Hey Jack Zucker Theory question for you

[Tag]

I take it the Lydian Scale is used over the maj7 chord because all 7 tones are resting areas. The #11 does not create tension like the natural 11. Now if we are in G major, and have a D7 chord aproaching the Gmaj, the flat 5 sub gives us A flat 7. In the purest sense, that is A flat Mixolydian. I alwyas group the II-IV-V-VII chords together as you know, so maturally I play a lot of F# Lydian (the same as A flat Mixolydian) lines over that flat 5 chord. (A flat7). What this is actually doing, is giving you the most half step resolutions into the I (G Maj7) chord, correct?? (The half step being the strongest resolution) I meanF# Lydian to G Lydian, every resolution is the strongest! (Each chord tone resolves up 1\2 step.) Now what I am finding, is what sounds great, is to use the same basic theory, but in reverse. Instead of using the A flat7 (flat 5 of D), use A flat Lydian. This gives you a 1\2 step resolution going down on every chord tone. (A flat lydian, resolving to G Lydian) It sounds great, and I have gotten it from Benson lines. Is there any theory that explains this, or rule?? I have never heard of it, but it is used all the time, and sounds smooth as glass. Basically the same thing, and as Martino and kenny garrett do all the time, is use E flat DORIAN over the D7, instead of the typical Eflat Melodic minor. Then the E flat Dorian moves up 1\2 step to E Dorian on the G Maj7 chord. (E Dorian-same as G Lydian). Gives that upward 1\2 step resolution again.
Anybodys thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

[EricT]

My guess is that it's just the famous "up/down a half step on dominant chords" trick . At least that's the way I think about it, never seen it explained in theoretic terms...:)

[Tag]

Originally posted by EricT
My guess is that it's just the famous "up/down a half step on dominant chords" trick . At least that's the way I think about it, never seen it explained in theoretic terms...:)

Thats the simplest way to look at it for sure! The thing is the A flat lydian to the G Maj7.....That does not fit the traditional "tritone sub" thing, and I have never heard it taught. Its something I figured out on my own that is udes all the time in jazz, and is never talked about. I wonder if there is some theory that Jack may know of. (Building a Dom 7 on every whole tone note for instance). This would give you a Bflat7 chord, which then I would use A flat Lydian against. Dont know if that is a rule or not...just pulling at straws.

[jzucker]

To avoid the mediocrity of Mixolydian, this is what I'm teaching my son as the basic rules of dominant chords:


If a 7th chord resolves up a 4th, use a melodic minor off the 5th (good) or off the b9 (better)
If a 7th chord does not resolve up a 4th, use melodic minor off the 5th


Of course, rules are made to be broken but those are the basics for dom7 chords.

So, if the progression is:

| C7 | Fmaj7 |

You would think:

| Gm7 C7 | Fmaj7 | (good)

or
| Dbm7 Gb7 | Fmaj7 | (better)

In the case of a blues where the 2nd chord is a 7th but it does not resolve up a 4th: (C7 in a G blues)

| G7 | C7 |

You would think (for the C7)

| G7 | Gm7 C7 |

Of course, you can also use:

| Dm7 G7 | Gm7 C7 | or | Abm7 Db7 | Gm7 C7 |

And lastly, you can always use the melodic minor over any min7 chord. The 7th of a min7 chord in a ii v sequence is simply a suspension of the 3rd of the 7th chord. Therefore, you can freely substitute the melodic minor for the dorian.

[Tom Gross]

Originally posted by jzucker
To avoid the mediocrity of Mixolydian, this is what I'm teaching my son as the basic rules of dominant chords:


If a 7th chord resolves up a 4th, use a melodic minor off the 5th (good) or off the b9 (better)
If a 7th chord does not resolve up a 4th, use melodic minor off the 5th


Of course, rules are made to be broken but those are the basics for dom7 chords.


That's the way Emily Remler explained it.

[Tag]

Originally posted by jzucker
To avoid the mediocrity of Mixolydian, this is what I'm teaching my son as the basic rules of dominant chords:


If a 7th chord resolves up a 4th, use a melodic minor off the 5th (good) or off the b9 (better)
If a 7th chord does not resolve up a 4th, use melodic minor off the 5th


Of course, rules are made to be broken but those are the basics for dom7 chords.

So, if the progression is:

| C7 | Fmaj7 |

You would think:

| Gm7 C7 | Fmaj7 | (good)

or
| Dbm7 Gb7 | Fmaj7 | (better)

In the case of a blues where the 2nd chord is a 7th but it does not resolve up a 4th: (C7 in a G blues)

| G7 | C7 |

You would think (for the C7)

| G7 | Gm7 C7 |

Of course, you can also use:

| Dm7 G7 | Gm7 C7 | or | Abm7 Db7 | Gm7 C7 |

And lastly, you can always use the melodic minor over any min7 chord. The 7th of a min7 chord in a ii v sequence is simply a suspension of the 3rd of the 7th chord. Therefore, you can freely substitute the melodic minor for the dorian.

Hey Jack,
I was hoping to get a little deeper than that. I automatically play off of those minors on a Dom 7th chord I want to alter anyway. Looking to approach the one chord from a different angle. I hear you doing it so many ways. I have heard Stan Getz and Mark Whitfield play over Gmin7-C7-Bmin, over the progression Amin7-D7-Gmaj7. My thinking is that since you can approach any tonic chord from a fifth above, they are seeing the Bmin7 as tonic (Same as GMaj7), and playing the flat 5 sub of F#7 (the 5 of the Bmin) which is C7 then resolving to the Bmin for the Gmaj7! Thats wicked cool, and sounds really out there. Still it makes melodic sense. I have no idea if this is the "right" way to look at it or not....... Trying to look at new ways to approach things, as Im in a big rut. :(

[jzucker]

Originally posted by Tag
Hey Jack,
I was hoping to get a little deeper than that. I automatically play off of those minors on a Dom 7th chord I want to alter anyway. Looking to approach the one chord from a different angle. I hear you doing it so many ways. I have heard Stan Getz and Mark Whitfield play over Gmin7-C7-Bmin, over the progression Amin7-D7-Gmaj7. My thinking is that since you can approach any tonic chord from a fifth above, they are seeing the Bmin7 as tonic (Same as GMaj7), and playing the flat 5 sub of F#7 (the 5 of the Bmin) which is C7 then resolving to the Bmin for the Gmaj7! Thats wicked cool, and sounds really out there. Still it makes melodic sense. I have no idea if this is the "right" way to look at it or not....... Trying to look at new ways to approach things, as Im in a big rut. :(

Tag, you're right on. That C7 is an old Bird trick. He thought of it as a Bbdim7 chord (same as C7b9) and would play an Amin lick followed by a Bbdim7 lick followed by the Bm7 lick or Bm7b5 if resolving to a dom7 chord in a blues progression.

