harmony with augmented chords

[Jesterbob]

I was wondering if someone could shed some light on dominant augmented chords and their place in harmony. Whenever I'm looking at a lead sheet and I see an augmented chord a big question mark pops up in my head. Why augmented?

[randalljazz]

assuming you mean a dominant 7th chord with a sharp 5th (or flatted 13th):

that altered note is the minor 3rd of the resolution chord, which lends a 'bluesy' flavor to a major key, besides anticipating the 3rd in minor.

also gives some tasty voice leading possibilities:

x5355x
3x344x
x3243x (or x3223x)

[JonR]

I was wondering if someone could shed some light on dominant augmented chords and their place in harmony. Whenever I'm looking at a lead sheet and I see an augmented chord a big question mark pops up in my head. Why augmented?

Classically, the #5 leads up to the major 3rd of the following chord - a chromatic passing note, if you like.
As randalljazz says, it can also be used in minor keys to represent (and anticipate) the m3.
It might also resolve down a half-step to the 9th of the following chord, especially if preceded by a 9th on the ii chord. (Dm9-G7#5-C69... just noticed this was rj's example! ).
When used in a minor key - or when resolving downwards - some like to write the V7#5 as a V7b13; but the distinction is academic (IMO).

Scalewise, in jazz a 7#5 might imply the altered scale, which also has b9 and #9, or (less often) the wholetone scale, which has a major 9th. Altered scale is more often specified by 7#5#9, or something similar, but if you see a 9#5 (or 9b5) that means wholetone.
(Listen to the intro to Stevie Wonder's "You Are The Sunshine Of My Life", for wholetone scale on a G7#5.)

Because an augmented triad is symmetrical, it can resolve in 3 different ways, so can be used as a pivot chord in modulation.
C+ = E+ = Ab+. Any of them can resolve to F, A or Db.
The wholetone scale is symmetrical too: W-W-W-W-W-W, meaning no note is a natural root; meaning there are only two WT scales (A B Db Eb F G; Bb C D E Gb Ab). That also means (arguably) there are only two wholetone chords (any selection of notes from one of the scales), each of which can resolve in six different directions (but a lot depends on how they're voiced).

[randalljazz]

When used in a minor key - or when resolving downwards - some like to write the V7#5 as a V7b13; but the distinction is academic (IMO).

i guess you could characterize it as "academic"...but since b13 implies the existance of the natural 5 as well (which the #5 essentially precludes)...it can have "practical" applications...but you *know* that, jonr.

[JonR]

i guess you could characterize it as "academic"...but since b13 implies the existance of the natural 5 as well (which the #5 essentially precludes)...it can have "practical" applications...but you *know* that, jonr.

Yes...
Except that - as I understand it - while technically a b13 implies inclusion of a P5 (ideally voiced above the b13, if used in the chord), in practice, most times I see it in jazz charts it seems to imply the altered scale. Like sometimes I've seen "7#11b13"
Maybe the reasoning is that the bassist might well play a P5, so one can't specify an altered 5th in the chord? (I've heard bassists play P5s under altered dominants before, although not often.)
But altered dominants are always somewhat flexible in interpretation - as I know you know...

[BrettCramer]

altered dominants are always somewhat flexible in interpretation

quite true ..

[Jesterbob]

What about in a tune like Someday My Prince Will Come. I don't see how that fits into your examples

Bbmaj7 | D7#5 | Ebmaj7 | G#7 | C-7 | G#7 |C7 | F7

[randalljazz]

What about in a tune like Someday My Prince Will Come. I don't see how that fits into your examples

Bbmaj7 | D7#5 | Ebmaj7 | G#7 | C-7 | G#7 |C7 | F7

better written "G7#5" not "G#7" (which is a G# dom 7th chord, not a G7 with a raised 5th)

very similar to this discussion:

https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theor...onization.html

in smpwc the D7#5 can be seen as V7 of vi, resolving deceptively to IV instead (common sub)...the first 8 ms are a clever working of the I vi ii V progression...tasteful harm for the basic melody of the first four measures 5 1 7 6...the A can be seen as a 4-3 suspension, or as the #11 of the Ebmaj (9th of the Gm it replaces)...

jonr?

