Hello, I was wondering if anyone knew of any websites or resources that fully explain chord substitutions.

Thank you. :)

FULLY explain? That's a mighty tall order. What is it that you want to know? If you have any specific questions, you might be able to get some specific help. What style(s) of music are you talking about?

Yeah, I'd like to fully understand chord substitutions too! ;)

Sorry if I'm telling you stuff you already know (or if it's total rubbish!!)

The example that springs to mind is a dominant tritone substitution, eg. replace G7 (G,B,F) with C#7 (C#,F,B).
Those two chords share 2 tones out of 3 and I believe this is a substitution used commonly in jazz(?), however the intervals are different and I can't describe a context where this might work!

Anyway, it's all about context (as is everything), you need to know what you're doing to harmony by making a particular substitution, even by just changing the root you play beneath a chord.

You can learn a lot about these by playing a simple progression and different chords to see what happens. Something I need/want to do a lot more of myself!!

I don't understand much more than that and I certainly can't explain it any better.
As Chris says, a more specific question/example might help, I'm sure Chris, Ed F, or one of the other more established bassists on here can set you on the right direction.

Oh and get a teacher. It'll be the best decision you ever made for your playing :)

What you're referring to there is that in a 7th chord, the tones which give it its "sound" are the 3rd and the 7th - so you can use an alternative chord which has the same 3rd and 7th but switched around, so the 3rd becomes the 7th and vice versa - well this is a simple way to think about it!

That's the baby, the 3rd & 7th make up the tritone.

Thing is if you arpeggiate those chords the intervals become different and will give a different sound in context... my brain hurts!

Well it is often a "Jazzy" sound - so like normal 12 bar blues can have altered chords and the more you alter the more it sounds like Jazz and less like Blues! ;)

Not exactly the same tack, but anyway. I think that idea came about because Jazz soloists were looking for alternative scales to play over chords - so they choose a scale which has the 3rd and 7th of the chord and find that it sounds alright if you swap the 3rd and 7th - of course it sounds "Jazzy" and wouldn't work in all sorts of music - e.g. folk!! ;)

But then I suppose pianists caught on to what the soloist was doing and thought - well I could play a chord based on that alternate scale, rather than the one written - seeing as how I've been round this sequence 5,000 times and it would be nice to try some different stuff!

And thus was Jazz born - once you get into this kind of stuff you will only want to play Jazz, as it doesn't happen so much in other types of music! ;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Well it is often a "Jazzy" sound - so like normal 12 bar blues can have altered chords and the more you alter the more it sounds like Jazz and less like Blues! ;)

Not exactly the same tack, but anyway. I think that idea came about because Jazz soloists were looking for alternative scales to play over chords - so they choose a scale which has the 3rd and 7th of the chord and find that it sounds alright if you swap the 3rd and 7th - of course it sounds "Jazzy" and wouldn't work in all sorts of music - e.g. folk!! ;)

But then I suppose pianists caught on to what the soloist was doing and thought - well I could play a chord based on that alternate scale, rather than the one written - seeing as how I've been round this sequence 5,000 times and it would be nice to try some different stuff!

And thus was Jazz born - once you get into this kind of stuff you will only want to play Jazz, as it doesn't happen so much in other types of music! ;)

"Freddie The Freeloader" is a 12 bar blues with very minor alterations on the first ending but no alterations on the second ending and no one would argue that it's Jazz because it's the improvisation and the style in which it's played that make it jazz more so than the chord progression itself.

What would you call a hip hop back beat, thumping slap bass, improvised lyrics sung over the changes to "All The Things You Are"?

What would you call a hip hop back beat, thumping slap bass, improvised lyrics sung over the changes to "All The Things You Are"?

Sounds cool, where can I get a copy?

Originally posted by Phil Smith



What would you call a hip hop back beat, thumping slap bass, improvised lyrics sung over the changes to "All The Things You Are"?



"Smooth Jazz".

No - they would have simplified it to a two-chord vamp ! ;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
No - they would have simplified it to a two-chord vamp ! ;)

Yeah, like "So What", right? ;)

Smooth Jazz? I don't know, here's an excerpt (http://www.activitybuddy.net/music/msjackson.mp3) of the type of thing I'm talking about.

