Embraceable You - second chord in progression

[grahambop]

Sorry to go back to this again but no, it's not.

This keeps coming up and is all wrong and highly deceptive. To be honest, you'd do yourself, as would others too, a big favour and really give it another look and change your thinking on it. Really.

Chords are built in thirds. An A7 chord is A C# E G. Adding the the 9th is A C# E G B. Altering the chord by flattening the 9th is A C# E G Bb. That's an A7b9.

7b9 chords are usually used as V chords and resolve to their I chord, as A7b9 - Dm7 or DM7.

Diminished chords are chords in their own right. They're NOT a funny kind of dominant chord, nor is an altered dominant chord a funny kind of diminished chord. The original diminished triad comes from a minor chord with a flattened 5th.

Omitting the root of a dominant and swapping the b9 note to the bass may look and sound like a diminished chord but it's not, it's still an adulterated dominant chord. Secondary dominants are there to spice up a progression, as in the blues, but diminished chords are there to promote flow as passing chromatic sounds, which they do most effectively.

So when you see that progression in 'Embraceable You':

G6 - Bbo - Am7 - D7

and say the Bbo is an A7b9, it isn't so. You can test that out very easily by playing both side-by-side with the melody. They do not sound the same nor do the chords have the same effect on the melody. Also, playing A7b9 before an Am is meaningless.

So altered dominants are one thing and have their own function but diminished chords exist in their own right and function differently.

It would be most wise to grasp this and throw out any confusion about it!

I think you can view diminished chords both ways. They are a very useful way to get lots of dominants in a chord solo (Wes Montgomery used them like that all the time), especially as their symmetrical nature allows you to quickly move them around. For that reason I think of them as dominant equally as much as anything else.

In the sixth-diminished stuff they often sound like tonic to dominant movements to me, as well as being smooth connecting chords.

[ragman1]

My point was that diminisheds and dominants aren't the same chords. I'm not saying one can't be subbed for the other if it suits.

As a matter of fact, I find dims a bit irritating too. I'm quite happy playing mel m over them if I can get away with it. I'm sure boppers find the same thing and if they can use a dominant instead good for them!

As for the 6 - dim - 6 - dim thing, probably after not too long the ear will definitely hear the dims as performing a dominant role.

[pamosmusic]

You also get the old Bernstein dilemma of how A7 becomes Cm since there's no real theoretical connection!

This isn’t a dilemma. We went over this about a dozen times, as did Bernstein in the video you posted claiming he was confused about it.

Why do you think Bb - A - C is a better bass line than Bb - Db - C?

He didn’t say “better” … he said “nice.”

[ragman1]

This isn’t a dilemma. We went over this about a dozen times, as did Bernstein in the video you posted claiming he was confused about it.

He was. To repeat what I said before:

He looked puzzled, tried to run a scale and found that the dim scale from A7 didn't land on C (it doesn't) and the video fades out. Then he said pretend the dim chord was Dbo instead of Bbo and the answer was just to slide it down half a step into Cm. Hey presto! But, of course, in the modern version it wouldn't be a dim chord, it would be A7 at that point.

The dim sub may work solo-wise I don't know, I haven't tried it. Also, if I may point out, finding how to improv over it isn't the same as explaining it theoretically which was the original question, unfortunately.

He didn’t say “better” … he said “nice.”

I'm sure he did, I'm sure he did.

[pamosmusic]

He was. To repeat what I said before:

He looked puzzled, tried to run a scale and found that the dim scale from A7 didn't land on C (it doesn't) and the video fades out. Then he said pretend the dim chord was Dbo instead of Bbo and the answer was just to slide it down half a step into Cm. Hey presto!

Oh ragman. You’re talking yourself in circles, cat.

Bbdim is a Dbdim (same notes … we don’t say C/E isn’t an C because there’s an E in the bass) and that makes it …. Drumroll …

the swing turnaround from this very thread.

So the answer is the answer Pete gave … A7 is related to Cm by way of the diminished chord in the original changes.

It probably works solo-wise, to be fair, but I haven't tried it. Also, if I may point out, finding how to improv over it isn't the same as explaining it theoretically which was the original question, unfortunately.

Lol. I suppose that’s true but if it works then why do you need further explanation?

And fyi … I can assure you Bernstein is not puzzled by the chord changes to Stella. He might, however, be puzzled by a person asking him to justify it theoretically when it so clearly sounds good and the original chord change is an extremely common device in songs of the same era.

[ragman1]

Oh ragman. You’re talking yourself in circles, cat.

Not at all, you just don't get it :-)

Bbdim is a Dbdim

Yes, it's the same inverted chord if you like, but the actual chord at that point in their discussion was Bbo. Different bass, different sound, different movement. You can't slide the Bbo to Cm by a half-step.

A7 is related to Cm by way of the diminished chord in the original changes.