[JonR]

What about in a tune like Someday My Prince Will Come. I don't see how that fits into your examples

Bbmaj7 | D7#5 | Ebmaj7 | G#7 | C-7 | G#7 |C7 | F7

I agree with randalljazz:

D7#5 = V/vi (dominant of Gm, for which Ebmaj7 is a sub)
G7#5 = V/ii (dominant of Cm, twice)

         Melody: |F     |Bb    F#|A       G|G     |G      |Eb     B|D     C|C D Eb|
 basic sequence: |Bb    |        |Gm7(9)   |      |Cm7             |F7(13)        |
                  I               vi               ii               V
reharmonization: |Bb    |D7#5    |EbM7(#11)|G7#5  |Cm7    |G7#5    |Cm7(9) |F7    |
                  I      V/vi     IV        V/ii   ii      V/ii     ii      V

You can see in the basic sequence the melody does essentially the same thing twice: approaches a chord tone in the next chord via a raised leading tone: F# heading for G in bar 2; B natural heading for C in bar 6. But each time the resolution is delayed by going via a non-chord tone (9th and 13th respectively). It gives the melody a gentle intensity, a nice yearning quality.

When it comes to "improving" the basic I-vi-ii-V, then, it's easy to see that we can incorporate those chromatic leading tones in a couple of secondary dominants, D7 and G7 (the F# and B practically demand those chords) - ie converting the F7 to a Cm7-F7 so the two halves of the line match more closely (leading tone approaching root in both cases).

But then to do that, we also need to accommodate the main melody notes bars 2 and 6 (Bb and Eb)... hence the raised 5ths. (Altered dominants would also do the job.)

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Great analysis, Jon. I tend to forget to consider the basic harmony and take the reharm as "given".

[Lark]

I agree with randalljazz:

D7#5 = V/vi (dominant of Gm, for which Ebmaj7 is a sub)
G7#5 = V/ii (dominant of Cm, twice)

Sorry for the bump but I was reading this thread and I was curious how Ebmaj7 can sub for Gm? Gm is the vi chord in the key of Bbmaj and Ebmaj7 is the IV chord in the key of Bbmaj right? AFAIK the I, iii and vi have tonic function and the ii and IV have subdominant function since they contain the 4 of the key, which is considered an "avoid note" (at least in a chord, as a melody note it is debatable). How can a subdominant chord sub for a tonic chord?

Thanks in advance

[matt.guitarteacher]

Sorry for the bump but I was reading this thread and I was curious how Ebmaj7 can sub for Gm? Gm is the vi chord in the key of Bbmaj and Ebmaj7 is the IV chord in the key of Bbmaj right? AFAIK the I, iii and vi have tonic function and the ii and IV have subdominant function since they contain the 4 of the key, which is considered an "avoid note" (at least in a chord, as a melody note it is debatable). How can a subdominant chord sub for a tonic chord?

Thanks in advance

That's a good question , and it's really the point at which jazz theory somewhat branches out from classical. Because it's organized largely in four-note chords or more, jazz has some similar relationships beyond the "functional subs " you're talking about.

E flat major seven has a complete G minor Triad in it . Also, in terms of four note equivalents, E flat major seven has a kind of sixth chord relationship to gm. Some would probably say it's more like your "borrowing" the tonic relationship that they have in e flat major, but in the end, basically the relationship of up-and-down a third works pretty well in jazz. The fact that they're different functions is kind of almost the purpose in jazz, where you trying to get OUTSIDE of static relationships.

One old pro here refers to these as "extended diatonic relationships" and the cross-function feature is kind of the POINT of where he goes with it.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Lark -

To put it into C, much easier, you're asking how a C chord can sub for Em. Normally it's the other way round, that Em subs for C.

