A few harmonic analysis questions, Along Came Betty

[JakeAcci]

1. First of all, is there a term for this type of progression, say, in the key of C:

Dbm7 Gb7 Dm7 G7 Cma7

Happens in a bunch of tunes, like Moment's Notice and Serenity

Simplified we've really just got Gb7 to G7 to Cmaj7. So I know this happens in a lot of tunes, but is there any rationalization of it? Dominant from a half step below...There can be some diminished relationships that help explain...? I know at the end of the day play strong voicings, lines, rhythms, etc, and you can 'sound good' but I am curious about where this sutff comes from.

2. Similarly, is there language to describe a ii V based on a subV? ex, say it's

Ebm7 Ab7 Dm7 G7 Cma7

Well we could say the Ab7 is the subV of V, right? I suppose it's also borrowed from a minor blues type of harmony (sixth chord of minor key but made dominant)

But what would we call the ii V of Ebm7 to Ab7? "sub ii V of V"? It happens often enough that i'd imagine there's a name...

3. Has anybody come across a good harmonic analysis of "Along Came Betty?" I can see it mostly as key of Ab with some modulations to other keys, it's mostly just a bunch of ii Vs to different key centers, but I can't quite grasp if there's some bigger picture going on in the tune. It sounds very smooth and I feel like I should have language to describe some of the movements.

I have tried to format this spreadsheet to include the changes and some notes and i've allowed comments right on the spreadsheet so any comments on my analysis can be done in this thread or just right on the sheet by clicking "insert comment"

if you look at the bottom of the link there is a tab you can hit to view the lead sheet.

Thanks in advance! With harmonic analysis I know there's a point of diminishing returns, yet at the same time I feel I should have language to describe some of the sounds that just seem fairly natural to me at this point.

edited to add: I have been updating the spreadsheet (and others) with new analysis as the discussion has continued.

[AlsoRan]

Pat Martino "Along Came Betty" Solo Transcription and Analysis by Steve Khan

along came betty

The above links were some sources that I tried to use when I was doing a theoretical analysis.

I hope one helps you.

[JensL]

Ah, you can like stuff here now

This is indeed interesting!

Here's my take on them:

1. I think they got tired of the Ebm7 Ab7 Dm7 G7 C and made it into Dbm7 Gb7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj. I wouldn't really consider it a functional progression like a reharmonized diminished (that would also be a minor cadence to still work)

2. I was actually taught that you could analyze this: Ebm7 Ab7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7 as sub[II V] II V I. It is indeed very common. "Minor blues harmony?" that is also just a tritone sub right?

3. I think Along Came Betty is a good example of how Jazz compositions transitioned from functional to modal harmony, so there are some parts of the progression that work in a very clear tonal way but others are connecting more freely. Somehow it seems to have an AABA form but to me it seems a bit forced to start to analyzed it like I would a standard.

Jens

[JakeAcci]

Hey thanks Jens, some follow up:

Ah, you can like stuff here now

This is indeed interesting!

Here's my take on them:

1. I think they got tired of the Ebm7 Ab7 Dm7 G7 C and made it into Dbm7 Gb7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj.

As simple as saying "well, we always do it a half step from above, why not half step from below?

I would really consider it a functional progression like a reharmonized diminished (that would also be a minor cadence to still work)

Kind of like this?

Dbm7 Gb7 Dm7 G7 = Gb7 G7

Gb7(b9) = substitution for Gdim7

Gb7 G7 = Gdim7 G7

That?

Even then, I often see, hear, play, and use the diminished-to-dominant with same root, or diminished to major sevenths with same root (Gdim7 to G7 or Gdim7 to Gmaj7.) So I hear it, I use it. But is there anything more to say about it theoretically other than "it works and sounds good." Is there more rationalization of it?

Or did you mean something completely different?

2. I was actually taught that you could analyze this: Ebm7 Ab7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7 as sub[II V] II V I.

if you use that notation how do you make the distinction between these two chord progressions:

1. Ebm7 Ab7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7
2. Abm7 Db7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7

Wouldn't #2 be "sub II V" and #1 be something like "sub II V of V"?

"Minor blues harmony?" that is also just a tritone sub right?

