Take the 'A' Train analysis

[Scottgun]

The chords I have are

Cmaj7/Cmaj7/D7b5/Dmin7

G7/Cmaj7/Dmin7/G7

Repeat, bridge, back to A section, etc.

I'm trying to figure out where the D7b5 fits in the roman numeral analysis. Some charts by the way have it as D7 without the flat 5, which made me think it was a V7/V but I thought those resolve to the V. Theory nerd help please. Thanks.

[jady]

A lot of jazz chords won't fall into place in a roman numeral analysis (drove me nuts right out of college lol)

The b5 in the D7 chord is actually in the melody. I do not believe that the rhythm section actually played the b5 which is probably why the chord notation may be missing it.

[KimblesNimble]

I think this is correct

[longfinger]

|Cmaj7 | % |D7(#11)| % |Dmi7 |G7 | C (Am) |Dm G7|

(Am could be A7.)

Keep in mind traditional Roman numeral analysis is works best for Baroque, Classical and Romantic music. It's traditional use eventually falls apart when too much chromaticism is used.

But for A train, let's keep it simple.

The D7(#11) is a V/V , which then converts to a regular iim, but I find it easier to keep track of the roots, and consider the D7(#11) as a II7 (dominant). Alternations to certain extensions I prefer to consider "colour" variations that don't change the basic function of the root chord motion.

I like to keep the roman numeral analysis simple for jazz, and use it as a prescriptive analysis, rather than a descriptive analysis. By this, I mean it helps me remember the song and play the next chord coming up, rather than help me understand the chord I just finished playing in context to the chord I'm playing now. YMMV.

[Eminentbass]

The chord chart I have has the D7 as a #11 which essentially is the same note as the b5 but seeing as the #11 is #4 an octave up, it allows both the G# note and the natural 5th(A) to be used in improvisation. This does make the roman numeral analysis difficult because it's deviating from the key signature and becoming a secondary dominant although I would just write it as II7(b5 or #11 depending on your preference) rather than lower case which denotes minor.

In cases where a jazz tune deviates from the key where you actually had ii-V-I or other chords in a different key, my jazz theory lecturer would have us use the roman numerals specific to the key that the temporary modulation jumps to and specify the key change.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Scottgun

I'm trying to figure out where the D7b5 fits in the roman numeral analysis. Some charts by the way have it as D7 without the flat 5, which made me think it was a V7/V but I thought those resolve to the V.

Several points:

#1) Ignore the b5, altered tensions rarely affect a chord's basic functionality. It's still functionally V7/V (but see my point #4, below)

#2) You are correct, V7/V does resolve to V...except when it doesn't. Seriously. Deceptive resolutions, indirect resolutions, unresolved dominants... all grist for the mill.

#3) in this particular example, V7/V does resolve to V, albeit indirectly through the II minor chord. If you're familiar with the analysis symbols of jazz harmony, this is indicated by having the dominant resolution arrow arcing over the D-7 to point to the G7, while the D-7 and G7 are still bracketed to indicate their II-V relationship.

#4) however, to say that the D7b5 "is" the V7/V in "Take The A Train" is somewhat misleading, because while it can be said to function as V7/V, it rarely sounds like V7/V. Strayhorn used that chord more as an abstract color than as a purely functional chord; it's a temporary instability designed to create forward motion by virtue of its ambiguity.

Or maybe that should be vice-versa: a temporary ambiguity creating motion by virtue of its instability

[Chris K]

Originally Posted by Scottgun

Theory nerd help please.

Very flattering

First of all, in your example you omitted a bar of D7b5, see below.

As mentioned above, classical harmony might not apply.

A classical progression generally moves from diatonic to altered, not the other way around.
Since in C major Dm7 is a diatonic chord, it 'should' precede D7(b5) which is an altered chord (even without the b5, already because of the majord third f#)). That would look like:

I - ii - II7 - V7 etc.

