Rhythm Changes?

[Aaron]

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.

To me, it appears you missed some important landmarks on your 'journey.' If you don't stop for a bathroom break at the rest stop, you might end up loosing a pair of pants.

 

[Pacman]

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?

If you want to imply a resolution to Gm, the ii-V that precedes it should be a minor ii-V (Am7b5 - D7b9). The progression that goes Am7-D7-Gm7 works, but only if you continue the cycle it starts - Am7 - D7 - Gm7 - C7 - etc, etc. The Gm7 isn't a resolution, it's setting up a new key center (that of F major). A ii-V progression is the quickest and strongest way to outline a key center.



Geoff - like I said before - I don't think your chord progression is bad, but it ain't Changes. Which was my original point. I also understand your concept - and if you were covering a tune whos melody was written on the original Rhythm Changes, it might work to pair the original meoldy with your changes. I get that kind of reharmonization. However, reharmonizing a harmony really doesn't work in the context of playing a song form like that.

It's like your example about blues. Sure, I took Jim McNeely's harmony glass where we tweaked the blues so hard that it didn't start on the tonic, and didn't have any of the orginal chords. And that's great - but you can't call what we ended up with "the blues". Are you following?

 

[jeff schmidt]

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."

I think what you're referring to is the 'alternate cycle" which is nothing more than the recognition that on the cycle of 5ths diagram - the note exactly opposite any other note is a flat 5 or tritone away. But since TT subs are specfic to dominant chords for the reasons you've already acknowledged - I'm not sure what makes TT sub for non-dominant chords any more "complimentary" than any OTHER interval. What about the fact that if you make a 90 degree angle from any note on the cycle it always leads to a note a minor 3rd away? Same kind of observation. Other than that relationship on the cycle of 5th -what makes non-dominant chords a tritone away more complimentary than any other interval?

 

[geoffkhan]

If you want to imply a resolution to Gm, the ii-V that precedes it should be a minor ii-V (Am7b5 - D7b9). The progression that goes Am7-D7-Gm7 works, but only if you continue the cycle it starts - Am7 - D7 - Gm7 - C7 - etc, etc. The Gm7 isn't a resolution, it's setting up a new key center (that of F major). A ii-V progression is the quickest and strongest way to outline a key center.

Traditionally yes, a major ii-V-I would be Am7 D7 GM7. A minor ii-V-I would be Am7b5 D7 (usually a b13) Gm7. Ok, that's what you're taught in theory class.

Now go to a piano and play Am7 D7 Gm7. Does it sound unpleasant? Are the changes jarring? Of course not.

Geoff - like I said before - I don't think your chord progression is bad, but it ain't Changes. Which was my original point.

It ain't the Changes, eh? How do you judge if something is or isn't the Changes?

I'm not contradicting you when you say that the chord progression I played "ain't the Changes." That's your own personal belief, and I have no right to tell you that's wrong, just as you can't tell me the chord progression I used is wrong either.

It's not like I'm forcing you to play my chord progression, right?

I realize that when you play the B section of Rhythm Changes, the audience and fellow musicians have certain expectations. Listening to what I played in the Link Removed, I can honestly say the B section I played fits with the rest of the song. Again, I'm just playing what I hear. If you hear differently, I respect that, but neither of us is wrong.

I also understand your concept - and if you were covering a tune whos melody was written on the original Rhythm Changes, it might work to pair the original meoldy with your changes. I get that kind of reharmonization. However, reharmonizing a harmony really doesn't work in the context of playing a song form like that.

The song I was playing the Rhythm Changes from, Oleo, has no melody in the B section -- which was precisely why I took the liberties I did in reharmonizing it. If there were a melody, I would definitely make a reharmonization that would work with the melody.

It's like your example about blues. Sure, I took Jim McNeely's harmony glass where we tweaked the blues so hard that it didn't start on the tonic, and didn't have any of the orginal chords. And that's great - but you can't call what we ended up with "the blues". Are you following?

It's a granularity problem. How far can you reharmonize the blues before it ceases to be the blues? Is there a specific point where it ceases to be the blues? In fact, how do you define "the blues?" I'm interested in hearing your answer.

Personally I would consider that a heavily modified blues (such as you mentioned) would not end up being the blues. But I would make a note that it came from the blues.

