Discussion in 'Playing and Technique' started by dead of night, Jul 3, 2019.
Chuck Sher's New Real Book has a great sheet on it.
Yes. Never ask jazz musicians how to use a chord...
Kinda like a friend of mine used to say... Never ask a German for an opinion unless you want by one
Play an F bass note or even an Fmaj chord and then a Bmin7b5 on top, does it need to resolve? Like you said, F6b5.
This is where the roman numeral thing totally looses me. Anyway, there's no way I would think of Sunny as in Fmaj. It's A minor all the way. But I'm self taught, I learned all this stuff on the street...
I dunno, a F6b5 to my ears is mosdef not stable and wants to resolve at least with any voicings I can think of...7b5 on the other hand as vamp all day long.
Kinda like what 7#9 is in Rock for Latin stuff.
As for Sunny...to me it goes between two key centers
I hope I'm not looking down the wrong path, but I tend to simplify the whole altered chord thing when looking at jazz and see the basic roman numeral patterns first, that way they all make simple sense, and then the alterations to the chords is like adding a different color and feel to them, enhancing them, giving them character and depth that is not there in a simple generic major or minor.
Using that sense the basic progression can still be "seen" in its most basic single dimension movement, but then the alterations add more dimensions to it. Often one of those added dimensions is the movement of the chord notes to create sub melodies and chromatic steps. Often those reside in the middle three DGB strings that can make close chordal harmonies in those sub movements and changes. Often times the m7b5 is a chromatic stepping stone.
Another one to look at is the M7+5
Exactly. IMO, that's the whole point of an altered dominant. It's not about making the V7 sound funky. OK, it does that - but it does that for a reason, which is voice-leading to the next chord.
It's different with something like a 7#9 tonic chord, where the alteration is an expression of the blues, not a functional harmony thing.
I guess similar considerations apply to this question (above) of whether a F6b5 chord makes a stable tonic. I can see it's more stable if it has the P5 - i.e., if it's F6#11, not F6b5. But often in jazz, stability is in the ear of the beholder - it's subjective. It's about listening experience. That's how a dom7-type chord can work as a blues tonic - we're so used to hearing it used that way (a kind of mixolydian tonic) - around 65 years of rock'n'roll - that we no longer wait for the resolution; we accept the tension as "colour". But if the song is not blues, then our expectations change.
in context it could refer to voice leading, or looking at a bigger picture. For example - creating movement "within" a single chord (e.g. soli/section writing in big band arrangement) ...
or at with Harris a bigger picture where the individual chords might just be suggestions on the way to a destination.
...and I don't think its off topic to mention Barry Harris WRT m6 and m7b5. That's one of his things - m6 with 6th in the bass is how he sometimes looks at m7b5 chords.
I was thinking about this and realized something amusing...I think the same people who brought CST to jazz also brought functional analysis to jazz...not sure of the exact order of things in history.
I remember first looking at the Nettles and Graf "Chord Scale Theory" book and seeing a bunch of Berklee-style functional analysis diagrams. I was kind of confused and thought "I was expecting some far out modal stuff in here, not ATTYA!"
Try Ron Miller's Modal Jazz Composition book for that
You may be right, in that academic jazz theory only really took off after modal jazz, so any proper pedagogy would cover both sets of principles. Functional harmony obviously pre-dates modal jazz, but most people applying functional analysis to jazz before modal jazz would have been classically trained. After all, jazz musicians would always have had some level of training in classical functional harmony, just as part of their instrumental lessons. Before modal jazz, functional harmony was all there was. CST wasn't invented because there was no need for it. Improvisers learned their skills mostly on the bandstand, from other jazz musicians. (There were a few jazz schools or band camps in those days, but no central system of jazz pedagogy AFAIK.) Modal jazz made functional analysis redundant, and needed theories of its own. Hello CST.
But then people decided to look back at the functional standards through CST glasses, and suddenly it all got way more complicated than it had to be.
I have a copy of Nettles and Graf too, and there is good stuff in it. Despite the title, it's not an evangelical CST bible by any means. If you want contentious modal bias, then Mark Levine is your man!
Why... because the Beatles never did it? Because you haven’t seen it done?
Here’s a great tonic voicing for locrian:
then maybe a secondary chord:
Part of the charm of writing in any mode... even the weird ones... is designing some cool voicings. They don’t need to have a V chord. Any secondary chord can be used or not used.
Well, the latter. This is about "common practice", not laws. And also a sensible and consistent use of terminology.
In what sense is that "tonic"? It just sounds like a minor key ii chord to me. Or maybe a major key vii.
Obviously it's a locrian "root" chord - if I can slightly misuse that term. It would work as a locrian modal chord. But "tonic" - in the sense it it's used in tonality and major and minor keys?
Does it sound finished? Could you resolve to it?
Which is more consonant than your "tonic" locrian chord. Use those two together, and the first one (Bm11b5?) would resolve easily to the second (Cmaj7). So the latter is the "tonic" in its conventional sense.
An interesting Dm13, which I'd call a dorian chord. I don't mean a major key ii chord, btw, as the combination of C and B might subvert that function. But a nice dorian colour. Nothing to do with locrian mode (more stable than the Bm11b5).
Yes, but you're talking modes. I was talking keys, because that was the conversation I was adding to. That's what I mean by "tonic" - an identifiable "I" chord, which can be major or minor, but not diminished, because diminished chords are unstable (functionally dissonant).
Sure, although the convention is that a secondary chord would contain the character note of the mode. Again, not a rule, except in the sense of a "common practice". Otherwise I agree, a mode can have various harmonisations, pretty much at random. The idea is to avoid any hint of functionality, to stop the ear being drawn to the relative major.
Is this because you prefer his book to the Nettles and Graf one?
No it's because it's literally about nothing than modal stuff
The question was how to use a minor 7(b5) chord. I just illustrated a use... and an unusual and (gasp) original way of using it. I have no problem hearing it as tonic... sure it is dissonant.... play it long enough... it’s a beautiful chord unto itself.
So much of how to use any chord is how you voice it. What comes before it... what comes after it. The rhythm, the phrasing.
The way you refer to “common practice”.... it might as well be law. It comes off like... “that’s not what’s done... so you can’t do that”.
I’m always looking for what’s not typically done... and asking “what can I do with it?
Have you worked out of that book before? Or use it just for reference?
I have a copy...2 volume set. I like his classifications of different modal forms - like plateau modal, vertical/linear modal. His recommendations are great too. I remember one recommendation is "Yellow Bell" by Oregon (w/ Ralph Towner). I hadn't heard of that band before that.
One of Ben Monder's (and many others) teachers.
I'm still making my way through it... Got both volumes.
I actually had no idea...