Night and Day in the Key of C - What is the function of the F#-7b5

[Earl]

Hello CAJazz...

I like your comments on the standards. I have 4 books by Frank Mantooth
which cover numerous standards. I was wondering if you were familiar with
him and what you thought of his books if you have seen them.

Earl

[cajazz]

I have met Frank Mantooth and discussed pentatonic
voicings with him. I had taken his 'miracle' voicings and had found or developed their source (pentatonics) and out of that came 3 more voicings that could be used. Very '4rthy'. the trick is to form a chord from the notes of a pentatonic major scale: CDEGA etc. using every other note from a given starting point of the major pentatonic chord in question.
Earl's question: I have one of the books and I'd say that it's a good place to start changing or interpolating or substituting chord harmony. It is still relevant for students looking for ways to developed harmony, and in addition, it's fun to play the tunes directly out of that book. Kudos to F.M (who passed away some time ago at too young an age - sad to say). Of course an analysis of these reharminizations would be beneficial !!

[johnclassick]

Without thinking about the rationale too much, my ear tells me that the most consonant sound is created by the following scale choices:

F#m7-b5: G major (F# locrian)
Fm7: Eb major (F dorian)
Em7: C major (E phrygian)
Eb dim 7: diminished scale (Eb F Gb Ab A B C D Eb)

[johnclassick]

E dorian seems to work just as well over that E minor chord, as a side note.

[cajazz]

Yeah John Classick this seems good. F#mi7 (Loc), Fmi7 Dor [ii/Eb], Emi7 Phrygian [C/E?], Ebdim whole/half [double diminished] on to ii V I...I like to think of the Ebdim as a rootless D7(b9) then the progression to Dmi7 is like a change of chord quality [D7(b9)—Dmi7]. Another consideration for the Eb (D#) dim7 could be the bebop scale (add b6) to E jazz minor (E melodic minor) i.e. Emi6 F#dim Emi6/G F#dim Emi6/B Cdim Emi6/C# (C#mi7[b5]) to D#dim etc.

So that would be: /D#dim = D# E F# G A B B#/C C# D#...I've just started working with that so let me know what you think !!

[johnhall]

A simple (minded) explanation of progression:

1) Begin with C in the soprano (top voice).
2) Add chromatically descending bass line beginning a tritone below (F#).
3) Add a third (tenth) above bass to fill.

C___ C___C___C___C___C___C
A___Ab__G___Gb__F___F___E
F#__F___E___Eb__D___Db__C

Read as you would a score.
This of course is in its simplest form. G can be used in place of Db (bass).

John

[P4guitar]

I look at all this very simply: the F#m7b5 is substituting for a variant of the root, a CMaj7#4. Similarly the AbMaj7 is subbing for a variant of the ii, Dm7b5.

[Jonah]

Function is subdominant. It is out of question.
You can check just playin straight IV triad for both 2 bars (instead of F#-7b5 and Fm7) and then I triad (intead of next e,e flat chords) - melody notes will be out of chords but you can clearly hear that functionally they are correct.

I am npt sure that this knowledge helps while improvizing over it... these parallel chords intensify this desendant melody line...

the chorus built of two contract sentences - first section are two ii-v-i turnarounds , quite definite and affirmative phrases.. and this second section sounds like a more relaxed afterplay conclusion - going gradually down to tonic.

Great songwriter...

[Jonah]

I look at all this very simply: the F#m7b5 is substituting for a variant of the root, a CMaj7#4. Similarly the AbMaj7 is subbing for a variant of the ii, Dm7b5.

Ab is tritone to D, D is dominant to G - it is quite regular sub


Sorry... but your first point is absolutely wrong - firstly F#m7b5 contains A, and quite wierd Cmaj7#4 conatins B instead. Besides augmented 4th is absolutely weird in such a context...

It is like classify a ship as a 'plane that has no wings and cannot fly but can go to the sea'

It is quite simple here. Sometimes it looks like jazz players can't whistle a simple tune without concept behind it..

