-
On the song My Romance (key of Bb) I stumbled upon playing a C#maj7 instead of Bbmaj7 on measure 4 of the A section (especially on the 2nd pass through...give it a try). It sounds good to my ears in a surprising sort of way.
Is there some type of explanation for this?
I know if it sounds good it is good...just curious.
-
11-04-2020 10:46 AM
-
I don't think it's so much of a substitution as a reharmonisation. It works because the melody note, F, at that point is contained in the DbM7. It's also fairly pleasant next to the D7.
That's probably about it. I'm sure a theorist could explain it as being a m3rd up or something but it wouldn't make much difference :-)
-
I guess you could look at it as 1. an inversion of Bbm7, and call it modal interchange between BbM and Bbm, or 2. maybe call it adding some blue-note color and chromaticism on the way to D7, or 3. even call it a Dalt7. TL;DR: as long as you keep moving, anything sounds OK.
JohnLast edited by John A.; 11-04-2020 at 04:22 PM.
-
Originally Posted by alltunes
I'm procrastinating, here are a few reharms of the first 5 bars of the tune with some more borrowing from the parallel minor, as well as some other stuff.
-
'Up a minor 3rd' implies subbing from the parallel minor. The 3-for-1 sub is commonplace:
Dm7 for BbM7 --> DbM7 for Bbm --> DbM7 for BbM7
But subs like this don't always work as a matter of course. This one is quite nice probably because of the D7 after it.
Lucky stumble!
-
Originally Posted by alltunes
videos (not that I don’t love that meme.)
One common spot for chord subs is the last chord of the tune where the melody note is typically the tonic (1) or less frequently a (5)
In this case as neither note declares a major or minor tonality of itself, you are free to use a modal interchange to any mode with both of these notes (1 and 5). Parallel minor is most common.... Also Phrygian (bIImaj7#11)
(I remember a classical harmony book that suggested we abandon the idea of major and minor being separate things, but rather a tonal centre as combining both. I kind of like that; makes a lot of sense for jazz.)
If it’s a 3, you can use a mediant chord (III6)
In terms of making these things sound natural I find it’s best if there is some sort of sustained or pedal tone in the bass or treble, or some sort of stepwise connection in the bass.
-
Remember Duke’s maxim - if it sounds good it is good.
Trust your ears. Theory is your servant, not your master.
I have to say My Romance is a slightly saccharine show tune type melody to me with very standard changes and no modulation.... I think it’s begging for a spot of reharmonisation.
-
(I remember a classical harmony book that suggested we abandon the idea of major and minor being separate things, but rather a tonal centre as combining both. I kind of like that; makes a lot of sense for jazz.)
-
Don't over explain it at this point. Remember what you did, work it out in voicings all over the fingerboard, get the sound in your ears, use that "device" in other tunes. In other words, before you have us explain what we think is going on, work it 'til you own it. THEN look for theoretical explanations.
If you found a sound you like, learn to use it in other situations and use it. It's like the old well used IV- chord, the people who really use it well, from the Beatles to Cole Porter all knew it as a sound.
Come to know it, come to use it and own it if it sounds good to you. Then if you get some explanation or justification, your ear will not be effected by it.
Many good sounds have been lost to the heart by the inadequate rationalizations of the head.
Schillinger, I think, said "Genius is the realization of a tendency". Listen to your ear. Only then ask what it is you're hearing.
My humble opinion
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
-
Originally Posted by alltunes
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy blue noteOriginally Posted by alltunesOriginally Posted by christianm77
As with all things, there's a balance. We're all certainly guilty of overanalyzing at some point or another, but that doesn't mean that "under-analyzing” isn't a real possibility.
Practical examples of 'under-analysis':
"The C#ma7 sounded good right there. I liked it. Maybe C#ma7 sounds good in a lot of places?" Then you try reharmonizing a random selection of things with C#ma7 regardless of key, context, or melody note. "Darn it, it doesn't work in these other places. Why did it work at that spot in My Romance? Maybe it's magic?" And ending the journey there is a real missed opportunity.
