min ii-V to Maj

[jazzfingers19]

Here is a question. How come with a ii-7b5 V7 IMAJ7 playing the V chord as altered sounds so terrible?

I guess I approach the ii chord as a -11(9)b5.....and though typically a sus b9 on a V chord people don't like to hear it sounds right in this case>

[bwv1005]

Here is a question. How come with a ii-7b5 V7 IMAJ7 playing the V chord as altered sounds so terrible?

I guess I approach the ii chord as a -11(9)b5.....and though typically a sus b9 on a V chord people don't like to hear it sounds right in this case>

If by altered, you mean the mode of melodic minor that jazz musicians usually play over an altered chord, I can explain.

let's say your in C. ii-7b5 is D-7b5, and V is Galt. G alt. scale is from Ab melodic minor, written out, G,Ab,Bb,Cb,Db,Eb,F. This has several notes that clash with D-7b5 (G,Bb,Db,Eb). D-7b5 implies either C harmonic or melodic minor, as it is the ii chord of those scales. D does not exist in Ab, melodic minor, which is why is sounds bad. Of course it would be possible to play C harmonic or melodic minor over the D-7b5, and then switch to the Ab melodic minor over G7.

mo

[EdByrne]

Here is a question. How come with a ii-7b5 V7 IMAJ7 playing the V chord as altered sounds so terrible?

I guess I approach the ii chord as a -11(9)b5.....and though typically a sus b9 on a V chord people don't like to hear it sounds right in this case>

Because it sounds contrived: Just head towards the Major key and it will sound good. I find that this kind of local thinking from chord to chord is non-productive.

[jazzfingers19]

Thanks guys I appreciate it. Something about all the altered notes on the V chrod heading towards a major chord sounds bad.

Ed I hear that I have been trying to get away with that using your ideas. It helps a ton. I find I'm more musical playing over tunes like "Look for the Silver Lining".....The night and day thread got me thinking so I learned the tune. Being a young jazzer I still got a way to go with learning tunes.

I guess I find using motives or ideas from the melody particularly tricky with that tune.
Oh, and Mo nice site man. It was fun visiting. That cd sounds like it has some heavy hitters on it.

[LDGuy]

I think it sounds nice. As a coda mostly though - as a cadence to end a tune. I think in general improvisation, head towards the major - it's more logical.

[El Hombre]

Here is a question. How come with a ii-7b5 V7 IMAJ7 playing the V chord as altered sounds so terrible?

I think it may be how you are viewing the ii, V, I in the minor key. It doesn't follow the same logic in terms of what sounds good or substitutes for what as you find in the regular ii, V, I from the Major key.

The "ii, V, i" in the minor key (ii m7b5, V alt., i m7) isn't derived from one scale but is derived from 3 separate melodic minor scales. I think what I'm saying here is consistent with Mark Levine's Jazz Theory book.

[engelbach]

As a pianist I love the progression ii7b5-Valt-Imaj. Bill Evans plays it frequently. It's often played in the ending phrases in What Is This Thing Called Love.

I like the different collections of notes that are available over each chord.

http://www.engelbachmusic.com/forums/theory_04-09-07_1.jpg

[gennation]

Try this, in C Major...

Keep the Dm7b5, but play a Fm7b5 for the G7 chord...like

||: Dm7b5 | Fm7b5 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 :||

This is based out of the idea that you can treat the m7b5 chord as being built from the 6th note of a Jazz Minor scale (Ascending Melodic Minor scale).

So, improv wise you could play a Jazz Minor scale a m3 above each of the m7b5 chords.

Dm7b5 = F Jazz Minor
Fm7b5 = Ab Jazz Minor

It sets up some nice symmetry.

Now if you treat the Dm7b5 with a Eb Major scale (like D Locrian), a straight G Mixolydian (C Major scale) pulls it back closer to the Imaj7 (Cmaj7).

I think I got that right. I'll check at home tonight.

