The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 52
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    It seems a lot of the explanations in that thread were based on people looking at the transcription and detecting a B major triad within the notes played. But I don’t think that’s what Wes was thinking at all. It’s just a G7 line that he plays a semitone up, then repeats it a step down to resolve it (with the slight tweak that I mentioned). So simple really.

    I listened to the clip (the phrase is at 4:26 in the clips on youtube) and it seemed pretty clear to me. Bear in mind he is playing it pretty fast and there is a certain rhythmic feel to it as well, which makes the phrase work. Just looking at the dots wasn’t as helpful (for me) as hearing what it sounded like.
    I think this is a good point, even though when I looked at it I saw B major.

    Either "explanation" leads to a useful rule of thumb (scrap of theory?).

    1. You can sideslip into a V-I by playing a quick lick (aka melodic and rhythmic statement) a half step up from the V lick and then play it as a V lick a half step lower. And then into the I maj. Thinking this way (thanks Graham) means you've already got some melody happening.

    2. You can sideslip, sort of, by thinking about the major triad a half step below the one you're heading to. You can play a few notes from it and make it sound logical because of the resolution to the I. You have to make sure you do it melodically, because thinking about the B major triad doesn't presume you've got a melodic/rhythmic statement.

    This may not be a trivial distinction. If I think about a lick first and sideslip it, I'm there. If I think about B major first I might end up playing an arp which gets the harmonic part of it but might not get the melodic part.

    The underlying idea in either case is about sideslipping. Sideslipping, to me, means you've got a nice line going rhythmically and you're going to extend it harmonically by going a half step away, in either direction. Easiest to keep the sideslip brief so that the ear doesn't hear a key change.

    I can make sense and utilize the idea of sideslipping.

    Knowing that the F# is the bVII sub of the tritone doesn't get me any closer to making music. But, maybe it would for somebody else. I think the problem is that it's independent from harmonic context.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    But we don't know what was in his mind, do we?

    Was he trying to play Eb-F from Ab mel m on the 4th and played E-F# on the 5th fret by mistake and then went down?
    Or was he just sliding up from B maj to the C maj?
    Or was he still thinking FM7 and B is the tritone of F?

    It doesn't matter how much theory we apply, we actually don't know.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    sure! Most of my info comes from Gjerdingens books ...

    ... Nick Baragwanaths book the Solfeggio Tradition is also a very interesting read. ...

    ... the Learn partimento podcast ... features many interviews with scholars and classical musicians but also people like Tommy Emmanuel (!), Ritchie Hart and Charles MacPherson, even some film composers like Elliot Goldentahl. It’s pretty nuts.

    ... heres nick on the Solfeggio approach
    Thanks! Good info on sources, easy to find once one knows what to look for.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Wes was fond of using chromatic sideslips, e.g. check out his Unit 7 solo here at 0:24. Not only does he play a descending F#7 line (Db,B,Ab,Bb,Ab,Gb,E) instead of F7, he goes even further by anticipating and playing it a bar early, while the chord is still C7. It would be difficult to justify those notes over the I chord of a blues, yet it sounds great.


  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    I didn't expect this thread to change my feelings about music theory but it has.
    It seems I glossed over the parts in most theory introduction chapters that state
    Rule#1 - Does it sound good?
    Who reads the introductions anyway?

    This has been amazingly helpful and it makes me think I should get a teacher
    instead of going it alone. We'll see.

    Thanks for all the comments!

    It might be better to continue the Wes comments in the original Wes thread for the
    sake of continuity. But, if you want to continue it here that's fine with me.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    Wes was fond of using chromatic sideslips, e.g. check out his Unit 7 solo here at 0:24. Not only does he play a descending F#7 line (Db,B,Ab,Bb,Ab,Gb,E) instead of F7, he goes even further by anticipating and playing it a bar early, while the chord is still C7. It would be difficult to justify those notes over the I chord of a blues, yet it sounds great.
    Exactly. Any theoretical 'justification' would depend on his intention at the time. And, given that it's live and on the spur of the moment, he may not have been aware of any particular intention except to get from one sound to another. After all, most dominant chords will tolerate almost any kind of alteration, intentional or not.

    There's also this assumption that well-known players are almost god-like and anything they play must be both intended and theoretically sound. Assuming that, and trying to rationalise a series of notes, seems to me to verge on wishful thing because it's dependent on so many factors.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCoconut

    It might be better to continue the Wes comments in the original Wes thread for the
    sake of continuity. But, if you want to continue it here that's fine with me.
    I think I'll leave my post in because, although it was sparked by the Wes lick, I think it's generally applicable.

