-
This goes back to theory learned at Berklee,,and, FWIW, I see, here and there a, say, (Dom7) 7#11(and I know a #11 and a b5 are enharmonically the same), yet, in that you can have a scale with a #4 (#11), and a scale with a b5, I see the terminology, and sometimes examples given as Dom 7 #11, not ∆ 7 (maj 7) #11, situation wise, and my memory is/was that a #11 is always a Maj (∆) 7 situation,,that is to say, the scale is 1, 2, 3, #4, 5, 6, 7, and that a b5 is always a Dominant 7 situation,,the scale being 1,2,3, 4, b5, 6, b7,,a 4 being a 4 and a 5 being a 5 (scale degree wise,,and never the twain shall meet). Not to put too fine a point on it. And I stand open to correction, here,,but that terminology, as I learned it made a lot of sense. For instance, in C, you could have C, D, E, F#, G, A, B, with the F# functioning as a 4, in a Maj situation(lydian), and a C, D, E, F, Gb, A, Bb(otherwise mixolydian, tho with a b 5, too),, where that same note is now the 5th of the scale, and working in a Dom. 7 situation.
So that if the example given (wherever) is Dom. 7 #4, wouldn't it be better expressed as Dom. 7 b5?. This seems to occur primarily, if not only, in #11, and b5 situations,,and/tho never in b13, and #5 situations,,tho that's with altered Dom. chords,,where you're likely to see b and # 9's and # and b 5's also,(albeit the #5 is a b13) which situations are always Dominant 7 situations.
As stated, I stand open to any correction on this issue,,just remarking from my memory of theory learned back when.
So, to summarise, you may expect to see Maj7#11 (∆7#11), Dom7b5 (7b5), and min7b5 (-7b5) (a more shorthanded version,,where, on my keyboard the ∆ is an Option J, and where 7 is_always_assumed to be Dom. unless marked with a ∆ or stated as Maj.)Last edited by guitarbard; 04-13-2016 at 08:47 AM. Reason: addition to post
-
04-13-2016 08:14 AM
-
Lydian Dominant and the whole tone scale would both have #4, but the other notes that you could create melodic ideas with, that would change the feel of your lyric line, would be quite different. But an altered scale could give you options that might bring out a choice of b5 or #5. You have choices if you base your scale origin on the basic scales of Major, melodic and harmonic minor, but when you get into symmetrical scales or synthetic scales, you can find many spellings based on whether that note is the 4th or the 5th note of the scale.
#4 and b5 may be the same spot on a piano, but once you surround it with the other notes of the scale, they take on a musical meaning. Like homonyms. "Too" "Two" "To" sound alike but in the context of a sentence, they are quite different. So the role of each of those notes is a musical one, to hear it as a strong flavour in a passing note capacity or a chord tone with some kind of alteration.
When you hear them in melody, they can be quite different. My first exposure to jazz was not chord scale centred (via Archie Shepp), my later training was (via Mick Goodrick). One way can be scale based, another alteration based.
Or you can say it's a suggested chromatic sound. That leaves you to create the context of that SOUND.
The more I play, the more I might base my melodic choice on what character I want to bring out, and that speaks to the other notes of the scale.
But maybe this isn't the point of your question, if not, sorry.
DavidLast edited by TH; 04-14-2016 at 08:25 AM.
-
At North Texas they taught a similar "rule of thumb" but it's not an absolute. There can be reasons why somebody choses one over the other like David was saying.
And some editions have their own preferences, too. I can't really think of any off hand that make it a policy to use #11 over b5, but editorial decisions aren't always musical decisions, and that's what I'm really talking about. The editor might have just made it a #11 chord for reasons that we will never know. That stuff happens.
-
Thanks TruthHertz, Nate,,,wasn't trying to dogmatise in the least,,just checking for consensus, I guess, and to see what responses would yield. My memory goes back to 1972 on this, and Jazz is evolving. It does keep things tidy for me, but I can see/hear beyond that, certainly. I do like simplicity, for what that's worth, and since the human ear likes to hear things go UP a fourth(found this out thru playing Celtic music), the ii V I serves that, while featuring the three main types of chords,,minor, Dominant, and Major.