It is considerably harder to play something interesting on a two chord vamp than over complex changes.

With a "static harmony" situation, like a lot of two chord vamps, it is up to the soloist to completely create tension and release. With more complex changes, the tension and release come more naturally.

Thanks this thread has been most helpful. (I found an awesome site dealing with chord subs)

I'm definatley interested in a teacher Howard, I've been playing for 6 years, and I've come to the point where I want to progress into more advanced stuff like jazz, and well, I guess a teacher would be the best way to go.

My main question is though, if I were playing a walking line under a chord progression, chord I use chord subsitions bymyself, well the piano plays the song straight, as it's written, or would the main chordal instrument have to be playing the subs also, so it doesn't come out sounding dissonant.

Hope I don't sound to much like a goober with that question. :p

Originally posted by LiquidMidnight

My main question is though, if I were playing a walking line under a chord progression, chord I use chord subsitions bymyself, well the piano plays the song straight, as it's written, or would the main chordal instrument have to be playing the subs also, so it doesn't come out sounding dissonant.

Hope I don't sound to much like a goober with that question. :p

It depends on what you're playing, what substitutions you plan on using, and who you're playing with. If you use a tritone sub on a minor ii-V-i, it usually doesn't matter, since both chords share the same basic tonality and the same voicing usually works for both, as in this thread:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11726

However, if you do the same thing unannounced in the middle of a Major ii-V-I, the root note of your tritone sub introduces a new note into the tonality (specifically, the b2 of the parent key), which either the pianist or soloist (or both) will have to adjust to. There are a few other subs that don't affect the pianist too much, like the old "Major for minor" sub (ex. Gmi7/Bb = BbMa9), but it's best if you don't just drop reharm bombs all over the place without any warning, especially if the people you are playing with don't have the aural/technical facility to catch and/or react to what you're doing.

Originally posted by Phil Smith


Smooth Jazz? I don't know, here's an excerpt (http://www.activitybuddy.net/music/msjackson.mp3) of the type of thing I'm talking about.


Well, since that excerpt only contained a basic i-bVII-bVI chord progression, I'd call it R&B. If it used the changes to "All the Things", I'd call it "Smooth Jazz". But that's just me....

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



Well, since that excerpt only contained a basic i-bVII-bVI chord progression, I'd call it R&B. If it used the changes to "All the Things", I'd call it "Smooth Jazz". But that's just me....

Jazz isn't a chord progression, the what and the how that's played over a progression is Jazz.

Originally posted by Phil Smith


Jazz isn't a chord progression, the what and the how that's played over a progression is Jazz.

Exactly my point. Smooth Jazz = R&B style over jazz changes, hence the "smooth". I'd only give the nod to the word "jazz" in the title because ATTYA is a jazz standard. But to my very bucholic ears, that excerpt was what I'd call R&B. All it needs is BOYZ TO MEN IN THE HOOD singing, "Baby, I'm so sorry I ****ed that other girl, she don't mean nothin' to me, please take me back". :D

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


Exactly my point. Smooth Jazz = R&B style over jazz changes, hence the "smooth". I'd only give the nod to the word "jazz" in the title because ATTYA is a jazz standard. But to my very bucholic ears, that excerpt was what I'd call R&B. All it needs is BOYZ TO MEN IN THE HOOD singing, "Baby, I'm so sorry I ****ed that other girl, she don't mean nothin' to me, please take me back". :D

It already has that, but not by Boyz To Men, it's a and excerpt of a cover of a tune called Ms Jackson by the rap group Outkast. Technically it isn't R&B, in the way that Swing isn't Bop.

I'm starting a new thread for this discussion.

Originally posted by Phil Smith


Jazz isn't a chord progression, the what and the how that's played over a progression is Jazz.

Well - the most respected authority on "what is Jazz?" that I know is Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory Book". So - all the Jazz tutors I know have recommended it and a lot of people on here as well.