Yeah, it's just that we hear bVI7 so often, and in much harmonically simpler music, it seems a little overcomplicated at times to consider it a subV of V. It's also just the sixth chord of the minor key, made dominant. Happens in more harmonically simple music all the time and does not necessarily lead to V7. Potentially hair-splitting but good to see multiple uses.

3. I think Along Came Betty is a good example of how Jazz compositions transitioned from functional to modal harmony, so there are some parts of the progression that work in a very clear tonal way but others are connecting more freely. Somehow it seems to have an AABA form but to me it seems a bit forced to start to analyzed it like I would a standard.

Interesting. But then do we just say "its a bunch of color" with a few more functional ii Vs thrown in? What was harmonic conception that led to the composition? It just sounds too 'logical' to me (for lack of a better word) to say it's just a bunch of shifting modes.

I suppose the two biggest questions for me right now are
1. What was the original intent, where was the composer coming from?
and
2. How would one go about transposing this tune to memorize (and absorb) the harmony rather than just memorizing the changes and pitches?

and I suppose most practically, how would you, Jens, approach improvising over it? Anything of note beyond just a proper chord-scale match up, using the melody for motifs, etc?

[JensL]

Hey thanks Jens, some follow up:
As simple as saying "well, we always do it a half step from above, why not half step from below?

Kind of like this?

Dbm7 Gb7 Dm7 G7 = Gb7 G7

Gb7(b9) = substitution for Gdim7

Gb7 G7 = Gdim7 G7

That?

Even then, I often see, hear, play, and use the diminished-to-dominant with same root, or diminished to major sevenths with same root (Gdim7 to G7 or Gdim7 to Gmaj7.) So I hear it, I use it. But is there anything more to say about it theoretically other than "it works and sounds good." Is there more rationalization of it?

Or did you mean something completely different?

I meant that, but I forgot to write I wouldn't consider (it's fixed now..) I really think it's a habit thing. Similar to making a II V out of a bVII7 (or a tritone dominant...) I really think it is that simple: "let's try a half step below.."

if you use that notation how do you make the distinction between these two chord progressions:

1. Ebm7 Ab7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7
2. Abm7 Db7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7

Wouldn't #2 be "sub II V" and #1 be something like "sub II V of V"?

I don't need my analysis to be independent of the chords. You don't have to be able to read the analysis as sheet music. But you could indeed add an "of V" to it.

Yeah, it's just that we hear bVI7 so often, and in much harmonically simpler music, it seems a little overcomplicated at times to consider it a subV of V. It's also just the sixth chord of the minor key, made dominant. Happens in more harmonically simple music all the time and does not necessarily lead to V7. Potentially hair-splitting but good to see multiple uses.

I guess, but since I leave our "of V" then SubV and bVI7 is not a huge difference

Interesting. But then do we just say "its a bunch of color" with a few more functional ii Vs thrown in? What was harmonic conception that led to the composition? It just sounds too 'logical' to me (for lack of a better word) to say it's just a bunch of shifting modes.

I suppose the two biggest questions for me right now are
1. What was the original intent, where was the composer coming from?
and
2. How would one go about transposing this tune to memorize (and absorb) the harmony rather than just memorizing the changes and pitches?

and I suppose most practically, how would you, Jens, approach improvising over it? Anything of note beyond just a proper chord-scale match up, using the melody for motifs, etc?

Well, it is somewhere in between islands of modal sound and functional movement. The chords move in functional ways for the most part, but it is about certain sounds and certain chord movements more than an actual key. He sort of starts of in Ab and then uses a tritone sub to resolve to the bIImaj7 and from there on it never really settles in Ab until the last A.

I know it by heart, but I am not sure how I know it, I would probably think it in Ab and then also just remember the root movement? if I have to transpose it, not sure really.

I usually just play this song using the standard scale choices. Not really any other special tricks.

Jens

[JakeAcci]

I want order and discipline, dammit!

This is why I hate art.

Just kidding, sort of.

[JensL]

I want order and discipline, dammit!

This is why I hate art.

Just kidding, sort of.

Somehow it is funny how much of the beautiful chord movements of the standards we have managed to reduce to II V progressions, and at the same time part of that is also what makes jazz beautiful

Don't worry I have hated art for years.. Especially Jazz!

