The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 70
  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    Yea... I understand the linear approach. It not complicated, but sometimes there is a vertical thing going on. Not theoretically, physically.... Try playing a Bma7 chord on a slower tempo vamp with a 5 part sax section playing the vamp. Cmaj6/9 G13 sus. tonal chord pattern. A melody which implies Bmaj 7 would suck... because of basic tonal practice.

    I'm not talking about using notes from Bmaj7 as embellishments, ornamental etc. I'm talking about using Bma7 during the implied strong Harmonic rhythm pattern.

    If we're talking about the rhythmic placement thing... then we're talking about playing the Bmaj7 on a weak rhythmical placement and generally... we're implying a change of harmony. We're creating a secondary layer of harmonic rhythm motion... and from the sound of comments... using the tension / release or Dominant / tonic harmonic or melodic functional motion organization...
    Hey Reg. Thanks for this. I've come to view this as a reg distinctive on the forum. For me, personally, it reconciles a lot of the "anything works anywhere". Basically, true and false at the same time. So, you can lean on tensions as hard as you want, if you understand harmonic rhythm aspect, but it's still a tension, targeting the fundamental harmony. It's really opened up the way I hear blue notes etc.

    Anyway, I was curious as to whereyou got this kind of thinking from? Thanks.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladan
    Did you really like what you've heard him playing?

    My impressions
    - hearing only chords, I can think of 251
    - lines he played sound good as they are, I can think of 251 hearing them
    - together, in context of preceding FMaj7 and Cmaj7 as resolution, it does not feel quite right while BMaj7 is sounding. Lines are more like continuing on FMaj7 and actually need different chord inserted before Cmaj7.
    Or, Bmaj7 could be good as a chord, but with different pool of notes for lines.
    I did. Maj7 a half step below I is one of my favorite note sets on V. Has a great "pull" to I.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    I remember it was discussed here in concern of some Wes' solo...

    I thought that it was ii-v-i in G major superimposed over C major ii-v-i but somebody said the idea was the same that Wes thought ii as IV and Bmaj as tritone sub...

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I remember it was discussed here in concern of some Wes' solo...

    I thought that it was ii-v-i in G major superimposed over C major ii-v-i but somebody said the idea was the same that Wes thought ii as IV and Bmaj as tritone sub...

    yeah, that may have been me. wes does it all the time. he's a IV chord guy.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    Yea... I understand the linear approach. It not complicated, but sometimes there is a vertical thing going on. Not theoretically, physically.... Try playing a Bma7 chord on a slower tempo vamp with a 5 part sax section playing the vamp. Cmaj6/9 G13 sus. tonal chord pattern. A melody which implies Bmaj 7 would suck... because of basic tonal practice.
    Probably one reason why I find that type of vamp playing quite boring... The sonic weight of a horn section can be problematic with a clean guitar tone though, if that's what you meant. Sound is a lot of it in those situations it is true. But you can still create moments of tension.

    I'm not talking about using notes from Bmaj7 as embellishments, ornamental etc. I'm talking about using Bma7 during the implied strong Harmonic rhythm pattern.

    If we're talking about the rhythmic placement thing... then we're talking about playing the Bmaj7 on a weak rhythmical placement and generally... we're implying a change of harmony. We're creating a secondary layer of harmonic rhythm motion... and from the sound of comments... using the tension / release or Dominant / tonic harmonic or melodic functional motion organization...
    Yes... ornamentation. The conflict must be resolved... but you have some control over when you make that resolution with the vertical harmony, and the more accomplished a story teller you are, the more artfully you can do this.

    As a listener.... I don't know the psychology, but it seems there's a period of time the brain is willing to contextualise a load of 'interesting notes' with a following resolution. Maybe a couple of seconds? Quite a few chords can go by in that time....

    The thing I'm saying is that this is what's going on a lot even with very standard, functional jazz harmony, those chords on the weak side as you say, here, the V in a ii V I. This is not, to my knowledge a particularly controversial thing to say, but it seems like a lot of students of the music are unwilling to make that conceptual leap.

    And of course outside playing is no different in the slightest. I'm increasingly feeling there's not really that much difference between changes and vamp playing. You can take one thing into the other and vice versa.
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-27-2020 at 02:37 PM.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I remember it was discussed here in concern of some Wes' solo...

    I thought that it was ii-v-i in G major superimposed over C major ii-v-i but somebody said the idea was the same that Wes thought ii as IV and Bmaj as tritone sub...
    Why not? He often played Em7 on Am7, G on C etc. Guess we'll never know.

    But the IV chord on ii V seems equally likely. It is a good cheap way to get the Wes sound!

