PDA

View Full Version : Minorising



Kinoble
05-18-2008, 10:56 AM
Hi Guys,

long time no see-i hope everyone is well.


Just a quick question-can anyone explain Pat Martino's idea called 'minorising'?

I havnt been able to find an explanation for it. Some examples would be really helpful too.

All the best,

-Ben

Jed
05-18-2008, 12:13 PM
. . . can anyone explain Pat Martino's idea called 'minorising'?

The short story is that he takes everything and converts it to it's relative minor, then he just plays / solos to the relative minor. It's the same thing many people do when they play E minor pentatonic over a G major progression. This technique is also known as "pentatonic substitution".

In the key of C major:

For C major you play A minor pent
For F major, you play D minor pent
For G major, you play E minor pent

For D minor, you can play D minor pent (or A minor pent)
For A minor, you can play A minor pent (or E minor pent)
For E minor, you can play E minor pent (or B minor pent - be careful on this one since the 5th of B minor pent is an F#)

I hope this helps,

JonR
05-18-2008, 01:20 PM
As I understand it, it's a little more than that.

I've read him talk about superimposing various minor arpeggios over other chords - and I'm not sure I quite get the results.

It begins from two concepts:

1. using a ii chord arpeggio over a V. Eg, if you have G7 chord, use Dm7 over it.

2. invoking the dim7/dom7 relationship (this is well known in jazz.). So for a G7 chord, you can sub Bdim7, Ddim7, Fdim7 or G#dim7.

3.Those 4 dim7s are all really the same chord (same 4 notes), so they can stand for 3 other dom7s: Bb7, Db7, E7.
Combine this with concept #1, and you can sub the ii chords of each of those V's: Fm7 (Bb7), Abm7 (Db7), Bm7 (E7).

This leads to Pat suggesting you can use arpeggios of Fm7, Abm7 and Bm7 (as well as Dm7) over a G7 chord.

Sounds odd to me - and flies in the face of conventional jazz harmony, not to mention chord functionality - but I think it works (supposedly) because of the superimposed structures, the arpeggios that make sense within themselves, even if they contradict the harmony (Bm7 - with an F# - over G7??? :confused: )

Martino is very big on melodic strength - the idea that good phrasing can over-ride harmonic appropriateness. Which is true up to a point. Personally I think he gets too bound up with visual/geometric patterns and symmetries that have no necessary relationship with sound.

Myself, when it comes to strategies over a dom7, I prefer the tried-and-tested altered scale strategies.
Eg, these suggest Bbm7 (among other things) over a G7, which works really well. Also Abm7 doesn't work (because of its Gb), but Abm6 or Abm69 are really good.
IOW, I like to retain a sense of the function of a G7. That's why it's there after all...
;)

Maybe Martino's ideas are not about enhancing or reflecting the chord function, but about introducing some "outside" strategies that resolve back to the G7 chord.
Eg Dm7 in the first place is a "pre-dominant" function - leading to G7, not replacing it.
So in adding Fm7, Abm7 and Bm7 to the mix, he's simply introducing substitutes for that predominant function (inspired by the dim7 link). All of them make neat outside sounds to resolve to the G7 (replacing Dm7, not G7), before the G7 leads elsewhere.

Just guessing mind... :rolleyes:

JazzMick
05-18-2008, 02:35 PM
The process as Pat explains it is actually called 'minor conversion's' which, although he never admits I presume he picked up from Wes.

Without going too deep into the theory of it all. Suffice to say, many chords can go by many names. All you need to do is change the root.

For example. Take G7#5b9.
G B Eb F Ab
If we remove the root note. We end up with a Bm7b5 chord. B Eb F Ab
If we invert that we can see it as an Abm6 chord.
Or an Fm7b5
Or if we include the G we also have Eb G B, Ebaug

Pats inclination would be to call it an Abm6.

With a Cmaj7 chord. You may call it an Am7. Or an Em7.

Plain Dom7 chords are often reduced to the ii chord as previously stated.
So Dm7 for G7.

Some time ago I grabbed Pat's DVD's, and for a while it was quite profound. After a while though you start to see that theres nothing profound about it at all. Its just a matter of thinking melodically. Take advantage of color tones like the 9 and 13 as much as you can. This will help you break away from 'root thinking' and start building lines that speak TO the chord, not about it.

Some imposed Pentatonic Ideas relative to Pats theory aswell.

Gmaj chord =

Gmaj Pent
Em Pent
A Maj Pent (forces a #11)
A Dom Pent (forces #11)
F#m Pent

electrik noize
05-18-2008, 03:23 PM
For example. Take G7#5b9.
G B Eb F Ab
If we remove the root note. We end up with a Bm7b5 chord. B Eb F Ab

i'm confused. isn't Bm7b5 BDFA? your chord looks like a Bdim7 with a major third. or maybe a B6 with a flat 5...

but then again I am a theory noobie so maybe something is over my head :confused:

JazzMick
05-19-2008, 02:47 AM
excuse me.

your correct, I had my wires crossed. There is another chord though. I'll come back to you on that, I'm sure there were 5. One is quite ambiguous though, from memory.

Jed
05-19-2008, 09:51 AM
As I understand it, it's a little more than that.

Agreed. But there is always more to it, regardless of which "it" we are talking about. I choose to speak to what I see as the "core of the issue" while you tend to "flesh-out" the issue a bit more. In both of our explanations, we attempt to keep things to a level of depth that is appropriate to the scope of the question and the language of the audience.

