The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 56
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Hey.

    I'm not very adept in theory and in jazz, those rules can be confusing sometimes.. as much as the "analysis"s and chords on sheets tend to have differences.
    Here are some statements to confirm or refute. For a peace of mind.
    Generally speaking.. rule of thumb.. most of the time (only speaking about the diatonic, harm and mel scales here):

    1.A7 : no alterations, unless its in minor (that case its b9, harmonic)
    2.A7b9 - indicates the harmonic scale.
    3.A7#11 - lydian dominant, no other alterations besides that #11
    4.A7b13 - mixolydian b6, no other alterations
    5.#9 and #5 only belong to alt scale, alt dominant chord.
    6.minor 2-5-1 is pretty much meant in harmonic minor unless the dominant chord has #9, #5 or alt signs.
    7.having more than 1 alterations marked in the dominant chord symbols means that the composer wants all of those notes to sound under the melody or that someone was overthinking.
    9. A7alt - just whatever "dominanty" sounding chord you like, but surely in the alt scale
    10. in minor 2-5-1, the last chord almost never sticks with #7 degree. gets flattened to m7.

    ----
    Probably messed up some. Thanks for pointing it out in advance.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    10. in minor 2-5-1, the last chord almost never sticks with #7 degree. gets flattened to m7.
    Or m6.

    The rest of it looks okay. Nevertheless, 'rules' are always flexible. You should probably include altered sounds over an altered dom but you don't always have to be diatonic over an unaltered one. For example, using the lyd dom over an unresolved V.

    Depends on context and what sounds good.

  4. #3
    Thanks.

    I thought that it's better to know about the rule before bending it
    Never read a theory book, only went through some tunes on my own.

    One thing still bugs me with written sheet music. When checking the chords against melody (a solid well established notes), then sometimes the sheet may have dominant chords that disagree with the melody. How can that be? Also, when saw some analysis, they usually go through the functions but rarely mention any melody notes. Whats up with that?

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Lead sheets are just a guide, you sometimes have to apply a bit of knowledge to make sense of them.

    For example they will often say the chord is just G7, when common jazz practice at that point in the tune would be to play some kind of altered G7 (e.g. G7#5). This might be because the melody requires it, or it might just be it sounds better in the context of the chord progression.

    It helps to learn tunes by listening to a few of the great recordings as well as consulting the sheet music, that’s how I always try to approach it.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    sometimes the sheet may have dominant chords that disagree with the melody.
    Again, depends on the context. In Blue Bossa there's a Bb that lands solidly on a G7, just like that. But it sounds good.

    Some questions about dominant chords-untitled-jpg

  7. #6
    Oh geez.. got to take a deep breath and accept the chaos

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    A7#5 -- you can also use the A whole tone scale, or as we say in Canada, take the "eh" train.

  9. #8
    I've not yet got into dim and aug scales. Heard a rumor that they can make you lazy.

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    Hey.

    I'm not very adept in theory and in jazz, those rules can be confusing sometimes.. as much as the "analysis"s and chords on sheets tend to have differences.
    Here are some statements to confirm or refute. For a peace of mind.
    Generally speaking.. rule of thumb.. most of the time (only speaking about the diatonic, harm and mel scales here):

    1.A7 : no alterations, unless its in minor (that case its b9, harmonic)
    2.A7b9 - indicates the harmonic scale.
    3.A7#11 - lydian dominant, no other alterations besides that #11
    4.A7b13 - mixolydian b6, no other alterations
    5.#9 and #5 only belong to alt scale, alt dominant chord.
    6.minor 2-5-1 is pretty much meant in harmonic minor unless the dominant chord has #9, #5 or alt signs.
    7.having more than 1 alterations marked in the dominant chord symbols means that the composer wants all of those notes to sound under the melody or that someone was overthinking.
    9. A7alt - just whatever "dominanty" sounding chord you like, but surely in the alt scale
    10. in minor 2-5-1, the last chord almost never sticks with #7 degree. gets flattened to m7.

    ----
    Probably messed up some. Thanks for pointing it out in advance.
    Sure. "Context needed" goes without saying.

    Beyond that, b9 and b13 very often indicates a harmonic minor reference.

    #5 is very often a wrongly-written b13. So, same.

