what a tritone sub really is
Ben Crowell
really care about terminology, because terminology is boring and you
can argue all day about it, but about how folks organize this information
in their brains.
It seems to me that there are two completely different things that people
refer to as tritone subs. Say the basic chord progression is Bb7 Ebmaj7.
The normal scale to play over the Bb7 is
1) Bb C D Eb F G Ab .
A possible scale substitution is this,
2) Bb C D E F G Ab ,
and another is this,
3) E F# G# A# B C# D .
I would never have thought of #2 as a tritone sub at all, even with E
in the bass. But I was noticing that Mark Levine refers to this kind
of thing as a tritone sub all the time.
How do you all think about this? As a horn player, #1 and #2 seem so similar
to me that it's not really worth thinking of #2 as a chord substitution at all.
But on the rare (and horrific) occasions when I sit down at the piano,
it seems to make more sense to think of #2 with E in the bass as
a tritone sub -- as Levine says, a particular melody note gets a whole
new sound when you hear it over this new bass note.
Joey Goldstein
Ben Crowell wrote:
>
> I have a question about how people think about tritone subs. I don't
> really care about terminology, because terminology is boring and you
> can argue all day about it, but about how folks organize this information
> in their brains.
>
> It seems to me that there are two completely different things that people
> refer to as tritone subs. Say the basic chord progression is Bb7 Ebmaj7.
> The normal scale to play over the Bb7 is
> 1) Bb C D Eb F G Ab .
> A possible scale substitution is this,
> 2) Bb C D E F G Ab ,
> and another is this,
> 3) E F# G# A# B C# D .
>
> I would never have thought of #2 as a tritone sub at all,
It isn't. It's just a scale a collection of pitches.
> even with E
> in the bass.
E7/Fb7 (a chord not a scale tone) is the subV of V in the key of Eb
major. You might use any number of chord-scales on E7 in this key. Bb7/E
is essentially the same sound as E7(b9b5) and your #2 is one of many
possible chord-scale relationships that might be applicable on that
chord, but it is also applicable on a vanilla Bb7 chord too. If the band
is playing Bb7 and you use that scale you have not created a tritone
sub, you've just got a potential #4/#11 as a melody note.
> But I was noticing that Mark Levine refers to this kind
> of thing as a tritone sub all the time.
>
> How do you all think about this? As a horn player, #1 and #2 seem so similar
> to me that it's not really worth thinking of #2 as a chord substitution at all.
> But on the rare (and horrific) occasions when I sit down at the piano,
> it seems to make more sense to think of #2 with E in the bass as
> a tritone sub -- as Levine says, a particular melody note gets a whole
> new sound when you hear it over this new bass note.
Bb lyd b7
Bb C D E F G Ab Bb
is the same notes as
E alt
E F G G# Bb C D E
Bb alt
Bb Cb C# D E F# Ab Bb
is the same notes as
E lyd b7
E F# G# A# B C# D E
Bb lyd b7 and E alt are both modes of the F jazz minor scale.
F G Ab Bb C D E F
E lyd b7 and Bb alt are both modes of the B jazz minor scale.
B C# D E F# G# A# B
Or you could use E mixolydian rather than Bb mixolydian on Bb7 for the
most tension.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
<joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Pan
<b_cro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have a question about how people think about tritone subs. I don't
>really care about terminology, because terminology is boring and you
>can argue all day about it, but about how folks organize this information
>in their brains.
>
>It seems to me that there are two completely different things that people
>refer to as tritone subs. Say the basic chord progression is Bb7 Ebmaj7.
>The normal scale to play over the Bb7 is
> 1) Bb C D Eb F G Ab .
>A possible scale substitution is this,
> 2) Bb C D E F G Ab ,
>and another is this,
> 3) E F# G# A# B C# D .
>
>I would never have thought of #2 as a tritone sub at all, even with E
>in the bass. But I was noticing that Mark Levine refers to this kind
>of thing as a tritone sub all the time.
>
>How do you all think about this?
