Substitutions

[Heady Jam Fan]

I read Pat Martino's Linear Expressions (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4S3f4zHrJF-ZkFuQ3JKRzhiVlk) based on some suggestions from people who said it really influenced their musical conceptualization. Phase IV of the book is all that was really interesting to me, but still seemed pretty simple/basic (however, I see the implications are more far-reaching than the book goes); it involves substitutions so all chords in a progression can be conceptualized as minor.

I decided to apply some substitutions to Paper Moon:

Fmaj F#dim Gmin C7 Gmin C7 F7 Bb7 Bdim C7

The minor substitutions I came up with are:

Dmin9 Am6 Gmin Gmin Gmin Gmin Cmin E#min Dm6 Gm

Then I tried all major subs:

Fmaj D9 EbMaj79 C7 EbMaj79 C7 F7 Bb7 ? C7

Finally, I looked for diminish subs:

Bmin11 F#dim ? Edimb6 ? Edimb6 Adimb6 Ddim Bdim Ebdimb6

In other words:
FMaj=Dmin9=Bdim11
F#dim=Am6=D9
Gmin=EbMaj79=?
C7=Gmin=Edim
F7=Cmin=Adim
Bb7=E#min=Ddim
Bdim=Dmin=?


Really just posting this as food-for-thought, but wondered 1) if ya'll would use the same substitutions I came up with and 2) what would you use for the substitutions I am missing (if anything)?

There isn't a really explicit major chord to pair with the Bdim / Dmin6, nor is there and explicit diminish chord to pair with the Gmin / Ebmaj79.

PS - I am doing this in my office at work (patient cancelled), so I haven't tried any of it with a guitar in hand. I have a few ideas for the substitutions I am missing, but I think I need my ears for added confidence. And my apologies for any typos or mistakes I made!

[fulltone1989]

Looks very interesting! I'd love to check out this one out 

[Heady Jam Fan]

Yea, that last one missing from the major chords is a G79, don't know how I missed that before, but I'll blame it on skipping my morning coffee.

[fulltone1989]

Yea, that last one missing from the major chords is a G79, don't know how I missed that before, but I'll blame it on skipping my morning coffee.

You the man Heady, I'm gonna soak this stuff in during work tonight and I will see if I can grasp it enough to share some thoughts that I will hopefully materialize during that time.

[Stecks]

Very cool brother.  Learning how to substitute took my game to a whole new level, sounds like you've got it down.  Substitution makes my life a lot more interesting....  Or did I mean to say prostitution?   

It took me a while to wrap my head around it, but I do a lot of flat 5 / tritone stuff (older Phish stuff is so notorious for those)... 

Quick question:  how are you deriving these subs?   Is it by ear or just knowledge of scales and expected tonality/theory musicnerdness?  I think I have a harder time figuring out subs by ear alone...  I just take whatever notes I'm playing in a scale and see how they fit with inversions etc....  I tend to stay closer to the tonics and dominants, sometimes I think it makes me sound a bit generic and repetitive.

This reminds me of a Jimmy Herring lesson on chord construction using diminished scales, I found it really helpful (you probably know all this already but still its pretty interesting Heady! 

http://youtu.be/Usmiswi5PuE

[Heady Jam Fan]

Nerdness; I based it off of a single chart from Pat Martino's Linear Expressions book for the most part. They are pretty much all inversions IIRC (haven't looked at what I wrote out in a while). On one hand, I think the voice leading in that progression is great to start with, a lot of chromatic movement, so I don't know if I would use those subs too often for comping. It sometimes brings interesting ideas for soloing; try considering substitutions to make as many V-I/i changes as possible - I think if a solo chart was written that way, the notes I would choose would differ, even though the chords are just inversions. On that note, the changes in the tune are pretty quick (most chords get 2 beats), so it probably wouldn't be a 'key-per-chord' type of tune as far as solo's go, but considering possible inversions can influence notes leading to the next chord IMO still. In other words, I liked the progression and just used it as a practice - the first time I played it as a teen in a jazz band, I wasn't certain what to do over the diminished / in-between chords. Also, when I play this tune, I play the first diminish chord with a 6; the first subs I would come up with a diminish 6 are diminish chords as well.