Actually if we take 2 bars as IV and 2 bars as I then. What else do we need? F is IV, C is I, if we chromatics here blues notes would be enough Bb, Ab, Eb, and Fis as triton we have full scope of note to play around. At least for me it would be enough - I would not need scales here...

Frankly for me usually is not a problem what to play within chorus - I can visualize harmony and notes on the fret - the question is 'when' - where I put which note agains the harmony within rythm - this is what makes real music... that is why I like use also what I call for myself 'lick concept' - it does not mean I play licks by heart, but I try to focus thinking not on scope of notes of mode that I can play, but on motives, phrases which can be realize only practically within rythmic and harmonic context.

[Reg]

Jonah... your point about Jazz players not being able to...whistle a simple tune without concept behind it.. might be more of a reflection of your not understanding what performing in a jazz style is. When we play music... we play, when we discuss playing, we discuss playing, which may involve...concepts, of which you posted...a simple example of an approach to performing the chorus...based on simple concept.

There are many possibilities of analysis which can and usually does develop into different performances of Night and Day.

If you read all the posts... their all covered with playing examples. I won't copy and past all of my detailed posts... but I will post my playing example... from a few years ago when thread started,

[oldane]

Jonah... your point about Jazz players not being able to...whistle a simple tune without concept behind it.. might be more of a reflection of your not understanding what performing in a jazz style is.

Slam, bam!

I think Jonah underlines his point strongly to make it clear, and his posts prove that he is indeed able to analyze as well. Nevertheless, I can follow him. The ill fate of jazz may be to be talked and analyzed to death.

So I guess I'm also one who don't understand what performing in jazz style is ...... Oh well.

"I haven't used the word jazz since 1947. It's just music." (Duke Ellington)

[P4guitar]

Sorry... but your first point is absolutely wrong - firstly F#m7b5 contains A, and quite wierd Cmaj7#4 conatins B instead. Besides augmented 4th is absolutely weird in such a context...

We'll have to disagree. I've often substituted a lydian Maj7 a tritone away from a m7b5 chord - it works great and it is what the tune is doing at the beginning. A Maj7#4 is a common sub for a dom7 a whole step up (or one a b6 away). A dom7 can sub for a m7b5 up a 3rd and we're back to a m7b5 can sub for a Maj7#4 a tritone away. It's a question of note emphasis and scale choices.

The rest of your post is rude and doesn't make much sense either.

[mr. beaumont]

Agreed....just look at it on paper...put the b5 of a m7b5 chord in the bass and what do you have?

[Jonah]

The rest of your post is rude and doesn't make much sense either.

I am sorry, because I did not mean to be rude. Really. Maybe it is not my native language and not enough feel of it.
There was a part of iron regarding 'whistling' point but not at all directed at anyone personally, conected more with the point that jazz players in my opinion put practical methods as musical one. One can have any concept for performing - it's up to him, but after performance we have musical piece ready and I as a listner do not have to care what concepts are behind it, I follow the ear. It is not bad or good, it is just whay music about - what we hear, each of us.

And the question of sub is also a question of method and hearing...

You are free to choose any subs, and have any concept for substitution, but in Night and Day I hear very clear. Maybe the approach you show can work for organizing of improvization, maybe it can make it easier... but it is not functional tonality.. and within this song Night and Day I can clearly hear functions.

If you are still in mood to continue discussion with me, I would appriciate if you could tell me how you interpret 'lydian C maj.' within functional tonality?

PS

ABout not making sence - I disagree it makes sence for me, if something is not clear I am always ready to explain how I hear it, but I do not indend to change your hearing

[Jonah]

put the b5 of a m7b5 chord in the bass and what do you have?

I have inversion... it does not make this chord C.
Though of course I see your point.

But I take chords usually within song - probably separately we can handle it like this - this is the whole piece that makes inside relations - at least I prefer to hear it like this, it makes more sence for me..

Actually we had the same issue about GG song sonme time ago with you - I really believe that we hear approx the same, but I tend to consider all the context and you just take a certain vam, or chord change and work with it separately.

I think both ways are possible for different aims... here the initial topic was about function of a chord, that is why I did not separate the song.

[Reg]

Slam, bam!

