-
Thanks for all your help, guys.
heres a video I did
I also tend to not like certain two-fives in some songs, and Stella has one of those. So a little further along I like to replace the perfunctory Bbm7 -> Eb(9) after the D7sus4 [x 5 7 5 8 x] with some sneaked in melody notes G F E D sliding that D up to F (fret 7 to 10 on the third string) into the mysterious and wonderful Dbaug6 [9 x 8 10 10 x].
From the insights you both are giving me, I get the impression that this tune requires thinking outside the box.
-
07-01-2020 03:37 AM
-
One man's box is another man's toolbox.
I think what often happens (would have to check in particular for Stella) is that the source for a popular Jazz song is something coming from outside the Jazz world, like a movie song whose composer used rather complex harmonies and movements. Then when it get's picked up and popularized as a Jazz tune, some of the complex harmonies get interpreted a little differently into two-fives (or additional two-fives) and other Jazz idioms.
To my ear, there is just so much two-five movement in a tune beyond which I seek substitutes or methods of disguising the sound. Two-fives in too great an abundance sound "jumpy" to me, like bouncing around inside the circle of fifths. I prefer chromatic movement in the bass and other treatments that avoid the bouncy roots. Generally for me, disarming the most offensive example in a tune is enough.
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that the two-five I like to change in Stella was not in the original score, just an example of one that I do usually change. This case, may be because that local "two-five" whose "one" would be Ab (resolving "down") is really a "four-flat seven" resolving "up" to a local "one" of F... I think of it more as Dm7 -> Dbaug6 -> Fmaj9/C to get the D Db C movement (chromatic and down). So I remove the angular Bb -> Eb two-five altogether and replace it with a soft Dbaug6.
-
Originally Posted by pauln
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that the two-five I like to change in Stella was not in the original score, just an example of one that I do usually change. This case, may be because that local "two-five" whose "one" would be Ab (resolving "down") is really a "four-flat seven" resolving "up" to a local "one" of F... I think of it more as Dm7 -> Dbaug6 -> Fmaj9/C to get the D Db C movement (chromatic and down). So I remove the angular Bb -> Eb two-five altogether and replace it with a soft Dbaug6.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
I do it like the conventional way of Johnny Mandel, Neal Hefti, Nelson Riddle, Jimmy Van Heusen, Bill Evans, Duke Ellington, Billy Strayhorn, Cole Porter, Rodgers & Hart, Gershwin, etc... If a song is in C, I might encounter any of 12 possible dominants popping up along the way (C7, Db7, D7,Eb7, E7,etc any of 12 cases) . I like to narrow it down to two simple cases for all possible secondary doms, especially when sight reading.
The reason I do this way is it they usually function predictably, and I notice that in most cases (not all) it keeps the extensions closer to the notes within the parent key. Having a quick draw set, I don't have to pause to think in real time situations, I know this basic system better than the back of my hand, and it takes into account what is the next chord without the need to pause and consider.
This is most naturally occurring type casting relative to the parent key:
(of course I vary the heck out my Dominants chord extensions, but this is a fool proof default system for in the moment instant reaction)
12 Dominants chromatically that potentially might occur in a tune in C major (C minor has a few variations) :
I7 (alt)
bII7 (+4)
II7 (+4)
bIII7 (+4)
III7 (alt)
IV7 (+4)
bV7 (+4)
V7 (alt)
bVI7 (+4)
V7 (alt)
bVII7 (+4)
VII7 (alt)
ALT meaning #9 b13 on averageLast edited by rintincop; 07-07-2020 at 06:20 PM.
-
Yeah, thanks, nicely summed up, these are the colours that seem most 'vanilla' to me, and I also find #9/b13 to be the most smooth and flowing choice for the alts
Again I think on a guitar forum, it's worth noting the following - this might be extremely f*king obvious to a pianist but this is not in fact extremely f*king obvious to the guitarist who doesn't play piano a little bit - apart from I7 and V7, these extension options tend to be the most diatonic:
C7 (alt) -> all the flats except C
Db7 (+4) --> G
D7 (+4) --> G# (relative minor)
Eb7 (+4) --> A
E7 (alt) --> G, C
F7 (+4) --> B
Gb7 (+4) --> C
G7 (alt) --> lots of flat notes
Ab7 (+4) --> D
A7 (alt) --> C, F
Bb7 (+4) --> E
B7 (alt) --> G, D, also F
Which sort of comes back to the first post of the thread.
The point of this is that they are useful for harmonising melodies - most of which are mostly diatonic (at least in the case of GASB standards.)
Secondly, many of the '#9s' are in fact 'b10s' that appear due to diatonic melodies being harmonised by classically 'incorrect' dominant chords. See 'Blue Bossa' for a good example....
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
With regards to rintincop's list (post #55), I would appreciate if you guys could explain it to me. I'm very interested in learning this idea which chistianm77 seems to endorse (post #56), but I'm not getting it at all
So, to rintincop, there's "7 (+4)" and there's "7 (alt)", two basic types. But how do you assign a type to each of the 12 chords? I normally try to keep it diatonic... For example, I'd never go alt for V7 as that's the most diatonic 7 chord possible (obtained right off the major scale)... but you seem to be doing the opposite, or something totally different?Last edited by alez; 07-07-2020 at 04:22 AM.
