-
Are these the same or does alt state that the 5 can be sharp OR flat?
-
06-20-2018 03:31 PM
-
Technically, alt means #11 #5 b9 and #9.
For comping, what I hear guitarists do most often is include the #5 and the #9. Sometimes move the #9 down to the b9 to inject some movement. There are lots of options for combining altered fifths and ninths, but a lot of combinations aren't playable on guitar. You might hear them on keyboard or in a horn section.
So, Galt might be played 3x3446 (usually the root would be omitted since the bassist may play it). xx3446 is commonly used as Db13.
I guess, technically, C7#5 would have a natural 9th (some of the theorists on the forum may have better info) which has a different sound. I think that many players use the #11, so the scale would be C D E F# G# Bb C, which you might recognize as a whole tone scale.
If you take that scale and replace the 9th with both alterations, b9 and #9, you get C Db Eb E F# G# Bb (forgive the spelling), which is Calt. It's also known as diminished whole tone because the beginning of the scale is diminished and the end is WT.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 06-20-2018 at 04:05 PM.
-
It really depends on who's writing the chart, whether they know anything or not , and what their prejudices might be as a starting point.
If someone uses the alt chord symbol and knows what they're doing, it's used because something in the music explicitly implies the altered scale or the composer is explicitly stating that that's what they want. I think "here's that rainy day has an altered chord symbol in the real book, whereas most other symbols are spelled more open-ended or ambiguously. It's more common in that book to see 7b9 , 7#9 or 7#5 etc. Those symbols MIGHT imply things like harmonic minor, altered, blues etc. , but it's not a definitive statement . It's a choice. Anyway, in here's that rainy day, the symbol is justified DIRECTLY by the melody. it basically spells out altered in a non-ambiguous way.
On the other hand, some people write charts and simply use "alt" chord which has a single altered note in it. That's probably not the best modern use. The symbol really should imply altered scale IMO.
7#5 is very often a wrongly written 7b13, which could be interpreted with a few different scales. Harmonic minor is often the theoretical, "base reference", but you can sub altered or other scales for it. Altered isn't functional, and doesn't spell "right". So, #5 and b5 in the same scale etc.
But you basically need to know some real harmonic theory and/or have played tons of tunes to start knowing what to do with these symbols in regular situations.
Are you primarily focused on what to improvise melodically or for comping? If you want to know how to cover VERY basic comping, you can play 7#5 for either of those chord symbols in the OP. That one's safe. But honestly, once you've already played a 7#5, you can usually play other altered extensions as well.
There's an old pro here who would always say things like "That 7#5 (or 7b13) gives you ACCESS to altered" etc. So, once you play something that MIGHT be altered, you've basically set your ears up (add the listeners ears) for hearing it as BEING from the altered scale, if you choose it to be. You can make the same choice to reference it to other scales as well.
Anyway, I think the real answers to these questions comes from learning to play some minor tunes. These altered chords are basically referencing minor harmony, and those minor tunes take you to SCHOOL on them. Work some minor blues and other tunes with a teacher if you can. You'll begin to start hearing this stuff without thinking so much.
-
I'm going to take another approach to this question.
Play C7 to Fmaj to get the sound of Fmaj in your ears.
Then try Calt played 8 x 8 9 9 11 (technically C7#5#9).
Go back to C7 to F and try 8 x 8 9 9 8 (barre it). That's C7#5.
Where do these chords suggest the harmony should go next?
Try Fmaj7. Try Fmin6. Try Bmaj7.
Listen to the first chord of Oh Darlin' by the Beatles. What is it and where does it lead?
Try composing a tune two or four bars long that uses one of them and another tune that uses the other.
-
Here's a voicing that covers function with 3 b7 and all 4 altered tones.
Play it and then it will be clear why more often than not guitarists choose to play fewer notes to cover altered sounds.
E Bb Eb Ab Db F#
3 b7 #9 b13 b9 #11
An interesting aside:
The major pentatonic scale a tri-tone away from the alt dominant root can cover all 4 altered notes plus the b7
Gb Ab Bb Db Eb
#11 b13 b7 b9 #9
Gb major pentatonic = C7alt
Playing harmonized chord sequences from this scale is one way to navigate this relationship.
Ex. // GbAbDb / AbBbEb / BbDbGb / DbEbAb / EbGbBb//
or
// GbBbDb / AbDbEb / BbEbGb / DbGbAb / EbAbBb //
or
GbBbEbAb / AbDbGbBb / BbEbAbDb / DbGbBbEb / EbAbDbGb //
etc.
-
Enharmony. It's just a joke to jazz guitarists isn't it?
Grrrrr..
The altered scale is an absolute enharmonic fiasco anyway, I don't think it matters.
Also - Whole Tone scale?
-
sure..the melodic minor on steroids..
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
If you then add back in the C and the E (to establish the C7alt) you have the Calt scale. Just another way to think about it. Originally Posted by bako
-
Well as I’m sure you know the altered scale was also called the diminished whole tone Originally Posted by wolflen
It’s quite a big deal that this scale has three names
Modal/construction - superlocrian
Function/Application - altered
Melodic - diminished whole tone
(What I mean when I say the scale is enharmonic mess is that no one uses the scale on half dim, so the spelling is reworked. In most cases I think b13 is better than #5 - but of kind of like #5 for some reason.... suggests a whole tone colour perhaps.)