But we're not playing the original changes. It's Em7b5 - A7 - Cm - F7 now.

I can assure you Bernstein is not puzzled by the chord changes to Stella.

Don't be twisty. He's not puzzled by the changes any more than we are. And I didn't say he was.

He might, however, be puzzled by a person asking him to justify it theoretically.

Precisely, that's the point and that's what I said. Our heroes are not necessarily infallible, you know.

[Tal_175]

Chords are both vertical snapshots of linear voice movements and vertical sonorities (especially in the way they are played with accompanying instruments in the modern times). These are both valid ways to hear chords but when we talk about harmonic function, the voice movement has precedence over the sonarity (An example of sonarity is the diminished sound vs the dominant sound). That's why you can lower any note of a diminished chord by a half step and make it a dominant. The sonarity has changed a bit but the voice movement of the chord tones is practically the same.

[pamosmusic]

Not at all, you just don't get it :-)

I’m rubber, you’re glue.

Yes, it's the same inverted chord if you like, but the actual chord at that point in their discussion was Bbo. Different bass, different sound, different movement. You can't slide the Bbo to Cm by a half-step.

Oh lord.

Bb - Bb
Db - C
E - Eb
G - G

You sure can. The voiceleading is identical. Because the chords are identical. You can “slide into it” in whatever way you can “slide into” the other.

you can just put whatever bass note you want in the bass.

Im not sure why this is a point of contention.

But we're not playing the original changes. It's Em7b5 - A7 - Cm - F7 now.

Ive never played with you before, so I’m not sure who “we” is in this context.

Don't be twisty. He's not puzzled by the changes any more than we are. And I didn't say he was.

This is goofball behavior.

Precisely, that's the point and that's what I said. Our heroes are not necessarily infallible, you know.

You know this does bring up an interesting point. I’m not sure why arguing that “this thing works because it’s a biii diminshed” is anti theory or an insufficient explanation. We have this way where literally everything must come back to a dominant chord … like if we can’t reduce motion to V-I then it’s some kind invalid explanation and it’s some unsolvable mystery. But there’s nothing special about a dominant chord. We could also say that “it works because it’s a V chord underneath it all” is insufficient explanation.

So there is an explanation for that chord, as well as for the Embraceable You chord. It just doesn’t satisfy some folks. And I can’t really help with that.

[ragman1]

So there is an explanation for that chord, as well as for the Embraceable You chord. It just doesn’t satisfy some folks. And I can’t really help with that.

Absolutely.

[Mick-7]

So when you see that progression in 'Embraceable You': G6 - Bbo - Am7 - D7
and say the Bbo is an A7b9, it isn't so. You can test that out very easily by playing both side-by-side with the melody. They do not sound the same nor do the chords have the same effect on the melody. Also, playing A7b9 before an Am is meaningless.

Not really, G6 > Bbo > Am7 > D7 could be written other ways:

Em7 > A7b9 > Am7 > D7
GM7 > Em7b5/A7b9 > Am7/D7
- etc.

The voicing of a chord defines its sound, not what it's named. That is to say, I will play the chord voicings that best suit a song, regardless of what they are named.

They do not sound the same nor do the chords have the same effect on the melody.

The same dim. scale fits both Bbo & A7b9, which is: Bb-C-C#-D#-E-F#-G-A. I don't let the melody define exactly what chords I will play.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

It slowly dawns on me why people have such difficulties remembering the changes of tunes and always need lead sheets ...

[pamosmusic]

It slowly dawns on me why people have such difficulties remembering the changes of tunes and always need lead sheets ...

ding ding ding

[charlieparker]

You also get the old Bernstein dilemma of how A7 becomes Cm since there's no real theoretical connection!

Why do you think Bb - A - C is a better bass line than Bb - Db - C?

I don't. I meant the swing turnaround has a nice bass line.

[charlieparker]

You also get the old Bernstein dilemma of how A7 becomes Cm since there's no real theoretical connection!

Why do you think Bb - A - C is a better bass line than Bb - Db - C?

My knowledge of part writing and voice leading is next to nil but if we look at some drop 2 inversions of Bb6 | Db dim | Cm7 we get

D G Bb F
C# G Bb E
C G Bb Eb

So we have two notes shared and parallel descending voices in the bass and melody. Of coure you probably want to start with something with a Bb in the bass.

So, I don't know if there is any theoretical basis for this but it looks like a simple way to move from the I6 to the ii7 before going to the V7.

[ragman1]

My knowledge of part writing and voice leading is next to nil but if we look at some drop 2 inversions of Bb6 | Db dim | Cm7 we get

D G Bb F
C# G Bb E
C G Bb Eb

So we have two notes shared and parallel descending voices in the bass and melody. Of coure you probably want to start with something with a Bb in the bass.

So, I don't know if there is any theoretical basis for this but it looks like a simple way to move from the I6 to the ii7 before going to the V7.

