Transcriptions of standards for audition

[ConU]

Originally posted by moley


Yes that's true. But you could say that G7 implies Mixolydian harmony, whereas G7b9 implies (half-step/wholestep) diminished scale harmony - which is more accurate.


(don't know why I can't edit this properly)
It's still a dominant type chord,most improvisers on this tune would'nt play a straight mixo there anyways.




Take that Ab7#11 chord in bar 6 for example - the original real book simply had Ab7 for that chord. And I'd say the #11 is fairly important, given that the melody is on a D at that point. And specifying Lydian Dominant harmony at that point is far more helpful.

Most improvisers would interpret it as lydian dominant anyways without the nomenclature by looking at the melody.

 

[moley]

Originally posted by ConU


Most improvisers would interpret it as lydian dominant anyways without the nomenclature by looking at the melody.

Sure, but suppose you're reading it from a chord chart - no melody?

 

[ConU]

Originally posted by moley


Sure, but suppose you're reading it from a chord chart - no melody?

very unlikely,and in a professional setting you would be expected to just know that tune.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by moley


Yes that's true. But you could say that G7 implies Mixolydian harmony, whereas G7b9 implies (half-step/wholestep) diminished scale harmony - which is more accurate.

It can IMO be a little misleading to assume that a chord name implies any *single* harmony at all. As Chris F and others have pointed out in other threads, that can be dangerous (e.g., the common mistaken assumption that you should always play in the dorian mode when you see a m7 chord in jazz).

For example, a G7 is a perfectly correct dominant chord for both C major and C minor. But it would be a mistake to assume you should just play mixolydian over a G7 when you see one. What sounds fine in C may sound lousy in Cm.

I kind of agree with you about that Ab7 in Dolphin Dance. But I do think many would probably play the #11 almost automatically, without thinking about it much and without necessarily needing to see it notated.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by moley


Yes that's true. But you could say that G7 implies Mixolydian harmony, whereas G7b9 implies (half-step/wholestep) diminished scale harmony - which is more accurate.

I think it would be more correct to say that G7b9 allows for diminished scale harmony rather than implies it. If no other tensions are listed, all it tells you is that you have a dominant chord with an altered 9th. When one altered ninth is present (b9 or #9), the other is usually assumed to be a part of the tonality. If you are a believer in the scalar approach, you could explain this by noting that both the diminished scale and the diminished/whole tone share the first five notes, which include the root, b9, #9, 3 and #4. The only clear symbol which - if taken literally - determines the scale choice is the alteration of the 5th or 13th. A natural 13th together with an altered 9th implies the diminished scale, while a raised 5th (or b13) with an altered 9th implies diminished whole tone. But that's only if you completely believe in this kind of scale theory.

I don't, at least in this case.

The thing is, when doing a lead sheet, how far are you gonna go with leaving out extensions? Take that Ab7#11 chord in bar 6 for example - the original real book simply had Ab7 for that chord. And I'd say the #11 is fairly important, given that the melody is on a D at that point. And specifying Lydian Dominant harmony at that point is far more helpful.

The whole issue of the nomenclature of dominant alterations is a pretty interesting one. Last year in one of my classes I had a group of students from all over the place - 2 from Canada, one from Germany, two from New Orleans. When it came time to talk about altered dominants, it became quickly apparent that the Americans had a different view on what the term "alt" means when attached to a dominant chord than did the Canadians and the German: To the Canucks, "alt" meant #9 #5 not matter what. To the Americans, "alt" meant any dominat alteration that sounds good in the context of the tune or progression. Further, we ugly Americans also believed that the basic variants of altered 9ths and 5ths were pretty much interchangeable as long as that's what you're hearing at that moment based on what's going on around you.

Not only that, but most of us also agreed that dominants can be reharmonized and altered at any time as long as it's in the spirit of the music, and that jazz notation is supposed to be little more than a skeleton of the song. You have to put the flesh on as you hear fit. That's the whole beauty of this music....you never hear it exactly the same way twice.