I'm not a modernist so much as a basic approach sort,,, the older bebop appeals mostly to me, I 'guess' I could say with reasonable veracity, both in my understanding of harmony, and melody(I do tend more to line playing, than to chords, which I try to keep simple, tho still stating the function). I do truly enjoy the tablature that's given in the Lessons section; it brings things back I've forgotten, and allows me more knowledge of line possibilities,,both in that, and in chord fragments of same, and arpeggios, etc.
-
The chord symbols 7#11, 9#11 and 13#11 always indicate lydian dominant (or should!). That's a scale with a perfect 5th: 1 2 3 #4 5 6 b7.
Originally Posted by guitarbard
"#11" always implies a perfect 5th in the scale (and maybe in the chord too).
However, such chords - although dom7 in type - are rarely used as V7 chords, i.e., with a dominant function. You'll find them used most often as bII (tritone sub for V7), resolving to a minor or major tonic (more commonly minor); or as bVII resolving to a major tonic (the "backdoor progression").
E.g., the most likely application of Bb7#11 is to resolve to either Am or C major, sometimes A major. (Just occasionally, 7#11s can also occur as bluesy IV chords in major keys.)
Lydian dominant chords are inversions (mirror images, as it were) of altered dominants.
So, in key of A minor, an "E7alt" chord (with altered 5th and altered 9th) is essentially the same chord as Bb13#11. Both chords take the same scale (equivalent to a mode of F melodic minor), i.e., are built from the same set of notes. Or - to be more accurate - the chord tones and alterations used add up to the same scale in each case. You could say that Bb13#11 is just E7alt with a Bb bass.
There are two other kinds of altered dominants: wholetone chords, and half-whole dim chords.
An E wholetone chord would probably be written as 9b5 or 9#5. 7b5 and 7#5 are possible, but less definite as wholetone (could be a normal 7alt, with an altered 9th).
An E HW dim chord would probably be written as E7b9, or (to be more certain) E13b9. Again, "7b9" could mean a normal 7alt chord (with an altered 5th).
The HW dim scale has a #4 and P5, so if you ever see a "7b9#11" chord, assume that's HW dim. (Not lydian dominant, because of the b9.)
If you do see a V chord (ie resolving up a 4th) written as 7#11, that's ambiguous. It could be a lydian dominant chord in an usual context; or it could be an altered chord of some kind with a misleading symbol.
Altered dominants are sometimes written "7#11b13", but again, that b13 tells you it's not lydian dominant. "#11b13" seems to allow the possibility of a P5 (squeezed in between #4 and b6), but in general it implies the altered scale with no P5. In a minor key in particular, some feel that "b13" is a more accurate label for that note than "#5". (E.g., it would describe a C note on an E7 chord in key of A minor; makes more sense than B#!
)
The other commonly confused symbol is "7#9". As above, the context will tell you what it means, scale-wise.
If it's a tonic chord, then it's a blues chord - blues scale will work, and the scale (and maybe the chord) has a perfect 5th.
If it's a V chord, then it's probably an altered dominant: its 5th is altered, even though the symbol doesn't say so. (You could actually leave the 5th out, so it's up to the soloist to alter the 5th if they like.)
To sum up:
Unambiguous symbols:
13#11 = lydian dominant. (7#11 and 9#11 are equally clear if the chord is bII or bVII.)
7alt, 7#5#9, 7b5b9, 7b5#9, 7#5b9, 7#11b13 = altered scale. Chord is V. (If you see "7alt", you can choose your own alterations for 5 and 9; just don't use P5 or normal 9.)
13b9 = HW dim scale. Chord is V.
9b5, 9#5 = wholetone scale. Chord is V.
Ambiguous symbols:
7b9 = maybe HW dim, maybe altered. Probably doesn't matter which.
