Chord Substition?

[joshnerez]

i mean is chord substitution..
ei guys, need your help, a little primer pls..from the very basic to the next level..im kinda confused learning on my own..thanks a lot..

[EdByrne]

i mean is chord substitution..
ei guys, need your help, a little primer pls..from the very basic to the next level..im kinda confused learning on my own..thanks a lot..

josherez:

Obviously chord substitution involves the replacing of one chord with another. The simplest form of this would be to replace one diatonic chord (having only notes within the key) with another of the same or similar function. For example, in the key of C Major you could use any of the following tonic chords (at rest) relatively interchangably:

T (Tonic-at rest): C MA7, I MA7; Em7, iii7; Am7, vi7

SD (Subdominant-active): F MA7, ii7, IV MA7

D: (Dominant--most active, usually containing the Tritone--+4th interval containing the 4th and the leading tone of the key): V7 and vii7-5.

The next most common type is the Substitiute Dominant (Sub5), a dominant chord whose root is an +4th away from V7, and resolves down a -2nd instead of up a P4th: G7=Db7. As with Secondary dominants, there are also Secondary Substitute Dominants.

For much more of this in the way of examples, see my lenghthy post below,, in which i analyze 6 different reharmonizatons of Here's that Rainy Day:

http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/showposts.php?dept=analysis&topic=20070609123746_EdByrne

You could begin by comparing the example labled "Diatonic substitutions" with the "Standard Changes" in the example that preceeds it. Check that out and then ask more questions if you like.

A basic theory text would help you, too, such as Walter Piston's Harmony.

Best,
Ed

[bassist]

I would recommend that you check out what Mark Levine has to say on the subject in "The Jazz Theory Book".
I fear that Walter Piston's Harmony might only make things more difficult. Piston explains classical theory fairly clearly, which could help with the sorts of things that Ed Byrne explained (all except the substitute dominants... well let's just say that Piston has them in a place where their function as dominants, as used in jazz, is COMPLETELY obscured). but i think that often times making the link between classical theory and jazz theory is difficult. why not start straight with a book intended for jazz theory? and Levine does a pretty good job with substitutions.

So, definitely take Byrnes explanation of the basic ideas. but then there are other substitutions which are more idiomatic to jazz.

also, if someone could talk about how/when to use substitutions, it would really help me. i just can't get the concept, no matter how much it is beaten into me, that rhythm section players would just throw a new set of changes on one another without warning. i just can't believe it! there must be something more that i'm missing.

dan

p.s... this sounds silly... my ear is currently improving, but it is certainly not good yet. i would LOVE it if someone could help me to understand substitutions by pointing out, for example, a place in a version of Autumn Leaves (a tune that i know well) where a sub is made. like, if anyone can think of a specific recording. and if someone can mention the time on that recording where it happens, that'd help things a lot. basically, i'd love to listen FOR the substitution so i can begin to get these things in my ear. i understand them as a matter of music theory, but i don't hear them yet. ARGHH! thanks all!

[EdByrne]

I fear that Walter Piston's Harmony might only make things more difficult. Piston explains classical theory fairly clearly, which could help with the sorts of things that Ed Byrne explained (all except the substitute dominants... well let's just say that Piston has them in a place where their function as dominants, as used in jazz, is COMPLETELY obscured (?)). but i think that often times making the link between classical theory and jazz theory is difficult. why not start straight with a book intended for jazz theory? and Levine does a pretty good job with substitutions.

So, definitely take Byrnes explanation of the basic ideas. but then there are other substitutions which are more idiomatic to jazz.

Piston Harmony: COMPLETELY obscured (?):

Secondary Dominants: pp. 59-61; 278-84; 246-257

Augmented Sixth Chord (Sub V): pg. 414.

Go to the source: Jazz Theory is an oximoron, since no such thing exists in reality.

Since all harmony comes from Western art music (read classical music), there are NO "other substitutions which are more idiomatic to jazz."

[bassist]

Ed,
i know that his explanation of secondary dominants is very clear. i was referring to his explanation of tri-tone subs. i DO think that reading piston for an explanation of the jazz usage of tri-tone subs can be confusing. i don't have piston here (i'm a college student home for about a month, so i left all my books in storage at school), so i can't reference what he writes about the augmented sixth chords. all i know is that when i learned about augmented sixth chords in my classical music theory classes, it was in no way apparent that there was a connection to jazz (this was a connection i made for myself shortly after studying them in class). all i was saying is that i do not think that reading about augmented sixth chords is a good way to learn how tri-tone subs work. aside from it just not being entirely clear that they are, essentially, the same thing... there are indeed differences between the german 6th in classical theory and a tri-tone sub for a dominant in jazz. i'm sure that Piston makes it very clear that the function of a german 6th is to
resolve to a dominant. the german 6th is a pre-dominant. i don't know whether this is Pistons explanation or someone elses, but one way to think about german 6ths is that they came from vii65/V (first inversion applied leading tone chord of the dominant)... if you are on that chord and you go to the dominant with the bass descending through scale degree flat 6 as a chromatic passing tone, you will find yourself on what came to be known as the german 6th. but, the case remains that in many ways (including for correct voice leading), the german 6th functions like a vii65 of V.
anyways... the point is that that is all information that a classical text on harmony, such as Pistons book, might contain about the german 6th. and even if you make sense of hte fact that the german 6th and tri-tone sub are related, i argue that all of the above information would be misleading. in classical harmony, a german 6th functions as a secondary dominant... as a heightened or intensified pre-dominant. in jazz, the analogous tri-tone sub, functions as a dominant itself. in classical music, if you had the following:

d minor followed by a dominant built on d flat, this would resolve to a dominant built on c, and you would clearly be in the key of F major.

however, in jazz, d minor followed by Db dominant could VERY well imply that the tonic was C major. the progression here would be a ii V7 I, just with a tri-tone sub. however, in classical music, this would all VERY clearly imply that the chord built on C was NOT a tonic... if you asked Piston (though I believe he's dead)... i am sure that he would hear without a doubt that this was all a progression IN F.