PS - I will check out that video when I get a chance

[Stecks]

Nerdness; I based it off of a single chart from Pat Martino's Linear Expressions book for the most part. They are pretty much all inversions IIRC (haven't looked at what I wrote out in a while). On one hand, I think the voice leading in that progression is great to start with, a lot of chromatic movement, so I don't know if I would use those subs too often for comping. It sometimes brings interesting ideas for soloing; try considering substitutions to make as many V-I/i changes as possible - I think if a solo chart was written that way, the notes I would choose would differ, even though the chords are just inversions. On that note, the changes in the tune are pretty quick (most chords get 2 beats), so it probably wouldn't be a 'key-per-chord' type of tune as far as solo's go, but considering possible inversions can influence notes leading to the next chord IMO still. In other words, I liked the progression and just used it as a practice - the first time I played it as a teen in a jazz band, I wasn't certain what to do over the diminished / in-between chords. Also, when I play this tune, I play the first diminish chord with a 6; the first subs I would come up with a diminish 6 are diminish chords as well.

PS - I will check out that video when I get a chance

Interesting..  I feel fairly comfortable with V-I/i changes - lately I've been in "jazz mode" and have been practicing over ii-V-I stuff.  But yeah - I struggled (probably still to a large degree) with the diminished chord subs, my ear wants to go to the b6 but I think that makes me ignore a lot of the meat in between.   This video actually addresses this concept precisely, check it out, I think you'll really like it. 

I do the nerdness thing too.  Sometimes I think it can be limiting.  One of my best friends on the planet got his MFA in jazz guitar @ Rutgers, studied under Vic Juris, is a pro jazz guitarist now based out of NYC & Paris...  He kind of gave me a verbal ass kicking about 6 months ago that I needed to hear - the gist was, "Stecks, you know a ton of theory...  you talk a big talk.  But knowledge without application is useless."   

So I think that's where the nerdness gets me in trouble, I've been working using my ears more instead of 'thinking' if you get where I'm going with this. 

Thinking is when I start getting into trouble.  Nothing ever good came from me thinking about anything.

[Happyorange27]

Smoke more; think less; feel more, play better (maybe).

[Heady Jam Fan]

I find thinking about it helps until I can do it without thinking about it. And then sometimes revisiting it and making sure I didn't miss anything, or I can't learn something else on a second pass.

[Stecks]

Smoke more; think less; feel more, play better (maybe).

Ha...  not sure that my radiation oncology/surgery team would be a big fan of me lighting up, I'm only about a year and a half into remission... cancer kinda um, sucked?    

But point taken! 

I think I have a similar view, I try to "internalize" all the theory I know - then forget it and just play?

[Heady Jam Fan]

Yep, learning theory has two purposes:

1) You must learn the rule in order to earn the right (and ability) to break the rule.
2) Getting new things under your fingers and in your muscle memory / comfort zone. Then you stop thinking about it and just let it happen (thats what she said).

Lately, I've been going through phases of reading a lot of theory, which helps me get out of a slump in playing. When I am practicing, I stick to the rule; maybe using one of the LCC derived scales at a time over the chord for which I derived it, but when I stop practicing and start playing, I don't think about the scales - you realize eventually anyway that usually deriving 2-3 LCC scales for any chord leaves you with 12 notes to use - but it helps me hear how a note or two difference between the scales gives you cool options and I am more likely to use those notes at appropriate times. Ultimately, it has resulted in a more chromatic approach where I still recognize the arpeggio as the foundation, but the notes in between are all fair game - while I might not always consciously say "a flat six would sound great hear and resolve to the next chord," I am more likely to land on that note in that situation after coming noticing that while practicing theory.

Basically, its a great tool when I find myself on a plateau and lacking inspiration - at those times I find my fingers are landing on the earliest scales I learned (major and minor pentatonic, mixo, dorian), the theory reminds my to step out of the box a bit.

On that note, I am rarely going to play a whole-tone, half-whole or whole-half diminish scale unless I intend to (and I definitely need to practice those if I want to use them - they aren't under my fingers yet). I think scales like this have more of a gestalt to them; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Its not about the arpegio so much as the effect of the pattern of notes in that scale - its not like just throwing in a b5 for a diminish sound IMO.

Another example of theory I need to practice to open up another skill is 4th voicing chords (quartal chords). I rarely use them, but think they are cool, crunchy and funky in an upper register. Not sure if I would be able to pick them up without taking a theoretical approach.

[Stecks]

Basically, its a great tool when I find myself on a plateau and lacking inspiration - at those times I find my fingers are landing on the earliest scales I learned (major and minor pentatonic, mixo, dorian), the theory reminds my to step out of the box a bit.

On that note, I am rarely going to play a whole-tone, half-whole or whole-half diminish scale unless I intend to (and I definitely need to practice those if I want to use them - they aren't under my fingers yet). I think scales like this have more of a gestalt to them; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Its not about the arpegio so much as the effect of the pattern of notes in that scale - its not like just throwing in a b5 for a diminish sound IMO.