7b5, 7#5 = probably wholetone, maybe altered. (7b5 could even be HW dim)
7#9 = probably altered if V chord, probably blues scale if I chord
7#11 if used as V = could be HW dim, altered or wholetone - or even lydian dominant
9#11 if used as V = could be wholetone, or lydian dominantLast edited by JonR; 04-13-2016 at 10:47 AM.
-
Thank you for that JonR. Will take me a bit to chew through that, but it's there,,waiting for me. I followed it, at least.
-
What JonR said :-)
For me #11 = lydian dominant, b5 = altered
But #11 can also be wholetone if there's no 13.
Bear in mind that standards chord symbols often get over specified in fake books etc because the people who wrote them learned at Berklee, so feel the need to contextualise every single fecking melody note in terms of a vertical chord/scale relationship.
Really when it comes to soloing, I'm of the belief that the chords should be kept reasoanbly simple by the accompanist so that the soloist can create their own upper structures. Now try explaining that to a pianist :-).
Also, quite often 'upper structures' in standards originate due to the addition of a diatonic melody note to a chromatic chord. So once you take the melody away and invent a new one do you need to preserve these upper structures? The bop guys (at least Barry Harris) would say not.
On the other hand perhaps if you learned the tune from a real book you have to play Ab lydian dominant on the Ab7 in Cherokee every time, because the melody was a D over that chord. TBH I hadn't thought of that - do people actually play that way?
Anyway, I like to play in groups without a piano, so it's cool. I keep my comping chords pretty simple, unless it's definitely a modal vibe.Last edited by christianm77; 04-13-2016 at 02:14 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
I haven't seen a situation in which a 7b5 cannot be replaced with a 7#11. It would be great if someone can point me to a situation in which the two are not interchangeable.
-
You need to have a reference, which should come from some type of analysis. If you get past playing somewhat vanilla and comping being more than a backing track... like the good old days... sorry anyway, when you spell chords... your implying a harmonic reference.... a tonal reference. #11 implies references that are different than b5. It's not so much the chords that are notated... it's how you approach comping for tunes, what you play that's not notated etc...
Who really cares right... most can't hear the difference anyway. Generally the reason most chords are spelled the way they are... is because most publishers and softwares use a book from early 70's called "Standard Chord Symbol Notation", by Carl Brandt and Clinton Roemer. Look somewhere in most Fake Books and you'll find the reference.
-
Christian,
this was all from Berklee's own literature, IMS, tho was a long time ago,,Spring '72. However it would have been developed in later semesters I didn't attend is hard for me to know. I agree with you on both points,,keep the chords simple(I have fairly big hands, and big fingers,,long, and fat*,,tho, back in the 80's I was really chord handy,,,darn that Celtic Music
) ,,,so as to embellish with played notes,, nor do I like the idea of a piano. But truth be told, at my age, almost 65, there's not much getting out to play with people, so I do it all myself, with my computer, and Ableton, tho my Korg Krome is good for that kind of self accompaniment thing. I live in a small town anyway, which is not much conducive to getting out and playing much,,though I've had a history of it in my younger years,,rock, etc. It IS a possibility, though, were I to make it known I were available to do some of this (type of) music.
*no wonder students,,when I've had them, have a hard time seeing what I'm trying to show them, LOL
PS I have made a rather in depth study of North Indian Classical Music, and know the sharp 4 quite well. I have a sarod, a Hemen, made in Calcutta, in 1967. It is a fascinating instrument with which to become acquainted. You're about in Django land, right off, with it, cuz it is so large all you can get to the board ARE your first two fingers, but with the whole board being THE fret, microtones become very familiar things.Last edited by guitarbard; 04-13-2016 at 09:08 PM.
-
7b5 usually implies more maj/min functional music.... V7 chords usually have dominant function etc... The basic difference is what harmonic door your opening. The classic example is how you would use modal interchange, how MM is used. b5 generally uses MM functionally with embellishments... traditional, vanilla.... tonal harmony, not modal. Ever think of Blue notes as more than embellishments? Originally Posted by donfully
How you create relationships.... are the notes embellished or do they have harmonic implications from organized harmonic references. If your asking the question... it's going to take more than a simple example to help you understand.
b5 generally implies that there is no natural 5.... the most common use of 7#11 chords is sub V7 Key of C instead of V I or G7 to Cmaj7 you use Db7, the sub V of G7, from inverting the tritone... the chord has a natural 5th, Db7#11, in jazz harmony generally from MM.
