Chord Substitutions

[Phil Smith]

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.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

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.

[Bruce Lindfield]

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!

This just betrays a very limited view of Jazz!

[Bruce Lindfield]

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!

[Phil Smith]

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.

[Bruce Lindfield]

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.

[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.

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!

[Phil Smith]

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.