# Jazz theory and structure



## Guest

[I am, by no means, a jazz scholar or musical theoretician so I won't be getting very deep into this but, hopefully, enough that people here who might be curious as to how jazz works if they are deficient in that area. I am talking primarily the jazz of standards although we'll get into bop and maybe a bit of free jazz. But standards are the basis of jazz and if you don't learn your standards, you're not going very far in this genre so this is where we start. This is only what I know about it and certainly not all there is to know. There are people WAY more versed in this than me but, for that reason, this might actually be a better starting point for a novice wanting info on jazz theory and structure. This opening post is just a recap of standard music theory. We can't understand jazz theory without it so bear with me.]

Despite the complexity of its sound, jazz is actually structured rather simply. Were jazz to be structured complexly, it would be far too difficult except the greatest masters to play. The reason is that the improvisatory nature of jazz allows the musician to musically explore as he plays while the other musicians accompany him with chords, beat and rhythm. Not too bad but what happens when more than one musician is improvising simultaneously? If jazz structure were too complex, the musicians wouldn't be able to find their way back and come together again. So rhythm tends to stay constant and key changes are very minimal if not out-and-out absent, chord progressions are simple and standardized.

As a background, to play jazz requires a classical underpinning. Most jazz players have at least some amount of classical training. Just about everything found in modern jazz is also found in classical music and the techniques are the same as well as the music theory. For example, writing a bass chart in jazz bears similarity to the figured bass of baroque music. All the chord progressions used in jazz are found in classical. Classical music was largely responsible for the transformation of jazz from an urban folk music expressed with marching bands tramping through the streets to art music played in midtown nightclubs such as Birdland and Club Bonafide on 52nd Street in Manhattan and then in uptown high-class venues such as Lincoln Center.

Jazz has multiple structures but most are variations of a principal structure consisting of Rhythmic, Formal and Harmonic components:

I. Rhythmic (Three layers that bear a virtually unchanging relationship to one another):
a.	Melody - Usually in eighth or sixteenth notes. The fastest moving of the three layers.
b.	Chords - Usually half or whole notes. The changes provide "harmonic rhythm."
c.	Bass - Usually in quarter notes. The bass's purpose to act as a bridge between the chords and the beat and also to outline the melody.

II. Formal (All themes in the number are completely contained in 32 bars):

a.	AABA with each theme being eight bars. The A theme will contain a "turnaround" that allows A to repeat and then go to B which builds off the A theme.
b.	ABAC where each sub-theme is eight bars but AB forms its own 16-bar theme as does AC. These two 16-bar themes repeat but the C sub-theme will give the number an ending.
c.	ABCD or "through-composed" where the number may still consist of four 8-bar themes but they are played straight through without much repeating of themes or none at all. One might call it stream-of-consciousness jazz.
d.	Ternary or ABA where the A theme doesn't repeat before moving to B. This descended to jazz from European classical music.

III. Harmonic (Chord progressions):
a.	ii-V(7) or ii-V(7)-I - Most pop tunes are ii-V or ii-V-I.
b.	I-vi-ii-V(7) - The "doo-*** progression."
c.	I-IV-V(7) - Blues progression

There are other progressions, most of them variations of the three listed in III but we are mainly concerned with these as most jazz standards are written in one of these three progressions or are mixtures of them. Now how do we get these chords? The first thing to understand is that we should not separate chords from scales, they are two expressions of the same thing. When you're dealing with one, you're dealing with the other. Take, say, the F major scale:










Each note occupies a position. From left to right, the positions are 1 (F), 2 (G), 3 (A), 4 (Bb), 5 (C), 6 (D) and 7 (E). The upper F is usually excluded but is often designated as 8. This, of course, holds true for any scale. What makes this scale major is that is has half-steps between positions 3 and 4 and also between position 7 and 8. The rest are whole steps.

