Secondary dominant scale choices

[beatzle]

I have a complicated question!
At uni when studying jazz harmony we were taught as a general rule that when it comes to secondary dominant chords, if the secondary dominant chord is V of a diatonic chord that's minor (eg A7,B7, E7 in key of C) always use/play Myxolydian b9b13 (Phrygian dominant) and if its V of I, IV or V just use regular Myxolydian.
Our lecturer studied at Berklee and was pretty on top of his stuff, i learned alot, great teacher.
But now I'm reading a book (on method endorsed or taught at berklee at some stage??) that says to do this in all cases but V of II (A7 in C) - instead, for this chord it says use Myxolidian with b13 but not b9. It puts it down to taking the chord tones from the secondary dominant chord, and filling in the rest of the notes with those diatonic to the key or from the mode. It makes sense but doesn't really offer an in depth explanation for why. Now I realise it's just one note we're talking about here! And in the times Ive used phrygian dominant over V of II i think it sounds good! but mostly ive found it a really useful and quick formula to say if its V of a minor, use PD if its V of not minor use regualr myxo! (VII excluded) So I was wondering if anyone knew why there might be the theory of use PD for all V of Minors, if anyones been taught the same thing or any general thoughts! Sorry if this is a repeat question, but i couldnt find anything as specific as my question.

Thanks!

[christianm77]

Interesting question. Personally, from transcribing bebop stuff, when they see a VI7 they always play the b13 and b9 of the scale pretty much (PD). This is what I do when I'm playing bop and older style stuff. If I want to reference a more modern style I might use an altered scale on the VI7.

Anyway, either scale will work. My suggestion is to transcribe your favourite players and see what they do. I do the harmonic minor thing specifically because Charlie Parker and Bud Powell told me its cool - so to speak ;-)

I would invariably use PD on all dominants of minors, unless I wanted to make a point of playing the altered scale over the 7b9 for a special effect. You can also do it on major wherever you like and resolve into major. Some classic bop cadences intermix major and minor.

BTW The way that bop guys (well Barry Harris and David Baker) think of it is a little strange seeming at first but it does work really well. Say you have a Vi7 going to ii, or a iiim7b5 VI7 going to ii - you will take a dominant (mixolydian scale) a whole step down from the target chord (ii) and raise the root by a half step. So in the key of C, you might have this.

A7 --> Dm - take C7 scale
Bb A G F E D B C
Bb A G F E D B C#

So you get the PD scale on VI7 this way but I actually find this easier to do believe it or not. It makes it easier to use dominant scale language - and all you have to do is raise the C to a C# when you feel like it. For example:

C B Bb A G F E D B C#

[beatzle]

Hey thanks for your reply christianm77 and yeah that's a cool way of thinking about it and i can see how it's easier to process maybe from the home key perspective. And i too just think of it as the harmonic minor.

I love to think that maybe Charlie Parker came across some learning or teacher that said "strictly no b9 on V of II!" and he just did anyway like f you, i'll make this cool! haha!

Thanks again for your wise words

[docbop]

I was taugh a very simple view of dominants and have heard it repeats many times. If a dominant is resolving in other words moving in CoF's or half-step the can use any dominant scale and alteration (of course melody has to be considered). For Non-Resolving dominants then use Lydian b7 and keep it inside.



Yes, of course there are not rules, anything can work, but those are the basic suggestions.

[JensL]

I don't know the strict theory but here's how I hear it.

If we are in C major Dm is a subdominant chord. The note that leads to the subdominant is the b7 of the tonic: Bb, so if we are moving towards the subdominant we like to hear Bb (I've noticed I do, anyway) That is why the A7b9 works well as a secondary dom7th for Dm, and to my ears better than A7 (9b13).

