I vi ii V minor tunes?

[rintincop]

I’m compiling a list of
tunes that vamp the classic
i vi ii V7, or I bIII7 ii V7
in minor.
I can think of Softly As in A Morning, Whisper Not, Birk's Works minor blues in bars 1-4 , 7-8, 11-12

Moanin’s A section, the first 6 bars of the Work Song,

What others?

[PMB]

Segment by Charlie Parker (also known as Diverse).

[PMB]

Also Love Me or Leave Me. I've never seen it mentioned anywhere but surely Segment is a contrafact of this Walter Donaldson tune.

[christianm77]

I really hate that progression.

[matcarsa]

Moanin' (solo changes)

Envoyé de mon SM-G930F en utilisant Tapatalk

[christianm77]

To be honest I kind of hate the major key 1 6 2 5 as well

[Roberoo]

To be honest I kind of hate the major key 1 6 2 5 as well

But you still like jazz?!?

I got pretty sick of 1 6 2 5is after time in music college. I hated 2 5s. After leaving college I cleansed my musical soul be playing punk and new wave.

I can now imbibe 1 6 2 5s and 2 5s to my heart's content and with no nasty side effects.

Regarding the original post Some folks end Stella by Flashlight with that vamp.

R

[christianm77]

But you still like jazz?!?

I got pretty sick of is after time in music college. I hated 2 5s. After leaving college I cleansed my musical soul be playing punk and new wave.

I can now imbibe 1 6 2 5s and 2 5s to my heart's content and with no nasty side effects.

Regarding the original post Some folks end Stella by Flashlight with that vamp.

R

1 6 2 5 isnt jazz. It’s cockney knees up at best. No one good plays that shit. Charlie Parker didn’t spell out 2 5 1 in his life.

i can’t even say I think it’s Tin Pan Alley. There’s much nicer turnarounds you can use every time and composers had good harmony.

I blame jazz school. the way they teach pseudo music because they think people have to understand theory a certain way. teach harmony and voice leading instead!

real music isn’t 2-5-1. It’s movement and story telling.

[djg]

1 6 2 5 isnt jazz. It’s cockney knees up at best. No one good plays that shit. Charlie Parker didn’t spell out 2 5 1 in his life.

i can’t even say I think it’s Tin Pan Alley. There’s much nicer turnarounds you can use every time and composers had good harmony.

I blame jazz school. the way they teach pseudo music because they think people have to understand theory a certain way. teach harmony and voice leading instead!

real music isn’t 2-5-1. It’s movement and story telling.

[Roberoo]

1 6 2 5 isnt jazz. It’s cockney knees up at best. No one good plays that shit. Charlie Parker didn’t spell out 2 5 1 in his life.

i can’t even say I think it’s Tin Pan Alley. There’s much nicer turnarounds you can use every time and composers had good harmony.

I blame jazz school. the way they teach pseudo music because they think people have to understand theory a certain way. teach harmony and voice leading instead!

real music isn’t 2-5-1. It’s movement and story telling.

I guess you could say that about any music. Blues isn't 1 4 5 it is "movement and story telling". Pop isn't 1 5 6 4 it is, in fact, movement and story telling. But, I am currently preparing for three jazz gigs next week and reviewing those charts there are a lot of 2 5 1s all over the place (in major and minor) even 1 6 2 5s. There is of course more than that also.

I would bet you dollars to donuts that Parker did spell out 2 5 1s in his playing and writing but not in an obvious, "let's hit them over the head with it", way. If he did he wouldn't be Parker. He would be a jazz student struggling to learn the vocabulary.

I agree that good music and jazz is story telling. I have said over and over again that good jazz - to me - has emotional content, good solos express themes and variation and build in a satisfying way. You can usually sing them.

Of course, I might be wrong and maybe I should sue my music program for teaching me tin pan alley when I really wanted to learn jazz!