[EdByrne]

As a pianist I love the progression ii7b5-Valt-Imaj. Bill Evans plays it frequently. It's often played in the ending phrases in What Is This Thing Called Love.

I like the different collections of notes that are available over each chord.

http://www.engelbachmusic.com/forums/theory_04-09-07_1.jpg
For the record I should point out, though, that this lick will work on any form of 2, 5 cadence. Its strength is in the color of the 9, 11, and -5 on the 2 chord, and the +9 and -9 on the V. This is the kind of idiom (figure of speech) that jazz musicians used to practice before anyone heard of chord scales, and it is a valid way of teaching vocabulary. However, it (the lick) does not imply any given 7-note scales. Indeed, the first measure displays a hexachord, while the 2nd proffers a trichord. The chord symbols with modal implications are irrelevant and misleading, since all seven notes are not represented--or needed.

[gennation]

Try this, in C Major...

Keep the Dm7b5, but play a Fm7b5 for the G7 chord...like

||: Dm7b5 | Fm7b5 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 :||

This is based out of the idea that you can treat the m7b5 chord as being built from the 6th note of a Jazz Minor scale (Ascending Melodic Minor scale).

So, improv wise you could play a Jazz Minor scale a m3 above each of the m7b5 chords.

Dm7b5 = F Jazz Minor
Fm7b5 = Ab Jazz Minor

It sets up some nice symmetry.

Now if you treat the Dm7b5 with a Eb Major scale (like D Locrian), a straight G Mixolydian (C Major scale) pulls it back closer to the Imaj7 (Cmaj7).

I think I got that right. I'll check at home tonight.

What I'm getting at here essentially is instead of planting that G7alt with a G Root, use a different Root built on harmonies of the Ab Jazz Minor scale...

For instance, Abm6 sounds great too, so:

||: Dm7b5 | Abm6 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 :||

Also if you treat the 7b9 chords as dim7 chords you can get some nice stuff to. Like...

||: Dm7b5 | Fdim7 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 :||

The Fdim7 contains F B D Ab, basically a Rootless G7b9 chord. And of course Fdim7 = Abdim7, Bdim7, Ddim7 also, So, be sure to substitue those...of superimpose them.

Try mix and matching...

||: Dm7b5 | Fm7b5 Fdim7 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 :||

Just a few ideas to "sweeten" the sound of Alteredness.

Play through them back to back...

||: Dm7b5 | Fm7b5 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 | Dm7b5 | Abm6 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 | Dm7b5 | Fdim7 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 | Dm7b5 | Fm7b5 Fdim7 | Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 :||

You can put them in any order really, some my flow better.

Have fun!

[engelbach]

However, it (the lick) does not imply any given 7-note scales. The chord symbols with modal implications are irrelevant and misleading, since all seven notes are not represented--or needed.

Ed, you raise interesting points but I don't always understand them.

I agree that F melodic minor and what many of us call the G altered scale (Ab melodic minor) sound good over Dm7b5 and Galt.

The lick uses notes that are available in those modes, but it's not a definitive representation of them. Any or all of the other notes existing in those modes could be used. The lick is not meant to imply that one must play the chords notated. It just shows one way to play over them and not, in jazzfingers19's words, sound "terrible."

BTW, I found your free 7-day course very thought-provoking. Thanks.

[jazzfingers19]

Ya man I am hip to the whole -7b5 up a m3 to the alt...and or using every other chord of the specific melodic minor as the alt chord.


My thought was that all the tensions thrown on that V sound ...well not good to me. Maybe it is a personal thing. Head twowards major and ignore the other shit.

[EdByrne]

Ed, you raise interesting points but I don't always understand them.

I agree that F melodic minor and what many of us call the G altered scale (Ab melodic minor) sound good over Dm7b5 and Galt.

