• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Notation question in blues: #V or bVI?

#46
The_Reverend said:
In functional harmony, a secondary dominant chord is a 7 chord which is not being played on the 5th degree of the key centre. For example, in the key of C, the only 7 chord that remains diatonic to the key signature is G7, In F the V7 is C7, in Eb it's Bb etc. However if you look at a lot of jazz standards you'll see a lot of 7 chords which are not diatonic to the key. These are called secondary dominants and extended dominants. The most common use of a secondary dominant is in the old reliable III-7-VI7-II-7-V7 turnaround. Technically when the VI chord is played as a 7 chord instead of a minor 7, it is not diatonic to the key, which makes it a secondary dominant. As a consequence of this, when you see a VI7 in a III-VI-II-V, it's not a VI7, it's a V7/II (because it is the dominant chord of the 2nd degree of the scale). I apologise I know my answer is long winded, I really hope it was helpful.

To answer your question though, this is why I call it a substitute secondary dominant:

If the tune is in G and you're playing an Eb7, then first and foremost, the most obvious thing about this chord is that it is a tritone substitution, for A7.
A tritone substitution is what the name says it is, A substitution of any dominant chord with another dominant chord which has a root a tritone away eg.
/D-7 G7/ Cmaj7/ can be substituted with /D-7 Db7/Cmaj7/
This because G7 and Db7 (or any other two dominant chords a tritone apart) share the same tritone on the same chord tones (3rd and 7th)

G7 Db7
1. G 1. Db
3. B 3. F
5. D 5. Ab
7. F 7. B

Now since the Eb7 is a substitute dominant for A7, the next thing to note is that A7 is not diatonic to the key of G, and so it is a secondary dominant. A7 would be the V of D, D is the 5th of G and therefore A7 is the V7 of the 5th degree or the V7/V. Which makes Eb7 the substitute secondary dominant or sub V7/V

Any clearer?



Anyway, the blues is a modal progression and can't really be explained by functional music theory unless you claim the key is changing every other bar.
Click to expand...

Hi
My original response was intended to be a joke. Seems like a lot of analysis to describe a single chord. If you can't hear E flat to D, you probably won't be able to understand the sub-secondary dominant stuff.... I tend to agree with Marc and Paul. Just listen to the tune and figure it out. I guess I just don't understand how this complicated harmonic analysis will help one play the blues....
 
#47
There's some new scientific evidence floating around these days in regards how we listen to and internalize music from our ears...to our brains.....and finally, to the basic emotional levels of our being. (see DURRL'S [Chris Fitzgerald] thread about Your brain on music.)
Here's my final analysis of what's happening with this thread.
The theoretical stuff that some of you are talking about is important to some, and for SOME....NOT so important. Not to be self-indulgent.... (which is a real bitch for me) but I can only use my own experience in music to make my point.
I'm a self-taught pro jazz bassist. My need to play music came from a deep seeded emotional hunger within me. I had to have it. I didn't want it. I HAD to HAVE it....much like food or water. I didn't approach learning the blues from a theoretical analysis of the material like some of you seem to HAVE to do. Believe me, there's not a thing wrong with that...BUT, the basic vibe or the need for the messenger to get the message out to the messengee IS what we are searching for here. If you need all that stuff on a piece paper to get the job done....peachy. Your call. But, if you do your homework, I think you'll agree that the great messengers of really heavy emotional, personal musical statements didn't HAVE to HAVE it, at least in the begining...it was already there, waiting for a way to find it's way out of them. To me, that's the musical bottom line.
Take the great jazz singer Billie Holliday. I spent a few years in the biz not liking her. (actually, not getting her) Her voice grated on my ears and made me a bit uncomfortable listening to her. Then I heard her sing a real happy-go-lucky, walk-in-the-park-with-your-boy friend on a day-in-May kind of standard tune, and I GOT it. Holy crap! The poor lady has the damn blues! My god, that's tragic. Wow...she broke my heart. It hurt me deeply....BUT in a very beautiful way. I liked that feeling.....sad? You bet. But, never the less, beautiful. To me, that's the real meaning of the "blues"......I DO think that that was the real intention of the blues.
Blah, blah.......no matter the musical framework, the amount of bars in the material, the amount of notes on a piece white paper, #'s b's Bm7th's alt. angularists G/Cmaj9th's, it will always remain the same for me. A very basic need for one human to communicate with another on a non-verbal level.
 