[christianm77]

I guess you could say that about any music. Blues isn't 1 4 5 it is "movement and story telling". Pop isn't 1 5 6 4 it is, in fact, movement and story telling. But, I am currently preparing for three jazz gigs next week and reviewing those charts there are a lot of 2 5 1s all over the place (in major and minor) even 1 6 2 5s. There is of course more than that also.

You know this is rubbish, because play 1 5 6 4 you sound like Adele, but play 1 6 2 5 and you sound like the Muppets.

No beef against the Muppets, but it's not bebop.

I would bet you dollars to donuts that Parker did spell out 2 5 1s in his playing and writing but not in an obvious, "let's hit them over the head with it", way. If he did he wouldn't be Parker. He would be a jazz student struggling to learn the vocabulary.

Which is a clever way of saying Parker didn't play II-V-I.

For instance, D F A C B D F G | G isn't vocabulary. It's arpeggios. It lacks rhythm, syncopation, swing, interest, story and voiceleading.

Why teach shit that sucks? Why not start with something musical?

I agree that good music and jazz is story telling. I have said over and over again that good jazz - to me - has emotional content, good solos express themes and variation and build in a satisfying way. You can usually sing them.

Of course, I might be wrong and maybe I should sue my music program for teaching me tin pan alley when I really wanted to learn jazz!

Well it's not even that good. Cole Porter, for instance, had a sophisticated musical understanding. Jazz courses can be so bad at teaching harmony, people come out thinking #IVm7b5 IVm6 Ib bIIIo7 IIm7 V7 I is hard and that Jobim is 'non functional harmony.'

Look, II V I. Play II V I, actually play it as it is in a textbook, you will not sound like jazz. Not really.

I think it's important that we teach students to sound like jazz first and foremost. I think we can go straight to lines and voicings and make sure they understand how this music works in terms of the key and so on.

So what does the terminology II V I actually do? I mean if we aren't actually literally playing
Dm7 G7 Cmaj7

Well, it tells you the bass notes. But you don't want to double the bass line as a guitarist and the bass player might be playing something else (or not).

It tells you the chords, but these chords are very vanilla and don't have interesting voice leading. I wouldn't play them on the bandstand. Would you?

OK, theory: does it tell you have a subdominant or predominant chord, dominant chord and tonic chord?

Not really - you have to know II is a subdominant function chord. IV V I is arguably easier to understand and has the added advantage of you never having to deal with IIm7b5.

(You know most II V I's didn't start out like that, they started out as V I's. That's why you get Dm11 G7 Cmaj7 so often in standards charts.)

Does it tell you that there are other progressions with the same function? Like IIm bIIIo7 Ib, IV #IV I, IV IVm I etc.

Nope

So what use is it? How is this a good and useful nomenclature?

How about instead,

diatonic (modal) - voice leading - home

Or

exposition - rising action - resolution

resolution. can be happy, sad, or cliffhanger.... (major, minor, dominant) or raised eyebrow (play the V on the I)

exposition is either in the home key for vanilla II-V-I's, IV-#IVo7-I's and so on, some related mode (such as the parallel minor) for Cole Porter, Neapolitan progressions (bII subdominant chord) and so on... or even some distant key for Wayne and Joe Henderson tunes.

Look, this is all in the spirit of good fun.

I don't know if this is a good way to teach or not... II V's are part of jazz culture, obviously, most charts in the RB feature lots of II V I's and spotting them is useful to the student. But it takes a minute to explain how the chords work, and then invite the student to find other progressions that do a similar thing.

but, I think there's massive resistance from a lot of people about the idea of teaching something in a way other than they themselves were taught. That there's one 'proper' way to do it. Well, most of the present jazz syllabus was pulled together late in the music's history. It's not sacrosanct.

[Lark]

You know this is rubbish, because play 1 5 6 4 you sound like Adele, but play 1 6 2 5 and you sound like the Muppets.

No beef against the Muppets, but it's not bebop.



Which is a clever way of saying Parker didn't play II-V-I.