Jens

[Guitarzen]

Ok I'll take a stab at some of this tune. I've always scratched my head when I saw these changes. I don't have any problem playing over them because there are some obvious tonal centers, and failing that you can resort to arpeggios, but the chord movement in some places is definitely weird.

First off, the key signature is meaningless. It only is relevant because of the cadences in Ab at the end of the C section and the final coda. Clearly, 90% of the tune has nothing to do with Ab. Sometimes by tradition, we are simply compelled to put a key signature. I'm a big fan of just leaving out a key signature completely if the bulk of the tune is not in any given key sig. Because then the key signature just serves to make the score messier with an excessive amount of accidentals, usually mostly negating the original key signature.

Ok, now that we got that out of the way, the first section could be seen merely as a ii-v in Ab, and then ii-V in A. After all when we play over the Bbm7, we are probably going to treat it as a ii, so for all purposes, it's really just a ii-V the same way the Bm7-E7 is. I personally think analyzing it as "a ii-v of the tritone sub of I" as a form of over-thinking it. We never once see or more importantly hear an A7 there (not to mention our supposed I, Abmaj), so for all purposes, there is no tritone sub there. It's possible that's how Benny came to view that, but it's also possible he didn't. It certainly is not necessary to think of it that way. We are certainly not hearing it, and we definitely don't need that information when soloing.

bars 5-8 are just a VI-V7 in C#m, and then a VI-V in Bm. And of course the VIs are subs for the is, so really could be analyzed as i-V in C#m, i-V in Bm.

Measures 9-12 of course are just identical to our opening sequence with it possible for us to view the F#m7 as a ii-V in E, and Gm7-C7 is ii-V in F, and of course it resolves to F. You wrote on your spreed sheet here "could feel like I" and of course it is without a doubt a brief ii-V-I in F, and yes F becomes one of our tonal centers, and for that moment it is in fact our I.

You were correct to call the A7 in bar 14 the V of vi, and then we get a typical jazz style switcheroo as the vi in F also serves double duty as the ii in Cm. And then of course we get a very unambiguous ii-V-i in Cm. Once again, we get the jazz switcheroo and what was the i (Cm) gets magically transmuted into a ii once we hear the F7. For soloing purposes, I would just treat the Cm as a ii to begin with, so in effect we have a ii-V in C, and then a ii-V in Bb. It looks like from here on it's pretty remedial with just some ii-Vs in G, Dm, and Eb, then back to the start and more ii-Vs.

Just noticed a few more of your notes on the spreadsheet, and yes the Em7b5 is part of a ii-V, and the Fm7-Bb7 is a ii-V. It seems like maybe the non-resolving ii-Vs are throwing you off? That's just very typical in jazz. So if something looks like a ii-V with no I, that's exactly what it is.

The short analysis: almost everything is a ii-V or ii-V-I, with one small section of i-Vs.

[JakeAcci]

Thanks Guitarzen, that's an interesting 'cut the BS' approach.

I get that they are non resolving ii Vs but in a lot of tunes the direction of these make more sense, some deceptive movement, but ultimately targetting other points inside a key center in a way that I can verbalize at least a bit easier. For example, stella starts with ii V to iii, then ii V to I, then ii V to IV, with non of them resolving except the one to the IV. That's a simpler tune, but I guess what I'm digging for is I think there is more 'conventional' logic to these moving ii Vs than what we might see.

I just redid an analysis where I simplified many of the ii Vs to be either just the ii or the V and it exposed some interesting things, notes here, comments still turned on and if anybody wants to make notes inside it:

Along Came Betty Harmonic Analysis - no ii Vs - Jazz Guitar Forum comments - Google Sheets

[JensL]

Thanks Guitarzen, that's an interesting 'cut the BS' approach.

I get that they are non resolving ii Vs but in a lot of tunes the direction of these make more sense, some deceptive movement, but ultimately targetting other points inside a key center in a way that I can verbalize at least a bit easier. For example, stella starts with ii V to iii, then ii V to I, then ii V to IV, with non of them resolving except the one to the IV. That's a simpler tune, but I guess what I'm digging for is I think there is more 'conventional' logic to these moving ii Vs than what we might see.