[snip]
I agree with you. Tritone sub is a harmonic category, unless you are
really playing in the scale of the tritone sub, as in #3. All #2 does
is put in a leading tone to the 5th of the chord or, alternatively,
introduce the #11.
Michael
Alan Young
<b_cro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that there are two completely different things that people
> refer to as tritone subs. Say the basic chord progression is Bb7 Ebmaj7.
> The normal scale to play over the Bb7 is
> 1) Bb C D Eb F G Ab .
> A possible scale substitution is this,
> 2) Bb C D E F G Ab ,
> and another is this,
> 3) E F# G# A# B C# D .
>
> I would never have thought of #2 as a tritone sub at all, even with E
> in the bass. But I was noticing that Mark Levine refers to this kind
> of thing as a tritone sub all the time.
>
> How do you all think about this? As a horn player, #1 and #2 seem so similar
> to me that it's not really worth thinking of #2 as a chord substitution at
> all.
> But on the rare (and horrific) occasions when I sit down at the piano,
> it seems to make more sense to think of #2 with E in the bass as
> a tritone sub -- as Levine says, a particular melody note gets a whole
> new sound when you hear it over this new bass note.
As a pianist, I think like a bass player, a chord player, AND a melody
player.
#2 is just a coloration, not a sub. When the bass note changes to E,
it's a tritone sub. If you play scale #2 over E, you have an "alt"
chord color.
Other combinations work, too--mix and match. If there's only melody and
bass, it's all useable. If there's a chord instrument *and* a solo
instrument, people have to have either really good ears (and quick
refelxes) to match up with each other, or work out in advance what
colors to use on each chord.
--
alan
+++++++++
"I wish I could play like Tatum's right hand!"
-- Charlie Parker
Oona
Using an E instead of Eb on a Bb7 creates a tritone from the root of the
chord (Bb), but is not what is called a tritone substitution. Instead,
you've modified the mode from a mixolydian to a lydian dominant by raising
the Eb to an E.
A tritone sub is when you substitute the chord whose root is a tritone away
from your original chord; ie. a E7 chord instead of a Bb7. Over the E7 you
can choose whatever dominant mode or scale to apply, mixolydian, lydian
dominat (which is the one that you've shown in your example as #3),
superlocrian, half-whole diminished (also called the 8 note domiant), or
even a whole tone scale, or just use the chromatic scale.
The main thing is, as you've started to discover at the piano, the sound of
an E chord going to an Eb instead of a Bb chord going to the Eb chord. And,
in example #2, you have the notes of the E superlocrian mode (one of the
dominant function option I listed above), and instead of sounding like a Bb
lydian dominant, if you put the E in the base, it sounds like the E
superlocrian even though the pitches are the same.
So, the pitches are the same for the Bb lydian dominant and the E
superlocian, but as a horn player it all depends on how you hear it in your
head, which will affect which notes you emphasis and how you treat the
pitches which is going to make it sound like a Bb chord or an E chord to the
listener. If you really want to force the tritone sub to be obvious to
yourself or to the listener, try using the E mixolydian instead at first.
"Ben Crowell" <b_cro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m2r8bgi...@localhost.localdomain...
Marc Sabatella
> It seems to me that there are two completely different things that
people
> refer to as tritone subs. Say the basic chord progression is Bb7
Ebmaj7.
> The normal scale to play over the Bb7 is
> 1) Bb C D Eb F G Ab .
> A possible scale substitution is this,
> 2) Bb C D E F G Ab ,
> and another is this,
> 3) E F# G# A# B C# D .
>
> I would never have thought of #2 as a tritone sub at all, even with E
> in the bass. But I was noticing that Mark Levine refers to this kind
> of thing as a tritone sub all the time.
I'd be interested to know where he says this. My guess is that you are
misunderstanding something he is saying.
