Most people I've played with want that D7 to be played as a D7, atleast the first time through. I'm not sure I'd be making junk minor that's not supposed to be minor either.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Rhythm Changes?
- Thread starter JetJazz
- Start date
- Status
- Dec 13, 1999
- 11,738
- 8,959
- 70
- Disclosures
- Chuck Sher publishes my book, WALKING BASSICS:The Fundamentals of Jazz Bass Playing.
geoffkhan said:
I don't know, I still haven't heard you play anything on it. I think Lynn's comment still holds. If you're relying on active harmonic movement to instill some kind of logic and excitement to your line, I can see where "unimaginative" would play a large role in your descriptive vocabulary.
- Dec 13, 1999
- 11,738
- 8,959
- 70
- Disclosures
- Chuck Sher publishes my book, WALKING BASSICS:The Fundamentals of Jazz Bass Playing.
I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier.
WRATHOFKHAN - if you want to hear just how boring and unimaginative PACSTER is, go [Invalid or Expired Link Removed], click on JON PACKARD and start yawning.
WRATHOFKHAN - if you want to hear just how boring and unimaginative PACSTER is, go [Invalid or Expired Link Removed], click on JON PACKARD and start yawning.
Pacman: thanks for clearing that up, I get it now. You can substitute the different chords in the progression as long as the 3rd and 7th want to resolve to the same notes?
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,410
- 9,869
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Well, Dave - that's how tritone substitution works. There are many other ways to sub changes. And many others here who can explain them better than I.TheAverageDave said:
Ed Fuqua said:
Dude, when you've played over that B section a million times just as the music says, or with only small variations (I.E. tritone sub), sometimes you have to spice it up with a little reharm to make it fun.
Link Removed
I wish I had my keyboard hooked up right now. Otherwise I could give you a better example. Maybe in a few days, okay?
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,410
- 9,869
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Pacman said:
First of all, there are no such thing as "wrong" chord progressions, just as there are no wrong notes in jazz.
Now to answer your question.
Your B section in Rhythm Changes:
D7 |D7 | Db7 | Db7 | C7 | C7 | B7 | B7
My B section in Rhythm Changes:
Am7 | D7 | Dbm7 | Abm7 Db7 | Gbmaj7 | Db7 | Ebmaj7 | B13(#11)
Explanation of mine:
Am7 | D7
Rather than staying on the V for two bars, I put a bar of II before it. Although this does not change the scale used, it enhances use of arpeggios. You could probably put in a b9 on the D7.
Dbm7
Rather than going to the Gm7 chord that the D7 before it suggests, I go to a Dbm7. They are a tritone apart, and we know that the chords on opposite ends of the map are the ones that are in a way similar because they are so much different.
Abm7 Db7 | Gbmaj7
II V I, need I say more?
Db7 | Ebmaj7 | B13(#11)
What this really is is a walk up to the dominant chord leading to Bb, the chosen key of Rhythm Changes. But instead of using an F7, I use a little tritone subsitution -- thus B13(#11). Before that, the Db7 leading to an Ebmaj7 is a simple, commonly-used cadence.
There you have it. I'll admit it's a bit busy, but that just makes things fun.
Oh, and in the future, Pacman, you might be able to learn more if you consider things that other people say rather than immediately rejecting them if they seem "out of the norm." Be like a sponge and absorb every bit of insight that comes your way. I mean, it's your choice, but listening to others is the way to get better.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,410
- 9,869
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
A trite saying, but there ARE wrong notes in jazz - and wrong progressions (wrong progressions, noteably substituted ones, are ones that don't function correctly). I've been playing jazz professionally for the last 17-18 years, by the way. You?geoffkhan said:
edit: nevermind. I read your profile. I've been playing jazz since you were an infant....
Anyway....
Firstly, you should be comparing the original chord progression, as mine is a variation. if you get too far from the original, the functional harmony will change - and while that may not be 'wrong' to you, the horn player won't call you back....Now to answer your question.