BUt if you read through it, it is nothing more than an introduction to chords, chord changes and functional harmony, followed by chord substitutions and re-harmonising a sequence - like Coltrane changes.

So I mentioned about the Blues - so a Blues with lots of altered chords and substitutions is commonly called a "Jazz Blues" and what most of the Jazz greats did in their tunes was to take the Blues and things like Rhythm changes and change the chords to make it all sound "Jazzier" - they Jazzed it up!

You mentioned about the way people play - but this is basically down to note choice - finding scales that fit the chords or if you like playing extensions to the chords, that sound "Jazzier" !

It is all about the chords and theri function in the harmony - this sound was adopted by some 20th Century composers working in the classical area and you can clearly hear the Jazz sound, no matter who plays those works - so like Rhapsody in Blue always sounds Jazzy whether it is the Moscow or London Symphony orchestra!

Originally posted by Pacman
It is considerably harder to play something interesting on a two chord vamp than over complex changes.

With a "static harmony" situation, like a lot of two chord vamps, it is up to the soloist to completely create tension and release. With more complex changes, the tension and release come more naturally.

I agree totally - that is why most Smooth Jazz is soporific and bland, while Miles's "So What" has incredible contrasts and lots of ideas.

But "Modal" Jazz exemplified by "Kind of Blue" was just a short period in Jazz History and the vast majority is characterised by finding new chords, new sequences, re-harmonising sequences and finding new scales/note choices.

So Coltrane, who was involved in KoB went on to invent his own differnet re-harmonisations of chord sequences straight after this - modal Jazz was just a brief stopping point for him in a career that was characterised more by complex harmonic ideas.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


Well - the most respected authority on "what is Jazz?" that I know is Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory Book". So - all the Jazz tutors I know have recommended it and a lot of people on here as well. BUt if you read through it, it is nothing more than an introduction to chords, chord changes and functional harmony, followed by chord substitutions and re-harmonising a sequence - like Coltrane changes.


The "Jazz Theory Book" is quite good, BUT it's directed at a particular audience, i.e. pianist, which is why it is so heavily focused on harmony. It doesn't define Jazz it analyzes a part of Jazz.


So I mentioned about the Blues - so a Blues with lots of altered chords and substitutions is commonly called a "Jazz Blues" and what most of the Jazz greats did in their tunes was to take the Blues and things like Rhythm changes and change the chords to make it all sound "Jazzier" - they Jazzed it up!


I ask again: What about blues tunes like "Freddie Freeloader", "Straight No Chaser"?


You mentioned about the way people play - but this is basically down to note choice - finding scales that fit the chords or if you like playing extensions to the chords, that sound "Jazzier" !


I think it's more about phrasing first, followed by note choice. You can choose all the notes you want, but if you're not swinging..., well you're not swinging.

Originally posted by Phil Smith


The "Jazz Theory Book" is quite good, BUT it's directed at a particular audience, i.e. pianist, which is why it is so heavily focused on harmony. It doesn't define Jazz it analyzes a part of Jazz.


Actually, I think that you're confusing two of Mark's books with each other: "The Jazz Piano Book" is geared toward pianists, while "The Jazz Theory Book" is geared toward....well, Jazz Theory in general (it's not instrument specific).

And Bruce, I know Mark personally, and if he heard anyone calling him "the most respected authority on "what is Jazz?", he'd either be horrified or just bust out laughing. Or both. He's a very humble, gentle guy who just happened to write a great theory book, that's all. :)

Originally posted by Phil Smith


The "Jazz Theory Book" is quite good, BUT it's directed at a particular audience, i.e. pianist, which is why it is so heavily focused on harmony. It doesn't define Jazz it analyzes a part of Jazz.

No not at all - it quite clearly states that it is not aimed at pianists and is for all instrumentalists - the introduction explains that no piano skill is needed!


I ask again: What about blues tunes like "Freddie Freeloader", "Straight No Chaser"?


Well - that's 2 out of literally thousands that are played regularly by Jazz musicians - apart from the countless original tunes!


I think it's more about phrasing first, followed by note choice. You can choose all the notes you want, but if you're not swinging..., well you're not swinging.