--------LESS TECHNICAL LANGUAGE BELOW------


i disagree with your claim that jazz theory is an oxymoron since no such thing exists in reality. i admit that i am not positive what you mean by that. but let me take my best stab at what you might mean. if i am interpreting this wrong, then forgive me for my off-topic defense.
it seems to me that your claim is that jazz has historically been played by ear and whatnot, without the musicians necessarily knowing anythign about "music theory". certainly things can fly in the jazz world whether or not they make sense in any sort of music theory way. take for example, a beautiful tune like Beatrice. it's hard to stick roman numerals on that!
if that is your claim, agree with all of that. but that doesn't mean that there is no jazz theory! mozart and brahms never studied music theory as such. that doens't mean that later on, people weren't able to make a science out of the logic behind their work (those people called that science "music theory"). the great composers of classical music would not have known what the word "augmented sixth chord" meant... nor would they have understood "ii65", "N6" or "applied leading tone chord". they made music that SOUNDED right. their ears had over time learned the set of rules that were implied in the music that came before them. if you played them something where the 7th of a chord was not resolved correctly, they would have said something like "hey, you can't leave that tension just hanging out like that! take care of it properly". but that is just because they didn't like the sound of it... not because anyone ever said to them "7ths go down".

do you get where i'm going with this? music theory is a construct that happened AFTER the music was composed in order to explain a set of music. there are rules inherent in ANY music that is in any way logical. in classical music, the composers were not explicitly aware of the rules that defined their music in the way that we are, after the fact, although they would have thoguht something sounded funny if it did not obey those rules.
i suspect that it is exactly the same thing in jazz! there IS a logic behind jazz music (although maybe a few different logics... maybe not a universal one). there IS a set of rules that defines what sounds right and what doesn't sound right to us. for some of these, we have a way of talking about them... some of that is borrowed from classical theory. but for many of the things that make jazz music logical, we have not yet come up with a system of getting at the science of it. i suspect that in some time (150 years? 200 years?), people will come up with a system as strong as roman numeral analysis is for classical music, which explains a large portion of jazz music (although there are likely to be exceptions, as there are to classical music theory in classical music)... and you can call this jazz music theory if you'd like.

the book hasn't been written that explains the logic behind all or most of jazz music. Levine DID write a book that did a fairly good job at explaining a small number of hte rules that apply some of the time to jazz music, as best as we currently understand it (and yes, many of htose rules are borrowed from classical theory, because we currently underestand that much better).


sorry for being unclear.
dan

[bassist]

and on top of that LONG post, i am sorry to offer this as a double post.

here, i'm responding to the following: Since all harmony comes from Western art music (read classical music), there are NO "other substitutions which are more idiomatic to jazz."



while i think that Pistons explanation of, for example, substituting a half diminshed chord for a minor chord when it is part of a ii V I would probably be stronger than Levines (Piston would explain it as modal mixture... it is not uncommon in romantic harmony to strengthen pre-dominants by inserting the pre-dominants diatonic in the parallel minor into a progression in the major... i am not sure how Levine would explain it)... i DO think that, for example, substitutions like using a V+7 or V7b9 in the place of a V7 ARE more idiomatic to jazz than to classical music, and i bet that Levine is able to offer a stronger explanation of these subs (and other possible substitutions for dominants) than Piston would be able to.
it is also possible that the various different flavors of dominants are not thought of as substitutions. in which case, i apologize.
dan

[EdByrne]

Dan,

Where did you get all of this? These are all the usual assumptions propagated by jazz teachers who don't understand music history. There have been a great number of different periods in the evolution of European harmony, in which virtually everything done in jazz with regard to harmony has been done already.

In an ignorance of this history, many practitioners incorrectly believe that jazz is a new idiom and that all new terminology therefore needs to be developed for these theoretical things. Nothing could be farther from the truth--and jazz is merely a style of Western art music in which the only things that are unique are its incorporation of African rhythm with a unique language of articulations, inflections and vibratos--and the blues--fused with existing European harmony, forms, and language of various epochs.

While I am a career jazz artist, I nonetheless do not require such self-flattering miss-assumptions to love the music. What is really there is enough for me; re-inventing the wheel is a pointless exercise. Moreover, such misunderstandings will ultimately affect one's performance in the negative.

[bassist]

Ed,
i got this all from my classical studies at Swarthmore College (outside Philadelphia, PA), where i have just finished my second year. i believe you when you say that mine are all the assumptions of jazz teachers who don't understand music history... i'm just a little bit confused as to where that came from. i am almost entirely self-taught in jazz. the faculty in my music department teach only history of classical music and classical music theory. they don't think of jazz or musical theater (my two primary musical interests) as being "high art" or worthy of study. they are HUGE snobs and are very close minded. i get my jazz education from ttwo sources, mainly... one, from synthesizing what i learn about classical music in the classroom with what i hear on my jazz cds... i draw the connections on my own... and two, from playing and talking with friends and classmates who are likewise interested in jazz. i certainly don't talk about jazz theory with anyone though... that all goes on in my head.

i still don't know the degree to which i buy your take on this. i am torn. on the one hand, i do think of jazz and classical music as two different languages, using the same phonemic inventory (if you will indulge my metaphor). on the other hand, i do often say to myself that the more i study, the more i realize that it is really all the same... there IS no categorical difference between classical music, jazz, rock, musical theater, etc.

i guess that once again, we are arguing about semantics. the question is where do you draw the line... we have two closely related areas. one of us claims that they are essentially the same. another claims that they are two sides of the same coin. someone else might say that jazz is just a different spin on classical music. at what point does any of this really matter? it doesn't matter how we characterize the relationship between jazz and classical music. there is CERTAINLY overlap between the two (i know that's an understatement), but i think we'd agree that they are not synonyms.

i was simply suggesting was that joshnerez (the original poster), in order to learn about a style of music, look to a text written for that style of music (regardless of how similar or dissimilar that style of music is to another style, more heavily studied). and you were suggesting that he look to a text written about the style of music on which jazz is largely based. the truth is that if he wants to gain a very thorough understanding of jazz (as an individual phenomenon, OR as a single instance of a larger phenomenon), he should probably study up on both texts... both areas of study (as it seems that both you and i have done).

i've enjoyed this! thanks.
dan

[EdByrne]

It is nice to talk to you too, Dan. My primary concern, semantics aside, is that in their process of writing these "jazz" books, an embarrassing anti-scholastic style emerges, in which hyperbole, untruths, and misconceptions are made. Especially since in an extemporaneous art form such as jazz how one thinks has a direct and profound affect on one's performance, many of this misinformation causes a great deal of wasted time for the student.