When I use that tonality I'm thinking F#7alt so I would use G Melodic minor but I also like to use B harmonic minor and of course the diminished scale there.

Jaz

[Tag]

Originally posted by jzucker
Tag, you're right on. That C7 is an old Bird trick. He thought of it as a Bbdim7 chord (same as C7b9) and would play an Amin lick followed by a Bbdim7 lick followed by the Bm7 lick or Bm7b5 if resolving to a dom7 chord in a blues progression.

When I use that tonality I'm thinking F#7alt so I would use G Melodic minor but I also like to use B harmonic minor and of course the diminished scale there.

Jaz


Thanks Jack!! AMAZING! I actually figured something out on my own. :D I heard those lines and it sounded wicked while I was driving several months ago listening to Whitfield.. I heard the same "type" of sound (I thought) a while later listening to Stan Getz "Apassianado" (spelling). I love that recording. Getz plays his A$$ off in a more pop type setting. If you have it, check out the tune "Amourous cat". I dont think its possible to play with any more feeling than that. His entire personality is dripping out of the horn in that Getz romatic style........ Anyway, my ear caught it, I figured it out, and it took me a while to find something that made sense theoretically.. My next clip I am going to use it on every single II-V-I! :eek: By the time Im done, no one will EVER want to hear it again. :cool:

[EricT]

I'd love to hear that, Tag, I got a little bit dizzy trying to follow Jack's explanations..:) Would be nice hearing it, not just reading it!

[jzucker]

Originally posted by EricT
I'd love to hear that, Tag, I got a little bit dizzy trying to follow Jack's explanations..:) Would be nice hearing it, not just reading it!

I'll try to include that on my video.

Another cool sub/resolution for Am7 D7...

Play F#7 alt B7 Alt to Emin7. You could use G melodic minor to C melodic minor to E dorian. Gives you a cool lydian sound...

[Tag]

Originally posted by jzucker
I'll try to include that on my video.

Another cool sub/resolution for Am7 D7...

Play F#7 alt B7 Alt to Emin7. You could use G melodic minor to C melodic minor to E dorian. Gives you a cool lydian sound...
Very cool Jack! We do think a lot alike! Thats why I group Gmaj-Eminor-Bmin all together. They are all tonics, and thus can all be approached from a fifth, or half step(flat 5 sub) above. (As well as others) The E minor is just the relative minor of G Maj. A Benson Favorite, and one that is real easy for me to hear and play, is C7 min, (subed for Amin7) F7 (subed for D7) to either GMaj7, Bmin7, or E min 7. (All those three chords are the same basic tonality, and have the same function...tonic. This is exactly where I would hope you would go. I need to incorperate these more at will. I use them ocassionally, but I have to "think" about them first while I am approaching them during playing. Thats when you can hear the time and feel dissapear in my playing.:mad: Seperates the men from the boys.

[Tag]

Originally posted by EricT
I'd love to hear that, Tag, I got a little bit dizzy trying to follow Jack's explanations..:) Would be nice hearing it, not just reading it!

Hey Eric, Jacks just saying he approaches the Bmin (which you know is just an extension of Gmaj7) from its 5 chord F#7. He alters it for more tension, one choice would be G Melodic minor, which he favors. I usually use G dorian over that F#7, probably because thats what my favorite players do for the most part (Garrett, Martino, Benson) and its in my ear. I also LOVE the flated 7 in the dorian, that gives you that maj7 tone (in this case F) against the F# Dom7 chord. That note is nothing more than the flat 5 of the B minor chord you are approaching, and gives you a REAL bluesy feel which I love. Probably why Benson uses it so much.

[EricT]

Yeah, I know that stuff, I like to use the altered scale in that situation.
What I didn't get was how you came from Amin7-D7-Gmaj7 to Gmin7-C7-Bmin, but after reading your post one more time, I understand it..:)
I'll definitely try dorian a half step up, sounding more like Benson isn't a bad idea at all:D

Oh, and I'll try that down a min3rd thingie that Jack suggested. Is there any theory behind that one? I understand that Gmaj7 and Emin7 share the same function, but the other subs..?

Thanks, it's great for me to learn from such accomplished players as you two!

[jzucker]

Eric,

Which sub were you asking about specifically?

[EricT]

This one:
Am7-D7-Gmaj7 ---> F#7-B7-Em7

Do you just sub Emin7 for Gmaj7, and then omit Am7-D7 for a II-V in E instead(subbing the F#m7 for a F7)?

[Tag]

Originally posted by EricT
This one:
Am7-D7-Gmaj7 ---> F#7-B7-Em7

Do you just sub Emin7 for Gmaj7, and then omit Am7-D7 for a II-V in E instead(subbing the F#m7 for a F7)?

Im not sure how jack looks at it, but as I always say, GMaj7-Emin7 and B Min7 are all tonic chords in the key of G Maj. You can always approach ANY tonic chord from a 5th above. Therefore you can approach the Emin from the 5th above which is B7 (add the II chord and its F#min7-B7) or approach the B minor chord from the fifth above which is f#7. (Add the II chord and its C#min7-F#7) You can also use the flat 5 subs on both of them. Then you can make the II chord a 7#9 which is just approaching the V from its V, and use the flat 5 Sub for that as well. It just keeps going, and thats how you get a lot of that chromatic movement.