The two essential variations on a simple major chord are the M7 and 6. That is, CM7 and C6. The 'top' notes of CM7 are BDE, which is Em. The 'top' notes of C6 are ACE, which is Am. So Em and Am can sub for the C chord because the notes are so similar.

There are places in a progression where these subs sound even better than playing the ordinary C. For example, C-A7-Dm-G7. Playing Em-A7-Dm-G7 flows much more easily. It's just a question of shared notes and links to other chords (Em is the ii of A7).

The interesting thing about your question is that it reverses this idea. You're asking how the C can sub for the Em, right? All I can say is it's not normally done. If you had the progression FM7-Em7-A7-Dm7-G7-CM7, you could play a C instead of the Em but I don't think it would sound very good. Sort of defeats the object, if you see what I mean :-)

Important bit:

Soloing-wise, it may be different and often is. There's nothing to stop you from playing the notes of a CM7 over the Em7. That is, a CM7 arpeggio over that Em7 chord. Or a C6. Or a CM7 over an Am7 chord (sounds like an Am9)... etc.

[Lark]

That's a good question , and it's really the point at which jazz theory somewhat branches out from classical. Because it's organized largely in four-note chords or more, jazz has some similar relationships beyond the "functional subs " you're talking about.

E flat major seven has a complete G minor Triad in it . Also, in terms of four note equivalents, E flat major seven has a kind of sixth chord relationship to gm. Some would probably say it's more like your "borrowing" the tonic relationship that they have in e flat major, but in the end, basically the relationship of up-and-down a third works pretty well in jazz. The fact that they're different functions is kind of almost the purpose in jazz, where you trying to get OUTSIDE of static relationships.

One old pro here refers to these as "extended diatonic relationships" and the cross-function feature is kind of the POINT of where he goes with it.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

Hey Matt, thanks a lot! And lol, that was very stupid of me. I should have written out the notes in the chords:


Gm: G Bb D
Ebmaj7: Eb G Bb D

That directly shows that Ebmaj7 contains a Gm triad.

And indeed! In the key of Ebmaj7, Gmin is the iii chord! Didnt saw that =[. From that point it makes sense. But since we were in the key of Bb the Ebmaj7 and Gm have different functions since Ebmaj7 contains the b6 of Gm which is considered an avoid note in a chord I assumed it would not work.

Are there any books, websites or other literature that talks more about this kind of "extended diatonic relationships"? I was aware of diatonic subs using the three categories: tonic, subdom and dom, using tritone substitutions, using minor subdominant chords and modal interchange but this is new to me. I thought I was finally starting to get a grip on jazz harmony but I guess it was just an illusion :P.

Lark -

To put it into C, much easier, you're asking how a C chord can sub for Em. Normally it's the other way round, that Em subs for C.

The two essential variations on a simple major chord are the M7 and 6. That is, CM7 and C6. The 'top' notes of CM7 are BDE, which is Em. The 'top' notes of C6 are ACE, which is Am. So Em and Am can sub for the C chord because the notes are so similar.

There are places in a progression where these subs sound even better than playing the ordinary C. For example, C-A7-Dm-G7. Playing Em-A7-Dm-G7 flows much more easily. It's just a question of shared notes and links to other chords (Em is the ii of A7).

The interesting thing about your question is that it reverses this idea. You're asking how the C can sub for the Em, right? All I can say is it's not normally done. If you had the progression FM7-Em7-A7-Dm7-G7-CM7, you could play a C instead of the Em but I don't think it would sound very good. Sort of defeats the object, if you see what I mean :-)

Important bit:

Soloing-wise, it may be different and often is. There's nothing to stop you from playing the notes of a CM7 over the Em7. That is, a CM7 arpeggio over that Em7 chord. Or a C6. Or a CM7 over an Am7 chord (sounds like an Am9)... etc.