I mostly harmonize the 9 with a different chord like a b3 dim (my Ideal, Everything happens to me)

Jens

[55bar]

I have a complicated question!
At uni when studying jazz harmony we were taught as a general rule that when it comes to secondary dominant chords, if the secondary dominant chord is V of a diatonic chord that's minor (eg A7,B7, E7 in key of C) always use/play Myxolydian b9b13 (Phrygian dominant) and if its V of I, IV or V just use regular Myxolydian.
Our lecturer studied at Berklee and was pretty on top of his stuff, i learned alot, great teacher.
But now I'm reading a book (on method endorsed or taught at berklee at some stage??) that says to do this in all cases but V of II (A7 in C) - instead, for this chord it says use Myxolidian with b13 but not b9. It puts it down to taking the chord tones from the secondary dominant chord, and filling in the rest of the notes with those diatonic to the key or from the mode. It makes sense but doesn't really offer an in depth explanation for why. Now I realise it's just one note we're talking about here! And in the times Ive used phrygian dominant over V of II i think it sounds good! but mostly ive found it a really useful and quick formula to say if its V of a minor, use PD if its V of not minor use regualr myxo! (VII excluded) So I was wondering if anyone knew why there might be the theory of use PD for all V of Minors, if anyones been taught the same thing or any general thoughts! Sorry if this is a repeat question, but i couldnt find anything as specific as my question.

Thanks!

If you have someone comping I'd always use my ears. It happens all the time that piano played put non/diatonic extensions on dominant 7th chords. When blowing it can be open season.

Good accompanists will pay carefully attention when comping over the melody though.

[henryrobinett]

You guys are too cool! That's WAY more thinking than I can recall doing on secondary dominate.

[christianm77]

I was taugh a very simple view of dominants and have heard it repeats many times. If a dominant is resolving in other words moving in CoF's or half-step the can use any dominant scale and alteration (of course melody has to be considered). For Non-Resolving dominants then use Lydian b7 and keep it inside.



Yes, of course there are not rules, anything can work, but those are the basic suggestions.

I like the Lydian b7 on II7, IV7 and bVI7.

[docbop]

I like the Lydian b7 on II7, IV7 and bVI7.

Just playing devils advocate.....

Doesn't where those chords are going factor into the decision too? If the cycle and II7 and it's going to a V7 Lydian b7 is the most inside choice except for Mixolydian. Jazz players LOVE dominant chords because they present the most opportunity to add some hot sauce to a chord change. So if you see a dominant is going to cycle isn't the choice all about how much seasoning you want, than defaulting a dash of salt?

[55bar]

Just playing devils advocate.....

Doesn't where those chords are going factor into the decision too? If the cycle and II7 and it's going to a V7 Lydian b7 is the most inside choice except for Mixolydian. Jazz players LOVE dominant chords because they present the most opportunity to add some hot sauce to a chord change. So if you see a dominant is going to cycle isn't the choice all about how much seasoning you want, than defaulting a dash of salt?

When you say "cycle" is that what I would call "static" or "non resolving" ie not going to resolve to a one?

[docbop]

When you say "cycle" is that what I would call "static" or "non resolving" ie not going to resolve to a one?

Nothing static about it's all about where it's going in the CoF.

I discovered over past year when the old Jazz guys talk about "the cycle" they are not always talking about diatonic harmony they are focused on strength of the root movement. Rhythm Changes bridge is the cycle. People add chords by Back Cycling, it's about about root movement that the strength the ear is hearing.

[55bar]

Nothing static about it's all about where it's going in the CoF.

I discovered over past year when the old Jazz guys talk about "the cycle" they are not always talking about diatonic harmony they are focused on strength of the root movement. Rhythm Changes bridge is the cycle. People add chords by Back Cycling, it's about about root movement that the strength the ear is hearing.

Ah yes I get you know, sorry was getting confused I put up a video called "F in a -round, where I "think I was doing that"?

[PMB]

Interesting question. Personally, from transcribing bebop stuff, when they see a VI7 they always play the b13 and b9 of the scale pretty much (PD). This is what I do when I'm playing bop and older style stuff. If I want to reference a more modern style I might use an altered scale on the VI7.