To make chords of these principle notes, we designate them "roots" and start piling notes of top of them as shown. We use only notes from the scale. In the key of F major, the B is always flatted and so we write the flat symbol in the key signature instead of next to the note for the sake of convenience. The notes we pile on are in thirds, e.g. F has an A on top of it which is a major third interval and the A has a C over it which is also a minor third interval. So F is the root, A is the third and C is called the fifth. Root, third and fifth (or R-3-5) forms a "triad" and all the notes in the scale can be made into triads. Note that G consists of G, Bb and D because the key signature is on the B staff line meaning that every B note is to be flatted unless otherwise notated. Each triad adopts the position number of 1-8:










But now we notice something strange: not all of the triads are majors. The only major triads are F, Bb and C, the rest are minor or diminished. G, for example, has a Bb for a third which is a minor third interval (a minor third interval is a half-step less than a major third interval). A minor triad always has a minor third interval as its third above the root. The fifth, as with the major triad, is always a perfect fifth above the root (a perfect interval does not have a major or minor designation although it can be augmented or diminished). The E triad is diminished meaning it is a minor chord with a flatted fifth. The important thing to keep in mind is that it's not the notes of the triad that matter but the position of the triad. Positions 1, 4 and 5 produce major triads while 2, 3 and 6 produce minors and 7 produces a diminished chord. For this reason, we generally use Roman numerals to designate the positions with upper case to represent the majors and lower case to represent the minors. So, the correct scheme is represented as I, ii, iii, IV, V, iv, viio (the circle representing the fifth as diminished).

Now, what happens when we pile one more note on top of the triads? These notes are called sevenths. Let's look at the C scale.










I and IV form major 7ths which are a major 3rd above the 5th while ii, iii and vi form minor 7th chords (7th is a minor 3rd above the 5th). Position vii forms a half-diminished chord which is a diminished triad with a minor 7th stacked on top. But the most important position to note is V. While it has a major triad, the 7th is minor and so is often written as V(7). This chord is commonly called the dominant 7th and serves a very important function in jazz (actually, in all music). So the full seventh chord scheme is written as I, ii, iii, IV, V(7), vi and viiø (the slashed circle represents a half-diminished chord). A major chord in jazz is generally written as, for example, CΔ7 or C major 7th, where the triangle represents a major chord and the addition of the 7 makes this a major 7th chord (leaving off the 7 makes it a C major triad). Minor chords are usually written in jazz as, for example, D-7 where the minus sign indicates a minor chord, in this case a minor 7th (leaving off the 7 would be a D minor triad). We've already covered how diminished and half-diminished chords are represented. The dominant 7th chord has no symbol of any kind. The dominant 7th of A is simply A7. The dominant 7th of E-flat is Eb7 and so on.

There are other symbols we will encounter later but we'll discuss them when the time comes. What I've laid out here is the most basic information needed to understand anything at all about music theory in any form besides jazz.


----------



## Mahlerian

Victor Redseal said:


> There are other symbols we will encounter later but we'll discuss them when the time comes. What I've laid out here is the most basic information needed to understand anything at all about music theory in any form besides jazz.


No, actually, jazz-pop theory is the only place you really can go when that's where you're starting. For one thing, it is not at all true that chords and scales are "two expressions of the same thing" in classical theory. The idea of uninflected diatonicism is really a product of the 20th century (as is, for example, the idea of separating harmonic identity from inversion). Common practice theory begins with the key, not the scale, as fundamental, and the difference between the two is that the key designates a harmonic hierarchy while the scale does not. At most, it gives a melodic hierarchy.

A chord progression such as this, incredibly common in Classical-era music:

I-VofV-V

doesn't leave the key, though it departs from the scale. It needn't imply any modulation to the dominant region, temporary or otherwise.

I don't mean to discourage you from writing more about Jazz theory, but you have to understand that it has different starting assumptions.

(Also, isn't the blues progression I-IV-I-V-IV-I?)


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> No, actually, jazz-pop theory is the only place you really can go when that's where you're starting.


So a classical musician doesn't recognize ii-V-I? I'm going to call bullshyte on that. I have encountered virtually type of chord progression in classical sheet music including I-IV-V. It wasn't blues I-IV-V, of course, but it was still I-IV-V. I don't know of any chord progression used in jazz (I don't care about pop) that isn't found in classical. Classical is the foundation of all modern Western music.



> For one thing, it is not at all true that chords and scales are "two expressions of the same thing" in classical theory.


I can't argue this point because I only know a little about classical music--some Bach, some Mozart, some Vivaldi, some Prokofiev, some Beethoven, some Mendelssohn and not much more. But in jazz, scales are pools of notes with which to construct chords. Take a D-7 chord. The triad is D-F-A. Add the 7th which is C. There is your basic D-7 chord. But jump up into the extensions of 9th, 11th and 13th and you get the whole D Dorian mode of the C scale if you put them all in the same octave: D-E-F-G-A-B-C. So jazz musicians think in terms of scales more than chords when improvising. To us, scales ARE chords. And frankly, I don't know why that should be any different for any other style of music that uses chords as D-7 or modes as D Dorian but maybe it is for classical.



> The idea of uninflected diatonicism is really a product of the 20th century (as is, for example, the idea of separating harmonic identity from inversion). Common practice theory begins with the key, not the scale, as fundamental, and the difference between the two is that the key designates a harmonic hierarchy while the scale does not. At most, it gives a melodic hierarchy.


That's not my point. My point is that you won't find anything in jazz that you can't find in classical whether it be keys, chords, scales or progressions. And the techniques are identical. Jazz musicians learn to handle their instruments by studying classical. Although jazz will use an arco bass, I have never studied a jazz arco solo. All my arco experience is through the study and playing of classical pieces. You're not going to find anything in jazz that can't be found in classical. Jazz may apply it differently and I'll get to that but it's just the same stuff you find in classical. Now, I'm talking standards jazz and not the esoteric forms which often rely on non-Western scales or totally new innovations but the groundwork for these is still standards-type jazz.



> A chord progression such as this, incredibly common in Classical-era music:
> 
> I-VofV-V
> 
> doesn't leave the key, though it departs from the scale. It needn't imply any modulation to the dominant region, temporary or otherwise.


There is, I'm sure, a lot of stuff in classical that jazz never touches. Jazz may use I-V of V-V but I've never seen it personally. It would certainly be rare for jazz to use unless maybe it was one of those symphonic jazz things (which is really classical anyway). Again, I'm saying there is nothing in standards jazz that can't be found in classical in terms of scales, chords, progressions and technique (at least as far as bass is concerned). When jazz began being taught in schools in the sixties, it was classical music that provided the theory and structure. Different application but the same stuff. I'm sure any classical musician worth his or her salt would immediately recognize that. Standards jazz is simple and it is meant to be. A t the risk of oversimplifying, in classical, your solo may be complex and the ensemble behind can go crazy with chord, rhythm and key changes if such is called for. It's mapped out on the sheet music and worked out in rehearsals. In jazz, if the ensemble is doing that while a guy is soloing improv, then it becomes exceedingly difficult for him to figure out how to work his way back into the background. It has to be kept simple and it's often riff-driven so it's basically second nature. And then there is the idea of "swing" which is largely absent in classical but which, when added in starts to sound like jazz (the Swingle Singers, for example, do this quite convincingly with Mozart and Bach). But there are a great many classical musicians who can switch over to jazz and vice-versa and it's done all the time. The two forms are inextricably married. In fact, there are certain gray areas where jazz and classical are pretty much one in the same. Third Stream IS a marriage of classical and jazz and it was a term coined by Schuller who worked both in classical and jazz idioms. And he classified Third Stream thusly:

It is not jazz with strings.
It is not jazz played on 'classical' instruments.
It is not classical music played by jazz players.
It is not inserting a bit of Ravel or Schoenberg between bebop changes, nor the reverse.
It is not jazz in fugal form.
It is not a fugue played by jazz players.
It is not designed to do away with jazz or classical music; it is just another option amongst many for today's creative musicians.



> I don't mean to discourage you from writing more about Jazz theory, but you have to understand that it has different starting assumptions.


First, I'm not discouraged at all and, secondly, I don't think it's a different as you're letting on.