BTW, check out some of my analyses:

http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/showposts.php?dept=analysis&topic=20070425025041_EdByrne

There are a bunch at this site.

Best,
Ed

[Phil Kelly]

Another point well illustrated by the well entrenched bias against jazz by the "academics" :

Jazz has always been an assimilative music : It has taken influences from the Western Academic Harmonic practices as well the modal system .It has incorporated African rhythmic practices, call and response patterns, and the roots of the blues scale. It has taken in all the Latin expansions of these African influences as well as the harmonic refinemants of the Western tradition found in Brasilian music ..and it keeps on doing so.

OTOH: The reverse has NOT successfully occurred in
Academic music: what it has incorporated is largely the inbred ideas arising from the 20th Century Viennese intellectual school that have served to create abstruse complex works that basically appeal only to the academic intelligencia ..rarely is much of it performed successfully for the public.

( The only exceptions to this I can cite is the pandiatonic repetitive "minimalist" school typified by Philip Glass, John Adams , and others of that ilk ..which I subjectively find either boring or flat out annoying to listen to )

Finally, the few attempts at assimilating "jazz" into this mix have largely been unsuccessful .. IMO anyway!

YMMV ..

:soapbox :soapbox :soapbox :soapbox :soapbox

[EdByrne]

Another point well illustrated by the well entrenched bias against jazz by the "academics" :

Jazz has always been an assimilative music : It has taken influences from the Western Academic Harmonic practices as well the modal system .It has incorporated African rhythmic practices, call and response patterns, and the roots of the blues scale. It has taken in all the Latin expansions of these African influences as well as the harmonic refinemants of the Western tradition found in Brasilian music ..and it keeps on doing so.

OTOH: The reverse has NOT successfully occurred in
Academic music: what it has incorporated is largely the inbred ideas arising from the 20th Century Viennese intellectual school that have served to create abstruse complex works that basically appeal only to the academic intelligencia ..rarely is much of it performed successfully for the public.

( The only exceptions to this I can cite is the pandiatonic repetitive "minimalist" school typified by Philip Glass, John Adams , and others of that ilk ..which I subjectively find either boring or flat out annoying to listen to )

Finally, the few attempts at assimilating "jazz" into this mix have largely been unsuccessful .. IMO anyway!

YMMV ..

:soapbox :soapbox :soapbox :soapbox :soapbox

Right on--as usual, Phil. Thanks. :cheers :yeahthat: :cheers

[Jakeweiser]

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

it's the same in French, German, Spanish etc etc. They create words, sentences, music.

A DVD I highly recommend to people is to get Jim Hall A Life in Progress... yes I'm a Jim Hall mark and I always will be. How ever, he says in that documentary that (paraphrase) "Jazz is not a style of music, it's an attitude about making music".

We have 12 notes in our tempered tonal system. If you just think about the mathematics of that then it's really quite limited in comparasion to the other variables in music such as pitch intonation, articulation, rhythm, tempo, compound meter. Harmonically Jazz is not so ground breaking. There are certain tensions and dissonances that are accepted readily in Jazz that are not accepted in other styles of music, however 12 notes are only organized in so many ways.

If Jazz is a language, then it is not a unique one. It is a language that is derived of a Mother language., much like English is a mixture of French, German, Latin and it's own eccentricities. Jazz is a mixture of Western Art Music's harmonic and melodic structure, African and Afro-cuban/Caribbeans Rhythms, European Instrumental culture, The American Sub-culture of New Orleans at the turn of the century, African work song, American Blues, Creole culture so on and so forth. It's not any one thing. To suggest that Jazz' harmony is unique is a false idea.

Certainly, since the end of the Swing era, Jazz's tolerance for disonance and acceptance of more advanced harmonic progressions has pushed the envelope of the music forward. However, whatever progressions you run into are all influenced by some way or the other by Classical music. Some people state that Bill Evans' playing was extremely harmonically advanced. While this is true, Evans saw himself as a pianist reviving the tradition of improvised preludes to his trio format. he was an avid student of the music of Impressionistic Composers (Ed knows a great deal about this I believe you have written a book or discertation on it). Thus Evans' influence from Debussey for example pressed on to those whom were influenced by him (like almost every pianist since, not to mention guys like Miles Davis)

So I ranted for no reason other then I'm waiting for a phone call about a gig.:shrug:

THAT being said, this post Initially was about Substitutions of chords. And these are things that are somewhat formulaic in Jazz that are very common.

I would suggest that you can get a lot of good information about chord subs out of Dan Haerle's book The Jazz Language, which is a good book with very little dancing around issues, straight and to the point about most major topics in the music, and a good length Sub chart for chords.

[joshnerez]

oohh....this is a lot of a..hmm, i think i have to absorb this first..ill read it and understand this..check you guys later..thank you..

[Slant]

We have 12 notes in our tempered tonal system. If you just think about the mathematics of that then it's really quite limited in comparasion to the other variables in music such as pitch intonation, articulation, rhythm, tempo, compound meter. Harmonically Jazz is not so ground breaking. There are certain tensions and dissonances that are accepted readily in Jazz that are not accepted in other styles of music, however 12 notes are only organized in so many ways.

Ha! This is exactly right. I've thought this same thing many times. The number 12, compared to the length of history that stands behind European music development, plus the number of people that have contributed to its development during that history...well, 12 is a VERY insignificant number compared to that length and scope of progression. Not only that, but you can only play so many notes at a time anyway, so there again you've got a naturally-imposed "keep it simple stupid" type of system on your hands. Further, add to that the fact that we humans prefer to keep things simple anyway (except maybe contracts where large sums of money are involved) and it seems the chips are stacked on your side!!

Regarding your analogy of similar alphabets, I don't suppose you've noticed the striking similarities in the Greek and Hebrew as well, eh? It all filters back!

