Embraceable You - second chord in progression

[Christian Miller]

Peter -

Quite right, it's easy to make mistakes with this stuff. I've corrected it.

A harmonic over Abo and Ab A B C D Eb F F# (8-note H-W scale).

I don't disagree that Christian has offered an easily accessible way to solo dim chords. But I think C7 by itself is bland and sharpening the root isn't a real dim scale. I think that was right. But I'm not saying it's invalid. I'm actually much more interested in why the whole thing's such a headache anyway.

So how do you handle dim chords? Have you said that yet?

As I understand it, the main reason Barry advocated the dominant scale is people have more vocabulary to do with it. He was generally against people getting stuck in the harmonic minor. But you can always put that in. Bebop is obviously full of harmonic minor scales going up and down.

I’ve not read every post so Apols if this has been noted a million times, but running G7 down to G# gives the same pitches as A harmonic minor.

A harmonic minor on Abo7 needs some care with the chord tones. One advantage of Barry way of doing it is it emphasises the notes of the diminished chord. Otoh if you play the appropriate scale over the related 7b9 that also works.

If we were to put the Barry approach into the chord scale blender apparently you’ll end up with a thing called ‘the ultralocrian’ - sounds like a name Steve Vai would come up with lol.

EDIT: I don’t think it’s unfair to say it’s a bland choice. The diminished is certainly more colouristic and interesting. For my part I wanted to find natural ‘inside’ ways of playing these things. I don’t want to morph into John Coltrane everytime I play I Can’t Give You Anything but Love. Otoh dim arpeggios get a bit old.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

There’s also the issue of whether or not you are treating the diminished scale as a melodic scale or a source of harmonies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Christian -

Thanks for your measured reply. Sanity prevails, at least somewhat. And you appear to have a defender so the age of chivalry is still alive somewhere.

As you said, I'm quite sure that the object of BH's idea, via you, is to give players a simple and effective way to do dim chords. Why not? But probably both of us have explored it ourselves thoroughly.

The harmonic minor has a strange rep. Some don't like it but the bop people seem to use it a lot. Personally, as a sound in itself, I find it a bit twee, more suited to folk music. But it seems to work all right on dim chords in the right place. As I said, I remember sitting in my kitchen many moons ago realising, faced with CM7/C#o, all I had to do was play the Bb and problem over. Nice and bluesy, too.

But, funnily, all these ideas of 'how to play a diminished' get old quickly. They're a bit like the dim chord itself, a sense of being thoroughly unresolved. Maybe the safest way is to realise that no one way is the only way.

There’s also the issue of whether or not you are treating the diminished scale as a melodic scale or a source of harmonies

Good point. I probably use it - if I use it - melodically, and maybe most people do. I confess to not having explored any other potentials. I take it you mean deriving triads from the scale, etc.

[pamosmusic]

Christian -

Thanks for your measured reply. Sanity prevails, at least somewhat. And you appear to have a defender so the age of chivalry is still alive somewhere.

Ah yes. Well, I have always considered myself a champion of defenseless YouTubers.

But really it’s more that your own posts are riddled with kind of basic errors (nine-note symmetrical diminished scale, etc.) On top of which you do tend to drape yourself in quite an authoritative air, like so:

But probably both of us have explored it ourselves thoroughly.

Just felt like popping the ole bubble once.

Maybe the safest way is to realise that no one way is the only way.

This one I meet with a resounding “obviously”

As you were.

[grahambop]

I realised long, long ago (long before I'd heard of Barry Harris or anything like that) that if I had CM7/C#o to play all I had to do was just turn the CM7 into C7 and avoid the root.

so although you say a dim chord is not a dominant, and playing dominant over a diminished is not a great way of doing it, your solution to C#dim is to play C7 over it!

[Mick-7]

As I understand it, the main reason Barry advocated the dominant scale is people have more vocabulary to do with it. He was generally against people getting stuck in the harmonic minor.

How does calling a harmonic minor scale a Dominant scale with raised root instead inhibit you from getting stuck in it?!

And it's not a good choice anyway because it has a limited application, works if the Abo/G7b9 is going to C maj. but if it's going to Cm or Gm (which was the progression in question, right?), you'd be better off using some sort of Ab maj. or min. scale, as I said earlier.

[ragman1]

so although you say a dim chord is not a dominant, and playing dominant over a diminished is not a great way of doing it, your solution to C#dim is to play C7 over it!

I know, that struck me too, but there's no contradiction. I'm not really 'playing a dominant', it's just a handy mental aide to make it fit.

The dim chord appears by changing one note of the dominant but that doesn't mean they're the same chord or type of chord. Any more than the word book changed to cook means the same thing. The moment the root of the dominant is sharpened it stops being a dominant and becomes another chord with another function.

as I'm sure you know!

