Nice joke, Dana. I laughed. Being a rock/jazz player, I've never understood the secondary dominant II chord idea, at least in regard to improvisation. For improvisational and harmonic purposes surely it is better explained as chord IV of the tonic ascending melodic minor. Thereby both the sharpened fourth and natural fifth are present.
For example, the second chord in 'Pennies From Heaven' or 'Sunshine of My Life' are chord IV of the ascending melodic minor scale based on the same tonic key. The other common occurrence is in tunes such as 'Ipanema' or the first chord in 'But Not For Me'. In both these cases the chord /chord scale doesn't relate to the tonic key, but is the IV chord of a different melodic minor scale. This jazz scale/harmonic theory answers better contemporary concerns for both harmonisation and improvisation. On 04/10/2011, at 2:43 AM, Dana Friedman wrote: > At 12:53 PM 10/2/2011, you wrote: > >> So I'm transcribing a record, and what I hear is the bass line chromatically >> ascending in (as you say) a tritone substitution of the applied dominant (of >> D). The notes are Bb-D-F-Ab(G#), but the G#/Ab is in the bass. So should I >> call the chord Bb7/Ab? And if so, I suppose the better spelling of the 7th >> is Ab. The following chord is D7. > > > Based on your various statements, it seems that Bb7/Ab is the way to go. > > The Ab to D in the bass tritone move is not uncommon in jazz and is > quite justifiable idiomatically in several idioms of jazz written > after about 1940. > > There are times in which a fast moving bass line in C (against a > series of II-V-I progressions cycling down in fifths) would be > something like (in quarter notes) E, (down to) Bb, A, (up to) Eb, D, > (down to) Ab, G, Db C. Such a bass line would be in support of a > progression in which every other quarter note in a 4/4 bar (1 and 3 > in this case) are respectively: Em7 (b5, maybe), A7, Dm7, G7, C. The > tritones (on 2 and 4) below the root of the previous chords (on 1 and > 3) resolve down, and everyone's happy. it may not work in Mozart, but > it's perfect for Monk. > > As for symbol notation: Sorry if I'm going against the grain here, > but, if I was the player, clarity would be far more important on a > part than correctness would. Stay as close to standard as possible, > and show simple resolution so that anyone reading chord symbols can > see something standard two beats or so ahead. > > Lastly, just for comic relief: A friend of mine was at a recording > session for a jingle (in the '70s or '80s) at which the following occurred. > > The ad agency exec for the product came into the booth with his > girlfriend (probably his mistress). He tried to impress her by being > bossy with everyone at the session. Apparently he had taken a music > lesson once, and was therefore quite conversant in everything going > on in the studio. He asked the arranger to have the lead trumpet part > brought up an octave. > > The arranger informed the big-shot that the trumpet wouldn't work up > that high, to which big-shot ad exec replied "OK. Make it half an octave.". > > Dana > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
