perfect-quartal comping to a diminished line?

[EGBDF]

As you know, the diminished scale doesn't have more than one perfect fourth in a row, i.e. you can't stack fourths with the scale.

But I've noticed a couple instances of pianists comping with stacks of three perfect fourths along with diminished right-hand lines.

The one that prompted this was Luis Perdomo, on Solar, of his very recent record (I recommend it. Mark Shim on tenor, really love his low-range playing).

it was the 2-5-1 to F. On the C7 chord, Luis played

Ab Db Gb

in the left hand, which fits inside a tritone-sub or "altered" scale.

In the right hand, he plays an ascending diminished line, something like

G A Bb C Db Eb E Gb G A... etc.

It sounds good to me. Though it's worth nothing that the Ab from his right hand, together with the G and A form three consecutive semitones, none of which are passing tones in the proper sense.

It seems like when it comes to altering dominant chords, some people see it as either #11, or anything/everything else.

Thoughts?

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by EGBDF

As you know, the diminished scale doesn't have more than one perfect fourth in a row, i.e. you can't stack fourths with the scale.

But I've noticed a couple instances of pianists comping with stacks of three perfect fourths along with diminished right-hand lines.

The one that prompted this was Luis Perdomo, on Solar, of his very recent record (I recommend it. Mark Shim on tenor, really love his low-range playing).

it was the 2-5-1 to F. On the C7 chord, Luis played

Ab Db Gb

in the left hand, which fits inside a tritone-sub or "altered" scale.

In the right hand, he plays an ascending diminished line, something like

G A Bb C Db Eb E Gb G A... etc.

It sounds good to me. Though it's worth nothing that the Ab from his right hand, together with the G and A form three consecutive semitones, none of which are passing tones in the proper sense.

It seems like when it comes to altering dominant chords, some people see it as either #11, or anything/everything else.

Thoughts?

That right-hand half-whole diminished line is not unusual over a C7 (probably voiced by a pianist as a C13b9).

What is unusual is using that quartal as a sub for C7. That I don't get. The notes fit a C7 altered scale, but they don't suggest C7 to my ear, but more like part of horizontal planing.

What chords come before and after it?

What's the stack of three perfect fourths to which you refer?

[EGBDF]

Originally Posted by engelbach

That right-hand half-whole diminished line is not unusual over a C7 (probably voiced by a pianist as a C13b9).

What is unusual is using that quartal as a sub for C7. That I don't get. The notes fit a C7 altered scale, but they don't suggest C7 to my ear, but more like part of horizontal planing.

What chords come before and after it?

What's the stack of three perfect fourths to which you refer?

This is in the context of Gm7 C7 Fmaj7, in Solar.

Both of these things are played by the pianist.

The stack of fourths is the Ab Db Gb, which is what the pianist plays (chordally), during the diminished line.

He resolves that stack to another stack up a half step, A D G, which all fits in F major.

Over the Gm7, he plays a standard voicing: F A Bb D


So it sounds good and has internal logic (resolving the fourths up a half step).

But my point was that if you analyzed it strictly from a chord-scale theory standpoint, you would have to conclude that he's simultaneously implying C7 altered and the diminished-harmony C7. From the altered you get the b13, and from the diminished you get the natural 13, and the natural 5, so that's sort of a "conflict". But I know this level of technicality doesn't really matter.

So my thought is that a lot of players aren't very particular about dominant alterations, except for the #11. That is, once you're past the head, there's not much distinction between the altered and diminished harmony, so a b9 or #9 or b13 imply to the player that they can play any of those alterations, as well as a natural 13. They all just come in a bundle.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by EGBDF

This is in the context of Gm7 C7 Fmaj7, in Solar.

Both of these things are played by the pianist.

The stack of fourths is the Ab Db Gb, which is what the pianist plays (chordally), during the diminished line.

He resolves that stack to another stack up a half step, A D G, which all fits in F major.

Over the Gm7, he plays a standard voicing: F A Bb D


So it sounds good and has internal logic (resolving the fourths up a half step).

But my point was that if you analyzed it strictly from a chord-scale theory standpoint, you would have to conclude that he's simultaneously implying C7 altered and the diminished-harmony C7. From the altered you get the b13, and from the diminished you get the natural 13, and the natural 5, so that's sort of a "conflict". But I know this level of technicality doesn't really matter.

So my thought is that a lot of players aren't very particular about dominant alterations, except for the #11. That is, once you're past the head, there's not much distinction between the altered and diminished harmony, so a b9 or #9 or b13 imply to the player that they can play any of those alterations, as well as a natural 13. They all just come in a bundle.

Yes, now it makes sense. He's planing with quartals. Ab Db Gb could be considered the tritone sub of C7, if the bass line fills in the 3-7.

With quartal planing, normal functional relationships are less important than hitting target chords, which are arrived at by horizontal movement rather than true voice leading, a legacy of the French Impressionists.

[jazzman1945]

I have not found Solar, but listened to other recordings of this pianist. He uses a lot of polytonal combinations between both hands.