    Lydian dominant works and is common practice for "something to play over 7#11".

    #9 by itself is very often "just a blue note" in terms of original reference. Altered works as an option to play....

    Having more than one alteration...well, to that, .....I'd give one guideline for ALL of the above: chord symbols are as much about what NOT to play as anything. b9 or b13 can be covered with several different things, but more than anything, they mean "don't jump on the nat9 (or nat13) with both feet, like a complete rookie"...

    Understand that, in terms of real theory....

    1. Most things are "from" major and harmonic minor. It's really helpful to be able to write out or spell full 13th chords for each scale degree from both of these just for the "where things come from" part. (Melodic minor is just as important for basic coverage in modern jazz, but it's not the functional starting reference.)

    2. Be able to spell secondary dominants within the key to full 13th chords. They end up being myxo, harmonic minor and Mel minor, but it's cool to know where they're "from".

    3. Once you can spell the above, you'll be more aware of the rest, which is made up of things like "just blue notes"etc.

    Melodic minor, whole tone, diminished and other scales cover things you "can play" but are rarely WHERE things "come from" (to butcher some grammar). For example, once you play b9 or b13, you open the door to melodic minor and can use it, but that's different from saying that it "comes from" melodic minor/diminished/whole tone etc.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 07-31-2019 at 04:14 PM.

  11. #10
    Thanks. Gonna digest for a bit..

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    Hey.

    I'm not very adept in theory and in jazz, those rules can be confusing sometimes.. as much as the "analysis"s and chords on sheets tend to have differences.
    Here are some statements to confirm or refute. For a peace of mind.
    Generally speaking.. rule of thumb.. most of the time (only speaking about the diatonic, harm and mel scales here):

    1.A7 : no alterations, unless its in minor (that case its b9, harmonic)
    2.A7b9 - indicates the harmonic scale.
    3.A7#11 - lydian dominant, no other alterations besides that #11
    4.A7b13 - mixolydian b6, no other alterations
    5.#9 and #5 only belong to alt scale, alt dominant chord.
    6.minor 2-5-1 is pretty much meant in harmonic minor unless the dominant chord has #9, #5 or alt signs.
    7.having more than 1 alterations marked in the dominant chord symbols means that the composer wants all of those notes to sound under the melody or that someone was overthinking.
    9. A7alt - just whatever "dominanty" sounding chord you like, but surely in the alt scale
    10. in minor 2-5-1, the last chord almost never sticks with #7 degree. gets flattened to m7.

    ----
    Probably messed up some. Thanks for pointing it out in advance.
    If you're asking "what is the 7 note scale associated with this chord in chord-scale-theory?" sure. But that does not mean "when you see this chord in a chart, comp exactly this voicing and/or play notes from this scale".

    When I see any form of a dom7 written in a chart, I think "dom7, with alterations TBD according to the melody, taste, and context", no matter what extension or alterations are actually written there. For some tunes, one has to pay more attention, and sometimes the chart really is correct to be so prescriptive, but that's the exception IME, and typically only during the head. Improvisation is improvisation. Your idea that there is a "rule" and playing something other than that is breaking the rule (intentionally or not) is just wrong. There is not a rule that the voicing as written in a chart dictates that a comper play that voicing or that soloist draw on the associated CST scale. In the real world, nearly all 7's are alt7's, and your job as an improvising musician is to pick voicings and notes according your ears, the context, and your intention.

    John

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    ...In the real world, nearly all 7's are alt7's, and your job as an improvising musician is to pick voicings and notes according your ears, the context, and your intention.

    John
    I'd be interested to know what the good people of this Forum think about this - ie - where would you NOT treat V7 as a V7alt? Maybe not the I7 or IV7 in say a blues, and perhaps not the II7 in many tunes, anywhere else?

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    I'd be interested to know what the good people of this Forum think about this - ie - where would you NOT treat V7 as a V7alt? Maybe not the I7 or IV7 in say a blues, and perhaps not the II7 in many tunes, anywhere else?
    If a dominant chord is NOT functioning as a ‘V resolving to I’, then I would probably not alter it. I might put a #11 on it though, that works ok. That is also how Emily Remler explains it in one of her videos. For example the first 2 bars of Benny Golson’s ‘Killer Joe’.