[jzucker]

Originally posted by EricT
This one:
Am7-D7-Gmaj7 ---> F#7-B7-Em7

Do you just sub Emin7 for Gmaj7, and then omit Am7-D7 for a II-V in E instead(subbing the F#m7 for a F7)?

I don't think I quite said that. I said, I use F#7Alt to B7 to Em7 as a sub for the Am7 D7 Gmaj7.

The F#7Alt suggests a G diminished scale (though the G dim has a D# and the F#7 Alt has a D Natural).

Try This:

Am D7 | Gdim7 Gmaj7 |

What you're trying to create is the sound of the Gdim7. The F#7alt is just one way to do that.

Let me know if you need more info.

[EricT]

Originally posted by Tag
Im not sure how jack looks at it, but as I always say, GMaj7-Emin7 and B Min7 are all tonic chords in the key of G Maj. You can always approach ANY tonic chord from a 5th above. Therefore you can approach the Emin from the 5th above which is B7 (add the II chord and its F#min7-B7) or approach the B minor chord from the fifth above which is f#7. (Add the II chord and its C#min7-F#7) You can also use the flat 5 subs on both of them. Then you can make the II chord a 7#9 which is just approaching the V from its V, and use the flat 5 Sub for that as well. It just keeps going, and thats how you get a lot of that chromatic movement.

Thanks, that's exactly how I was thinking.

[EricT]

Originally posted by jzucker
I don't think I quite said that. I said, I use F#7Alt to B7 to Em7 as a sub for the Am7 D7 Gmaj7.

The F#7Alt suggests a G diminished scale (though the G dim has a D# and the F#7 Alt has a D Natural).

Try This:

Am D7 | Gdim7 Gmaj7 |

What you're trying to create is the sound of the Gdim7. The F#7alt is just one way to do that.

Let me know if you need more info.

Ok, I think I understand. But you can always substitute a dominant chord with an altered dominant, right? So the way I and Tag is thinking makes sense as well?

One thing my teacher taught me recently was to use the dim chord as a "fill" for a maj7 chord when comping, like this:
C6/9 Cdim7 Cmaj7
|----------------------|
|----3-----4-----5----|
|----2-----3-----4----|
|----2-----4-----5----|
|----3-----3-----3----|
|----------------------|

Same princinple as what you're describing, I guess.

[TonyV]

Originally posted by EricT
. But you can always substitute a dominant chord with an altered dominant, right?

No, if the dominant is functioning as a secondary dominant or a flat five sub you should not play an altered version. You can play an extention, 9 ,11,13



For example:

You would not want to play a G7b5b9 as the I7 chord in a 12 bar blues progression, however in bar 4 you could play an altered G7 as there it will function as the V7 of the IV7 in bar 5. For instance playing a G7b5b9 in bar 4 beat 4 leads nicely to the C7 in bar 5.

If a Db7 is used to sub for a G7 it functions as an altered G7 so you would not play a Db7b5b9, that would defeat the purpose of the flat five sub.

[jzucker]

Tony's exactly right. Think about the rules/suggestions I posted earlier. If a 7th chord moves up a forth, you can treat it as an altered dominant chord with extensions based on the melodic minor up a half step (known as super locrian)

This gives you b9,#9,b5,b13

If the chord moves in any other direction, harmonize with the melodic minor off the 5th (known as lydian b7). This gives you extensions of 9,#11, 13.

These are just guidelines of course. Hendrix sometimes played a #9b13 chord for the IV chord in a G blues but generally speaking, the guidelines Tony and I have suggested are the starting points.

[Tag]

Originally posted by TonyV
If a Db7 is used to sub for a G7 it functions as an altered G7 so you would not play a Db7b5b9, that would defeat the purpose of the flat five sub. ]

Right, Those tensions would then basically just give you the Dom V chord again, correct?

[jzucker]

Originally posted by Tag
]

Right, Those tensions would then basically just give you the Dom V chord again, correct?

Right.

[EricT]

Originally posted by TonyV
No, if the dominant is functioning as a secondary dominant or a flat five sub you should not play an altered version. You can play an extention, 9 ,11,13



For example:

You would not want to play a G7b5b9 as the I7 chord in a 12 bar blues progression, however in bar 4 you could play an altered G7 as there it will function as the V7 of the IV7 in bar 5. For instance playing a G7b5b9 in bar 4 beat 4 leads nicely to the C7 in bar 5.

If a Db7 is used to sub for a G7 it functions as an altered G7 so you would not play a Db7b5b9, that would defeat the purpose of the flat five sub.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[lhallam]

This thread should go into the archives. Great stuff.

[markp]

Great thread I am still trying to figure out where everyone is comeing from,but I did pick up a couple things already.

[EricT]

Just one last question(or several, really...), to see if I can put this to practice...
Let's look at the first lines of There Will Never Be Another You:
Ebmaj7 | Ebmaj7 | Dm7b5 | G7 | Cm7 | F7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | Abmaj7 |

The G7 cannot be altered. The progression goes up a fourth, but doesn't resolve. So a possible scale choice here is either G mixolydian or D melodic minor.
Sidestep: Is this a sub for a Gm7, the III of Eb?

The F7 cannot be altered either. Again, up a fourth, but no resolving.

The Eb7 otoh, resolves to Abmaj7, so it can be altered.

But when I'm playing this song, I don't think it sounds out of place to use altered lines on G7 and F7, so what is it I'm not getting here..?:confused:

[Tag]

Originally posted by EricT
Just one last question(or several, really...), to see if I can put this to practice...
Let's look at the first lines of There Will Never Be Another You:
Ebmaj7 | Ebmaj7 | Dm7b5 | G7 | Cm7 | F7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | Abmaj7 |

The G7 cannot be altered. The progression goes up a fourth, but doesn't resolve. So a possible scale choice here is either G mixolydian or D melodic minor.
Sidestep: Is this a sub for a Gm7, the III of Eb?

The F7 cannot be altered either. Again, up a fourth, but no resolving.

The Eb7 otoh, resolves to Abmaj7, so it can be altered.