So we could think that Ellington just pulls up his nose for classical harmony, and goes:

I - II7 - ii - V7 etc.

From a classical point of view, however (pretty wild thought, but still...) the chord D7b5 could be interpreted as a prolongued I. This can be easily 'proved' by ear if you play long, functional bass notes over the progression mentioned.

Cma7|Cmaj7| D7b5 | D7b5 |Dm7 | G7 | Cmaj7 | Dm7 G7
c-----c------c------c------d-----g---c-------d----g (bass)
I---------------------------ii-----V7--I--------ii----V7

I curious for better shots, but on a general level of functionality, I don't see many other possibilities.

[longfinger]

Originally Posted by Chris K

From a classical point of view, however (pretty wild thought, but still...) the chord D7b5 could be interpreted as a prolongued I. This can be easily 'proved' by ear if you play long, functional bass notes over the progression mentioned.

Cma7|Cmaj7| D7b5 | D7b5 |Dm7 | G7 | Cmaj7 | Dm7 G7
c-----c------c------c------d-----g---c-------d----g (bass)
I---------------------------ii-----V7--I--------ii----V7

Interesting, like a common tone diminished chord but with a different sonority and no immediate tonic return.

voice leading, number = scale degree in parent major key.


5 #5 6 5 5
5 #4 4 4 3
3 2 2 2 3
1 1 1 7 1

C D7 Dm G7 C
#11

[HaVIC5]

A classical progression generally moves from diatonic to altered, not the other way around.

I'm really not quite sure what you mean by this. Specific examples? Sources?

[/quote]Since in C major Dm7 is a diatonic chord, it 'should' precede D7(b5) which is an altered chord (even without the b5, already because of the majord third f#)). That would look like:

I - ii - II7 - V7 etc.

So we could think that Ellington just pulls up his nose for classical harmony, and goes:

I - II7 - ii - V7 etc.[/quote]

Delayed resolution is relatively uncommon in common practice, but it certainly isn't particularly jarring to the aesthetic. This sort of progression was extremely common to the Tin Pan Alley tradition, and it wasn't revolutionary by any means. To think that Strayhorn (Billy Strayhorn wrote Take the A Train, by the way, not Duke Ellington) was somehow conciously "thumbing his nose" at tradition is way off - he was fully embracing a rather conventional device of popular music of the day.

From a classical point of view, however (pretty wild thought, but still...) the chord D7b5 could be interpreted as a prolongued I. This can be easily 'proved' by ear if you play long, functional bass notes over the progression mentioned.

Cma7|Cmaj7| D7b5 | D7b5 |Dm7 | G7 | Cmaj7 | Dm7 G7
c-----c------c------c------d-----g---c-------d----g (bass)
I---------------------------ii-----V7--I--------ii----V7

I don't see how this could remotely be considered a "prolonged" I, all you're proving is that C works as a pedal point underneath D7 - which is a reharmonization. You could play C underneath all the chords and it'd sound fine as a pedal. All things point to D7 not being a prolongation of the tonic. The root changes, there are several chromatic pitches (F# and G#/Ab), and the melody is in parallel sequence.

However...there is something interesting about the root of this chord...

I curious for better shots, but on a general level of functionality, I don't see many other possibilities.

There are a lot of problems with relying solely on chord changes or lead sheets for functional analysis. A lot of times, they don't give you the complete picture. This is especially the case here.

