F# (Bmaj7) on G7 will go. Good vid.

[christianm77]

This is a really clear demonstration of how you can really play any note on a dominant chord if you understand how to construct lines.

[ragman1]

VIIM7-IM7 4 times per chorus x 5...

April 2020 - I Got It Bad

[MarkRhodes]

That was good. Thanks. Simple, concise, useful. Yeah.

[Jazzism]

That was good. Thanks. Simple, concise, useful. Yeah.

Agreed, so much better without the usual stream of consciousness florid embellishment and waffle found in a lot of these types of vids.
Cheers!

[mr. beaumont]

Dave's a great teacher. Very direct.

[Reg]

Just goes to prove... you call anything anything and most musicians will but it. If someone played a Bmaj7 as a sub of G7 chord.... well they would hear about it. The Fma7 is just a Diatonic Function Sub.

[rpjazzguitar]

If you play

1x555x
2x444x
x3543x

you can hear the sound he's talking about, more or less. If you replace the third (tonic) chord with x3555x, you can see the chromatic movement on the D G and B strings. 555 444 555.

So, another way to think about it and an easy way to find it is to start with the relative major seventh, then go to the major a half step below your target.

It works out to be about the same thing as a side-slip.

[rpjazzguitar]

If you play

1x555x
2x444x
x3543x

you can hear the sound he's talking about, more or less. If you replace the third (tonic) chord with x3555x, you can see the chromatic movement on the D G and B strings. 555 444 555.

So, another way to think about it and an easy way to find it is to start with the relative major seventh, then go to the major a half step below your target.

It works out to be about the same thing as a side-slip.

In case that was too jargon filled:

By "relative major seventh", I mean this. Fmaj and Dm are related. Same notes in the Fmaj and Dm scales. One flat. Dm is called F's "relative minor". So, in this case we have a Dm7 chord and I called Fmaj7 the "relative major seventh".

So, if you pick a random key, say Db, the iim is Ebm7. Its relative major seventh is Gb.

The next chord is a half step below the target (the target is Db, because we're in Db). So that's Cmaj. What about that one finger grip from before?

You can play a fragment of Gbmaj9 as xx666x. You have a bassist, right? The bassist plays the Gb root and the audience hears Gbmaj9 (no 3rd, unless you add one in -- there happens to be one hand at the same fret on the high E string).

Then you can play the C as xx555xx. And you end on Db. You can play it as xx666x - which is a Db triad. At that point, the bassist plays a Db and the same easy fingering takes on a new sound.

You can play the omitted notes, or add others, but, sometimes, even often, fewer notes sound better.

Added bonus: some of the hippest sounds Jim Hall ever played were major triads -- but not against the same major chord. Sometimes I think it would be better to learn every possible way to use one voicing before you were allowed to learn a second one.

[pingu]

Let's go back to 251 in C

It's easier all round ....

I'm up for the F maj as Dmin
but the Bmaj7 as G7 thing I can't hear

Bo as G7 , sure
so for example F Fo C

but if if you can hear the Bmaj7 as G7 that's cool
I can't

I do however agree that you can play many totally out things on the G7
and all will be well if you come back inside on the C

so yeah if you can hear it that's cool

[rpjazzguitar]

Let's go back to 251 in C

It's easier all round ....

I'm up for the F maj as Dmin
but the Bmaj7 as G7 thing I can't hear

Bo as G7 , sure
so for example F Fo C

but if if you can hear the Bmaj7 as G7 that's cool
I can't

I do however agree that you can play many totally out things on the G7
and all will be well if you come back inside on the C

so yeah if you can hear it that's cool

I can't hear Bmaj over G7 very well. But, I can hear "half step below, leading into C".

[bako]

Apologies for a brief attack of enharmonological correctness.

X D F C E X ..... X Db F Cb Eb X ..... X C E B D X

X D F C E X ..... X Db Gb Cb Eb X ..... X C E B D X

A X F C E A ..... Ab Db Gb Cb Eb Bb ..... C E A D G B

X X F C E A ..... X X Gb Cb Eb Bb ......... C E A D G B

A sound is worth a thousand words, perhaps.................