> (Also, isn't the blues progression I-IV-I-V-IV-I?)


I-IV-V is a general thing. If you play it straight up, you get blues. But you can dice it up a number of ways and it's still blues and it's still essentially I-IV-V. You can go I I I I IV IV I I V IV I V(7) for example, which is very basic. But Bill Doggett's "Honky Tonk" substitutes the subdominant in the second bar: I IV I I IV IV I I V IV I V(7). It's still blues and it's still basically I IV V.


----------



## Torkelburger

Can you list some example standards for forms c and d? And for form b are you talking about basically 16 bar tunes that repeat (sometimes an altered repeat) like "Days of Wine and Roses", "Green Dolphin Street", "ESP", "Fly Me to the Moon", "All of Me", etc.?


----------



## Mahlerian

Victor Redseal said:


> So a classical musician doesn't recognize ii-V-I? I'm going to call bullshyte on that. I have encountered virtually type of chord progression in classical sheet music including I-IV-V. It wasn't blues I-IV-V, of course, but it was still I-IV-V. I don't know of any chord progression used in jazz (I don't care about pop) that isn't found in classical. Classical is the foundation of all modern Western music.


Well, of course you can find circle of fifths progressions like ii-V-I in classical, but that doesn't mean they're conceived of exactly the same way. At any rate, your list of progressions wasn't my point. Common practice harmony (usually) works on a larger scale than the immediate harmonic progression, which is why all of the modulations are balanced out by further modulations.

But it's really easy to find progressions that wouldn't show up in common practice harmony. Planing seventh chords, for example, is something that Debussy, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg did, and that jazz musicians do, but that Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven would have considered impossible and unbearably dissonant.



> I can't argue this point because I only know a little about classical music--some Bach, some Mozart, some Vivaldi, some Prokofiev, some Beethoven, some Mendelssohn and not much more. But in jazz, scales are pools of notes with which to construct chords. Take a D-7 chord. The triad is D-F-A. Add the 7th which is C. There is your basic D-7 chord. But jump up into the extensions of 9th, 11th and 13th and you get the whole D Dorian mode of the C scale if you put them all in the same octave: D-E-F-G-A-B-C. So jazz musicians think in terms of scales more than chords when improvising. To us, scales ARE chords. And frankly, I don't know why that should be any different for any other style of music that uses chords as D-7 or modes as D Dorian but maybe it is for classical.


Well, classical theory neither treats Dm7 as a simple chord nor does it treat D dorian as anything other than a temporary inflection of the minor mode. Dm7 is a dissonance and requires resolution and more careful treatment than a consonant chord.

Also, D dorian would not be considered a mode of the "C scale" because it scales are only reckoned from the tonic in classical theory. I understand that they are treated differently in jazz and pop theory, but in classical theory it makes no more sense to say "the D dorian mode of the C scale" than to say "the green shade of black."

Most fundamentally, classical theory conceives of scales as products of melody, the horizontal aspect of music. Harmony is not something which is applied separately from melody, it arises out of melody and melodic considerations. So you also can't really speak of the scale as a "pool of notes from which to construct chords." After all, the augmented chord is a common occurrence in minor mode music, which does not exist on the regular diatonic scale (which is why the so-called harmonic minor scale was invented, but that came out of usage, not the other way around).

My point is not that you're wrong about jazz theory, but that you misunderstand classical theory if you aren't aware of these distinctions.



> There is, I'm sure, a lot of stuff in classical that jazz never touches. Jazz may use I-V of V-V but I've never seen it personally. It would certainly be rare for jazz to use unless maybe it was one of those symphonic jazz things (which is really classical anyway).


You missed my point. It wasn't the progression that was important, but the fact that key and scale are not identical, though they are related. It's not about finding or not finding the progression in jazz.



> First, I'm not discouraged at all and, secondly, I don't think it's a different as you're letting on.


It is.



> I-IV-V is a general thing. If you play it straight up, you get blues. But you can dice it up a number of ways and it's still blues and it's still essentially I-IV-V. You can go I I I I IV IV I I V IV I V(7) for example, which is very basic. But Bill Doggett's "Honky Tonk" substitutes the subdominant in the second bar: I IV I I IV IV I I V IV I V(7). It's still blues and it's still basically I IV V.


