonic function.
However, I think when you alter a note, and make a different chord type, that's when things change. You're moving beyond the normal set of diatonic functions. (I think if the roots stay the same, you can still argue for similar function, as with VIm and iim7b5.)
A dim7 chord has a lot of tension - it may not always be dominant in function, but that's what we'd generally assume.
IOW, to turn F into F#dim7, that's suggesting some kind of secondary dominant to me. If it's a sub for D7 (maybe the first guess), that means it pulls towards G; but that's all it has in common with F. A secondary dominant is different from a subdominant.
(But I'm still waiting for comments on my query on emusic, so this is still guesswork on my part. I mean, based on quite a lot of reading, but still no doubt incomplete.)
Yes, sorry I forgot about that one. Originally Posted by JensL
Well, that's because it's a cliche, so you're conditioned to expect it to always work the same way. Originally Posted by JensL
It's not a cliche to me (I don't know of any other example of it), so my ears don't have that bias.
I certainly don't get a sense of train wreck from moving it to a Bb instead of (starting from Bm7b5 that is). I can think of Bb as the target all along if I like - using the F as a dominant pedal.
My argument would be that there's enough chromaticism in there to make it capable of coming out almost anywhere (although I'm sure some destinations would be more surprising than others).
I'll get back to you when (if) I get some kind of pronouncement from on high...
-
So here's a sample of possible analysis ... which leads to possible harmonic choices to contain our creative musical ideas... well they're the most common choices... all simple harmonic references... on the edge of being background music...
I host a jazz jam this coming Monday Night... I use themes and this jam will be latin jazz... I'll pull Night and Day... of course in some latin feel... and video the live performance... I'm going out of town Tues. morning, but will try and post before I leave. Anyway check out the video...
It's pretty lose... so please feel free to ask me to clear anything up...
Reg
-
Reg
Thanks, that was good. I'm looking forward to seeing the live performance
Last edited by ragman1; 04-11-2012 at 07:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
Archtop 17 vs 18 inch
Today, 11:43 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos