Dominant 7th resolving up a half step

[nqbqbep]

Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
it happens in a number of tunes.

For example:

- Meditation, measures 3-5

- Everything I Love, Aebersold's arrangement from vol.112 ("Cole
Porter"), measures 2-3 and 6-7

- Bridge of "In the Still Of the Night" (F6 A7#5 Bbmaj7)

- Someday my prince will come, measures 2-3 (D7#5 to Ebmaj7)


In all these examples a dominant 7th resolves up a half step. How do
you explain this movement theoretically?

[Al]

I'm not much of a theory guy but here goes:

Someday My Prince Will Come, in your example, D7#5 is replacing the V
chord Bb7
Notes of Bb7 are : Bb - D - F- Ab
Notes of D7#5 are: D (3rd in a Bb7 chord)
F# (sharp 5 in a Bb7 chord)
Bb (Root in Bb7 chord)
C (9th in a Bb chord)
So ............it's all related

[TD]

Variation of a plagal cadence via utilizing it's tritone sub.

-TD

[Al]

See, there's a real theory guy.
:-)

[TD]

No, I am not a "theory guy", I just blow, man. Can also be viewed as a
VII (altered chord quality) dominant. Therefore in a "locrian" stance
to it's I or temporary I change.

-TD

[nqbqbep]

If by "plagal cadence" you mean the movement IV IV- I, then the VII7
cannot really be seen as its tritone sub since the IV in that movement
is not a dominant (IV7).

[TD]

Wrong.

[nqbqbep]

A VII7alt would imply a I-(maj7), i.e. melodic minor.

[Link]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_progression

[TD]

Not exclusively. Ever hear of modal interchange? Or would you rather
bite the hand that feeds you? The plagal cadential usage in jazz can
be noted via any chord quality. Can be Bmaj7 to Cmaj7 as a tritone
sub. Jazz is harmony of the 7th. We change and alter chord qualites at
will and still maintain the plagal and P5 cadential ***functions***.
For your information, the V to I cadence was originally a V triad to
I. There was no 7th. Jazz music is involves "harmony of the 7th." The
functions stay in tact.

My answer remains correct. No good deed goes unpunished.

-TD

[nqbqbep]

Thanks, I think that explains it. It's the "Backdoor progression to
iii". In the key of C, F#-7 B7 would normally resolve to E-7, which is
entirely contained in Cmaj9. So the I substitutes for the III-.

[TD]

Is not a back-door progression to the iii.

-TD

[paul s]

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:56:39 PM UTC-7, nqbqbep wrote:
> Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
> taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
> progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
> it happens in a number of tunes.
>
> For example:
>
> - Meditation, measures 3-5

A teacher told me to think about it like this - If the B7 went to Em, that's pretty conventional, so think of Cmaj7 as Em/C.

Also, that move is very similar to a Cdim(maj7) resolving to Cmaj7.

Paul S

[ecj]

This. I've always just thought of it as the iv-7 - VII7. Often it
starts a iii-VI-ii-V, like in "Only Have Eyes For You" and a bunch of
other tunes. If you think of it that way, it makes sense that it
could go straight to the Imaj7. You could have fun just playing the
iii-VI-ii-V over the I chord as an interesting sub, too.

[nqbqbep]

Hi Tony, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond to my
question very much. I respect your knowledge but that does not mean I
have to agree with you on everything. My counter-arguing wasn't meant
to offend you.

Thanks,
Michael

[nqbqbep]

On Mar 25, 3:22 am, ecj <evan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 7:58 pm, Link <v...@con.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:56:39 -0700 (PDT), nqbqbep wrote:
> > > Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> > > noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> > > a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> > > Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
> > > taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
> > > progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
> > > it happens in a number of tunes.
>
> > > For example:
>
> > > - Meditation, measures 3-5
>
> > > - Everything I Love, Aebersold's arrangement from vol.112 ("Cole
> > > Porter"), measures 2-3 and 6-7
>
> > > - Bridge of "In the Still Of the Night" (F6 A7#5 Bbmaj7)
>
> > > - Someday my prince will come, measures 2-3 (D7#5 to Ebmaj7)
>
> > > In all these examples a dominant 7th resolves up a half step. How do
> > > you explain this movement theoretically?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_progression
>
> This.  I've always just thought of it as the iv-7 - VII7.

Hi, thanks for your reply. Are you talking about the IV- to bVII7
movement? This is completely different from what we're talking about
here... we're discussing the VII7 and not the bVII7...

[TD]

Oh, by all means don't agree. I am sorry that I tried to teach you a
known fact. You see, I do not piss in the wind when I try to teach
some one something as some do here. It is not E-7/C, by the way. The
function is based on the bass note as root. If B7 moves to Cmaj7 in
the way you explained, it is a variation of a plagal cadence. Back-
door cadences apply to whole step below the target resolution. Ex: Bb7
to Cmaj7. Or "minor plagal. You say you were "never taught this
particular mopvement" yet you maintain a funny follow up. No problem
for me if you don't agree. The wrong information irks, but I will get
back to my guitar and shrug it off.

-TD

[TD]

That would be minor plagal as it utilizes the bVII to I. "Backdoor"
refers to whole step below the I or temporary I. I suppose we can call
it a major backdoor. If we were so inclined. Nonetheless, the premise
is utilizing the plagal territory.

-TD

[nqbqbep]

Hi Tony, if you take a look at that Wikipedia link on the backdoor
cadence, you'll see that, according to Wikipedia, there are 2 entirely
different things referred to as "backdoor progressions":

1. IV-7 to bVII7 to I
2. #IV-7b5 to VII7 to I

The second movement is the one this thread is about, and I find
Wikipedia's explanation of it satisfying. In your last post it seems
that you thought that I was referring to the bVII7, which I was not.

I'm not going to argue whether it's correct to call the second
progression a "backdoor progression". This would be just a definition
issue, and thus not of essence. I also never use this term myself.

[David J. Littleboy]

"nqbqbep" <isle.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In all these examples a dominant 7th resolves up a half step. How do
> > you explain this movement theoretically?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_progression

Thanks, I think that explains it. It's the "Backdoor progression to
iii". In the key of C, F#-7 B7 would normally resolve to E-7, which is
entirely contained in Cmaj9. So the I substitutes for the III-.
<<<<<<<<<<

Right. In blues in F, the Bdim in bar 6 can be seen as an E7b9 (which is 1/2
step below F) resolving to the iii of F, i.e. Am (maybe with a b5), but the
F7 is substituting for the iii. At which point you have a iii-VI-ii-V-I.

It all makes sense. Now all you have to do is to be able to come up with
something to do over that when some joker calls blues in Db at 220 bpm.

--
David "my head hurts" Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[Gerry]

On 2012-03-24 23:56:39 +0000, nqbqbep said:

> Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
> taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
> progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
> it happens in a number of tunes.

I remember encountering this many years ago and having had some kind of
explanation (or two) proffered that satisfied me. I've forgotten what
they were. I went looking in Delamont's Modern Harmonic Technique but
couldn't find it--I've marked on every page of Volume II anyway,
osbscuring the bulk of the text.

My non-academic view is that a dominant can certainly have all the
implications of both a b9 (which aids in association to the chord a
half-step above) as well as a #9 and b5 both of which aids in the
associated function as a vii chord (half-diminished) and its logical
resolution.

But actually sitting here playing it and listening, I am reminded more
of the ease of association to the IVm7, with the bVImaj6 situating as
its first inversion.

That's just my ears.
--
If one plays good music, people don't listen and if one plays bad music
people don't talk. -- Oscar Wilde

[Gerry]

On 2012-03-25 01:07:46 +0000, TD said:

> That would be minor plagal as it utilizes the bVII to I. "Backdoor"
> refers to whole step below the I or temporary I. I suppose we can call
> it a major backdoor. If we were so inclined. Nonetheless, the premise
> is utilizing the plagal territory.

Isn't there a "Screen door" approach that is more obvious, and
concludes with a jarring BANG?

Bob Eubanks: What's the most interesting place you have "made whoopee"?

Contestant #1: I'd have to say it was a "plagal cadence", Bob.

[TD]

I stated that some one may call the VII to I a backdoor (It is mostly
applied to bVII to I and I did not think you meant bVII to I anyhow),
"major back door" I added, however the usage of the VII7 to Imajor is
STILL a variation of a "plagal cadence." Then backdoor itself
signifies plagal. The argument is not whether it is correct to call
the 2nd on a backdoor. The argument is that you think I gave you
incorrect information on the variation of a plagal cadence, which
indeed is what it is.

-TD

[Link]

Furthermore,
in e minor the V7 = B D# F# A resolves into the VImaj7 = C E G B
as a very common "Interrupted (or Deceptive) cadence",
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(music)#Interrupted_.28or_Deceptive.29_cadence

and you can even build the 'natural' variant
V-7 = B D F# A -> VImaj7 = C E G B

Which also sounds "appropriate" - doesn't it?

[nqbqbep]

Thanks a lot Gerry, your input is highly appreciated.

[Link]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:06:12 -0700 (PDT), TD wrote:

> On Mar 24, 9:56 pm, nqbqbep <isle.of.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> Hi Tony, if you take a look at that Wikipedia link on the backdoor
>> cadence, you'll see that, according to Wikipedia, there are 2 entirely
>> different things referred to as "backdoor progressions":
>>
>> 1. IV-7 to bVII7 to I
>> 2. #IV-7b5 to VII7 to I
>>
>> The second movement is the one this thread is about, and I find
>> Wikipedia's explanation of it satisfying. In your last post it seems
>> that you thought that I was referring to the bVII7, which I was not.
>>
>> I'm not going to argue whether it's correct to call the second
>> progression a "backdoor progression". This would be just a definition
>> issue, and thus not of essence. I also never use this term myself.


> I stated that some one may call the VII to I a backdoor (It is mostly
> applied to bVII to I and I did not think you meant bVII to I anyhow),
> "major back door" I added, however the usage of the VII7 to Imajor is
> STILL a variation of a "plagal cadence." Then backdoor itself
> signifies plagal. The argument is not whether it is correct to call
> the 2nd on a backdoor. The argument is that you think I gave you
> incorrect information on the variation of a plagal cadence, which
> indeed is what it is.

No problem at all... Wikipedia writes something similar:

"Plagal cadence
...
Sometimes a combination of major and minor plagal cadence is used (IV-iv-I);
for a progression with similar sonorities, see backdoor progression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(music)#Plagal_cadence

[Link]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 04:28:16 +0200, Link wrote:

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_progression
>>
>> Thanks, I think that explains it. It's the "Backdoor progression to
>> iii". In the key of C, F#-7 B7 would normally resolve to E-7, which is
>> entirely contained in Cmaj9. So the I substitutes for the III-.
>
> Furthermore,
> in e minor the V7 = B D# F# A resolves into the VImaj7 = C E G B
> as a very common "Interrupted (or Deceptive) cadence",
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(music)#Interrupted_.28or_Deceptive.29_cadence
>
> and you can even build the 'natural' variant
> V-7 = B D F# A -> VImaj7 = C E G B
>
> Which also sounds "appropriate" - doesn't it?

Or, in other words:

In C the scale notes give you

VII = B D F A -> VImaj7 = C E G B

and also these two 'subs'

VII_alt1 = B D F# A -> VImaj7 = C E G B

VII_alt2 = B D# F# A -> VImaj7 = C E G B

You can play all these 3 versions on the 4 inner strings of a guitar
when you use the inversions

D F A H -> C E G B
D F# A H -> C E G B
D# F# A H -> C E G B

to imprint the relationships/differences.

[Link]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 04:52:31 +0200, Link wrote:

Correction of the copy and paste typos VII = VII7 and VImaj7 => I maj7:

> Or, in other words:
>
> In C the scale notes give you

VII7 = B D F A -> I maj7 = C E G B

> and also these two 'subs'

VII7_alt1 = B D F# A -> I maj7 = C E G B

VII7_alt2 = B D# F# A -> I maj7 = C E G B

> You can play all these 3 versions on the 4 inner strings of a guitar
> when you use the inversions
>
> D F A H -> C E G B
> D F# A H -> C E G B
> D# F# A H -> C E G B
>
> to imprint the relationships/differences.

I am sorry for the typos.

[Mitch]

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:56:39 PM UTC-4, nqbqbep wrote:
> Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
> taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
> progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
> it happens in a number of tunes.
>

> For example:
>
> - Meditation, measures 3-5
>
> - Everything I Love, Aebersold's arrangement from vol.112 ("Cole
> Porter"), measures 2-3 and 6-7
>
> - Bridge of "In the Still Of the Night" (F6 A7#5 Bbmaj7)
>
> - Someday my prince will come, measures 2-3 (D7#5 to Ebmaj7)
>
>
> In all these examples a dominant 7th resolves up a half step. How do
> you explain this movement theoretically?

It can be thought of V7 of the III chord, and the III chord is a substitute for the I chord. So in a song like "Groovin' High" in Eb the D7 in the second measure can be thought of as the V7 of G-7, although it actually returns to Eb Major7, or the I chord. As far as soloing there's various ways of approaching it.(transcribing and experimenting can help a lot). "I Remember You" is also a good workout using this sound, and some folks like to throw it in as a little harmonic surprise.
Mitch

[TD]

Thought of, yes. Absolutely. But still: *Functioning as variation of
plagal* as is root to root. It is not going to a iii chord after all.
It is a back door cadence, therefore variation of plagal.

-TD

[RB]

On Mar 25, 11:43 am, nqbqbep <isle.of.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If by "plagal cadence" you mean the movement IV IV- I, then the VII7
> cannot really be seen as its tritone sub since the IV in that movement
> is not a dominant (IV7).

Despite the strenuous objections to the contrary, you are right on.
This has nothing to do with plagal cadences. It is simply a delayed
resolution of the tonic chord. 1 diminished which resolves to 1 major.
Nothing more, very clear and simple and very widespread, but sadly not
in much of the popular songs since the 50's....I only know of Bohemian
Rhapsody and a few others that use that beautiful tonic diminished
sound - it seems to have vanished from the popular song....

[TD]

Too much theory literature that proves your statement wrong.

-TD

[Joey Goldstein]

On 3/24/12 7:56 PM, nqbqbep wrote:
> Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
> taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
> progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
> it happens in a number of tunes.
>
> For example:
>
> - Meditation, measures 3-5
>
> - Everything I Love, Aebersold's arrangement from vol.112 ("Cole
> Porter"), measures 2-3 and 6-7
>
> - Bridge of "In the Still Of the Night" (F6 A7#5 Bbmaj7)
>
> - Someday my prince will come, measures 2-3 (D7#5 to Ebmaj7)
>
>
> In all these examples a dominant 7th resolves up a half step. How do
> you explain this movement theoretically?

The trouble with this thread that the progressions cited above are not
all the *same* progression.
I can't speak to the Porter arrangement, but in the case of Meditation
and In The Still Of The Night (ITSOTN) we're looking at a movement to I.
In the case of SDMPWC we're looking a movement to IV.

Another problem with seeing the genesis of these progressions is the
fact that as jazz players we can actually influence a chord's harmonic
function somewhat by the colour tones we choose to use in our lines over
the chord.

So, for me, there are at least 3 ways I look at the Meditation progression:

1. A deceptive cadence of the secondary II-V progression, IIm7-V7-of-IIIm.
In C, F#m7-B7 is usually functioning as IIm7-V7/IIIm and resolves to
IIIm, i.e. Em.
In C, both Cmaj and Em possess tonic function.
They often serve as like-function substitutes for one another.
But with a IIm7-V7/IIIm progression, the chords comprising the IIm7/IIIm
and V7/IIIm are usually coloured with non-chord-tones from the E minor
scales (E nat min, E harm min, E mel min and/or E dorian (occasionally E
phrygian too, but it's rare).
In E minor, the norm on B7 is B7b9#9b13.

2. B7b9 is D#dim7/B.
D#dim7 is an inversion of Cdim7, the Idim7 chord in C major.
So when you play over the Meditation progression, if you choose to
colour the B7 chord as B7b9 your lines will be quite similar to ones
you'd come up with if you were thinking about playing on Cdim7 for that
same stretch of time.
So, if you're hearing it that way, the preceding F#m7 or F#m7b5 or
B7sus4 (which is what I usually play there) can be seen as a decoration
of B7b9 or of Cdim7/B.

3. But if you colour the B7 with non-chord-tones from the E major scale
(i.e. B mixolydian) the analysis of B7 as a voicing of Cdim7 doesn't
really hold up as well.
This is especially true if you emphasize the C# on the B7 chord.
If you're hearing it that way, IMO, it's really a temporary key change
into some version of the key of B with a mixolydian colour attached to
the tonic chord.
My own ear resists hearing it as #3, most of the time.

If I play, or play off of, some sort of an F#m chord in bar 2 of this
tune it will usually be F#m7b5 rather than F#m7 and on the B7 chord I'm
usually playing some form of b9 (C) #9 (D) and b13 (G).
For me, it's important to realize that all 3 of those notes exist within
both the E nat minor and C major scales.
The primary key of this tune is C major.
The secondary key at this point in time is E minor (even though the move
to an Em chord does not actually occur).

If I use the B altered dominant scale on B7, which is the 7th
mode/rotation of C melodic minor), then it's kind of like it's a move
from C major to C minor and back to C major.
I guess this is a 4th way to analyze this chord.
The B altered dominant scale introduces another colour tone, #11 (F),
and dispenses with one of the original chord tones of B7, the F#.
The note F is an important member of the C major scale but it is not in
any of the standard E minor scales (except E phrygian) so it may sound
somewhat out of place here if used insensitively even though it is a
strong note vertically-speaking.

Using the B half-whole diminished scale on B7 helps to reinforce the
feeling of B7b9 being related to Cdim7.
B half-whole = C whole-half.
The colour tones involved here then, would be b9 (C) #9 (D) #11 (F) and
13 (G#).
I've already discussed the C D and F.
The G# is interesting to me because it is not found in the scales of
either the primary key (C major) or the secondary key (E minor).
As such, it can sound a little bit out of place here is used insensitively.
But the G# fits the chord vertically and sounds strong,
harmonically-speaking, when emphasized on this chord.
By choosing this scale colour on this chord you step into the realm of
the vertically-oriented player and leave the more key-oriented
horizontal approach behind to some degree.
The same could be said about the player who decides to use and B
mixolydian in that by colouring this chord with tones that lie outside
of the prevailing keys (C major and E minor), the integrity of your
lines will be based more upon vertical relationships within the
chord-of-the-moment rather than on the relationships within the key of
the moment.
IMO.

This happens a lot with jazz players, ofgten intuitively but sometimes
more consciously too, that by choosing to colour a chord with notes that
fit the chord vertically rather than notes that help to reinforce the
key feeling, the original justification/meaning/analysis of the way that
chord functions within the original written progression can be influenced.

Sometimes we take chords that are merely decorations of a more essential
chord and decide to play off of the decoration as if it too is an
essential chord.
The effect is that of raising the stature of the decoration which
actually creates a different progression than the originally written
progression.
It's all part of being an improviser.

So, if the original function of B7 here is really as a voicing of Idim7,
by treating/writing it as an actual B7 chord, especially when emphasis
of C# (9) occurs, it can be seen as involving various ways to vertically
colour *this* chord as opposed to Idim7.
I.e. Cdim7 becomes B7 which then becomes something else that can itself
be decorated.

The progression in SDMPWC is different.
In Bb major, a D7 chord is usually moving to Gm as V7/VIm.
But this D7 chord moves to Ebmaj7 instead of Gm.
In this key, Ebmaj7 (IVmaj7) can not be seen as a like-function
substitute for Gm (VIm).
In Bb major, Gm chords also have tonic function.
But any chord containing scale-degree 4 of the key (in Bb major, S4 =
Eb) can not possess tonic function.
In major keys, S4 is the destroyer of T function.
So although our Ebmaj7 chord contains all the tones of a Gm triad within
it, it is not a T function chord in either Bb major or G minor (G minor
would be our secondary key here if we ever actually got to a Gm chord,
which we don't).
So, we *can* look at D7 to Ebmaj7 as being a deceptive cadence of
V7/VIm, but it's not the same type of deceptive cadence as it would be
if we were in the key of Eb major because in Eb major, both Ebmaj7 and
Gm7 *do* have T function.

Another view of this progression involves the common tones between D7#5
and Bb9#5.
I.e. The D7#5 here can be heard as a partial voicing of Bb9#5 which
would be functioning as V7/IV if Bb7 were the actual change here.
So again, as improvisers we can actually influence the harmonic function
of a chord to be somewhat different than its original function within
the written progression by the colour tones we choose to play on top of it.
I.e. If you play over this D7 with notes you'd usually use over Bb7#5
*you* actually turn it into Bb7#5.

Now, as soon as you emphasize an A natural over the D7 chord, the
analysis of it being a voicing of V7/IV breaks down.
But you can still look at it as a voicing of Bbmaj7#5/D, which can also
serve as an approach chord to Ebmaj7.
The important guide-tone line here is F (on the Bb chord) moving to F#
(on the D7 chord) moving to G on the Eb chord.
Imagine that there was no D7 chord on the chart in bar 2.
You could then see this as 2 bars of Bbma7 (T) moving to Eb (SD) in bar 3.
We can then see that the F# is just a chromatic passing that helps to
join Bbmaj7 to Ebmaj7.
If you hear/see it that way then this is one of those cases where an
non-essential vertical sonority that comes about merely as an artifact
of decoration is promoted to the more important status of a
chord-in-its-own-rite.

Here's my analysis of the opening chords of Meditation:
C:
T D (in E minor) T
I V7sus4/IIIm V7/IIIm I (Deceptive Cadence)
Cmaj13 / / / | / / / / |B7sus4 / / / |B7 / / / |Cmaj13 etc.....

Here's my analysis of the opening chords of SDMPWC:
Bb:
T (D inIn G minor) SD (D in C minor) SD
I V7/VIm IV V7/IIm IIm
Bbmaj7 / / / |D7#5 / / / |Ebmaj7 / / / |G7 / / / |Cm etc....

So, the actual Roman numeral functional analysis doesn't really explain
all that much about the progression or how to play over these chords.
A player has to spend a lot of time ruminating about all of the various
interrelationships here to find his own path, note-choice-wise, through
these progressions because there is no single "right" way to hear them
or to play over them.
They all have a high level of ambiguity built into them.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/AudioClips/audio.htm>

[uiop99]

>
> [Joey's thorough analysis and considerations]

Excellent as usual. Thanks!

[Paul K]

On 3/25/12 12:52 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:

> A player has to spend a lot of time ruminating about all of the various
> interrelationships here to find his own path, note-choice-wise, through
> these progressions because there is no single "right" way to hear them
> or to play over them.
> They all have a high level of ambiguity built into them.
>

which makes them interesting to blow over.

One way I sometimes think of the D7 in SDMPWC is as an augmented
dominant (the melody note is a #5), and the associated whole tone scale
works just as well over E7(say with a #11) which is a tritone sub for a
Bb7. So from that perspective the D7 is just a V7 to Ebmaj.
For improv this means I can draw on the WT scale and move motifs in
whole steps, something that works over V7alt situations in general.

I often substitute an E7#11 outright for the D7 on bar 17 when there's
no pianist to confuse, to distinguish the first and last 16 bars.

--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/

[Bg]

> Despite the strenuous objections to the contrary, you are right on.
> This has nothing to do with plagal cadences. It is simply a delayed
> resolution of the tonic chord. 1 diminished which resolves to 1 major.
> Nothing more, very clear and simple and very widespread, but sadly not
> in much of the popular songs since the 50's....I only know of Bohemian
> Rhapsody and a few others that use that beautiful tonic diminished
> sound - it seems to have vanished from the popular song....

Stella By.... originally had a Bbdim(with A melody) as the opening
chord, and it was the Jazzers that turned it into Emin7b5(in the key
of Bb)
Bg

[TD]

B7 is one of several secondary dominant chords in the key of C. The
question is how it is being used in the case of the OP. The B7 change
would almost always never appear out of the clear blue as a resolution
or temporary resolution into Cmaj7. It is usually preceded by it's
secondary dominant, F#-7b5, for example. More so than F#-7 which would
normally, although not exclusively lead us into a new key or
tonicization as E major. It is, as was stated by many here, related to
E-7, the iii chord in C major. But this iii-7 is not the only chord
that tags on to secondary dominants in the key of C. Here's what the
yield of secondary dominants to the *triads* in the key of C is,
should anyone here be interested in *my* overly verbose jaunt: G7 to
C, A7 to Dmi. B7 to Emi, C7 to F, D7 to G, E7 to Ami. With the
exception of G7, all of the aforesaid dominant chords are called
*secondary dominants* in the key of C. Each secondary dominant has
it's own usual secondary dominant (yet each one of those can be
subject to modal borrowing and thus change chord qualities if should
be desired).

If we consider the major plagal cadence as opposed to the more common
minor plagal deception (F-7 to Bb7 to Cmaj7), we can also consider
F#-7b5 to B7 to Cmaj7. In the F-7 to Bb7, we borrow from the parallel
minor key off the iv chord as "plagal" position. With F#-7b5: F#-7b5
is an extension of the iv chord, be it major, dominant, or minor. It
is still looked upon as plagal cadencing. VII chord and bVII chord are
still part of the locrian area. They can be interchangeable, just like
D-7 and Dbmaj7 can be part of the sub-dominant area and also
interchangeable.

If we back-cycle utilizing harmony of the 7th (non triadic) we have:
F#-7b5 to B7 to E-7 to A7 to D-7 to G7 to Cmaj7. Sure, a person can
look at the derivative by back-cycling and see B7 to **E-7**, but the
actual chord changes are plagally related. Bass line is ultra
important here and it goes to C bass' C chord and not E minor. Even
without the secondary dominant of B7, B7 is a tritone sub for the IV
chord, "F7" (adjusted to dominant, but it's what we do in jazz) and
plagal. The B7 acts as a strong penultimate change because of two
factors: 1, It is the tritone sub of the IV chord, and 2, because of
it's locrian relation (as an adjusted VII chord in C). B bass to C
bass is very strong; no denying.

Without knowing or thinking any theory at all, play a plain vanilla F
major chord to a plain C major chord, say in VIIIth pos. Now sub a big
fat Bmajor bar chord into Cmajor. What do you realize? A very close
sense of function? Plagal functioning, perhaps to you?

In the end, none of this really matters, does it? hahahahhaha...hi ho
Silver....awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!


-TD

[Mitch]

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:56:39 PM UTC-4, nqbqbep wrote:
> Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
> taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
> progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
> it happens in a number of tunes.
>
> For example:
>
> - Meditation, measures 3-5
>
> - Everything I Love, Aebersold's arrangement from vol.112 ("Cole
> Porter"), measures 2-3 and 6-7
>
> - Bridge of "In the Still Of the Night" (F6 A7#5 Bbmaj7)
>
> - Someday my prince will come, measures 2-3 (D7#5 to Ebmaj7)
>
>
> In all these examples a dominant 7th resolves up a half step. How do
> you explain this movement theoretically?

Those are some very in depth responses! I would recommend to someone that they master an approach that they relate to (hearing and understanding theoretically), and then expand their choice of notes from there to seek and bring out other colors. At least they would have a comfort zone, and a point of reference.
Mitch

[Link]

Ooops - another typo...

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:30:06 +0200, Link wrote:

> when you use the inversions
>
> D F A H -> C E G B
> D F# A H -> C E G B
> D# F# A H -> C E G B

D F A B -> C E G B
D F# A B -> C E G B
D# F# A B -> C E G B

(H is the kraut letter for B while B is the kraut letter for Bb...)

[nqbqbep]

On Mar 25, 6:52 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 3/24/12 7:56 PM, nqbqbep wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> > noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> > a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> > Cmaj7. I have a fairly good background in jazz theory but I was never
> > taught this particular movement as some kind of standard chord
> > progression, but now I realize there must be a little more to it since
> > it happens in a number of tunes.
>
> > For example:
>
> > - Meditation, measures 3-5
>
> > - Everything I Love, Aebersold's arrangement from vol.112 ("Cole
> > Porter"), measures 2-3 and 6-7
>
> > - Bridge of "In the Still Of the Night" (F6 A7#5 Bbmaj7)
>
> > - Someday my prince will come, measures 2-3 (D7#5 to Ebmaj7)
>
> > In all these examples a dominant 7th resolves up a half step. How do
> > you explain this movement theoretically?
>
> The trouble with this thread that the progressions cited above are not
> all the *same* progression.
> I can't speak to the Porter arrangement, but in the case of Meditation
> and In The Still Of The Night (ITSOTN) we're looking at a movement to I.
> In the case of SDMPWC we're looking a movement to IV.

Hi Joey, thanks for the gigantic reply ;-) I don't have the time to
read it now, but I'll get back to it when I can. Regarding the Porter
arrangement, here are the standard changes of the first 8 bars of
"Everything I Love"

Fmaj7 | B7#11 | Bbmaj7 | A-7 D7 |
G-7 | C7 | Fmaj7 | G-7 C7 |

and here is how these 8 bars have been slightly reharmonized by
Aebersold, using the "VII7 to I" device

Fmaj7 | E-7b5 A7#9 | Bbmaj7 | A-7 D7 |
G-7 | B-7 E7 | Fmaj7 | E-7 A7 |


Note the reharmonization of bars 2 and 6. It was this reharmonization
and the fact that it sounds so good that got me thinking about this
harmonic movement.

Also, you're not right about In The Still Of The Night... there the
movement also goes to the IV and not the one.

I'm talking about the part of ITSOTN where the lyrics are "Do you love
me as I love you? Are you my life to be, my dream come true?"

The harmony there is F A7#5 Bbmaj7 ... and the tune is in F.

[RB]

On Mar 26, 7:45 am, TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even
> without the secondary dominant of B7, B7 is a tritone sub for the IV
> chord, "F7" (adjusted to dominant, but it's what we do in jazz) and
> plagal. The B7 acts as a strong penultimate change because of two
> factors: 1, It is the tritone sub of the IV chord, and 2, because of
> it's locrian relation (as an adjusted VII chord in C). B bass to C
> bass is very strong; no denying.

If B7 was a tritone sub for F7 it would progress to Bb. Tritonic subs
invariably fall by a 1/2 step. This rises, and as such is a very
simple delayed resolution (or deceptive cadence) to 1. The B7 is
effectively a lower appogiatura which resolves back to the tonic
chord.
Lennon's "I'm so Tired" is another tune that uses this "move".
As everyone knows, the "appogiatura" or delayed resolution is often
extended even longer by going to chord 2 or 5 or 4 (like in Lennon's
tune), but it is all essentially just delayed resolution to the 1, and

has nothing to do with plagal cadences.

After all, the 4 chord doesn't even have the leading note, whilst the
B7 and it's derivatives do. They have not much to do with each other
at all.

[TD]

Yes, I forgot, you know better. Yes no problem, I bow out you you RB.

yea baby...

[Gerry]

Do you mean "German letter" or was that a serial typo?

[RB]

On Mar 26, 10:37 am, TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I forgot, you know better. Yes no problem, I bow out you you RB.
>
> yea baby...

No Tony, it's actually ALWAYS you that knows better. You regularly let
people here know that they are idiots for daring to question you, and
then when your thesis fails you dare to say that *I* know better? I
sense a barely-veiled contempt in many of your posts here. Like you
are "slumming" it here, for our benefit, and that we should be so
grateful that you condescend to communicate with us plebs...
How about just admitting you were mistaken on this, or if my thesis is
full of it, then show me how I am wrong...I, unlike you it seems, can
easily and gladly take criticism and correction.

[Link]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:57:27 -0700, Gerry wrote:

> Do you mean "German letter"

Yes, food for confusion: H <-> B, B <-> Bb

[TD]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. When it comes to you, I indeed
know better. My thesis hasn't failed at all. The thing is that
whenever you THINK I am failing, you enter to help possibly gang up on
me. In fact, tis you who has failed each and every time that has
occurred. What I have written is common knowledge. Some one already
pointed out one source. There are many. I have not failed at all. All
that you have written is utter nonsense as usual. I am wise to you.
Very wise to you. I already showed you how you are wrong, but to my
misfortune your musical IQ won't permit yourself to grasp any of it.
What you sense is your own contempt. I feel sorry for you, pal. Stay
jealous, it suits you. Enjoy your day too.

[Gerry]

Isn't it possible for us to discuss akk this without making it so personal?

One possible answer to that question: No, it is not.

[TD]

You know Gerry, I do believe it is high time I split from here, like
my old friend Jimmy has. I see why he has and I also see why some
musicians only post their gig or workshop announcements here. You see,
you are not the only one who has taken things personal. No matter how
you cut it, things will always be disbalanced. No need to explain why
things stay disbalanced. And when things stay disbalanced, in any way,
shape, or form, you get this sort of thing. And when this sort of
thing has reached it's penultimate chord change, it's time to end the
tune. I think I can place an Amen cadence right there. Yes, I can.
Amen.

-TD

[Gerry]

On 2012-03-26 00:59:54 +0000, TD said:

> You know Gerry, I do believe it is high time I split from here, like my
> old friend Jimmy has.

I sure wish you wouldn't.

> I see why he has and I also see why some musicians only post their gig
> or workshop announcements here. You see, you are not the only one who
> has taken things personal.

Certainly not, but I try to avoid it whenever possible.

> No matter how you cut it, things will always be disbalanced. No need to
> explain why things stay disbalanced. And when things stay disbalanced,
> in any way, shape, or form, you get this sort of thing. And when this
> sort of thing has reached it's penultimate chord change, it's time to
> end the tune. I think I can place an Amen cadence right there. Yes, I
> can. Amen.

I sure wish you wouldn't move on, but it all boils down to how much
aggravation you can tolerate. And where you find the aggravation. You
don't get aggravated by 6thumbs, for instance. You simply ignore him.

It's all well and good to say "well you shouldn't get aggravated". But
we respond emotionally to whatever the hell we respond emotionally to.
And sometimes we're pricks and other times we're saints. I try to
avoid being too much of a prick, and if I am a prick I at least try to
make it entertaining.

Bornman has ideas you disagree with. He or others don't accord you an
appropriate measure of deference or respect or something. But then
even fewer in this forum generally agree with his opinions, and even
less are inclined to accord deference to him.

Why let it get to you? You state an opinion, certainly in your
viewpoint an authoritative stance. Fine. You've done what you can.
You can debate your stance with others or not. But what good does
getting pissed off do?

With each successive year I avoid more confrontations and arguments
than the year prior. When I get really pissed off I turn the computer
off and I'm STILL mad. I have dinner with the wife or watch a movie or
something but I keep refering to that anger like I'm monitoring a
toothache or something. That really sucks.

So my view is to cut bait as early as possible from the anger and
angst. It works better for me. I recommend it.

[thu...@heretis.adv]

How about:
The I in IIIdom7 resolvdes 1/2 step to the I in Tonic
The III in IIIdom7 resolves 1/2 step to the III in Tonic
The V in IIIdom7 resolves 1/2 step to the V in Tonic
The dom VII in IIIdom7 is the VI of the Tonic
And finally, the I-1/2 oz of Beefeaters resolves completely to the
entire glass full of Tonic.

[Gerry]

On 2012-03-24 23:56:39 +0000, nqbqbep said:

> Hi, I have a question for the theory-inclined rmmgj fellows. I've
> noticed that in some tunes there is a II-V that unexpectedly resolves
> a half step up from the V, rather than up a fourth. i.e. F#-7 B7
> Cmaj7.

This might help in working through the conflicting viewpoints:

http://tinyurl.com/dxlf32k