#48
Paul Warburton said:
There's some new scientific evidence floating around these days in regards how we listen to and internalize music from our ears...to our brains.....and finally, to the basic emotional levels of our being. (see DURRL'S [Chris Fitzgerald] thread about Your brain on music.)
Here's my final analysis of what's happening with this thread.
The theoretical stuff that some of you are talking about is important to some, and for SOME....NOT so important. Not to be self-indulgent.... (which is a real bitch for me) but I can only use my own experience in music to make my point.
I'm a self-taught pro jazz bassist. My need to play music came from a deep seeded emotional hunger within me. I had to have it. I didn't want it. I HAD to HAVE it....much like food or water. I didn't approach learning the blues from a theoretical analysis of the material like some of you seem to HAVE to do. Believe me, there's not a thing wrong with that...BUT, the basic vibe or the need for the messenger to get the message out to the messengee IS what we are searching for here. If you need all that stuff on a piece paper to get the job done....peachy. Your call. But, if you do your homework, I think you'll agree that the great messengers of really heavy emotional, personal musical statements didn't HAVE to HAVE it, at least in the begining...it was already there, waiting for a way to find it's way out of them. To me, that's the musical bottom line.
Take the great jazz singer Billie Holliday. I spent a few years in the biz not liking her. (actually, not getting her) Her voice grated on my ears and made me a bit uncomfortable listening to her. Then I heard her sing a real happy-go-lucky, walk-in-the-park-with-your-boy friend on a day-in-May kind of standard tune, and I GOT it. Holy crap! The poor lady has the damn blues! My god, that's tragic. Wow...she broke my heart. It hurt me deeply....BUT in a very beautiful way. I liked that feeling.....sad? You bet. But, never the less, beautiful. To me, that's the real meaning of the "blues"......I DO think that that was the real intention of the blues.
Blah, blah.......no matter the musical framework, the amount of bars in the material, the amount of notes on a piece white paper, #'s b's Bm7th's alt. angularists G/Cmaj9th's, it will always remain the same for me. A very basic need for one human to communicate with another on a non-verbal level.
Click to expand...

Now I'm feeling the blues for being sarcastic a few posts back. I don't mean to make fun of this great art form or people that practice it seriously. Before jazz, I was influenced heavily by Junior Wells, Muddy, Buddy Guy, Paul Butterfield, Albert King, BB, etc. In fact, blues music led me into jazz by way of Stanley Turrentine and his album "Prayer Meeting" with Jimmy Smith. Blues is about feeling and story telling (as good jazz is) and I think an intellectual analysis can be done, but to me, doesn't really fit the subject matter too well. It's art and it's abstract and it is aural.

Thanks for the good post, Paul.
 
#49
I understand how you can break Blues or jazz down into theoretical components. I certainly understand the musical mechanics of the music. Theory. But, and this is a big BUT. It's all about what your hearing and feeling IMHO. Paul stated it in an eloquent manner, much better than I.
The guys who were the blues masters most probably did not go to Julliard and did not play, eat, live and breath this music on a theoretical level. They felt it and had to play it. It was in their hearts souls and of course EARS. :cool:
 
#54
I had a bad experience with the blues last night....made me think of this thread. (that was enough to give me the blues anyway.) A lady friend and I went out to support and listen to a mutual friend doing a one man show on DB, and a couple other string instruments. He invited me up to play bass while he sang and played guitar. Everything was peachy until he invited up a western-swing kinda lady singer to join us......we talked before about not bein' able to get the blues in certain keys here, right? Well damn....the lady had the blues in D! I know you geetarist blues folks are cool with that, but I have "issues"....I have a problem getting the blues in the key of D. Like most jazz guys, I'm most fond of my blues in Bb or F. OK with 'em in C, G, EVEN Eb, Ab and Db especially is nice 'cause Lady Day used to get 'em in that key, big time. D? not a chance.:rollno: What bothered me the most was that I didn't think that even SHE had the blues! Dint sound like it to me. Why would a "western swing" singer ever get them blues? Don't get me wrong...I'm sure Roy and Dale were brought down pretty dark when Trigger kicked (no pun intended.) And, by the way, I KNOW they had his ass stuffed (actually, I heard that they had his wholeownself stuffed. Not my Idea of a mentally healthy way to handle them blues.) :help:
Anyways, I got them damn blues from her tryin' to get them blues in D. Bottom line is, and this is my most important point here, NONE of us got them blues! Well, as I said, I did but I got 'em too damn late to have them translate into MY playing, 'cause I was too busy tryin' to find all those ******* #'s on my bass.
Of course, naturally I did get 'em eventually. :eek:
I went on home and played/had some blues in Bb by myownself and all was right with the world.
 
#57
Treyzer said:
Paul, nice pic and your smiling:cool:
Click to expand...

Godamn it. I didn't notice. I liked it because it was a good shot of my bass. Thanks to the jive-ass TB "Manage Attachments" feature-less, :scowl:....I hada trim the *********** down to what was left.
Seriously, as I told our dear Dead Pukespray in his Facebook, in that shot I has just said somthing really awful to pianist Eric Gunnison. His gag-response kicked in, and the look on my face says it all......success.
They hada call in one of those Industrial Strenght Vacuum Wet & Dry Cleaning Systems to attend to that mess on and in that fine grand piano at that concert.
 
#59
Sharping the five is a common move in the Blues. It is reminiscent of the minor scale, for example A B C D E...F...G A. The E (the three of the relative major) moves a half step up to the F.

In Nashville, we use numbers all the time, but not Roman Numerals, we use good old American arabic numerals :) I agree with the poster who said to think about avoiding double sharps, but using the number system we use, the actual key is moveable, it is the number relations that stay the same. That way we can write a chart and transpose at will. I usually call it a flat six, but if someone is new to reading it might be easier to call it a sharp five.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back