-
Aha,,now that makes sense, except I'm not clear on where/how a raised 4 comes into a MM, or Jazz Minor context,,,,,tho I see the b3 interval between the Eb and F#, say, in C. An implied, or explicit, diminished, by the time you hit the A? Originally Posted by Reg
I find myself playing a lot of diminished scales, and the 'altered scale' too, as given in the lesson
section,,,,,
(quick edit) not just scales,,'off,' or 'from' the diminished scale, I maybe should have said.Last edited by guitarbard; 04-13-2016 at 09:51 PM.
-
But you always have the option to use that #11 on any dominant chord etc. The only time when you need to become mindful of this on standards is when it might clash with the melody. When you are soloing it's all up for grabs. Originally Posted by Reg
In any case in the case of Tin Pan Alley standards, analysing these tunes in terms of melodic minor harmony etc is a bit daft because that's not how they were composed. Of course, you can retro-fit chord scale type relationships if you want but it's not necessary to do this in any way if you don't want to. But that's obvious to an experienced musician, and I daresay you wouldn't disagree with that in principle.
On the other hand there are jazz compositions written since the advent of modal theory which use these relationships and they are kind of important - Wayne Shorter, Kenny Wheeler etc.
The confusion arises (I think) because the same set of chord symbols is used both for functional harmony tunes where the symbol given is chord + melody and more modern things where you really do have to think modally. Which of course is not to say you don't have the option of dealing with standards in a modal way. But it's good to know where these things are coming from.
The advantage of this, I guess, is to allow someone reading the chord chart at a glance to see what they need to avoid or include in voicings to support the melody. So in the case of Cherokee, the accompanist won't play Ab7sus4 or something under the melody D.
But by doing this, a degree of modal/CST analysis becomes implicit in the way the tune is written down.
But REALLY of course - we should all know the melody anyway (in a perfect world.) Of course, it's a short cut. But some guys do learn their standards from Real Book leadsheets and similar sources, so the chords acquire a canoicity which is entirely misplaced, as any experienced standards player - particularly a pianist - will tell you.
But if I teach someone to blow on Cherokee, I'll be telling them to think Bb Bb7 Eb Ab7 etc. That probably wouldn't do for a Kenny Wheeler tune :-)
The disadvantage is it can make the student feel that the progression is more complicated than it actually is and there is a lot going on CST wise in the original composition, when more often than not its because the composer has chosen to back up a diatonic melody with some chromatic chords.
In terms of soloing, I was always taught that you have a lot of freedom with the harmony. I'm starting to realise that everything is negotiable - as long as you relate to the basic functions - harmonic jazz is really horizontal (melodic/contrapuntal) not vertical (harmonic) IMO. Horn players understand this the best....
Anyway this was a confusion for me. I don't think I grasped the freedom available to the soloist on one hand, or the importance of the melody on the other.Last edited by christianm77; 04-14-2016 at 06:33 AM.
-
Unless you're Monk! Originally Posted by Reg
David
-
Originally Posted by Reg
I've said before how I used to do music copying back in the paper and pen days, and when I said earlier that the editor might have decided between a b5 or a #11 for reasons we will never understand, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about
music copying goes more by common practice than being strictly and technically correct. So right or wrong, you notate it the standard way it usually is notated. The idea is not to surprise anybody because reading charts is hard enough.
-
In the big picture, I play lots of charts written by seasoned arrangers, and the chords are usually named to reflect functional use of scales. If the chord is b5, it's because there is no perfect 5 in the harmony for that change...#11 will tell me there is a 5 to deal with, and a #11...I'm trying to think like a musician, not just a geetar player.