    What are the "real" rules?
    You've probably heard this before but the general rule, considering your thread title about exceptions, is: If it sounds good, it is.

    For instance, people play this so-called 'free jazz' which is, or appears to be, completely chaotic but people like it. I don't, but some do :-)

    Abstract painting breaks all the standard rules on colour, perspective, balance, and so on. But if it appeals to the viewer (and the critics, naturally) then it's called wonderful art and that's that!

    Look, this is worth millions, seriously

    Attachment 89688



    IdeelArt | The online gallerist

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Thanks Ragman1.
    Yes, The "If it sounds good, it is." idea is what was so helpful for me.

    And I also don't care for the free jazz thing.
    As Yogi said, "If you don't know where you're going you might end up someplace else."

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCoconut
    It might be better to continue the Wes comments in the original Wes thread for the
    sake of continuity. But, if you want to continue it here that's fine with me.
    I wasn’t going to add anything further, but just one more interesting thing to note - that Unit 7 line contains a B when the chord is C7.

    Which is of course a bit like the other Wes thread, where the query was about an F# on a G7.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCoconut
    This has been amazingly helpful and it makes me think I should get a teacher
    instead of going it alone. We'll see.
    If you can get a good teacher, absolutely do it. If you can’t find a teacher, get to a jam session with people who play better than you.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Wa hey it’s djg!

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Of course as dear Barry showed the baller move is playing that Emaj7 or E triad to F minor on a C7 Fm….
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-15-2022 at 06:46 PM.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    I’m gonna shoehorn this in - my favourite example of this type of bII dominant/mixo to I resolution at the moment is a moment in We Don’t Talk About Bruno from Encanto where the melody clearly spells an Abm13/11 (with a Gb) sort of thing on the lyrics ‘Isabella, your boyfriend’s here, time for dinner!’ (2:44) crashing onto the Cm. (It’s not over a G bass, but hey)



    followed by the slamming polyphonic section… (sing by the Madrigal family, come to think of it. Miranda, you sly old fox.)

    Also ‘THUNDERRRRRR’

    this tune is such a BANGER
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-15-2022 at 07:05 PM.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    What "exceptions" are you referring too? I dislike talking about things when it hasn't been clearly defined what we are actually talking about.

    My hunch though is, the simple answer is that there are many scales, chords, arpeggios, triads, scale and chord subs, & chromatic notes one can play in any given musical situation. If you consider your theory enough, you'll realize that all 12 notes relate to the chord and the key in some way. It's like the theory of relativity in that everything natural is related.

    Even when just thinking major scale, there are more notes in the scale than in the chord. The other notes in the scale are then beautiful "color tones" that can go with the chord because they are still related to it & to the tonal center. What to consider is that all 12 notes relate to the chord or the key that way. You have 3 or 4 notes in the chord, and all the rest, 8 or 9, are nice color tones that relate to the chord in some way. Memorizing what each tone sounds like in relation to all possible musical situations in a key, even the outside tones, and learning how to utilize them, becomes crucial for total expressive freedom.

    You have all 12 tones available at all times, so how could there be exceptions?

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    I dislike talking about things when it hasn't been clearly defined what we are actually talking about.

    Looks like you made an "exception".

    Surprisingly, you're the first person to ask for a specific example of an exception.
    I won't give an example because my perspective has changed since my original post.
    The content of your "exceptional" explanation was right on the money in regards
    to my new found understanding of music theory.
    "If it sounds good, it's good."
    Thanks.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    OK, as long as we're airing pet peeves ... when it comes to these endless theory threads, mine is the word "theory" itself. In other domains, a theory is an explanatory framework for how things work/happen. Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of mind, theory of generative grammar, etc. But in music, people often conflate "theory" with something more like "the right method", i.e., confusing "is" with "ought." This results in some really tangled thought processes, and some people seem to be trapped in a loop where they can't grasp why something that isn't described by "theory" (or their awareness of a specific span of theory) is nonetheless valid, good-sounding music.