For instance, D F A C B D F G | G isn't vocabulary. It's arpeggios. It lacks rhythm, syncopation, swing, interest, story and voiceleading.

Why teach shit that sucks? Why not start with something musical?



Well it's not even that good. Cole Porter, for instance, had a sophisticated musical understanding. Jazz courses can be so bad at teaching harmony, people come out thinking #IVm7b5 IVm6 Ib bIIIo7 IIm7 V7 I is hard and that Jobim is 'non functional harmony.'

Look, II V I. Play II V I, actually play it as it is in a textbook, you will not sound like jazz. Not really.

I think it's important that we teach students to sound like jazz first and foremost. I think we can go straight to lines and voicings and make sure they understand how this music works in terms of the key and so on.

So what does the terminology II V I actually do? I mean if we aren't actually literally playing
Dm7 G7 Cmaj7

Well, it tells you the bass notes. But you don't want to double the bass line as a guitarist and the bass player might be playing something else (or not).

It tells you the chords, but these chords are very vanilla and don't have interesting voice leading.

Does it tell you have a subdominant or predominant chord, dominant chord and tonic chord?

Not really - you have to know II is a subdominant. IV V I is arguably easier to understand and has the added odvantage of you never having to deal with IIm7b5.

(You know most II V I's didn't start out like that, they started out as V I's. That's why you get Dm11 G7 Cmaj7 so often in standards charts.)

Does it tell you that there are other progressions with the same function? Like IIm bIIIo7 Ib, IV #IV I, Iv IVm I etc.

Nope

So what use is it?

How about instead,

diatonic (modal) - voice leading - home

Or

exposition - rising action - resolution

resolution. can be happy, sad, or cliffhanger.... (major, minor, dominant) or raised eyebrow (play the V on the I)

exposition is either in the home key for vanilla II-V-I's, IV-#IVo7-I's and so on, some related mode (such as the parallel minor) for Cole Porter, Neapolitan progressions (bII subdominant chord) and so on... or even some distant key for Wayne and Joe Henderson tunes.

Look, this is all in the spirit of good fun.

I don't know if this is a good way to teach or not... but, I think there's massive resistance from a lot of people about the idea of teaching something in a way other than they themselves were taught. That there's one way to do it. Well, most of the present jazz syllabus was pulled together late in the music's history. It's not sacrosanct.

I fully agree with this! Especially about the harmony part! But do you know of any good resources that teach jazz harmony in this more "functional" way of thinking instead of seeing every chord as a "block" so to speak? Should I look into classical harmony books?

Lot of books I've read never talk about the #ivm7b5 chord for example. Or they describe it as being borrowed from the lydian mode. While IMO its just a II7. Same thing with this one: #IVm7b5 IVm6 Ib bIIIo7 IIm7 V7. I never really understood it but lately I realized its just II7 Valtered, I in first inversion, ii, V I or am I wrong?

Thanks a lot!

[christianm77]

I’m compiling a list of
tunes that vamp the classic
i vi ii V7, or I bIII7 ii V7
in minor.
I can think of Softly As in A Morning, Whisper Not, Birk's Works minor blues in bars 1-4 , 7-8, 11-12

Moanin’s A section, the first 6 bars of the Work Song,

What others?

Vamp tunes.

Look, a rhythm changes is a vamp tune. If you want to dig into the history of vamps, go listen to late 30s/40s music.

Rhythm changes can be

Bb Bb/D | Eb Eo7 x 4

or

Bb Bo7 | Cm7 C#o7 | Dm7 D7 | Eb Ebm | Dm Dbo7 | Cm7 F7 |

For instance

Or lots of this chaconne variant
Dm C7 | Bb7 A7 |

I like this Dexter two bar variant (Cheesecake intro IIRC)

Dm7 C7 | Bb7 A7 | G7 F7 | Em7b5 Eb7 |

They all do the same thing, which is to get you onto the tonic in the odd bars and the subdomiant (or bVI7 aug6/blue note chord) in the even bar, with some interesting passing chords on the second beat.