-
Yea... if you really don't think of the other musicians as much more than a backing tract etc... then you can do whatever you want. Play with maj/min functional harmony organization and every thing is just embellishment of, or whatever, you don't need any organization of what you don't play or use.
When you don't just play somewhat straight functionally. You have the possibility for #11 and b5 to have very different implications. You have the possibility for macro and micro layers of harmonic organization going on simultaneously.
I play lots of gigs, did last night where the basic harmonic organization of every tune we played... was vanilla. And when I wanted to have fun and add more layers to melodic and harmonic organization, I had to use weak side of harmonic rhythm as only layer of application. By that I mean... there is one basic organization of harmony.
There is nothing wrong with vanilla harmony... but there is also nothing wrong with being aware other harmonic and melodic aspects. They are both going on all the time.
You can use anything with anything.... but generally if you don't understand what the basic reference from which your creating relationships
It's not that the simple chord... G7b5 or G7#11 could be the same thing.... when generally performing in a jazz style, the relationships which develop from that chord or melodic phrase, the next level or the one after that become different.
Typically when soloing or comping... your not just spelling the basic changes. One chord becomes a chord patterns or a reference for a harmonic relationship... you generally are trying to create relationships and develop them. harmonically or melodically. They're the same thing. A note is just a tone of a chord and a chord is just a collection of tones... it's the organization of the relationships and how they are developed that typically creates performing jazz.
When you add 2 + 2 in base 5... you get 4, just as you would in base 10... but once you get past 5 ....in base 5, the system turns over, 5 + 1 becomes 11... where as in base 10, 5 + 1 is 6. A number base 5 is not aware of. Not really a good analogy.... but like I said if you don't get it.... who cares. But it's going on whether you know or not.
-
Yes, you have to listen to the other musicians. And you have to know how things sound. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Why wouldn't they? Unless they - [gasp] - had never played the melody! Originally Posted by christianm77
I mean, seems a no brainer to me. If you want some kind of D in your palette on the Ab7, why on earth would you choose a Db? Assuming you know the tune, of course, and are conscious of the key...
The D seems an obvious choice, regardless of how much one knows or cares about chord-scale theory. Did the bebop masters know they were playing "lydian dominant" when they did that? (Maybe they were reading from a chart that showed Ebm in those bars anyway...)
-
The idea is that lydian dominant is the 4th mode of melodic minor. Originally Posted by guitarbard
Eg, Db7#11 (supposedly) comes from Ab melodic minor: Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G. Relative to a Db root, G would be a #4.
Of course that relationship is coincidental. Db7#11 (in key of C) is not derived from Ab melodic minor. It's derived by selecting a whole load of chromatics for voice-leading purposes on to the tonic (and probably from the ii chord before). Either by altering the G7 so much that it becomes a different chord (keeping just the functional R-3-7); or by actually selecting Db7 to start with (in a kind of misuse of a classical neapolitan or augmented 6th chord), and then keeping the diatonic V note. (Of course Db7 shares its 3rd and 7th with G7 which is how the sub works.)
Invoking a mode of melodic minor is a distraction, IMO. It's certainly no kind of explanation.
-
Yeah, obviously it's impossible to know what they were thinking, but my thinking (heavily influenced by Barry as always) is that those bars of Cherokee can be viewed as either a minor plagal (a IV minor chord) in which case we play Eb melodic minor, or a Ab7 which is a backdoor dominant, in which case I play a Ab mixolydian (DOMINANT SCALE!!!! :-)) resolving to Bb. Originally Posted by JonR
Why wouldn't they? Unless they - [gasp] - had never played the melody!
I mean, seems a no brainer to me. If you want some kind of D in your palette on the Ab7, why on earth would you choose a Db? Assuming you know the tune, of course, and are conscious of the key...
The D seems an obvious choice, regardless of how much one knows or cares about chord-scale theory. Did the bebop masters know they were playing "lydian dominant" when they did that? (Maybe they were reading from a chart that showed Ebm in those bars anyway...)
In the second case, what you could call Cm7b5, Ebm7 and Gbmaj7 could naturally arise from the types of patterns we are likely to run in Ab dominant, as would any extended versions of these chords. The Db is absolutely legit in this case.