Hey ragman1, thank you so much for the extensive reply! At first I was confused when you transposed the chords to C and called them I and iii. But I get it now. You see the chords Ebmaj7 and Gm as I and iii in the key of Ebmaj. In that case I completely understand the substitution since both chords are tonic chords in the key of Ebmaj. The problem I had was with the progression, posted by Jesterbob is that it is in the key of Bb and in roman numerals it looks like this (posted by JonR):
I V/vi IV V/ii ii V/ii ii V

So a V/vi resolves to a IV, and JonR says that the IV chord, Ebmaj7 in the key of Bb, is a sub for a Gm, the vi chord in the key of Bb.

If we look at it from the key of Ebmaj7 I completely understand why I could sub Ebmaj7 for Gm(7) since they both belong to the tonic family. In the key of Bb however, the Ebmaj7 IV chord belongs to the subdominant chord family and the Gm, vi chord belongs to the tonic family. If we follow this logic we can sub the ii for the I chord right? Or is this too much outside?

I didn't know you could use "extended diatonic relationships" to make substitutions.

[christianm77]

I think the augmented triad as a V chord is kind of one of the old school pre war sounds in harmony, and to a lesser extent the V7+5.

In most modern charts I think we would tend to think b13 and maybe go with altered, but to my ears Aug has a different individual colour, related to the whole tone scale.

[christianm77]

That's a good question , and it's really the point at which jazz theory somewhat branches out from classical. Because it's organized largely in four-note chords or more, jazz has some similar relationships beyond the "functional subs " you're talking about.

This is the type of statement that grinds my gears. A specific era and style of jazz is organised around a basis of seventh chords, post 1960s mainstream. Jazz musicians concentrating only on these organisations is a great way to limit their harmonic and stylistic flexibility to post 1960s mainstream.

Real harmony is more nuanced.

Anyway.

E flat major seven has a complete G minor Triad in it . Also, in terms of four note equivalents, E flat major seven has a kind of sixth chord relationship to gm. Some would probably say it's more like your "borrowing" the tonic relationship that they have in e flat major, but in the end, basically the relationship of up-and-down a third works pretty well in jazz. The fact that they're different functions is kind of almost the purpose in jazz, where you trying to get OUTSIDE of static relationships.

One old pro here refers to these as "extended diatonic relationships" and the cross-function feature is kind of the POINT of where he goes with it.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

I’m with Jordan in all of this. Triads are most flexible way to view all harmony. Gm/Eb is a great way to view Ebmaj7.

There are many massive problems with the four note seventh chords model.... I could list here but it will just get into intractable debate about off topic minutiae. Maybe I’ll list them somewhere else.

Tbh I still teach it because it’s mainstream and people need to know it, but the more I learn, the more a triad based approach seems a viable approach compatible with both traditional harmony and post Bill Evans jazz harmony. You still need to know the seventh chords obviously, but to enshrine them as the basics? I think many of the contemporary players have moved away from this, let alone the old guard....

From a practical standpoint, I used to think four notes. Contact with forms of jazz where this type of thinking really didn’t work well forced me to develop a more nuanced approach.

The thing that gets missed out a bit is big band harmony and bebop.... but that can be understood via Barry.

[matt.guitarteacher]

This is the type of statement that grinds my gears. A specific era and style of jazz is organised around a basis of seventh chords, post 1960s mainstream. Jazz musicians concentrating only on these organisations is a great way to limit their harmonic and stylistic flexibility to post 1960s mainstream.

Real harmony is more nuanced.

Anyway.



I’m with Jordan in all of this. Triads are most flexible way to view all harmony. Gm/Eb is a great way to view Ebmaj7.

There are many massive problems with the four note seventh chords model.... I could list here but it will just get into intractable debate about off topic minutiae. Maybe I’ll list them somewhere else.

Tbh I still teach it because it’s mainstream and people need to know it, but the more I learn, the more a triad based approach seems a viable approach compatible with both traditional harmony and post Bill Evans jazz harmony. You still need to know the seventh chords obviously, but to enshrine them as the basics? I think many of the contemporary players have moved away from this, let alone the old guard....