Has anyone come across any writings or such that are actually opposed to western harmony? Are there "traditional eastern" musicians/scholars that are opposed to the way western music has come up? I realize western music is now worldwide (obviously), and has been for some time, but I'm just wondering...maybe in the not-too-distant past somewhere?

[EdByrne]

Has anyone come across any writings or such that are actually opposed to western harmony? Are there "traditional eastern" musicians/scholars that are opposed to the way western music has come up? I realize western music is now worldwide (obviously), and has been for some time, but I'm just wondering...maybe in the not-too-distant past somewhere?
Slant,

I don't know if it's a matter of anyone being particularly "opposed" to the other musics, but rather that different ancient cultures have different focuses, different goals, in approaching their respective musics. To generalize, it would seem that, while Europeans traditionally concentrated on harmonic development and orchestration, Africans developed a polymetric rhythmic music--perhaps the most complex in the world. Arabic music seems to concentrate on the long complex chromatic line, while Indian Music has its own combination of the last two. Each of these cultures has its own language of articulations, inflections, vibratos, timbres, and gestures, each derived from its spoken language.

[Phil Kelly]

Slant,

To generalize, it would seem that, while Europeans traditionally concentrated on harmonic development and orchestration, Africans developed a polymetric rhythmic music--perhaps the most complex in the world. Arabic music seems to concentrate on the long complex chromatic line, while Indian Music has its own combination of the last two. Each of these cultures has its own language of articulations, inflections, vibratos, timbres, and gestures, each derived from its spoken language.

On a similar note, much Oriental music is basically monophonic ( with a koto or some similar instrument
arpeggiating the appropriate pentatonic scale in use ) with the exception of the Balinese tradition of the Gamelan ensemble ..which is based upon several simultaneous heterophonic variations of a basic melody , all using a variety of non western scalar tunings.

[Cirle]

I've heard Africans talk about how "westerners" are silly for changing keys all the time, and I've been told that older Haitians and Cubans can feel the same way; I don't think this construes any real opposition to western practice, though.

Some other sources for chord substitutions that I might suggest (although Ed is right, you gotta start with a book on harmony-- I don't know which is the best, but I'd trust Ed's recommendation) are David Baker's Improvisation series, also John Meheegan's Tonal and Rhythmic Principles. If you play guitar, help yourself out to Ted Greene's books. But start with "classical" (=baroque) harmony, because everything makes more sense when you see the long-view progression of harmonic ideas.

I would also (STRONGLY) recommend getting a book or few on counterpoint. If you understand chords as simultaneous voices (that move around to make new chords), you'll be better off, for reasons that only studious work can provide.

I also suggest learning a heap of chord progressions, or, as I like to call them, jazz tunes. You'll start to see and understand things about progressions that will help you find what you're looking for.

Sorry to say, though, I'm not the one to suggest a bunch of books. I learned this stuff the old way-- 10 years of piano, then I switched to guitar. (I never studied jazz on the piano-- it was all baroque, classical, romantic and some others; I got a lot of theory knowledge just from playing all that music)

Anyway, good luck, and work hard!

[Slant]

Right. "Opposed" was a bad choice of a word on my part. Sorry. Good discussion though.

[bassist]

don't know how or where this is relevant... but i find it interesting at a minimum (and i think that it has some relevance to the conversation that slant began, or to the conversation that Ed and I were having nearer to the top of this thread)...
many of my teachers (okay, there are only 4 or 5 full time music professors at Swarthmore College... so i'm talking about 2 professors when i say "many") have taught in Indonesia (i'm referring to Gerald Levinson and Thomas Whitman, if there are any fans of contemporary concert music in the house). they each have stories about how indonesian students responded to listening to beethoven, mozart, brahms, haydn, bach, etc.... they apparently found it to be entirely random and illogical. they didn't understand what connected one idea to another. the rules that we seem to inherently understand (our ears have been conditioned by western music)... THIS sound sets up the expectation for THIS sound to follow... etc........ they don't know those rules instinctively. they have other sets of instinctive rules about what OUGHT to happen in music. rules about what to expect. and so, western music (and i guess beethoven is a bad example of this, because he so often DOES jump around... so often DOES evade our expectations... consciously so, of course) just seems disjointed and nonsensical to them.

i find it all to be fascinating!

i'll tell you, when i raise a kid, i am going to make sure all the music he hears is harmonized in half steps. it will sound like garbage to my ears for a while... but when this kid grows up... he will be into some really crazy shit.

dan

p.s... i'm told that kids don't like to learn when they are grown up that they are some sick sort of science experiment.

[joshnerez]

ei guys..i was running on this just now..ive scanned some of the books ive got..and uhm, i dunno if im correct but..

ei Ed,

its replacing all diatonic chords within the key with sub dominant chords of the key?or im still wrong..errrr..thanks!

[Jeff Lampert]

Hey Josh, I'm a new guy on the forum and very much into jazz harmony (though nowhere near Ed's level!).

The best way to offer ideas for chord subs is with specific songs. The success of a chord sub has a lot to do with the melody, chords before and after the targeted chord or chord passage, etc.

Do have an example of a song you'd like to try? .. Jeff

[OnyaBirri]

Don't overdo it with chord substitution. It's easy to try to be hip, and then come full circle and end up being a total square, as evidenced by some of the embarrassingly bad chord substitutions immortalized in the Real Book.

[bossman]

Well as I'm leaving for my dayjob:

Dominants can be substituted for any fully diminished chord built on the 3rd, 5th, 7th or b9 of the dominant. Not really a substitution, but meh, it allows you a way to think of it in terms of a diminished chord and then you can go crazy with all those wacky coltrane diminished lines and such.

[Egbert Souse]

i'll tell you, when i raise a kid, i am going to make sure all the music he hears is harmonized in half steps. it will sound like garbage to my ears for a while... but when this kid grows up... he will be into some really crazy shit.

dan

p.s... i'm told that kids don't like to learn when they are grown up that they are some sick sort of science experiment.


I say you've been told wrong.

As i was becoming an adult, the first friend of mine who had a kid was very militant about his offspring hearing lots of Bartok, ESP-era Miles and never hearing the sound of the 3rd on top...beginning in the womb.

Thirty five years later, the kid is a very good musican for how seldom he plays and, more importantly, has run a remarkably successfully jazz club for over 10 years and is always a pleasure to work with and for.