[pamosmusic]

I know, that struck me too, but there's no contradiction. I'm not really 'playing a dominant', it's just a handy mental aide to make it fit.

And the judges come back with a 9.6 on that mental backflip.

[grahambop]

I know, that struck me too, but there's no contradiction. I'm not really 'playing a dominant', it's just a handy mental aide to make it fit.

The dim chord appears by changing one note of the dominant but that doesn't mean they're the same chord or type of chord. Any more than the word book changed to cook means the same thing. The moment the root of the dominant is sharpened it stops being a dominant and becomes another chord with another function.

as I'm sure you know!

It becomes a dominant 7b9 which is still a dominant to me (and to Joe Pass, if I recall one of his videos correctly.)

[Christian Miller]

[QUOTE=Mick-7;1361953]How does calling a harmonic minor scale a Dominant scale with raised root instead inhibit you from getting stuck in it?!

Because if you play the dominant instead, you won'r be playing scale stuff. You will be playing all the dominant vocabulary you've been checking out as a Barry Harris student (that's what we spend a lot of time on). You can just pop in the raised root note at the end, if you like. And then that gives you more freedom to actually play melodies instead of scale patterns or whatever.

Works great! Turns out Barry knew about playing jazz and stuff.

And it's not a good choice anyway because it has a limited application, works if the Abo/G7b9 is going to C maj. but if it's going to Cm or Gm (which was the progression in question, right?), you'd be better off using some sort of Ab maj. or min. scale, as I said earlier.

No it won't work because you are giving the diminished chord with the incorrect root; how you spell it is important for this because you get four different scales depending on which one you use, right? (which is hip, but that's a little later down the line haha, brothers and sisters.)

You probably remembered the 'dim up a half step' sub formula which works fine if you are playing symmetrical stuff, but in fact as Barry Harris taught, the dim chord on a 7b9 is constructed on the third of the chord, which makes sense right? V7b9 is a 9th chord, root chord + seventh chord on the third like all ninth chords (except anything to do with the altered scale yuck). So we have Bo7 on G7, not Abo7.

Abo7 is the correct diminished chord for E7b9.

You run the Bb7 scale down to the Bo7, or as Barry put it, the third of G7. And this gives you one of the standard bop ways to play a II-V-I.

But also - this is not the context under discussion. We are taking about the bIIIo7/#IIo7 in major. And it works great for that too.

[Christian Miller]

Actually the thing that is surprising to me is most of the time the dim chords are spelled helpfully in charts to make this work.

So, we can go
C^7 C#o7 D-7 D#o7 E-7
to
C^7 A7b9 D-7 B7b9 E-7
and back

or

E-7 Ebo7 D-7 G7
to
E-7 B7b9 D-7 G7

or

F F#o7 C
to
F D7b9 C

And give or take a little enharmony, it works out pretty great for those scale choices. There are a few exceptions (Wave for example) but otw... As I point out in the vid.

[pamosmusic]

Yeah I think there’s maybe a fundamental misconception about the theory stuff in the first place. Which is to say that—properly used—theory is always just a practical expedient. At least in this kind of music.

The correctness of the notes against the chords is a really superficial version of “correct.” Again … vocabulary is everything. Having convincing, idiomatic, confident lines will make the thing work almost no matter what the thing is.

So like … the fact that the C7 scale over a diminished is just a mental trick for accessing your dominant vocab in a different context isn’t like a theory cheat or something; it’s really the best possible reason for doing theory at all.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah I think there’s maybe a fundamental misconception about the theory stuff in the first place. Which is to say that—properly used—theory is always just a practical expedient. At least in this kind of music.

It’s almost like it’s not actually ‘theory’ at all, but practical information for making music

The correctness of the notes against the chords is a really superficial version of “correct.” Again … vocabulary is everything. Having convincing, idiomatic, confident lines will make the thing work almost no matter what the thing is.

So like … the fact that the C7 scale over a diminished is just a mental trick for accessing your dominant vocab in a different context isn’t like a theory cheat or something; it’s really the best possible reason for doing theory at all.

Yeah to give a simple example, if you run the “bop scale” down from the root of dominant to the root of the dim chord - for example

D C# C B A G F# E D#
D7 scale down to D#
On D#o7/Ebo7 in Cmajor

It just sounds right

Of course Barry was a stickler for understanding the relationship between the chord and the key. In much modern theory it’s just ‘over this chord, use this scale.’ Barry points out that what you play on an E-7 changes if it’s in D major or C major. Obvious really, but ….. it follows it also depends if that Abo7 is in A or C. (Correct enharmony helps too lol, fat chance of that.)