As an interesting sidenote, check out this tritonic reharmonization of Autumn Leaves:

http://www.franksinger.com/autumn_leaves_tritonic_reharm.htm

Do you still consider it Autumn Leaves although it has been so heavily reharmonized?

I think what you're referring to is the 'alternate cycle" which is nothing more than the recognition that on the cycle of 5ths diagram - the note exactly opposite any other note is a flat 5 or tritone away. But since TT subs are specfic to dominant chords for the reasons you've already acknowledged - I'm not sure what makes TT sub for non-dominant chords any more "complimentary" than any OTHER interval. What about the fact that if you make a 90 degree angle from any note on the cycle it always leads to a note a minor 3rd away? Same kind of observation. Other than that relationship on the cycle of 5th -what makes non-dominant chords a tritone away more complimentary than any other interval?

It's not a tritone subsitution. I made a point to note that I wasn't mistakenly doing a tritone subsitution with minor chords because obviously tritone subsitution only works with dominant chords.

What the alternate cycle states is that a ii-V-I cadence has a corresponding "alternate cycle" a tritone away.

Am7 | D7 | Dbm7

So the first two chords are the traditional ii-V, but then the last chord, the Dbm7, is from the alternate cycle in a ii-V-Im7 cadence. I took this journey in the opposite end of the wheel of fifths farther with the next few chords.

Use your ears. You can't say any chord or anything is "more complimentary" than any other, because that is completely personal opinion. My personal opinion is that some certain chords compliment each other better than others, and that perhaps this is similar to colors on the color wheel.

Overall, many people need to realize that what it really rounds down to is using your ears. When Herbie Hancock takes a solo, do you think he's thinking, "Okay, it's a D7 (#9) chord, so I'm going to use the altered scale..." Of course not, that's obsurd. There's nothing wrong with jazz theory, but eventually you want it to become your instincts. You shouldn't even have to think about which scale to use where when playing. In fact, ultimately you should just be playing what you're hearing.

Listen to Kenny Werner solo in A over a song in Ab.

Oh, and here's something interesting and helpful:

Link Removed

 

[jeff schmidt]

You can't say any chord or anything is "more complimentary" than any other, because that is completely personal opinion.

Yet that is, in effect, what you were saying when you suggested the chords were complimentary because they opposed each other on a diagram. You did not state they were complimentary because you HEARD them to be so. You said it was because of their relationship on a diagram. So my question implied that all the intervals are equally "complimentary" and asked for your reasoning behind choosing the interval you did - (which happens to be a tri-tone interval for a non-dominant chord)

 

[jeff schmidt]

When Herbie Hancock takes a solo, do you think he's thinking, "Okay, it's a D7 (#9) chord, so I'm going to use the altered scale..." Of course not, that's obsurd.

Yes, thank you for that. My bet is he isn't merely playing Ab Lydian Augmented over it either.

 

[geoffkhan]

Yet that is, in effect, what you were saying when you suggested the chords were complimentary because they opposed each other on a diagram. You did not state they were complimentary because you HEARD them to be so. You said it was because of their relationship on a diagram. So my question implied that all the intervals are equally "complimentary" and asked for your reasoning behind choosing the interval you did - (which happens to be a tri-tone interval for a non-dominant chord)

Yeah, I hear them to be complimentary and the relationship of them on the diagram agrees with this. This isn't a rule or anything, this is what I personally believe.

I explain why I used the tritone interval in my post when I replied to what you said about the alternate cycle.

Yes, thank you for that. My bet is he isn't merely playing Ab Lydian Augmented over it either.

Yeah, he does some really cool stuff. Check out his World of Rhythm DVD.

I have had the opportunity to ask several amazing pianists, including Jon Mayer, Russ Ferante, Tom Schuman, and Kenny Werner, about what they thought about the whole playing what you hear rather than just thinking of scales, music theory, etc. They all said the same thing: even on really blindingly fast phrases, hear every note. Start out slowly, but never play a note that you don't hear.

So what I'm saying is that although jazz theory is fun to talk about, and it's a good learning tool, really in the world of performance you don't want to rely on it, and rather play by ear.