Another example of theory I need to practice to open up another skill is 4th voicing chords (quartal chords). I rarely use them, but think they are cool, crunchy and funky in an upper register. Not sure if I would be able to pick them up without taking a theoretical approach.

Yep.  I couldn't agree more.  My ear is very well adapted to b3, b5 and b7's.  So I probably play in that pent/mixo/dorian land a lot.  But since they're all based on intervals of the major scale, I try to kind of think (for example), "Well, I'm jamming in Dmin7 right now, so D dorian would sound great right now - but instead of thinking I'm playing D dorian, I'm going to play C major (or E phrygian, F lydian, etc)." 

I use a ton of triads.  TONS.  I'm a cheater

[Happyorange27]

I agree^.

[fulltone1989]

Basically, its a great tool when I find myself on a plateau and lacking inspiration - at those times I find my fingers are landing on the earliest scales I learned (major and minor pentatonic, mixo, dorian), the theory reminds my to step out of the box a bit.

On that note, I am rarely going to play a whole-tone, half-whole or whole-half diminish scale unless I intend to (and I definitely need to practice those if I want to use them - they aren't under my fingers yet). I think scales like this have more of a gestalt to them; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Its not about the arpegio so much as the effect of the pattern of notes in that scale - its not like just throwing in a b5 for a diminish sound IMO.

Another example of theory I need to practice to open up another skill is 4th voicing chords (quartal chords). I rarely use them, but think they are cool, crunchy and funky in an upper register. Not sure if I would be able to pick them up without taking a theoretical approach.

Yep.  I couldn't agree more.  My ear is very well adapted to b3, b5 and b7's.  So I probably play in that pent/mixo/dorian land a lot.  But since they're all based on intervals of the major scale, I try to kind of think (for example), "Well, I'm jamming in Dmin7 right now, so D dorian would sound great right now - but instead of thinking I'm playing D dorian, I'm going to play C major (or E phrygian, F lydian, etc)." 

I use a ton of triads.  TONS.  I'm a cheater

I agree as well, but as you guys know it's all the same thing note-wise and it just depends what note you start on.

As far as intervals go, what are you referring to? I tried discussing playing 3rds and 4ths ala Jimmy Herring with my classical instructor awhile back and it resulted in a 1/2 hour of ear barf from him regarding classifications of intervals. I always thought of it this was like this,

3rds as playing the notes of a scale 3 notes apart. C-E, D-F is a m3 though and that's when the classification issues start. I'll see if I can dig up a Jimmy Herring GP lesson where he discussed this and post it here!

[Stecks]

Basically, its a great tool when I find myself on a plateau and lacking inspiration - at those times I find my fingers are landing on the earliest scales I learned (major and minor pentatonic, mixo, dorian), the theory reminds my to step out of the box a bit.

On that note, I am rarely going to play a whole-tone, half-whole or whole-half diminish scale unless I intend to (and I definitely need to practice those if I want to use them - they aren't under my fingers yet). I think scales like this have more of a gestalt to them; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Its not about the arpegio so much as the effect of the pattern of notes in that scale - its not like just throwing in a b5 for a diminish sound IMO.

Another example of theory I need to practice to open up another skill is 4th voicing chords (quartal chords). I rarely use them, but think they are cool, crunchy and funky in an upper register. Not sure if I would be able to pick them up without taking a theoretical approach.

Yep.  I couldn't agree more.  My ear is very well adapted to b3, b5 and b7's.  So I probably play in that pent/mixo/dorian land a lot.  But since they're all based on intervals of the major scale, I try to kind of think (for example), "Well, I'm jamming in Dmin7 right now, so D dorian would sound great right now - but instead of thinking I'm playing D dorian, I'm going to play C major (or E phrygian, F lydian, etc)." 

I use a ton of triads.  TONS.  I'm a cheater

I agree as well, but as you guys know it's all the same thing note-wise and it just depends what note you start on.

As far as intervals go, what are you referring to? I tried discussing playing 3rds and 4ths ala Jimmy Herring with my classical instructor awhile back and it resulted in a 1/2 hour of ear barf from him regarding classifications of intervals. I always thought of it this was like this,

3rds as playing the notes of a scale 3 notes apart. C-E, D-F is a m3 though and that's when the classification issues start. I'll see if I can dig up a Jimmy Herring GP lesson where he discussed this and post it here!

Yep.  F is the flatted third interval (F#) of D.  That kind of "defines" the minor-y sound.  You got it.   I guess do whatever works for you... I was so worried about the theory for so long that it became an impediment to my playing - just play, worry about classifications later.  Although learning this stuff does expand your vocabulary, theory to me is somewhat of an afterthought.

Nothing good happens when I think about anything.