Duke Ellington was one of the jazz pioneers to start borrowing scale concepts from the French impressionists of the late 19th century. He was fond of both the symmetrical diminished scale (1 2 b3 4 5 b6 6 7) and the whole tone scale (1 2 3 #4 #5 b7), and built a lot of arrangements and compositions around voicings he derived from these scales. The intro Duke wrote for several of his arrangements of Take the A Train is based around the whole tone scale. Check it out here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRGFqSkNjHk

Duke took this whole tone idea and found other way to sneak it in to the rest of the composition. On a couple of the arrangements he wrote of this tune he wrote voicings for his orchestra that used the whole tone scale and tensions of the whole tone scale on the "D7(b5)" chord rather than the more convention choice (what chord/scale junkies would call lydian b7, but I doubt he was thinking along those lines). In this particular arrangement, there are fleeting instances of this, but on this one with Ella Fitzgerald, there are more pronounced times where he uses it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxuc0W

(also check out the really cool parallel upper register coupling at the 9th in the beginner between the trumpet and clarinet, classic Duke)

This idea that the D7 "means" whole tone scale isn't lost on a lot of improvisers. If you're playing whole tone licks on the D7, that's a surefire way to let people know you're "in the know" with that tune. Of course, I've played with a guitarist who only played whole tone licks (and unimaginative ones at that)...so you can go overboard with it of course.

Going back to how this chord functions...Hoover mentioned it earlier.

#4) however, to say that the D7b5 "is" the V7/V in "Take The A Train" is somewhat misleading, because while it can be said to function as V7/V, it rarely sounds like V7/V. Strayhorn used that chord more as an abstract color than as a purely functional chord; it's a temporary instability designed to create forward motion by virtue of its ambiguity.

It's function is "D Whole Tone color, with implications of V7/V," I suppose. You could say that it's "subdominant" or "predominant" because of the root's subdominant implications.

Check out this video of this trio playing it. It even mentions my point about the whole tone scale in the description and an anecdote about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flNAXdMwQl0

[Chris K]

^^^^
Very good post by HaVIC5 and I admit that mine was nothing but a first shot. The question of the harmonic function of bar 3-4 of Take the A Train already kept me busy before his reaction.

As for going from diatonic chords to altered chords: I meant to say that in classical harmony (not Tin Pan Alley, but classics like Bach, Mozart) the move order generally is ii > II, vi > VI etc. to create tension within the same harmonic function. With many creative exceptions to that 'rule'.

Now for the prolongued I. One of the concepts of classical harmonic functionality is that we only know three main functions: tonica, subdominant, dominant. Where is D7b5 on that general level?

My hunch that it is 'only' a bridge going from I - tonica (Cmaj7) to ii - subdominant (Dm7) and that it does not hold any main function of its own.

The axis of the melody is something like g - g# - a - g - e
Srayhorn (of course! ) could have harmonized this melody in a very 'common' way by writing C - C+ - Dm - G7 -C. Now in this 'reharmonization' it is pretty obvious that C+ is tonica.

But I guess, instead of C+, and having to stay on the tonica for 4 bars, Strayhorn chose to use a more sophisticated chord, D7b5. It is pretty obvious that the b5 is not the note Ab, but G# leading to A of Dm7. On top of that, the 3rd to D7b5, the note F#, is in fact Gb leading to the F of Dm7. Again we are looking at the major drawback of chord symbols. They tell us nothing about voicings. Moreover, if you listen the band arrangement, in fact it's D79b5

The above is only one analysis within one concept among many others,

I took the trouble to do some listening. Guess what note the bass plays the first time he hits D7b5?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb2w2m1JmCY

Mistake? Coincidence? Not with the Ellington band I would think.

And for even more possibilities and some laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ggcQ...eature=related

[groooooove]

Originally Posted by jady

A lot of jazz chords won't fall into place in a roman numeral analysis (drove me nuts right out of college lol)

The b5 in the D7 chord is actually in the melody. I do not believe that the rhythm section actually played the b5 which is probably why the chord notation may be missing it.

yeah. a classical study of ruman numeral analysis is a really great tool to have- but for two reasons, it doesent work in jazz-

1. its jazz. not classical music. (theyre just differnt.)
2. most realbook charts are poorly written, especially in bass books. at a session i did earlier today, we recorded "four" by miles, and this chart had literally twice as many chords as i know the song really has. if your able to understand which chords you can ignore, and where you can add other chords, then youll start to be able to analyze jazz charts in a way sort of similar to the classical type thing, but still obviously a different ball game.

so the heads up to anyone who plays jazz but goes to a classical college program- always keep it in your mind how different the two are. letting the "classical mind" seep into your jazz is a bad thing, and vice-versa.