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Why not? He often played Em7 on Am7, G on C etc. Guess we'll never know.

    But the IV chord on ii V seems equally likely. It is a good cheap way to get the Wes sound!
    Yeh... and IV on ii brings in some slight bluesy references to me...

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    I did. Maj7 a half step below I is one of my favorite note sets on V. Has a great "pull" to I.
    I agree. I can incorporate the sound in more than one way and like it. Bmaj7 (or sub) to C(maj7).

    I was commenting this demonstration clip. His lines sound good to me, but piano chord in the background sounds off beneath those lines. In some exampless less than in others. When only chords are heard, it sounds good to me.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Pedal Point Intro in C (Herbie Hancock style)
    Last edited by rintincop; 04-28-2020 at 02:01 AM.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Hey Matt... from composing and arranging for Film, TV, Big Bands, shows all the usual BS, where what you play or have played and recorded isn't a personal choice thing.

    Yea the application or how most use 1/2 step major 7th chords is more in the direction of becoming aware of how music moves or at least has the perception of. The line of saying Bmaj 7 is a sub for G7 is really stretching basic tonality. It can obviously be done... but your changing the harmony, or the implied harmony, If your not talking about tonal concepts and chords... don't use them. You can use roots and call "B" a sub for G7, typical mechanical Diatonic Sub and expanded through use of Modal Interchange... but would need to be be a compositional or arranged application.... set up. Approach chords, or melodic approach are not... the target. If Bma7 is an approach or some other ornamental etc... your target or tonal reference is the Cmaj7... not G7.

    If the logic of right or wrong is duration.... there's a deal going on bridge sales, or I only shot him one time, he's still alive... nothing wrong here.

    Yea Christian I agree that vamp would be boring... I also get bored with vanilla playing etc... But I'm not talking about boring... We're talking about Subs. I'm trying to simplify the concept.

    There are millions of chord patterns, progressions... hell I love constant structure Maj7 patterns... Joe henderson's Punjab intro... Steve Kuhn's the real guitarist... On more thought... who cares... here's a version of the real Guitarist...

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    I ain't talking about comping, to be clear.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    That was lovely Reg ....
    i dig the ghosted notes thing you do

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Thanks... it's a beautiful tune. Lots of maj7's.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    The OP video example derives it from the logic of Bma7 > Abm7, the added II chord to tri-tone sub Db7.
    Everyone seems to think it is clear, so I will ask you since you are the only one to mention this part... but anyone is welcome to answer.

    The two chord in C is Dm7. What does "the added II chord to tri-tone sub Db7" mean?

    @1:59 he says, "...two chord before the D flat seven, you would get A flat minor seven."

    I'm not getting any Abm7. Where is he and everyone else getting the Abm7?

    If "Bma7 > Abm7" is meant to indicate that the Abm7 comes from the Bma7, I note that Abm7 is mentioned first (not the peek ahead to the answer @1:20, but the derivation beginning @2:56) and Bma7 is derived from it. What's not explained is where the Abm7 came from.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    Everyone seems to think it is clear, so I will ask you since you are the only one to mention this part... but anyone is welcome to answer.

    The two chord in C is Dm7. What does "the added II chord to tri-tone sub Db7" mean?

    @1:59 he says, "...two chord before the D flat seven, you would get A flat minor seven."

    I'm not getting any Abm7. Where is he and everyone else getting the Abm7?

    If "Bma7 > Abm7" is meant to indicate that the Abm7 comes from the Bma7, I note that Abm7 is mentioned first (not the peek ahead to the answer @1:20, but the derivation beginning @2:56) and Bma7 is derived from it. What's not explained is where the Abm7 came from.
    I know I'll get some **** for this, but here's what I think.

    G7's tritone sub is Db7.

    If you had Db7 as a V7 chord it would lead to Gbmaj.

    If the Db7 was the V chord in a ii V I in Gb, then the Abm7 would be the iim7.

    If we were in the key of B, the vim would be G#m7, aka Abm7.

    So, the chain starts at G7 and ends at Bmaj.

    This gives you an F# note against a G7 chord. It's in an Abm7 chord.

    Now here comes the "I'll get ****" part.

    If your theory can "explain" an F# against a G7, then it can explain any note against G7. And, at that point, it ceases to be a theory. It predicts everything and therefore it predicts nothing.

    There are chord tones (4 of them), donsonant extensions (3 of them) and a few additional notes of varying degrees of dissonance (the five black keys).

    Any note can sound good if you play it in a good enough line. Some notes are harder to put in a good line than others. F# is, to my ear, the hardest because it wants to make the dominant chord into a major 7th chord. The theory doesn't tell you that.

