-
It's certainly never a bad thing to develop one's ears.
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
But if you think you can anticipate all harmonic choices based on a 13th chord structure on the original chord, you are going into run into trouble.
And I personally hate dictatorial CST based compers. They are always in the way. They make me conform to their idea of the harmony, put you in a straightjacket.
But that's not the fault of CST. It's the fault of not enough listening, experience and flexibility, of overly theory based playing, and 'advanced harmony' from Mel Bay books ;-)
So I agree, but I really dislike the idea of 'all chords are 13th chords' thing. It's certainly a thing, and you have to hear it because that's how so many people play now, but it's not THE thing.
You have to develop the ability to hear every note on every chord. Whether or not you relate this to a tertial structure is really style dependent.
-
06-26-2018 06:49 AM
-
Anyway, to the OP - the difference between C7#5 and C7alt?
C7#5 is found in the F melodic and harmonic scale, so is a minor key dominant.
C7alt is a harmonic development of that sound that also includes b5 and #9.
C7#5 is a good comping choice because it allows the soloist the flexibility to choose.
Of course C7 (no 5) is even better. Solid choices until you get to know the soloist's playing.
-
Yeah. I'm not really talking about restrictions in that sense. It's difficult to talk about these things in text, without relation to time etc., but it's more about options than restrictions. Reg would say possibilities. Originally Posted by christianm77
What he's always talking about with thirteenths is that most of the time we are hearing something more complete than 3-7 , whether we know it or not. If you take a minute to figure out what you're hearing as being "right" for the moment, it can often be described as a scale or 13 th chord. Doesn't mean it's the ONLY option.
Anyway, I know he has a very very different take than many here with regard to what you play with others , how full chord you might play in comping etc. Most players I hear talking about limiting the voicings to being more sparse in order to accommodate playing with other people. Reg deals with this more in terms of harmonic rhythm, than anything else. Allows you to play fuller chord's and interact more.
And you can hear it in the way he comps. More inside on the strong side of the beat with midge outside color on the weak side of the beat or pattern. It's the thing I was struck with by his playing when I first heard him , and really ever sense: how " inside" he can often sound, while playing much MORE than others play in the same situation.
Anyway, probably the most basic and easily understood example, relating to harmonic rhythm, is halfstep approaches. I mean, nearly anyone can get away with sliding in and out of nearly any chord in the changes without justification , without really understanding anything about theory.
The basic move works harmonically for legitimate theoretical reasons, but more than THAT, it works because of the harmonic rhythm and the way that you usually play those things. You can also do the same thing with actual harmony in a more sophisticated way if you know what you're doing, and that's what he does so well.
You can learn to hear blue notes and embellishments as CHORDS on the weak side of your "harmony of the moment" etc. It's really actually pretty compelling anywhere a blue note works , it COULD basically work as a chord on the weak side of your harmonic rhythm as well.
Sent from my SM-J727P using TapatalkLast edited by matt.guitarteacher; 06-26-2018 at 11:36 PM.
-
Matt, I think this is the sort of thing that reads a little like word salad if you don't know the reference points.
No doubt the same is true of my Barry Harris splurges.
But I kind of recognise more terms coming up here. I think in some ways Reg's approach shares a lot in common with other approaches I have studied.
Anyway this isn't about Reg. I love his comping.
The sort of thing I'm talking about is really coming from players who establish the harmony by playing CST oriented sounds that don't leave much space. For instance, a pianist hits Ab7#11 in Cherokee. I'm going to have to honour that #11 in my line, but that's not what I would do when running a bop line, for instance. So they push me into a more chord/scale zone.
It constrains me because on guitar I really have the option to play what they are expressing or sound clashy and wrong (Tenor sax you can get away with more.)
This to me is BAD comping. And it comes from a headspace of 'this is the right chord/scale to play here' rather than 'lets open it up and listen to what the soloist wants to play here.'
But that is how a lot of college players are trained to think and play. Chords = improvising note choices.