But when I'm playing this song, I don't think it sounds out of place to use altered lines on G7 and F7, so what is it I'm not getting here..?:confused:

This is simple. You start out in the key of Eb right? What are the tonic chords in Eb Maj I always say group together? EbMaj7 C Min7 and Gmin7 right? (The I-III and VI chords) The DMin7b5 and G7 going to the Cmin are the II-V of the tonic Cmin chord right? (Remember we said you could approach ANY tonic chord from the fifth above?) Of course you can alter that Dom 7. (G7) If you used the flat 5 sub for G7 (C#7) thats what you would not want to alter. To make it REALY simple, you can still just play a II-V (Fmin7-Bb7) back to EbMaj over the Dmin7flat5- G7-C min. Dexter Gordon and Stan Getz do this all the time. All that is is substituting II-Vs back to tonic areas. You could also play A min7flat5-D7-Gmin7! (Again, the G min7 is a tonic just like EbMaj7, and you can approach ANY tonic area from a fifth above!) If you use that sub, dont alter.(In simple terms, usually dont alter a sub, because the sub is giving you the altered notes over the original chord!) For the same reasons, you can alter the F7 and Eb 7.

[jzucker]

Originally posted by EricT
Just one last question(or several, really...), to see if I can put this to practice...
Let's look at the first lines of There Will Never Be Another You:
Ebmaj7 | Ebmaj7 | Dm7b5 | G7 | Cm7 | F7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | Abmaj7 |

The G7 cannot be altered. The progression goes up a fourth, but doesn't resolve. So a possible scale choice here is either G mixolydian or D melodic minor.
Sidestep: Is this a sub for a Gm7, the III of Eb?

The F7 cannot be altered either. Again, up a fourth, but no resolving.

The Eb7 otoh, resolves to Abmaj7, so it can be altered.

But when I'm playing this song, I don't think it sounds out of place to use altered lines on G7 and F7, so what is it I'm not getting here..?:confused:

Tag's right but I'm not sure his explanation was very clear.

You can alter the G7, F7 and Eb7 in this chord progression using the melodic minor up a half step (super locrian).

The way I always think of those tones is that I'm playing the tritone ii-v so in the example above you have the dm7b5 G7 Cm7 and I would sub Abm7 Db7 Cm7. The Abm7 Db7 is the tritone ii-v and the treatment would be Ab melodic minor. Note that if you try to play the tritone ii v over the tritone, you end up with the original chords again. So for Abm7 Db7 Cm7 the tritone ii v would be Dm7 G7 Cm7 which is why you typically don't use the altered chords on 7th chords that don't resolve up a 4th.

[EricT]

Ah, so you look at the Cmin as the VI chord in Eb instead of seeing it as the II chord in Bb...I get it, thanks:)
And it shows, listening to you ear instead of your head sometimes makes sense.:AOK

[EricT]

Originally posted by jzucker
Tag's right but I'm not sure his explanation was very clear.

You can alter the G7, F7 and Eb7 in this chord progression using the melodic minor up a half step (super locrian).

The way I always think of those tones is that I'm playing the tritone ii-v so in the example above you have the dm7b5 G7 Cm7 and I would sub Abm7 Db7 Cm7. The Abm7 Db7 is the tritone ii-v and the treatment would be Ab melodic minor. Note that if you try to play the tritone ii v over the tritone, you end up with the original chords again. So for Abm7 Db7 Cm7 the tritone ii v would be Dm7 G7 Cm7 which is why you typically don't use the altered chords on 7th chords that don't resolve up a 4th.

Thanks, your explanation makes perfect sense as well.:AOK

I'll try to make a recording of this song, would be very grateful if you guys could give me some constructive criticism!

[TonyV]

Originally posted by EricT
Just one last question(or several, really...), to see if I can put this to practice...
Let's look at the first lines of There Will Never Be Another You:
Ebmaj7 | Ebmaj7 | Dm7b5 | G7 | Cm7 | F7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | Abmaj7 |

The G7 cannot be altered. The progression goes up a fourth, but doesn't resolve. So a possible scale choice here is either G mixolydian or D melodic minor.
Sidestep: Is this a sub for a Gm7, the III of Eb?

The F7 cannot be altered either. Again, up a fourth, but no resolving.

The Eb7 otoh, resolves to Abmaj7, so it can be altered.

But when I'm playing this song, I don't think it sounds out of place to use altered lines on G7 and F7, so what is it I'm not getting here..?:confused:

The G7 is a transition chord there, it's a minor ii V i.
So the G7 can (and probably should) be altered
The F7 is also in a minor ii V i to Bb so you can alter it
The Eb7 is the V7 of Ab major so again you can alter it
If it's functioning in a ii V i you can definately alter it.
For minor ii V7 i you usually play some sort of a b9 voicing for the V7

[jzucker]

Originally posted by EricT
Ah, so you look at the Cmin as the VI chord in Eb instead of seeing it as the II chord in Bb...I get it, thanks:)
And it shows, listening to you ear instead of your head sometimes makes sense.:AOK

The Cm7 chord is the I chord from the perspective of the Dm7b5 G7 Cm7.

Try to see each chord in terms of a little sub-unit as opposed to trying to force them all into the original or a new key. There are some subtle influences of the original key in every chord progression but it's useful to dismiss those for the purposes of learning how to play over each change as a unique unit. The ultimate example of that is countdown:

Em7 F7 Bbmaj7 Db7 Gbmaj7 A7 Dmaj7

Yes, it's the key of D but really, each chord is it's own key into itself.

[EricT]

Yeah, I saw that after posting, but thanks for pointing it out...haven't worked as much on minor II-V-Is, what's common tricks on those? Think I've seen C harmonic minor over G7?

[jzucker]

Originally posted by EricT
Yeah, I saw that after posting, but thanks for pointing it out...haven't worked as much on minor II-V-Is, what's common tricks on those? Think I've seen C harmonic minor over G7?