Rubbish - there are loads of Jazz tunes that don't have a swing feel - countless bossas, ballads, straight tunes, odd-time signature based pieces - loads of Jazz bands play nothing with a swing feel! :rolleyes:

This just betrays a very limited view of Jazz!

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald

And Bruce, I know Mark personally, and if he heard anyone calling him "the most respected authority on "what is Jazz?", he'd either be horrified or just bust out laughing. Or both. He's a very humble, gentle guy who just happened to write a great theory book, that's all. :)

Of course - but just about every Jazz course I've been on or heard of, recommends this and it is always on sale at such events.

It's very popularity demonstrates that there is a large amount of "stuff" to know about Jazz that deals with chords/scales/sequences/(re-)harmonisations etc.

I mean how can you understand Coltrane's contribution to Jazz without considering what he did to the chord sequence in Giant Steps?

There are huge areas of Jazz that cannot be understood without reference to chords and scales and developments in these, unique to Jazz!

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Actually, I think that you're confusing two of Mark's books with each other: "The Jazz Piano Book" is geared toward pianists, while "The Jazz Theory Book" is geared toward....well, Jazz Theory in general (it's not instrument specific).

No, I'm not confusing the two books but here's a quote from "The Jazz Theory Book":

Many of the examples in the book are written for piano. You don't need any "piano technique" to use this book. You just need to be able to read the notes. Because many people reading this book won't be pianist, many of the piano transcriptions have been simplified, and are marked as such. If a piano example looks to difficult for you to decipher, have your teacher or a piano-playing friend play it for you.

My point is that is has a piano bias, which makes sense, since it's written by a pianist.

Originally posted by Phil Smith
Because many people reading this book won't be pianist, many of the piano transcriptions have been simplified, and are marked as such.

Well this sounds like the opposite to me and I know loads of people learning Jazz who have bought this and people who recommended it, who are not pianists.

The advice I have received on many occasions though is that to fully understand theory and get it in your head - you really need to play these things on the piano, whether you are a pianist or not.

Every non-pianist Jazz tutor I have met - well over 50! - has been able to pick out and play chords on the piano to illustrate examples of Jazz theory/harmony.

Well there are huge numbers of "Jazz" albums without swing feel - do the Mahavishnu Orchestra or Return to Forever swing? A lot of the European Jazz that I listen to is also in that category - I have huge amounts of it - but I think this is the trouble - things may get included in "Jazz" as a category simply for Marketing purposes and I don't feel you can tie Jazz down that closely. OK - there are certain types of Jazz where there is no doubt - but a lot of the stuff I listen to is on the fringes of Jazz and other types of music. Like Afro Cuban, Tango, Contemorary Classical etc.

I still think most of the recent Dave Holland stuff I've heard is straight and has a funk feel more than swing - especially Billy Kilson's drumming - I know other people have agreed, who know more about this than me - maye we're listening to different things? I mean I have no doubt that Dave Holland can really swing - but he doesn't have to!

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Well there are huge numbers of "Jazz" albums without swing feel - do the Mahavishnu Orchestra or Return to Forever swing? A lot of the European Jazz that I listen to is also in that category - I have huge amounts of it - but I think this is the trouble - things may get included in "Jazz" as a category simply for Marketing purposes and I don't feel you can tie Jazz down that closely. OK - there are certain types of Jazz where there is no doubt - but a lot of the stuff I listen to is on the fringes of Jazz and other types of music. Like Afro Cuban, Tango, Contemorary Classical etc.

Does Return to Forever swing? Is that a joke? What do you think that latin flavor is all about?

Mahavishnu Orchestra? Get a hold of the "Apocalypse" CD, check out Ralphe Armstrongs solo, and tell me whether or not it's swinging.


I still think most of the recent Dave Holland stuff I've heard is straight and has a funk feel more than swing - especially Billy Kilson's drumming - I know other people have agreed, who know more about this than me - maye we're listening to different things? I mean I have no doubt that Dave Holland can really swing - but he doesn't have to!

Funk feel, swing feel, six of one, half a dozen of the other. You want to call it funky and not swinging, fine with me.