General Principles of Chord Substitutions

reed:

Reharmonization discussions get pretty obscure if you arent talking
about particulars.

Also, don't be too sure that just because you intellectually understand
tri-tone subs or can hear them that you really know how they apply. When
I was your age I read about them and said , "oh yeah, I understand
that", what else is there? Well in that one thing is the key to alot.
I'm just pointing this out because nobody did that for me and it wasted
alot of time for me in my musical career. What you find it is that there
aren't so many reharmonization tricks, it's a matter of understanding
how and where they apply.

Another thing is that reharmonizations are nice, especially for the
playing head of the tune and for solo piano etc, but if they get too
dense they can make it difficult to improvise melodically over the
changes. For me, I like to do negative reharmonizations for the solo
section. In other words, I take away things that arent necessary.
Perhaps making some small reharmonization here and there but the idea
being to keep long sections open so that they are essentially in one
key.

The general idea of reharmonization is to make the bass line more
interesting.

A very common thing to overlook is to just add ii chords in front of all
the V7 chords.

So you should go through the whole tune and anywhere you see a dominant
chord without a ii chord in front of it, try adding that ii chord and
see what it sounds like. It's good to spend some time away from the
piano with a tune also, thinking about these things. When we are at an
instrument we often start noodling and playing habitually.

For example, if you see a bar of G7, try |Dmi7 G7 |.

This does several things. 

1) It might brighten up that one measure or sometimes the
dominant chord may take up several bars so it might keep
the changes from getting too static.

Thus we might have had.

|G7    |       |      so we try |Dmi7    | G7    |

2) By adding the Dmi7 chord, we now have doubled the possibilities
as far as reharmonizing the bars before the G7. Now the bars
before the original G7 can either target a G7 or target a Dmi7.

3) We have openned the doors to some other possibilities as we
will see below.

Another thing you can do is to go through and look at all the mi7 chords
and see what would happen if they were dominant seventh chords.

So in case above:

|Dmi7  | G7   |   we might try |D7 | G7 |.

Now if we try adding ii chord in front of these dominants we
have:

Ami7  D7 | Dmi7 G7  |

So you see by applying two very simple ideas we have changed
a static place, harmonically speaking, into one with alot going on.

Now let's see how tri-tone subs might enter into play here.

Well what if we replace the G7 with a Db7 . 

|D7  | Db7  |  now with ii chords we get.

|Ami7 D7 | Abmi7 Db7 |

Or similarly replace the D7 with Ab7,

|Ab7 | G7  |     becomes |Ebmi7 Ab7 | Dmi7 G7  |

Or do both at once:

|Ab7 | Db7  | becomes |Ebmi7 Ab7 |Abmi7  Db7 |

Now we can also just use the dominants here with the ii/V's,

|D7   | G7  | or
|D7   | Db7 | or
|Ab7  | G7  | or
|Ab7  | Db7 |


So you see we have squeezed all of this out of a G7 chord. This can work
if G7 is spread out across many bars or just one bar. It depends on the
tune.

Some other minor variations here are:

1) consider all the mi7 chords as iimi7b5 or vice versa. in other words
if you see Dmi7, try Dmi7b5 or if you see Dim7b5 try Dim7.

2) A somewhat advanced idea that applies less often but when it
does it can yield some exciting ideas is to try maj7 chords in
place of dominant seventh chords.

For example:

|D7  | G7  |   try |Dmaj7 | Gmaj7 |
|Ab7 | G7  |   try  |Abmaj7 | G7   |

One other trick which I'll mention because it just popped into my head
is that sometimes a maj7 chord can be used to approach a mi7 chord from
a half step below. The reasons this works is a little complicated but
basically its a double appogitura.

Thus:

Dbmaj7 | Dmin7 G7  |

If you add the maj7 ii/V idea you get:

Abmaj7 Dbmaj7  | Dmi7 G7  |

or sometimes:

Abmaj7 Dbmaj7  | Dmi7b7 G7  |

I'm going to stop here for now because that is alot for
you to think about.

Before discussing this further, you need to think of some tunes you know
or want to learn and then we can talk about particulars. It will be
easier to discuss one tune at a time.