I think Jonah underlines his point strongly to make it clear, and his posts prove that he is indeed able to analyze as well. Nevertheless, I can follow him. The ill fate of jazz may be to be talked and analyzed to death.

So I guess I'm also one who don't understand what performing in jazz style is ...... Oh well.

"I haven't used the word jazz since 1947. It's just music." (Duke Ellington)

Hey oldane,

Yes I agree, but what is his analysis based on, what harmonic and theoretical reference. Like I said generally on a verbal forum talking about Jazz... that's what we do... talk and analyze music to death... but on the positive, hopefully musicians become aware of possible understandings which when translated to performance after time... raises their level of jazz performance and ability to talk to death what their playing.

Generally there is common practice and history which reflects what performing in a jazz style could imply. I've given my opinion many times in detail over the years, but always enjoy the discussion and usually learn more each time personally.

What usually happens is we usually fall into maj/min functional harmony reference or exercise, or worse, begin defining jazz harmony with use of voicings and voice leading contrapuntal guidelines for explaining jazz concepts in the musical language which is not derive from the music of discussion.

If you were to give a definition of performing in a jazz style, what might you say?

[oldane]

If you were to give a definition of performing in a jazz style, what might you say?

Nothing. I'll make it a point not to set up definitory boundaries between jazz and other music forms.

If Bird and Diz and Monk had adhered to what was defined as performing in jazz style when they first made the scene, we would not have had any modern jazz. At that time, lots of people was convinced that bebop was not jazz. Cab Calloway called it "Chinese music". The only way things move ahead is by challenging definitions and general consensus.

To quote Duke Ellington once again: "If it sounds right, it is right."

[Reg]

Hey oldane

I respect your view... if that's good for you, it's good for me. Do you mind if I have a different view and choose to discuss those views.

[mr. beaumont]

Im cool with however anybody analyzes a tune so they can play ot and say what they want to say...

That said, there are sounds associated with jazz styles (i have to go plural here)that are expected. Thats not a bad thing, it doesnt mean predictable, it means tge players can share a common view, even if they're not rehearsed...

[oldane]

Hey oldane

I respect your view... if that's good for you, it's good for me. Do you mind if I have a different view and choose to discuss those views.

No, why? I mean, I participate and express views myself, so no, I don't mind. After all, this is a discussion forum called "Theory". As for theory, for me it is as much as needed - but when we have that down, let's "forget" the theory and play. Let's not be intimidated (some even seem to be paralyzed) by theory. For me, theory is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Reg]

Cool... and agreed... when we play... we play, but when I discuss and try to teach jazz concepts etc... theory really helps.
I see and hear way to many student and amateur players who spend their entire life trying to play jazz and never get there, I'm not talking about good or bad... just the basic musicianship and skills generally required to play jazz. The trial and error approach works once in a while for very talented people, and when you can gig six nights a week for a few years.

But most don't get or have that opportunity. Your point about not being in the typical box is what I'm talking about generally when I'm discussing playing Jazz. We understand what Diz, Bird and Monk were playing. Part of being able to play in the present is being aware of the past... PO.

[Jonah]

It makes difference form... not just lables, but notions.

Now the word 'jazz' is used for plenty of various music... I do not want to go into deep investigation of it here and now, though it is interesting. To me it is inertial they keep call it the same name mostly because of non-musical inheritance: audiance, instruments, stages... and then musical approach only.
In 50s pop music finally in its means split from jazz - and jazz looked for scene, and it became a kind of music for boheme, sophisticated audience picked up this cliche and Japanese and Europeans helped to accomodate it to the market, for some audience it works like ' sophisticated pop' - it is not so much demanding, but at the same time they feel intellectual... it is like opera visitors - there are real fans, and also just those who consider it is just proper for social status to go to opera.
Of course it started with bop, they were first to feel 'we are artist, we make art, they don't get it' - but a not conciously yet, and the other ppoint that bop was musically still in the same convention that old swing...