From a practical standpoint, I used to think four notes. Contact with forms of jazz where this type of thinking really didn’t work well forced me to develop a more nuanced approach.

The thing that gets missed out a bit is big band harmony and bebop.... but that can be understood via Barry.

I can accept the fact that most people in the world are not as comfortable with looking at things in multiple ways the way I do. Honestly, I'm not bothered by seemingly conflicting viewpoints etc., but we ALL need to understand that at a basic level there are differing approaches. The difference between viewing everything as an extension versus viewing things as triads with tensions or whatever... . Honestly, I don't care. Some of that is getting deeply personal to the individual musician . But there are a lot of guys who play great together that think one way or the other.

Personally, I'm bothered by the tendency to marginalize others ways of viewing the music as being invalid, made up at Berklee or for some academic purpose, and dissociated from actual music on the bandstand. It's an interesting abstract question I guess, but it directly conflicts the experiences of multiple professional musicians on this forum. At a certain level, I have to accept that they're all LIARS and that the excellent playing they post was thought of in a completely different way than the way that they describe. I'm simply not prepared to do that.

I don't think Henry R, Reg, and multiple other musicians on this forum who claim they think about things in terms seven cords are "wrong" or misled by someone in the past was an academic and that they somehow found a way to play "in spite of it". I'm also not questioning whether Jordan is misguided for having a different perspective, or people who study Barry Harris.

The Berklee grassy knoll doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. It goes against the testimony of actual players have gone through that system , who played before it , and who studied with players from that system.

It's okay to have your personal understanding of music and process BE actually PERSONAL. It's okay to have an OPINION about what's best, but when we talk about someone else's personal process as being basically MADE UP or overly complicating that which is "simple your way" , I have a problem with that. If real players have an understanding which works for them, it's valid and worth looking at.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[christianm77]

I can accept the fact that most people in the world are not as comfortable with looking at things in multiple ways the way I do. Honestly, I'm not bothered by seemingly conflicting viewpoints etc., but we ALL need to understand that at a basic level there are differing approaches. The difference between viewing everything as an extension versus viewing things as triads with tensions or whatever... . Honestly, I don't care. Some of that is getting deeply personal to the individual musician . But there are a lot of guys who play great together that think one way or the other.

Personally, I'm bothered by the tendency to marginalize others ways of viewing the music as being invalid, made up at Berklee or for some academic purpose, and dissociated from actual music on the bandstand. It's an interesting abstract question I guess, but it directly conflicts the experiences of multiple professional musicians on this forum. At a certain level, I have to accept that they're all LIARS and that the excellent playing they post was thought of in a completely different way than the way that they describe. I'm simply not prepared to do that.

I don't think Henry R, Reg, and multiple other musicians on this forum who claim they think about things in terms seven cords are "wrong" or misled by someone in the past was an academic and that they somehow found a way to play "in spite of it". I'm also not questioning whether Jordan is misguided for having a different perspective, or people who study Barry Harris.

The Berklee grassy knoll doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. It goes against the testimony of actual players have gone through that system , who played before it , and who studied with players from that system.

It's okay to have your personal understanding of music and process BE actually PERSONAL. It's okay to have an OPINION about what's best, but when we talk about someone else's personal process as being basically MADE UP or overly complicating that which is "simple your way" , I have a problem with that. If real players have an understanding which works for them, it's valid and worth looking at.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

This is a complicated topic, and I have thought and read about it in some depth. I also want to streamline my teaching approach as much as possible. I think it’s possible to tweak the way I was taught in such a way that it allows more flexibility and imposes less of an ‘iron curtain’ between Jazz Harmony (tm) and every other type of harmony.