[Rob MacKillop]

His playing won me over. Sounds great, and it's an easy concept to remember.

FMaj7 to Fdim is also simple.

A pent minor, A# pent minor, B pent minor is also very simple

Jazz is easy. Lol. Not!

[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.

[Durban]

Dave's a great teacher. Very direct.

yes very clear, i tried to explain this but failed, miserably.

[Durban]

Just goes to prove... you call anything anything and most musicians will but it. If someone played a Bmaj7 as a sub of G7 chord.... well they would hear about it. The Fma7 is just a Diatonic Function Sub.

Christian said: This is a really clear demonstration of how you can really play any note on a dominant chord if you understand how to construct lines.




Reg i did a post on exactly this, yonks ago.


Reg said: call anything anything and most musicians will


Hell yeah, I encountered sullen opposition, because i took a Monty Python approach embedded with melodic minor and Lydian Augmented, what a fool i was, thank goodness all the medication has been purged from my body.


have not re read the my post and shan't. but will say all it really does is create extensions as (you well know) you're right, its the naming that cause a head spin, what i should of maybe have said, is, all you are doing is approaching your target of say Cmaj from the point of BMaj7. We all know BMaj7 is subbing for the G7 or altered whatever,


i like this thinking purely from a physical point B is a neighbour of C right next door, so in effect you playing Bmaj into Cmaj broadly speaking.


likewise Dbmaj into CMaj for the same reason, again as you know this creates extensions Tri-Tone or b2 blah blah. blah




Reg said:If someone played a Bmaj7 as a sub of G7


- im not entirely sure what you meant by, but it is not much difference from some trying to use altered scales and its extensions. im guessing you weren't entirely happy with the BMaj7 thang, and agree will sound crap not handled/played/heard properly again likewise with Altered etc even Diminished Dominant etc etc.


At the end of the day names not really important as it boils down to a hearing thing, too many relying on scales, not using ears. Benson uses lots of these devices, and but being a singer have no doubt helps, he also has groove and rhythm which no matter how tasty or far out or far in something is it will never sound that cool unless its given the rhythmic spanking.


BMaj7 B D# F# A is only merely G7 3 #5 M7 & 9 so not really out there. Major 7th on Dominant always good for Wes,
but ah ha rhythmic placement phrasing is the key

[christianm77]

Bmaj7 arp in Barry Harris comes from tritone sub (one of the important chords of Db7) pretty much like he said in the vid.

[bako]

rhythmic placement phrasing is the key

Yes. Sometimes it seems when a textbook interval against notated chord is applied, it as if large church pipe organ is sustaining the exact chord tones in multiple octaves. In this "primary chord tones will not be denied" rhythm section scenario, the appearance of any dissonance in a role other than a passing tone would create a displeasing effect.

Thankfully, this is not the rhythm section scenario we will generally find ourselves in.

F# is a neighbor tone G and E. This makes it a viable approach note to
Cma. Several obvious ways to contextualize it.

The OP video example derives it from the logic of Bma7 > Abm7,
the added II chord to tri-tone sub Db7.
The author makes a case of simplification of connecting everything to a major chord (Pat Martino in retrograde motion).

F# can be understood as simple parallel motion Bma7 > Cma7
or as part of D7 V7 of V G7 in an approach to Cma.
Replacing G7 with Gma7+ can also bring you back home if so inclined.

Outside of F#, B dominant chords overlap heavily with the G7 continuum.
Any B7 combination with b5 or #5 or the 5th omitted can provide a
usable note collection to cover G7 function.

All that said, while I hear F# as a fully useable sound approaching C,
in my opinion it is still other than G7.

[christianm77]

It’s interesting how much time people spend justifying stuff to themselves.

[bako]

Christian,

Please define the difference between hearing a sound contextually and justifying. Asking out of interest, not argumentatively.

[christianm77]

Christian,

Please define the difference between hearing a sound contextually and justifying. Asking out of interest, not argumentatively.

I don’t think about it that much. In general I tend to hear this stuff horizontally, that is in relation to the following chord, so your point about enclosure is not wrong.... in fact I see all resolving dominants as being essentially groupings of neighbour tones. The more chromatic, the more compelling the resolution into the next chord.

in this case I don’t hear the G7 at all. It’s purely voice leading. You take an arpeggio of that voice leading and call it a melodic line.