For what it's worth, while I agree with you and the others responding
that #2 is not in itself a tritone sub, it could be in some ways be
consistent with the use of a tritone sub. A tritone sub literally means
using E7 instead of Bb7 as the basis for your playing. If thinking
about E7 leads you to play the collection of pitches named in #2, then
you could be said to be using a tritone sub while playing that set of
pitches. But most people using that set of pitches probably aren't
thinking E7; they are thinking Bb7#11 or Bb lydian dominant.
The pitch set in #2 can follow from thinking E7 if you are thinking
specifically of the E altered scale, aka E diminished whole tone, aka E
super locrian, aka the seventh mode of F melodic minor. But then, you'd
be more likely to list the scale starting with E (or perhaps F).
On the other hand, some people use the trick of learning only one of the
two modes of melodic that can work over dominant sevenths (lydian
dominat and altered), and use it built a tritone whenever they want the
other. That is, you never have to learn the altered scale if you know
lydian dominant. Instead of playing E altered (assuming that's what you
wanted), you'd play Bb lydian dominant.
But while that can be a useful trick, it's not one I'd recommend in
conjunction with a true tritone sub. If you want to think E7 over the
Bb7 chord, why choose the E7 altered scales when then it is just giong
to bring you back to a fairly simple Bb7#11 sound? The whole point of a
tritone sub (well, one of them, anyhow) is to add a lot of harmonic
complexity through a fairly simple process of changing from one simple
chord/scale to a simple chord/scale a tritone away . Going from Bb7 to
E7 to E7alt to E7 altered to Bb7 lydian dominant is a very complex way
of not actually adding much color. If you are going to use a tritone
sub - E7 in this case - you actually get more bang for your buck
choosing a simpler E7 scale, like E lydian dominant (or even E
mixolydian, despite the avoid tone of A). The simpler the E7 scale you
choose, the more complex it sounds over Bb7; the richer the E7 scale you
choose, the less colorful it sounds over Bb7.
> But on the rare (and horrific) occasions when I sit down at the piano,
> it seems to make more sense to think of #2 with E in the bass as
> a tritone sub -- as Levine says, a particular melody note gets a whole
> new sound when you hear it over this new bass note.
That's because you are in effect changing it from Bb lydian dominant
(Bb7#11) to E altered (E7alt).
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Mark Eisenman
also called the "devils interval".
I have a simpler way around this but it leads to the same place if you
think about it
Bb7 and E7 share the same 3rd and 7th, therefore they are functional
equivalents, and therefore the *DO* the same things, and can used in each
other's place.
This leads to everything Marc said.
I don't even think of them as different in their function.
Play a G# and a D in the middle of the piano,
play an E bass--presto E7
play a Bb bass- presto Bb7
and either one goes to the places that the other goes.
Marc Sabatella wrote:
--
Mark Eisenman
E mail- eise...@yorku.ca
WEB- jazzpiano.ca
276 Willow Ave.
Toronto, ON
M4E 3K7
Canada
Ben Crowell
> > I would never have thought of #2 as a tritone sub at all, even with E
> > in the bass. But I was noticing that Mark Levine refers to this kind
> > of thing as a tritone sub all the time.
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> I'd be interested to know where he says this. My guess is that you are
> misunderstanding something he is saying.
OK, an example of what I'm talking about is figure 13-16 on p. 264
of The Jazz Theory Book. The original chord progession is
F7 Bbm7, with the F7 voiced as F A Eb G, G in the melody.
The reharmonization is notated as B7#5 Bbm7, with the B7#5
voiced as B A Eb G. He refers to it as a tritone sub, but to
me it's just F7/B. If it was really a tritone sub, it would have
G#, not G. Of course that wouldn't work with G in the melody.
As I said in my original post, I really don't care about voting on
whether Levine's terminology is standard or nonstandard. I'm more
interested in how people organize their scale choices in their
heads.
A related issue is that when I see something notated like
F7alt Bbm7, I find it easier to translate it mentally into
B7#11 Bbm7. Again, it's a mental issue for me, not a verbal
one --- I simply have an easier time thinking about it as
B7#11, since that's a diatonic scale with only one note altered.