    Of course there are exceptions to this, such as disguised/delayed resolutions. Ultimately I just do what sounds ‘right’ in the context.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    What Graham said, the fully altered sound is usually best when resolving to the tonic, but, be warned, what to play over dominants is a very complex subject.

    I suggest you google it and prepare to be confused. Sorry :-)

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    I'd be interested to know what the good people of this Forum think about this - ie - where would you NOT treat V7 as a V7alt? Maybe not the I7 or IV7 in say a blues, and perhaps not the II7 in many tunes, anywhere else?
    I can't think of any situation where I would absolutely not ever play a particular voicing. I'd say the guideline (not rule) I follow is V is alt by default; in other functions, alter 9 or 5 (and add or alter 4/11 or 6/13) with intent, not by default. For instance, it's fairly common to play 7#9 on I or IV on a blues, when going for the effect of doing that.

    John

  17. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    I can't think of any situation where I would absolutely not ever play a particular voicing. I'd say the guideline (not rule) I follow is V is alt by default; in other functions, alter 9 or 5 (and add or alter 4/11 or 6/13) with intent, not by default. For instance, it's fairly common to play 7#9 on I or IV on a blues, when going for the effect of doing that.

    John
    So, calling 7#11 altered?

    Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Music notation is a symbolic representation of sound. It is amazing that it communicates as much as it does, however there always remains parts of the musical panorama omitted that need be made whole by the performer.

    Lead sheet formats and chord symbols are especially
    incomplete. Sometimes the notator is going for simplicity, covering the general
    harmonic idea. Other times the aim is for detailed specificity.

    Harmony is made up of the sum total of all the notes played in the ensemble in temporal proximity. When we are reading a chart, we have to consider the options and necessities
    in relation to the melody. When we are playing in a band, we have to consider all else being played. We, as guitarists have a tendency to take chord symbols too literally, that there is a
    chord grip or several combined needed to fulfill the notational request.
    This is not a terrible thing, it is a survival level but can still be executed with a great result.

    Take the Barry Harris statement though, "I don't play chords, I play movements".
    There is a life that exists beyond the chord symbol on the page.
    A good musical response will be contextually defined.
    Emanresu, your list is pretty good for the school of the literal interpretation of
    dominant chord symbols.

    Modal thinking links a chord symbol to a source scale and subsequent extensions. This is one possible expansion of the chord symbol.There are also many instances where several dominants derived from multiple modes can be combined, moving from brighter to darker or the reverse before moving on. This can be done, regardless what the chord symbol indicates.
    There are approach chords to the chord of the moment and to the following chord.
    There are back and forth possibilities, like those built into the Barry Harris 8 note scales.
    There is the hyper awareness of chord patterns, that forum member Reg demonstrates
    great dexterity with.

    Anyway my major point: the chord symbol is not the whole story.

  19. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Sure. "Context needed" goes without saying.

    Beyond that, b9 and b13 very often indicates a harmonic minor reference.

    #5 is very often a wrongly-written b13. So, same.

    Lydian dominant works and is common practice for "something to play over 7#11".

    #9 by itself is very often "just a blue note" in terms of original reference. Altered works as an option to play....

    Having more than one alteration...well, to that, .....I'd give one guideline for ALL of the above: chord symbols are as much about what NOT to play as anything. b9 or b13 can be covered with several different things, but more than anything, they mean "don't jump on the nat9 (or nat13) with both feet, like a complete rookie"...

    Understand that, in terms of real theory....

    1. Most things are "from" major and harmonic minor. It's really helpful to be able to write out or spell full 13th chords for each scale degree from both of these just for the "where things come from" part. (Melodic minor is just as important for basic coverage in modern jazz, but it's not the functional starting reference.)

    2. Be able to spell secondary dominants within the key to full 13th chords. They end up being myxo, harmonic minor and Mel minor, but it's cool to know where they're "from".

    3. Once you can spell the above, you'll be more aware of the rest, which is made up of things like "just blue notes"etc.

    Melodic minor, whole tone, diminished and other scales cover things you "can play" but are rarely WHERE things "come from" (to butcher some grammar). For example, once you play b9 or b13, you open the door to melodic minor and can use it, but that's different from saying that it "comes from" melodic minor/diminished/whole tone etc.
    Btw, the above mentioned material and the material in the OP is the vanilla part or a "starting reference". You can do a lot more than that, but that's not what you're talking about in your op.

