The same object from different angles

[tapper mike]

whereas in a tune like Blue Bossa in C minor, using a G7(#9) as the dominant after a Dm7(b5) drives you straight into the arms of that C minor in a very harmonically rich way, suggesting, as I said earlier, that you can think in terms of a few different scales with different voice leading possibilities.

I love that song, Not because of the theory behind it, Just because I do. Sometimes I think it's a standard simply because it's taught in jazz study programs all over the world for it's theory application.

[jancivil]

Note that music theory isn't ever meant as a catalogue of possibility

I would eschew absolutist statements such as this. I would never advise 'music theory' information as a recipe book...

but I would think the writers of eg., '20th Century Harmony' might take exception to the statement, as that is a description of new possibilities, observed from practice, and opens up some minds to those practices and possiblities.

[Nystul]

I will always describe that chord I mentioned as being major AND minor as that's what it is. Calling it a sharp 9th in an effort to fit it into a codified way of transmitting information denies the experience of the ear.

The "codified way" does have something to do with the way that it sounds in certain contexts. You're right that in a rock context it is only a "blues" chord that implies major and minor tonality at the same time, but in a jazz context the #9 is used to imply a specific voice leading arrangement, implying both the major 7th of the I chord as well as the minor 7th of the I chord, permitting the player to use diminished scales or the superlocrian mode. In a tune like Purple Haze it's clear that Hendrix is using that chord to throw a little spice onto a dominant chord that isn't really even functioning as a dominant, whereas in a tune like Blue Bossa in C minor, using a G7(#9) as the dominant after a Dm7(b5) drives you straight into the arms of that C minor in a very harmonically rich way, suggesting, as I said earlier, that you can think in terms of a few different scales with different voice leading possibilities.

In other words, there is a functional, practical, and very "hearing" oriented reason that has everything to do with how you hear the chord that makes some people call it a Hendrix chord and just think of it as a shape on the fretboard and that makes other people call it a 7(#9) chord and think of it as a voice-leading opportunity. Context is king here.

The thing is, if you look at Blue Bossa, there is a whole lot of context saying that note has to be Bb. This is like harmony from the Renaissance almost. False relation. Maybe you write the chord symbol G7#9 because jazz musicians will recognize what to play when they see that. But to really think of that note as A# is just weird. Now you have melody lines like Ab G A# Ab G. What?

[tapper mike]

I write melody from the chords not the other way around. As do most jazzers I know. Sure you can build the otherway round harmonizing the single note lines but It's less common. Jazz types are taught to connect melodic notes by chord tones. It's a less linear approach then simply constructing melodies from scale tones as first you have to determine the chord you are playing over then you have to fit the line to accommodate the chord structure.

First we learn chords and chord progressions then we learn scales and relate them back to the chord. Our concept of movement is from chord to chord. When a jazz lick is presented it is presented in the harmonic structure. This is a Bb7 lick, this is a line that works over a ii7-V7-1 progression. With the exception of say...Miles Davis who wanted to escape from the cliche's of this type of thought it has been fairly solid in the traditions of swing, modern, post modern, fusion and dare I say it "smooth" jazz. Now we still throw a few monkey wrenches in such as harmonic justification. Tritone subsitution and a few other ideas. But make no mistake when a jazz song is written by a jazz musician he uses the tools at his disposal. Just as a Blues player doesn't write a blues song and then dummy it down for his fellow blues players.

[jancivil]

I grew to understand theory in my own way from listening, trying to work out chords on pre internet isolation etc. And I know how I refer to things is 'right', for me, though it may be wrong for others. My approach is very much focussed around the sound of intervals and melodies over differing chords etc, and I don't claim that it would suffice for advanced theoretical stuff.

IME, that is the best way.

But, and this brings around the original point:

Here's an example: The Hendrix chord, a 7th with a sharp 9, eg E7#9. I once described this on a forum as a major and a minor chord at the same time, but was shot down as that is a theoretical impossibility I think. I think the deal is that in notation you can't have a major and minor 3rd at the same time, Trying to define those intervals in that way won't work. BUT, to my ears, I hear the minor 3rd, and the major 3rd, playing concurrently, and no rule will stop me hearing that as a major/minor combo chord. I know what a 9th sounds like, and its not that, so my brain doesn't cope with it on a conceptual level. A flat 9, that's fine. But calling that note a sharp 9 is kind of a ridiculous workaround in my brain.