So in summary there were the following basic ideas:

1) try ii chords in front of dominant seventh chords.
2) tritone subs
3) change chord quality -- i.e. mi7 - domininant 7
4) approgitura generated ideas like Dbmaj7 -> Dmi7 . We
   have already discussed other examples of this in earlier
   talks like for example  A6  -> Adim7 A6 .

[end reed]

Marc:

> A very common thing to overlook is to just add ii chords in front
> of all the V7 chords. 

Also, sometimes a ii chord will be seen in an arrangement without a V, and
it can be added, as in:

Cmaj7 | Fmaj7 | Dm7 | Cmaj7 | => Cmaj7 | Fmaj7 | Dm7 G7 | Cmaj7

On the other hand, if the arrangement specifies a ii-V, you can always
simplify it by removing the ii chord.

> For example, if you see a bar of G7, try |Dmi7 G7 |.
> 
> This does several things. 
> 1) It might brighten up that one measure or sometimes the
> dominant chord may take up several bars so it might keep
> the changes from getting too static.

Here is an example of how I applied some common sense and some basic
techniques recently:

I was working with a student on "Georgia On My Mind" a few days ago.  She
was playing it in F, and had the bridge like this:

Dm7 | Bb7 | Dm7 | G7 ...

Now, I don't know (nor do I care, for the purpose of this discussion), what
the original changes really were, but I knew I didn't like these, and we
set about trying to "fix" them.  My first observation was that, given the
melody, going to the G7 at the beginning of the fourth bar made the B
natural that occurs just before beat three sound anticlimactic in a way.  I
wanted the chord to change on that note, to bring out the non-diatonic B. 
So the first cut was to play | Dm7 G7 | for that measure.  But now there
were six beats of Dm7.  So I wanted chord that provide relief from the Dm7
but didn't give away tthe G7.  My first inclination was to go with a
tritone sub - Ab7, or perhaps Abmaj7.  These worked OK, depending on how
they were voiced, but I never got quite the sound I thought it should have,
so we decided to keep looking.  I started almost randomly trying chords
that would not clash too badly with the C in the melody on beat one.  I
found Gb7 worked well, although I can say why except that it, like the Ab,
creating a half step motion in the bass leading to the G.  I also found Eb7
worked, again, who knows why.  Eventually I hit upon Fm6, or Dm7b5 if you
prefer, or Ab6, which is practically the same thing, as being the sound I
was after in the first place.  So now I have about 5 different chords to
use there should I ever find myself playing the song (obviously, it is not
one I normally play much).

[end Marc]

Ken R:

>The "basic method"  of reharmonization improvements is primarily
>through improving the bass line, since you can't change
>the melody.

Why not?  Coltrane, Hancock and Jim Hall have done it.  I'm sure there are
many others, but they immediately come to mind.

While the "bass line" idea is certainly valid, to me the tunes I hear most
crying out for reharmonization are ones in which the melody rests on too many
of the primary chord tones, i.e., the roots, thirds and fifths, and
reharmonizing is a way to inject a little harmonic/melodic tension.  Case in
point - I transcribed a pretty radical reharm of All The Things You Are done
by Andy Laverne that knocks me out.  No need to "improve" the bass line of
the tune, IMHO, as it has a lot of nice movement already.  The thing that
gets a bit stale to my ears is the melody notes have very little tension, if
any, against the chords (as opposed to say, Stella, which has pretty
interesting melodic tensions as it is).  So, when I heard Levine's reharm, it
sounded like a breath of fresh air in that tune.

[end Ken R]

From: David Kaczorowski <kaczordk@UMDNJ.EDU>
Subject: Subs/Bassist's perspective


Hi everybody,
     I'm thinking my earlier post was quite inadequate, so here's
another stab.  The original post was concerning subs and bass lines,
etc.  I hope this helps.
     Let's say your playing a Bbm blues, when on the I chord, try 
building a line from the A, or the C, or even C#.  Generally speaking,
I think building a line from a step above the root of the chord works
well, but virtually any thing will work depending on what position/
register your playing in and whether you're going to play an ascending
line or descending line.  However, starting from a fourth above the 
chord root is no good, though it might work as a passing tone.
     You must also keep in mind the next chord and how you're going 
to aproach it.  Some guidelines were mentioned in an earlier post
( resolve from whole step above, half step below, etc)  This is a
good start, but my ears accept others: half step above, tritone above
or below, thirds, minor thirds, possibly sixths and sevenths (natural 
or altered).  Use these tastefully and in context.  You can make great
use of whole tone scales.
     Reed, anybody, did I miss anything? I am kinda pressed for time.  
Is my advice good or worthless?  As I am not formally trained, I'm not
sure whether or not I make much sense to those who are.
 