-
BTW, right now I reduce my dominants to two basic types too... I use "the major one" (in line christianm77's explanation in post #27), which I note "V7" (for example) and "the minor one", which I note "III7b9". That's all I really use... therefore, for a particular secondary dominant, I just choose between those two and apply whatever formulas or resources I have for it... like for example I treat II7 much like V7... "mixolydian" so to say.
Last edited by alez; 07-07-2020 at 04:23 AM.
-
Originally Posted by alez
Rintincop's list basically says: use altered dominants unless the target is a dominant or your chord is already a tritone substitution. That's of course assuming all the chords are secondary dominants, ie have a diatonic target.
-
Although it also seems a bit mysterious to me that altered dominants against major targets are implied as a rule or principle in the lists.
-
I'm increasingly viewing 7b9b13 as the 'can't really be bothered dominant' - why do you think I call it that?
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
So where does that leave you?
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Just because there is a secondary dominant chord in the harmony doesn't mean there is any compassion to outline it. In fact it often sounds better if you don't.
It's also good to think of these chords as minor 7ths. Either on the root, or down a tone.
So, G7b9b13 --> Cm7 becomes Fm7 --> Cm7
Or
D7#9 becomes Dm7
-
This is only marginally apropos to this thread, but it does relate a bit.
In another thread I waxed eloquent, or so I told myself, in an analysis of the harmony of Like Someone In Love
Then, I recorded a solo and never once thought about anything from my own analysis.
Basically, for me, in GASB tunes, it's tonal center and adjusting notes by ear. So, if I'm in Cmajor tonal center and the chord is E7, I'm aware, by sound, that I may want to play G# rather than G. If it's D7, I may want to move the F to F#. Etc.
I've spent some time thinking about this with more theory, but, I guess where I land is that I can, for example, play that G# in a Cmajor situation without having to tell myself I'm playing A Harmonic Minor to get a leading tone. And, I can move the F to an F# (if the line demands it) without telling myself I moved to the melodic minor. Etc. I'm aware of that way of viewing things. But, I can't say that it's changed my playing at all.
It's true in reverse too. I can recall only very rarely getting anything into my playing that started with "X over Y". I think the alt scale was an exception.
So, my question is, how do others utilize this information?
Is it just ear training? Are you using it to develop licks?
I'm not trying to be provocative at all. I really don't get how this sort of discussion contributes to what people actually play.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
I play a tune for several choruses during a practice session. I plan ahead of the time the ideas I'd be using in each chorus. It could be just singing the roots and playing the melody for one chorus, next chorus would be playing chord scales, then an improvised chord-melody-ish arrangement, then targeting certain notes on certain beats (usually interesting notes that change from one chord to the next), then connecting scales, then playing a bass line, then singing 3rds of each chord as I play the roots, then playing the melody etc etc etc. You can come up with infinitely many ways. Usually with a metronome.
I also work on different ways on navigating difficult changes in the tune in isolation then integrate that back to the "play choruses" approach.
So having an idea of how I analyse a tune and what note choices implied by the analysis is an important starting point in the way I learn a tune. There can also be more than one approach per tune. A micro outline vs bare bone etc. In fact I don't know how else can anyone learn a jazz tune for improvisation. I'd be happy to find out.
So it's ear training, time training, fretboard training, repertoire, technique, language development all at once.Last edited by Tal_175; 07-07-2020 at 05:26 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
I've learned a lot of tunes the way anybody does. I hear recordings and I remember the melody. Then, I learn the changes from a recording, from a chart or just by sitting down, ,remembering the melody and finding some chords that work.
To improvise, I play the changes (nowadays with IRealPro), sing to myself and try to put those lines on the guitar. Or, maybe do it without the singing -- just trying to think of lines to play, which is a little different. If I know how the harmony is supposed to sound, it's almost entirely by ear.
I've almost never done any of the things you mentioned, although I like the idea of them.
I often play in situations where I have to read something new. In that situation, I try to get a sense of the harmony to allow me to use my ear for the improv. If I can't, then I rely on knowledge of chord tones and embellish them by ear. My skill set includes (mostly) knowing the notes in the chords I play, instantly, by name, knowing the fingerboard cold and, mostly, being able to immediately play a line that I think of or scat sing.
On the positive side, and giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I can play play a singable solo.
On the negative side, there's a certain classic jazz guitar sound that I don't get playing this way. I like it when I hear it, I have aspired to it and I have given up on getting it.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
OP: "This (thread) applies to both chord voicings and improvisation."
Why is it good? Let's say Benny Green calls you for a gig and your playing "Someday My Prince Will Come" with him and each time for the D7b13 chord in bar 2 you play a C-7 chord and Benny gives you a strange look (he hears that G note in your thing)... and then in bar 4 you play F-7 for the G7b13 (he hears that C note in your thing) , later on he doesn't call you for a follow up gig.Last edited by rintincop; 07-07-2020 at 06:48 PM.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
But I find working on planned ideas help expand things I hear and play. For example I might work on the 9ths for a period of time. Target or sing 9ths over the changes. Play roots and sing 9ths, play chord voicings that put the 9 on top etc. After a while I start pre-hearing that interval really well. So partly due to developed fingering habits, partly improved aural awareness, targeted 9ths start showing up in my playing.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Chief Xian aTunde Adjuah (Christian Scott)
Today, 12:32 AM in The Players