Basslines were a lot less jumpy around back cycling root position with neighbour tones than cliche bop bass (not that good bass players actually play like that)

[christianm77]

I fully agree with this! Especially about the harmony part! But do you know of any good resources that teach jazz harmony in this more "functional" way of thinking instead of seeing every chord as a "block" so to speak? Should I look into classical harmony books?

I honestly don't know. TBH none of this stuff came from a book. Maybe one exists, I can think of a couple that present similar sorts of ideas, but I didn't learn it from a book, so I can't really give recommendations.

My ideas about jazz are influenced by classical harmony, but also Barry Harris, Peter Bernstein and many more. Peter is a master of telling a story with harmony. He always says - stay away from I if you can, I is the end of the story. So the idea of just grinding around a 1-6-2-5 is just the least interesting thing to him.

Barry teaches scales that create movement. You can take one of his scales and play it over a section of the tune and create harmonic movement and cool bebop lines within it. Often the scalar framework is very simple, but the way the scale is used creates musical movement. He doesn't believe in the existence of the II chord BTW haha. everything is V-I. Of course you might play II or IV, but it's part of dominant.

George Benson thinks similarly to Barry and Peter in that he breaks everything down to tonic and dominant and maybe subdominant sometimes (but that goes with dominant usually.)

But a lot of the way I put it is my own take on it.

Lot of books I've read never talk about the #ivm7b5 chord for example. Or they describe it as being borrowed from the lydian mode. While IMO its just a II7. Same thing with this one: #IVm7b5 IVm6 Ib bIIIo7 IIm7 V7. I never really understood it but lately I realized its just II7 Valtered, I in first inversion, ii, V I or am I wrong?

Thanks a lot!

You are correct. Work that out yourself, right? Me too. You know, it's nice in a way that you still have to do that, it's a much deeper level of learning. Maybe that's why they make the books so bad.

(I would say maybe IVm is a little more minor subdominanty to my ears, but it often acts as way to get back to I or III so it works as a kind of a 'bridging' or 'tension' or 'conflict' chord like the modally unrelated #IVo7... and the line is blurred right? Charlie Christian played IVm on V all the time... I don't like the word dominant. Because then you might start thinking about actual dominant chords and worrying about stupid things that don't matter, like the F# in an F#o7 or B7 resolving into C on the G7 C accompaniment... )

The best book is the Great American Song Book. That'll teach you more than any text. Most of the reasons why they favour one progression - say F F#o7 C over another - say Dm7 Fm6 C - is down to the melody, the bass line and maybe some nice counter melody or inner voice parts. Everything else be the work of long haired CST hippies.

The Jerry Coker book 'Hearing the Changes' is OK.

[Lark]

I honestly don't know. TBH none of this stuff came from a book. Maybe one exists, I can think of a couple that present similar sorts of ideas, but I didn't learn it from a book, so I can't really give recommendations.

My ideas about jazz are influenced by classical harmony, but also Barry Harris, Peter Bernstein and many more. Peter is a master of telling a story with harmony. He always says - stay away from I if you can, I is the end of the story. So the idea of just grinding around a 1-6-2-5 is just the least interesting thing to him.

Barry teaches scales that create movement. You can take one of his scales and play it over a section of the tune and create harmonic movement and cool bebop lines within it. Often the scalar framework is very simple, but the way the scale is used creates musical movement. He doesn't believe in the existence of the II chord BTW haha. everything is V-I. Of course you might play II or IV, but it's part of dominant.

George Benson thinks similarly to Barry and Peter in that he breaks everything down to tonic and dominant and maybe subdominant sometimes (but that goes with dominant usually.)

But a lot of the way I put it is my own take on it.

