Usually when the chord is spelled 7b13, that means that you have a major triad as the basis of the chord, say C-E-G. When the chord is spelled 7#5, that would imply an aug triad as the basis, C-E-G# and the natural 5 would not be present.

Therefore, the underlying scale you would play on a 7b13 chord would include a natural 5 (C mixolydian with a lowered 6) and the underlying scale on the 7#5 would not. (C whole-tone scale)

The natural 5 is left in a 7b13 to create tension with the b6.

The 7b13 is often proceeded by a m7b5 (ii V in a minor key)

------------------
www.samminnitti.com

[This message was edited by Sam Minnitti on 13 August 2002 at 03:24 PM.]

quote:

---

I hope I know where you're coming from

---

1. Last bar of the bridge on All the Things You Are. It is a C7b13, G#/Ab in the melody. It acts as a V7b13 turnaround to the i (Fmi7). The chord that proceeds the C7b13 is an Emaj7 (I of a minor ii V) The Emaj7 is a nice bright surprise as the ear was expecting an Emin7. Also, the Emaj7 transitions nicely to the C7b13 (better than an Emin7 would)

2. Quite Nights of Quite Stars; bar 12, A7b13. Proceeded by an Emin7 and resolves to a D7. Once again, ii V, but resolves to a I7 . (D7) So the b13 can resolve up to the 3rd of D7. And the 3rd of the b13 chord can resolve down to the b7 of the I7.

3. How Insensitive; bar 14, F#7b13, proceeded by a C#m7b5 and resolves to a Bmin-maj7. So here you have a ii V resolving to a I min-maj7. So the b13 becomes the 3rd of the I min-maj.

Hi Jeff,

For me, it has to do with what I would play; both for comping and for improvising.

When I see an aug chord, I would tend to play something a little more diatonic to that particular augmented sound, and would think less in terms of resolution than I would if it is shown as a 7b13, where I am thinking more about what came before, and what is coming after.

Generally, I think of aug chords as passing chords, same would be true of diminished chords, more than I would a 7b13, which I think of as an alternated Dom7 chord that is about to set up a resolution.

I say that about diminished chords, because the same is true. What I would play over a Bdim for example, would be more for that moment or in passing, than what I would play if I saw its dom-sub, G7b9.

If I had to generalize, I would say that the use of aug and dim symbols when writing chords tend to imply the use of the basic aug or dim triad kind of sound, maybe one would say more ‘old fashion’, so if that is what is desired, then that is the best way to write it. Otherwise, I think the altered dominant approach is a good way to go.

So to maybe answer your question, I think that the better choice depends on what ‘sound’ you are going for. And as a matter of fact, you have to hope that jazz players will honor a request for an aug or dim chord. They may the first couple times through, but you can almost count on them sub’ing in everything under the sun for those aug and dim chords as the choruses roll by.

C13   - notes low to high C  Bb E  A
C7b13 - notes low to high C  Bb E  Ab
F9    - notes low to high C  A  Eb G

E9
    C13 C7b13 F9 or C13 C7b13 F9
F#----------------------------------------
Eb----------------------------------------
G#------------------12B-12----11----------
E-------------------12--12----11----------
B----8A---8a--7a----12L-12L---11L---------
G#---8----8---7---------------------------
F#----------------------------------------
E-----------------------------------------
D----8----8---7---------------------------
B-----------------------------------------
 
note "a" = half pedal
  
       C13 C7b13 F9
F#----------------------------
Eb----------------------------
G#----------------------------
E------4R---4----3------------
B------4a---4a---3a-----------
G#----------------------------
F#-----4----4----3------------
E-----------------------------
D-----------------------------
B----------------------------- 

Bengt

[This message was edited by Bengt Erlandsen on 15 August 2002 at 07:25 AM.]

It was nice talking with you this morning.

You really know your theory, and more importantly, can apply it to your jazz steel playing. I look forward to getting together sometime.

Sam

A voicing that includes the 5 and b13 - for a C7b13 (actually C9b13), try fret 10 (makes sense, no!?), pedal 5 AND the knee lever that raises the 4th string 1/2 tone. That gives you the b13, while the 5th is on string 8. (FWIW, I don't do parallel pulls, so my 8th string never follows my 4th) What makes this a good position is that you can play a Gm7b5 at fret 10 with pedal 6, and move right to the C7b13. I naturally use the 9th note interchangeably in just about anything, with no problem. It doesn't seem to me that there would be a problem including the 9th note in a C7b13. I just want to confirm with you guys. Also, to my ears, this chord is not as melodic sounding as a 7#11 or 9#11, which also has the dissonance with the 5th note. Perhaps an augmented 5 (b13) naturally sounds harsher than a flat 5 (#11). I guess when you think about, a diminished chord (which has a b5) is a more musically pleasant sound than an augmented chord, so the dissonance would also be. Right?

[This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 16 August 2002 at 08:19 AM.]

quote:

---

you can almost count on them sub’ing in everything under the sun for those aug and dim chords

---

Just reviewing some of the thing that have been said, and this caught my eye. What are some subs for a diminished? For example, if it's a Cdim7, one might sub a D7, F7, Ab7, or B7? Or Cm7b5, Ebm7b5, etc. etc. Is that what you mean? Other things too? What subs would you do? Just some broad ideas would be nice. What subs work for augmenteds? Subbing an Ab7 or E7 for a C augmented for example? Thanks

[This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 16 August 2002 at 12:28 PM.]

Got to thinking about this, and if we wanted to use a scale that had natural 5th, and b13, what about this?

C7b13=C,D,E,F,G,Ab,Bb

This is the fourth mode of F Jazz Minor. I tried it on the piano, and while it has a bit of an unusual flavor, it seems quite usable.

The triune of F,G,Ab teases my ear into thinking harmonic minor, then fools me with the Bb.

A lick that ends with G,C,Bb,Ab resolving to A works well of course, but I also find myself liking G,C,Bb,Ab,G. That G stands nice and strong over F9 or Fmaj9, and sets up a chromatic line G,Ab(passing tone),A, to start off an F lick.

quote:

---

The triune of F,G,Ab teases my ear into thinking harmonic minor, then fools me with the Bb.

---

What about the C natural minor? Of course, it has an Eb, not an E, but I use C7#9 to resolve to Fm7 quite often, so it would seem to be ok. Of course, the F jazz minor seems perfect. I'll try it tomorrow after I unpack. BTW, could you take a look at my last post? What substitutions would you use on diminished and augmented chords? Also, what scales do you use for the substitutions? For example, do you use the same scales on a C7 substituting for a C#dim, as you would for a normal C7? Thanks.

I use a lot of suspended chords and subsitutions. I just play 'em without too much thinking anymore. Just Habit...al

C Natural Minor would certainly work out fine with that bluesy #9 in there. Also gives me an idea for some chromatic lines. How about G,E,G,Eb,D with the D starting an F Pentatonic lick. Also, G,Eb,G,E,F. Double chromatic to the root, play your favorite F lick.

I haven’t got to the computer much this weekend, as we still have guests staying with us. Quickly here are my thoughts…Yes, subs like, Ab7, B7, D7 or F7, would all work well, but they would all be b9 chords. The min7b5’s you mention all work nicely too.

Then you have secondary dom subs you can extract and sub in diminished chords for. For example, key of F…if you see C7, (V chord) you can sub in the secondary dominant chord of C7 which would be G7. (the V7 of the original chord) Then based off of the new V7 chord (G7) you could sub in its diminished chord which is B dim (or Ddim, Fdim, Abdim) So this would be called a dim 7th sub of the secondary dominant

You can also make the I a diminished before resolving to the major.

Dmin7 G7 Co7 CMaj7 (dim I sub)

For a sub on a 7#5, your examples are good. Key of A for example, you might want to try on an E7#5 a G#Maj7#5 instead, it’s a little bit of a stretch, but tends to work nicely when resolving to a Maj 6/9

Bmin7 G#Maj7#5 AMaj6/9

Other subs I like are ‘sidestepping’ subs where you can play any chord ½ higher, then back. This also works a major 3rd below and minor 3rd above. The minor 3rd above works well on a dominant chord that resolves to a Maj 6/9

Dmin7 Bb7 CMaj6/9

Try them out and let me know what you think. One might say that some of these cross the line between sub’ing and reharmonizing, but that is sort of a gray area, and would depend on the particular situation or people you are playing with.

------------------
www.samminnitti.com

[This message was edited by Sam Minnitti on 18 August 2002 at 09:17 AM.]

quote:

---

Other subs I like are ‘sidestepping’ subs where you can play any chord ½ higher, then back. This also works a major 3rd below and minor 3rd above. The minor 3rd above works well on a dominant chord that resolves to a Maj 6/9

---

Sam, although I can't say I've done much with this as of yet, this sounds like something I've read about Parker and Coltrane doing: Parker apparently liked to play stuff on the intervals of a diminished chord (minor 3rd,) and Coltrane may have have developed the same sort of idea with the intervals of an augmented chord (major 3rd.) Have you done much with this sort of thing, and do you have any suggestions for beginning to work with it?

On the secondary dominant idea: Is there anything special to keep in mind for using a 7th chord a fifth above another 7th chord? It's a common thing to play minor 7th stuff a fifth up, but I haven't really encountered the idea of using seventh chords and scales in the same way before. I imagine that somebody could go back and forth, making 1/2 step modulations between this and b5 tritone substitution stuff?

Thanks,

Jeff S.

quote:

---

G,C,Bb,Ab resolving to A

---

I think the first step would be to learn the common symmetrical scales and chords each works best on.

Whole-Tone Scales (major 2nd intervals; 6 tones) - good on Dom7 alt 5 chords
Augmented Scales (minor 3rd- minor 2nds intervals; 9 tones) -- good on Dom7 alt 5 chords
Diminished Scales (starting major 2nd- minor 2nd intervals; 9 tones)-good on dim, and ½ dim
Diminished Scales (starting minor 2nd - major 2nd intervals; 9 tones)- good on altered Dom7th’s

Next, record yourself playing the chords on a ii V I progression over and over, preferably through a key cycle of some kind (4th, 5th, 3rd, etc) so you have something to practice the scales with, then try them out, get them in the ear, then start to play around with them and come up with melodies.

Also, with the secondary dominant idea and chording/comping, same holds true, good to use sometimes, but if used all the time it’s effect actually diminishes
because the listeners ear adjusts too much to the new key centers, and it no longer sounds that interesting. Hope this helps.

Sam

------------------
www.samminnitti.com

[This message was edited by Sam Minnitti on 20 August 2002 at 10:01 AM.]

There are lots of books out there I’m sure, some good, plenty bad. My professors at the time, who are all accomplished Jazz musicians tended not to use books and taught from their heads.

I do think that all the greats really knew what it was they were doing in addition to having tremendous talent, creativity and very good ‘ears’. Keep in mind though, Parker, Dizzy, Monk, Coltrane were the inventors of modern be-bop, therefore their prospective on it is very different than someone who comes in to learn it after the fact.

An example they always used was John Coltrane’s recording of Giant Steps, a very difficult tune. Coltrane comes in and plays all the changes perfectly and melodically. Then comes in the late Tommy Flanagan for the piano solo. Undisputedly one of the great piano players at the time, really struggles and basically just drops out in the middle of his solo because playing by ear was not enough to make it through something so fast and complex. Then….hear Tommy play Giant Steps again on a subsequent recording a year or two later, and he blows it away.

So despite what these things were called back then as it was all coming together, I think that everyone spent a lot of time checking it out and practicing, getting it in their ears, with the goal of not having to think about it while playing.

quote:

---

I think you are talking about improvising using symmetrical scales

---

Not really so much playing those scales, but maybe taking a certain idea and modulating up and down according to the intervals of the diminished and augmented chords. That was what I thought you were kind of getting at with your ideas of moving a major third below, or a minor third above or below.

Using chords, I learned a Miles Davis two chord vamp from a Robben Ford video that could be moved up and down the diminished chord intervals at random. I don't remember what it was right now, but it involved a common ambiguous quartal guitar voicing.

As far as how this might apply to scales and single-note improvising, I picked up a Mel Bay book (!) that discussed things like taking a certain melodic idea and modulating up and down with it, according to the intervals of the diminished or augmented chords.

The book didn't really go into it in much depth, but this is where I got the idea that Bird did one and Trane did the other. I try this stuff with 7th chord scales a little bit now and then, but so far I haven't taken it very far.

As far as "side slipping," I've never learned Coltrane's solo to "Bessie's Blues," but if I could go in and out of "out" keys like that, while staying perfectly melodic and soulful, that would be something.

I've never heard of what you call the nine-tone "augmented scale," consisting of minor third-minor 2nd intervals. I'll have to mess around with that.

[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 21 August 2002 at 05:42 PM.]

quote:

---

I could drive myself nuts trying to apply all this to the steel. Where do you guys learn all this? Is there a book?
Were these jazz musicians (Monk, etc.)that knowledgeable-or did they do it by the sounds? I really want to know

---

I remember thinking that jazz players must all be absolute geniuses to be able to come up with all this wierd stuff out of thin air, and be able to play over chord changes so well. At one point, as your typical blues-rock guitarist, I thought everybody probably just did what I did, which was to steal licks from records and sometimes add stuff to it. When I found out that there were tools these guys used to help them create,(chord-scale relationships), that was all I was interested in for quite some time.

Being primarily a guitar player, like Sam, it's pretty easy to find books that discuss this stuff. From being on here awhile, I've gathered that there isn't much written from the viewpoint of steel guitar.

One thing I've found is that everybody seems to have a different way of looking at this stuff, and their favorite approaches evolve according to that.

On another thread, I was watching the discussion about harmonizing the major scale to create chords built on each scale degree, and how beginning the scale on each of these different degrees creates a different "mode" to go with the given chord. For me that's the starting place. Staying within the harmony of the scale, anything that is derived from it can in theory be substituted for anything else in that scale's family. Of course certain things work better than others. The harmonic minor and melodic minor scales (and even a few others) can be treated in the same way as the major. I doubt many people are as intimately familiar with each mode of these other scales as they are with the major modes, but a few modes from these other families come up a lot. Stuff from these three scales is interchangeable to a certain extent, and it's helpful to learn about their points of useful intersection.

Then you have the diminished scale and the whole-tone scale, and maybe a few other symetrics, like the ones Sam mentioned. Since those scales are symetrical, they don't create these families like the major, harmonic minor, and the melodic minor do.

In a nutshell, that's the way I personally conceive of music from the view of improvising. Staying within a scale family when playing a song based on the harmony of a certain scale, and borrowing elements from similar scales where the families intersect takes care of most of what I do, along with chromatic passing tones between the scale notes themselves.

I'm still pretty fascinated by the idea that you can get a lot of neat sounds by approaching the same family of notes in different ways. Instead of playing G mixolydian for example, I'll play D dorian, F lydian, and B locrian. Those work really well because you are still rooting your scale substitution on chord tones of G7. It's very common to just play the C major scale for G mixolydian, but I don't personally like that as well, since you are basing your scale on the 4th of G7, which needs resolution. I'll stay on the C major scale when I'm just playing a quick G7 five chord in a typical major-derived progression, but if the 7th chord lasts awhile, I'll usually use one of the other ideas. This is still playing the same notes as the usual 7th chord mixolydian mode, but when you approach it differently, and throw in four-note arpeggios and chord forms, you can sound different but not too far out.

Some of the substitution methods discussed here are less related to any scale's basic harmony, and the further out we get, the less I know.

I'm not as obsessed as I used to be, but I still scarf up as much information as I can on this subject, because it all has some unique slant. I keep notes, even on stuff I'm not really into yet, because someday I might be. In my area, while there are some really good players, I don't know of any deep theorist that I could study with, so I've been pretty much on my own.

[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 20 August 2002 at 05:34 PM.]