Embraceable You - second chord in progression

[pamosmusic]

Anyway, ten pages of sorting out doms & dims. Actually, it was all neatly done in post #3 by JonR :-)

Embraceable You - second chord in progression

This is Stella reharmed with dims instead of minor ii-V's. Where possible they appear a half-step before the next chord, i.e. their tonics.

Bbo - Dbo - Cm - F7
Fm - Bb7 - EbM7 - Ab7
BbM7 - Dbo - Dm - Bbm/Eb7
FM7 - Dbo - Co - Ao

G7+ - % - Cm - %
Ab7 - % - BbM7 - %
Dbo - Eo - Bo - Do
Ao - Co - BbM7 - %

I'm using melodic minors for them. I used a different set of mel m's for each of the two solos. Overall it's a different sound, interesting rather than pretty.

And before anyone starts shouting, I only said that dims and doms are two distinct chords, not that they couldn't be subbed for each other!

Honestly not sure I care much for this?

[ragman1]

Tastes will vary :-)

[Bobby Timmons]

Rags and I have had our disagreements in the past. But I consider this remark unkind, and uncalled for. It adds nothing to the conversation.

I don't recall ever hearing any jazz guitar clips posted by you.

Show us on guitar how you would handle this musical situation.

I had to quit guitar and bass because of a finger injury I got on upright bass in about 07. It kept feeling progressively more creaky when I'd fret and wouldn't heal. So only piano for me.

My perspective on the situation is as follows:

Agree with ragman: The biii dim isn't really a sub for the 2 root wise, it's its own thing. I also think melodic minor sounds good with diminished. The whole half diminished scale is melodic minor with a b5 and #5 instead of a natural 5. Sorry if someone else brought that up.

Agree with Christian: I think the mix trick is cool of playing mix a half step down from the root of the dim chord. It sounds cool and lets you use your dominant vocab.

Agree with graham: I think subbing dims for 7b9s is kind of a main use.

Personally: I just play diminished scale over them. I have my diminished scales together and can play easily with them. I think it's important to have your dim scales together since there are only 3 of them.

[Mick-7]

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 am not "removing" the roots because, as I said, I think of Dbo7/Eo7/Go7/Bb7 as synonyms for rootless C7b9/Eb7b9/Gb7b9/A7b9. All these chords contain the same 4 notes.

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 _____.

I actually never watched that video by Christian ( ). I was commenting only on his tip (or Barry Harris'es), that - to paraphrase - one should play D harmonic minor over A7b9/Bbo, but don't think of it as D hm, think of it as an A dominant scale with a raised root.

My response was, "How does that clarify things?!" If your goal is to cover the b9th (Bb) in the A7b9 chord, why not just add that note to the D Major scale? Why complicate the picture by thinking of the b6th in the hm scale as a raised chord root? And why are you thinking of D min. at all when the A7b9/Bbo7 is not going to D major/minor? It's going to Am7 so I would be thinking of scales pertinent to that chord progression.

Maybe it just means that if I ever get lost in the town where Barry Harris lives, he's the last person I'll want to ask for directions, his "short-cut" might send me 30 miles out of my way!

[pamosmusic]

I actually never watched that video by Christian ( ). I was commenting only on his tip (or Barry Harris'es), that - to paraphrase - one should play D harmonic minor over A7b9/Bbo, but don't think of it as D hm, think of it as a A dominant scale with a raised root.

My response was, "How does that clarify things?!"

Lol. I dare say watching the video might answer your question.

But I suppose it’s worth pointing out that you are arguing about the efficacy of an approach illustrated in a video you didn’t watch, coming by way of an educator you don’t have any interest in.

So it’s possible that … how should we say this … the knowledge you seek has been there all along?

[Mick-7]

Lol. I dare say watching the video might answer your question.

o.k., I watched as much of it as I can stand (just kidding, Christian). It's not about diminished chords per se though, but about their relevance to dominant chords.

[pingu]

to borrow an idea from Christian
(I think)

|F. | G7. |Gm. |C7. |

sorry if that’s already been suggested

[garybaldy]

to borrow an idea from Christian
(I think)

|F. | G7. |Gm. |C7. |

sorry if that’s already been suggested

A good suggestion

I sort of suggested it in post #192 but added a b9 to the second chord as an extra colour!

[bediles]

Did we switch the key at some point to F?

hehe, I can't believe I'm commenting again. I'm off the function conversation just restating a practical way of getting through the changes or not letting the "funny" dim chord trip you up. ** This would be the most inside way to do it and for folks who like to think scales over chords.

biii (Body and Soul, ATTYA etc) can be thought of as a V of iii, typically that's a 7b9, but actually going to ii. If you don't like playing over 7b9 then mixolydian/dominant scale a minor third up. When constructing/improvising lines, sounds good to resolve to the extensions of the ii chord, which happens to be the iii triad (this tidbit is probably the only new thing about this post).