    But that idea of vanilla or a "starting reference" will sort of reconcile what has been said about being able to play "just about anything". Both are true, but you're somewhat talking about different things - or at least different LEVELS of the same thing.

    When you learn some basic starting reference/ vanilla material, you can then start applying it in outside contexts. That's where "everything else" mostly comes in.

    Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    So, calling 7#11 altered?

    Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
    Which gets me a prize, saying yes or saying no?

    I really don't want to get too deeply into the Marshes of Enharmony (worse than the fire swamp ...). I usually think of 7#11 and 7b5 as the same thing (even though I understand why they're not), and most of the time I treat them as suggestions, not as a command.

    John

  21. #20
    Thanks, it was so helpful read everybody.

    Just to emphasize one last thing that still nags me. Putting improvisation aside for a bit.. When we got melody notes - long and strong, for example - part of an unaltered dominant chord for sure. ..And it's marked as such in a trusty lead sheet. While it may be cool to alter some of the other notes and of course the added passing dominant chords could be whatever we like atm., wouldn't it be somewhat required to actually use the melody to.. indicate the most suitable choice at least?
    Although the Blue bossa example... that was a fun way to debunk the issue. Still, I've told (and passed the wisdom ) many times that whenever in doubt (whether the sheet is right), check the melody.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    Thanks, it was so helpful read everybody.

    Just to emphasize one last thing that still nags me. Putting improvisation aside for a bit.. When we got melody notes - long and strong, for example - part of an unaltered dominant chord for sure. ..And it's marked as such in a trusty lead sheet. While it may be cool to alter some of the other notes and of course the added passing dominant chords could be whatever we like atm., wouldn't it be somewhat required to actually use the melody to.. indicate the most suitable choice at least?
    Although the Blue bossa example... that was a fun way to debunk the issue. Still, I've told (and passed the wisdom ) many times that whenever in doubt (whether the sheet is right), check the melody.
    That's the first choice when comping under the melody, but things can be looser under soloing.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    Thanks, it was so helpful read everybody.

    Just to emphasize one last thing that still nags me. Putting improvisation aside for a bit.. When we got melody notes - long and strong, for example - part of an unaltered dominant chord for sure. ..And it's marked as such in a trusty lead sheet. While it may be cool to alter some of the other notes and of course the added passing dominant chords could be whatever we like atm., wouldn't it be somewhat required to actually use the melody to.. indicate the most suitable choice at least?
    Although the Blue bossa example... that was a fun way to debunk the issue. Still, I've told (and passed the wisdom ) many times that whenever in doubt (whether the sheet is right), check the melody.
    Build the chords from the top down?

  24. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Build the chords from the top down?
    Uh?
    I try to keep the top note not moving too much usually so kinda yes.. But it's different topic?

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    Uh?
    I try to keep the top note not moving too much usually so kinda yes.. But it's different topic?
    Well, it's just as simple as having a sense of how the melody relates to the chords... So you build voicings from the melody down and you can't get into trouble. Of course you may not want to play those voicings necessarily, but you have an idea of what to avoid. So I know I can put a 13b9 chord here, or whatever.

    It's why making a chord melody is always a good idea... I usually do something I can play in a trio, so sketch in the chords.

    In terms of reading charts, it depends on the comping style. Modern style comping tends to involve more complex voicings, so you probably need some precautionary digits after the chords.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Personally, I would never set out to make a list of "rules" like that, but if I did, for each rule I would reference a couple of examples of the rule being followed in known songs, and a couple of examples of the rule being violated in a couple of songs.

    Musical judgement develops from examining and discovering how and why the rules apply in some contexts and not in others.

    It's important to know the meta-rules that guide the application or exception of the first level rules, and then know the meta-meta-rules above that which guide the application or exception of the meta-rules guiding the application or exception of the first level rules... see how crazy this gets?... but this is the nature of the overall musical judgement... you struggle, explore, and internalize nested layers of rules and exceptions until they become diffuse and intuitive, which is how you want them as the objects of musical judgement.