The backdoor dominant is to me the signature harmonic sound of Bird's playing...
(Incidentally if I raise the Ab to an A at some point that's the same as a Cm7b5 F7b9, which is the way bop guys handle a minor ii-V 9 times out of 10. But that's another story)
Anyway, AFAIK, the concept of the Lydian Dominant mode is not necessary here, although you can certainly view things that way if that was your theoretical background. But you don't need melodic minor modes to play or analyse bop, just major, (melodic) minor and dominant.Last edited by christianm77; 04-16-2016 at 12:39 PM.
-
Thank you. These chords are all present in Romantic era harmony. It does my head in that people talk about chords in functional harmony as coming from this or that melodic minor scale. It's the other way around. Where do the chords come from? Originally Posted by JonR
'The Harmony is Classical' Barry Harris
Anyway I agree with you. IMO more people should check out classical harmony, it makes a lot of sense with respect to standards changes etc, I found it really helpful.
In general bop era stuff is pretty common practice - by which I mean classical. Secondary dominants are handled elegantly with minimal alterations to the prevailing key, borrowed minor chords such as bVII7 (backdoor dominants) are used for colour ala Brahms etc. The important thing AFAIK for the bop era guys was being able to run a line smoothly through the changes, and developing rhythmic and melodic freedom through them.
The vertical ramifications of things like upper structures are less important than in later jazz, although these things can be used for special effect.
Nowadays you take a chord scale with no avoid notes and plonk it onto a chord and play random notes and the result sounds like contemporary jazz. I'm not being facetious, it really does work and I'm enjoying the sound I get that way, I use this approach a lot now. But it has nothing to do with bop haha.
-
Tonality is a collection of relationships orbiting around a centric note.
The major scale and it's family of chords is the starting reference for major tonality.
While one can choose to be mindful to the movement of notes first and foremost,
most would not ignore the not so much coincidental derivative scale formed by the note collection.
A C major scale in the key of C major is considered a relevant relationship.
Next level:
Secondary dominants and leading tone diminished:
C E7 | Am Gm7 C7| F F#o | C/G G7 ||
Very tonal but now notes beyond the starting reference collection have been introduced.
G# leading tone of A or V7 from A harmonic minor.
Bb chromatic passing tone down to A or IIm7 V7 from F major.
F# leading tone to G or VIIo from G harmonic minor
Eb leading tone to D via E or VIIo from G harmonic minor
These harmonies are at times described as "borrowed". Borrowed from somewhere, another key.
So why would it be all of sudden different when playing a lydian sound, 7th#11 IV chord or bVII chord or bII chord, etc.
These are all harmonies presented in the service of the primary harmonic area.
3 layers of perspective:
Approach notes
Approach chords
Interaction between harmonic areas
It is certainly no crime to choose to keep ones thought process as streamlined as possible.
There are schools of classical theorists that strive to define everything as V7 > I.
While interesting, there is much beauty to be found in the details that occur in between the V7 > I events.
Db7#11 being borrowed from Ab melodic minor in a C major context is an interaction of 2 harmonic areas.
A broader viewpoint with possible implications of musical application.
I am sure that musicians in the 40's and 50's never spoke of the Watergate scandal, but nevertheless could understand
political corruption. Lydian dominant as terminology emerged later than the bebop era prime time. I suspect that having terminology helped accelerate the frequency of musical usage, but these harmonies existed well before Jazz Ed codification.Last edited by bako; 04-16-2016 at 03:59 PM. Reason: spelling
-
Sometimes it feels that we (including me) approach this all backwards. We study how to imply harmony via scales, arpeggios and voicings and then wonder how to make it more musical.The important thing AFAIK for the bop era guys was being able to run a line smoothly through the changes, and developing rhythmic and melodic freedom through them.
I suspect the line of evolution in jazz started with rhythmic and melodic freedom and gradually incorporated more complex linear interweaving into the harmony.
Reply With Quote
Melody between melody
Today, 03:25 AM in Chord-Melody