Jurupari
dominant at 1,3,5,6 or 7, I think of the tritone sub as being part of the
dominant chord and my first choice of scales as tonal collections would be
melodic minors half a step above the root and the harmonic minor a third above
that.
If there's a dominant at 2 or 4, I think of it as *being* a tritone sub, and
think of the chord as being a 4th deg 'tertian' chord of the melodic minor
scale.
Clif Kuplen
Marc Sabatella
> OK, an example of what I'm talking about is figure 13-16 on p. 264
> of The Jazz Theory Book. The original chord progession is
> F7 Bbm7, with the F7 voiced as F A Eb G, G in the melody.
> The reharmonization is notated as B7#5 Bbm7, with the B7#5
> voiced as B A Eb G. He refers to it as a tritone sub, but to
> me it's just F7/B. If it was really a tritone sub, it would have
> G#, not G.
That's not the relevant distinction. If we accept that the root of the
chord is B and not F, then the B7 *is* explained as a tritone sub for
F7. It does not matter what other extensions or alterations are
present - tritone substitution is about *roots*, not scales per se.
So this is rather different from saying that the *scale* F G A B C D Eb
represents a tritone sub for the scale F G A B C D Eb, which is more or
less how you initially characterized what Levine was saying. That I
would not have agreed with. But what you quoted above is definitely
accurate - B7 *is* a tritone sub for F7, regardless of alterations uses
or scales chosen. The fact that one paticular B7 chord might suggest
one pitch set scale and one particular F7 chord might suggest the other
is not the point; that is not sufficient to make me say that one scale
is a tritone sub for the other. If you wrote the scale to reflect the
change in root, then I'd agree that a tritone sub has taken place.
> As I said in my original post, I really don't care about voting on
> whether Levine's terminology is standard or nonstandard. I'm more
> interested in how people organize their scale choices in their
> heads.
OK. I would say I think about a handful of possible scale chocies for
dominant seventh chords, and how I prioritize them depends on the
function of the dominant (how it resolves, really) and perhaps on what
alterations were specified in the chord symbol, if I have reason to
believe they are significant.
So I might be thinking mixolydian, lydian dominant, altered, diminished,
whole tone, fifth mode harmonic minor, and blues as possibilities for
dominant sevenths in general. I am more likely to choose mixolydian if
the setting is a diatonic ii-V-I (in which case, I am really just
thinking major scale), or if the tune is non-tonal and there is no
reason to assume any other scale would be a better choice. I might also
pick diminished or altered for dominant sevenths that resolve down a
fifth if I want chromaticism; harmonic minor if resolving to a minor
chord is also a distinct possibility. Lydian dominant I am most likely
to choose over II chords that resolve to ii, maybe a couple of other
situations, or if the #11 is explicitly called for in the choird symbol.
Whole tone might sometimes work in similar situations, although I find
it is also not a bad choice for chords that resolve normally if I want
that sound. The blues scale I use mostly on dominant seventh chords
that are actually functioning as tonics, as in a blues.
> A related issue is that when I see something notated like
> F7alt Bbm7, I find it easier to translate it mentally into
> B7#11 Bbm7. Again, it's a mental issue for me, not a verbal
> one --- I simply have an easier time thinking about it as
> B7#11, since that's a diatonic scale with only one note altered.
Right, and this is what I was getting at in my previous response. It is
a common trick for converting a difficult set of alterations into an
easy one, by changing root. So if I decided I wanted to play F altered,
I might perhaps make it easier on myself by thinking of it as B lydian
dominant. In practice, I wouldn't need that crutch here, but I would
admit to using to turn, say, Ab7alt into D7#11.
r...@sprkershaw.net
wrote:
>After Marc's lengthy and good explanation, we now know why the Tritone was
>also called the "devils interval".
>
>I have a simpler way around this but it leads to the same place if you
>think about it
>
>Bb7 and E7 share the same 3rd and 7th, therefore they are functional
>equivalents, and therefore the *DO* the same things, and can used in each
>other's place.
>
>This leads to everything Marc said.