The lick uses notes that are available in those modes, but it's not a definitive representation of them. Any or all of the other notes existing in those modes could be used. The lick is not meant to imply that one must play the chords notated. It just shows one way to play over them and not, in jazzfingers19's words, sound "terrible."

BTW, I found your free 7-day course very thought-provoking. Thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't talking here about scales at all, but others inevitably go there. I was reacting to the talk of--and the chord symbol--altered. While the notes in measure 2 could be in the altered scale, they could be in other, different, scales as well. More importantly to me, however, is that they are pitch collections independent of any scale. I initially learned them as idioms in and of themselves, independent of 7-note scales. My point is that the presence of some notes does not necessarily imply that of others.

In addition, I resist using chord symbols that prescribe scales for improvisation.

PS: I'm happy you found the essays of interest.

[engelbach]

I'm not sure what you mean.... My point is that the presence of some notes does not necessarily imply that of others.
In addition, I resist using chord symbols that prescribe scales for improvisation.


Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. The fact that one can play that melody over other harmonies is true, but I think not to the point of the thread.

The thread's theme is that jazzfingers didn't like the sound of ii7b5-Valt-I. I'm saying that if one wants to play that chord progression, a melody like this one, or any other melody using notes from those scales, sounds fine.

Conversely, given that melody, one can choose to play those chords — or not. Regardless, I like the sound of ii7b5-Valt-Imaj.

I know you don't like chord-driven improvisation. I don't disagree with you about not locking in chord qualities.

Since many of us play new material from lead sheets, we expect the chord symbols on the chart to be consonant with the head. If that leads some musicians to lock those particular chords into their improvs, well, it all depends on whether they're inventive with it or are just running scale exercises.

During solos, chords can be played that follow the improvised melody. Or one can try. I can't always anticipate where my tenor player is going, something I have to work harder at.

[EdByrne]

Since many of us play new material from lead sheets, we expect the chord symbols on the chart to be consonant with the head. If that leads some musicians to lock those particular chords into their improvs, well, it all depends on whether they're inventive with it or are just running scale exercises.
I don't expect that at all. I expect only that the lead sheet tell me the chords that will coexist with the melody--and my line. I try not to have the chords dictate what I'll play. This premise is liberating.

For example, I have a composition in Eb in which the B section melody clearly is in D, while the B section chords are secondary dominants which cast the melody as 9ths, 11ths and 13ths. I can play in D, which flies in the face of the chords, and yet the line works because of its relationship to the melody.

I have played with--and heard--too many pianists, for instance, whose right and left hands are locked in a chord voicing=scale paradigm that is boring and predicable as hell.

[engelbach]

Since many of us play new material from lead sheets, we expect the chord symbols on the chart to be consonant with the head. If that leads some musicians to lock those particular chords into their improvs, well, it all depends on whether they're inventive with it or are just running scale exercises.
I don't expect that at all. I expect only that the lead sheet tell me the chords that will coexist with the melody--and my line. I try not to have the chords dictate what I'll play. This premise is liberating.

For example, I have a composition in Eb in which the B section melody clearly is in D, while the B section chords are secondary dominants which cast the melody as 9ths, 11ths and 13ths. I can play in D, which flies in the face of the chords, and yet the line works because of its relationship to the melody.

I have played with--and heard--too many pianists, for instance, whose right and left hands are locked in a chord voicing=scale paradigm that is boring and predicable as hell.

What's the difference between chords being "consonant with the head" and chords "that will coexist with the melody"?

Can you post a sample chart? It would help me to understand what you mean, including "flies in the face of the chords" in the above piece.

I was also wondering if there's anywhere on line to hear your playing.

[EdByrne]

What's the difference between chords being "consonant with the head" and chords "that will coexist with the melody"?

Can you post a sample chart? It would help me to understand what you mean, including "flies in the face of the chords" in the above piece.

I was also wondering if there's anywhere on line to hear your playing.

Jerry,

By the first phrase I mean "inside." By the 2nd term I mean "not chord generated (not based on the chordal accompaniment)."