That said I do like the dim scale - I just don’t hear it as the most natural option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

How does calling a harmonic minor scale a Dominant scale with raised root instead inhibit you from getting stuck in it?!

Because if you play the dominant instead, you won't be playing scale stuff. You will be playing all the dominant vocabulary you've been checking out as a Barry Harris student (that's what we spend a lot of time on). You can just pop in the raised root note at the end, if you like. And then that gives you more freedom to actually play melodies instead of scale patterns or whatever.

I don't see why relating it to the dominant scale versus other scales is any less likely to lead to playing scale-like lines - but I don't use scales as an improvisation tool, only as a reference.

No it won't work because you are giving the diminished chord with the incorrect root; how you spell it is important for this because you get four different scales depending on which one you use, right?

Oh, I was in a different key, thinking of C7b9/Dbo (not G7b9/Abo), as in my post: Embraceable You - second chord in progression

For example:
Ab Harmonic Major, from Db: (Db-Eb-E-G-Ab-Bb-C). For C7b9/Dbo > Cm7 ... etc.

But if you want a more vanilla sound, then yes, a diatonic scale reference like D minor is your best bet. But only beginning improvisors need a reference for inside sounds, it's the harder to hear outside sounds where a scale/tonal reference can help.

You probably remembered the 'dim up a half step' sub formula which works fine if you are playing symmetrical stuff, but in fact as Barry Harris taught, the dim chord on a 7b9 is constructed on the third of the chord, which makes sense right?

I think of them all as synonymous: C7b9/Eb7b9/Gb7b9/A7b9 & Dbo/Eo/Go/Bbo.

There’s also the issue of whether or not you are treating the diminished scale as a melodic scale or a source of harmonies.

I have found it counterproductive to separate the two.

[Christian Miller]

I don't see why relating it to the dominant scale versus other scales is any less likely to lead to playing scale-like lines - but I don't use scales as an improvisation tool, only as a reference.

As I say it may be hard to appreciate why if you haven’t worked with it a bit. (Maybe the video is flawed from that perspective, but that’s the problem with videos on YouTube .)

Oh, I was in a different key, thinking of C7b9/Dbo (not G7b9/Abo), as in my post: Embraceable You - second chord in progression

For example:
Ab Harmonic Major, from Db: (Db-Eb-E-G-Ab-Bb-C). For C7b9/Dbo > Cm7 or Gm7(b5) ... etc.

But if you want a more vanilla sound, then yes, a diatonic scale reference like D minor is your best bet. But only beginning improvisors need a reference for inside sounds, it's the harder to hear outside sounds where a scale/tonal reference can help.



I think of them all as synonymous: C7b9/Eb7b9/Gb7b9/A7b9 & Dbo/Eo/Go/Bbo.



I have found it counterproductive to separate the two.

So, here’s the thing, I’m not really talking about your process or whatever it is you do.

I mean frankly it takes a LOT these days for me to invested in finding out about anyone’s process (which wasn’t always the case, I just feel I have enough to be going on).

You (sort of) asked me to explain why Barry taught this way and I’ve tried to. I don’t feel I’ve said anything that wasn’t in the video tbh which has the benefit of playing and specific musical examples. Beyond that you are best going to the source if interested.

So - it is something I use (among other stuff). I have no particular personal attachment other than to say - “here is this thing, it is like this, it helped me learn how to play bop reasonably well and handle diminshed chords smoothly.”

If people want to argue that it’s not in fact helpful, or wrong, or something, that’s not really my concern, take it or leave it…. It’s not my thing anyway.

Neither do I feel evangelical about it exactly…

In the end it’s about the playing and theory talk is rarer in jazz playing circles than many might think. You have it together or you find a way to get it together. Typing a good solo isn’t quite the same thing as Jack would say.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Well i guess an interesting question would be ….

why do you consider C7b9, Eb7b9, Gb7b9, and A7b9 to be the same thing?

They are objectively not.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, one has a C, another an Eb, another a Gb, and the last an A. So they are not the same chord.

So what’s the point of thinking of them as the same chord?

It’s a useful trick for getting a lot of really handy dissonant dominant sounds going while allowing you to transpose a thought process rather than invent a new one for every out color note you want. You just say … C7? Ah heck I’ll play A7b9 instead and your vocabulary is easy to access and the color takes care of itself.

So you’re just substituting a different framework for the one Christian brought up but it’s no less a trick or a “reference” than his is

[Christian Miller]

Well i guess an interesting question would be ….

why do you consider C7b9, Eb7b9, Gb7b9, and A7b9 to be the same thing?

They are objectively not.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, one has a C, another an Eb, another a Gb, and the last an A. So they are not the same chord.