>I don't even think of them as different in their function.
>
>Play a G# and a D in the middle of the piano,
>play an E bass--presto E7
>play a Bb bass- presto Bb7
>
>and either one goes to the places that the other goes.
>
Because both can also be conceived as dim 7th chords
>Play a G# and a D in the middle of the piano,
play an F bass and add a B -- presto G#/Ab dim 7th
drop the bass to E -- presto E7
play a B bass and add an F -- presto D dim 7th
drop the bass to Bb -- presto Bb7
And either still goes to the place that the other goes plus two other
potential choices pop out.
Thinking of the last five chords in Misty
Dm7 - G7 - Cm7 - F7 - BbM7
iii7 - VI7 - ii7 - V7 - I7
this presents a perfect opportunity for tritone substition as follows:
Dm7 - Db7 - Cm7 - Cb7 - BbM7 (Cb = B)
iii7 - bIII7 - ii7 - bII7 - I7
This also demonstrates how I see tritone subs working, they provide
smooth semitone root movement toward a goal cadence (Perfect (V-I) in
this case (I'm using the English definitions of cadences rather than
American); bII, therefore acts as a sub for V in this progression and
cadence.
Thoughts from the Bush
(Northern NSW)
Shane
Sender address is a soak for spam (it auto bounces back).
Oona
But for me, if I think D7#11 for an Ab7alt (although for me on sax, BbAlt is
the worst because I rely on the bis fingering), I get a D lydian dominant
sound instead of Ab, so I don't allow myself to do this "mental
substitution".
I wonder to what extent this is a function of how one percieves or uses
modes. If you use modes as a collection of basic pitches that you choose
from as you develop your improvisation, then D lydian dominant for Abalt
would work, but for me, I have to (internally, at least) hear that Ab rooted
chord, think in an Ab rooted scale/mode, or else a D lydian dominant sound
will come out of what I play.
And maybe pianists can think in both, since they have two hands. Ab7 in the
left, using D lydian dominant in the right?
Al Stevens
news:nViV9.72$iw.1...@news.uswest.net...
> But most people using that set of pitches probably aren't
> thinking E7; they are thinking Bb7#11 or Bb lydian dominant.
I envy those people. I can't think that fast when I'm improvising. My mind
sees and hears some formless thing that represents in real time what those
long names represent when they are written. The images relate to the
ergonomics of the instrument, a different image for each instrument.
Somehow, when I'm reading, the formal symbols get translated to the internal
ones which are audio images as much as visual ones, if such a thing can be.
I am very interested in what is seen in the mind's eye of jazz players when
they are improvising, including the ones who say they do not understand
theory.
Jurupari
>they are improvising, including the ones who say they do not understand
>theory.
Me, too. Yours was very interesting, and sort of familiar - I play guitar, and
I've worked for decades at making hearing a note, touching the playing
position, thinking of a note and notation a simultaneous experience. I'm ok on
the first three, but not on the last.
>when I'm reading, the formal symbols get translated to the internal
>ones which are audio images as much as visual ones, if such a thing can be.
I think i'm describing about the same thing, but I can't do it reading.
Clif Kuplen
Ben Crowell
a tritone sub for F7, it seems like if I try to sort out some of the
points of view we've discussed, we have the following:
1. You hear it as a tritone sub, because B is in the bass, and the
melody note G takes on the sound of #5 of B rather than 9 of F.
2. It's not a tritone sub, because the scale it's derived from is
not anything like the diatonic scale that B7 belongs to, or the
closely related scale built around B7#11.
3. It's not a tritone sub, because the root of the chord is
F, not B.
To me, it seems like all of these could be useful ways of thinking
about it, depending on what you're trying to do. #1 seems useful
because, as Levine says, B in the bass does change the flavor of the melody
note. #2 seems useful if you're playing a sax solo and you're
thinking in terms of scales.