Obviously most of us know that we're talking about a bIIIma7 chord; the relationship to the key is more useful than the exact chord. So the slightly more productive thing to explore is 'where else can I reharmonize something with a bIIIma7? But to get to a point of understanding the roman numeral stuff we had to do some technical learning of common systems and ways of organizing, and if we didn’t do that, the “bIIIma7” wouldn’t make any sense, or we’d have to reinvent the wheel to get there.
I think sometimes the ‘over explain’ or ‘over analyze’ warnings come from folks who have some of those analytical tools so internalized that they forget where someone’s head and ears might be before they even know about those tools.
Similarly, for some people it might be obvious that that Dbma7 as a reharm will be more palatable if the melody notes aren’t particular dissonant against it (eg, it sounds better on bar 4 then at the start of bar 5) but relationships of melody to harmony isn’t always obvious to everybody, either because of the point someone is at in their studies, the current ‘status’ of their ears, or some combination.
So back to the OP, re something like “work it til you own it” I think within the question is that the OP may not have a strong sense of what “it” is, so it would be really unclear how to internalize and explore something without knowing anything about it besides the fact that it’s a C#ma7 chord.
There’s a time to stop asking questions and just play - and the music has a high risk of over analysis - but there’s absolutely a danger of the opposite extreme.
Just my 0.02. The listening and absorbing is #1, for sure.
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Alltunes -
I posted this before:
Originally Posted by ragman1
BbM7 Cm7 Dm7 EbM7 F7 Gm7 Am7b5
It's common to sub the third chord in a scale for the root chord. So, in Bb major, Dm7 can be subbed for BbM7. You can see why, the notes are very similar. If you play 'My Romance' with a Dm7 instead of the BbM7 it'll fit.
The same can be done in the minor scale with the same root name (this is the parallel minor scale).
In Bb minor the chords are
Bbm7 Cm7b5 DbM7 Ebm7 Fm7 GbM7 Ab7
So, in the minor scale, the third chord DbM7 can be subbed for the root chord Bbm7. Again because of the similarity of notes and sound.
But it's also possible to swap the two substitutions. This is called borrowing.
So in the major scale we can swap the root chord BbM7 for the third chord, which would be Dm7.
But then we can swap, or borrow, the Dm7 with its counterpart in the minor scale, which would be DbM7. And that fits in 'My Romance' too because of the F in the melody. Get it?
That's what you stumbled on by accident. Like I said, lucky stumbleLast edited by ragman1; 11-05-2020 at 04:49 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Originally Posted by ragman1
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
I believe you meant to type "So in the major scale we can swap the root chord BbM7 for the third chord, which would be Dm7.
I was probably shooting for a iii sub bur was off a half step and a chord family!
Thanks!
-
Gm7 in Bbminor? Typo? Or do I need to learn something?
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Thanks for your vigilance. We get there in the end.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Last edited by PMB; 11-05-2020 at 07:20 PM.
-
Originally Posted by PMB
Don't know this tune deeply, I should probably check out the original changes, sound more interesting in some ways.
-
Thanks to this thread, I decided to check out some versions of this tune, thought I’d try Bill Evans, and pulled out an old Verve double-LP I got dirt cheap 30 years ago. I thought it was just some mid-60s trio stuff and in fact I had hardly ever played it.
Then I noticed a mention of Jim Hall in the small print, turns out the second LP is actually Intermodulations (the second duo LP by Evans and Hall). It doesn’t say this on the cover, only somewhere buried deep in the sleeve notes.
Which is a record I have been meaning to get for some time, I had no idea I’d actually owned it for the last 30 years. So spent a very pleasant half hour or so enjoying this record for the first time!
(Also listened to 2 versions of My Romance by Bill Evans, a solo one on New Jazz Conceptions and the one on the great Live at the Village Vanguard trio sessions).
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Internalizing is such a large factor with improvisational music that "inspection" might be exciting at first but then practical application rears its' ugly head.
To the PO:
I'd be first concerned with where I ( the first listener ) was in the progression as a result in using this chord and then consider would other listeners be there too.
If that works then you're onto something thats transferable; if not then maybe a misspelling of a chord or completely unique situation to the tune.
-
Nice version by Eddie Diehl at 40.32.
-
Oh, also, for about 1,000 reharm/sub ideas for My Romance, here's Peter Mazza:
Henriksen Blu 6 w/ gig bag
Today, 03:29 PM in For Sale