[end David]

reed:

The reason I say this is that bass players played cool subs long before
most piano players incorporated them into their harmonic thinking. 

Later piano players started harmonizing these interesting bass lines, at
least this is how Don Haas says they evolved and he has been an active
performer going way back.

Bass players are obviously focussed on the bass line and in how to
logically get from one place to another.

They also listen to the bass line and it has its own kind of validity
just like a melody does.

Whereas for many piano players and guitarists, the bass note is just
something on the bottom of the chord. They don't hear it as it's own
line.

I think that it's good for piano players and guitar players to learn how
to play bass lines.

Also, singing bass lines is a good excerise. Just open up the real book and
try singing the roots of the chords to a piece.

Many bass players also practice singing the melody and playing the bass line.
Piano players or guitarists could try this too.

[reed: note on chords for my substitutions]

In general I don't put the tensions is (#9, #11,...).

A lot of times there are different variations and it clutters up the
basic reharmonizaiton which is essentially driven by bass note
improvement.

If you sit down at the piano you should be able to figure out what the
right ones are by trying them.

Also, for the more beginning jazz piano student out there, don't but an
unaltered fifth in your dominant seventh voicings, at least not in the
lower left hand portion.

I.e. for C7 play [C E Bb] instead of [C E G Bb].
(of course [C Bb E] is fine too).

I find that many home schooled pianists don't know about this.

This is a standard for jazz musicians but I've never actually
seen it in a book (though I think it might be in Mark Levines book).

Mark was my first real jazz piano teacher and this is one of the
first things he taught me. I was blown away because I had never heard
of this despite purchasing countless books on Jazz piano but of course
it's completely true.

[later...]

During the somewhat argument during the star eyes analysis,
some points got thrown around alot somewhat haphazardly so let me just
summarize.

Certainly anyone is entitled to their opinion on this subject so let me
give mine here:

The importance of bass note motion in harmony is documented from before
Bachs time through Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, Shubert....Art Tatum,
Bill Evans...

The basic rules are the same throughout and if you turn that music upside
down you won't find any places where they are violated. What is amazing is
the small number of possibilities allowed and how much variety of music is
created within those seemingly narrow boundaries.

The inner voices are secondary to the fundamental need for the bass motion
to work.

In that sense I don't think it's subjective at all as to whether this is
what is going on. This should be obvious to anyone that has studied that
music and really analyzed it and put it under a microscope.

These rules can't however be summarized by just a set of rules like I'm
allowed to go down by fifths or whatever though certainly this is part of
it all.

There are cadences, small and large, going on as well as harmonic rhythm.
For example you don't usually see a ii/V7 where the ii starts on beat three
of the preceding measure and then the V7 on beat one of the next measure.
(One tune that is really an exception to this rule is the tune "My Ideal",
but that's a story for another post.)

This is my point about local and global bass motion. A freqeuent error it
to achieve some locally nice harmonization which doesnt make sense or work
in a global context. Alot of time impatience is the real culprit here. The
desire to innovate overrides the reality that the innovation doesnt work.
Some tunes are very hard to achieve any successful reharmonization because
every try hits some dead end. Sometimes musicians try and cheat but it
never fools my ears at least. 

All this has to be taken into consideration when deciding whether a
particular harmonization is effective.

In addition for jazz, since the music has certain stylistics boundaries as
well as historical precedence, that can be part of deciding whether a
re-harmoniation is effective.

Now given all these factors there is an amount of subjectivity as to
whether you are satisfying all of this.

In my opinion though, among people that are fairly good at this, there is
seldom any serious disagreement. When there is, at least both sides are
aware of why the argument exists. It's not a matter of something like "bass
motion isnt important".

[end]