#3 seems like it's a natural way to think about it if you're
at the piano. Some people here, including Marc Sabatella IIRC,
say that when they're playing a melody by ear, they tend to hear every
melody note in relation to the root of the chord. (Marc, tell me
if I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth!) So if you're
hearing the root motion (as opposed to the bass motion) as
F->Bb, then you're hearing the G in the melody as the 9th of
an F7 (or F7#11 which happens to have B in the bass).
Personally, I have a tendency to hear melody notes in relation
to the tonic when I'm playing the horn, but in relation to the
root of the chord when I'm playing piano. One thing I wonder
about, not being a very serious piano player, is this: what
about chords that have no obvious root? For instance, if you're
playing a wholetone scale over a 7#5 chord, to me that
completely obliterates the sense that the chord has any
particular root. Likewise, I lose the sense of a root when
it's a diminished seventh chord & scale, and also often when the
harmony is tritone-sub-ish. Any comments from pianists?
Marc Sabatella
> > But most people using that set of pitches probably aren't
> > thinking E7; they are thinking Bb7#11 or Bb lydian dominant.
>
> I envy those people. I can't think that fast when I'm improvising. My
mind
> sees and hears some formless thing that represents in real time what
those
> long names represent when they are written.
Well, that's another issue. In writing about these things, I attach
names to them, but I am rarely conscious of them while playing, and
depending on the particular scale or chord I am dealing with, I might be
less or more truly conscious of even the "formless thing".
> I am very interested in what is seen in the mind's eye of jazz players
when
> they are improvising, including the ones who say they do not
understand
> theory.
Something I tell my students - and I think I even believe myself :-) -
is that I like to see these pitch sets as clearly as I see the C major
scale. C major is, of course, all white keys and no black ones. The
goal is to be able to visual, say, Bb lydian dominant the same way,
whether one is conscious of that name as well or not.
Luke Kaven
The deriviation of the tritone substitution is given many
explanations, most of which are incomplete. Yes, there is one sense
in which the transposing of the 3rd and 7th between two dominant
chords is justification, but not without additional and unneeded
theory. There is a much stronger justification/derivation for the
tritone subsitution in terms of set identity.
The chord tones belonging to an E7b9#11 are *set identical* with the
tones belonging to a Bb7b9#11. There is no need for further judgment
regarding notions about "functional harmony" and the like. This is a
matter of set logic, and indisputable as such. The sets of notes
belonging to the two chords are *identical* and thus there is *no fact
of the matter* regarding the identity of the tones belonging to that
set. This is by far the strongest justification of the tritone
substitution that I'm aware of, and I'd be interested if one thought
there were a stronger one.
That being said, of course one does not hear sets of notes per se, but
rather voicings thereof, and in that added step there may be
contextual matters fo be adjudicated.
Luke
anon
I was tought that when you have root movement of a fifth, you can sub that
chord with it's b5, and that was a tritone sub. One thing I add in my lines,
which sounds right, is I flip the quality of the sub
examples.
Cmaj7 | A-7 | D-7 | G7 (no subs)
Cmaj7 | A-7 | Abmaj7 | G7
Cmaj7 | Ebmaj7 | D-7 | Dbmaj7
I'm not even sure where the term came from, tri-tone. But my best guess,
from looking at a bass, is that a b5 is the true halfway point in an octave;
which triangulates those 3 points.
"Luke Kaven" <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:97bd222b.03012...@posting.google.com...
Andy Derrick
news:oT_%9.10631$QQ4....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> I'm not even sure where the term came from, tri-tone. But my best guess,
> from looking at a bass, is that a b5 is the true halfway point in an
octave;
> which triangulates those 3 points.
A Tritone is an interval of an augmented fourth e.g. C to F sharp. That gap
is 3 tones, or a Tri-Tone.
I understood the Tritone sub to be an alternative chord to use in Chord V of
a II-V pattern. As the Chord V 3rd and 7th notes of the chord are the same
as the Chord bII 7th and 3rd. It gives a stronger sounding bass line whilst
maintaining the same essential parts of the harmony.
--
Andy Derrick
www.andyderrick.com - live music solutions