So what’s the point of thinking of them as the same chord?

It’s a useful trick for getting a lot of really handy dissonant dominant sounds going while allowing you to transpose a thought process rather than invent a new one for every out color note you want. You just say … C7? Ah heck I’ll play A7b9 instead and your vocabulary is easy to access and the color takes care of itself.

So you’re just substituting a different framework for the one Christian brought up but it’s no less a trick or a “reference” than his is

They are sort of the same thing if you always play diminished scale.

But that’s obviously not how diminished chords or V7b9’s came about originally. So I suppose you can jump in with Coltranes sound, or you could understand them more from that common practice sort of perspective.

For my part I’d quite like to play more diminished scale stuff. So I’m learning all the patterns everyone did at jazz school haha (when I can remember to practice them.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

They are sort of the same thing if you always play diminished scale.

How very CST of you, Christian.

[Mick-7]

Well i guess an interesting question would be …. why do you consider C7b9, Eb7b9, Gb7b9, and A7b9 to be the same thing?

As rootless Dom. 7th chords, they have the same notes (enharmonically) and also have the same notes as dim. 7th chords 1/2 step higher. That is: Db(C#)-E(Fb)-G-Bb

In practice, I think of them as two sets of harmonic twins, that is: C7b9/Gb7b9 and Eb7b9/A7b9, because the two sets of chords usually have different resolutions. But when I use them as passing/connecting chords (rather than dominant chords) I tend to use them all in the same way.

I have actually never studied Barry Harris'es system so I should refrain from commenting on it. From what little I know of it, I'm using some of his principles but I discovered them on my own.

So what’s the point of thinking of them as the same chord?

I find that if I can simplify harmonic concepts, it helps me to recall and apply them. It's my own personal short-hand, which may not always make much sense to others.

They are sort of the same thing if you always play diminished scale.

Well, you'll need a scale for each chord pair I mentioned, rather than the same dim. scale for all of them.

Could be, say, the whole tone scale:

For C7/Gb7: C-D-E-Gb-Ab-Bb

For A7/Eb7: A-B-C#-D#-F-G

Or two different melodic minor scales, etc.

[ragman1]

As I'm more interested in how things sound than the written stuff, which I can mess up as we know, here's another way to play over dim chords.

In the proverbial kitchen I thought a 7b9 merely was merely an altered dom chord so it should easily take the alt (melodic minor) scale, which it does. But if we're going to substitute it with a diminished the diminished too would accept an altered scale.

But a diminished chord is malleable, any note in it can be the root. Logically, therefore, all four melodic minor scales will work over it. Not only that, but they'll work in any circumstance. Which I found they do.

So here's the Corcovado thing again: Am6 - Abo - Gm7/F#7b5 - FM7/F6 with all four mel m options on the Abo. I've done it slowly so there's no fudging the notes, they work or they don't. Thankfully they do.

And maybe charlieparker will tell us which one he likes best :-)

1. Ab mm
2. B mm
3. D mm
4. F mm

[Bobby Timmons]

ragman, you need to practice soloing instead of all this theoretical pedantry!!

[ragman1]

I do practice soloing. It's the other stuff I don't practice!

[pamosmusic]

As rootless Dom. 7th chords, they have the same notes (enharmonically) and also have the same notes as dim. 7th chords 1/2 step higher. That is: Db(C#)-E(Fb)-G-Bb

Mick. My guy. You missed my point entirely.

Those were rhetorical questions. Though I’m glad you answered them …

Yes they are the same chord when you take away their roots (i.e. they share the same diminished chord). But they are not the same chords, as evidenced by your having to remove the roots to make them so. I have no problem with this whatsoever and do quite a bit of minor third substitution myself. What I found curious was that you brought that up after sort of dismissing a similar strategy suggested by someone else.

You justified your diminished substitution with this.

I find that if I can simplify harmonic concepts, it helps me to recall and apply them. It's my own personal short-hand, which may not always make much sense to others.

Which is directly on point. I want to be clear … I think this is wonderful and is literally the best and only good reason for any jazz nerd to do theory. I’m not really sure what you assume anyone else is doing with theory, if not that.

But when Christian outlined the short-hand he uses (by way of Barry Harris), you replied with:

How does calling a harmonic minor scale a Dominant scale with raised root instead inhibit you from getting stuck in it?!

And it's not a good choice anyway because it has a limited application, works if the Abo/G7b9 is going to C maj.

So my point in picking at your “these dominants are all the same” thing was to illustrate that actually that’s just some tool you use to access your ideas more easily than thinking of a bunch of different complex harmonies. Which makes it no different at all than Christians thing, which you were saying was not good.