Hahaha, too bad there is no book ;p. Interesting as there a quite a lot of books about jazz harmony but all of them are pretty basic IMO. They just stay on the surface, they describe chords and the most common/obvious chord changes (like the I vi ii V :P) but they don't dive deeper and show that you can basically classify everything as either V or I. And funny that you mention George as I learned this idea from this forum thread: Bensons approach to playing changes. | The Gear Page and this one The George Benson Method To Playing Changes. Get Ready To Improve | The Gear Page. Another resources that really helped me with this is Christiaan van Hemerts Youtube videos. He has a few videos were he describes thinking functionally instead of thinking in scales and modes.

What I find so strange is that it looks like that a lot of the real bebop guys thought like this: Barry Harris, Benson, I've heard Sheryl Bailey also talk about this etc.. However, in the learning resources you can't find anything about it. Its all just: this scale/mode/arpeggio can fit over this chord. They don't go to this next level IMO. Maybe I should check out the Barry Harris DVD set?

You are correct. Work that out yourself, right? Me too. You know, it's nice in a way that you still have to do that, it's a much deeper level of learning. Maybe that's why they make the books so bad.

(I would say maybe IVm is a little more minor subdominanty to my ears, but it often acts as way to get back to I or III so it works as a kind of a 'bridging' or 'tension' or 'conflict' chord like the modally unrelated #IVo7... and the line is blurred right? Charlie Christian played IVm on V all the time... I don't like the word dominant. Because then you start worrying about stupid things that don't matter, like the F# in an F#o7 on the G7 accompaniment... )

The best book is the Great American Song Book. That'll teach you more than any text.

The Jerry Coker book 'Hearing the Changes' is OK.

Yeah good point! The #ivdim7 and the ivminor basically have the same function right? In theory they don't but when I'm listening to it they do IMO. I've never seen a book talk about this. Another thing you sometimes see is I biiidim7 ii V which is used as a sub for I VI7 ii V. However biiidim7 cannot be considered a VI7 its a II7? How do you think about this? What is a II7 in your opinion? How does it function? As a V/V? Or are there other ways to think about it?

And I have the Hearing the Changes book but it summarized common used chord progressions right? It doesn't go to that "next level" IMO, where they show its basically all just V I with sometimes some different flavours.

Haha I probably keep repeating myself but I always wonder why there is just no book about this. There are there hundreds of learning resources about CST but basically zero about how the real bebop pioneers thought? Why isn't there a book that analyzes 500 jazz standards using this functional thinking approach, showing that while there are different chords, the movements are basically the same?

[arielcee]

It's by Tommy Flanagan.

It's by Lee Morgan

[Vladan]

I do not like when posts disappear, but probably it was the right choice.

Anyway ...

... Haha I probably keep repeating myself ...

Yes you do. All good, as far as you do not start multiplying.

but I always wonder why there is just no book about this. There are there hundreds of learning resources about CST but basically zero about how the real bebop pioneers thought? Why isn't there a book that analyzes 500 jazz standards using this functional thinking approach, showing that while there are different chords, the movements are basically the same?

I did not read much books on Jazz and music theory, probably somewhere about zero, but I glanced over a couple. In each of those, the very premise was that movement is V-I, everything else being a variation on theme. Then, they show you circle of 5 ths/ 4 ths, followed by examples, increasing in complexity, how it is done in real life. Obviously, books have to end somewhere, where you are expected to continue on your own, or find personal tutor.

So, from the very beginning you actually know that all you'll ever see and analyze, in whichever 500 standards you may chose, are basically same movements.

Not to mention primary school music class, where teacher told you that the most of music works on same principle, going from some point, usually from tonic, eventually reaching dominant, from where it goes back to where it started from and repeat, or to somewhere else for a new start.

[christianm77]

Hahaha, too bad there is no book ;p. Interesting as there a quite a lot of books about jazz harmony but all of them are pretty basic IMO. They just stay on the surface, they describe chords and the most common/obvious chord changes (like the I vi ii V :P) but they don't dive deeper and show that you can basically classify everything as either V or I. And funny that you mention George as I learned this idea from this forum thread: Bensons approach to playing changes. | The Gear Page and this one The George Benson Method To Playing Changes. Get Ready To Improve | The Gear Page. Another resources that really helped me with this is Christiaan van Hemerts Youtube videos. He has a few videos were he describes thinking functionally instead of thinking in scales and modes.