5th mode of harmonic minor is what you're referring to. That is a semi-altered treatment of a chord giving you 1,b9,3,4,5,b13,b7 in terms of extensions. Charlie Parker used that all the time. Of course, it's not limited to min7. I wouldn't get hung up on the min key so much but I'd examine the Dm7b5 chord. Tag had it right that you could use F melodic minor over that.

If you think about it, what have I told you works over G7 chords?

Min7 off the 5th, min7 off the b2 and now, min7 off the b7. Sort those and you have:

Dm7 Fm7 Abm7. See the pattern? Minor 3rds. What does each min7 suggest? It's the ii of a given V chord.

Extrapolate that out and you have

G7 (dm7) Bb7 (Fm7) Db7 (abm7) and then E7 (bm7)

This suggests that you can play 7th chords in min 3rds over any 7th chord. You have my book. Take a look at the chapter on dodecaphonics (Chapter 8)

All this stuff is in there! :)

[Dickie Fredericks]

5th mode of harmonic minor is what you're referring to. That is a semi-altered treatment of a chord giving you 1,b9,3,4,5,b13,b7 in terms of extensions. Charlie Parker used that all the time. Of course, it's not limited to min7. I wouldn't get hung up on the min key so much but I'd examine the Dm7b5 chord. Tag had it right that you could use F melodic minor over that.

If you think about it, what have I told you works over G7 chords?

Min7 off the 5th, min7 off the b2 and now, min7 off the b7. Sort those and you have:

Dm7 Fm7 Abm7. See the pattern? Minor 3rds. What does each min7 suggest? It's the ii of a given V chord.

Extrapolate that out and you have

G7 (dm7) Bb7 (Fm7) Db7 (abm7) and then E7 (bm7)

This suggests that you can play 7th chords in min 3rds over any 7th chord. You have my book. Take a look at the chapter on dodecaphonics (Chapter 8)

All this stuff is in there! :)

Amazing!!!

[kimock]

(A flat lydian, resolving to G Lydian) It sounds great, and I have gotten it from Benson lines. Is there any theory that explains this, or rule?? I have never heard of it, but it is used all the time, and sounds smooth as glass.
Anybodys thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

That's harmonic symmetry.

If you can just look at the intervals without concerning yourself too much with the diatonic chord names, those "two chords" are just one symmetrical arrangement of 3rds and 5ths around a center. Not two chords, one structure that expresses "one lap of G", one trip around the center, out and back.

If you're in the key of G, in order to establish G as a center, if you go up a fifth you get G D. One Five. No center. To get G back to center we go:

C. . G. . D center, up a fifth, down a fifth

E-flat. .C. .G. .D. .B Thirds up and down added

A-flat. . E-flat. .C. . G. .D. .B. .F# Fifths again, up and down.

One symmetrical stack.
All of the stuff on the right side of G, the up side, is overtonal.
All of the stuff on the left side is reciprocal, the inverse.

All the overtonal stuff is "in", the reciprocal stuff is "out".

The conceptual chunking of this concept, and how it differs in application from the diatonic naming system y'all currently misuse may best be described with the analogy of playing fetch with your dog.

In the DNS scheme when the dog is chasing the ball, when he's going out, he's got one name.
Fetch the ball A-flat, go get it A-flat!

When he catches the ball and runs back in with it, he's got a different name.
Bring it back G! C'mon home G!
Leggo the goddam ball G, etc.

From the perspective of harmony you recognize that there's only one dog doing the work, and he's just running away from you and returning.
It's not necessary to change the dogs name every time he turns around.
It's not a different dog, that's a nose and that's an asshole, sure, but it's just one dog playing fetch, goin' out, comin back.

So, when you're asking the line to go out and come back, or when you're asking for a cadence instead of two chords, you're addressing harmonic symmetry.

That's how the entire shootin' match works, all 12 notes, but only two intervals, fifths and thirds, up and down. At whatever distance from the center you choose.

peace

[Tag]

That's harmonic symmetry.

If you can just look at the intervals without concerning yourself too much with the diatonic chord names, those "two chords" are just one symmetrical arrangement of 3rds and 5ths around a center. Not two chords, one structure that expresses "one lap of G", one trip around the center, out and back.

If you're in the key of G, in order to establish G as a center, if you go up a fifth you get G D. One Five. No center. To get G back to center we go:

C. . G. . D center, up a fifth, down a fifth

E-flat. .C. .G. .D. .B Thirds up and down added

A-flat. . E-flat. .C. . G. .D. .B. .F# Fifths again, up and down.

One symmetrical stack.
All of the stuff on the right side of G, the up side, is overtonal.
All of the stuff on the left side is reciprocal, the inverse.

All the overtonal stuff is "in", the reciprocal stuff is "out".

The conceptual chunking of this concept, and how it differs in application from the diatonic naming system y'all currently misuse may best be described with the analogy of playing fetch with your dog.

In the DNS scheme when the dog is chasing the ball, when he's going out, he's got one name.
Fetch the ball A-flat, go get it A-flat!

When he catches the ball and runs back in with it, he's got a different name.
Bring it back G! C'mon home G!
Leggo the goddam ball G, etc.

From the perspective of harmony you recognize that there's only one dog doing the work, and he's just running away from you and returning.
It's not necessary to change the dogs name every time he turns around.
It's not a different dog, that's a nose and that's an asshole, sure, but it's just one dog playing fetch, goin' out, comin back.

So, when you're asking the line to go out and come back, or when you're asking for a cadence instead of two chords, you're addressing harmonic symmetry.

That's how the entire shootin' match works, all 12 notes, but only two intervals, fifths and thirds, up and down. At whatever distance from the center you choose.

peace
Steve,
I think we are talking about 2 different things. What F# Lydian resolving to G Lydian over a D 7 chord gives you is the 3rd, b5,#5,b7,7,b9 and#9 of D7. Each one of those notes resolves up 1/2 step (the strongest resolution) to G lydian over the Gmaj7 chord. You get maximum pull to Gmaj7. In the system of 3rds and 5ths, where does the 9th and 7th come from? (I see each is a reciprocal of the other in your terms. 1 scale step above the root, one scale step below.)