Your B section in Rhythm Changes:
D7 |D7 | Db7 | Db7 | C7 | C7 | B7 | B7
My B section in Rhythm Changes:
Am7 | D7 | Dbm7 | Abm7 Db7 | Gbmaj7 | Db7 | Ebmaj7 | B13(#11)
But go ahead...
very common - got you there
Here we start breaking down. Gm7 isn't suggested by the D7 before it, Gmaj7 is. Gm7 functions as a ii, but Gmaj7 functions as a I. Remember how you said 'there are no wrong notes in jazz'? The full saying is "there are no wrong notes, only wrong resolutions". That's the case here. The Dbm7 has only one tone in common with a Gmaj7. And if you use the Gm7, it has NO common tones. Change of function, and the horn player is going to throw something at you.
actually, yes you should. You're outlining the harmony for Gb major, and the chord originally occupying this spot implies F maj - no common tones. Dbm7 to Gb7 would work, but doesn't relate to Rhythm Changes - again, you may get a trumpet mouthpiece to bounce off your skull....
the B domonant I get (see my example), but there's no resolution from the Db to the Ebmaj7 - Db7 implies Gbmaj7 - and Ebmaj7 doesn't want to resolve to the B dominant.
I guess, on it's own, it's kind of interesting, but it ain't Rhythm Changes...
Firstly, I didn't reject your stuff out of hand, I played it on a piano. and I listened to it, and I considered it in the context of the tune we're talking about. I've been playing a long time - long enough to know a BSer when I see one.Oh, and in the future, Pacman, you might be able to learn more if you consider things that other people say rather than immediately rejecting them if they seem "out of the norm." Be like a sponge and absorb every bit of insight that comes your way. I mean, it's your choice, but listening to others is the way to get better.
Secondly, YOU would do well in the future to understand that when you step onto the bandstand, in the context of a jazz setting, there's a whole lotta history and tradition there. Experienced musicians expect certain things, one of which is that you listen. If the horn player is implying the above progression (doubtful, for reasons noted), great - but if he's not, you'll be watching the gig next time, not playing it...
And lastly, you might consider absorbing the insight that comes from the realization that musicians have been playing Changes for a long time, in very specific ways. And there's a reason for that.
Pacman said:
Kenny Werner has an excellent demonstration of "there are no wrong notes." In numerous clinics he shows this by playing All The Things You Are in Ab, but soloing in A over it.
You've played jazz for 18 years. How long you've played is definitely not related to how good you are. And then again, I really don't care about how "good musicians are." What's that supposed to mean? You can play the fastest? You have mad chops? What really matters is one's ability to move people. If there's no emotion, no feeling, it means nothing.
When I hear someone playing a solo, I want to ask them, "What is it about?" Here's a cool little trick for you. Every time you play something, a solo, or a melody, or anything, think to yourself, "What am I saying?" It's all about communication, my friend. I know they're trite, over-used sayings, but they are true, good sayings.
Try playing an Am7, D7, Gm7 cadence. Yes, Gm7 is definitely a possible ending chord to the phrase.
Um, no. Dbm7 has two tones in common with Gmaj7: the E and the B. Just thought I'd let you know. And you've been playing for how long?
Wrong again, Dbm7 has two common tones with Gm7: the E and the Bb. You might argue that that depends on the scale used, but traditionally you would use an Ionian on the Gmaj7, and a Dorian on the Dbm7.
By the way, because a certain chord has no common tones with another chord -- on opposite ends of the map -- is exactly why they are related.
Hahah, that's why I wear a helmet.
Again, the chords I'm using seem so distant because I'm continuing what I did with that tricky tritone thing in the previous bar. My Gbmaj7 could lead to F very nicely, in fact. Play it on the piano.
Again, play it on the piano. Db7 goes to Ebmaj7 very nicely, too. It's not going to be the same kind of resolution as a Gbmaj7, but in jazz you don't want to always keep going to the expected chords. Like when you do a II V, it's usually more interesting when you choose not to go to the I.
And then that B13 chord. Play that on the piano, too. Ooh, try using the altered scale there -- that sounds really cool. Just play through the entire progression on the piano and find good voicings for each of the chords. Maybe you're just not hearing it right now.