There were great players of this new intelectual kind who played not for fun as before but for some other reasons - like Bill Evans, or Jim Hall (just as examples) - for whom it was just natural approach to music, they play like they search notes they never heard before - very high emotional concentrarion...
There were greats who kept playing old style fairly.
But then in 60s it like burst out - styles did not matter any more, everything became a kind of fusion, and when everything is equal for me it looses sence - one can play jazz on sitar, put Bach into funk, everybody talker about experimenting, styles before were rivers with its certain and personal bed, banks, surroundings, landscape... now it bacame an ocean - and for me it is like exchangebale... it is like like if people started to dress in plenty of colours at the same time, soon it will become that not the colour or combination of colours that it important, but just that there's plenty of them (any of them).
Of cousrse even later there were greats - (Jaco was great in reviving old swing with modern means) - I am not talking about personalities here - great people are everywhere but their luck is the time to be born in.

I call jazz approximately everything from the beginning to post-bop mainstream (like Montgomery, Bill Evans etc.), all these rock, funky, fusion, acid, pop, symphonic, progressive etc - is not jazz for me.

Jazz is much rooted in certain cultural background - it was very much socially inspired, now there is no more this culture.
So now I consider there is rock or something influenced by jazz practiced, or some modern improvizational music using jazz rythms, or just pop camouflaged with some modality or something..

So jazz performance for me is close to historical performance practice, when we revive and learn dead language - just because we love what was spoken with.

Of course I know that there are lots of playres who make good music without thinking about such things and who do not care how they call it.
This is not what I am talking about.

IMPORTAN NOTE
The author of this message understand that there are lots of people who disagree with him, he does not intent to hurt any of them, and in advance takes all the possible issues on the account of his own inability to comprehend, understand and explain.

[Jonah]

On analysis

4thstunning wrote:

I look at all this very simply: the F#m7b5 is substituting for a variant of the root, a CMaj7#4.

I understood it like he suggests to interpret this chord as a tonic function.
Otherwise How can I understand words 'vaiant of the root'.

First of all I think it is wrong, because it is functionally has no sence - tonic chord with added triton in bass - in any functional context it will change its function (mos probably to some secondary dominant).
If I am wrog, please, explain to me...

The other point that 4thstunning called it as 'very simply' - this was evoked my speculations on 'plane-ship' and 'whistling'. Becasue for me it is not simple it is very very complex - to interprete such a simple functionally chord in this way.

I understand that we look to it from different points.

I speak about music that sounds, not about which concepts are implied to improvize over it.

[Phil in London]

On analysis

4thstunning wrote:



I understood it like he suggests to interpret this chord as a tonic function.
Otherwise How can I understand words 'vaiant of the root'.

First of all I think it is wrong, because it is functionally has no sence - tonic chord with added triton in bass - in any functional context it will change its function (mos probably to some secondary dominant).
If I am wrog, please, explain to me...

The other point that 4thstunning called it as 'very simply' - this was evoked my speculations on 'plane-ship' and 'whistling'. Becasue for me it is not simple it is very very complex - to interprete such a simple functionally chord in this way.

I understand that we look to it from different points.

I speak about music that sounds, not about which concepts are implied to improvize over it.

I am new to this thread - just a few thoughts.

Cmaj#11 can have root function (depending on context). I am sure you heard of this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia...l_Organization

If you chose to play F#m7b5 instead, you add an A to the equation. So that would make it Cmaj13#11... and? It all depends on voicing. If the band is standing on Cmaj#11, with the bass player nailing the C so that it almost blows you off the stage, why would you not have fun to tease him with a range of F#m7b5 chords, in various inversions? :-)

[Jonah]

I am new to this thread - just a few thoughts.

Cmaj#11 can have root function (depending on context). I am sure you heard of this:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia...l_Organization

If you chose to play F#m7b5 instead, you add an A to the equation. So? It all depends on voicing. If the band is standing on Cmaj#11, with the bass player nailing the C so that it almost blows you off the stage, why would you not have fun to tease him with a range of F#m7b5 chords, in various inversions? :-)

Thank you, Phil.

Yes of course I heard of this, but please just for explanation for me could you show me how you approach and rosolve tonic Cmaj#11 within functional tonality - what chords would be before and after it?
And expecially what will be the meaning of Fis in this chord for its function?