    I'm guessing there's a more complicated theory that does. But, there are still only 12 notes. Seven of them are pretty much consonant. Then there are the altered fifths and ninths, which we are used to hearing. And that's eleven notes. F# is the one left over. How complicated is that?
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 04-28-2020 at 04:18 AM.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Bma7 or technically Cbma7 is the 3579 extension of Abm7, II chord of the tri-tone sub.The author, was channeling everything into a ma7 vantage point, perhaps a Pat Martino minor conversion in retrograde???

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    My solution:
    Start by thinking of G7 as G13/F to hear the F on the bottom.
    Then change it to F#dim7.
    F A C - F# A C - D G C to hear it work.
    If you like the sound of Ab(7b9) subbed for the G7, you might find F#dim7/Ab sounds nice, too.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    Everyone seems to think it is clear, so I will ask you since you are the only one to mention this part... but anyone is welcome to answer.

    The two chord in C is Dm7. What does "the added II chord to tri-tone sub Db7" mean?

    @1:59 he says, "...two chord before the D flat seven, you would get A flat minor seven."

    I'm not getting any Abm7. Where is he and everyone else getting the Abm7?

    If "Bma7 > Abm7" is meant to indicate that the Abm7 comes from the Bma7, I note that Abm7 is mentioned first (not the peek ahead to the answer @1:20, but the derivation beginning @2:56) and Bma7 is derived from it. What's not explained is where the Abm7 came from.
    the Abm is the II chord of the tritone sub.

    when we improvise over a II-V we have choices. we can use both chords, just the II chord, just the V chord. or we can sub II V with the IV chord.

    if we want to take it a bit outside we can first improvise over the V chord and then over the tritone sub of the V chord. logic dictates that we can apply this principle to our other ideas. i.e. we can improvise over the II chord and then over its tritone sub. or improvise over the IV chord and then over its tritone sub.

    you need to understand that in jazz we improvise not over chords but over functions.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    you need to understand that in jazz we improvise not over chords but over functions.
    yeh.. I also try to stress this point.

    But there is one important detail... the harmony in jazz is really extended and in many cases it is not the function in classical sense (where the style is closed and does not develope and the language is described).

    In jazz I think ine has to be able to define the functions (not necessarily conciously of c urse).

    Sonetimes it is possible that particular chord (or even voicing) IS the function in particular context.


    I once explained this idea of non-determinated function like

    ANY CHORD (as voicing) = ANY CHORD (as function)

    The fact that we have 'any chord' in both parts may lead to misundertstanding if one does not get that in teh first case it is voicing and in the second it is function.

    Funciton can be classical like T-S-D (by the way peopple often thiink its just chords of I-IV-V degrees) but in classical for example there is only one chord for Tonic (it corresponds to the idea of functional tonality and 4-voiced triad, the stability cannot be represented in more than 1 chord, it is very clear)... but in jazz T can be represented differently.. .and then it is unclear if we have to consider iii chord as a chord of iii functioning as tonic or as an exnteded part of I chord and so on.
    And in jazz it can be extended very far... so that the harmony is litterealy connceted only through the will and intention of performer who hears connection behind it and is able to express it in playing.

    I sincerely think there is not need to clarify it - for practical purposes it is enough to hrea it and be able to use it...

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    yeh.. I also try to stress this point.

    But there is one important detail... the harmony in jazz is really extended and in many cases it is not the function in classical sense (where the style is closed and does not develope and the language is described).

    In jazz I think ine has to be able to define the functions (not necessarily conciously of c urse).

    Sonetimes it is possible that particular chord (or even voicing) IS the function in particular context.


    I once explained this idea of non-determinated function like

    ANY CHORD (as voicing) = ANY CHORD (as function)

    The fact that we have 'any chord' in both parts may lead to misundertstanding if one does not get that in teh first case it is voicing and in the second it is function.

    Funciton can be classical like T-S-D (by the way peopple often thiink its just chords of I-IV-V degrees) but in classical for example there is only one chord for Tonic (it corresponds to the idea of functional tonality and 4-voiced triad, the stability cannot be represented in more than 1 chord, it is very clear)... but in jazz T can be represented differently.. .and then it is unclear if we have to consider iii chord as a chord of iii functioning as tonic or as an exnteded part of I chord and so on.
    And in jazz it can be extended very far... so that the harmony is litterealy connceted only through the will and intention of performer who hears connection behind it and is able to express it in playing.

    I sincerely think there is not need to clarify it - for practical purposes it is enough to hrea it and be able to use it...
    not sure i understand.