That isn't a problem with that name, that is you having yet to encounter the reality of the -7#9. and conversely the reality of major/minor as a concept in 'modern classical' practice; like I said I had an authority figure insist on major/minor and #9 was meaningless to him, out of his experience as if it's 'the' experience that's valid.

When I first was show'd the Foxy Lady chord, I can't recall if Fuji called it anything. I sure didn't have 'chord theory', it was 'that sound'. Later I am likely to have found names like this in a Mickey Baker chord book.

By the time I had a first year 'Music Theory' course I had got a lot by ear. I took to the course like a fish to water, I was swimming while people were finding their toes cold, dipping in.

I did a thing recently where I arrived at arch high romantic harmonies by way of 'archaic' contrapuntal workings. Out of curiosity I looked at the harmonies strictly from vertical and I don't think there is any good name for these things, too complex. I don't myself define chords as a beginning; it's too tight shoes, I find things by my ear and am free from any necessity of this middleman of naming/labeling.

[jancivil]

I will always describe that chord I mentioned as being major AND minor as that's what it is. Calling it a sharp 9th in an effort to fit it into a codified way of transmitting information denies the experience of the ear.

The "codified way" does have something to do with the way that it sounds in certain contexts. You're right that in a rock context it is only a "blues" chord that implies major and minor tonality at the same time, but in a jazz context the #9 is used to imply a specific voice leading arrangement, implying both the major 7th of the I chord as well as the minor 7th of the I chord, permitting the player to use diminished scales or the superlocrian mode. In a tune like Purple Haze it's clear that Hendrix is using that chord to throw a little spice onto a dominant chord that isn't really even functioning as a dominant, whereas in a tune like Blue Bossa in C minor, using a G7(#9) as the dominant after a Dm7(b5) drives you straight into the arms of that C minor in a very harmonically rich way, suggesting, as I said earlier, that you can think in terms of a few different scales with different voice leading possibilities.

In other words, there is a functional, practical, and very "hearing" oriented reason that has everything to do with how you hear the chord that makes some people call it a Hendrix chord and just think of it as a shape on the fretboard and that makes other people call it a 7(#9) chord and think of it as a voice-leading opportunity. Context is king here.

The thing is, if you look at Blue Bossa, there is a whole lot of context saying that note has to be Bb. This is like harmony from the Renaissance almost. False relation. Maybe you write the chord symbol G7#9 because jazz musicians will recognize what to play when they see that. But to really think of that note as A# is just weird. Now you have melody lines like Ab G A# Ab G. What?

It could go to Cm^7 and the voice leading is A#-B. Context rules every time. I agree with the Bb, until I don't.

where you have it, and another instance, #9, -9, to 5 of i, calling them ninths is conventional, people know from that move.

[jancivil]

I write melody from the chords not the other way around. As do most jazzers I know. Sure you can build the otherway round harmonizing the single note lines but It's less common. Jazz types are taught to connect melodic notes by chord tones. It's a less linear approach then simply constructing melodies from scale tones as first you have to determine the chord you are playing over then you have to fit the line to accommodate the chord structure.

That is such a narrow box. What it ensures is that a whole lot of jazz is hard to differentiate from the next thing. For my purposes, I'm happy to have realized this.

Not that that's a bad thing, it defines 'style'; but I notice things that stand out. Such as, the first record of my father's collection I listened to over and over was Birth of the Cool. And then later Inside Sauter/Finegan...

[tapper mike]

You see it as a narrow box. I see it as pandora's box. Tomato/tomato.

When Benny Goodman plays "In the mood" the chord is a Bb and he outlines the Bb
DFBb when the chord changes to Eb he outlines the Eb EbGBb and when the chord moves to F he outlines F
When Paul Desmond wrote Take Five he had the sections reversed. Dave Bruebecks only contribution to the song writing was in which section played when.
When He's playing over Bm and Em he plays an Eminor blues scale. for the turnaround he links outlines of the chord(arpeggios) via chromatic passing notes. For the most part (indifferent of rhythms and yes there are plenty of exceptions but for the most part) Centric to the study of jazz the melody supports the harmony and not the otherway round.

It's not limited to keyboard or guitar either. Sax/trumpet/bass whatever also base the function of the melodic line against or in conjunction with the chord it supports. It's not an endless stream of arpeggios However the focus on the chord tones create the directionality of the piece. Even in "smooth jazz" The chord movement defines the individual note selection. It makes more sense to me then say "Counterpoint".

[JJBiener]

I grew to understand theory in my own way from listening, trying to work out chords on pre internet isolation etc. And I know how I refer to things is 'right', for me, though it may be wrong for others. My approach is very much focussed around the sound of intervals and melodies over differing chords etc, and I don't claim that it would suffice for advanced theoretical stuff.
Here's an example: The Hendrix chord, a 7th with a sharp 9, eg E7#9. I once described this on a forum as a major and a minor chord at the same time, but was shot down as that is a theoretical impossibility I think. I think the deal is that in notation you can't have a major and minor 3rd at the same time, Trying to define those intervals in that way won't work. BUT, to my ears, I hear the minor 3rd, and the major 3rd, playing concurrently, and no rule will stop me hearing that as a major/minor combo chord. I know what a 9th sounds like, and its not that, so my brain doesn't cope with it on a conceptual level. A flat 9, that's fine. But calling that note a sharp 9 is kind of a ridiculous workaround in my brain.

Simon, I know a lot of people have weighed in on this point, but I thought I would add my bit to this. First, if someone tells you something is a theoretical impossibility, give them a lollipop and move on. Nothing is impossible in theory.

I have to admit that at first glance, I would call the chord an E7#9 only because that is the easiest way to describe it. You could also describe it as an G#dim6(maj7), but that is more complicated. I suppose you can call it E7(add min3) which would better describe how you hear, but it would get you some quizzical looks from the people who saw it. You can take any given collection of notes and describe them as chord in one way or another. In fact, you can usually find 3 or 4 ways of describing the same notes.

Keep in mind that notation is just for communication. It is really the sound that is important. One of my favorite chords is Ab-C-D-G. I suppose it could be considered an Abmaj11. If I think of it at all, I think of it as a Abmaj7(b5). Most of the time, I don't think about what it is called because I like the sound.

My suggestion is to spend less time trying to figure out how to name chords, and more time finding and using chords you like. I think you will be much happier and more creative in the process.

[JJBiener]

I write melody from the chords not the other way around. As do most jazzers I know. Sure you can build the otherway round harmonizing the single note lines but It's less common. Jazz types are taught to connect melodic notes by chord tones. It's a less linear approach then simply constructing melodies from scale tones as first you have to determine the chord you are playing over then you have to fit the line to accommodate the chord structure.

I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I don't know any Jazz types who work this way. If they use any theory, they start from scales, not chords. However, in the heat of improvisation, they are not thinking that they are playing over a C#maj9 or that they need to play a Locrian mode. They hear what is being played and add what they know will work. There may be some theory going on at the subconscious level, they aren't actively thinking about it. One Jazz guy told me, "If you don't know what to play, start with a chromatic scale until you figure it out."

I can understand how you could come to your conclusion by looking at lead sheets or transcriptions, but that is an exercise in hindsight. It is an analysis of a performance after the fact and trying to put it into musical notation. I will grant you that students may be taught this way, but whoever is doing it is putting the cart before the horse. It is only once you can stop thinking about what you play that you will truly be able to play Jazz.

[jopy]

jj, what you're saying comports with what i've generally heard from professional jazz musicians as well.

[tapper mike]

So When I provide a valid theory and provide evidence that supports it as a valid approach. You not being able to refute what I've said based on the evidence I have provided then go on to disclaim it as "Not most jazzers"

Honestly I don't know the jazz players or would be jazz players you do.

I do know that when Joe Pass talks about constructing melodic lines he does so using the chord(s) as the structure.
Joe Pass first outlines the chords in the progression then he builds a melody line from the progression.


Emily Remler Berkee School of Music graduate Numerous awards for her jazz guitar playing instructs that users follow "guide tones" to create melodic lines over chord progression


When fusion guitarist Frank Gambale (most noted for his sweeping technique)
Discusses developing melodic lines he to uses the structure of the chord progression



When Celebrated jazz guitarist Frank Vignola comes out with a 50 licks you must know for jazz guitar. He uses the harmonic structure for which the line was written. He specifically states what chord or chords it is to be played over. Once again the chord progression is the force that shapes the notes that follow.


When Pat Martino talks about superimposing subsitutions he starts with the chord the idea is played over then he plays the superimposed arp on top of it.
Chords lead the way.


It's not limited to guitarists. Sax players learn to play lines over chord progressions


And here is a bass lesson on how to play in the context of the chord progression Using notes from the chord


But let's not stop there. Here is a guy who uses the standard procedure of starting with chord tones on the first beat of the chord and generates a "walking" bassline


He explains the chord progression and constructs bass lines from the chord not the melody.

And it goes on and on and on. The melody is in context of the progression. The melody is shaped by the progression.

And now is where I may turn a little snipy.
I don't know where you or your alegded jazzer friends got their jazz education which is unlike a classical education. I learned from a Wayne State Professor. He also taught Earl Kugh and Al Dimeola.

I don't know what type of professional background they have in jazz. I've had over 200 paying gigs as a jazz guitarist. And over 500 as a session rock/blues guitarist. When jazz musicians meet up they don't have to discuss what they already know. It's like having a discussion on how to tie shoe laces. Usually if anything it's about stylistic approaches having to do with rhythm. If we don't know the song we have the sheet in front of us.

[someone called simon]

thanks for some considered replies to my little point... @jancivil, I do see other uses in the chord I mentioned, like the voice leading mentioned here... "In minor it's not so unusual as an extension for V7, particularly #9-b9 moving down to the fifth of the i voice-leading wise. " I can also imagine it as a II chord, where in your example it moves down to the fifth of I, that chord could also be the fifth of V, then lead in to the tonic of i. This is where I maybe get my terminology wrong and I find it easier to resort to concrete examples... say Bm7b5 > E7 > Am, with melody running D, C > B > A. But I don't know about the modern theory approaches you mention, true...

@ Tapper Mike, my initial posts following yours were intended as response to the OP, it probably seemed I was replying to you... I know the chord has been around for longer than Hendrix, I guess I'm just using that as it seems to be a common name for it.
And I was going to retaliate a little about the superlocrian thing, because while i understand what's happening with the math there (i tend to think of it as math), that is so obviously not the 'intention' of that piece of music. but jancivil did it for me first . ... If a B fell easily under the fingers in that chord, it probably would have been included. Guitarists are like that The Bb maybe as a blue note in a scale or melody, but not as part of a ringing chord, I think you'd have to agree? Actually I just checked this on youtube, Near the start some other guitar track is definitely playing B, a straight ol' 5th, over this, so I think we can safely rule out any idea of it being superlocrean! I wanna check out those videos, I'm sure its good intellectual stuff though its not really where my particular head is at with music.

Lots more stuff there for me to look at in this thread now. Maybe my post was relevant to this topic of how we understand and communicate theory after all... Some people's mathematical approach leads to places that conflicts with my ear. Just for instance...

[jopy]

i should probably have been more specific earlier when i said i was agreeing with jj. i had a number of jazz teachers (both guitar and piano) and they each had different approaches. they all did definitely emphasize learning to solo by outlining chord tones and running arpeggios as a starting step, but they also emphasized that as a "crutch" that one should eventually abandon. one (berklee trained, frequently plays out around boston) guitar teacher told me that he didn't really think in terms of chords when he was soloing, but thought in terms of lines. he said even when he was comping, he didn't think in terms of standard chord shapes, but thought of grabbing notes from the scale that lead into one another. another guitar teacher (who is quite well known in the minneapolis/st. paul area) said she always heard the melody of the song while she was soloing and tried to think in terms of ideas that she could sing over the chord progression ahead of straight outlining the chords. the piano teacher i took lessons from (also well known in the twin cities) emphasized using chord substitutions ahead of melody and did stick with arpeggios a lot, but frankly, he was the least interesting soloist of the bunch.

so, i guess there are multiple ways to get to a good jazz solo and as mike said, you do have to know the harmony inside and out to play effectively, it's just that the soloists i liked the best definitely emphasized melodic contour and voice leading.

[tapper mike]

When I play rhythm I can't stop myself from humming or singing along and I'm always singing guide tones even if I've reharmonized the piece. When I'm playing a solo I'm either singing to it or outlining the chord they are hand in glove I cannot not be conscious of one without the other. Even when I'm working with non scale tones I'm thinking of how I'm going to resolve them to a chord.