Anyways, for the chord names: In F, Ab dim can be improvised over as a E7b9 (actually 9 times out of 10 playing the 7b9 chord where the dim7 is built off the third is the thing to do, exception is the Rhythm Changes #iv dim) OR G7 (E7 altered sus sound, or Phrygian whatever you want to call it). Yeah, that means there's an A over an Ab but logical and rhythmical lines smooth that over, also this would be the same situation as ignoring the #iv dim on the blues, which everyone does...most of the time.

[pamosmusic]

I played Body and Soul at a session tonight. I think I ignored the E dim completely

[Mick-7]

to borrow an idea from Christian (I think).

|F. | G7. |Gm. |C7. |

sorry if that’s already been suggested

That is the original progression: F6 > G7b9(= Abo7) > Gm7 > C7.

For example:
F6/A: 5-x-3-5-3-x >> G7b9/Ab: 4-x-3-4-3-x >> Gm7: 3-x-3-3-3-(3) >> C7: x-3-2-3-1-x

[Bobby Timmons]

You guys really need help. A 1, flat 3 dim, 2, 5 freaks you out? That's like the most basic shiz ever.

I bet blitzkrieg bop really scares you. They add a 2 in there amongst all the 1, 4, 5s.

[Christian Miller]

A good suggestion

I sort of suggested it in post #192 but added a b9 to the second chord as an extra colour!

b9…. Or #1 :-)

You can add the note in in which case you have an 8 note scale

Or alter the G7 scale in which case you’ll have a different scale depending which one you use. The #1 gives A harmonic minor. The b2 gives … something else…

In any case the Abo7 is related more closely to the E7b9 than the G7b9 remember the dim chord is built on the third of the 7b9, not a half step up.

If you raise the 1 of the G7 you get that E7b9 sound. Which is the more conventional one for sure.

In Barry’s parlance we are running the G7 down to the third of E7b9

This is the sound you hear Bird using on original first chord of Stella for example. It’s also the sub he uses for Quasimodo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

You guys really need help. A 1, flat 3 dim, 2, 5 freaks you out? That's like the most basic shiz ever.

Ah well not all of us have flawless command of the diminished scale, I suppose.

[Tal_175]

That brings up an interesting question. Learn some dominant language and find ways to apply them in every situation tunes throw at you is hopefully more than just being too lazy to practice diminished and harmonic minor language. Barry Harris did teach building language using harmonic minor and diminished scales afterall, so he wasn't about just using the dominant scale.

There is also a minor counterpart to this approach. Presumably minorization was an artistic choice for Pat Martino, Wes Montgomery and Emily Remler, not just a short cut. Or was it? I think whether you are a dominator, minorator or multivator should be informed by how you want to sound, not because learning language using new harmonic sonarities isn't a fun activity in itself.

[Bop Head]

That brings up an interesting question. Learn some dominant language and find ways to apply them in every situation tunes throw at you is hopefully more than just being too lazy to practice diminished and harmonic minor language. Barry Harris did teach building language using harmonic minor and diminished scales afterall, so he wasn't about just using the dominant scale.

There is also a minor counterpart to this approach. Presumably minorization was an artistic choice for Pat Martino, Wes Montgomery and Emily Remler, not just a short cut. Or was it? I think whether you are a dominator, minorator or multivator should be informed by how you want to sound, not because learning language using new harmonic sonarities isn't a fun activity in itself.

It’s Barry Harris’ 84th Birthday: A Link to a 2011 Post of a Downbeat Article, and Several Verbatim Interviews Conducted For the Piece | Today Is The Question: Ted Panken on Music, Politics and the Arts

[Tal_175]

It’s Barry Harris’ 84th Birthday: A Link to a 2011 Post of a Downbeat Article, and Several Verbatim Interviews Conducted For the Piece | Today Is The Question: Ted Panken on Music, Politics and the Arts

I read this article many years ago, I'll read it again later today. In the meantime can you quote the part you think is relevant to my post ?

[Bop Head]

I read this article many years ago, I'll read it again later today. In the meantime can you quote the part you think is relevant to my post ?

No. Do your homework. (hint: Ctrl + F "dominant")

[Tal_175]

No. Do your homework. (hint: Ctrl + F "dominant")

Yeah, I know that BH quote. I don't think you quite understood my post.

[pamosmusic]

That brings up an interesting question. Learn some dominant language and find ways to apply them in every situation tunes throw at you is hopefully more than just being too lazy to practice diminished and harmonic minor language. Barry Harris did teach building language using harmonic minor and diminished scales afterall, so he wasn't about just using the dominant scale.

There is also a minor counterpart to this approach. Presumably minorization was an artistic choice for Pat Martino, Wes Montgomery and Emily Remler, not just a short cut. Or was it? I think whether you are a dominator, minorator or multivator should be informed by how you want to sound, not because learning language using new harmonic sonarities isn't a fun activity in itself.