You can hear excerpts of my CD, Two Shades of Blue at Cannibalmusic.com, where individual cuts can be purchased also; but I've really gotten deeply into that of which I speak only recently and have no definitive recordings of me using this approach as yet. I'm working on a couple of projects now, though.

Also, both Phil Kelly and I have been lamenting our inability thus far to throw up Finale examples on the forum. Thus, I can't do that either.

There's a chapter in my book, Linear Improvisation, called Melody Pitch Collections, in which, for those tunes in which this works, I take the entire melody of a given phrase and make a pc out of it for improvisation. In such circumstances I find that, while these melody notes often clash with the underlying local chords due to the rephrasing process of improvisation, they work great nonetheless because of the strong pull and logic of the melody itself. I view this as a principle that supercedes any deference to chords; and when analyzed from the perspective of chord scale theory they would be called outright wrong. But it works for me bigtime.

My experimentations with liberating myself from the tyranny of chords started, perhaps, with creating rapidly moving chord sucessions on the blues. I would, for example, place a simple blues phrase over some very outrageous chords--and them ignore them in improvisation, favoring instead basic blues idioms (licks). The chords merely cast the lines in an "out" context, without interfering with the integrity of the blues. Locally, however, the blues often clashes with the underlying local chords. It's an effect that I like a great deal these days, and there are many other such approaches which I'm currently exploring and developing.

Perhaps later I'll attempt to spell these examples out in letter names--not an ideal way to make clear what I'm saying here, though.

My over-riding point here, though, is that I have various strategies that I employ towards my stated goal of improvising off of the composition's melody, melodic rhythms and other salient characterisitics in preference to basing my lines off of chords--and by entention, chord scales. The results are at very least more meaningful: At best they can produce genuine excitement and suprise.

Best,
Ed

[engelbach]

By the first phrase I mean "inside." By the 2nd term I mean "not chord generated (not based on the chordal accompaniment)." ...

Also, both Phil Kelly and I have been lamenting our inability thus far to throw up Finale examples on the forum. Thus, I can't do that either.

... I take the entire melody of a given phrase and make a pc out of it for improvisation. In such circumstances I find that, while these melody notes often clash with the underlying local chords ... and when analyzed from the perspective of chord scale theory they would be called outright wrong. But it works for me bigtime.

Perhaps later I'll attempt to spell these examples out in letter names--not an ideal way to make clear what I'm saying here, though.


Thanks, Ed. That's much clearer. I think your approach is exciting, but unless I'm hearing you wrong, your antipathy to chord-based improvisation seems to deny the creative vitality of all the chord-based jazz that's come before.

In order to post a Finale file, you have to first save it as a graphic PIC or TIF, crop it if necessary, and save it in a web-compatible format such as JPG, GIF, or PNG. That's how I made the sample I posted, which was done in Finale 2005.

[EdByrne]

Thanks, Ed. That's much clearer. I think your approach is exciting, but unless I'm hearing you wrong, your antipathy to chord-based improvisation seems to deny the creative vitality of all the chord-based jazz that's come before.

In order to post a Finale file, you have to first save it as a graphic PIC or TIF, crop it if necessary, and save it in a web-compatible format such as JPG, GIF, or PNG. That's how I made the sample I posted, which was done in Finale 2005.
You lost me right after the TIF. I can't do that stuff.

I have no antipathy for chord-based playing--especially that which was done in the past; but this is 2007 and I'm bored with doing that alone. I DO have antipathy towards chord scale theory, however, (which I taught at Berklee and elsewhere), since I have come to view it as misleading and produces meaningless results which have little or no relationship to the composition at hand. Moreover, 7-note scales foster conjunct playing that makes for uninteresting lines in my view; and they ignore a much more powerful (and traditional) element: chromatic non-harmonic tones, which propel a line forwards.