A lot of the type of intervallic voicings popular with guitar players who want to sound 'modern' are particularly awkward in this way. It becomes an expression of the ego. It's better I think to have 'boring' chords that are completely internalised and serve the music than fancy voicings. Of course, you can have both. If the music is chord scalic, you have these options.
And, secondly guitarists don't pay enough attention to the melody often, so even playing the melody of a standard with another guitarist, you have two similar sounding instruments and with many of the guitar chord grips being in the same range as the melody - well it can sound like a total mess, chord extensions going above the melody, clashing in tones and semitones, all of that. Yuck.
These are professional skills for a jazz guitarist. Attention to detail, listening.
So actually I agree. You need to ears to play behind someone. You need to listen. So of course hearing the extensions is vital. Whether or not you construct tertial structures or US triads (Jordan) is a side issue, especially as the guitar has such limited options for 'big' harmony.
Don't get me wrong, there is a place for a comper to harmonically stimulate an attentive soloist, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I wish more people would Keep it Simple Stupid.
-
No problem there although you might be laughed at! Here's a thing wot I did. Keeps me off the street. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Very classy presentation Ragman. This forum needs more stuff like this.
-
Don't encourage them, fgs :-) Originally Posted by princeplanet
This forum needs more stuff like this.
-
..... man.... are you using theory or what you like. The most common source for notation in fake books, notation programs etc...
Is.....(like I've posted a million times..... "Standard Chord Symbol Notation", Carl Brant and Clinton Roemer, from mid 70's.
If your using theory... at least make the reference to what theory or source of musical organization for labeling etc... your using,
even if it's just your playing skills and what you like.... your personal theory.
If your using classical traditional functional theory... ( are you talking about contrapuntal concepts or harmonic concepts), generally make a choice.... who cares, learn how to arrange.... take a melody and arrange, or fill in the notes below the melody....
If a melody is over a single chord for more than one note... you begin to use more notes than just basic chord tones, (you don't need to.... but it gets pretty old if you don't), generally you'll want to actually spell the notes with some tyle of harmonic organization.... telling someone to play b5 and #5... oh and maybe even a natural 5.
When musicians see notation... it works better when it's not random organization.
There is common jazz practice.... I'm not talking about early 1900s... How many of you still use your land line to make a call. Maybe we could all write letters to each other to discuss notation.
Yea cool ragman... don't play jazz unless you have the skills. wise words.
-
C7alt (b9,#9,#11,b13)--------- C altered scale
C7b9 (b9,#9,#11,5,13)-------- C diminished scale (half/whole)
C9#5 (9,#11,b13, 5 omitted)-- C whole tone
C7#11 (9,#11,5,13)------------ C lydian dominant
C7/C7sus4 (9,sus4,5,13)------- C mixolydian
-
Bleah. Originally Posted by joel paul
-
Altered use to be Harmonic Minor V7 chord,
-then we started to add the #9... the old Dim. and whole tone thing... didn't last long, but had the notes and a natural 5 ..
.... 1 b9 #9 3 11 5 b13 b7, still can be cool, got rid of the folk thing and covered the blue notes etc...
-then became 7th degree of MM....
1 b9 b3 b11 b5 b13 b7 .... which is really a min7b5 chord.... but the b3 became #9, the b11 became the 3rd... b5, b13 and b7 stayed same,
So G7 b9 #9 b5 b13 ....the #11 spelling came later.... because the #11 use to be more from the IV7 #11 chord or Db7#11, tritone inversion, then just root motion tri-tone sub.... But recent practice has become both... b5 or #11. Personally don't like #11 with altered, takes away to much of the blue connection... but with many the use is becoming common practice.... (still sucks).
The #5 spelling generally has different harmonic references... even though still spelled that way because of.... above post. #5 has augmented implications with jazz... again personally too vanilla... like diminished..... like how far away from blue can you get. Great for effects etc... but very limited for harmonic relationships... without getting mechanical and muddy sounding.
If you picked 50 jazz tunes... most #5ths are b13ths ... Try and not force traditional classical contrapuntal voice leading and harmonic practice as your organization for jazz....