I just redid an analysis where I simplified many of the ii Vs to be either just the ii or the V and it exposed some interesting things, notes here, comments still turned on and if anybody wants to make notes inside it:

Along Came Betty Harmonic Analysis - no ii Vs - Jazz Guitar Forum comments - Google Sheets

I always thougt of the beginning progressions as a sort of disguised Eb7 E7 Eb7 E7, which actually makes a lot of sense in Ab.

I really don't agree with taking away the key signature for a piece like this. While I don't really try to use functional analysis to understand how it moves I do hear it in Ab, and therefore that key signature makes for easier reading and hearing what is going on (Did I mention how much I hate the omnibook for not having key signatures.....)

Jens

[JakeAcci]

oh and bringing more attention the Gma7 in bar 7, I see now that there's a much much simpler logic to it:

original chords:
Ama7 Ab7 Gma7 F#7

the ma7 serve very similar functions to m7b5 a tritone away, as:

Ebm7b5 Ab7 Dbm7b5 Gb7 - same (ok, similar) chord scales and such too

So my confusion on the Gma7 is totally gone if I just looked at it as oseomthing like

Ama7 Ab7(or D7) C#m7b5/G F#7

[JensL]

oh and bringing more attention the Gma7 in bar 7, I see now that there's a much much simpler logic to it:

original chords:
Ama7 Ab7 Gma7 F#7

the ma7 serve very similar functions to m7b5 a tritone away, as:

Ebm7b5 Ab7 Dbm7b5 Gb7 - same (ok, similar) chord scales and such too

So my confusion on the Gma7 is totally gone if I just looked at it as oseomthing like

Ama7 Ab7(or D7) C#m7b5/G F#7

The bVImaj7 V type cadence is found in more songs. Night And Day to name a very famous one.

Jens

[JakeAcci]

The bVImaj7 V type cadence is found in more songs. Night And Day to name a very famous one.


Jens

I’m familiar with that, just can’t say I’m used to seeing it in the middle of a chain, like a iii IV ii V, so it threw me off. Because in this context it also means this 4 chord chain starts on the bVIImaj7 which is a little odd for a standard, but I hear what you are saying that it may be best to not think of at as a ‘standard’

[Guitarzen]

I guess what I'm digging for is I think there is more 'conventional' logic to these moving ii Vs than what we might see.

You never know what a person is thinking. Even if we can find a certain logic in something, it may not be what they were thinking. One of the types of modulation we studied in theory was called "sudden modulation", which is just another way of saying, "modulate anywhere the fuck you want" ). So I think sometimes that is a factor in the chord selection process, and in that case we'd be foolish to sit there and try and find a pattern ;o)

I just noticed I made a huge derp in my analysis, bars 5-8 are just a VI-V7 in C#m, and then a VI-V in Bm. And of course the VIs are subs for the is, so really could be analyzed as i-V in C#m, i-V in Bm. I think I'll go back and edit that out of my original post ;o) But the thing with tritone subs I mentioned is something I'm pretty sure is a factor in these weird chromatic progressions you see sometimes with maj7s being used as sort of a tritone sub. I guess though in those cases where a maj7 goes to a dom7 by half-step down, they could always be analyzed as being diatonic to one another.

[Guitarzen]

I really don't agree with taking away the key signature for a piece like this. While I don't really try to use functional analysis to understand how it moves I do hear it in Ab, and therefore that key signature makes for easier reading and hearing what is going on (Did I mention how much I hate the omnibook for not having key signatures.....)Jens

Guess it's a habit I got into with transcriptions --- if the key signature will require me to have more accidentals written in then having no key signature will, I tend to skip it ;o) Because in principle, the key signature was meant to reduce accidentals you'd have to manually write.

[JakeAcci]

I updated my analysis, and will likely keep updating it. Some interesting things, I am trying to sort out.

Perhaps this, or this gives us a little more insight? Or less, hah?

Bbm7

Bm7

Bbm7

Bm7

E7

V to subV of V movement in Ab, with the subV of V pivoting at the end to act as a V, to A

Amaj7

Ab7

Gmaj7

Gb7

Lands on A, but that's just a pivot point to start a iii VI ii V movement to B.