Of course not.

But the project of applying a single piece of language as widely as possible is incredibly practical and a super important part of learning how to improvise.

And with Barry for example … the idea isn’t to limit the language, you just learn how everything relates to a dominant chord. So those important chords become … G7 G9 G9sus and G13sus (bless the man for never calling them that). It’s not that Pat doesn’t play them, it’s that in his practicing brain they’re Dm6(11), Dm6, Dm7, and Dm9. Though the reason I (and I can only assume Barry and quite possibly Pat) would find those labels obnoxious is that the purpose of the streamlined process isn’t the sonority they produce but the lines they make possible — so there’s tons of overlap.

Obviously the thought process someone uses when they practice will leave traces and should be an artistic and aesthetic choice, but it also doesn’t limit the vocabulary much at all.

But the number of times I’ve seen someone (cough myself cough) been bogged down by the amount of crap in their head makes me pretty sold on the value of streamlining the thought process, even if you add other approaches in when you’re feeling comfortable with the one.

[Tal_175]

And with Barry for example … the idea isn’t to limit the language, you just learn how everything relates to a dominant chord. So those important chords become … G7 G9 G9sus and G13sus (bless the man for never calling them that). It’s not that Pat doesn’t play them, it’s that in his practicing brain they’re Dm6(11), Dm6, Dm7, and Dm9. Though the reason I (and I can only assume Barry and quite possibly Pat) would find those labels obnoxious is that the purpose of the streamlined process isn’t the sonority they produce but the lines they make possible — so there’s tons of overlap.

It seems like you are saying that practicing by thinking G7 G9 G9sus and G13sus vs Dm6(11), Dm6, Dm7, and Dm9 produce the same sonorities and they are just different labels for the same type of lines. In other words you are saying that the choice has no relationship to the types of sounds they produce in lines. I definitely disagree with that.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.

[pamosmusic]

It seems like you are saying that practicing by thinking G7 G9 G9sus and G13sus vs Dm6(11), Dm6, Dm7, and Dm9 produce the same sonorities and they are just different labels for same type of lines. In other words you are saying that they have no relationship to the types of sounds they produce in lines. I definitely disagree with that.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I’m referring to the notion that both strategies would chunk together the ii-V into one unit and allow you to play G7, Bm7b5, Dm7, and Fmaj7 over that unit.

So if the bass player is playing D for four beats and G for four beats over both of them, then I’d be interested to know the practical difference.

And again … the sonorities aren’t really the point of strategies like this. It’s the access to linear vocabulary.

Of course differences pop up. One that jumps to mind immediately is that the “minorizing” might more obviously open a player up to something like a CESH line where that wouldn’t be obvious to a Barry dude. Though someone who’s spent more
time with Barry’s material would also come to that conclusion too. Just as someone who spent a lot of time with Pats thing would come eventually (though not immediately maybe) to a lot of the places Barry winds up.

[Tal_175]

I’m referring to the notion that both strategies would chunk together the ii-V into one unit and allow you to play G7, Bm7b5, Dm7, and Fmaj7 over that unit.

It's more than that. If a player is thinking dominant over ii-V's and another player is thinking minor over ii-V's, and if you transcribed lines of these players play over ii-V's, you are probably going to find different biases in their transcribed lines. There is a famous Barry Harris quote where he says it's impossible that Charlie Parker is not thinking Dominant here (referring to a ii-V line). You'll also find the dorian bias often in the ii-V lines of Wes Montgomery.

[pamosmusic]

It's more than that. If a player is thinking dominant over ii-V's and another player is thinking minor over ii-V's, and if you transcribed lines of these players play over ii-V's, you are probably going to find different biases in their transcribed lines. There is a famous Barry Harris quote where he says it's impossible that Charlie Parker is not thinking Dominant here (referring to a ii-V line). You'll also find the dorian bias often in the ii-V lines of Wes Montgomery.

It does seem like you missed the part where I said pretty much exactly this. For your convenience:

Of course differences pop up. One that jumps to mind immediately is that the “minorizing” might more obviously open a player up to something like a CESH line where that wouldn’t be obvious to a Barry dude. Though someone who’s spent more
time with Barry’s material would also come to that conclusion too. Just as someone who spent a lot of time with Pats thing would come eventually (though not immediately maybe) to a lot of the places Barry winds up.

or here:

Obviously the thought process someone uses when they practice will leave traces and should be an artistic and aesthetic choice, but it also doesn’t limit the vocabulary much at all.

of course different approaches will make certain ideas more immediately obvious, but they don’t really lead to limitations.

[Tal_175]

It does seem like you missed the part where I said pretty much exactly this. For your convenience:

No, I got that part. I just read it as you sort of down playing the differences in the outcomes of different approaches.