Anyway, either scale will work. My suggestion is to transcribe your favourite players and see what they do. I do the harmonic minor thing specifically because Charlie Parker and Bud Powell told me its cool - so to speak ;-)

I would invariably use PD on all dominants of minors, unless I wanted to make a point of playing the altered scale over the 7b9 for a special effect. You can also do it on major wherever you like and resolve into major. Some classic bop cadences intermix major and minor.

BTW The way that bop guys (well Barry Harris and David Baker) think of it is a little strange seeming at first but it does work really well. Say you have a Vi7 going to ii, or a iiim7b5 VI7 going to ii - you will take a dominant (mixolydian scale) a whole step down from the target chord (ii) and raise the root by a half step. So in the key of C, you might have this.

A7 --> Dm - take C7 scale
Bb A G F E D B C
Bb A G F E D B C#

So you get the PD scale on VI7 this way but I actually find this easier to do believe it or not. It makes it easier to use dominant scale language - and all you have to do is raise the C to a C# when you feel like it. For example:

C B Bb A G F E D B C#

Given the equivalent nature of the I and vi in Barry's universe, another way to consider that complete set is that it combines the major bebop scale (F-G-A-Bb-C-C#-D-E) with its relative melodic minor bebop (D-E-F-G-A-Bb-B-C#). I don't remember BH describing it this way but interestingly enough, the same total result occurs from a combination of the relative minor bebop with the related dominant bebop scale (C-D-E-F-G-A-Bb-B).

[christianm77]

Just playing devils advocate.....

Doesn't where those chords are going factor into the decision too? If the cycle and II7 and it's going to a V7 Lydian b7 is the most inside choice except for Mixolydian. Jazz players LOVE dominant chords because they present the most opportunity to add some hot sauce to a chord change. So if you see a dominant is going to cycle isn't the choice all about how much seasoning you want, than defaulting a dash of salt?

Sure. But in standards, IV7 normally goes to I, and II7 normally goes to V7 and bVI7 either goes to V7 or I. It's pretty predictable. Exceptions to these rules are notable... (And I'd probably play the same modes anyway ;-))

I've been recently working mixolydian and the mixolydian #1 thing over everything. But that's not what I observe in practice so much....

This is based on what I have observed bop musicians (Parker, Bud Powell, Early Miles) doing. It's surprisingly consistent from the stuff I've looked at. I'd be interested to see some exceptions, of course, and this stuff may represent the cross section of material of things I have looked at more than the actual case...

Rules of thumb are always a bit sketchy.... of course.....

The dominant cycle is an interesting one actually - mixolydian for each always sounds good.... I'd see that as an exception to the rule of thumb.

And of course you can do whatever you want. But Bird/Bud etc do not appear to be keen on the altered scale on VI7, or on IV7, for example. There is certainly a common practice here. Nowadays it would be different, of course....

[christianm77]

Given the equivalent nature of the I and vi in Barry's universe, another way to consider that complete set is that it combines the major bebop scale (F-G-A-Bb-C-C#-D-E) with its relative melodic minor bebop (D-E-F-G-A-Bb-B-C#). I don't remember BH describing it this way but interestingly enough, the same total result occurs from a combination of the relative minor bebop with the related dominant bebop scale (C-D-E-F-G-A-Bb-B).

Barry Harris doesn't talk about bebop scales. The added notes that he uses in scales for improvisation are more complex, and he regards them as separate from his harmonic scales (the BH diminished scales.)

The added notes are not considered to have any harmonic significance beyond being a type of rhythmic filler (as I understand it).... So I don't think he would talk about it in this way.

The BH system is pretty set - 'do this', 'play this' - it's like painting by numbers in a way, completely different to the 'here's a pool of notes' thing you get with CST. But it does work to produce idiomatic bop language and the more of it you learn the freer you get. I think it's fascinating.

Incidentally, that does raise an issue about the distinction between scalar and modal improvisation, and one and two octave harmonic systems (BH is a 1 octave system, CST is 2 octaves, Warne Marsh had the beginnings of a 3 octave concept) but that's another thing....

