Using Maj7 arps over Altered Dominant Chords

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

[...] but I’m a Brit and treasure negativity

Like that? (Sounds rather inside BTW)

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

^ Or like that?

[ragman1]

everything sounds bad over everything if you suck

Obviously, but that's not the same thing.

[GuyBoden]

Obviously, Db7 is the tritone sub of G7, so the GbMaj arp works as an altered sound over G7.

[James W]

More like paranoid schizophrenia, if you ask me. As experienced by chimpanzees. It's one of those thoughtless soundbites, like 'the only scale you need is the chromatic scale'.

Nah, more than the chromatic scale if you're into microtones.

Not even Schoenberg wrote 'anything over anything'.

Heaven forfend. This begs the question, what do you actually know about what Schoenberg wrote?

[ragman1]

Nah, more than the chromatic scale if you're into microtones.

Quite. *screech*

Heaven forfend.

Gosh, I haven't seen forfend in a long time. I think I last saw it in a Le Carre novel.

This begs the question, what do you actually know about what Schoenberg wrote?

Probably quite a lot. Any specific questions? I mean, he followed his various 12-tone hamonic theories fairly rigorously so he could hardly be accused of just playing 'anything over anything'. There was always some rationale there.

[James W]

Probably quite a lot. Any specific questions?

Yes. If Cecil Taylor is 'stupid noise', seems odd to me that you would go to the trouble of learning quite a lot about Schoenberg. So how come you know quite a lot about Schoenberg?

Personally I'm not too fond of many of his serial works but earlier ones such as the second string quartet, the op.11 piano pieces, five orchestral pieces, Pierrot Lunaire and Erwartung are all wonderful (the latter being described as like a written-down improvisation) amongst a fair few others.

[GuyBoden]

Arnold Schönberg at his most powerful, in my humble opinion.

A Survivor from Warsaw.

[ragman1]

Yes. If Cecil Taylor is 'stupid noise', seems odd to me that you would go to the trouble of learning quite a lot about Schoenberg.

Not really, they're two different planets. Very little comparison, I'd say. Probably a question of intellectual content.

[pamosmusic]

Not really, they're two different planets. Very little comparison, I'd say. Probably a question of intellectual content.

Whose intellect are we talking about here?

Hopefully not Cecil Taylor's.

[pamosmusic]

I’d say everything sounds bad over everything if you suck

but I’m a Brit and treasure negativity

This is the rub.

John Coltrane plays F#s over his G7s and sounds good.

Nameless JGO Joe or whoever plays a G major Triad over a G7 and sounds like a goober.

[James W]

Probably a question of intellectual content.

Care to elaborate?

[mr. beaumont]

This is the rub.

John Coltrane plays F#s over his G7s and sounds good.

Nameless JGO Joe or whoever plays a G major Triad over a G7 and sounds like a goober.

One word: CONVICTION

Play that shit like you MEAN IT.

Hesitation and uncertainty in a line can make all the right notes sound like shit. Ask me how I know

[pamosmusic]

One word: CONVICTION

Play that shit like you MEAN IT.

Hesitation and uncertainty in a line can make all the right notes sound like shit. Ask me how I know

Ha! You and me both.

My favorite story about this is that a buddy of mine got a lesson with Peter Bernstein and Bernstein told him that everyone listening to music—no matter who they are, whether they know it or not—wants to hear “intentionality.”

[mr. beaumont]

Ha! You and me both.

My favorite story about this is that a buddy of mine got a lesson with Peter Bernstein and Bernstein told him that everyone listening to music—no matter who they are, whether they know it or not—wants to hear “intentionality.”

I've recorded myself playing complete gibberish over changes (mostly just visual patterns) several times and been surprised that if I just GO for it it sounds...pretty decent.

I haven't posted one here because it insinuates that my time and conviction are so good, which they are certainly always not...but I do encourage people to try it for themselves.

[StevenA]

I've recorded myself playing complete gibberish over changes (mostly just visual patterns) several times and been surprised that if I just GO for it it sounds...pretty decent.

I haven't posted one here because it insinuates that my time and conviction are so good, which they are certainly always not...but I do encourage people to try it for themselves.

I believe this a Joe Diorio exercise.

[mr. beaumont]

I believe this a Joe Diorio exercise.

It very well may be. I think I got the idea from an old Howard Roberts "Guitar Player" article (the playing visual patterns part)

[Christian Miller]

Ha! You and me both.