I was under the impression that the Blues progression was defined far more by I-V-IV (which is much rarer in classical) than I-IV-V (which is quite common).


----------



## Miles120

interesting back and forth. Makes interesting reading for a layman of the structure of Jazz like myself.


----------



## Torkelburger

12 bar forms are quite common in jazz standards as well, with alternate chord progressions other than a blues progression used for the chords. It's really a clever little idea. "Solar" (my favorite in this form), "Nostalgia in Times Square", "Blue in Green", "Israel", to name a few. I've written many original compositions in this form too. It's one of my favorites.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Well, of course you can find circle of fifths progressions like ii-V-I in classical, but that doesn't mean they're conceived of exactly the same way. At any rate, your list of progressions wasn't my point. Common practice harmony (usually) works on a larger scale than the immediate harmonic progression, which is why all of the modulations are balanced out by further modulations...But it's really easy to find progressions that wouldn't show up in common practice harmony. Planing seventh chords, for example, is something that Debussy, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg did, and that jazz musicians do, but that Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven would have considered impossible and unbearably dissonant...Well, classical theory neither treats Dm7 as a simple chord nor does it treat D dorian as anything other than a temporary inflection of the minor mode. Dm7 is a dissonance and requires resolution and more careful treatment than a consonant chord...Also, D dorian would not be considered a mode of the "C scale" because it scales are only reckoned from the tonic in classical theory. I understand that they are treated differently in jazz and pop theory, but in classical theory it makes no more sense to say "the D dorian mode of the C scale" than to say "the green shade of black."...Most fundamentally, classical theory conceives of scales as products of melody, the horizontal aspect of music. Harmony is not something which is applied separately from melody, it arises out of melody and melodic considerations. So you also can't really speak of the scale as a "pool of notes from which to construct chords." After all, the augmented chord is a common occurrence in minor mode music, which does not exist on the regular diatonic scale (which is why the so-called harmonic minor scale was invented, but that came out of usage, not the other way around)...My point is not that you're wrong about jazz theory, but that you misunderstand classical theory if you aren't aware of these distinctions...You missed my point. It wasn't the progression that was important, but the fact that key and scale are not identical, though they are related. It's not about finding or not finding the progression in jazz...It is...I was under the impression that the Blues progression was defined far more by I-V-IV (which is much rarer in classical) than I-IV-V (which is quite common).


Please, do continue, Mahlerian. I've never seen you go on at such length about the curious rigidity and inflexibility of CP classical. Of course, jazz is much more flexible, intuitive, practical, and 'user-friendly' in its ideas and approaches, so comparisons are totally useless, but very entertaining for a practical theorist like me.

Some of my favorites: 
1. Chord inversions have no harmonic identity
2. Only keys have harmonic identity, scales do not
3. Scales are melodic entities and have no harmonic implications
4. Modes cannot be derived from scales; they must remain separate entities

Wow, I never knew that such literal thinking was present in CP classical. It's so rigid that it's utterly fascinating! It's all style with no substance, rationality be damned!


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Please, do continue, Mahlerian. I've never seen you go on in such length about the curious rigidity and inflexibility of CP classical. Of course, jazz is much more flexible, intuitive, practical, and 'user-friendly' in its ideas and approaches, so comparisons are totally useless, but very entertaining for a practical theorist like me.
> 
> Some of my favorites:
> 1. Chord inversions have no harmonic identity
> 2. Only keys have harmonic identity, scales do not
> 3. Scales are melodic entities and have no harmonic implications
> 4. Modes cannot be derived from scales; they must remain separate entities
> 
> Wow, I never knew that such literal thinking was present in CP classical. It's so rigid that it's utterly fascinating! It's all style with no substance, rationality be damned!


I thought I was TOO rational for you. I'm not trying to give any " one and only" true account of theory (there's no such thing). I'm trying to describe the starting point from which common practice theory begins, and how that differs from jazz theory. Obviously jazz theory is structured differently to account for the different qualities of jazz music, just as contemporary music theory incorporates a whole host of ideas that didn't exist in common practice.