[setemupjoe]

I have a complicated question!
At uni when studying jazz harmony we were taught as a general rule that when it comes to secondary dominant chords, if the secondary dominant chord is V of a diatonic chord that's minor (eg A7,B7, E7 in key of C) always use/play Myxolydian b9b13 (Phrygian dominant) and if its V of I, IV or V just use regular Myxolydian.
Our lecturer studied at Berklee and was pretty on top of his stuff, i learned alot, great teacher.
But now I'm reading a book (on method endorsed or taught at berklee at some stage??) that says to do this in all cases but V of II (A7 in C) - instead, for this chord it says use Myxolidian with b13 but not b9. It puts it down to taking the chord tones from the secondary dominant chord, and filling in the rest of the notes with those diatonic to the key or from the mode. It makes sense but doesn't really offer an in depth explanation for why. Now I realise it's just one note we're talking about here! And in the times Ive used phrygian dominant over V of II i think it sounds good! but mostly ive found it a really useful and quick formula to say if its V of a minor, use PD if its V of not minor use regualr myxo! (VII excluded) So I was wondering if anyone knew why there might be the theory of use PD for all V of Minors, if anyones been taught the same thing or any general thoughts! Sorry if this is a repeat question, but i couldnt find anything as specific as my question.

Thanks!

In the William Leavitt books it does mention using the natural 9 for the V7/IImi (A7 in the key of C.) The reasoning for this is that he takes the extended and altered notes for each secondary dominant from the home key of C. Therefore A7 would have an F (b13th or #5th) and a B (9th.) The E7 (V7/VImi) would have a C (b13th or #5th), an F (b9th) and a G (#9th). The B7 would have an F (b5th), G (b13th or #5th) C (b9th) and D (#9th).

Bill Leavitt wrote his Modern Method for Guitar books focusing on developing a well rounded guitarist but there is little material for soloing concepts. That wasn't his focus.

Historically the natural 9th on the V7/IImi was quite common before the Bebop era. If you look at Pennies from Heaven (bar 28) the word "tree" is a natural 9th over the VI7. Similarly in "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" (which is an almost identical harmonic structure) on bar 28 there is a natural 9th on the VI7 for the lyric BA-by. Georgia on my Mind in bar 5 uses a natural 9th over the VI7. I believe soloists in the pre bebop tradition (swing, dixieland) favored the natural 9th as this sounded more sweet. I doubt Louis Armstrong would have favored the b9th (although now that I've said that I'll expect someone to dig up a recording to prove me wrong).

I do think the b9th over the VI7 chord became the preferred alteration with the more angular sound of the bebop era. Look no further than "Donna Lee" bar 29 for a case in point. The sound was changing in the mid to late 40's. Harmonically people were thinking differently and coloring old standards in new and interesting ways.

This is a lot of thinking all about one note. Do I play a B or a Bb over the A7 in the key of C? But I think it touches on an important movement in jazz that came about through the minds of Bird, Dizzy, Monk, Bud and all the others that came after.

[docbop]

Barry Harris doesn't talk about bebop scales. The added notes that he uses in scales for improvisation are more complex, and he regards them as separate from his harmonic scales (the BH diminished scales.)

The added notes are not considered to have any harmonic significance beyond being a type of rhythmic filler (as I understand it).... So I don't think he would talk about it in this way.

The BH system is pretty set - 'do this', 'play this' - it's like painting by numbers in a way, completely different to the 'here's a pool of notes' thing you get with CST. But it does work to produce idiomatic bop language and the more of it you learn the freer you get. I think it's fascinating.

Incidentally, that does raise an issue about the distinction between scalar and modal improvisation, and one and two octave harmonic systems (BH is a 1 octave system, CST is 2 octaves, Warne Marsh had the beginnings of a 3 octave concept) but that's another thing....

One of Barry's videos I've seen he says you can add the extra note anywhere its just there to line up chord tones.

Now others get more details about note that you're starting the line on. Some will say add the b6 in one case and b2 in another. In the end its all about rhythm and chord tones so the ear his happy.