But some things are true/false in a fairly clear way - if one makes the statement (not saying you did) ‘jazz musicians always base their comping and lines on seventh chords or larger structures’ it’s very easy to show that is empirically false (along with some other commonly taught factoids) - unless we redefine ‘jazz’ to mean ‘the common practice that is now taught’ (which i find a bit circular)

This is no more a matter of debate than the falsity of the statement ‘jazz is always in the minor key’

So the question is less to do with the sounding actuality of the music and more to do with how to teach. Should we start with seventh chords if triads are frequently used both in early and contemporary jazz, as well other forms of music, and how much of change to the pedagogy would it require to make these sounds the basis and seventh chords the next tier up, so to speak?

(Also problems with using the seventh chords as the theoretical foundation as I was taught... big subject. I frequently come across misconceptions that are the product of that type of thinking. Experienced players don’t have these, but it’s common in students at the intermediate level.)

This is not something I have decided. My current compromise is to teach starting seventh chord shell voicings as I was taught, but base linear playing on triads before extending the range of options. There’s no contradiction here with conventional jazz theory it’s just a matter of priority.

(Many jazz guitar teachers start with seventh chord arpeggios, while I use triads, basically.)

(Btw none of this stuff is to do with Barry which I don’t teach to beginners)

[christianm77]

Obv a pro will know all options, so it’s about organisation of information and what to teach first. To me, triads make a lot of sense for that reason - they can be expanded into 7ths and 6ths among other things

[matt.guitarteacher]

Bert Ligon teaches embellishment of 3 note triads as a starting point for line playing as well. Connects earlier forms etc. No problem with that necessarily. But when you're talking HARMONY, I'd think you're talking 6th/7th chords as the basis, with something like triads as maybe an APPROACH to that.

I don't really know how to go back and start over mentally , "unlearn" what I did before. not sure where my prejudices are more defined by what I DID than what's best. By the time I got to thinking about things in terms of triads I already knew the seventh chord arpeggios , and I mostly use them as a fingering basis for things, even when pairing back, at least for jazz. (I do a lot with triads outside jazz and strangle think slightly differently about them - kinesthetically and musically.)

There's kind of a chicken egg thing for me with leaving out the seventh in targeting things through the cycle. You end up playing the seventh by default, when you target the third of the next chord . I mean are you merely "already on" the next chord , or are you adding sevenths to the previous? Doesn't matter in the end I guess , but I don't really know how to think about it as "from the beginning".

I'd be curious to know how you teach your students to target thirds when cycling like that. To me, seventh chord fingerings a fifth above provide the fingering mostly , but I'm not TEACHING jazz. Not sure if that's more of a "just the way I learned it" thing more.

But I've also spent a couple of years thinking about the fact that that kind of targeting can also be thought of harmonically, and therefore e"xtended back" from the basic target notes I might have started with.

(I've actually spent the last week or so working on chromatic passing tone approaches based on those old Jimmy Amadie patterns I learned a long time ago. You can basically use them in a major context or altered etc. If you apply those halfstep principles. sort of has a foot in both sides of things: embellishment , but based in a harmonic context. Anyway, at the same time, accidentally stumbled upon something on Barry Harris's chromatic scale principles, and they're basically the same thing. These are really nice approaches which work very solidly in harmonic and rhythmic ways. Another thread probably.)

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Lark -

I V - vi IV V - ii ii V - ii ii V

I'm afraid I have no idea what this means. 3 symbols to a bar? Translated into Bb that's Bb F7 - Gm Eb G7 - Cm Cm F7. It makes no sense to me and, I must be honest, I wouldn't spend any time trying to unravel it. I like simplicity.

If we follow this logic we can sub the ii for the I chord right?

Or maybe 2+2=5. Sorry, beyond me

As regards substitution at its simplest level there are only two categories, tonic and dominant. Chords I, iii, and vi are tonic and ii, V, and vii are dominant. The IV chord is a bit ambiguous but is normally classed as dominant. So tonics can be subbed for each other and dominants for each other.

Things get a bit more complex when the iii and vi are changed to doms and become secondary dominants. Whether Bb, D7 and G7 can be subbed for each other is debatable. Probably they can to some extent, it depends how it sounds.