Oh it definitely isn't that bluesy Rhythm Changes you're used to. In the jazz improv class at the college I attend we play a new version of 12-bar blues every week. They get wackier and wackier until basically the only similarity between it and 12-bar blues is that they're both 12 bars long. And you think my version of Rhythm Changes is weird. The instructor of the improv class is Mel Graves. Maybe you've heard of him, he's a pretty famous Bay Area bassist (see links provided). Really he's an amazing bassist I respect a lot. Check him out.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
http://www.jazzreview.com/cdreview.cfm?ID=4007
Ah, so you think I'm just BSing you. Okay. You can think whatever you like -- I'm not telling you all this to say "I'm better than you", or anything like that. Not at all, I'm just trying to give you advice and ideas. Maybe sometime you can show me some stuff, too; I'm listening to everything you're saying.
I respect the tradition of jazz, and I most definitely would only use my version of Rhythm Changes only when appropriate. There's nothing harmful in experimenting, or bringing in new ideas, even if they seem unorthodox, is there? That's how music progresses. I'm not refuting or denying any of the structure of jazz. I'm adding to it, hoping to help take jazz to the next and greater level.
As a restatement, I'm not trying to offend you, but rather bring new ideas to your attention and help you progress. I respect your ideas, also. My AIM sn is geoffkhan if you want to talk further.
geoffkhan, don't take this as a putdown, but you're an 18 year old attending music classes in college. That in no way means you're not talented or don't have anything to say--far from it!--but think about the tone of your posts. You're, in your own words, giving "advice" to players who've been playing at a professional level for longer than you've been alive, in order to help them "progress." Again, don't take this the wrong way, but if I were you I would be very sure I understood where they were coming from before I assumed I had the stature to do that. Honestly, you really think you have to tell Pacman "it's all about communication"? Or give him the hip tip about the altered scale? Ya think?
Oh yeah, a couple factual errors too. There is no E in Gmaj7, though certainly you can add it as an extension. Nor is there a Bb in Dbm7, though of course you can play a m13 if you're feeling it.
Oh yeah, a couple factual errors too. There is no E in Gmaj7, though certainly you can add it as an extension. Nor is there a Bb in Dbm7, though of course you can play a m13 if you're feeling it.
Richard Lindsey said:
We were talking about shared tones -- so the scales. You're thinking about shared chord tones.
I'm used to being in the environment where musicians share their knowledge despite age or playing ability. I'm not trying to say that I'm an amazing player, because I'm not. But I'm disappointed you guys don't consider what I say just because I'm younger and less experienced in the field of music. But hey, I won't blame you if you ignore me. I just found it interesting Pacman considered my changes so unconventional and "wrong."
I hooked up my keyboard and took a little solo over Rhythm Changes to demonstrate that my variation of the changes in the B section aren't that weird and unusable. What I usually do when playing in a band is to figure out what kind of variation to use for the B section, it's not like I'm stuck on using the variation that I posted earlier -- I made those as merely a demonstration of the possibilities for that section of the song.
Link Removed
The changes were pretty fun, actually.
Actually, I think you misunderstood. It was chord tones that Pac was talking about. If it were about scales you could have tossed in F#/Gb too.geoffkhan said:
You misunderstand. Several folks did consider what you said, fairly seriously, and happened not to agree. That's a different thing from not considering what you say, as you ought to know.geoffkhan said:
And see, the thing about being younger and less experienced is that often older and more experienced players will ... know more. No, this does not mean what an older player says is always right, or that younger players are ignoramuses, or any ageist crap like that. It does mean that experience counts for something, and if you don't have it you should pay attention to those who do. No, not agree slavishly or anything like that, just respect that they have something you don't (yet) and may know some things you don't (yet). And consider that offering them "advice" on how they can "progress"--as opposed to just tossing some possibilities out for consideration--would require a stature that you likely don't have.
And yes, sometimes of course the direction of knowledge flow goes the other way too.
Richard Lindsey said:
Okay, I see. Usually when you say tones, you're referring to scale tones, not chord tones, though.
If someone choses not to agree with what I say, I don't mind. That's just personal preference. But what I don't understand is how you can say I'm wrong. I play what I hear, so you're saying what I hear is wrong?
When I was brought up musically, age and experience did not matter -- fellow musicians respected and learned from each other despite their playing level. I'm sorry to hear it matters here.
Oh, I definitely respect all the bassists here. I listened to Pacman's recordings, and I admire his playing (boy, he can swing). I completely agree with you that some musicians know things that others don't, but you're saying that it is in correlation with age. Most of the musicians I play with are (way) older than I am, but they listen to things I say just as if I was the same age. I do the same. The way I think of it is that every musician has something that others don't -- has knowledge that others don't -- despite age, experience, or whatever.