But I didn't argue for any of the above. All of them are distortions of things I said (except 4, I have no clue what you mean by #4).

You seem not to understand that I'm not arguing for the "truth" of any of these propositions, merely about what the theory says. It is true, for example, that in the Renaissance the idea of a triad that retained its identity or some part thereof under inversion did not exist. I can discuss that fact in a historical sense while being fully aware of the fact that it differs from later theory. Likewise, I can discuss scholars who are happy to use the term atonality, because I understand the way they are using the term (much more restricted than the way people here use it) and it applies meaningfully in that restricted sphere, even though it is nonsense if taken literally.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I thought I was TOO rational for you. I'm not trying to give any " one and only" true account of theory (there's no such thing). I'm trying to describe the starting point from which common practice theory begins, and how that differs from jazz theory. Obviously jazz theory is structured differently to account for the different qualities of jazz music, just as contemporary music theory incorporates a whole host of ideas that didn't exist in common practice.


But why are you doing this on a jazz theory thread?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mahlerian said:


> ...I didn't argue for any of the above. All of them are distortions of things I said (except 4, I have no clue what you mean by #4).





millions said:


> _4. Modes cannot be derived from scales; they must remain separate entities_


In your post #5, you explained very clearly why your CP modes cannot be considered "modes" of a parent scale:



mahlerian said:


> Also, *D dorian would not be considered a mode of the "C scale" *because it scales are only reckoned from the tonic in classical theory. I understand that they are treated differently in jazz and pop theory, but in classical theory it makes no more sense to say "the D dorian mode of the C scale" than to say "the green shade of black."


I paraphrase that to mean "_Modes cannot be derived from scales; they must remain separate entities."
_But I guess that wasn't clear enough for you. Perhaps your direct quote will clarify that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


mahlerian said:


> You seem not to understand that I'm not arguing for the "truth" of any of these propositions, merely about what the theory says. It is true, for example, that *in the Renaissance the idea of a triad that retained its identity or some part thereof under inversion did not exist.*


That's my number 1: 
1. Chord inversions have no harmonic identity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> I can discuss that fact in a historical sense while being fully aware of the fact that it differs from later theory.


You should also be aware that you are discussing jazz theory on a thread intended for that. We're not discussing historic thought; we're discussing present-day jazz theory, or trying to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> Likewise, I can discuss scholars who are happy to use the term atonality, because I understand the way they are using the term (much more restricted than the way people here use it) and it applies meaningfully in that restricted sphere, even though it is nonsense if taken literally.


So what is this, your revenge?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, let's not forget #2:
2. Only keys have harmonic identity, scales do not.
Once again, in your post #5, you stated this clearly:



Mahlerian said:


> Common practice theory begins with the key, not the scale, as fundamental, and the difference between the two is that *the key designates a harmonic hierarchy while the scale does not.*


Is my paraphrase not good enough for you? You have "no idea" what I'm referring to? Gimme a break.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Scales are melodic entities and have no harmonic implications
That's covered by your quote above. Come on, man stop feigning confusion, and admit what you said. I don't have the patience to direct-quote you on every single detail. Do you want to discuss, or avoid?


----------



## Mahlerian

Your paraphrases are inaccurate distortions of what I said in each case, and not propositions I agree with. As for why I brought these things up on a thread about jazz theory, it was because they were already brought up by the OP, who claimed to be giving a general account of classical music theory, which was untrue.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Your paraphrases are inaccurate distortions of what I said in each case, and not propositions I agree with.


I don't think anyone will understand your statements as they could be applied to practical theory. These ideas of yours are just mannered, archaic, historic remnants of pre-20th century musical thought. They are outdated, and useless for any practical, practicing musician who is trying to write or perform music of our time.


> As for why I brought these things up on a thread about jazz theory, it was because they were already brought up by the OP, who claimed to be giving a general account of classical music theory, which was untrue.


That's a distortion of what the OP said.