F#m7

Gm7

F#m7

Gm7

C7

instead of resolving to B, the 'previously heard as V7' chord turns into minor - we could call this modal interchange or possibly hear it as the beginning of a ii V to the IV (relative to the B) a la Stella.

Then same exact movements as bars 1-4, and the ii V at the end pivots and resolves to a new "I":

Fmaj7

A7b9

Dm7

G9

I hear this line as actually all in the key of F, even though the Dm7 G9 suggests a ii V to C.

Cm7

F7b9

Am7b5

D7

Gm7

G/F

If we can say we're still in F here, then it's a ii V to the IV, super common, but just does a little shift and then does a ii V to the ii instead. Gm is the relative minor of Bb major. I could also "hear" it as modulating to Bb/Gm

Em7b5

A7#9

Fm7

Bb7

so if we were still in F this could be ii V of vi then modal interchange to go to F minor/dorian for the third and fourth bars of this line...or...something else.

if we want to call it key of Bb here it's a ii V to iii then a ii V to IV, I suppose.

Bbm7

Bm7

Bbm7

Bm7

E7

Then we have that dominant to minor thing that I addressed earlier with Gb7 to F#m7, again. This time at the end of this line instead of the E7 pivoting as a V chord, we have a ii V that that the ascends up another half step, to Cm7b5 to F7, the just being part of a iii VI ii V I to the end.

[JensL]

Guess it's a habit I got into with transcriptions --- if the key signature will require me to have more accidentals written in then having no key signature will, I tend to skip it ;o) Because in principle, the key signature was meant to reduce accidentals you'd have to manually write.

No, the key signature is there to help you hear how it sounds and understand or oversee what is written. It's not some strange way to write more efficient

Do you have to read music often (in a band I mean)?

Jens

[christianm77]

Yeah it's an ornament to the basic ii-v-I in my opinion. I agree with what Jensl says.

I used to look at this progression as related to I #io7 V I but now I don't really see the point:

[Guitarzen]

You might have missed my last post, where I discussed bars 5-8 as easiest to look at as VI-Vs or i-Vs. You seem to have a tendency to want to take two separate tonal centers and want to analyze them as being the same tonal center. Just look at each V-I or I-V as a separate tonal center and it makes it a lot easier. Of course, there are sometimes more than one way to analyze a given set of chords, but simplicity should be the goal. I think looking at everything as just V-I or I-V (in the case of bars 5-8), makes it the most simplistic it can be, and gives us a clear idea as to what parent scale to use over each section.

[JensL]

I’m familiar with that, just can’t say I’m used to seeing it in the middle of a chain, like a iii IV ii V, so it threw me off. Because in this context it also means this 4 chord chain starts on the bVIImaj7 which is a little odd for a standard, but I hear what you are saying that it may be best to not think of at as a ‘standard’

I have written a ton of songs that does that I am working on making them famous....

The ending of One Note Samba has it too. Don't know why I can't think of more standards. I am sure I know a few more.

Jens

[JakeAcci]

You might have missed my last post, where I discussed bars 5-8 as easiest to look at as VI-Vs or i-Vs. You seem to have a tendency to want to take two separate tonal centers and want to analyze them as being the same tonal center. Just look at each V-I or I-V as a separate tonal center and it makes it a lot easier. Of course, there are sometimes more than one way to analyze a given set of chords, but simplicity should be the goal. I think looking at everything as just V-I or I-V (in the case of bars 5-8), makes it the most simplistic it can be, and gives us a clear idea as to what parent scale to use over each section.

I respectfully disagree with your general approach here.


If we want to do a quick analysis that will show us which scales will sound ok, then yes. But at this stage, for me, I’m more so interested in origins and the bigger picture conception of the tune, not just which chord scale will work, you know? I’m not knocking what you’re saying, but it’s a different goal.