But I guess that's what you hinted at at the end of your post:
Are you able to read what I said in my previous posts explaining the chord progression without any prejudice against age or experiece level?
Yes. However, I'm afraid I'm one of those who thinks your explanation doesn't stand up that well in the terms in which you framed it. I understand the logic perfectly, I just don't think it yields quite the results you want it to. IOW, IMO those chord subs don't function that well as a "rhythm changes" bridge. Not that they're bad changes in and of themselves (as if the concept of an absolute "bad" would mean much anyway). They could indeed be fun to play over. However, I don't think they really work that well as so-called rhythm changes. IMO there's a certain kind and level of function you would have to get to, and if you don't, the chords don't function adequately as that kind of changes and would really be better described as something else. I think that's part of what Pacman was referring to. Just as you could go through increasingly arcane substitutions for blues changes and eventually get to the point where they really aren't *functionally* blues changes anymore but something else. Whether that something else is better or worse, well, who can say? That's another issue.geoffkhan said:
No, that's not quite what I said. My point was that there is often--not always--a correlation with age and experience. I did not say that that correlation was necessarily direct, proportional, or universal. For example, there were tons of older bassists who learned from Scott La Faro and Jaco when they came up in their 20s.geoffkhan said:
But you seem to be saying experience matters not at all, that knowledge and ability to contribute musically are essentially random, that less experienced musicians have as much to contribute as more experienced musicians. That IME and IMO, as a general position, is nonsense. By and large--again, not always--those who've been doing something for 20 years are likely to know some things that somebody who's done it for 6 months won't. That's just how it is. The balance of wisdom is more likely to be in favor of the more experienced musician (assuming that you're swimming in basically the same stream, so to speak). Again, this doesn't mean you don't have something to say worth listening to right now. You do. It doesn't mean the older player always has the better perspective. Not at all. But if you were to play the percentages, you'd be wise to bet on the more experienced players having more to teach you than you have to teach them.
Also, remember Socrates's argument that the beginning of wisdom is to know how much you don't know.
When reharmonizing, I believe there are 3 considerations you must take into account.
1. Functionality. No matter how you reahrmonize the new progression should function similarly to the original. Reharmonizations add flavor and spice. A bit of surprise yet still within and overall context
2. Historical perspective. There is development, over the years of how th Rhythm Changes bridge has been changed. Each change came about over time, keeping in mind (conciously or not) what came before it.
3. Context. The players (and the audience) you are playing with have certain expectations of both sound and function. You cannot throw both to the wind. You must respect that context.
George Russell said something to the effect that if you play everything the audience expects the music is too boring. If you play nothing that they expect it is too avant gard. You must find the balance.
As an aside, I don't get this:
Although a D7 can resolve down a half step. The rational quoted makes no sennse to me. You cannot tritone sub on minor 7th chords. Tritone subs work because two dominant 7th chords a tritone apart share the same 3rd and 7th. Another thing, the chord expected in m3 of the bridge would be either G7, Dm7 or Db7 all functioning in the tonal center of C. How would that Dbm7 function? Since it is not part of a ii-V, you would expect that it some sort of tonic minor. Please explain
Mike
1. Functionality. No matter how you reahrmonize the new progression should function similarly to the original. Reharmonizations add flavor and spice. A bit of surprise yet still within and overall context
2. Historical perspective. There is development, over the years of how th Rhythm Changes bridge has been changed. Each change came about over time, keeping in mind (conciously or not) what came before it.
3. Context. The players (and the audience) you are playing with have certain expectations of both sound and function. You cannot throw both to the wind. You must respect that context.
George Russell said something to the effect that if you play everything the audience expects the music is too boring. If you play nothing that they expect it is too avant gard. You must find the balance.
As an aside, I don't get this:
Although a D7 can resolve down a half step. The rational quoted makes no sennse to me. You cannot tritone sub on minor 7th chords. Tritone subs work because two dominant 7th chords a tritone apart share the same 3rd and 7th. Another thing, the chord expected in m3 of the bridge would be either G7, Dm7 or Db7 all functioning in the tonal center of C. How would that Dbm7 function? Since it is not part of a ii-V, you would expect that it some sort of tonic minor. Please explain
Mike
Richard Lindsey said:
Okay, I understand now.