What I find so strange is that it looks like that a lot of the real bebop guys thought like this: Barry Harris, Benson, I've heard Sheryl Bailey also talk about this etc.. However, in the learning resources you can't find anything about it. Its all just: this scale/mode/arpeggio can fit over this chord. They don't go to this next level IMO. Maybe I should check out the Barry Harris DVD set?

It's quite a difficult thing to put into words. Really, most of these players are vocabulary players, and vocabulary is something that can be put into different contexts.

To be honest, I don't really know Christian's videos because they are always seem to be about 40m long, and TBH I don't really have the time - plus, I'd be watching them more from the point of 'can I recommend this channel?' because I generally have my stuff worked out now, but a few students say they have found them useful. From what I have seen of them, they seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Do you know my channel Jazz Guitar Scrapbook? I post ideas like this there. TBH it's all a bit disorganised and all over the place. Perhaps I will make an effort to put everything into more of a coherent order and a bit more accessible.

Another thing you sometimes see is I biiidim7 ii V which is used as a sub for I VI7 ii V. However biiidim7 cannot be considered a VI7 its a II7? How do you think about this? What is a II7 in your opinion? How does it function? As a V/V? Or are there other ways to think about it?

II7 can function as a secondary dominant, but it is not all that unusual in trad jazz changes to see it go straight to I. Limehouse Blues is a very good example. Embraceable You has it as well. Often it gets decorated in more modern versions of the changes.

I think of these chords as blues chords. b5/#4 and b3 in the key. Coming out of the melody. That's how they get used in earlier jazz.

I think about the thirds moving down chromatically. This stuff is piano harmony.

Barry Harris teaches that biiio7 is a very tight chromatic voice leading from I6 to IV6, or from vim7 to iim7 (or any combination, or vice versa.)

C E G A --> C6
C Eb Gb A --> Co7/Ebo7
C D F A --> F6

Clever, huh? Look at that minor third in the middle moving down chromatically. Unlike a V7-I this sounds equally good from either direction.

F# A C E - F#m7b5
F Ab C E - Fm6
E G B D - Em7
Eb Gb A C - Ebo7
D F A C - Dm7

Bottom voices all chromatic minor thirds. Top is diatonic.

This is more like prewar harmony. A lot of bebop guys don't understand this shit BTW. They are ii-V guys, they might not play ii-V's, but they think in ii-V's. And dim7 chords went out of fashion in the 50s really. So a lot of people never learn how to play on them.

But - You don't have to nail every chord. You can just play into the diatonic ones using - whatever

--> Em7 --> Dm7 --> Cmaj7

That could be

F#m75 B7 Em7 A7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7 like Green Dolphin Street, right? (OK I wouldn't play that exactly because it sounds lame, but some people would be more comfortable conceptualising it as this.)

The reason why one would use the other version is because it doesn't fit the melody. But you don't have to worry about that when soloing. Unless you have a dickhead comping for you. (But then, nothing you will sound good haha)

TBH I am still getting used to the freedom you have.

And I have the Hearing the Changes book but it summarized common used chord progressions right? It doesn't go to that "next level" IMO, where they show its basically all just V I with sometimes some different flavours.

Yes I think that is unusual.

Haha I probably keep repeating myself but I always wonder why there is just no book about this. There are there hundreds of learning resources about CST but basically zero about how the real bebop pioneers thought? Why isn't there a book that analyzes 500 jazz standards using this functional thinking approach, showing that while there are different chords, the movements are basically the same?