Sorry, haven't done Lester Leaps In yet. Will get back to you. But what you say seems very reasonable :-)

[pamosmusic]

The problem here is that Em7b5-A7b9 would be expected to resolve to Dm but it changes to Cm instead. Playing it isn't difficult but trying to explain it theoretically tends to tie people in knots.

Personally, I don't see why it needs to be explained. That's what it is so just play it. It doesn't seem to bother most people.

Then for the love of all that is holy stop bringing it up. In all the threads you reference, it’s just you bringing up Stella.

And again … it is very easy to explain. It’s that biii diminshed “ii-Ved” in an interesting way, quite plausibly by Miles.

Just because we can’t conveniently turn into into a dominant relationship to the chord that comes after doesn’t mean there is no theoretical explanation. There are other types of motion in music besides V to I. It’s extremely easy to explain and it’s been explained seventy thousand times. You just don’t like the explanation.

So if you know the explanation, you don’t like the explanation, and you claim it doesn’t need an explanation … my recommendation would be to find something else to do with your time.

And as it happens, I’m transcribing Wayne on that Stella recording from Berlin. If your whole deal on this is “it’s quite simple, just play the chord that’s there” then I think you might be picking the wrong example.

[ragman1]

Then for the love of all that is holy stop bringing it up. In all the threads you reference, it’s just you bringing up Stella.

I didn't bring it up, I was replying to charlieparker (see quote in post).

If your whole deal on this is “it’s quite simple, just play the chord that’s there” then I think you might be picking the wrong example.

Why? I've played it a million times without having a meltdown. So far :-)

[pamosmusic]

I didn't bring it up, I was replying to charlieparker (see quote in post).

He was talking about Lester Leaps In. You brought in that Bernstein video again.

Why? I've played it a million times without having a meltdown. So far :-)

Because what they’re doing bears no relationship whatsoever to the way you’re talking about the tune.

It might surprise you to know that performing musicians occasionally express some curiosity about the tunes they play and how they might navigate them.

[ragman1]

He was talking about Lester Leaps In. You brought in that Bernstein video again.

Was he? Oh, my mistake then, don't know Lester Leaps In. I better explore it.

It might surprise you to know that performing musicians occasionally express some curiosity about the tunes they play and how they might navigate them.

Oh, not at all, perennial problem, how to navigate difficult stuff.

(just off to correct my post)

[charlieparker]

Was he? Oh, my mistake then, don't know Lester Leaps In. I better explore it.



Oh, not at all, perennial problem, how to navigate difficult stuff.

(just off to correct my post)

Lester Leaps In is just a swing version of Rhythm Changes. The bit I mentioned is just an intro to the tune played by Basie before the rest of the band comes in.

[pamosmusic]

Was he? Oh, my mistake then, don't know Lester Leaps In. I better explore it.

lol

I’m shocked. SHOCKED.

(clutches pearls)

[ragman1]

That's what pearls are for.

[ragman1]

Lester Leaps In is just a swing version of Rhythm Changes. The bit I mentioned is just an intro to the tune played by Basie before the rest of the band comes in.

Right, got it. Thanks for the vid, nothing like the real thing.

Well, I hear a dim chord, the object being (as with most dim chords) to make a smooth and luscious transition to the next sound. As you say, sounds like Bb6 - Dbo - Cm7 - F7.

It's as though the 3rd of the Bb is either played, or heavily implied, so you hear the line Bb/D - Db - C.

So I'm all in favor of the Dbo, personally, because it makes the perfect bridge between the Bb and the Cm, which is actually what you said. But you've changed it to A7, which isn't so smooth, but does contain a C#/Db, so I don't know. Am I missing anything?

[charlieparker]

Right, got it. Thanks for the vid, nothing like the real thing.

Well, I hear a dim chord, the object being (as with most dim chords) to make a smooth and luscious transition to the next sound. As you say, sounds like Bb6 - Dbo - Cm7 - F7.

It's as though the 3rd of the Bb is either played, or heavily implied, so you hear the line Bb/D - Db - C.

So I'm all in favor of the Dbo, personally, but you've changed it to A7, which isn't so smooth, but does contain a C#/Db, so I don't know. Am I missing anything?

No, I just changed it to A7 because it's easier for me to play and Basie plays the phrase G E A G over it, so I thought he might be thinking A7.

I hear as you do like Bb D Db C bass line.

[ragman1]

No, I just changed it to A7 because it's easier for me to play and Basie plays the phrase G E A G over it, so I thought he might be thinking A7.

Quite possible. It's the pesky dim chord syndrome again. Maybe, as you say, he treated it like an A7 but I can't say I noticed any real clash with what he played, quite the contrary. You certainly get that nice descending 'dim' feeling. Can't argue with it at all.

I hear as you do like Bb D Db C bass line.

Outstanding