It's no experiment.

[EdByrne]

ei guys..i was running on this just now..ive scanned some of the books ive got..and uhm, i dunno if im correct but..

ei Ed,

its replacing all diatonic chords within the key with sub dominant chords of the key?or im still wrong..errrr..thanks!

josh,

No. Please re-read my 1st two posts above, and then go to the site I recommended. If you go through the examples I've posted, you'll gradually get the idea. It does take some time and effort, but there is a great deal of information there--all focused on a single song.

After you do that, you'll have some focused questions to ask here. For now, you don't even need a book.

[bassist]

its replacing all diatonic chords within the key with sub dominant chords of the key?or im still wrong..errrr..thanks!

"diatonic" means that something occurs naturally within a key (without introducing any sharps or flats that aren't in the key signature). i.e. in C major (no sharps or flats), an A minor triad is diatonic (contains the notes A, C, E... all occur naturally in C major), while an A major triad is NOT diatonic (it contains A, C#, E. C# does not occur naturally in C major). it is still possible to have an A major triad in a composition based in C major... that is not what i'm saying. just defining some terms for you.

"sub dominant" refers to a specific note. the fourth degree of a major or minor scale. in C major, an F is the sub-dominant note. in E major, A is the sub-dominant note. etc. the sub-dominant chord is the diatonic chord built off of the subdominant note. in C major, the sub-dominant chord is F major. in E minor, the sub-dominant chord is A minor. etc. people also use the terms "pre-dominant", or sometimes "sub-dominant" to refer to a group of chords that function similarly (their function is to lead TO the dominant... lead TO the V chord). chords that have a strong pull toward the dominant include the sub-dominant (IV chord) and the supertonic (ii chord). there are other examples in Ed's first post.

hopefully this helps un-confuse you a little.
dan

[EdByrne]

"diatonic" means that something occurs naturally within a key (without introducing any sharps or flats that aren't in the key signature). i.e. in C major (no sharps or flats), an A minor triad is diatonic (contains the notes A, C, E... all occur naturally in C major), while an A major triad is NOT diatonic (it contains A, C#, E. C# does not occur naturally in C major). it is still possible to have an A major triad in a composition based in C major... that is not what i'm saying. just defining some terms for you.

"sub dominant" refers to a specific note. the fourth degree of a major or minor scale. in C major, an F is the sub-dominant note. in E major, A is the sub-dominant note. etc. the sub-dominant chord is the diatonic chord built off of the subdominant note. in C major, the sub-dominant chord is F major. in E minor, the sub-dominant chord is A minor. etc. people also use the terms "pre-dominant", or sometimes "sub-dominant" to refer to a group of chords that function similarly (their function is to lead TO the dominant... lead TO the V chord). chords that have a strong pull toward the dominant include the sub-dominant (IV chord) and the supertonic (ii chord). there are other examples in Ed's first post.

hopefully this helps un-confuse you a little.
dan

Thanks, Dan.:cheers

[joshnerez]

"diatonic" means that something occurs naturally within a key (without introducing any sharps or flats that aren't in the key signature). i.e. in C major (no sharps or flats), an A minor triad is diatonic (contains the notes A, C, E... all occur naturally in C major), while an A major triad is NOT diatonic (it contains A, C#, E. C# does not occur naturally in C major). it is still possible to have an A major triad in a composition based in C major... that is not what i'm saying. just defining some terms for you.

"sub dominant" refers to a specific note. the fourth degree of a major or minor scale. in C major, an F is the sub-dominant note. in E major, A is the sub-dominant note. etc. the sub-dominant chord is the diatonic chord built off of the subdominant note. in C major, the sub-dominant chord is F major. in E minor, the sub-dominant chord is A minor. etc. people also use the terms "pre-dominant", or sometimes "sub-dominant" to refer to a group of chords that function similarly (their function is to lead TO the dominant... lead TO the V chord). chords that have a strong pull toward the dominant include the sub-dominant (IV chord) and the supertonic (ii chord). there are other examples in Ed's first post.

hopefully this helps un-confuse you a little.
dan

whoah! thanks Dan..been bogging in my head though..
now i know how a diatonic works..hehehehe..
be right back..have to check on Eds advice..

josh,

No. Please re-read my 1st two posts above, and then go to the site I recommended. If you go through the examples I've posted, you'll gradually get the idea. It does take some time and effort, but there is a great deal of information there--all focused on a single song.

After you do that, you'll have some focused questions to ask here. For now, you don't even need a book.

ok..ill get back to you guys..thanks Ed..
be right back..

Hey Josh, I'm a new guy on the forum and very much into jazz harmony (though nowhere near Ed's level!).

The best way to offer ideas for chord subs is with specific songs. The success of a chord sub has a lot to do with the melody, chords before and after the targeted chord or chord passage, etc.

Do have an example of a song you'd like to try? .. Jeff

ei Jeff,
hmm, no particular song actually, i just want to learn some and try putting it in some 12 bar i usually play..

[joshnerez]

hmmm, here are some things i hope i have understood so far..

sub-doms are the fourth tonal degree of the diatonic scale.
eg: C (F), G(C), F(Bb) etc..

diatonic chords are the ones use notes of a chord revolve around the diatonic scale.
eg: C Major Scale (Am-GM), G Major Scale (DM-Em) etc..

now it all goes down on nailing down on understanding the Chord Subs w/c i think for me. will take much more time like..hmm..i dunno, i have to chew and absorb on Eds lesson..i may have to ask some superior musicians in our place for some more eye opener for this..

[bassist]

ask
"...ask..."
that's what we're here for!
dan

[joshnerez]

"...ask..."
that's what we're here for!
dan

yeps..and i thank you for that too..i was really empty when i first got here, then you and Ed really helped me a lot, and the rest of the gang..

and i need to ask others too, there things like the "hands-on" part where i get lost..w/c i think is a biggie in learning..

[Tarquin1986]

Well if a North Indian guy said it it must be true.:thewave

[Phil Kelly]

Quote: [Jazz has always been an assimilative music : It has taken influences from the Western Academic Harmonic practices as well the modal system .It has incorporated African rhythmic practices, call and response patterns, and the roots of the blues scale. It has taken in all the Latin expansions of these African influences as well as the harmonic refinemants of the Western tradition found in Brasilian music ..and it keeps on doing so.