 

[moley]

Ok, I take your point about the G7b9/diminished scale thing.

The reason I said b9 rather than alt is that Herbie voices it with a natural 13th.

You're right when you say that "G7b9 allows for diminished scale harmony rather than implies it". I think that when I posted that, I'd just been reading The Jazz Theory Book, and not applying the requisite amount of salt

On the Ab7#11 issue, though - I still think it's a better idea to write that chord as Ab7#11 than just Ab7.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by moley
Ok, I take your point about the G7b9/diminished scale thing.

The reason I said b9 rather than alt is that Herbie voices it with a natural 13th.

You're right when you say that "G7b9 allows for diminished scale harmony rather than implies it". I think that when I posted that, I'd just been reading The Jazz Theory Book, and not applying the requisite amount of salt

Mark's book is great, but I think you need same salt to go with just about any theory book. Check out the section in that book on minor harmony and the implied scales that go with a minor ii - V7alt - i...for that section, I needed both salt and pepper. (No disrespect to Mark implied AT ALL, I just hear things differently). But it's a difficult task to try and codify sounds that are generally played with the amount of freedom inherent in this music - you always end up walking a fine line between understatement on one hand and pedantry on the other.

On the Ab7#11 issue, though - I still think it's a better idea to write that chord as Ab7#11 than just Ab7.

Which brings up an interesting point: should the chord symbol reflect only what notes should be in the chord voicing, or should they also reflect the "implied scale" to be played over that voicing? This is particulary pertinent to the 7#11 sound, which is usually a "non-resolving" dominant in the traditional sense. In many cases where the #11 is implied by the overall tonality I'll choose not to write it in the chord symbol if I don't want the harmony player to play that tension in the chord every time - especially with younger or beginning players, I think it's more important to get a feel for when an alteration needs to be voiced or not.

 

[moley]

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Mark's book is great, but I think you need same salt to go with just about any theory book. Check out the section in that book on minor harmony and the implied scales that go with a minor ii - V7alt - i...for that section, I needed both salt and pepper. (No disrespect to Mark implied AT ALL, I just hear things differently). But it's a difficult task to try and codify sounds that are generally played with the amount of freedom inherent in this music - you always end up walking a fine line between understatement on one hand and pedantry on the other.

Indeed. Perhaps a "learn the rules so you can forget them" kind of approach would be called for here?

Which brings up an interesting point: should the chord symbol reflect only what notes should be in the chord voicing, or should they also reflect the "implied scale" to be played over that voicing?

Until I started reading Levine's book - I would have said the former. It's that book that's got me thinking about the idea of such a tight link between chords and scales. There's an example he gives early on in that book (when discussing modes), where, as an example of a conversation between two musicians, he says something like:

Musician 1: What's the chord in bar 2?
Musician 2: F Lydian

For me that was sort of a "whoa there... but F Lydian isn't a chord!". I'd never really thought of chords and scales as being so inextricably linked that you could use them interchangeably like that.

Until recently, I didn't think that 7b9 implied half-step/whole-step diminished (and therefore, #9 and #11). I thought it meant just that; dominant 7th chord with b9. Of course, I would often voice it with altered extensions (often #9, sometimes #5) -but I didn't think that 7b9 implied #9, #11 and natural 13 in itself. The way Levine describes it - 7b9 is shorthand 7b9,#9,#11. I'd never thought of it quite like that.

This is particulary pertinent to the 7#11 sound, which is usually a "non-resolving" dominant in the traditional sense. In many cases where the #11 is implied by the overall tonality I'll choose not to write it in the chord symbol if I don't want the harmony player to play that tension in the chord every time - especially with younger or beginning players, I think it's more important to get a feel for when an alteration needs to be voiced or not.

Yes, unless I think #11 is important enough that it should form part of the chord voicing, I wouldn't include it in the chord symbol. If it's just part of the overall tonality, but not integral to the chord - I think you can just leave it to the soloist to play #11 if they want.

 

[Wrong Robot]

*Looks around*

coughInvalid Link Removed COUGH

you didn't hear it from me