Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 70
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    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.


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

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

    April 2020 - I Got It Bad

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

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

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    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!

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Dave's a great teacher. Very direct.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    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.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    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.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    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.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    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

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

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

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    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.................

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    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!

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    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.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Dave's a great teacher. Very direct.

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

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

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

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    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.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

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

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Christian,

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

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    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....

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    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!

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    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

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    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.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    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.
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-25-2020 at 04:28 PM.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    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...

  27. #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.

  28. #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.

  29. #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...

  30. #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.

  31. #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.

  32. #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!

  33. #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...

  34. #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.

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

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

  36. #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...

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

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

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

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

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

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

  40. #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.

  41. #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.

  42. #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???

  43. #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.

  44. #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.

  45. #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...

  46. #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.

  47. #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

  48. #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.

  49. #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.

  50. #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


  51. #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