    To the extent that you use the "is" part to figure out how some piece of music is put together, and you want to play something like very much that piece of music, it more or less works to treat "is" as "ought," but it's important to recognize the boundaries of the theory constructs you're treating this way. "Don't hold a major 3rd against a sustained minor chord" is not theory. It's prescription based on an aesthetic preference. "A major third played as a long tone against a sustained minor chord creates beats between the thirds that are perceived as unpleasant by some listeners and can create a sense of confusion in players and listeners about the tonality at that moment in the piece. That effect can either be used or avoided, depending on the aesthetic intent." is theory. "Rules" are not theory. "Rules" are pathways toward consistency with the conventions of a genre and/or an aesthetic result.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I’m gonna shoehorn this in - my favourite example of this type of bII dominant/mixo to I resolution at the moment is a moment in We Don’t Talk About Bruno from Encanto where the melody clearly spells an Abm13/11 (with a Gb) sort of thing on the lyrics ‘Isabella, your boyfriend’s here, time for dinner!’ (2:44) crashing onto the Cm. (It’s not over a G bass, but hey)



    followed by the slamming polyphonic section… (sing by the Madrigal family, come to think of it. Miranda, you sly old fox.)

    Also ‘THUNDERRRRRR’

    this tune is such a BANGER
    Am I having a flashback? I thought they were mythical! Can someone talk me down? Maybe a nap?

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Sounds alot like Santana's Smooth.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    OK, as long as we're airing pet peeves ... when it comes to these endless theory threads, mine is the word "theory" itself. In other domains, a theory is an explanatory framework for how things work/happen. Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of mind, theory of generative grammar, etc. But in music, people often conflate "theory" with something more like "the right method", i.e., confusing "is" with "ought." This results in some really tangled thought processes, and some people seem to be trapped in a loop where they can't grasp why something that isn't described by "theory" (or their awareness of a specific span of theory) is nonetheless valid, good-sounding music..
    Good point. The theory of gravity tells you what will happen next if you throw a ball off the roof.

    Music "theory", not so much. There are some areas in which it can be considered predictive. For example, if you extend the chord tones of a major chord to the 13th, it will sound pretty much consonant. If you play the b7 or the b3, it will be less consonant.

    Or, if you want to capture a certain sound, say lydian on an major chord, you can play in the key of the V chord. So, play G Ionian on C major.

    I guess I'd accept that those kinds of statements could be reasonably called theoretical, although they are based on a post-hoc analysis.

    But, when we try to explain the use of that F# against G7, things can break down. It's no longer a simple declarative sentence worth of theory.

    Note X over Chord Y, breaks down. For one thing, there's an "explanation" for every note of the chromatic scale. And, these "explanations" sometimes gloss over the spectrum of consonance to potential dissonance.

    Beyond that, and sticking with the F# example, Graham's explanation that it's side slipping (of a G7 lick) is, in my judgement, far more useful. So is the idea, perhaps incorrect, that it's a Bmaj sliding into C from below (I think Graham's notion is better). Graham's notion includes, implicitly, the notion of melodic structure by referring to the G7 lick.

    Then we have the point made about IV over V, which is also helpful.

    Those ideas come closer to satisfying my definition of theory because they are predictive. I can think about Graham's post and side slip a G7 lick. Or play on B major for two beats sliding into C . Or take the tritone sub (Db7) and play its IVmaj, knowing that Wes got a lot out of that idea. In every case, better with melodic structure than not.

    And yet, it still seems like, if music was throwing a ball off a roof, I'd have no idea which way it would go.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by James Haze
    If you don't make an exception sometimes, then you're just a robot. LOL.

    Try this: Let's say you have a common ii V I, Dmin7 G13b9 Cmaj7. Let's say that over G7ALT you play Super Locrian over the whole measure. What I'm saying is, If you're a good player, you'll be able to find plenty of ways to play that F# in the lick and make it fit right in, and in fact sound really cool in the lick. If you can't do that, then you're just not a good enough player yet. Keep practicing.

    .
    G alt has an F and a G. The bass is likely to have the G and the piano is very like to have an F in the chord. F# may sound great, but it's going to have to be embedded in a good line to make the dissonance sound musical.

    Graham made that point, and, the more I think about djg's comment about IVmaj over V7 the more I like it.

    djg made the point about Wes liking IVmaj7 over V7. If you extend that the tritone of G7, you get Bmaj7 over Db7. Embed that in a good line and djg and Graham are making similar (not identical) points.

    I like them both because I can read what they wrote and know exactly what to play.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCoconut
    Sounds alot like Santana's Smooth.
    Similar feel and chord progression for sure

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Music Theory is necessary to become a complete musician. It's a tool. However, a music score/performance is not a problem in quantum physics nor should it be viewed as such. After I had been playing jobs for over 8 years, I returned to the classroom and studied Theory I, II, and Arranging/Composing and writing horn parts for a Big Band at the American Conservatory of Music in Chicago. It was a major leap in my music education and performance. It is indispensable for a serious musician.
    Marinero

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    The problem with attributing a theoretic motivation may break down when this happens:

    Wes, after playing a song was asked by the host of the TV show, "What was the first chord of that song?"
    Wes smiled and said, "I dunno, I just chill".