Beyond that, i.e. with tritone subs, we get into high theory land. There practically anything can be justified and is beyond the scope of this article.

Thank god :-)

[matt.guitarteacher]

Hey Matt, thanks a lot! And lol, that was very stupid of me. I should have written out the notes in the chords:


Gm: G Bb D
Ebmaj7: Eb G Bb D

That directly shows that Ebmaj7 contains a Gm triad.

And indeed! In the key of Ebmaj7, Gmin is the iii chord! Didnt saw that =[. From that point it makes sense. But since we were in the key of Bb the Ebmaj7 and Gm have different functions since Ebmaj7 contains the b6 of Gm which is considered an avoid note in a chord I assumed it would not work.

Are there any books, websites or other literature that talks more about this kind of "extended diatonic relationships"? I was aware of diatonic subs using the three categories: tonic, subdom and dom, using tritone substitutions, using minor subdominant chords and modal interchange but this is new to me. I thought I was finally starting to get a grip on jazz harmony but I guess it was just an illusion :P.



Hey ragman1, thank you so much for the extensive reply! At first I was confused when you transposed the chords to C and called them I and iii. But I get it now. You see the chords Ebmaj7 and Gm as I and iii in the key of Ebmaj. In that case I completely understand the substitution since both chords are tonic chords in the key of Ebmaj. The problem I had was with the progression, posted by Jesterbob is that it is in the key of Bb and in roman numerals it looks like this (posted by JonR):
I V/vi IV V/ii ii V/ii ii V

So a V/vi resolves to a IV, and JonR says that the IV chord, Ebmaj7 in the key of Bb, is a sub for a Gm, the vi chord in the key of Bb.

If we look at it from the key of Ebmaj7 I completely understand why I could sub Ebmaj7 for Gm(7) since they both belong to the tonic family. In the key of Bb however, the Ebmaj7 IV chord belongs to the subdominant chord family and the Gm, vi chord belongs to the tonic family. If we follow this logic we can sub the ii for the I chord right? Or is this too much outside?

I didn't know you could use "extended diatonic relationships" to make substitutions.

Not in a book. Reg just posted stuff here about it. Some of it is kind of heavy, but understanding the up or down third relationship is pretty fundamental and important. That one is also pretty easy to understand .

The other basic principle is that chord patterns can be used in other contexts , in the same way that you "sub " relationships functionally. So ii-V works in it's functional context , but you can also use it as a " sub chord pattern" over other minor or dominant chords , regardless of whether they are actually the ii or V of the moment. Gives you blue /outside notes from which to target the chord of the moment. Kind of like the way you can always play a I-IV pattern in rock styles, even on the IV etc...

Anyway, all from Reg : (first link is bad. Leaving for admin)


Reg's Thread... live at the speed of Jazz

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

i usually use 7b5 chords instead of augmented chords

[ragman1]

P.S. I see Jesterbob also posted this:

Bbmaj7 | D7#5 | Ebmaj7 | G#7 | C-7 | G#7 |C7 | F7

He hasn't clarified this himself so it stands as it is from my pov. God knows what G#7 means unless it means Ab7, which I doubt because it's supposed to be the chords to 'Someday My Prince Will Come'. If that's so then the chord is G7+. Here they are:





The way I look at it, the only reason the D7 is notated as D7+ is because the melody note is a Bb, the #5 of D7. The chord is D7.

The G7+ is the usual way of leading to the Cm chord after it, which is standard practice. It could have been G7b9, G7#9, or G7#5b9, but I guess the #5 sound echoes the D7#5 sound before it. Which makes sense.

If I was playing it solo, the #5 note over D7 is forced on the player. If it was a backing track or with a band then altering the D7 to D7#5 is optional.

(The same applies to the second G7+, the #5 sound is imposed by the melody).

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Classically, the #5 leads up to the major 3rd of the following chord - a chromatic passing note, if you like.

I just realised that happens in the Canadian anthem, measure 21.



Measures 21 and 22 are | F / F7#5 / | Bb etc...