[henry_the_horse]

I take it the Lydian Scale is used over the maj7 chord because all 7 tones are resting areas. The #11 does not create tension like the natural 11. Now if we are in G major, and have a D7 chord aproaching the Gmaj, the flat 5 sub gives us A flat 7. In the purest sense, that is A flat Mixolydian.

Not mixolydian but lydian-dominant. Over a tritone substitution chord root you should play the lydian-dominant scale [1-2-3-#4-5-6-b7].
For a D7 tritone substitution, you should play Ab lydian-dominant [ab, bb, c, d, eb, f, g] or mode IV of Eb melodic minor, or D superlocrian, which are all the same notes. Since the real dominant is D7, I would stick to D superlocrian. Hence the resolution would be clearly Gmaj7.


I alwyas group the II-IV-V-VII chords together as you know, so maturally I play a lot of F# Lydian (the same as A flat Mixolydian) lines over that flat 5 chord. (A flat7). What this is actually doing, is giving you the most half step resolutions into the I (G Maj7) chord, correct?? (The half step being the strongest resolution) I meanF# Lydian to G Lydian, every resolution is the strongest! (Each chord tone resolves up 1\2 step.) Now what I am finding, is what sounds great, is to use the same basic theory, but in reverse. Instead of using the A flat7 (flat 5 of D), use A flat Lydian. This gives you a 1\2 step resolution going down on every chord tone. (A flat lydian, resolving to G Lydian) It sounds great, and I have gotten it from Benson lines. Is there any theory that explains this, or rule?? I have never heard of it, but it is used all the time, and sounds smooth as glass. Basically the same thing, and as Martino and kenny garrett do all the time, is use E flat DORIAN over the D7, instead of the typical Eflat Melodic minor. Then the E flat Dorian moves up 1\2 step to E Dorian on the G Maj7 chord. (E Dorian-same as G Lydian). Gives that upward 1\2 step resolution again.
Anybodys thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

The lydian-dominant scale is what Martino explained in that y o u t u b e video posted here in TGP some weeks ago. He said that over an altered A7 chord you could play E melodic minor (A lydian dominant), or the same scale 3rd up, that would be G melodic minor (C lydian dominant), or the same scale two 3rds. up, that would be Bb melodic minor (Eb lydian dominant that means the tritone sub of A7; or A superlocrian). That altered A7 was in the context of a minor cadence (resolving to Dm). Here you would use it in the context of a major cadence, but still the outside sound would be interesting.

Regards

[Tag]

Not mixolydian but lydian-dominant. Over a tritone substitution chord root you should play the lydian-dominant scale [1-2-3-#4-5-6-b7].
For a D7 tritone substitution, you should play Ab lydian-dominant [ab, bb, c, d, eb, f, g] or mode IV of Eb melodic minor, or D superlocrian, which are all the same notes. Since the real dominant is D7, I would stick to D superlocrian. Hence the resolution would be clearly Gmaj7.


Right, thats what they SAY, and what you are TAUGHT, but transcribe enough, and you will see that many many times the DORIAN scale is used up a 5th and up 1/2 step from a Dom 7 chord. NOT the melodic minor, which of course translates to Mixolidian over the flat V sub, and not lydian dominant. Martino does it ALL the time, as does Benson and Trane. What that gives over a D7 chord (v5sub being Ab7) is the Db note over D7. The REASON they use that, is it (Db) is the flat V note in the key you are going to. Here it is G. It gives a blues flavor, and also a very strong pull to the tonic.




The lydian-dominant scale is what Martino explained in that y o u t u b e video posted here in TGP some weeks ago. He said that over an altered A7 chord you could play E melodic minor (A lydian dominant), or the same scale 3rd up, that would be G melodic minor (C lydian dominant), or the same scale two 3rds. up, that would be Bb melodic minor (Eb lydian dominant that means the tritone sub of A7; or A superlocrian). That altered A7 was in the context of a minor cadence (resolving to Dm). Here you would use it in the context of a major cadence, but still the outside sound would be interesting.


Yep, now go one step farther, and you get to what I am talking about. Over the A7 chord you play Emelodic (or dorian), G melodic (or dorian) Bb melodic (or dorian ) and also Db melodic (or dorian). Now look at that Db dorian. It gives you a 1/2 step resolution on every note going to the key D minor! that is the same as what i was talkking about, but using the relative minor keys instead of major keys. VERY interesting!!

[Tag]

Well, I'd like to clarify that this isn't Steve's system, or something that anyone around here (well, 99%) isn't using. All the intervals that represtent the 12-tone system are compounds of two intervals, thirds and fifths.
It's not a system so much as the physics of the thing, AFAIK.

So, from a root, a fifth is a fifth up.
A third is a third up.

Then you flip 'em.

A fouth is a fifth down.
A minor sixth is a third down.

Right?

Then, you add them.

A ninth is two fifths up.
A seventh is a two fifths up and a third down.

Do you see that?
Its really way easier to SEE than it is too write about.
A simple lattice will show you the generating patch of the intervals.
Here:
http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/graphics/lattice.gif
That'll show you where they all are.

Anything that is up and right is 'in'.
Anything that is down and left is 'out', if you will.

Also, a clarification:
This reciprocal concept has nothing to do with 'scale steps'. That would be diatonic symmetry (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Completely different.

So, anyways, you've got a key, and 'in' is one way, and 'out' is the other.
Right?

Does that help Tag?
I hope my explination was understandable, and if I made a mistake, somebody please come tell me.

Jamie
give me an example of what you mean as "In" to the right and "out" to the left.

[KRosser]

Yup, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my thread about "theory".

Total Chinese to me, like reading a foreign language.

Trying to learn theory in this thread is like trying to learn Chinese by hanging out on a street corner in Beijing.

So get yourself to a community college class to learn it for real, from the beginning, if that's what you want. Or were you expecting to pick this up by osmosis?

You know, as many times as I've flown in a plane, you'd figure I must have picked up how to pilot one by now, but those guys must be super-special gifted 'cause I still can't figure it out.