[HaVIC5]

As for going from diatonic chords to altered chords: I meant to say that in classical harmony (not Tin Pan Alley, but classics like Bach, Mozart) the move order generally is ii > II, vi > VI etc. to create tension within the same harmonic function. With many creative exceptions to that 'rule'.

I'm not sure if I agree with this statement as a general "rule of thumb" or even a guiding thought when thinking about common practice chromaticism. It obscures what's going on melodically and why a secondary dominant might come after the diatonic chord built upon it's root, and the voice leading contained within. However, I see your point in that this sort of progression might not have been within the general harmonic scheme of Mozart and his contemporaries. Once the 19th century came around, however, the chromatic voice leading that this progressions affords would have been well within analysis and compositional practice.

Now for the prolongued I. One of the concepts of classical harmonic functionality is that we only know three main functions: tonica, subdominant, dominant. Where is D7b5 on that general level?

My hunch that it is 'only' a bridge going from I - tonica (Cmaj7) to ii - subdominant (Dm7) and that it does not hold any main function of its own.

There are three basic ways to analyze a harmonic progression - 1) general functional analysis (Tonic, Subdominant, Dominant, Diminished, Chromatic, Passing, etc) 2) Roman Numeral analysis (V/V, etc) and 3) narrative analysis of the voice leading/melodic relationships/general harmonic scheme. I think we both agree that the "function" of the chord is to bridge the tonic to the II-V in the narrative sense.

The axis of the melody is something like g - g# - a - g - e
Srayhorn (of course! ) could have harmonized this melody in a very 'common' way by writing C - C+ - Dm - G7 -C. Now in this 'reharmonization' it is pretty obvious that C+ is tonica.

Ooh boy, that's a dangerous game to play, the "he could have wrote it this way." It doesn't really prove anything about the function of a chord, because chords with different functions can be reharmonized with the same melody. However, while we're on that, I'd like to make a point about the possible secondary dominant function of the chord.

For example, he could have simply wrote the progression this way:

Cmaj7 / / / | / / / / | D7(#11) / / / | / / / / | G7 / / / | / / / / | Cmaj7 (+turnaround) |

If you look at it this way, D7(#11) very clearly has dominant function to the G7, there really wouldn't be any other way to analyze it. It's a dominant chord moving down a fifth to a diatonically functioning chord. Strayhorn, of course, doesn't do this, and instead interpolates the related II of G7, Dm7, to add some interest. If you look at it this way, it's the Dm7 that doesn't have "true function," it just serves as a "suspension of the G7. In fact, if you play G underneath it, the chord becomes a G9sus4 chord.

Playing a different bass note thus "proves" my point .

But I guess, instead of C+, and having to stay on the tonica for 4 bars, Strayhorn chose to use a more sophisticated chord, D7b5. It is pretty obvious that the b5 is not the note Ab, but G# leading to A of Dm7. On top of that, the 3rd to D7b5, the note F#, is in fact Gb leading to the F of Dm7. Again we are looking at the major drawback of chord symbols. They tell us nothing about voicings. Moreover, if you listen the band arrangement, in fact it's D79b5

Yup, the voice leading is the key thing, and that's what makes the chord work. Harmony should really be analyzed on two fronts, voice leading and root motion. If you're not paying attention to both of these things, you've missed something important about the harmony (not saying that you in particular did, haha, that's just a general statement).