(The Db mixolydian offers the most efficient and complete chromatic resolution into C6/9. Jacob Collier has taken the same basic horizontal principle into microtonal outer space.)

In fact Bmaj7 is a little basic because it’s all parallel motion. Very guitar!

Now, there’s another type of dominant that sits around for a bit and doesn’t resolve right away. Such as in the middle 8 of rhythm changes. This is where you might reference some vertical relationship but it’s good if you move into the next chord.

Soloing on changes is - hear only what you want to in relation to the underlying chord. Everything else is a pathway.

So I hate typing this stuff because it comes out all wordy.

Either you’re moving or sitting. If everything sits (CST vertical relationships on everything) it can lack propulsion.

The altered scale is a problematic concept from this perspective....

[christianm77]

But all of this blah gives the impression that I think about this stuff. I don’t. I just play it, and through playing it, I learn to hear it.

As rp says, it’s really not hard to hear Bmaj7–>Cmaj7. It’s easier than a lot of things!

[wolflen]

my take..the BM7/G7 to C ..can be seen as part of "augmented theory" as G and B triads are embedded in the ( G B Eb) augmented scale and can be implied or directly played as augmented chords and both compliment CM7 without much stress

[christianm77]

In that case I'd probably be think of the B7 more... (Augmented symmetry, not scale)

So it's not like using, for instance diminished

G7 --> Bb7 --> Db7 --> E7

augmented

G7 --> B7 --> Eb7

Can give you an idea of what to play... so that's not devoid of value, because it gives you stuff to try out. (All these options have relatively few common tones with C so resolve well.)

But explaining why something that sounds good sounds good to you using scales etc? If you think it will help, sure.

[christianm77]

BTW

G7 --> Bb7 --> Db7 --> E7

Fmaj7 --> Abmaj7 --> Bmaj7 --> Dmaj7

The last is pretty unusual..

G7 --> B7 --> Eb7

Fmaj7 --> Amaj7 --> Dbmaj7

The last is familiar...

It's where transcription is important. People who get into - 'x good sounds good because reason y' - I feel listening to the music settles the debates. 'Person y often plays x', ' person why rarely plays x.' And - 'I like the sound of X', 'I don't like the sound of Y' - the emotional response necessary to determine your course as a listener and musician.

So there is some theory in knowing what X or Y is... Usually it's just one dimension you've abstracted from the music 'I like the dotted quarter rhythm', 'I like it when they play Bmaj7 into Cmaj7' and so on.

If I hear someone playing something I like, I steal it. If I try something and I like it, I use it, and so on. There doesn't seem much point to me in going into why it sounds good. It's energy that I could spend on applying.

(This is why I am against music theory in the more abstract sense when it comes t discussions of learning to play jazz. Theory can be useful for 'how' and 'what', but 'why' is useless to me.*)

Really some examples are more common than others in musician's playing. Not all options are equal... But if you hear something unusual that you like... great

--- barely relevant footnote -----

* I think historically some branches of music theory have been very concerned with aesthetics - what constitutes 'good music' and how this can be measured or understood through analysis.

This is a fantastically old fashioned idea in the modern world especially where it intersects with technique and theory (For instance, bad music has too many consecutive 6 3 chords, parallel fifths are BAD, that sort of thing), but it still crops up in surprising places, muddying the waters in jazz education. It could be the very institutions that teach it.

And you see it pop up this forum when people moan about modern music. Oo innit awful, etc.

Anyway. I don't actually hate that as a thing - it can be fascinating (although I think ultimately a rabbit hole.) I respect it. It's very classical. If you want an impressive, and highly knowledgeable aesthetic thinker, take Jonah (why Bach is amazing, and what performers should do to play it well, for instance.)

I'm much more praxial (I hate that I use that word unironically now haha) because I'm interested in playing. Anything else is something I'd rather put in the area of intuition - I just don't see the need to theorise too much about why I like things.

(Anyway this is all background to an essay I need to write, so thanks.)

Now you can show why I break my own rules haha.

[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...