OTOH: The reverse has NOT successfully occurred in
Academic music: what it has incorporated is largely the inbred ideas arising from the 20th Century Viennese intellectual school that have served to create abstruse complex works that basically appeal only to the academic intelligencia ..rarely is much of it performed successfully for the public.

( The only exceptions to this I can cite is the pandiatonic repetitive "minimalist" school typified by Philip Glass, John Adams , and others of that ilk ..which I subjectively find either boring or flat out annoying to listen to )]
•••• Mr. Kelley: Tonality's unraveling came about as a natural progression, from Brahms' motivic variation to Wagner & his suspended episodes to Richard Strauss' "Metamorphosis" to Mahler's 10th (and Adagio from his Fifth) to Schoenberg (and those other Viennese guys) in "Pelleas und Mellisande" & "Transfigured Night" to Berg's Op. 1 Sonata to Webern, to Boulez & Stockhausen...time has already assured their place in history. It's hard to argue with History. The ideas evolved organically and are not at all inbred. Schoenberg saw the situation and simply took the initiative; but as Boulez said, "Schoenberg est morte." Schoenberg was still stuck in Brahmsian rhythmic rhetoric...he was really quite conservative. ••• Who you REALLY want to hate is Stockhausen and Babbitt. Or how about Cage? He threw out the baby with the bathwater. And while you languish in obscurity, these guys were out making history. It's already a done deal! I wish musicians weren't so ignorant of the Romantic background of the Viennese School; Schoenberg was an Expressionist; he was trying to express exagerrated emotions; it was all historically inevitable. He came from tradition. •••• And as far as Minimalism goes...my friend David (Seevots) actually WEPT when I brought him the vinyl of "Violin Phase" by Steve Reich played by Paul Zukofsky on Columbia, when it first came out. I was surprised and said "What is it, David?" He was crying and said "I didn't know there was music like this." How about that story? ••• YOU are the outsider, man...YOU are the one who has painted himself into a corner. Check out Peter Schat's Tone Wheel book on Amazon. This thing called music is still evolving. Lotta killer players emerging from the Netherlands, probably Jazz players, too. YOU are the one who needs to get with the "program". It's a living, breathing evolution of music if you search for it and want it & can still assimilate new ideas (in the background, some 50-something guy is lamenting that no good music has come out since the 70's). If you want it, it will come to you. If you search for it, you will most likely find it. You will attract what you need if you visualize it, like that spiritual coach dude on PBS said. It's true. Don't be negative. Love music, and be thankful that it's so diverse. There's something for everybody. Embrace what YOU like, but don't put other music down. ••• Frank Zappa did a lot of satire, but I don't believe I ever heard him put down any form of music. He always said "that's O.K. for the people who want to consume that kind of music." ••• "No eternal reward will forgive us now for having wasted the dawn." (Jim Morrison) ••• Sure, Jazz has assimilated a lot, but it's a socially active, popular music. So what? To end with a quote from Zappa: "One thing all musicians have in common: they all hate music." How appropriate.


I dont have any idea what I had said that brought on this flaming screed ( I guess thats what it is when you include phrases like: " YOU are the outsider, man...YOU are the one who has painted himself into a corner." ..aand .."Don't be negative. Love music, and be thankful that it's so diverse. There's something for everybody. Embrace what YOU like, but don't put other music down." )

Wow! what brought all that on ?

Be that as it may, I DO understand pretty well the progression of the late European Romantics into the development of the dodecaphonic system(s) and I actually like some of Stockhausen and Morton Feldmans work ..I just pointed out the fact that a lot of that genre is "paper music" designed only to impress other peers of their academic circle.

I'll point out that the only music I mentioned I didnt care for ( i.e. the Glasses, Adams and the other minimalists ) was immediately qualified by the term SUBJECTIVELY ..

And by he way, other types of music I *DO* find interesting and /or inspiring are some country and western , R&B, funk, bluegrass, middle eastern folk music,balinese and gamelan music, bulgarian, tibetian and suva vocal approaches , plus experimentalists like Harry Partch as well as 20th Century classical music in the styles of William Walton, Joeseph Schwantner, John Corigliano, Witold Luttoslowski and many others

..oh yeah ..I also like jazz and Frank Zappa as well
( in both of his metiers )

methinks you need to take some Paxil or something to help out those bulging veins in your forehead!

:cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers

[EdByrne]

Hey Phil,

I know what you mean about some academic composers' attitudes. Milton Babbitt even wrote a book called "Who Cares If They Listen?" prompting me to ask, "Then Why should We Care If You Compose?"

This attitude towards music composition is reflected in his (and others') approach to prose as well. Once in a doctoral seminar we were given a journal article of B's as an example of super-vocabulary academic bullshit. On a 1/2-hr break the eight of us decided to decipher one paragraph--a single sentence apiece. 20 minutes later we came to the realization that what he was actually saying was as mundane as it gets.

Ideology and over-stylization are the twin kisses of death to the artist--as you know.

[Phil Kelly]

Hey Phil,

I know what you mean about some academic composers' attitudes. Milton Babbitt even wrote a book called "Who Cares If They Listen?" prompting me to ask, "Then Why should We Care If You Write?"

This attitude towards music composition is reflected in his (and others') approach to prose as well. Once in a doctoral seminar we were given a journal article of B's as an example of super-vocabulary academic bullshit. On a 1/2-hr break the eight of us decided to decipher one paragraph--a single sentence apiece. 20 minutes later we came to the realization that what he was actually saying was as mundane as it gets.

Ideology and over-stylization are the twin kisses of death to the artist--as you know.

Even though I've had and know some wonderfully gifted teachers at the college level, most of "academe" seems to me to an endless ritual of self centered and masturbatory navel contemplating, brownosing and rim jobs to secure the hallowed grail of tenure, and the endless publication of abstruse ,esoteric,and bloviating treatises on subjects that while maybe only decipherable by their fellow occupants of the ivory tower, serve no real practical purpose to anyone actually WORKING in the area they purport to be teachers of.