Also, if you want to talk big band arranging, there could never be one "definitive" chord name for each particular chord if you want to include chord extensions. Part of the beauty of big band voicings, and voicing chords in general, is that there are so many ways to add notes to the chord that don't destroy it's basic chord sound. That's one of the benefits of a chord scale system in arranging - it gives the writer/arranger all the possible notes that could be included in a voicing for a particular 4-note chord that still will, at the core of it, sound like a 4-note chord like D7. For example, you could have the voicing B C E F#, and it would sound like a "D7." Not some complicated chord symbol that tries to notate inversion, tensions, etc.

Duke and all the early arrangers knew this full well, and while they didn't have some convoluted chord scale system, they knew that trying to name what they were doing in chord symbols was irrelevant and futile. It went far, far beyond that. If anybody's interested, try transcribing a big band chart. It's one of the most frustrating things you'll ever do, but the rewards for your ear and your knowledge of music are immense.

The above is only one analysis within one concept among many others,

I took the trouble to do some listening. Guess what note the bass plays the first time he hits D7b5?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb2w2m1JmCY

Mistake? Coincidence? Not with the Ellington band I would think.

Jimmy Blanton was one of the key players in the Ellington band at the time, so he was certainly hip to all of the inner workings of the arrangements.

Playing a note different than the root on the downbeat is certainly not anything radical in walking lines, as you probably know, so that's not really all too telling of what the "correct" chord is, especially since if you go ahead and listen to the other times he plays over that chord he's doing other stuff. You wouldn't call a G9 chord a B-7(b5) if you played a B on the downbeat of the chord, would you? Here's a breakdown of what I hear him doing in the first chorus of that arrangement.

1x - Plays more or less exactly the same motif he played in the first two measures of C6, adapted to the C/D whole tone scale. Motivic development, people, it's a must in walking lines.

2x - Plays an open D root, then jumps up and descending using the whole tone scale. More whole tone goodness.

3x - Plays open D root, descends to C, playing D again, then ascends the whole tone scale.

Just to prove my point re: whole tone scale some more, listen to the vocal harmonies in the second A section of the second chorus. They repeat the intro whole tone lick verbatim.

And for even more possibilities and some laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ggcQ...eature=related

More whole tone goodness! That's an awesome version, btw.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

However, while we're on that, I'd like to make a point about the possible secondary dominant function of the chord.

For example, he could have simply wrote the progression this way:

Cmaj7 / / / | / / / / | D7(#11) / / / | / / / / | G7 / / / | / / / / | Cmaj7 (+turnaround) |

If you look at it this way, D7(#11) very clearly has dominant function to the G7, there really wouldn't be any other way to analyze it. It's a dominant chord moving down a fifth to a diatonically functioning chord. Strayhorn, of course, doesn't do this, and instead interpolates the related II of G7, Dm7, to add some interest. If you look at it this way, it's the Dm7 that doesn't have "true function," it just serves as a "suspension of the G7. In fact, if you play G underneath it, the chord becomes a G9sus4 chord.

This is an excellent point. To make a minor addition, as both you and Chris obviously know, in jazz it's not at all uncommon for a V7 chord to be "expanded," for lack of a better word, into a ii7-V7, without seeming to change what's happening in any essential way. Thus, as you go into the bridge of "Prelude To A Kiss," for example, you could just play a B7, or you could play F#m7b5 B7, and you'd still end up at Emaj7 by what feels like a closely related path. This does seem to suggest that it's the V7 that's carrying the bulk of the harmonic weight here, not so much the ii7, which as you say can be heard as a sort of suspension of the V7. So in the case of "A Train", this tends to indicate that the main harmonic throughline is indeed I, II7/V7 of V7, V7; and that at a basic functional level, accounting for how D7#11 gets to Dm7 is less important than recognizing how it gets to G7. (None of which, of course, should obscure the points about voice leading, voicing, root movement, etc.)

[f.clef]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

This sort of progression was extremely common to the Tin Pan Alley tradition, and it wasn't revolutionary by any means.

Yes. Think "Darktown Strutters' Ball," and all variations thereof.

[HaVIC5]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

This is an excellent point. To make a minor addition, as both you and Chris obviously know, in jazz it's not at all uncommon for a V7 chord to be "expanded," for lack of a better word, into a ii7-V7, without seeming to change what's happening in any essential way. Thus, as you go into the bridge of "Prelude To A Kiss," for example, you could just play a B7, or you could play F#m7b5 B7, and you'd still end up at Emaj7 by what feels like a closely related path. This does seem to suggest that it's the V7 that's carrying the bulk of the harmonic weight here, not so much the ii7, which as you say can be heard as a sort of suspension of the V7. So in the case of "A Train", this tends to indicate that the main harmonic throughline is indeed I, II7/V7 of V7, V7; and that at a basic functional level, accounting for how D7#11 gets to Dm7 is less important than recognizing how it gets to G7. (None of which, of course, should obscure the points about voice leading, voicing, root movement, etc.)

Let's check out how the voices move between D7(b5) (if we believe there's such a thing and it's not #11)) and G7 in a drop 2 voicing, then check out how they move between D7 to Dm7 to G7...

Ab => G (technically, if it's #11, the tension resolution pattern would be G# up to A as a tension on the G7, and the chord tone A would resolve down to G.)
D = > D
C => B
F# = > F

...versus....

Ab = > A = > G
D = > D = > D
C = > C = > B
F# = > F = > F

You can see in how the voices move that the Dm7 acts as a sort of suspension of the G7.

The interpolated II. It's a wonderful thing.

[Chris K]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

There are three basic ways to analyze a harmonic progression - 1) general functional analysis (Tonic, Subdominant, Dominant, Diminished, Chromatic, Passing, etc) 2) Roman Numeral analysis (V/V, etc) and 3) narrative analysis of the voice leading/melodic relationships/general harmonic scheme. I think we both agree that the "function" of the chord is to bridge the tonic to the II-V in the narrative sense.

Absolutely!

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

However, while we're on that, I'd like to make a point about the possible secondary dominant function of the chord.

For example, he could have simply wrote the progression this way:

Cmaj7 / / / | / / / / | D7(#11) / / / | / / / / | G7 / / / | / / / / | Cmaj7 (+turnaround) |

If you look at it this way, D7(#11) very clearly has dominant function to the G7, there really wouldn't be any other way to analyze it. It's a dominant chord moving down a fifth to a diatonically functioning chord. Strayhorn, of course, doesn't do this, and instead interpolates the related II of G7, Dm7, to add some interest. If you look at it this way, it's the Dm7 that doesn't have "true function," it just serves as a "suspension of the G7. In fact, if you play G underneath it, the chord becomes a G9sus4 chord.

Playing a different bass note thus "proves" my point .

I liked our discussion very much - also Richard chiming in - not only for its content, but also for its manner(s). In this way, nobody needs to fear taking a longshot as mine obviously was
Thank you.

Very good point about Dm7 being used as suspension for G7. On the other hand, harmony is much more than jigsaw puzzling with chords. Ear and gut feeling continue to rule and we're lucky they do.

For me it's hard (maybe because of the pretty autonomous long A in the melody) to not 'hear' Dm7 as subdominant, only going to the dominant G7 just before the phrase closes. A nice way to create some tension. If I should choose between the two suggestions you made, I would prefer the I - II - ii - V7 - I of your earlier post.

You mention bigband arranging. Does the actual arrangement of the tune give us any clues? Over D7(9)b5 in the horns one note is (almost?) unheard. It's the f#. The notes c, e, g# however are all over the arrangement. This might support my point that we're hearing C+ with bass note D added. I mean, what is a secondary dominant without a very clear major 3rd?

In the end we may have to admit that those guys in the first few post were right: Strayhorn just wrote what he liked and why should any theory fit to that?
Nonetheless, it was fun to give it a try.