----------



## millionrainbows

There are other interesting jazz concepts, which involve "thinking outside the box" of classical theory. One of these is diminished seventh chords. In jazz, you are free to think of them in different ways than the old, stilted CP classical way. For example, you can think of them as flat-nine dominants. 

For example, using the diminished seventh chord B-D-F-Ab, by placing a different root under it, you have a flat-nine dominant chord.

By using G as the root, you get G7b9=G-B-D-F-Ab • (R-M3-5-b7-b9)
By using Bb as the root, you get Bb7b9=Bb-Cb(B)-D-F-Ab • (R-b9-M3-5-b7)
By using C# as the root, you get C#7b9=C#-B-D-F-G#(Ab) • (R-b7-b9-M3-5)
By using E as root, you get E7b9=E-B-D-F-G#(Ab) • (R-5-b7-b9-5)

So for every diminished seventh chord, you can generate 4 dominant chords. The diminished repeats up two chromatic notes before it repeats as an inversion, so you have 4+4+4, or all 12 dominant chords out of only 3 dim sevenths! This is great for pianists and guitarists who have to have easy access to chords very quickly.

There are other tricks you can use with diminished sevenths.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an afterthought, I have always thought that the really great classical musicians also thought outside the box in similar ways. Beethoven often used diminished seventh sounds as flat-nine dominants, as is evidenced in the late string quartets, where he directly transforms a dim7 into a b9 dom by shifting the bass note.

In the key of C, the resolution for the so-called diminished chord on the seventh degree (viiº) is to "treat it as an incomplete G dominant (B-D-F) with the imaginary root of G, and resolve to C." This logic is found in Schoenberg's Harmonielehre, as well as Walter Piston's "Harmony" text.


----------



## Guest

Torkelburger said:


> Can you list some example standards for forms c and d? And for form b are you talking about basically 16 bar tunes that repeat (sometimes an altered repeat) like "Days of Wine and Roses", "Green Dolphin Street", "ESP", "Fly Me to the Moon", "All of Me", etc.?


An example ABCD is:






Ternary might be something like:


----------



## Guest

An example of AABA is "Satin Doll" which is the standard among the standards. It's also a perfect example of ii-V progression. Every jazz bass student learns to walk from playing "Satin Doll." Every jazz artist has covered it. Clark Terry's excellent as is Billy Eckstine's which is not on YT. My instructor has played with both men. This bassist, Jimmy Woode, in this clip is awesome and demonstrates pure technique:






ABAC:


----------



## Guest

Btw, yes, "Green Dolphin Street" is ABAC.


----------



## Guest

Here is an example of Third Stream:


----------



## millionrainbows

How to Learn Tunes by David Baker is a good book for learning forms. 









Here was my first experience of third stream:


----------



## Guest

Where to start? Since I already posted a clip of "Satin Doll" then let's start by analyzing it. Here is a chart for "Satin Doll":










A chart is the basis of jazz arrangement. It is also called a lead sheet. You won't see anything like the lead sheet in classical music-at least I never have. In jazz, each bar or measure is broken down into chords instead of writing them out on a grand staff. This makes improvisation easier. When I wrote earlier about the interplay of melody, chords and bass in the rhythmic structure of jazz, the chart shows it to us.

Looking at the chords written above each bar, we see D-7 and G7 over the first two. That is the chord progression. The notes on the staff lines constitute the melody and we'll get into the bass layer shortly. G7 we know automatically is a V chord which is a dominant 7th chord (major triad with a minor 7th on top). This would make the D-7 a ii chord. So the progression is ii-V. The third and fourth bars show chords of E-7 and A7-another ii-V progression. The fifth and sixth bars show yet another ii-V progression of A-7 and Eb7. The seventh and eighth bars are under a bracket with a numeral 1 under the left corner. At the end of the eighth bar is a repeat sign meaning the player goes back to where a similar but opposite sign appears-in this case, right at the very beginning. These last two bars return the number back to an earlier point and so are known as the turnaround. After playing through the first six bars again (the A section), the player goes to the next bracket with a 2 under it. This leads out to the B section of the number. This chart lacks an intro even though "Satin Doll" does have an intro. This chart is so stripped down that it lets the players play their own intro before getting into the meat of the number. That meat is called the head. So one can see the A section repeats before going to the B section which is eight bars long and then reverts back to the A again. So the head is AABA. The A section is eight bars and plays through three times making 24 bars. The B section is eight bars and is played only once making 32 bars in all.