You keep making it sound like it's impossible to learn a foreign language. It's not impossible. You just start from the beginning - "Hello"..."How are you"..."My name is...". You've never tried to learn a foreign language?

Yes, I guess in a way, you're right - if you refuse forcefully enough, anything is impossible.

[Dana]

Yes, I guess in a way, you're right - if you refuse forcefully enough, anything is impossible.

Great quote, and very true, IMO.

[kimock]

Yup, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my thread about "theory".

Total Chinese to me, like reading a foreign language.

Got an old lady? Pay bills? Ever look at the moon? Got a calendar?

Look at your guitar. See it?

No?

It's not a language, it's just the way things are together.

:YinYang

[KRosser]

Got an old lady? Pay bills? Ever look at the moon? Got a calendar?

Look at your guitar. See it?

No?

It's not a language, it's just the way things are together.

:YinYang

Yeah, but Mr GuitarTone has insisted with increasing stubbornness that this is something he can't be expected to suss because he wasn't born with "the gift".

"The gift" is apparently the ability to search out reliable information for something you'd like to know more about.

That, and he seems to have this thing about Chinese being impossible to learn, despite the inescapable fact that billions of people apparently did.

Weird.

[kimock]

Yeah, but Mr GuitarTone has insisted with increasing stubbornness that this is something he can't be expected to suss because he wasn't born with "the gift".

"The gift" is apparently the ability to search out reliable information for something you'd like to know more about.

That, and he seems to have this thing about Chinese being impossible to learn, despite the inescapable fact that billions of people apparently did.

Weird.

Well, in all fairness it's hard to escape the idea that there is specialized knowledge in any field. That's just an assumption of modern life.
but. . .
The lions share of the "learning" that goes on in music, which I consider a birthright for every human being, is just observation and experience.

All the important lessons are staring us in the face everywhere we look.
To assume specialized knowledge a prerequisite for musical self expression is to live life willfully blind to all that is real around us.

Theory doesn't make sense? Screw it. Make up your own theory, everybody else does. Don't feel like making your own rules? Screw it, Don't.
Nobody else does.
That doesn't mean you can't feel and learn.

Yo Guitartone, there's a bazillion Chinese who don't GAFF if you speak Mandarin, and there's a slightly smaller number of musicians that don't GAFF if you know anything about music. So what.

Play your guitar and just keep your eyes open and your head up and you don't need to GAFF about any of them. Right?:AOK

peace

move along. :)

[KRosser]

:) Ken

lol, you've convinced me ages ago already that "I can do it", that I have the potential to learn it all...I'm now a believer.


Nice! My work is done here.

But, after reading through this gobbeldeegook thread a few more times I'm even more convinced now that I "don't have the inclination" to learn this stuff,

'Not having the inclination' is different from 'genetically challenged'. You don't have the inclination - don't do it. Like I said a long time ago, only you and your music know what you need.

and neither do the vast majority of the members here.

Neither you or I can speak for the majority here. Anyway, why is the majority important? The majority of humans don't even play the guitar at all. Why start worrying about the majority?


I mean really, c'mon on, notice how few members have joined this discussion, why is that?


'Cause it's kind of a boring discussion?


IMO it's because this is the exact stuff that scares the living daylights out of most kids aspiring to play guitar, they read this and they run back to their computers.


Which is fine. It's OK for some things to be scary. When and if the need calls, some will find the courage and it's my personal belief they'll be better for it.


Can you imagine Jimi Hendrix reading this...about creating "tension" in a solo? :-)


No, not really. Hendrix didn't think that way. So what? Hendrix' music is just one small drop in the whole ocean.

Anyway, I don't care about what Jimi's abilities or limitations were. I only care about his music, and knowing theory has helped me learn, analyze and understand much about it.



I take it the Lydian Scale is used over the maj7 chord because all 7 tones are resting areas. The #11 does not create tension like the natural 11. Now if we are in G major, and have a D7 chord aproaching the Gmaj, the flat 5 sub gives us A flat 7. In the purest sense, that is A flat Mixolydian. I alwyas group the II-IV-V-VII chords together as you know, so maturally I play a lot of F# Lydian (the same as A flat Mixolydian) lines over that flat 5 chord.

I feel your pain.

Now see - I understand all that, but I think it's kinda a waste of time, honestly. Which is neither here nor there since they weren't asking for my advice.



I'll tell you what Jimi would say...
"Hey Eddie, did you spike my joint with heroin?"


Yeah, well, like I said - I don't care about Hendrix' methods. I only care about his music.


Anyway, talk about creating tension...I'm off to the bank right now to ask my Bank Manager for an overdraft increase for a few days.
Now that's a great way to create tension...no music theory needed.


Good luck!

[KRosser]

Well, in all fairness it's hard to escape the idea that there is specialized knowledge in any field. That's just an assumption of modern life.

Sure, but the question was whether one had to be 'genetically blessed' to amass 'specialized knowledge'. I think that's a silly idea.


but. . .
The lions share of the "learning" that goes on in music, which I consider a birthright for every human being, is just observation and experience.


I think there's probably as many shares as there are lions, since some people's experience is heavy on the academics, not at all, or all points in between.


All the important lessons are staring us in the face everywhere we look.
To assume specialized knowledge a prerequisite for musical self expression is to live life willfully blind to all that is real around us.


Of course. None of which is negated or compromised by the quest for specialized knowledge, necessarily.


Theory doesn't make sense? Screw it. Make up your own theory, everybody else does. Don't feel like making your own rules? Screw it, Don't.
Nobody else does.
That doesn't mean you can't feel and learn.

Yo Guitartone, there's a bazillion Chinese who don't GAFF if you speak Mandarin, and there's a slightly smaller number of musicians that don't GAFF if you know anything about music. So what.

Play your guitar and just keep your eyes open and your head up and you don't need to GAFF about any of them. Right?:AOK

peace

move along. :)


Well, obviously what I have to say about learning theory is entirely dependent on whether it's important to you or not. If it is important or you just regret not having it, I'm just sayin' - it's a learnable body of knowledge, it's not rocket science*. You find a reliable tutorial method and start from "See Spot Run".