Yes, I definitely agree with you. For me, there's so much out there to learn in the world of music, so I try to absorb as much knowledge as possible, and I regard everyone, because even if they have less experience than I do, or are younger than me, or whatever, they are bound to know things about music that I don't.
My piano teacher is great. Besides being a very experienced, amazing pianist, what I admire about him is how he's always trying to learn more, even from his students such as me. I remember one time I brought in a new composition with a very unorthodox chord progression. Rather than telling me that it was "wrong", he said something to the effect of "Wow, this is new! I'm not really hearing it right now, but if you're hearing it, the chord progression is fine." He had a few suggestions for the song (which I gladly accepted -- I always like getting suggestions, because hey, that's why I show him my songs), but after we played the song through a few times he began to understand and like the song better. He's definitely not one of those players who are "stuck in a rut." He's constantly getting better and trying new things.
But on the other hand, he also understands the importance of playing traditionally and conventionally.
Mike Dimin said:
It seems to me that there are two kinds of reharmonizations. There's the kind you're talking about, where you keep the function the same, only adding a few chords in between others and doing small changes like tritone subsitution.
The other kind (which is the kind I really love) is where you completely remake the chord progression. I've heard some wacky reharmonizations before. I'll try and remember some so you can have something tangible to listen to and hear what I mean.
Okay, I'm not really in tune with the progression of changes in the Rhythm Changes bridge, but that's something that I want and need to learn. I do know a few of the basic traditional variations, though.
When I look at the Rhythm Changes bridge I basically see a journey starting in D7 and ending up with a dominant chord that leads back to a Bb6. You can do many fun things in the middle. That's essentially what a bridge is -- a journey away (and later return) from the main melody. Anyway, that's just the way I look at it, you may have different opinions.
Yup! If you listen to the mp3 example I posted, you'll hear that my changes aren't as jarring as they appear (at least to my ears).
Exactly! It's that mix of old and new that makes a song interesting. That's why if I were to use avant-gard changes in the bridge of Rhythm Changes, I would leave the A section pretty much untouched.
Yes, although it is similar to tritone subsitution in the respect that the subsituted chord is a tritone away, it definitely is not a tritone subsitution. As you said, tritone subsitution only works because two chords share the 3rd and the 7th -- what are commonly considered the most important tones.
My theory that I'm trying out is that because two chords are so different, it's almost like they are similar. In my variation of the Rhythm Changes bridge, I subsitute the suggested Gm7 with a Dbm7. In the wheel of fifths those two chords are on completely opposite sides. I think of it like the color wheel. In the color wheel, as I am certain you are familiar with, colors on the opposite sides are called "complementary colors." Just like this I call chords on the opposite sides of the wheel of fifths "complementary chords." Here's a great website with information about the color wheel:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Perhaps some of this is applicable to the wheel of fifths? I'll have to experiment.
Anyway, I hope I was able to explain things more clearly for you. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Remember, I'm not trying to start an argument (although it may be a bit too late), I'm just putting some of my theories out there for your consideration.
Here's a cool reharmonization website I found -- check it out if you have time:
http://www.franksinger.com/gsreharms.htm
geoffkhan said:
Sure, they may not be jarring per se, but to my ears, it definitely sounds way out of context from I Got Rhythm. To me it doesn't even resemble the original. That's cool, but if it was me, I'd put those changes in a different tune.
To me, that doesn't seem like much of a "mix" but more of a pairing of two unlike things. If you take a blue shoe and a yellow shoe, your feet won't look like a nice green, it will look like your wearing two shoes that shouldn't be worn together. I don't know how the sections are mixing together in your mind, so I'd appreciate if you could upload an mp3 with it along with the original A section, if that is possible. All I'm hearing are two things that don't necessarily belong together.
Pacman- Regarding that progression that was Am7-D7-Gm7.
It would work if you used a Gm (or any tonic G minor) instead, right? (out of context of rhythm changes) Just alternating a minor II-V with a major II-V. But it would really only work if the I was originally a Gm (or other tonic G minor), right?
- Status