Hows THAT for a convoluted compound sentence deliberately written in the argot of the moldering mushrooms occupying the ivory tower??








plus ..I was able to end on a preposition!!!

:tanz: :gavel: :cheers :tanz: :gavel: :cheers :tanz: :gavel: :cheers

:thewave :thewave :thewave

[Tarquin1986]

I actually read a little bit of Who Cares If Babbit likens music to science, saying that music becoming so complicated that only academics can understand it is analogous to the point when science became so advanced only experts could make sense of new discoveries. But these scientific advances gave us television, nuclear power and the internet, stuff your average Joe can appreciate. Dodecaphony, on the other hand, is not going to drive me to work or make robots clean my house.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I do have a lot of respect for Schoenberg.

[Jakeweiser]

5 points for both Phil and Ed.

[Jay Norem]

And while you languish in obscurity, these guys were out making history. ••• YOU are the outsider, man...YOU are the one who has painted himself into a corner. YOU are the one who needs to get with the "program". Don't be negative. Love music, and be thankful that it's so diverse. Embrace what YOU like, but don't put other music down.

Bill, do you have any idea who you're talking to here? Man...I don't like to see musicians like Phil get ranted at like this, and all you're doing is showing how little class you have. Phil Kelly has forgotten more about music than you'll ever know. Who's languishing in obscurity?
As Phil knows, I don't really know much about what you guys are talking about here, but believe me, Bill, you're way over your head in taking on someone like Phil Kelly, one of the nicest people I've ever met.

[Jakeweiser]

I'm sure Phil read that post and then looked at his Resume and had a good laugh.

[EdByrne]

Even though I've had and know some wonderfully gifted teachers at the college level, most of "academe" seems to me to an endless ritual of self centered and masturbatory navel contemplating, brownosing and rim jobs to secure the hallowed grail of tenure, and the endless publication of abstruse ,esoteric,and bloviating treatises on subjects that while maybe only decipherable by their fellow occupants of the ivory tower, serve no real practical purpose to anyone actually WORKING in the area they purport to be teachers of.

Hows THAT for a convoluted compound sentence deliberately written in the argot of the moldering mushrooms occupying the ivory tower??
:thewave :thewave :thewave

I love these descriptions, Phil!

As much as we strive for fresh vocabulary, it is still most important that we understand why, what and to whom we are communicating. I need to be understood, so I'm grounded in a language. As original as he is, I still don't understand Joyce's "Finnegan’s Wake." If I were he, I wouldn't be satisfied with that.

I've met scholarly classical types who claimed that the only good audience was that comprised of musicians following the score. I noted that if that was my attitude, I'd have been out of business before I started. But what the Hell, I'll also take applause anytime at all. I think the game is in how honestly and effectively the artist balances the fresh with the understandable.

I had a great writing instructor who told me, "You have a responsibility to make your arguments in a concise and clear manner, and to lead the reader from one point to the next, culminating in a clear and decisive point (climax)." Since there is no blueprint in jazz comparable to a Beethoven score, one must have a clear understanding of intention and content--and then be able to put it in the now.

[Jakeweiser]

Here ya go guys!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[playground]

Wow! what brought all that on ?

I'll point out that the only music I mentioned I didnt care for ( i.e. the Glasses, Adams and the other minimalists ) was immediately qualified by the term SUBJECTIVELY

yeah. that was the 1st thing i thought as well. i didn't read too closely but the only thing you wrote that could've been taken as negative at all (and you point out your going out of your way to mention the comment was subjective) was what you wrote about some minimalists. i personally couldn't make the connections in what bill wrote to your post by any stretch really. so he probably just likes minimalism a lot and decided to flame. i thought it was kinda goofy!

[Egbert Souse]

Hows THAT for a convoluted compound sentence deliberately written in the argot of the moldering mushrooms occupying the ivory tower??

It's the greatest sentence that i've ever had the pleasure of reading.

[Jakeweiser]

ah yes, I believe that it was not intended as in Phil looking at your resume and laughing, but his own in relation to your comments. To assume something about someone's musical backgrounds based on a text format form of communication seems pretty ridiculous to me, it's like I said to my Mother, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

For us long timers here we know what Phil has done and his contributions to this site beyond whatever his CV says, so it tickles my funny bone when people quazi-lambaste him or Ed for example without understanding their history on the forum, which I think entitles them to a bit of seniority I suppose. Sometimes like you alluded to the animal kingdom, when someone makes a snap at the king of the jungle, others will snap back for them. But hey, that's a pretty lame analogy on my part :D

I understand your plight, Modern Classical music often times gets looked at with a bit of a strange taste in many peoples mouths. I can remember studying it briefly and thinking that it over my simple head. You are new here, and I say welcome, and as you read further or go in the past and read threads I'm far from malicious to anyone, and if I insulted you then I will gladly offer an apology.

We've all worked hard, I cannot assume I've worked any less then you and visa versa... who cares anyway, maybe you've gotten Grammy Nominations like Phil, perhaps you've gone on stage with Joe Henderson and Charlie Mingus like Ed... I'm not sure how that would matter really, it's all music in the end and people take from it what they will. I always find it interesting how personal people take stuff like this in forums. Seems to be a trend lately between us musicians.

Me... I just try and play guitar.

Works sometimes, sometimes it don't.

Again, welcome to the forums, and feel free to defend whatever you want to defend.

[EdByrne]

It was Jake and Phil who welcomed me to this forum. :cheers :cheers :elephant: :clap:

[Jakeweiser]

waddayaknow!

I like beer as well. Who'd have thought a guitar playing jazz musician would like a cold beer?

mmmmm beer.