[engelbach]

Ed, if you want to email me your Finale files I can post them for you, or I can email them back to you in a format you can post yourself. It only takes a few minutes for me to convert them.

jerry@engelbachmusic.com

[engelbach]

Ed, do you know the David Liebman book A Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody?

[EdByrne]

Ed, do you know the David Liebman book A Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody?

Yes.

[engelbach]

... and?

[EdByrne]

... and?

and I'm not into it. I'd really rather not go into it, though, because I have found it unproductive (and painful) whenever I criticize a well-liked book.

I very much agree with L in that it's high time we incorporate 20th century music into jazz, not to mention that of the 21st. I have been working on my own strategies, though.

[sounds212001]

and I'm not into it. I'd really rather not go into it, though, because I have found it unproductive (and painful) whenever I criticize a well-liked book.

I very much agree with L in that it's high time we incorporate 20th century music into jazz, not to mention that of the 21st. I have been working on my own strategies, though.

I feel that one of the negative aspects that hinder the development of jazz is the lack of support for the players who are trying new ideas currently or in the past. If we can get Jazz to be respected as an art form, rather than a commercially viable product, there would be more room for true development

[EdByrne]

I feel that one of the negative aspects that hinder the development of jazz is the lack of support for the players who are trying new ideas currently or in the past. If we can get Jazz to be respected as an art form, rather than a commercially viable product, there would be more room for true development

Quite true--and an audience for it. Perhaps groove is the key. My new group is concentrating on 20th & 21st century sounds over funk and Latin ostinatos with different recurring forms. I think if it grooves hard enough and is played motivically off of the composition, it will have meaning--and perhaps even be accepted.

[bwv1005]

I feel that one of the negative aspects that hinder the development of jazz is the lack of support for the players who are trying new ideas currently or in the past. If we can get Jazz to be respected as an art form, rather than a commercially viable product, there would be more room for true development

Well Jazz is respected as an art form, which doesn't mean that it can't be commercially viable. Something that has artistic value can still be sold as a product. That's how we make a living, outside of teaching, grants, etc. I think it is up to the players to create music that engages the audience enough to want to buy a product. If new ideas don't work, there's probably a reason for it which is the fault of the artist. I've seen plenty of artists who don't rely on audience or commercial support in Europe and elsewhere, getting subsidized by the government or arts grants and putting out total crap. There are plenty of ways to make money without pandering or degrading the product, such as putting out something that people genuinely enjoy, and not feel that it's something they "should" listen to out of a sense of cultural obligation...

mo

[ChrisLNZ]

ok my apologies this isn't related to the current topic, but going back to jazzfingers' original question, i think possibly your main problem with the altered tones in the V chord sounding bad is perhaps not to do with what you're playing over the V, but where you take them to the 1. you must resolve altered tones for them to sound strong. just listen to Charles Parker. in a G7altered you might play a b9 on the top, Ab - if you have it resolve a half step down to G, the fifth of Cmajor, when going to the 1, it will sound really great. or even nicer, on the G7altered playing a #5, D# on the top of the chord, when you resolve to Cmajor, again resolve the note a half step down to D on the top, giving a Cmajor 9 chord. b5 to Maj9 resolution is what my life revolves around..
i hope i havn't missed something and you already know this or something..

cheers, Chris

[Mario Abbagliati]

and I'm not into it. I'd really rather not go into it, though, because I have found it unproductive (and painful) whenever I criticize a well-liked book.

I very much agree with L in that it's high time we incorporate 20th century music into jazz, not to mention that of the 21st. I have been working on my own strategies, though.

I'm not into it either. There's something about it that somehow puts me off.

[jlee]

I'm not into it either. There's something about it that somehow puts me off.

With this and other ringing endorsements, it seems I have some ready-made advertisement for a light-hearted, but serious bit of spam. Anyone want to buy a near mint copy of this book? If so, PM! I know, it's:offtopic, but :violin