    Joe Pass played on an old video, as a fellow sat there talking through the theory stopped him and asked him the name of the chord he was playing.
    Joe stared at his hand (making a G13 rooted at the third fret) speechless for a very long five seconds before saying, "G13".

    By the way, did anyone notice that Wes thing is the same harmony as this Country lick:

    Dm7 xx3x3x
    G7 xx4x4x
    Cmaj7 xx5x5x

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    The problem with attributing a theoretic motivation may break down when this happens:

    Wes, after playing a song was asked by the host of the TV show, "What was the first chord of that song?"
    Wes smiled and said, "I dunno, I just chill".

    Joe Pass played on an old video, as a fellow sat there talking through the theory stopped him and asked him the name of the chord he was playing.
    Joe stared at his hand (making a G13 rooted at the third fret) speechless for a very long five seconds before saying, "G13".

    By the way, did anyone notice that Wes thing is the same harmony as this Country lick:

    Dm7 xx3x3x
    G7 xx4x4x
    Cmaj7 xx5x5x
    Yeah!

    I mean one advantage of the guitar is the way you can see voice leading things like this sliding around on the neck. It's very graphical. I would actually call that a type of music theory in itself - a graphical theory. Pat Martino's ideas fit into this, for example. I imagine this is how Django probably looked at it. I wonder if looking at too much piano theory can blind a student to cheeky quick wins that fall out of the instrument that a less schooled player might spot and take advantage of. On the guitar, so much can be achieved by joining up the dots and moving from shape to shape. Other tricks, like breaking up simple grips into lines too... That's something you can really learn from transcribing guitar players.

    We are sometimes told shapes are inferior to 'really understanding theory', but the truth is shapes can teach you a lot. 'Proper' music theory makes the most immediate sense at the keyboard anyway which is why it's a good idea to work things out at a keyboard. But the guitar has its own logic.

    If you learn to voice lead (and Joe Pass's advice to Mimi Fox was basically 'practice less and listen to string quartets' apparently) then the naming of chords is a bit ... I don't know, unnecessary? You have a sense of general sounds - major, minor, dominant - but the detail is something that you don't really think about in that way. Hard to explain, but I get where that's coming from. A lot of fancy chords are a way of getting from one straightforward chord to another. if you have the background you can think about it and give that passing chord a name, but that's not how they arise, necessarily.

    Look at the Bach Gigue from BWV 997 in a functional way and it's fairly simple harmony, a lot of I IV V I and so on, moving from key to key. However, the bass line is a great melody in its own right and Bach embellishes the harmony by using dissonances on many of the strong beats and there are quite few contrapuntal details between the voices.

    If you ignore that stuff and write down the basic chords, the harmony is simple. If you add in the dissonances and bass notes it looks like a map of hell; and you'd still be missing loads of information about the piece's harmony - the counterpoint, the preparation and resolution of dissonances and so on. Figured bass is obviously much better for this as it's the system Bach himself used for teaching etc and because it simply notes the intervals rather than getting caught up in what the root note is or whatever, but even you can't put everything in the figures. Like chord symbols it's a limited system.

    Similarly in Stella by Starlight, we don't acknowledge the dissonant 4ths on the Bb and F chords (jazzers think of the other ones as being upper extensions) When we write down the chords we just write Bbmaj7 and Fmaj7 usually because it's understood that those notes are not really part of the chord (because they are 'avoid notes'). But they do have a very emotive harmonic effect.

    I think Mick Goodrick was saying this when he subtitled the first voice leading book 'name that chord' and the second 'don't name that chord'. In the latter case it was because most of the chords didn't have good names (quartal voicings and such), but even in the former case, I think the idea is to get to the point where you are simply, well, voice leading through the mode or key, and the naming doesn't matter so much anymore.

    Conversely in Barry Harris's system there's quite often combinations of notes in the eight note scale that simply don't have a good name. Even something like the Ebo7 with a B in the melody (in C major), a very common chord in jazz standards (think Body and Soul, Tea for two etc) is often left unnamed (the B is often but not always resolved to an A so it's again, a passing chord.)
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 07-20-2022 at 05:06 AM.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    I had a music theory teacher who never called it theory. He used the term "materials and techniques of music." What we call music theory is an attempt to describe already-existing music, i.e., music practise. Trying to find some sort of universal music theory is the result of misunderstanding that difference because practise varies all the time, sometimes working with historical convention, sometimes working outside of it.