It's been interesting discussing this topic with you guys. Thanks to Pacman for explaining to me the importance of playing in context and keeping tradition in mind. This is something I will work on, so thank you for bringing it up!

Oh, and Jeff, if you ever want to jam... you live like 30 minutes away.

 

[Aaron]

If you want to imply a resolution to Gm, the ii-V that precedes it should be a minor ii-V (Am7b5 - D7b9). The progression that goes Am7-D7-Gm7 works, but only if you continue the cycle it starts - Am7 - D7 - Gm7 - C7 - etc, etc. The Gm7 isn't a resolution, it's setting up a new key center (that of F major). A ii-V progression is the quickest and strongest way to outline a key center.

So interchanging minor and major II-Vs = bad juju if you are trying to resolve to a tonic? I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding it. I see that the 3rds and 7ths are the same in both. So does the b5/b9 and the b9/b13 of the minor ii-V make the big difference?

Is it also bad juju to set up a tonic minor chord using a ii-V from melodic minor rather than harmonic minor? (for instance going Am7b9 - D7 b13 - Gm)

Thanks.

 

[Pacman]

Aaron -

Nothing's bad juju if it sounds good - on that, Geoff and I agree - the first thing you should ask is if it sounds good. What do your ears tell you?

Geoff - funny you brought up Tommy Schuman in this discussion! I actually played a few tunes (including, quite appropriately, a rhythm changes tune) with him a few years ago in Atlanta. Great player!

It ain't the Changes, eh? How do you judge if something is or isn't the Changes?

That, my friend, is where experience comes in! (it all comes around to that in jazz)

So what I'm saying is that although jazz theory is fun to talk about, and it's a good learning tool, really in the world of performance you don't want to rely on it, and rather play by ear.

Yep - I agree. Try this excercise: play your bridge to Changes on the next gig you do. Don't tell anyone about it, let them pick it up by ear.





Then see if you hear the phone ring!

 

[geoffkhan]

Aaron -

Nothing's bad juju if it sounds good - on that, Geoff and I agree - the first thing you should ask is if it sounds good. What do your ears tell you?

Geoff - funny you brought up Tommy Schuman in this discussion! I actually played a few tunes (including, quite appropriately, a rhythm changes tune) with him a few years ago in Atlanta. Great player!

What I like about him is just that he's such a solid jazz player. If you like his stuff, you should check out Joe Gilman (Link Removed). I went to a concert where he played with Mimi Fox, Jon Evans, and Paul Van Wageningen, and his playing blew my mind. I got to jam with them, too, which was quite cool. You can listen to some mp3 samples of Joe Gilman on CD Baby or Amazon, I think.

That, my friend, is where experience comes in! (it all comes around to that in jazz)

Yes, experience is very valuable, but it's more related to repetoire and knowing when to play what where. As previously said...

For example, there were tons of older bassists who learned from Scott La Faro and Jaco when they came up in their 20s.

Experience is just something that will come with time. However, I do not feel like I'm limited because of my little experience.

To do with playing in context, I think you can get away with putting in some out-of-context things once-and-a-while to spice things up. For example, listen to this small excerpt from Randy Halberstadt soloing over a 12-bar blues tune:

Link Removed

As soon as I heard him start playing that, I was like "Wow!", and rewound to hear it again.

Yep - I agree. Try this excercise: play your bridge to Changes on the next gig you do. Don't tell anyone about it, let them pick it up by ear.

Then see if you hear the phone ring!

Most players (apart from a small few) only pick up on traditional variations. Even good jazz bands make sure to decide on which alternate changes to use before playing.

Personally, however, if someone was to whip out some wacky alternate changes (which has happened to me before), I like it. It keeps me on my toes and focused.

If I was playing with good musicians who I know would be able to pick up the changes and not mind, yes, I would try using them. Otherwise I would stick with the traditional alterations.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron -

Nothing's bad juju if it sounds good - on that, Geoff and I agree - the first thing you should ask is if it sounds good. What do your ears tell you?

I definitely believe in that, but what might sound good to me, might sound awful to everyone else. If there is no audience to listen or to communicate to, is it really music?

 

[geoffkhan]

I definitely believe in that, but what might sound good to me, might sound awful to everyone else.

That's why you have a day job, remember?

