Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Playing and Technique' started by Tag, Feb 23, 2020.
What sub V-1??? I know of no traditional V-1 with a maj7 in the Dom7 chord.
You already had it I thought? I even drew you a diagram.
I said subV...
The sound in question per JonR C/D...to C#-m
D is the Tritone sub of G#7...it's a min V i or more specifically subV i.
C/D=D7sus=Am11(no 9) or with the major 7 in it D13sus/ Am11.
If you're referring to the C note as the Major 7....it belongs to the subV and us the b7 of that.
And there is the b3 relation ship.
I knew the b3 relationship existed in relation to dom7 chords, I didn't realise it could be applied to the whole harmonised major scale.
The concept iirc is that if you extend any harmonized chord to the 13 you have all pitches if the scale hence all 7 diatonic chords are the same. Now add the dominant chord's b3 relation ship an reassess...
It makes perfect sense, although the results are also taking stuff quite out.
But the so is the C/D to C#- we're blabbing on about, and that works fine.
In the end it literally is just tension and release...
I won't be able to get my hands on a guitar for a few days, but I'm keen to try it out to see how it sounds.
Just start with something simple like Dmin7 > G7 > Ebmaj7.
Works all day...I just had the argument with Jon a few weeks ago. Eb∆7 is a direct sub for C-...as tonic in function as C- or C.
And for more fun play it with a G pedal as G13sus, G7#5, Eb/G
I'm not sure it's any more a twist having the diminished 4th there, than having an augmented 4th...
I mean I think of the So What chord as having a major third on top but am fairly certain it's meaning is b4.
But that bII9sus to i-m11 as pointed out is not that.
Cause it technically has the chords 9 on top.
Well, Tag disagrees with you!
All I'm doing here is raising my eyebrows (mildly) at the idea of substitutions which go one more step than necessary, and end up not being functional substitutions at all - i.e., they no longer work in the way the chords they are supposed to substitute for work. It doesn't mean the chords/notes don't still "work" - only that a different explanation is required.
To take your analysis:
1. the key is C# minor, but the chord being apparently targeted is F#m7/A. (I say apparently, because guitarjazz's explanation suggests to me that it could be a response to the previous quartal piano voicings.)
2. Assuming he's thinking "outside C# minor", rather than "outside F#m" (quite possible), yes D7 is tritone sub of G#7. But tritone subs are not sus chords. They have #11s, not P11s. The G natural contradicts that function, quite seriously. (I don't mean a major 7th can't be used on a dom7 chord melodically, but it makes no sense as part of an superimposed arpeggio.)
3. In your last comment you're talking about it resolving to F#m or A, the next chord, not C#m. C#m is often a sub for A or F#m, but it doesn't work vice versa. The chord change here (just after this little phrase) is significant - whatever we want to guess his thinking was. You can't explain his phrase as resolving to both - at least not using the same justification.
4. Yes, C/D goes nicely to A, but as (IMO) a blues resolution. Like Am going to A. We're not talking tritone subs any more - at least not without a really tortuous roundabout process. We're talking simple chromatic voice-leading.
5. If a tritone sub can be evoked, it's a tritone sub for E7, V of A. D-G-C-E are all part of E7alt or Bb9#11. I still think that's a stretch, an over-complication, but it fits better than a sub for G#7, or for C#7 (V of F#m, ruled out by the C natural)
IMO, what makes this little 4-note phrase so interesting is the very fact that's it's detached from what's happening around it. It's dissonant, but it's also very quick, and he takes a breath before continuing with his following phrase on the F#m/A chord. He's not resolving the dissonance directly. So we can't tell what his thinking is. Maybe he's just metaphorically clearing his throat? Throwing in a little semi-random, deliberately ambiguous dissonance before coming back "inside"?
Maybe even - gasp! - playing a wrong note! (Maybe that's why he took a brief break, to correct himself. We've all done it... )
Jon!!! Quartal harmony...
For a m7 you get 6 m11(no9) with 2 of then being passing chords and 6 9sus4 Voicings with one being a passing chord.
Top note stays the same. That's the example guitarjazz cited.
It's all mini V i or Actually bII9sus i.
So that 9sus is very much the Tritone sub.
And how much more Blues does it get then a minor Blues Scale on a minor Blues...
Thanks for that, Tag, very interesting. I had to transcribe that short couple of seconds for myself, and I think I get what you're saying. Nor sure I totally agree, of course - but then you'd expect no less from me .
In the bar of Cm7 before it goes to Fm7, he starts with a B major triad (beat 1) resolving very briefly to C. I'd class that first F# note as a blues #4/b5. The Eb-B-C are then a plain enough resolution to Cm.