I mean, looking at another tune like Moment’s notice:


Em7 A7 Fm7 Bb7 Ebmaj7


Abm7 Db7 Dm7 G7 Eb7 Ab7 Dma7


Dm7b5 G7 Cm7


In the end I don’t think it’s simplest to say “ii V to D, ii V to Eb, ii V to Gb, ii V to C” etc etc, nor would it yield the best playing results (especially at a fast tempo)


because we miss out on the larger movements that are happening in the tune - where things are headed, and it really limits our options.


similarly, I think it can sound really choppy if we’re perceiving the key centers as moving faster than they actually are.


Not to mention, I think it’s hard to recreate a compositional style if we oversimplify.

[Guitarzen]

No, the key signature is there to help you hear how it sounds and understand or oversee what is written. It's not some strange way to write more efficient

Do you have to read music often (in a band I mean)?

Jens

I spent 6 years in college reading music, and have been reading on a regular basis since then (last 14 years). I understand that the key signature tells you what key something is in, but in the case of some modern music where a piece spends the bulk of the time in a key other than the key signature, the key signature becomes meaningless in my opinion. And I still believe in principle the real purpose of the key signature is to save time and not have to write in all those accidentals when you know you are going to be mostly in that key. Key signature and the actual key(s) of the piece are two different things. The key that we end our final cadence on doesn't tell us what key all parts or most of the parts are in. I stand by my assertion I've done enough analysis of music from every musical period to feel comfortable with this assessment. If a piece of music is greater than 50% of the time not in the stated key of the key signature, then why call it that key? In terms of reading music, the less accidentals the better. I did this transcription once that modulated frequently and it had a shit-ton of accidentals in it...I removed the key signature and at least 100 accidentals disappeared...From my standpoint, that's easier for me to sight read, so it's better. We don't look to the key signature for an analysis of the piece. We look at harmony to do a harmonic analysis. So key signature should only be there to facilitate sight reading in my opinion. Harmonic analysis is a separate thing.

[Guitarzen]

I’m more so interested in origins and the bigger picture conception of the tune, not just which chord scale will work, you know?

That's fine if you disagree. I just think your missing the main point -- you are looking for connections that aren't there. It really is just a bunch of ii-Vs etc...And to ignore the different tonal centers, even if they are just 2 chords, is a mistake. Good luck with it!

[JensL]

I spent 6 years in college reading music, and have been reading on a regular basis since then (last 11 years). I understand that the key signature tells you what key something is in, but in the case of some modern music where a piece spends the bulk of the time in a key other than the key signature, the key signature becomes meaningless in my opinion. And I still believe in principle the real purpose of the key signature is to save time and not have to write in all those accidentals when you know you are going to be mostly in that key. Key signature and the actual key(s) of the piece are two different things. The key that we end our final cadence on doesn't tell us what key all parts or most of the parts are in. I stand by my assertion I've done enough analysis of music from every musical period to feel comfortable with this assessment. If a piece of music is greater than 50% of the time not in the stated key of the key signature, then why call it that key? In terms of reading music, the less accidentals the better. I did this transcription once that modulated frequently and it had a shit-ton of accidentals in it...I removed the key signature and at least 100 accidentals disappeared...From my standpoint, that's easier for me to sight read, so it's better. We don't look to the key signature for an analysis of the piece. We look at harmony to do a harmonic analysis. So key signature should only be there to facilitate sight reading in my opinion. Harmonic analysis is a separate thing.

To me that sounds like a very superficial use of written music. I think that the written music should describe how we hear the (tonal) music. It seems an obvious point to me really that since the music has a point of gravity like a root the system for notating it is refined enough to reflect that.

I find Donna Lee in the omnibook horrible to read because I need an accidental to read the root and the 5th of the key (which are fairly often part of the melody) and then all the passing notes have no accidentals but the notes of the key does?

Accidentals are not difficult to read, but if I have to always keep track of if they mean Ab instead of A or Eb instead of E (again these are really common notes in that key) then I have to spend a lot of energy on that.

Jens

[EJGuitar]

i dont know how to analyze this tune in functional way. since not all chords are functional. or unless your a riemannian. and this tune is also irrelevant to schenkerian theory. since it doesnt start and end with a same tonic. though i know some college professors invented new theory accordingly to fit the peg into hole. however the melodic structure could be still problematic. deviating from the philosophical basis of the very idea.

sorry i cant help. this thread make me want to convert. thats all i want to say.