 

[Aaron]

That's why you have a day job, remember?

I'm not just referring to aspects of having an audience comercially, but having an audience so that you're actually communicating. If no one understands what you're saying, I don't see how it would be constructive towards music.

 

[Pacman]

Yes, experience is very valuable, but it's more related to repetoire and knowing when to play what where. As previously said...

I half agree. Repetoire is part of it. The other part is having logged hours upon hours on the bandstand, with as many different musicians as possible. There's no shortcut to what that brings. You can't learn that in college, or in a rehearsal. It comes in the heat of the moment, late at night, when you feel like crap. It comes when you're doing everything you can to connect to your audience. It comes when everything you play, everything you hear, pisses off the guitar player, or the horn player.

I can't tell you how many lessons - real, lasting, life-changing lessons - are learned this way....

 

[Pacman]

I definitely believe in that, but what might sound good to me, might sound awful to everyone else. If there is no audience to listen or to communicate to, is it really music?

That's where you trust in your instincts. You've only got two ears, and if it sounds good to you, you have to go with it. Otherwise, you're just not being honest. If you play with integrity, the audience will come.

 

[geoffkhan]

I half agree. Repetoire is part of it. The other part is having logged hours upon hours on the bandstand, with as many different musicians as possible. There's no shortcut to what that brings. You can't learn that in college, or in a rehearsal. It comes in the heat of the moment, late at night, when you feel like crap. It comes when you're doing everything you can to connect to your audience. It comes when everything you play, everything you hear, pisses off the guitar player, or the horn player.

I can't tell you how many lessons - real, lasting, life-changing lessons - are learned this way....

Ah, I see you have misunderstood me. I should have made myself more clear.

I wasn't saying repetoire is the way you gain experience. Experience is gained exactly the way you just explained. I was talking about in which ways experience benefits you.

I'm not just referring to aspects of having an audience comercially, but having an audience so that you're actually communicating. If no one understands what you're saying, I don't see how it would be constructive towards music.

It seems like what we really need to get good at in music is our ability to communicate.

Your question, however, is a tough one. I suggest you read (if not already) the book Effortless Mastery, by Kenny Werner. He addresses many of those kind of questions.

I'm interested in what Pacman has to say about your question.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

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?

Dude, I've been playing in NYC since you were crapping in your diapers. Gimme a call when you get here.

I don't play anything "just as the music says", I listen to what's going on around me and contribute to the conversation. All you seem to be doing is regurgitating stuff that you found "really neat" with a seeming disregard for whatever is going on musically.

You actually listen to any of PAC's playing?

 

[geoffkhan]

I don't play anything "just as the music says", I listen to what's going on around me and contribute to the conversation. All you seem to be doing is regurgitating stuff that you found "really neat" with a seeming disregard for whatever is going on musically.

Listen to the second one: Link Removed

I only posted the songs to demonstrate that the alternative chord progression I made up on the spur of the moment is actually usable. Dude, it's not like I play that chord progression every time I play Rhythm Changes.

You actually listen to any of PAC's playing?

I listened to all of his songs that were posted earlier in this thread. I also commented on his playing earlier in this thread. Please read the previous posts.

Dude, I've been playing in NYC since you were crapping in your diapers. Gimme a call when you get here.

Ok, you're totally brow-beating me now. That age-discriminating remark was totally uncalled for. Ed, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Well you know what, in one of the bands I play in, most of the members with have been playing before even you were born (being that you were born in 1956). I have been able to learn a lot from them, and they treat me as an equal, which is very cool.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

What part of direct questions do you have problems comprehending?

1. Did you listen to PAC's playing?
2. What parts did you find boring and unimaginative?

Rather than post MIDI clips, why don't you post a recording from a CD of yours or maybe a live performance? Do I need to type a number in front of that to attract your attention?

 

[WillPlay4Food]

What part of direct questions do you have problems comprehending?

1. Did you listen to PAC's playing?
2. What parts did you find boring and unimaginative?

Rather than post MIDI clips, why don't you post a recording from a CD of yours or maybe a live performance? Do I need to type a number in front of that to attract your attention?

You know, since you're such a big NYC hotshot player, how about if you post a sample of your wonderfully magnanimous playing so we can hear how cool cats like you get it done.