Then there's the interesting bit. An Ab note leads into B-A-Ab (beat 3), followed by Eb-Db-C (beat 4). Together they don't fit one scale, but imply resolution to Ab (Fm7) chord tones. That's plain enough - anticipating the chord - but the strange choices are the A natural and Db. Obviously they work as chromatic approaches to the chord tones - from above rather than below.
Equally obviously, I can see that more complex interpretations are possible, especially if you're aware of similar phrases he plays elsewhere, perhaps with more notes that give more clues as to his thinking.
Personally I don't see enough here to justify a D7-G7alt-Cm interpretation of that last bar - assuming that's what you mean. (There's a definite G7 hint in the previous bar, 1:01 - just as there is a C7 arp in the first Fm bar, standard "outside" stuff.) Some of the notes fit, but one or two don't, and they also fit other interpretations.
If they're going to fit a very loose II7-V7alt-i analysis, then it seems (to me) to be too loose to be of any use.
As we always say (well I do anyway ), all 12 notes are always available, and they all work in relatively "in" or "out" ways with the context. And sometimes we can make arpeggios out of them to give phrases a structure. I'm just not sold on everything being reducible to functional substitutions. (Even if it is, why?) Chromatic voice-leading, arpeggios, melodic shape. That's enough for me. Oh yeah and rhythm too.
Then again, you know Benson's work a lot better than I do! I found a couple of youtube transcriptions of his Stella solo, but not one with any analysis. Can you give me a link, either to the one with the confused guy, or precise moments in the solo (time stamps, bar numbers or chords on the video) where he does the thing we're talking about here?
I don't quite follow that (at least in connection with the current topic), but I don't disagree...
EDIT: see my next post
Whoah, it's this "bII9sus" that needs unpacking...
No it isn't. Not by any sensible (useful) definition of the term.
A "tritone" sub, by definition, retains the tritone of the V7 chord. Just being rooted a tritone away is not enough. It's the 3rd and 7th that make it function the same way, which make it "substitute", functionally.
That means it can't have a sus4, because that would be the #4/b5 of the key.
bII9sus can easily resolve to a minor tonic, but it resolves in a different way - by mixed chromatic voice-leading and one shared tone.
But we're talking minor blues scale of the bVI chord, which is not "blues" at all. In actual minor key blues, the bVI chord is itself a representative of the tonic blues scale, not the blues scale of its root.
Again, I'm not saying jazz can't do all kinds of other things in messing around with the blues. Obviousl it does! But definition of terms matters here. This is what 99% of disagreements about theory boil down to. We have to agree on consistent definitions of terminology - which do exist in jazz despite the superior sniffs of classical theorists!
I don't know if a bII9sus-i cadence has a name (I might see if I can find out), but "tritone sub" it's not. A tritone sub is different (minimally but significantly), and the difference matters. At least if theory is going to be worth discussing at all.
Might I suggest you start with subbing just the V7 chord:
Dm7 > ( the entire list) > Cmaj7
Some subs, you may find, you should just stay away from.
Without a guitar, it’s fun to analyze where the 1/2 step resolutions would be.
Ex. A F D C >B Eb F# F> E C D E
I should have replied to this before the above, because it's a clearer illustration of what you're saying.
It's definitely an interesting move, but quite different from a tritone sub resolution.
Again, obvious chromatic planing with one shared tone. Nothing traditionally functional there at all.
I can see a mix of tritone sub with blues elements, but IMO it's simpler than that.
But thanks for that illustration - I wasn't thinking of the quartal move in that way, and hadn't noticed that he did partially resolve to C#m quartal tones (C# D# G# F#).
It's very much what it is in Quartal harmony.
In this case C#m gets harmonized with minor Blues..each note gets a stack of fourth underneath. The m7(11) is all 4th, the accompanying bII has the 3 (actually dim 4) on top...that is also very much what guitarjazz referenced in his Dm example.
Complain to guys like Miles about it not being a V i....and no it certainly isn't common practice chord subs.
Silly me, I just think of a nice melody and try to make it swing!
Bar 16 (Eb Alto Sax transposed)
Bbm -> Ebm
Db A E
(E from previous A triad) B Ab
Could be Bbm (A triad -> partial E triad -> anticipate Ebm) -> Ebm
V7 of Ebm is Bb7
b5th of Bb7 is E7
put a cycle of 5ths A7 before the E7
In the end, I think a line like that transcends theory. Garrett just likes using it that particular change, and apparently often.
OK. Let's hear no more about tritone subs, then.
[Sigh] You're never going to make it as a jazz theorist, are you?