But the whole tone and possibly diminished scale were in play in jazz before the altered scale became a widely known concept...
I was playing through Hot House today and it has what we might call the diminished bit of the altered scale;
G Ab Bb B
On G7.
Now that little tetrachord is super-prevalent in bebop and we can derive it a few different ways, but it makes me feel 4 note cells of scale are more important than the whole scale. The altered scale unites the most common dim cell with the most common whole tone one...
-
Reg digs altered on half dim. Hip blue note targeting of succeeding V7. He's probably more apt to play locrian or altered colors than locrian#2 on m7b5 I think? More contrast with the other chords, tension/release, in/out etc... Originally Posted by christianm77
He's into working BOTH tritones found in mm generally though... Relationships... :-)
-
yes...the concept that Pat Martino uses..basically treating most changes as a minor of some kind..my interest was finding the chords embedded in the diminished scale (and augmented) and using their arpeggios as starting points to develop solo lines..lots of b5..#9 flavors in symmetric patterns and use altered chords-of all types-above or below them .. the mi7b5 I treat as a altered ii7 or vii7 but convert it to a dom9 or b9#5 again in symmetric movement.. and the other treat in the diminished scale: there are two tri-tone scales that you can use in many ways to connect some of this stuff with..yes it creates some very oblique lines..but also some very cool sounds Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
I'm not an expert but my understanding is that it's the latter. Alt means any combo of flat or sharp 5 AND 9. Originally Posted by skilpatrick
Is it me, or does it seem a bit odd that a question was posed about a chord symbol's meaning, and many of the answers were given in terms of scales? And that just after much weeping and gnashing of the teeth about CST.
Hehehehe.
-
More odd than your non answer? Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Au contraire Matt. I answered the question. Quite directly and concisely, I might add.
-
Ok. But It was 2 questions. I don't think it's necessarily a super simple answer . I've seen a lot of thorough discussion on this topic, from people much more knowledgeable than myself, over the last several years, and it's apparently confusing to a great many people. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
What to play (improv or comping) on 7#5? The differences between 7#5 and 7b13 etc. some of the stuff gets personal and philosophical, being different for each player . You can talk about what MIGHT be played versus what SHOULD be played etc. And there are many different opinions on these things. It's at least worthy of discussion. It is a forum after all.
I don't believe these are necessarily answered with a one sentence reply. Again, you can certainly address what MIGHT be played with a shorter reply, but that didn't strike me as being what the original questions were about.
What's the difference between 7#5 and alt?Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 06-23-2018 at 08:07 AM.
-
Ok, well that’s unusual AFAIK Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
When I suggested altered on m7b5 to the head of a major UK jazz faculty in an audition, he’d never considered it.
So that’s my reason for thinking it’s an unusual choice.
I also haven’t yet come across it in any of solos I’ve looked at. I’m sure there’s some out there.
That said we often sub bVI7 V7 for iim7b5 V7b9 and given bVI7 suits Lydian Dominant, the inverse sub would give you that scale.
I tend hear iim7b5 ‘locrian’ (in fact conceptually it’s just diatonic IV in Minor) as the most bop choice.
-
There are many musical relationships beautifully revealed using a 7 letter system with sharps and flats but
for other scenarios like the whole tone, diminished scale, superlocrian/altered, etc., it is an
enharmonic train wreck waiting to happen. This in no way reflects on any shortcoming on the musical content of the problematic material within this nomenclature system.There is a reason that post tonalists migrated to a number system for analyze music in a pure intervallic way. What matters most is sound and how we interpret it.
The naming systems are there to assist us in this regard and when they fail to do so effectively, it is not a crime to bend the rules to sync with what we hear.
-
Like I said. Maybe none. Maybe it's the same. Maybe there's an altered 9th too. Or maybe not. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Why not listen a to a recorded version of the song to determine what some lazy person failed to put in a fake book or lead sheet?
Also, this post is in the Theory section, which frequently refers to harmony. In this case it was. There was no mention of anything but a chord. How do we know the OP isn't a "rhythm guitar player", or simply learning the chords for comping?
Anyway, all that scale matching is fine, it's helpful in fact. I just thought it was funny how three little letters (CST) set people off, then when left to their own devices, they start matching scales to chords with unabated enthusiasm, and pride "my scale choices are hipper than your scale choices". lol.
Here's an idea. After figuring out that chord by listening to a record, take 3 different chord scales and do some A/B noodling with them against the chord. Settle on the best one for the context and personal preference. Job complete.
-
I'm sure it is. He views things in a unique way from what I'm used to hearing people talk about. Most chord scale guys seem to view melodic minor as basically being all one interchangeable entity: like it doesn't matter as much as to specifics, because there are no "avoid notes". Originally Posted by christianm77
Honestly, I've never heard reg talk much about avoid notes. I know that he DOES view things like C-alt as being distinct from Gb Lydian dominant. To him those are two distinct variations which you can develop, whereas a lot of modern players would call that semantics.