-
Hey, Reg. I really enjoy the stories, the history part of it as much as anything. We've done a lot of speculating on the forums about the history, how it got from the harmonic minor practices prevalent in the bebop era to more modern uses of melodic minor. Some claim that it's mostly a Berklee thing etc. Originally Posted by Reg
Anyway, I thought I had always remembered you talking about it being more of a bandstand evolution than a school thing. Can you talk a little bit about how this stuff came about and when, in your experience? Were there certain players who started influencing this etc?
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
This is a great post, puts things into perspective in a way I've never been made aware of before, so many thanks for that! Originally Posted by Reg
So 5th mode Harmonic minor had the #9 added to make an 8 note scale, then the 4th and 5th degree taken out and swapped for a b5. Voila, the Altered scale.... yet interestingly you seem to be saying you don't like either the b5 or the #5 with altered because it takes it too far away from "blue"... Can you please elaborate, maybe with examples? Are you suggesting you'd prefer the nat 11 and/or nat 5th, as in the earlier incarnation alluded to?
-
Rereading I'm not positive about both, but originally assumed that he was saying that he doesn't like CALLING them #11 and #5 because it disassociates further from their traditional blue note function. Prefers dealing those notes b13 and b5. "What could be farther from blue than a sharp"? Originally Posted by princeplanet
Sent from my SM-J727P using TapatalkLast edited by matt.guitarteacher; 07-18-2018 at 04:38 PM.
-
People freak out about b3s on minor chords and contextualise them as #9
The joke is the altered scale doesn’t even really have a #9
b3 always sounds good anyway.
But I think people are to wedded to the idea that just cos it says A7b9 in the chart that that’s what the improviser is thinking.
In actuality they might just be flipping back and forward between the Dm and A7b9, or playing a minor key melodic line with the chromatic alterations standard for the key.
A case in point is the melody of Blue Bossa. Obviously it’s C natural minor over the section in Cm. Locally that Bb Ab G on the G7 is then theorised as a Galt Sound. That’s fine, but in another very real sense it’s also kind of complicating something that was very simple.
Anyway most jazz players who play well can sweep up and down through levels of harmonic detail.
-
I just go with the arpeggio (1 3 ~5 b7), and let my ears fill in the blanks (~9 ~11 ~13). Thats how i get (mixolydian, altered, diminished, wholetone etc...) without thinking about it. If its going home (V7-->I or bII7-->I), all 12 notes are good ( minus maj7).
The only note i would avoid is maj7, over dom7.
-
OH NO NOT THAT AGAIN! Originally Posted by joel paul
(There's been many a lengthy discussion over the validity of that note, especially in blues, because the ear conflates the sounds of the various doms. See other threads. As I recall, it was all Wes' fault)
-
Your loss Originally Posted by joel paul
-
@ragman @christianm77
maj7 over dom7 chords : NOT forbidden, just play with caution. Even the most hazardous one (b9 over maj7 chords) :NOT forbidden, just play with caution. All 12 notes are playable on maj7, min7, dom7; just play with caution and good taste on the hazardous notes
-
Alternatively, play it with brazen confidence, icy-cold assertiveness, and shameless mastery of the genre
-
This is so alien to the way I think about music. Originally Posted by joel paul
I mean obviously some notes are more consonant on any given chord than others.
However, playing 'over' a given chord is really a very limited way of thinking, and not one that leads to convincing jazz language. You have to learn to resolve into chords, expressing harmony in your lines that has its own ebb and flow, not playing 'over' chords in a point by point basis... (you know when someone says what can I play 'over' this chord progression, you are dealing with a beginner/intermediate student, right?)
A bad way of thinking is that Dm G7 and C, say, in a progression, are all separate harmonies that must be honoured through vertical relationships... Thus the maj7 on dom7 is a 'bad note'...
That's dead wrong. You can play using CST on each chord, of course, but the II V I is an interlinked entity though time, a narrative three act structure on the micro scale - a set up, a bit of drama/conflict and a resolution. When you think of conflict... well, clashes become desirable... (Good CST players, like Reg, understand this.)