And sure, not GAFF about anything is always an option.



(* Actually, rocket science is learnable too, if you're willing to work hard and start at the beginning.)

[JonR]

Can you imagine Jimi Hendrix reading this...about creating "tension" in a solo? :-)
I take it the Lydian Scale is used over the maj7 chord because all 7 tones are resting areas. The #11 does not create tension like the natural 11. Now if we are in G major, and have a D7 chord aproaching the Gmaj, the flat 5 sub gives us A flat 7. In the purest sense, that is A flat Mixolydian. I alwyas group the II-IV-V-VII chords together as you know, so maturally I play a lot of F# Lydian (the same as A flat Mixolydian) lines over that flat 5 chord.

I'll tell you what Jimi would say...
"Hey Eddie, did you spike my joint with heroin?"
Jimi didn't think that way because he had no jazz education. He wasn't a jazz player. He was a blues/R&B player, with a very fertile imagination, and a great ear.
He didn't need to think theoretically (at least in that sort of jargon) because he knew the sounds he wanted and how to find them.
When he wanted to go beyond the familiar blues/R&B stuff he grew up with, he experimented with electronic effects (distortion, flanging, delay, etc), not with jazz scales and advanced harmony.
That was where his ear and curiosity led him.
(His harmonic experimentation led to some unusual and startling chord sequences - eg Burning of the Midnight Lamp - but it was still mostly triads he played with. The famed "Hendrix chord" was a one-off, a crunchy blues tonic, not the complex functional dissonance of the 7#9 as used in jazz.)

Maybe if he'd lived he would have got deeper into jazz, and messed around with all those quoted concepts.

IOW, you CAN do it all by ear, if you want to. You don't have to learn any theory if you don't want to.
I mean, you have to understand it, intuitively, but you don't need the jargon.
Like, you can speak and write English without thinking much about the rules of grammar you are using. You don't have to go word by word, thinking "hmm, I need an adjective now, then a noun, then a verb; and this had better be the present perfect tense..." Those rules are all THERE. You know them already.
Same with music. You know the rules already, because you've heard music all your life. You know how it goes. You know when it sounds wrong and when it sounds right. Just messing around on an instrument (and listening as you do so) will lead to good music in the end. It's just that it can take a hell of a long time for some people, and they find that a little theory helps light the path for them.
If it doesn't light the path for you (or if it distracts or "blinds with science"), then you should ignore it.

Another example I often think of is John Lennon. He was a fan of mixolydian mode, used it often and very well. He just didn't know what it was called. It's the theorists that come along later and analyse what intuitive musicians do, and give it names.
How useful is it to us to be able to say that "Tomorrow Never Knows" is in mixolydian mode? It's just shorter than saying "major key with b7".
That's the whole point of this theory stuff. It's a naming system, recognising the "common practices" that musicians use. It's a way of making music EASIER to understand, to make sense of. If it doesn't do that it's a waste of time.

[ducmike]

Jimi didn't think that way because he had no jazz education. He wasn't a jazz player. He was a blues/R&B player, with a very fertile imagination, and a great ear.
He didn't need to think theoretically (at least in that sort of jargon) because he knew the sounds he wanted and how to find them.
When he wanted to go beyond the familiar blues/R&B stuff he grew up with, he experimented with electronic effects (distortion, flanging, delay, etc), not with jazz scales and advanced harmony.
That was where his ear and curiosity led him.
(His harmonic experimentation led to some unusual and startling chord sequences - eg Burning of the Midnight Lamp - but it was still mostly triads he played with. The famed "Hendrix chord" was a one-off, a crunchy blues tonic, not the complex functional dissonance of the 7#9 as used in jazz.)

Maybe if he'd lived he would have got deeper into jazz, and messed around with all those quoted concepts.

IOW, you CAN do it all by ear, if you want to. You don't have to learn any theory if you don't want to.
I mean, you have to understand it, intuitively, but you don't need the jargon.
Like, you can speak and write English without thinking much about the rules of grammar you are using. You don't have to go word by word, thinking "hmm, I need an adjective now, then a noun, then a verb; and this had better be the present perfect tense..." Those rules are all THERE. You know them already.
Same with music. You know the rules already, because you've heard music all your life. You know how it goes. You know when it sounds wrong and when it sounds right. Just messing around on an instrument (and listening as you do so) will lead to good music in the end. It's just that it can take a hell of a long time for some people, and they find that a little theory helps light the path for them.
If it doesn't light the path for you (or if it distracts or "blinds with science"), then you should ignore it.

Another example I often think of is John Lennon. He was a fan of mixolydian mode, used it often and very well. He just didn't know what it was called. It's the theorists that come along later and analyse what intuitive musicians do, and give it names.
How useful is it to us to be able to say that "Tomorrow Never Knows" is in mixolydian mode? It's just shorter than saying "major key with b7".
That's the whole point of this theory stuff. It's a naming system, recognising the "common practices" that musicians use. It's a way of making music EASIER to understand, to make sense of. If it doesn't do that it's a waste of time.


Very well said.

I always liked the explanations of the song transcriptions in the old G1 mag. They go something like " so and so used the A harmonic minor scale to build this riff...... and then went into mixylodian for this part of the solo....", and I'm thinking BS, so and so was thinking "I discovered this cool lick while f-ing around yesterday, and I think it will work here". My point is, in most pop, rock, blues, or country cases, theory is only used to explain the music, not make the music.

And for what it is worth, I'm not anti-theory, I study and apply theory on a regular basis, and it has helped me grow as a musician.

[gennation]

All this can be broke into there only being 3 Dominant chord types/functions:

a functioning V7 = Melodic Minor up a half-step
a non-functioning dom7 = Lydian b7
functioning as a I7 = Mixolydian

[KRosser]

All this can be broke into there only being 3 Dominant chord types/functions:

a functioning V7 = Melodic Minor up a half-step
a non-functioning dom7 = Lydian b7
functioning as a I7 = Mixolydian

Yeah, except you can use any of those scales for any of those functions.

And except Dom7 chords can be more than one function at a time.

What was the question again?