I don't think we really know how the bebop pioneers thought TBH. My impression is that it was more diverse back then. People had gigs, you see, teaching was less academic and theoretical and more on the bandstand, or learning from recorded solos... People developed their own conceptions of how it worked. But I think Barry Harris is important - Coltrane, Zawinul, Paul Chambers, Tommy Flanagan, Kenny Burrell, James Jamerson, Joe Henderson all learned ideas from him.

Also read Paul Berliner's Thinking in Jazz. Important book

[corpse]

Christiaan's videos have been recommended to me by youtube forever. I always laughed at them because of the click bait thumbnails, and thought he was a joke. I never clicked on them. A couple months ago, I decided just to see what this carnival barker was trying to hock to our future players.

I was relieved to see he pokes fun at himself about the click bait thing. From what I have seen (I ended up watching quite a few videos) here's what I have gathered:

1. He has good taste in licks and phrases (Peter Bernstein, Mike Moreno, Pasquale Grasso, Joe Pass, Martijn Van Iterson, Bud Powell, Hank Mobley, a ton of Django...), and uses fingerings that will allow for playing this stuff at actual tempo.
2. He has good technique.
3. He plays something like 7 instruments, at least a few at professional level, and went to music conservatory.
4. He learned to play jazz guitar in a fraction of the time it takes most people.

He said when he learns a new instrument, he looks at its physical properties. From experience he can get an idea of what makes it tick, and therefore the most efficient way to get up and playing at a professional level as quickly as possible. For instance, for violin it is thinking note names, for guitar it is shapes that will get you playing the fastest.

He is making a really good point. It seems to be a common problem (from what I can see on here) that players can know theory inside and out and still seem like they can barely play. Christiaan's method will get people playing first, then they can learn and choose any direction they want. Does it make sense to have such a knowledge of theory and not be able to hang at a local jam session?

I can play, but it probably took me 3 times longer than it should have because of this obsession with theory which seems to be passed of as mandatory. I don't regret knowing all the theory I know, but I do regret not spending that time on other things.
Anyway, I would recommend his channel to people stacking vocabulary, or are using fingerings that don't make sense for jazz.

[christianm77]

Thanks corpse, sounds really good. I think Christian could do better if he presented himself a little differently. He’s certainly got chops!

but then hey I’m in no position to comment haha

[Roberoo]

You know this is rubbish, because play 1 5 6 4 you sound like Adele, but play 1 6 2 5 and you sound like the Muppets.

No beef against the Muppets, but it's not bebop.



Which is a clever way of saying Parker didn't play II-V-I.

For instance, D F A C B D F G | G isn't vocabulary. It's arpeggios. It lacks rhythm, syncopation, swing, interest, story and voiceleading.

Why teach shit that sucks? Why not start with something musical?



Well it's not even that good. Cole Porter, for instance, had a sophisticated musical understanding. Jazz courses can be so bad at teaching harmony, people come out thinking #IVm7b5 IVm6 Ib bIIIo7 IIm7 V7 I is hard and that Jobim is 'non functional harmony.'

Look, II V I. Play II V I, actually play it as it is in a textbook, you will not sound like jazz. Not really.

I think it's important that we teach students to sound like jazz first and foremost. I think we can go straight to lines and voicings and make sure they understand how this music works in terms of the key and so on.

So what does the terminology II V I actually do? I mean if we aren't actually literally playing
Dm7 G7 Cmaj7

Well, it tells you the bass notes. But you don't want to double the bass line as a guitarist and the bass player might be playing something else (or not).

It tells you the chords, but these chords are very vanilla and don't have interesting voice leading. I wouldn't play them on the bandstand. Would you?

OK, theory: does it tell you have a subdominant or predominant chord, dominant chord and tonic chord?

Not really - you have to know II is a subdominant function chord. IV V I is arguably easier to understand and has the added advantage of you never having to deal with IIm7b5.

(You know most II V I's didn't start out like that, they started out as V I's. That's why you get Dm11 G7 Cmaj7 so often in standards charts.)