He mostly talks about altered on half diminished as being a great source for blue notes on that chord. You do have to kind of learn to play it a little bit for sure, at least for me. You have to "flip" hearing the #9 as the blue note and the 3 as chord tone. probably easier if you're already used to subbing 7#9 for minor chords, but I'm still learning this stuff.
Originally Posted by christianm77
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
I think there would be crossover from Jordan's stuff in this area with his ideas about tonicization. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
There are differences between scalar synonyms. For instance outlining V dominant (mix or lyd dom) on ii minor sounds really hip, but your resolution points will be different than if you were just playing on V.
Thats something intuitive, in the same way that expressing IV7#11 on Im obviously moves the harmony somewhere else. It's fun to have these places to go when playing duo. Even inverting a chord makes a huge difference. Everything you play in terms of bass motion has a huge effect whether or not you preserve the theoretical root motion.
Autumn Leaves
Cm/Eb F7/Eb Bb/D Eb/D etc
as opposed to root position
And of course inversion = modality
(To Handel, Mozart and modern CST, D/C was a #4 chord, in fact, to Rameau it was and inverted D7...)
Of course when you are playing with bass, they tell you what the context is. If the ground shifts underneath you and you find that the notes you are playing have a whole new reference frame. Even stuff like playing guide tones on a root or fifth is different to playing them on a bass in inversion.
Well that's kind of fun, no? Everything changes. Music is a conversation.
Anyway, when I read Reg's posts years back, I thought he must be a kind of modern scale obsessed player who did obscure harmony things and didn't swing.
Imagine my surprise when I first heard him.
He is about the only person I have ever encountered who plays this way and thinks that way. It's pretty unique.
-
Most people scale match, whether they have labels and names or not. Don't think people are playing with purely chromatic concept. "Notes which sound good" is semantic , and that's fine . But in real life, you can break down "notes which sound good " along certain parameters which are basically note collections, which jazz players describe with the shorthand "scales". Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Like I said. Maybe none. Maybe it's the same. Maybe there's an altered 9th too. Or maybe not.
Why not listen a to a recorded version of the song to determine what some lazy person failed to put in a fake book or lead sheet?
Also, this post is in the Theory section, which frequently refers to harmony. In this case it was. There was no mention of anything but a chord. How do we know the OP isn't a "rhythm guitar player", or simply learning the chords for comping?
Anyway, all that scale matching is fine, it's helpful in fact. I just thought it was funny how three little letters (CST) set people off, then when left to their own devices, they start matching scales to chords with unabated enthusiasm, and pride "my scale choices are hipper than your scale choices". lol.
Jazz players don't use the term "scales" to refer to the exercise where you play the notes up and down only. Just like they don't use the terms "mode" or "diatonic harmony" the same way that classical musicians do.
These pitch collections aren't necessarily melodic ONLY either. Jazz players use the scale names to describe chords as well. If you play C7#5 In a specific context, there are very standard choices for what OTHER notes will sound good, in the tradition, WITH that chord. Once you have an idea of the "other notes", you also have the option of voicing that simple chord with all of the extensions implied by what you're hearing in that situation.
Pianists are certainly aware of all of this . The fact that guitarists tend to see that chord name as a couple of simple "shapes" doesn't change tradition, common practice, and what everyone will end up hearing as either "right" or a clam over that chord , if you make some arbitrary choice about it. At a certain point, guitarists need to be able to hear chords as their would-be 13th chords, regardless of how many pitches are played in specific voicings.
By the way, I don't understand how NOT knowing whether the OP was talking specifically about harmony or melody, somehow makes the questions simpler? Too be fair, I DID ask that in the beginning.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 06-22-2018 at 10:46 AM.
-
C7#5 chord is any scale that has M3rd b7 and #5. Basically 7#5 arp. Rest of the note choices are up to you. In terms of a compoisition, can be hard to tell what the composer intends but more often that not its altered. But ultimately you decide so meh.
Eg.
Altered
Wholetone
Phryg Dom
Variations on the above (many interesting scales if you delve into it)
-
I viewed the OP's question as being very simple; I.e. they are looking at some book and it just say C7 alt, which is vague. They know that C7 #5 is an 'alt' chord so they are asking that when it just says C7 alt, if they can play the C7#5 voicings they know. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Of course the answer is 'it depends'; one needs to look at the melody notes as well as what chord follows this 'alt' chord to determine what 'alt' chord (b5, #5, b9, #9) sounds \ works best to their ears.
-
So the answer to the question is, yes, if you like. Originally Posted by jameslovestal
But in the simplest case C7#5 originated as a variant of the V chord of F harmonic minor/melodic minor scale. (Or Cmixob9b13/mixo b13 if you like to sound all hoity toity.)
-
That really lit up a light in my head... Despite grasping and performing jazz exclusively by ear, I enjoy the theory heavy threads of is forum because of profound insights just like that. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I had never really thought of it that way, but it describes what I do - playing redacted versions of extended chords in my mind's ear to present an appropriate sound for the style and context with respect to the song and the instrumentation comprising the band.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Yesterday, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions