Blue Bossa

[Richard Lindsey]

Your theory on the G7b5 is not really making sense to me.
First you say the chord is nothing more than what it says, a dominant 7th chord with a b5, on the other hand , you're saying that you can imply very many diffrent alterations (in terms of voicings, melodies played over). But since the chord isn't derrived from any scale, there is no set standard. It could practically be the same thing as G7#11, G7altered or something else.

This to me seems limiting in terms of voicings and so forth. How is the pianist to know if he's going to voice his extensions if there is virtually no information given on the non-chord tones in the scale?

And saying that there are no alterations implied in certain chord symbols is just false...an experienced jazz players who sees a G7+9 for instance will not have +9 as the only alteration.
Listening "to the rest of the piece" is not really going to help me very much with a dominant, much less an ambigous one.

/lovebown

You're thinking of this too mechanistically, I think. It's really not as rigid as all that. A G7b5 is just what it is: G B Db F. You can choose to play it just like that, and it's not wrong. A lot of bossa guitarists do, for example. But you can also add extensions if you want. Which extensions you choose, or whether you choose any at all, depends on a lot of things; you're not as locked in as you seem to think. I'm not getting why you feel that a chord has to come from some scale you can identify before it's legitimate.

It seems to me that you're trying to create an artificial distinction that doesn't really exist and doesn't need to. G7b5 is a perfectly legitimate chord symbol, and a commonly used one. And as I've explained before, there is in fact a scale from which you can derive it--even though I think it's a myth to believe that chords have to be derived from scales--and that's the whole tone scale. Furthermore, it's at least as legitimate to derive G7b5 from the altered scale as it is to derive any altered dominant from it: in both cases, you have to rely on the enharmonic equivalence of Cb with B to make it work.

BTW, I didn't say that certain chord symbols don't imply certain alterations. But you're right that I probably didn't express myself very clearly. What I meant to say was that no *7th* chord--meaning no chord made up of 1-3-5-7--*in and of itself* implies anything about the upper extensions. In other words, if you just see a G7b5, you can't assume you know *anything* about what the upper extensions "should" be unless you see how the chord is working in the piece and have an idea what kind of sound you want to make. You could put a #9 or natural 9 or a b9 on top, a natural 13 or a b13, and so on.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

How is the pianist to know if he's going to voice his extensions if there is virtually no information given on the non-chord tones in the scale?

If he's a good pianist, he'll decide for himself, on the basis of what his ears are telling him. Part of the essence of improvised music is precisely that you don't expect all the information to be given to you. And it isn't as if there's always one and only one scale you can use when you hit a particular point in a piece. As a crude example, a pianist could theoretically play a mixolydian over a G7 one time, a lydian dominant the next, a half-whole diminished the next, a whole tone the next, and an altered the next.

 

[Lovebown]

We both know you can play virtually any scale over a dominant and make it work... dominants are very forgiving and besides, their effect is usually increaced when there's a lot of dissonance placed on them , if they resolve. Theoretically , you could voice all dominants with just the 3rd and 7th , and have pretty much any dominant scale work over that.

I still maintain my view that the only time I think a chord can or should be written as 7b5 is when the particular "mode", or the melody includes both a natural 11th, lowered 5th and no natural 5th. If you want to call for a whole-tone scale, there's the 7+ symbol..and whole-tone doesen't really include a b5 in my book, its a#11th.. and if you want lydian dominant there's good ol 7#11.

/lovebown

 

[Richard Lindsey]

We both know you can play virtually any scale over a dominant and make it work... dominants are very forgiving and besides, their effect is usually increaced when there's a lot of dissonance placed on them , if they resolve. Theoretically , you could voice all dominants with just the 3rd and 7th , and have pretty much any dominant scale work over that.

I still maintain my view that the only time I think a chord can or should be written as 7b5 is when the particular "mode", or the melody includes both a natural 11th, lowered 5th and no natural 5th. If you want to call for a whole-tone scale, there's the 7+ symbol..and whole-tone doesen't really include a b5 in my book, its a#11th.. and if you want lydian dominant there's good ol 7#11.

/lovebown

And I still maintain mine that it doesn't make sense to invent a rule that neither is necessary nor agrees with reality. That doesn't reduce confusion, it adds to it.

But it's cool, we can agree to disagree. And I wouldn't be surprised if in actual practice, you and I approached things in a similar manner.

 

[Lovebown]

Ok... agreeing to disagree seems fine.

/lovebown