Does it tell you that there are other progressions with the same function? Like IIm bIIIo7 Ib, IV #IV I, IV IVm I etc.

Nope

So what use is it? How is this a good and useful nomenclature?

How about instead,

diatonic (modal) - voice leading - home

Or

exposition - rising action - resolution

resolution. can be happy, sad, or cliffhanger.... (major, minor, dominant) or raised eyebrow (play the V on the I)

exposition is either in the home key for vanilla II-V-I's, IV-#IVo7-I's and so on, some related mode (such as the parallel minor) for Cole Porter, Neapolitan progressions (bII subdominant chord) and so on... or even some distant key for Wayne and Joe Henderson tunes.

Look, this is all in the spirit of good fun.

I don't know if this is a good way to teach or not... II V's are part of jazz culture, obviously, most charts in the RB feature lots of II V I's and spotting them is useful to the student. But it takes a minute to explain how the chords work, and then invite the student to find other progressions that do a similar thing.

but, I think there's massive resistance from a lot of people about the idea of teaching something in a way other than they themselves were taught. That there's one 'proper' way to do it. Well, most of the present jazz syllabus was pulled together late in the music's history. It's not sacrosanct.

I am not sure how to respond to this but to say it is blindingly obvious that jazz is more than 2 5 1s or 1 6 2 5s and, shit, if you are a beginner or you suck it will seem ham handed and awful if you continually play the basic grips over and over again without interesting voice leading. These are just starting points for some aspects of the music. Hell I was reviewing Ted Greene's Modern Chord Progression book and he has 9 pages of his scrawl outlining different ways to voice lead 1 6 2 5 s and he had not even touched on substitutions or altered tones. He did the same for for 13 4 5 progressions and so on and on. All his scribbles focus on good voice leading. Later on he adds substitutions, back cycling, all kinds of things. I agree that there is no one way to teach jazz and I view this approach as one avenue into that world. Bix and Django knew nothing (intellectually) about this stuff or classical harmony but they were innovative and musical as hell. There is no royal road to good musicianship and there are many paths to the summit. Fussing about with I 6 2 5s can be part of the journey but not the whole of it.

[corpse]

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[christianm77]

I am not sure how to respond to this but to say it is blindingly obvious that jazz is more than 2 5 1s or 1 6 2 5s and, shit, if you are a beginner or you suck it will seem ham handed and awful if you continually play the basic grips over and over again without interesting voice leading. These are just starting points for some aspects of the music. Hell I was reviewing Ted Greene's Modern Chord Progression book and he has 9 pages of his scrawl outlining different ways to voice lead 1 6 2 5 s and he had not even touched on substitutions or altered tones. He did the same for for 13 4 5 progressions and so on and on. All his scribbles focus on good voice leading. Later on he adds substitutions, back cycling, all kinds of things. I agree that there is no one way to teach jazz and I view this approach as one avenue into that world. Bix and Django knew nothing (intellectually) about this stuff or classical harmony but they were innovative and musical as hell. There is no royal road to good musicianship and there are many paths to the summit. Fussing about with I 6 2 5s can be part of the journey but not the whole of it.

Well what I'm saying is: it never is actually 2 5 1 s and 6 2 5 1 s - it's always some variation, so as a general pain in the bum, I always want to know, is there another way we could frame this?

Actual guitar fretboard voice leading is not that complicated to understand.

My suggestion (based on the work I've been doing on jazz education) would be - aim to get people making good jazz noises and talk about the other stuff later on. Jazz is often so front loaded with theory that it can seem to the casual student that that's all it is.

And I make this suggestion and people seem... resistant to it. 'This is the way I've done so, that's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned' almost.

[rpjazzguitar]

It's by Tommy Flanagan.

It's by Lee Morgan

The more I hear Hank Mobley the better I like him.

To my ear it's all melody and feeling. And, not so many notes that it's a struggle to understand or copy. thanks for posting this.

[rintincop]

Hmm, such a simple question triggers so many rants.