Probably another hot day in Texas, I might go get me some beer. I like that I can buy it at the 7-11 :D

I also like backcycling ii V progressions to see if horn players are listening to me at all (just to throw some chord substition back in the game ;))

[bassist]

& not resort to throwing feces at each other (another primate animal analogy).

well shoot! i was really getting into this throwing feces at one another thing we've been up to at AAJ.
dan

[EdByrne]

•••• Believe me when I say that this is the best forum/website I've found, and I don't want to do anything to off-put anyone. ••• Once again, I'm sorry, Phil, and you have my respect, for what that's worth (that, and a dime will get you a cup of coffee...but not at Starbuck's) ••• Am I guilty of doing that "bully" thing where the bully beats you up, and then acts like he's your good buddy? Talk about primate behaviour! ••• I was reading an interview with Milton Babbitt (I got there from the New World label website), and he turns out to be a beer connoisseur. I no longer drink, but I would like to pose this question to Ed Byrne: even though Milton Babbitt doesn't care if you listen, and you don't care if he composes, would you still be willing to sit down & have a beer with him? •••• Speaking of beer, thank you, Jakeweiser, for your kind comments and the welcome. I am overly defensive a lot of times (that's how I make friends, ha ha), and I'll try harder to "get a grip" so we can discuss the nuts & bolts of music on this site & not resort to throwing feces at each other (another primate animal analogy). •••• As a last note, Babbitt was Steven Sondheim's teacher at Princeton. Isn't the influence obvious? •••
Absolutely, Bill. I too am off the sauce, but I always try to not let ideology interfere with learning and creating. Regardless of whether or not I currently agree with him on some things, I'm certain that there is a great deal I could learn from MB.:cheers :fineprint :elephant: :clap: :cheers

[Phil Kelly]

Ummm ..okay guys, no need to apologize ( nor throw feces at one another ..theres enough of that done by fans of the porno based rap product industry, and we need no more of that! ) However: I would like to add a codicil that will permit me to fling the occasional turd at any ( or all ) egotistical self important academics that might make the mistake of showing up on this BBS!!

:barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf:

As I recall, this thread was about chord substitutions or something like that, right ? Why don't we all chill out with a beer ( or in my case, a nice highland single malt ) and discuss music ..what a concept!

BTW: "Transfigured Night" ( the orchestral translation ) is actually one of my favorite works.. and to my ears is much closer to the late Romantic period than it is to SChoenbergs later work.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[OnyaBirri]

Group Hug!

[Phil Kelly]

When it comes to dramatic public displays of performing with bodily wastes, Ozzy Osbourne in his younger days was reported to have jumped upon the executives table at some big record social function ,and proceeded to drop trou and deposit a fetid fecal bolus in a punchbowl directly in from of the board chairman of his record label ..

He then wrapped up his ..um..performance by urinating upon an ice sculpture of himself ..

and no, I didn't check out the provenence of this tale with Snopes ..'cuz it would've ruined an otherwise great apocryphical story!!


( These segues in cyberspace on BBS boggle the mind ..from chord substitutions to scatological tantrums in one page !! )

:cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers

[Jakeweiser]

it's a great solo, I spent a lot of time transcribing that one, lots of stuff in there.

Considering Martino's process of subing a given chord for a Dorian scale/chord a given interval away from the root of the chord, often times things he plays are easily explained if one understands the minor conversion process he has, which is rather fun and interesting to use. I always liked how Martino embelishes melodies, especially on ballads and slower blues such as this track.

A more interesting aspect of the solo is how DeFranceso works with Martino over the chorus where he plays the same repeated pattern for the 12 bars. Very cool stuff there.

[Jakeweiser]

I do have his Book, and I have seen his Creative Forces.

Transcribing solos of Martino has taught me a lot about his "thought process" and how it works functionally and in a musical context rather then analysis of his text, which is a good book, as I transcribed 3 Martino solos in the last 7 months and learnt a ton from them about creating long, interesting lines. Of course, I lack Pat's articulation and clean chops :guitar:

Granted, I took from the Linear book different ways of approaching Conversion to Minor Pentatonic scales rather then use of Dorian Minor scales. I like penatonics more then I like most other scale material, especially scale material from Major, since I find those scales not nearly as interesting as those modes derived from Melodic Minor.

Of course any questions you have regards to Pat's playing and theories are better answered by the man himself in the "Catching Up With" forum here on aaj. Pat is always gracious to answer his fans questions.

[Jakeweiser]

To bad, Pat is extremely approachable. I've even had the luck to exchange emails with him etc as well as him being kind enough to comment on my music.

However, intimidation exists between a Master and someone who worships him. I can understand your plight. Also, Pat has been asked a dozen times about his method in the thread, in fact you need not even post a question, just read the wealth of information that is there at your own leisure, it's all extremely valuable stuff.

As for Linear Expressions, I've not looked at the editing credits or anything, so like you I'm unsure about some of the finer details. I love the creative force stuff though, it's entertainng musically to watch the performances as well as benifitial to a student. I used to sit in the library at my alma mater in the media lab trying to understand all that stuff. Modern technology, wonderful mediums we have to work with huh.

Analysis of some aspects of Grant Green playing also does some minor conversion stuff, as well as some similar studies to do with melodic minor scales and Altered Dominant chords.

[Jakeweiser]

anything off Idle Moments would constitute a "classic Grant Green" solo.

I highly recommend the Complete Quartet recordings w/ Sonny Clarke. I think it's his best stuff personally ;)

[Phil Kelly]

Unfortunately, George Bush *IS* the reality ..

( God help us ..)

We ..are the alternative ..


:tanz: :tanz: :tanz: :tanz: :tanz: :tanz:

[cillit bang]

Hi Jake , just read through this thread wow !

Can you tell me where to start reading something about
this 'minor conversion' stuff

I'm assuming its superimposing minor pentatonics
onto various chords ?

If so I'd like to study a bit of that if poss

PS

The turnaround at end of Joe's solo on sonny here is fantastic yeah ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2RRUVAD9Mc

[guitarjazz]

I’ve been a Pat Martino fan since hearing Consciousness when it first came out so it was special to meet him last year. He was kind enough to sign my Consciousness CD and he told me the story of the front cover picture. It was mind-blowing to watch him play after listening to his recordings for so long. His lines were incredible and his zero-fret open position playing was wild to watch (he doesn’t or rarely uses his first (LH) finger when in open position).
I wanted to point out that the whole minor-conversion process is very similar to certain vertical aspects of the Lydian Chromatic Concept. The Concept points to many more directions but the thought process between the two is much the same.
I guess the question might be: What is the use of either method? Is there a traditional theory book that proposes the same kind of 'conversion'? Haven't seen one yet but I'm all ears(no pun!).