So what about the bass? It's ALWAYS about the bass! The bassist also follows along with the chord changes written above each bar. Of course, bass does not generally play full chords the way a piano or guitar can so the bassist will arpeggiate or spread out the chord. Initially, the bassist will merely play in half-notes or two notes per measure. The first two measures, he will simply hold a D for two beats and then a G for two beats. On the third and fourth measures, he will hold an E for two and then an A for two. This is called "two-feel." Whenever you hear a jazz bassist talking about playing in two-feel, he means playing in two half-notes per measure. Generally, he'll run through the first A section or two this way. Then he'll start to walk. Walking is playing in quarter notes or four notes per measure-even two Ds and two Gs is still walking. But that's a very uncreative, simplistic walk and no jazz bassist worth a lick would bother. Rather, the bassist would try to connect the D-7 to the G7 is the most musical and logical way. In this case, the first bar should be for the D-7 chord and the second should be for the G7 chord. Both chords share an F (3rd of D-7 and 7th of G7). In the case of E-7 and A7, each shares a G (3rd of E-7 and 7th of A7). The bass line simply sounds better stretched out this way with one chord per bar instead of two. I don't like the chords for bars 5-8. As a bassist, I would do them as D7 for bar 5, Db7 for bar 6, C and B7 for bar 7 and Bb7 and A7 for bar 8. Now the bass line descends nicely and using dominant 7ths to descend-although rarely ever done in jazz anymore-sounds beautifully mellow and melodic.

But what about solos? Solos come with experience. The only way to learn to solo is to meet up with other musicians looking to improve their chops and play endlessly letting each musician fool around trying to find out what works. But one doesn't simply just play notes hoping to find the right combo. Again, your knowledge of music theory will be employed. The best way is to use key centers. For example, in our ii-V progression of D-7 and G7, what scale does this progression belong to? Well, if D-7 is ii then what is I? That would be C. So what notes are available in a D-7 chord derived from the C scale? Basically, any that don't contain a sharp or a flat because the key of C contains no sharps or flats. In the E-7/A7 chord progression, what scale is that derived from? Again, if E-7 is ii then I is D. So this ii-V is derived from the D scale. What notes are available in the key of D? Same as C except the F and C are always sharped. So when soloing over the first four bars, our F and C notes are played natural for the first two and then get sharped over the next two. Yes, you have to do this on the fly when you are improvising although in standards, you get so used to playing them that you don't think about it after the hundredth time. It's kind of like Charlie Parker said, you have to learn all this stuff in order to forget it. Many novice musicians have mistaken that to mean that Parker was saying that you don't need to know this stuff. What he really meant was that you MUST know it so well that you don't even have to think about it-it's automatic, second nature. If you have to think about it, you'll make mistakes. If you have to think about it, you don't know it well enough to be a jazzer.

Great clip of Kenny Rogers and Dudley Moore playing "Satin Doll":

http://freemontsoffice.com/2010/11/23/dudley-moore-kenny-rogers-jamming/


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> How to Learn Tunes by David Baker is a good book for learning forms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here was my first experience of third stream:


An absolutely brilliant album. I have it on vinyl and I had a heck of a job finding it on cd, but I persevered and found it on a cd coupled with John Lewis' The Golden Striker which I had also been hunting for. That was a good day.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> An absolutely brilliant album. I have it on vinyl and I had a heck of a job finding it on cd, but I persevered and found it on a cd coupled with John Lewis' The Golden Striker which I had also been hunting for. That was a good day.


I have that same one. I think it's finally available as a separate title, with its own cover.


----------



## Larkenfield

Gary Burton on jazz theory and improvisation:


----------