[PMB]

Barry Harris doesn't talk about bebop scales. The added notes that he uses in scales for improvisation are more complex, and he regards them as separate from his harmonic scales (the BH diminished scales.)

The added notes are not considered to have any harmonic significance beyond being a type of rhythmic filler (as I understand it).... So I don't think he would talk about it in this way.

The BH system is pretty set - 'do this', 'play this' - it's like painting by numbers in a way, completely different to the 'here's a pool of notes' thing you get with CST. But it does work to produce idiomatic bop language and the more of it you learn the freer you get. I think it's fascinating.

Incidentally, that does raise an issue about the distinction between scalar and modal improvisation, and one and two octave harmonic systems (BH is a 1 octave system, CST is 2 octaves, Warne Marsh had the beginnings of a 3 octave concept) but that's another thing....

Sure, I'm aware of this after checking out the complete Howard Rees-produced workshop DVD set, other interviews and videos and having listened to BH's playing for years. Nevertheless, it struck me as interesting that the note collection you posted was the result of combining any two or all three regular versions of the related mixolydian, melodic minor and major bebop scales.

[bako]

Modes with the least differential:

G7 - C .....GABCDEF

A7/Dm ......ABC#DEFG

B7/Em ..... BCDEbFGA or BCD#EF#GA

C7/F ...... CDEFGABb

D7/G ........ DEF#GABC

E7/Am ....... EFGAbBCD of EFG#ABCD

F#7/Bm7b5 .. F#GABbCDE

Dominant Alterations (differential notes in bold)

G7 - C ..... Db D# Ab A#

A7/Dm ...... Eb E# Bb B#

B7/Em ..... F Fx C D

C7/F ...... Gb G# Db Eb

D7/G ........ Ab A# Eb E#

E7/Am ....... Bb B# F Fx

F#7/Bm7b5 .. F# C Cx G Gx

Some alterations maintain the basic harmonic area, while others establish a differential.

[Reg]

So going on from bako's examples...

Like I always say... you need to make some kind of analysis of what's going on harmonically. That analysis is going to reflect how much you understand. Which most have just basics and rule of thumbs etc... You haven't been taught or haven't put in the time to understand. Who cares.... But even if your analysis just picks the basic tonality of chord patterns, chord progression or a complete tune, at least you have a reference to base your organization on. The Macro concept, complete picture.

The other picture within the big picture, or the micro concept can also be your reference. I'm also always talking about Tonal Targets... the small pictures, the short chord progression or chord pattern... picking a physical location with in a chord progression or tune and use the same basic approach to creating your analysis.

The analysis creates your organization for what notes you use to create relationships. What scale you choose for your Secondary Dominant chord. Or what notes you add to the chord tones to create that scales.

Just for some basics... Secondary Dominants are typically V7's of Diatonic notes of a scales besides the root. It's not just the maj scale etc... Secondary's typically also imply a Dominant Resolution... that basic organization of the tritone resolving to an implied target. We also typically use the term Dominant Cadence to imply the Primary Cadence... V7 or I.

Organization of how notes react when in relationships, intervals, chords etc... more than one note, anyway this organization is based on Functional Harmony.

With jazz... we take these basic Harmonic organizational concept further, more layers of application. We use different note organizations as being the beginning reference. Different Tonics, different tonalities used as the basic reference and end result.

Anyway... back to note choices.

If you just take the chord tones of each V7 chord of the rest of the scale tones...(C) D E F G A B or D-7, E-7, Fmaj7, G7, A-7, B-7b5. Generally with Jazz, 7th chords are the basic chordal structures, as compared to Triads with Classical tradition.
Example...
V7 of II-7 or A7 going to D-7.

Chord tones are Root or A, 3rd or C#, 5th or E and b7th or G... A C# E G or A7, add extensions from primary tonal reference... the Key of C... the 9th or B, the 11th or D, the 13th which become b13 or F. So we added B, D, F from key or tonality of "C"

And we end up with A, B, C#, D, E, F, G... which is major scale with b7 and b13... or Dominant scale with b13, Mixolydian b13 from Melodic Minor organization of notes, The 5th degree of D Melodic Min. The A7 chord becomes A7b13 from D melodic Minor note pattern of Scale....