    "ANY CHORD (as voicing) = ANY CHORD (as function)"

    you mean a dim chord can function as tonic, a major7 chord as dominant? yes, absolutely.

    "Sonetimes it is possible that particular chord (or even voicing) IS the function in particular context."

    a chord is a chord and a function is a function. oxygene enables your body to function, but oxygene is not a body function

    "it is unclear if we have to consider iii chord as a chord of iii functioning as tonic or as an exnteded part of I chord"

    it's not relevant, why can't it be both?

    "the harmony in jazz is really extended"

    usually it's just a lot of window dressing.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, it’s very loose.

    There’s basically only inside and outside. Even inside functions are relaxed. If I play a I chord on a IV for instance....

    Anyway

    x 5 3 5 6 x
    3 x 3 4 x 2
    x 3 2 4 x 3

    obviously

    Or even

    5 x 5 5 x x
    x 5 4 5 2 x
    3 x 4 4 3 x

    for the real perverts

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    not sure i understand.

    "ANY CHORD (as voicing) = ANY CHORD (as function)"

    you mean a dim chord can function as tonic, a major7 chord as dominant? yes, absolutely.
    Not only that... any stack of sounds has potential to become a new function


    trying to answer all at a time.... in this context I think FUCTION is actually how the sounds or group of sounds (an interval or a chord) DO FUNCTION in context without strict connection to classical notion of FUNCTIONS as Tonic, Subdominant and Dominant.
    Actually I think we define the fucntion with our playing - I think in jazz iim7 chord can be treated as separate function... it depends in how one hears it... does he hear that it is independent and important enough to function separately from S...
    Or for example turnaround ii-V -- is often treated all as dominant .. and ii7 chord becomes a dominant (dominant chord is not necessarily Dominant funciton in classical ense)...

    "it is unclear if we have to consider iii chord as a chord of iii functioning as tonic or as an exnteded part of I chord"

    it's not relevant, why can't it be both?
    We probably misunderstand each other... I do not mean we must nominate a chord for a function forever (though in classical it is often quite determinded).
    It IS both... the question is what we choose foir the particular context, in particular context it cannot be both...

    This is exactly wehat I meant above: III as a different chord with its root etc. fucntioning as Tonic in the key, or just an extension of I chord.. (rootless maj7)... it cannot be both at a time in context, but it has potential to be both of cours abstractly.

    "the harmony in jazz is really extended"

    usually it's just a lot of window dressing.
    Ah.. it depends much on how you choose to hear it... jazz gives us the opportunity to choose because it is still living language

    it is not about how it objectively IS.... I do not see any objectivity here (convention at best)...
    You can treat many thing from point of view of traditional tonality as I do too... and you can treat them from absolutely different perspective ad I often do..

    You cannot do that with classical music because the style and language do not develope any more ... if you begin to apply conceptopn of extensions as functions to Mozart of Bach you will come to total mishearing the music... it will be like putting commas and dots in Shakespeare in the wrong places and trying to read it respectively. For those who understand the language it will sound nonsense.

    Jazz is still very open style - yes there are historic styles like authentic bop or swing but I do not touch it here - I think most of the players I like they feel jazz as a modern music and in general they can do whatever they want that sounds good for them...
    If one does not have a goal to reproduce the style of the 30s he can take Duke's tune and apply any conception... and he will be right.. you cannot say that it is a 'window dressing' because... well just because it is not for him, for you maybe.. for him not... at that point it is just like that.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    ... for practical purposes it is enough to hrea it and be able to use it...
    In absolute terms, I agree.
    However, in practical terms, there should be some criteria, so player could judge if what he hears and uses is of any worth.

    It is difficult to be strict, though. The line could be anywhere
    from: "If any number of listeners hear it as good, then it is good",
    to: "If at any number of listeners hear it as bad, or are in doubt about it, it is not good".

    Of course, if player's intention even is to sound good, or make impression of it.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    for the real perverts
    I did that for another thread as an example of perversion

    Not the Tonic function... but Cmaj7 (or just Cmaj) as function


  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladan
    In absolute terms, I agree.
    However, in practical terms, there should be some criteria, so player could judge if what he hears and uses is of any worth.

    It is difficult to be strict, though. The line could be anywhere
    from: "If any number of listeners hear it as good, then it is good",
    to: "If at any number of listeners hear it as bad, or are in doubt about it, it is not good".

    Of course, if player's intention even is to sound good, or make impression of it.
    I think that's how art works... it is illusive.
    I speak my language - you undersand my language.

    Great artists always seem hermetic whe you are outside, and ovewhelming and universal when you are inside.

    It is either this or that with arts