My favorite story about this is that a buddy of mine got a lesson with Peter Bernstein and Bernstein told him that everyone listening to music—no matter who they are, whether they know it or not—wants to hear “intentionality.”

For me this while true, at least for me, misses a vital puzzle piece. Yes intentionality- usually primarily in terms of rhythm - is enormously important. But what I’ve learned is that the desirable thing is actually a type of relaxed intentionality.

basically, too much intentionality can result in rushing. Too much relaxation without intentionality results in formless noodling.

Needless to say I think Peter has this happy medium dialled in on a molecular level.

[Christian Miller]

Personally I'm not too fond of many of his serial works.

Basically no one likes Schoenberg’s serial works, but people have divergent reasons for disliking them haha

I like pierrot quite a bit. Ewartung bangs on a bit. It’s no Wozzeck.

[mr. beaumont]

For me this while true, at least for me, misses a vital puzzle piece. Yes intentionality- usually primarily in terms of rhythm - is enormously important. But what I’ve learned is that the desirable thing is actually a type of relaxed intentionality.

basically, too much intentionality can result in rushing. Too much relaxation without intentionality results in formless noodling.

See, I think the intentionality part implies relaxedness, because if it's not relaxed, then you're second guessing yourself, right?

[pamosmusic]

See, I think the intentionality part implies relaxedness, because if it's not relaxed, then you're second guessing yourself, right?

Yeah ... semantics I guess ... but I read it as "play it like you mean it" rather than "play it like you really want to play and will play it no matter what come hell or high water or rushing like crazy."

I guess worth considering the messenger. It seems like "relaxed" is part of the equation because it's Peter Bernstein saying it. If I said it, then Christian would be obligated to split hairs accordingly.

[jzucker]

Since you can use D7 / F7 / Ab7 / B7 over D7,
Consider each of those chords as a 5 chord and then use the resulting I & V chords in each of those keys.

You then end up with

GMaj7 CMaj7
Bbmaj7 Ebmaj7
DbMaj7 GbMaj7
Emaj7 AMaj7

over the D7.

a lot of this is explained on my site. jack zucker - Dodecaphonics

[Christian Miller]

See, I think the intentionality part implies relaxedness, because if it's not relaxed, then you're second guessing yourself, right?

That’s not how it’s been for me. I have IMO two main related foibles - getting over enthusiastic and too excited with what I’m doing and letting my ideas run off with me. In both cases I need to take a step back.

I mean this exercise at 7:30 encapsulates it

by recording myself playing in the ‘relaxed intention’ stare compared to a more ‘heightened intention’ state I’ve noticed an improvement in my pocket and clarity in the former. So I have tried to build a good external/interior mapping based on knowing what it feels like when I’m doing it right.

Ah, it’s a work in progress .

[Christian Miller]

Yeah ... semantics I guess ... but I read it as "play it like you mean it" rather than "play it like you really want to play and will play it no matter what come hell or high water or rushing like crazy."

I guess worth considering the messenger. It seems like "relaxed" is part of the equation because it's Peter Bernstein saying it. If I said it, then Christian would be obligated to split hairs accordingly.

We also all have different tendencies and interior ways of putting it together

[mr. beaumont]

Oh, I definitely get the over-excited bit. I do that A LOT.

The Galper quote that always sticks with me is play exciting, not excited.

I'm sure the part of trying to remove emotion rubs a lot of folks the wrong way, but I really do find my playing connects with people a lot more if I focus on sounding good rather than trying to make people feel a certain way.

I relate this back to country music (I know--where the hell is Jeff going with this NOW?)

Some years ago, a band called Rascal Flatts recorded a song called "Skin," which is about a young girl with cancer. It's one of the worst songs ever written. It is a suckerpunch, fully designed with the expressed purpose of making the listener emotional. It basically says "Here, listen to this and cry, or you're a heartless shit of a human."

Compare this to a song like Wichita Lineman, which is easily one of the most brilliant tunes ever written. Lineman tells a relatively simple story, with no gutpunch lines...any sadness in the song is rather vague...who does he miss? Is he really hearing her through the lines, or just imagining? It makes you think, and if it hits you in the right way in the right moment, it can be absolutely devastating. Glen Campbell sings it and he IS the Lineman, just telling the story, not some contrived made up BS just intended to get a reaction out of you.

So in short, play that Bmaj7 over G7 like Glen sang Jimmy's tune, not like the Rascals who sang a team of faceless writers' "Skin."