The resolution and possibly the set up is REALLY where CST comes into play - you need to resolve in general to a 'good' note on the target chord. But aside from that it is up to you how much you honour the vertical relationships. You can even skip the set up and dive straight in, make the resolution extremely last minute. After all Star Wars STARTS with a space battle, and no one wants to watch 30m of the medal ceremony...
And all of this works in combination with the phrasing and the rhythm... Phrasing, melody, harmony and rhythm all work together in jazz to create that forward push, that swing. They are not separate elements even though we tend to talk about them separately. So you have to learn to hear forwards in time, not just vertically on the chords as they occur. So, good jazz lines have the swing 'baked in.'
So, maj7 sounds great on a V7 if it resolves logically into the next chord - so the 5th of the I, say, on the most basic level.
A mature improviser on changes understands this and playing, for instance B7 or F#o7 going into C over a ii V I not only becomes possible, but so mainstream and classic a move that it will barely raise an eyebrow. (Django played that shit in the 1930s... Benson plays all sorts of things that leaves theorists scratching their heads, and so on.)
Conversely, an improvisor who can't do this and knows all the CST options in the world will never be able to play anything resembling actual jazz language. They might be able to play one of the more modal contemporary styles to a certain level, but they will always have trouble swinging because that conception of harmony is static, rather than dynamic. They will become frustrated with jazz and defensive about their jazz playing, never truly confident and fluent on things like Rhythm Changes...
Anyway, don't take my word for it (not that you would, it's the internet and the default state is to disagree to the bitter end :-))
Check out lines from your favourite players. That's the only authority. Theory textbooks, dudes holding forth on the web.... That's all SECONDARY.Last edited by christianm77; 07-19-2018 at 05:46 AM.
-
Yeah prohibitive, EMOTIONAL language about notes over chords isn't really helpful IMO. I used to be a lot more confused about stuff like this until I got a book by Jimmy Amadie in which he lays out his beginning guiding principle for playing over a given chord: tension and release. Has you work through basic patterns of playing a tention which RELEASES to a chord tone. You then progressively add in more chromatic approach notes to the simple upper/lower neighbor type patterns until you get things which break every "rule" you could ever know about what NOT to play over chords.
Of course, you can do the same with harmonic approaches as well, and there are multiple harmonic approaches which work really well for justifying any would-be avoid note. I don't have any personal beef with Mark Levine, but at the same time, I'd wonder if he ever actually USED a word like "dangerous" to describe a note over a chord. I don't have the book actually. So, I can't say. Maybe he does?
I mean is jazz philosophically in opposition to "danger"?
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
Well if anyone told me a note is dangerous I would probably make a beeline for it.
-
@christian77 @mattguitarteacher
playing over a chord is just half the equation, you have to resolve to the next chord (chord tone on down beat)
I only have two things in mind: what chord am I on?, and what chord comes next?
Im not saying the hazardous notes are bad guys, just dont land on them. play them as passing notes
(min7---> b9 b13), (maj7----> b9 #9 sus4 b13), (dom7--->maj7). Play them as passing notes, dont land on them.
theres one thing i dont agree with mark levine : He says to play dorian on all min7 chords.
I dont agree with that. For me, min7 is (dorian/aolian/phrygian).
PS. this forum needs holdsworth icons, and gambale icons. #holdsworthicons #jazzforumrevolution
-
yea lots of approaches... Maybe keep a perspective of what's behind you also. the in the moment, is even better when setup.
Yea..."dudes holding forth on the web...." gots to love that, thanks Christian.
Another detail of playing... that whole tension resolve thing, (I know I played that way and still do), but with standard Jazz Practice and all the tunes.... the resolutions are implied and heard already, and after you get it together the 1st time through, or with everybody else doing so etc... you really don't need to physically spell every time.... really, unless your really after that vanilla thing.
Even years ago.... pretty much doing what your taught to do contrapuntally etc... most of the cool players at gigs... generally do just the opposite, set it up and don't go there.... even deceptively resolve.
Reply With Quote
Looking for a "jazz box"
Yesterday, 09:57 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos