Donna Lee - analysis
njsteve
I'm starting to work a bit on the melody for Donna Lee and would like
to check out some analysis of tune.
Can anyone point me to some solid analysis on this tune?
Of course it's only to cross check my own analysis which I'll be
doing.
It's funny the way I got interested in this. There's this disc I have
by a band called Coney Hatch and in this one tune called Monkey Bars
the guitarist lays down the coolest solo and I never knew what the
heck he was doing there. I just knew it sounded cool and it sounded
way outside of the chords. So I sent it to a buddy of mine who is
more into jazz than I am and he tells me the guy is just playing the
line from Donna Lee over and over. It's a pretty cranked up rock and
roll tune so its kind of funny that somebody used it like this, but it
actually works really well.
Thanks in advance for any info.
Steve
Joe Finn
news:efb4ecbf-a0ac-46fb...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
The harmony is borrowed from a well know tune called "Back Home Again in
Indiana". The Donna Lee melody is fairly consonant and can be easily related
to the changes. What kind of analysis were you interested in? ...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
njsteve
> The harmony is borrowed from a well know tune called "Back Home Again in
> Indiana". The Donna Lee melody is fairly consonant and can be easily related
> to the changes. What kind of analysis were you interested in? ...joe
Well, the chordal analysis, like ii V I, that type of thing, and then
what kind of scales, modes, arpreggios are being used over those
chords.
Thanks,
Steve
Gerry
> I'm starting to work a bit on the melody for Donna Lee and would like
> to check out some analysis of tune.
>
> Can anyone point me to some solid analysis on this tune?
If you mean a bona-fide academic dissection, I know of none, but there
likely is something along those lines somewhere on planet Earch. In the
meantime googling it in this newsgroup will unearth a boatload of
chatter that might well provide interest.
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.
Joey Goldstein
Here's a pdf excerpt from my book where I do a melodic analysis of DL.
It won't be much good to you unless you already know what passing tones,
appoggiaturas, auxiliaries, etc. are already.
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/227-228.pdf>
Regarding the Coney Hatch tune. That's Steve Shelski. A Toronto boy.
He had just recently graduated from Humber College around that time and
thought it would be a hoot to use DL in his rock solo.
I'm not sure if I ever heard that solo, but I've heard about it.
Steve's a good guy and a real good player. Not really a jazz guy though.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
Ab:
I V7/II V7/V
Ab |F7 |Bb7 | |
\IIm7_V7/ I \IIm7_V7/IV
Bbm7 |Eb7 |Ab |Ebm7 Ab7 |
IV IVm I V7/II
Db |Dbm |Ab |F7 |
V7/V \IIm7__V7/
Bb7 | |Bbm7 |Eb7 ||
I V7/II V7/V
Ab |F7 |Bb7 | |
Fm:
V7 Im V7
C7 | |Fm |C7 |
Ab:
Im V7 Im bIIIdim7
Fm |C7 |Fm |Bdim7 |
I V7/V \IIm7_V7/ I V7/V \IIm7_V7/
Ab/C F7 |Bbm7 Eb7 |Ab F7 |Bbm7 Eb7 ||
View with mono-spaced font.
paulmitc...@gmail.com
I transcribed the head for Donna Lee years ago from the original
recording. Most versions I've come across since have lots of
variations from the Parker/Miles master take. Interestingly enough,
they're usually the same variations.
My first thought was that everyone had used the Charlie Parker
Omnibook as their source but I recently checked it and found that the
notes there are almost exactly the same as mine (the only difference
being the A naturals rather than Abs played in bar 21). Maybe the
melodic alterations can be traced back to the original Real Book.
Anyway, here's my take:
gregc...@videotron.ca
To me it's a
9th chord etude. No way Bird wrote it it's not syncopated enough.
Good chops builder for strings though as are most bop heads.
njsteve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks a million for this! That's exactly what I was looking for!
Thanks for the chord analysis below as well. I will try it first on
my own and compare.
The interesting thing about the Coney Hatch thing is that he played it
over a different chord structure which was a very basic repetitive
thing and it just creates this very unusualy out there kind of a
sound.
Thanks for all the info! I really appreciate it.
Steve
335p...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
there are rumors that Miles Davis wrote it, but it doesn't sound like
his way of playing either.
Keith Freeman
> his way of playing either.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
Chickenhead
Also learn Back Home in Indiana and put it in the same key as DL. Get
someone to play one head while you play the other, preferably over a rhythm
section or swingin' on the Band-in-a-Box; there's kind of a call and
response thing.
Aside from that, my usual analysis is sorta' like "[uh-two] doolia-dabba
yabba DOOba zabba dooba dubya' DOOba zooba doobie yaddop." Seriously! The
phrasing and rhythm is a very important component. It's like a conversation
or explanation.
"njsteve" <sz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efb4ecbf-a0ac-46fb...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Dan Adler
Dan Adler
I don't know that I would label the Bb7 as V7/V given the lingering on
the E note which makes it lydian dom and more useful to label as II7
in my view. I prefer to reserve V7/V for cases where it really leads
there like in rhythm bridge, but here that's just not the function of
the chord. The Bb7 to Bbm7 is more of a major to minor transition than
a dominant relationship to the Eb7 that follows.
My "acid test" for such situations is whether your ear would consider
playing a b9. If so, then it's V7/V otherwise it's not. In this case a
b9 on the Bb would sound bad to me.
j_ns...@msn.com
> > there are rumors that Miles Davis wrote it, but it doesn't sound like
> > his way of playing either.
>
> I've read it was Tiny Kahn.
The Kahn tune on "Indiana" changes was the same melody in places, but
mostly not. The way Davis and/or Kahn and/or who-knows-who adopted
part of someone else's tune on "Indiana" changes and wrote more tune
for it too, all that process happening probably more than once, may
have been very complicated. The way some of those tunes were passed
from bopper to bopper and accidentally or deliberately modified along
the way was like folk music.
Joseph Scott
paulmitc...@gmail.com
Check it out for yourself, Dan - it's as clear as day. I just created
a very slow version of the head on my ASD and equalised it to bring
out the horns:
Some other commonly transcribed phrases that differ from the original
are:
1) the semitone and arpeggio figures over the Eb7 at bar 6 are
interchanged
2) the F and Ab in bar 15 are reversed
2) the ghosted Bb in bar 16 is usually written as an Eb
There are one or two places where Bird and Miles aren't in synch
(slightly different notes and rhythms) but it's at the beginning of
phrases. Of course, if you played all these variations at a gig
doubling a horn without rehearsal, you might get a few strange looks!
Dan Adler
You're right! I never listened to it half speed... very cool. So much
for theory when it comes to Bird... there is so much subtlety and
cleverness in his lines.
Thanks,
-Dan
http://danadler.com
Joey Goldstein
Not sure where you're getting those ideas from Dan.
I've been taught that it's V7/V if it moves to V7, which it does do
here, albeit indirectly, after the interpolated Bbm7 chord.
There are cases when it's still analyzed as V7/V even if it has a
deceptive cadence and does not eventually proceed to V7.
I was taught to label it as II7 (which is a designation outside of the
realm of traditional Tonal harmony btw) only when it occurs as part of a
constant structure passage (ala Bad Bad Leroy Brown) or in some other
case where it is clearly not operating as V7/V.
In my experience of doing this type of analysis, the scale quality, or
extensions, have nothing to do with the analysis.
And sometimes, when I play on this chord, contrary to what happens in
the head, I will treat it as Bb7b9 (using either half-whole dim or
altered or sim).
paulmitc...@gmail.com
<kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> Harmonically: Look at the extension usage over the secondary dominants.
>
> Also learn Back Home in Indiana and put it in the same key as DL. Get
> someone to play one head while you play the other, preferably over a rhythm
> section or swingin' on the Band-in-a-Box; there's kind of a call and
> response thing.
>
> Aside from that, my usual analysis is sorta' like "[uh-two] doolia-dabba
> yabba DOOba zabba dooba dubya' DOOba zooba doobie yaddop." Seriously! The
> phrasing and rhythm is a very important component. It's like a conversation
> or explanation.
That's exactly the approach I take with my students (pity that 'zabba
doo obama' doesn't quite nail the articulation).
paulmitc...@gmail.com
Those A naturals make sense over the C7 itself and maybe as a
reflection of the F7 chord elsewhere but I know what you mean, Dan.
Kind of the reverse of 'I Love You' where the implied Abs in the Gm7b5-
C7b9 progression resolve to the A natural of the F maj7.
BTW, the other one I forgot to mention is the C to Eb at the end of
bar 13 is often written as D to F.
Joey Goldstein
Thanks for that.
Dan Adler
Joey,
Common sense. I wasn't "taught", so I don't know which analysis would
get me a better grade at Berklee :-) but, I do know a duck when I hear
a quack, and analyzing the Bb7 as a dominant whose function is to lead
in to the Eb7 is just not quacking for me. Not to say that you can't
do something like that occasionally in a solo, but we're talking
primary function. The F7 is clearly leading to the Bb7, and indeed can
be b9'd, but the Bb7 is static. It has no electro-harmonic field
pulling it anywhere. It's electrons are happily spinning in a thick
lydian broth.
Kid Kool
It's Bach.
Gerry
I did see the originating post, but Dan: You're saying that a Bb7
doesn't want to resolve up a fourth?
Joey Goldstein
> but the Bb7 is static.
It sounds to you like the tune could there, on Bb7?
Hmmm. We hear that one differently I guess.
hw
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gj6hiq$dbe$1...@news.datemas.de...
-snip-
> Not sure where you're getting those ideas from Dan.
>
> I've been taught that it's V7/V if it moves to V7, which it does do here,
> albeit indirectly, after the interpolated Bbm7 chord.
girl from ipanema, a-train, mellow tone, love is here to stay, but not for
me. you'd call all those V7/V? i'd call them all II7.
Joey Goldstein
Yes I would.
Joey Goldstein
> hw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:gj6hiq$dbe$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>>
>>> Not sure where you're getting those ideas from Dan.
>>>
>>> I've been taught that it's V7/V if it moves to V7, which it does do
>>> here, albeit indirectly, after the interpolated Bbm7 chord.
>>
>> girl from ipanema, a-train, mellow tone, love is here to stay, but not
>> for me. you'd call all those V7/V? i'd call them all II7.
>
> Yes I would.
>
So, if you guys don't call those examples "V/V" then please give some
examples of what you *would* call V/V. And explain the difference to me.
Thanks.
hw
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gj9fq8$u6v$1...@news.datemas.de...
-snip-
> So, if you guys don't call those examples "V/V" then please give some
> examples of what you *would* call V/V. And explain the difference to me.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
i've always wondered about this. in german we know "zwischendominanten" (any
secondary dominant) and "doppeldominante" (II7). the II7 is a specific
occurrence in harmony just like IVm. yet i've not found an english
equivalent for the term "doppeldominante". they all seem to be called
secondary dominants...
anyway, compared to functions like V/III or V/VI you'll not find many
instances of V/V, since most of the time they will actually be II7
functions. actual V/Vs will mostly occur in cycles. like the C7 in the
bridge of rhythm changes, which does not function as II7.
here's a rule of thumb for secondary dominants. if it resolves to a chord
from the parent scale you alter the dominant. so V/II, V/III, V/VI all get
the same treatment. the only exception of course is "V/V" which actually is
II7 and does come with no b9 as dan has mentioned.
Joey Goldstein
The reason that it's common to use a b9 on V7/IIm, V7/IIIm and V7/VIm is
because these are all secondary dominants of secondary *minor keys*.
The reason that it is less common to use b9 on V7/IV and V7/V is because
these are secondary dominants of secondary *major keys*.
Movement from the primary key to a secondary key is a very real key
change. But they are analyzed as being only secondary keys because they
don't last long enough to take hold in the ear.
The typical embellished way to move from the C7 chord in Rhythm Changes
is to Cm7 F7, rather than going directly to F7.
Does doing this slight reharm change the chord from V7/V into II7 somehow?
Most people doing these types of analyses don't think so.
If the dom7 chord built on scale degree 2 of the key moves to a chord
that is in the primary (the key in the target chord is V7) it's analyzed
as V7/V.
If it moves directly to V7 it's a just simple dominant cadence.
If it moves to some chord within the primary key other than V7 (or to a
non-diatonic chord that is part of an approach sequence to V7), then
it's called a deceptive cadence.
If it doesn't move to V7, either directly or indirectly, or to some
other chord that is diatonic to the primary key, it's called "II7".
And II7 is something that would never have happened in classical Common
Practice Period music which is the period of music that functional
harmonic analysis is based upon.
So if a chord is truly functioning as II7 it's an indication that the
music is not following classical "rules" and is not 'truly' "Tonal" music.
To a classical theorist the occurrence of what we might call "II7" is "a
mistake" or "jazz".
The most common example of a true II7 chord is the second chord in the
sequence of the chords in the tune Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
Chickenhead
wish I'd had you for a teacher; I'd be a far better musician today had that
been the case.
Bravo!
<paulmitc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be70334d-4c22-45c6-9724->
hw
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gjb8qs$v3k$1...@news.datemas.de...
-snip-
> The reason that it's common to use a b9 on V7/IIm, V7/IIIm and V7/VIm is
> because these are all secondary dominants of secondary *minor keys*.
> The reason that it is less common to use b9 on V7/IV and V7/V is because
> these are secondary dominants of secondary *major keys*.
that's not the reason. V/IV can have a b9, no problem there at all. pretty
common too. it's the II7 that's a special snowflake.
> Movement from the primary key to a secondary key is a very real key
> change. But they are analyzed as being only secondary keys because they
> don't last long enough to take hold in the ear.
>
> The typical embellished way to move from the C7 chord in Rhythm Changes is
> to Cm7 F7, rather than going directly to F7.
> Does doing this slight reharm change the chord from V7/V into II7 somehow?
> Most people doing these types of analyses don't think so.
no, it's the power of the cycle of fifths.
>
> If the dom7 chord built on scale degree 2 of the key moves to a chord that
> is in the primary (the key in the target chord is V7) it's analyzed as
> V7/V.
> If it moves directly to V7 it's a just simple dominant cadence.
> If it moves to some chord within the primary key other than V7 (or to a
> non-diatonic chord that is part of an approach sequence to V7), then it's
> called a deceptive cadence.
>
> If it doesn't move to V7, either directly or indirectly, or to some other
> chord that is diatonic to the primary key, it's called "II7".
>
> And II7 is something that would never have happened in classical Common
> Practice Period music which is the period of music that functional
> harmonic analysis is based upon.
> So if a chord is truly functioning as II7 it's an indication that the
> music is not following classical "rules" and is not 'truly' "Tonal" music.
> To a classical theorist the occurrence of what we might call "II7" is "a
> mistake" or "jazz".
i just wanna blow, man (Tony D.)
> The most common example of a true II7 chord is the second chord in the
> sequence of the chords in the tune Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
don't know that one.
-hw
Joey Goldstein
>
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:gjb8qs$v3k$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> -snip-
>
>
>> The reason that it's common to use a b9 on V7/IIm, V7/IIIm and V7/VIm
>> is because these are all secondary dominants of secondary *minor keys*.
>> The reason that it is less common to use b9 on V7/IV and V7/V is
>> because these are secondary dominants of secondary *major keys*.
>
> that's not the reason. V/IV can have a b9, no problem there at all.
> pretty common too. it's the II7 that's a special snowflake.
Not at all.
V7/V can have a b9 too.
But on V7/IV and V7/V the*norm* is the maj 9, and it's the norm for the
reasons I cited.
>> Movement from the primary key to a secondary key is a very real key
>> change. But they are analyzed as being only secondary keys because
>> they don't last long enough to take hold in the ear.
>>
>> The typical embellished way to move from the C7 chord in Rhythm
>> Changes is to Cm7 F7, rather than going directly to F7.
>> Does doing this slight reharm change the chord from V7/V into II7
>> somehow?
>> Most people doing these types of analyses don't think so.
>
> no, it's the power of the cycle of fifths.
What harmony texts have you studied that say that these chords are not V7/V?
>> If the dom7 chord built on scale degree 2 of the key moves to a chord
>> that is in the primary (the key in the target chord is V7) it's
>> analyzed as V7/V.
>> If it moves directly to V7 it's a just simple dominant cadence.
>> If it moves to some chord within the primary key other than V7 (or to
>> a non-diatonic chord that is part of an approach sequence to V7), then
>> it's called a deceptive cadence.
>>
>> If it doesn't move to V7, either directly or indirectly, or to some
>> other chord that is diatonic to the primary key, it's called "II7".
>>
>> And II7 is something that would never have happened in classical
>> Common Practice Period music which is the period of music that
>> functional harmonic analysis is based upon.
>> So if a chord is truly functioning as II7 it's an indication that the
>> music is not following classical "rules" and is not 'truly' "Tonal"
>> music.
>> To a classical theorist the occurrence of what we might call "II7" is
>> "a mistake" or "jazz".
>
>
> i just wanna blow, man (Tony D.)
Also "tits please".
>> The most common example of a true II7 chord is the second chord in the
>> sequence of the chords in the tune Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
>
> don't know that one.
In E it'd be:
E7 | |F#7 | |G#7 |A7|B7 A7 |E7 |
Dan Adler
Joey,
I don't know that a reference is required in order to make a claim
about harmonic gravity, but if it makes you feel better, check out
Mark Levine page 285.
What I'm not getting is this: are you saying that writing II7 is bad
practice and V7/V is your choice because it eventually gets there, in
which case it's just semantics and we should drop it, or are you
actually saying that you would not play a lydian dom sound vs. an
altered sound over the second chord of A train/Ipanema or the Bb7 in
Donna Lee and that this chord is the same to you as any other
alterable dom?
Joey Goldstein
>
> Joey,
>
> I don't know that a reference is required in order to make a claim
> about harmonic gravity, but if it makes you feel better, check out
> Mark Levine page 285.
I've only skimmed thru his Jazz Theory Book.
One of the main reasons I didn't buy it was because he had left
functional analysis out of his book completely.
So what does he say on page 285?
> What I'm not getting is this: are you saying that writing II7 is bad
> practice and V7/V is your choice because it eventually gets there,
I'm saying that in harmonic analysis techniques based on analyzing Tonal
harmony, whether from a CPP viewpoint or a modern viewpoint, the
*analysis* of these chords is "V7/V" and that "II7" is a different
animal not normally associated with Tonal harmony.
> in
> which case it's just semantics and we should drop it,
I'd be happy to drop it.
> or are you
> actually saying that you would not play a lydian dom sound vs. an
> altered sound over the second chord of A train/Ipanema or the Bb7 in
> Donna Lee and that this chord is the same to you as any other
> alterable dom?
What does chord-scale choice have to do with it?
I've already explained why b9's are less appropriate on this chord than
on some of the other secondary dominants.
But yes, as I said several times already, I'm quite happy to play
altered tensions on V7/V whether it be in Ipanema, Rose Room, Rhythm
Changes, Our Love Is Here To Stay, A Train, or Donna Lee. But normally I
don't.
b9 on V7/V is a blue note in the primary key. It's used all the time.
And the #11 that folks like to play on V7/V is just a jazz custom that
probably started with Duke's A Train.
That note is totally outside of both the primary and secondary keys.
It's a hip sound vertically in the same way that #11 sounds cool on
Imaj7 chords and 9 can sound cool on IIIm7 and 13 can sound cool on VIm7
even though it's outside of the key.
Lyd b7 *isn't* the "norm" IMO on V7/V, even though that's what I
normally play (in an effort to be hip).
The "norm" on V7/V, i.e. the scale that most closely reflects both the
primary and secondary keys involved, is mixolydian.
So yes, this is all semantics. But in analysis semantics count.
paulmitc...@gmail.com
> probably started with Duke's A Train.
So when does a custom become legitimised as practice? I think you hit
the nail on the head, Joey when you stated that "if a chord is truly
functioning as II7 it's an indication that the music is not following
classical "rules" and is not 'truly' "Tonal" music."
The custom of employing non-resolved dominants throughout a blues
doesn't fit too well with classical CPP ''rules'' either. Maybe we're
talking square pegs and round holes.
hw
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gjbrag$eb0$1...@news.datemas.de...
> hw wrote:
-snip-
>> that's not the reason. V/IV can have a b9, no problem there at all.
>> pretty common too. it's the II7 that's a special snowflake.
>
> Not at all.
> V7/V can have a b9 too.
> But on V7/IV and V7/V the*norm* is the maj 9, and it's the norm for the
> reasons I cited.
-snip-
> Joey Goldstein
i tell you what. i'll give you 10c for every b9 you find played on a record
over II7, while i only want 1c for every b9 in a V7/IV chord i'm able to
find. deal?
Joey Goldstein
Maybe.
Still, jazz harmony courses are taught at Universities, jazz harmony
books are being written, and V7/V is still being taught as V7/V even in
a jazz tune.
Joey Goldstein
If I really took you up on this you'd be out a lot of money.
Chickenhead
For example, in the key of C major, the #11 (G#) on D7 is a leading tone to
the relative minor (A minor). For chordscale cats, in this case, A melodic
minor would be the slap, i.e., A B C D E F# G#.
I always think of Sonny Stitt's "There Will Never Be Another You" as the
classic example.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:gjcjsm$4f5$1...@news.datemas.de...
Joey Goldstein
> hw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:gjbrag$eb0$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>> hw wrote:
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>>>> that's not the reason. V/IV can have a b9, no problem there at all.
>>>> pretty common too. it's the II7 that's a special snowflake.
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>> V7/V can have a b9 too.
>>> But on V7/IV and V7/V the*norm* is the maj 9, and it's the norm for
>>> the reasons I cited.
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>>> Joey Goldstein
>>
>> i tell you what. i'll give you 10c for every b9 you find played on a
>> record over II7, while i only want 1c for every b9 in a V7/IV chord
>> i'm able to find. deal?
>
> If I really took you up on this you'd be out a lot of money.
Or least more money than you think you'd be out of.
First example that comes to mind is the melody of Desafinado, bar 13.
Next one that comes to mind is Moten's Swing, all over the place.
Would you use 9 or b9 on the 2nd chord of Chega De Suadade?
Admittedly, the environment is a little bit different in minor keys, but
it's still V7/V. The reason that b9 seems more at home on V7/V in a
minor key is that in a minor key this is a diatonic note. And that's the
same reason why the maj 9th on V7/V sounds more at home in a major key.
But sometimes on V7/V in a minor key I'll use the maj 9th too.
At any rate...There are no reasons, *other than the ones I've already
stated*, why we don't hear more b9s on V7/V.
But *like I've already stated* and *for the reasons I've already stated*
the maj 9 is the norm.
jerry.fr...@gmail.com
>
> Maybe.
> Still, jazz harmony courses are taught at Universities, jazz harmony
> books are being written, and V7/V is still being taught as V7/V even in
> a jazz tune.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
Geez
jerry.fr...@gmail.com
Sorry about that screwed up post...I am using google and there is a
brand new feature I messed up. What I wanted to say is that a II7 with
a subdominant function ( as taught in Berklee ) even appears in such
bland stuff as that old coke commericial ( I'd like to teach the world
to sing in perfect harmony..). I personally like to think of the II7,
and related chords -- #IV-7(b5) as "supersubdominant chords" since
they keep the 6th degree where it is and sharp the 4th degree
Joey Goldstein
>
> Sorry about that screwed up post...I am using google and there is a
> brand new feature I messed up. What I wanted to say is that a II7 with
> a subdominant function ( as taught in Berklee ) even appears in such
> bland stuff as that old coke commericial ( I'd like to teach the world
> to sing in perfect harmony..). I personally like to think of the II7,
> and related chords -- #IV-7(b5) as "supersubdominant chords" since
> they keep the 6th degree where it is and sharp the 4th degree
I don't recall "II7" as being taught as a subdominant function chord
when I was at Berklee.
"V7/V" *which is a slightly different animal* was taught as having
dominant function in the key of V. It is basically a "pre-dominant
chord" which is different than a "subdominant chord".
Pre-dominant chords are simply chord that generally proceed to the
dominant chord.
Subdominant function chords are chords that have a similar sound and
function to IV.
At Berklee, "II7" was taught to me as a dom7 chord with root on the
supertonic that doesn't follow the normal rules of functional harmony,
and moves to *somewhere other than V*.
So, they are both dom7 structures, but their function is different. Thus
the different analytical labels.
And neither II7 or V7/V have SD function in my lexicon.
(Although II7 often replaces IIm7 in a chord progression, they both are
deemed as having different harmonic functions within all the schools of
functional harmony that I've ever come across in my studies.)
Hey, but I'm no expert, and whatever floats your boat is fine with me.
Joey Goldstein
>
> Pre-dominant chords are simply chord that generally proceed to the
> dominant chord.
> Subdominant function chords are chords that have a similar sound and
> function to IV.
And although this is often the same thing it's not always the same thing.
> And neither II7 or V7/V have SD function in my lexicon.
> (Although II7 often replaces IIm7 in a chord progression,
Sorry. Shoulda said
"(Although V7/V often replaces IIm7 in a chord progression,"
paulmitc...@gmail.com
> First example that comes to mind is the melody of Desafinado, bar 13.
Interesting example yet that was also the first tune that came to my
mind, after A Train where a II7 calls out for a lydian dominant sound
rather than b9 (bar 3).
paulmitc...@gmail.com
<kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> I kinda' figured that #11 on V7/V was a minorization.
>
> For example, in the key of C major, the #11 (G#) on D7 is a leading tone to
> the relative minor (A minor). For chordscale cats, in this case, A melodic
> minor would be the slap, i.e., A B C D E F# G#.
I think you're onto something here, Kurt. If we treat the D7 as a sub
for Am7, the progression becomes a variation of a I-vi-ii-V.
Therefore, in the key of C, C-D7-Dm7-G7=C-Am7-Dm7-G7.
Granted, as Joey points out the G# wouldn't belong harmonically but
its function is more as a melodic, voice leading device. It acts as a
transition between the fifths of the C chord (G) and Dm7 (A). That's
certainly what's happening melodically in the opening phrases of both
A Train and Desafinado.
paul
>
> i tell you what. i'll give you 10c for every b9 you find played on a record
> over II7, while i only want 1c for every b9 in a V7/IV chord i'm able to
> find. deal?
nothing like some music theory prop betting to get things cooking on
rmmgj :).
--paul
Dan Adler
FWIW, the Levine analysis is similar, in that he says the II7 tends to
resolve to the IIm7, not to the V7, and that it is this resolution
which makes this a different animal than V7/V. This would be closer to
the interpretation of II7 as a sub for VI as you suggest.
A "straight" resolution of II7 to V7 would indeed be a V7/V function
(as in rhythm bridge), but in this case the IIm7 is actually a
resolution point, not just a sub-dom addition.
This is quite evident from the head of 'Donna Lee' where for example,
the first time after the Bb7 occurs, a complete Bbm7 arpeggio is
spelled out. If you experiment with omitting the Bbm7 and going
straight to Eb7- it just doesn't sound like the same progression any
more.
Joey Goldstein
Oh c'mon Dan.
DL is a contrafact based on Back Home In Indiana, and on BHII using the
IIm7 chord there sounds just as out of place.
I think you're confusing stylistic coloration with analysis.
And where in Levine's book does he even discuss the concept of secondary
dominants? When I browsed through it that stuff seemed to be missing
entirely. Eg. He always called it "II7", never "V7/V".
But then again, I don't own that book and have not studied it closely.
But that's the way I remember it.
How 'bout that quote of his that you referred to earlier?
Dan Adler
Joey,
I don't think anyone is going to convince you on this point, and I am
not going to try because it really doesn't matter to either of us. I'm
sure if we jammed together and played "Donna Lee" it would sound good
and we might even play the same notes ( if for different reasons :-)
Chickenhead
it could be. Kewl!
To me, #11 on V7/V makes the whole progression sound for a moment like it
might really have an A minor tonal center rather than C. To my ear, minor
keys sound more natural than major, so just that brief moment of G# flips
the whole progression out of C major and into A minor.
When Sonny Stitt plays There Will Never Be Another You, it almost sounds
like it's a really a C minor tune rather than Eb major thanks to the #11 on
the F7.
When it's a V7/V in a major key, #11 has that special relationship to the
relative minor.
I'm giving myself a headache talking about it, but it sounds cool when it
happens ;-).
<paulmitc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3c3f6ee-d77a-4a19...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Joey Goldstein
>
> I don't think anyone is going to convince you on this point, and I am
> not going to try because it really doesn't matter to either of us. I'm
> sure if we jammed together and played "Donna Lee" it would sound good
> and we might even play the same notes ( if for different reasons :-)
>
> -Dan
> http://danadler.com
>
I'd love to play with you some time.
But it's still V7/V...nah nah nah nah nah!!!!!!!
But seriously, if you've never used a b9 on this chord (sym dim h-w and
alt work great), try it.
No-one's gonna call you names.
Joe Finn
According to the "Dixieland Jazz Standards" fake book there is no IIm7 chord
in "Back Home Again In Indiana". For what it's worth, when I get the call
for that odd dixieland gig, it is performed with the IIm7 chord. Go
figure. ...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
tonyde...@gmail.com
Sure Paul, end the old year ( a pain in the ass year to begin with),
by calling back the Classical theory freaks. Oh boy...
-TD
jerry.fr...@gmail.com
When I was at Berklee, the II7 was taught as an SD but that was quite
a while back, youngster :)
Paul K
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>> Not sure where you're getting those ideas from Dan.
>>
>> I've been taught that it's V7/V if it moves to V7, which it does do here,
>> albeit indirectly, after the interpolated Bbm7 chord.
>
> girl from ipanema, a-train, mellow tone, love is here to stay, but not for
> me. you'd call all those V7/V? i'd call them all II7.
>
Inspired by this thread, I played around with this dichotomy (over A train
and Donna Lee).
I typically think of these as "II7", not that I think of it this formally, but
in my stripped down concept of bebop I've typically put dominant chords into 2
types, static (which is what I think II7 is supposed to mean) and V chords
wanting to resolve (which is what I understand by V7/V). I usually dont
alter as much on a "static" dominant, like the tunes Holger mentions (I'd
focus on the 3,7,9, and #11 and the correspoding minorisation, eg Am for
D7) whereas on a V chord I toss in more altered notes (and in particular
minorize using a tritone sub, so Ebmi(maj7) or Ebm7 for a D7 as a V)
Anyway, that Ebmi over the D7 sounded pretty cool after I started to get it
under control some. I still dont hear it quite in the way I think V/V7 should
sound, in the sense that resolving to G7 sounds a bit wierd to me. But I
think that might be because it bypasses the Dm7, and I'm used to having my V7
preceded by a IIm7.
I'm afraid to try it on bad, bad, leroy brown, however. No telling what rift
in space-time that might cause.
Paul K
--
http://www.youtube.com/TopologyPaul
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
Dan Adler
> in my stripped down concept of bebop I've typically put dominant chords into 2
> types, static (which is what I think II7 is supposed to mean) and V chords
> wanting to resolve (which is what I understand by V7/V).
Paul,
You'll be happy to know that Joe Pass uses these exact terms "static
dominant 7th" vs. "altered dominant 7th" in his "Jazz Lines" video:
https://www.wherehouse.com/movies/product-detail.jsp?id=2676839
Joey Goldstein
I was there in the early/mid 70's.
When were you there?
paulmitc...@gmail.com
Tony,
Yeah, I remember that post. Having one of those United Nations
translators on hand might have helped get your point across. As the
saying goes, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and
practice. But, in practice, there is".
Tim McNamara
Paul K <user...@isp.net.invalid> wrote:
> I typically think of these as "II7", not that I think of it this
> formally, but in my stripped down concept of bebop I've typically put
> dominant chords into 2 types, static (which is what I think II7 is
> supposed to mean) and V chords wanting to resolve (which is what I
> understand by V7/V). I usually dont alter as much on a "static"
> dominant, like the tunes Holger mentions (I'd focus on the 3,7,9, and
> #11 and the correspoding minorisation, eg Am for D7) whereas on a
> V chord I toss in more altered notes (and in particular minorize
> using a tritone sub, so Ebmi(maj7) or Ebm7 for a D7 as a V)
>
> Anyway, that Ebmi over the D7 sounded pretty cool after I started to
> get it under control some.
That sounds like how Pat Martino approaches this, if I understand his
points correctly. He sees the dominant chord as descending from the
diminished 7th chord (if you finger a dim7 and move any one of the notes
down a half step, you get a dom7: for example, Adim7 gives D7, Ab7, B7,
F7. The note that is moved becomes the root.) and proposes that you can
do substitutions using a minor scale starting on any of the notes of the
parental diminished chord over a dominant chord- so A minor, F# minor, C
minor or EB minor scales over the dominant chord. There are of course
non-diatonic notes in most of these scales. This approach allows the
easy use of multiple key substitutions over a dominant chord with more
consonant to more dissonant choices.
Martino also uses the minor scale starting on the 5th of the dominant
chord (in the case of D7 this would be A minor) which of course is the
Dorian mode of the key center.
jerry.fr...@gmail.com
Late 60s. George Garzone's class. I think the guys that taught the
harmony were Mike Rendish and somename Wenzel
Joey Goldstein
> On Dec 31, 5:48 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> jerry.freedman...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 8:39 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>> jerry.freedman...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> When I was at Berklee, the II7 was taught as an SD but that was quite
>>> a while back, youngster :)
>> I was there in the early/mid 70's.
>> When were you there?
> Late 60s. George Garzone's class. I think the guys that taught the
> harmony were Mike Rendish and somename Wenzel
Wes Hensel?
He taught the 2nd year harmony course when I was there too.
He was a trumpet player who had spent a lot of time in Vegas as I
recall. Nice guy.
jerry.fr...@gmail.com
I thought the guy was a piano player but you could be right
tonyde...@gmail.com
Did you mean Wes Hentzel? I knew Wes before he taught at Berklee. Wes
was deep.
-TD
Joey Goldstein
Sorry for the mis-spelling.
Yeah, Wes (has he passed away?) was cool.
tonyde...@gmail.com
You spelled it correctly. I made the error. Yea, I knew him in Vegas.
Was a lead trumpet player and a theory wig.
I think he passed away, yes.
-TD
tonyde...@gmail.com
Do you have any old notes taken on that? Are you sure that you are not
mistaking the II7 as "subbing" for the SD area? Just curious.
Subdominant area is IVmaj and it's buddy, vi min.
Only three main areas: Tonic, Sub-dominant, and Dominant. Therefore,
in C (and if the tune is overwhelmingly within the C tonic region) the
secondary dominants are: A7, B7, C7, D7, E7 . Notice F7 and G7 are not
amongst them? Yes! C7 is a secondary dominant in the key of C. Ain't
that wild? C7 in C is V7 of IV. IV, being the Subdominant. F is NOT
in the overtone series if C is the generating tone ( there is relation
here). Fmaj7 in Cmaj7 can be looked at as a "secondary key" within the
key of C. Hence, secondary dominants invoke secondary keys. This
should shed some light here. We get into the art of tonicization
(extremely brief modulations).
So, for me ( and believe me, I do not care, because we can look at
these chords nine ways to Sunday, yet, we MUST adhere to the powers
that be when dealing with the powers that be) D7 is V/V in C. We can
also *call* it "II7" in certain locations, and I often *hear* it that
way, but for overall analysis, V of V is more logical. Concerning b9
in certain voicings, and concerning V7 chords leading to minor OR
major, I sometimes convert (or juggle the two) the V7 to Vii ( example
Vii dim7/ii-7; yet I must adjust the thinking to A in the bass, if it
is indeed present as A7b9...and I use the phrase "function as")
diminished when explaining the harmonic underpinning to a student. One
man's alteration is another man's assumption. When there is a b5
present, I often turn to the tritone sub chord to explain certain
situations; V of something else, for example.
Some chords are extended ( displaced) for an extra bar in certain
situations. This often does not mean they are considered "vagrant".
Although, for the blowing, I may *hear* it as vagrant. And often to
think this way makes very creative lines. The cadence is merely
delayed in many cases. The harmonic rhythm is sometimes just
simplified, yet the real V7 chord is coming soon enough. So, as I am
very aware that some professors will not agree with me, I think I'll
"V of V myself" to a nice glass of Merlot right now.
-TD
Fuzztone, Ammo
I never heard of V/V7 before. Cool concept.
Can this be applied to the common chord change iii vi ii V I?
v/v/v/V
v/v/V
v/V
V
I
When playing a (forgive me) II7, I, too, tend to use a h/w dim scale
(II -iii IV +IV +V VI VII I II)
except in Dixie or Country situations, when I just play Mixolydian
like Joe.
--
AMMO
tom walls
> The most common example of a true II7 chord is the second chord in the
> sequence of the chords in the tune Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
A hipper reference would be the second chord of "Let's Cool One".
Trying to help you out here.
hw
"tom walls" <tomw...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:399c4c03-3f2d-4588...@s24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
no it's not. it's just a regular II V.
Joey Goldstein
Huh?
The changes I know for LCO are:
Ebmaj7 / / Eb6|Fm7 / / Bb7 |Ebma7 / Fm7 Gm7|C7b9 |etc.
tom walls
You wouldn't call EbMaj7 to Fm7 I to ii?
hw
"tom walls" <tomw...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0dec5695-2882-44b2...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
tom, we're talking about II7, not ii7 (IIm7). F7 in Eb, like the second
chord in "exactly like you"
Joey Goldstein
This discussion has been about whether or not the Bb7 in Donna Lee
should be analyzed as V7/V or as II7.
We're talking about *dom7* chords with root on scale degree 2 of the key.
tom walls
> tom walls wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 1:06 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> tom walls wrote:
> >>> On Dec 29 2008, 2:35 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >>>> The most common example of a true II7 chord is the second chord in the
> >>>> sequence of the chords in the tune Bad Bad Leroy Brown.
> >>> A hipper reference would be the second chord of "Let's Cool One".
> >>> Trying to help you out here.
> >> Huh?
> >> The changes I know for LCO are:
>
> >> Ebmaj7 / / Eb6|Fm7 / / Bb7 |Ebma7 / Fm7 Gm7|C7b9 |etc.
>
> >> --
> >> Joey Goldstein
> >> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> >> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> >> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
>
> > You wouldn't call EbMaj7 to Fm7 I to ii?
>
> This discussion has been about whether or not the Bb7 in Donna Lee
> should be analyzed as V7/V or as II7.
> We're talking about *dom7* chords with root on scale degree 2 of the key.
>
tonyde...@gmail.com
Guess you were "alone and forgotten in Manhattan." We forgot to reply.
Umm...concerning the former part of your post, if you use all upper
case roman numerals, then your V7/V/V/V etc business would coincide.
Meaning that, if you meant the changes to all be dom7ths, (not min7ths
in the mix) than you are alluding to 'backcycling' dominants. And yes,
that would be the way that most schools signify the activity heading
back to the tonic major. For example in Bb: D7 (V7/V/V/V into G7 (V7/V/
V) into C7 (V7/V) into F7 (V7) into Bbmaj7 (home plate). This is
backcycling in, for example: I Got Rhythm. Having answered your
question, I think it is a cumbersome way to analyze the cycle. But,
that is just my thinking and I do not expect others to have the same
opinion. Too many V's remind me of a flock of birds. One Bird is
enough to consider and he pretty much said most of it. The ii-7ths are
*usually* mere "window dressing" and may precede any of the aforesaid
dominants. As Schoenberg used to teach, there is only one true
dominant, that is the one that leads directly to the tonic. All others
are "dominant-like." Yet, we call them all dominants. Therefore, each
dominant is some temporary one chord's 'bitch.' And here is where the
concept of 'tonicization' comes into the picture.
On the other hand, ( worth two in the bush?) I can see the point of
roman numeral ideology concerning "this of that": V/I, V/iii etc.
Certain situations *sound* like tiny V to I movements ( when indeed
they are not). As a way to *mimic* this type of sound, musicians will
convey it as V/III, V/II, V/V etc. These extra chords are referred to
as "applied chords" ( The CPP heads will appreciate that) or
'secondary dominants.' The latter being the more popular phrase. So,
in actuality, even with dominant chords *not expected to to hit a
target*, are *still* considered secondary dominants. This may seem to
defy logic to some players, but this is still the *accepted language*
of such viewing.
Further yet! There is always an exception. And as I stated in another
post, the fourth is not part of the overtone series. F7 is not a
secondary dominant chord (in C, as an example). If it resolves via
descending fifth it leads to Bb, does it not? This will inevitably
lead us to 'back door' cadence activities and modal interchange.
-TD
tom walls
> tom, we're talking about II7, not ii7 (IIm7). F7 in Eb, like the second
> chord in "exactly like you"
I've got to admit I wasn't following the conversation closely. I did
wonder why you brought up "Girl from Ipanema" though, and now I see
why.
rmar...@beyondtechnologies.ca
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting to work a bit on the melody for Donna Lee and would like
> to check out some analysis of tune.
>
> Can anyone point me to some solid analysis on this tune?
>
> Of course it's only to cross check my own analysis which I'll be
> doing.
>
> It's funny the way I got interested in this. There's this disc I have
> by a band called Coney Hatch and in this one tune called Monkey Bars
> the guitarist lays down the coolest solo and I never knew what the
> heck he was doing there. I just knew it sounded cool and it sounded
> way outside of the chords. So I sent it to a buddy of mine who is
> more into jazz than I am and he tells me the guy is just playing the
> line from Donna Lee over and over. It's a pretty cranked up rock and
> roll tune so its kind of funny that somebody used it like this, but it
> actually works really well.
>
> Thanks in advance for any info.
>
> Steve