So you can go on in this manor, taking chord tones of Secondary V7 chord and adding extensions from primary tonality, or even go in micro approach... using secondary or extended tonalities... using same approach... chord tones and extensions from what ever tonality you choose.

So what traditional or maj/min Functional Harmony basically does, I'm just skipping to the end results, not how you get there, but basically every target of the Secondary Dominant becomes either a Imaj chordal reference or a VI- chordal reference....

II-7 becomes a VI- target chord. Which creates the basic use of V7b9b13 from Harmonic Minor.

So instead of D-7... we use D- Harmonic Minor as target, D, F, E... and the 7th becomes maj7... Just like maj/min functional harmony does... all Min Harmony relates to VI- becoming Harmonic Minor to create the V7 chord .

Maj/min functional harmony wants the same functional relationships in Minor tonality as we already have in Major tonality. We want the V chord to be Dominant.

Long story short.... the secondary and also extended Dominants chords all use V7 mixo or V7b9b13 except when notes need to be embellished... changed because of melodies or whatever other reasons. But the primary reference is still Imaj or Ionian or Imin. Harmonic Minor.

There is more, lots more... but I've probably already lost most of you, and who really cares.

So the big different in jazz is we don't just use that organization... maj/min functional harmony reference, We use Melodic Minor and Dorian just as much as Aeolian and Harmonic Minor'

Again we use V7 altered chords to resolve to any target, as well as many other versions.

There is as bako was referencing the use of just altering the 9ths and the 5ths to create V7 chords to fit harmonic situations. Which works fine in Micro analysis... but somewhat falls apart when using Macro analysis.

It somewhat boils down to.... being close works well enough, and through trial and error you can eliminate the really bad sounding choices. And why do you always hear everyone saying... the melody is always right, well if you don't understand harmony... you don't really have a choice... just play what sounds right with the melody, right.

I can just spell out the choices that are possible, it's very mechanical, plug and play. Or take approach that bako used and add reference organization and you'll end up with the majority of possibilities. And in the process you'll learn even more.

Example... use Ionian as reference for all Secondary Dominants... then use Dorian and the rest of the modes.

You'll also find lots of Blue Note references... especially when using Melodic Minor.

[christianm77]

There are many options, though.

At the moment I am just getting back into the half-whole scale. I like it as an option here over VI7. It's appealing because a) it sounds cool b) contains lots of interesting triads that can be used for fun chromatic movement and c) it includes both the VI7 and the biiio7 notes, for example, in C, which covers both common turnarounds neatly...

C A7b9 | Dm7 G7
C/E Ebo7 | Dm7 G7

A7 = A C# E G
Ebo7 = Eb F# A C
A 1/2-whole = A Bb C C# Eb E F# G

It can be made to sound more traditional or modern depending on how I use the scale. That's a really important thing - it's not so much what scales you use as how you use them...

For me, my adoption of the harmonic minor style choices (and the Barry Harris approach) was purely stylistic. I wanted to be able play bebop idiomatically to some level, beyond just regurgitating Bird licks.

I did this because I felt my grasp of the detail in my playing could be improved, and I felt consciously choosing to emulate a model would help with this. I'm never going to be a 100% hardcore bop player - but I greatly admire those who are.

I am really glad I spent a few years doing this. I think it was really good for my ear. Now I am going through more modern Chord Scale Theory. This is also good for the ear, if practiced right.

What you need to be able to do is understand how note choices sound. If you know how something is going to sound before you play it, and you have listened to and absorbed enough music, statements like 'well in 1948 they played this scale over this chord' will seem a bit redundant - you'll just hear a line and play it, whether it is your own line, or something that you copy.

In the space of two beats in a turnaround, you might be dealing with a difference of one note - Bb A G F say, for our BH harmonic minor thing, Bb A G F# for the half-whole. You can certainly pick up on that sort of thing....