I still see what Pat describes as an extension of the kinds of things that ChrisJ describes in this article. http://www.ibreathemusic.com/article/175/0

Of course Pat takes this idea off into his own way of thinking but "at it's core" it just another way to think about and utilize substitutions. I believe the best way to learn to understand these concept is via an in depth study of pentatonic substitution. I'd go so far as to say that a facility with penta substitutions is a gateway skill to Pat's way of thinking.

cheers,

leegordo
05-19-2008, 10:28 AM
i'm confused. isn't Bm7b5 BDFA? your chord looks like a Bdim7 with a major third. or maybe a B6 with a flat 5...

but then again I am a theory noobie so maybe something is over my head :confused:
Hi Elektrik It really is simple, and, you are correct. In real practical music the chord is usually named as the root , so, Bm7b5 has as it's root 'B' To explain further, in practical terms If a composer or arranger wants A specific chord to be played-no matter what chord- he will write the exact chord on the music The melody and/or the lyrics will hopefully reflect the use of that chord until a change of harmony occurs
The root of any chord usually is played by the bass, unless the chord symbol says some other note in the same chord is to be the bass, as in--for instance-C7/E
means a C7th chord but with an E as the bass instead of the root'C'.hope this helps
leegordo

JonR
05-19-2008, 10:38 AM
The process as Pat explains it is actually called 'minor conversion's' which, although he never admits I presume he picked up from Wes.

Without going too deep into the theory of it all. Suffice to say, many chords can go by many names. All you need to do is change the root.

For example. Take G7#5b9.
G B Eb F Ab
If we remove the root note. We end up with a Bm7b5 chord. B Eb F Ab
If we invert that we can see it as an Abm6 chord.
Or an Fm7b5
Or if we include the G we also have Eb G B, Ebaug

Pats inclination would be to call it an Abm6.

With a Cmaj7 chord. You may call it an Am7. Or an Em7.

Plain Dom7 chords are often reduced to the ii chord as previously stated.
So Dm7 for G7.

Some time ago I grabbed Pat's DVD's, and for a while it was quite profound. After a while though you start to see that theres nothing profound about it at all. Its just a matter of thinking melodically. Take advantage of color tones like the 9 and 13 as much as you can. This will help you break away from 'root thinking' and start building lines that speak TO the chord, not about it.

Some imposed Pentatonic Ideas relative to Pats theory aswell.

Gmaj chord =

Gmaj Pent
Em Pent
A Maj Pent (forces a #11)
A Dom Pent (forces #11)
F#m PentOK, I get all that (subject to errors pointed out by elektrik noize! ;) ). Seems like pretty much standard superimpositions. I thought he was suggesting something new or different...

Eg, I'm quite sure about his suggestion of the 4 min7 arpeggios over a dom7, with their conflicting notes. Definitely new to me - and unlike what you list above.

(I've seen opinions elsewhere that agree that Martino habitually makes his ideas seem more profound than they really are. He also attaches superfluous mystical associations to them. It seems he can't help allowing his personal spriritual views to bleed over into his music, where they are not really relevant.)

JonR
05-19-2008, 10:49 AM
Agreed. But there is always more to it, regardless of which "it" we are talking about. I choose to speak to what I see as the "core of the issue" while you tend to "flesh-out" the issue a bit more. In both of our explanations, we attempt to keep things to a level of depth that is appropriate to the scope of the question and the language of the audience.

I still see what Pat describes as an extension of the kinds of things that ChrisJ describes in this article. http://www.ibreathemusic.com/article/175/0

Of course Pat takes this idea off into his own way of thinking but "at it's core" it just another way to think about and utilize substitutions. I believe the best way to learn to understand these concept is via an in depth study of pentatonic substitution. I'd go so far as to say that a facility with penta substitutions is a gateway skill to Pat's way of thinking.

cheers,Yes. I think my issue is that he takes it too far - so that you get substitutions on top of substitutions, so that the original chord function is lost.
It maybe that the melodic strength of pentatonc patterns overrides issues of chord function. Fine - in which case, why not ignore the chords altogether? :rolleyes:

Even ChrisJ - in that otherwise excellent article - talks about Fm pent and Bbm pent scales over an altered C7. He admits you need to be careful with the F note... So, er, why use those scales in the first place? Find a scale where there's no notes you need to "be careful" with! (that's where most of the conventional jazz chord-scale theories come from in the first place.)

Having said that, I love the rising pents idea over the ii-V-I (Am pent over Dm7, Bbm pent over G7, Bm pent over Cmaj7). I kind of knew all those, but hadn't actually linked them up in that neat chromatic pattern before. Duh! :)

JazzMick
05-19-2008, 01:21 PM
As for having substitutions over substations and 'losing' the original function. In one respect your correct and it can, on paper, seem kind of silly. But I'm sure you and or anyone who listens to a lot of bebop will notice on occasion players will appear to be driving 100mph away from the changes that the rhythm section are playing. But all of a sudden it comes back and snap, it resolves beautifully.

Thats where all this stuff comes in. There are hundreds of paths you can get from bar one to bar 8 and so long as you end up at the same place as everyone else. You can get away with quite a lot.

Clearly it still needs to be tasteful and you need to be aware of the 'rules' of playing outside. Once your comfortable playing inside, and know these rules,
the possibilities are endless.

All these theories on Minor Conversions and Implied Harmony and Multiple Pentatonic Substitutions are, from my perspective, just like every other theory derived in musical history. A record of what others have done.

So a lot of it might be a bit suspicious. But sooner or later your going to find the approaches that work for you and the ones that don't.

One other thing I have noticed about all of this is the force in which you use it.

If you can develop a strong tight line that includes lots of dissonances, there is far more of a chance that it will sound nice. If you just nelly up and down a Jazz minor scale over a series of chords. Its going to sound dumb and you will wind up never wanting to use it.

So anyone interested in these ideas should spend lot's of time listening to guys like Pat and Wes Montgomery. I'm sure many others use it all the time but I know for a fact these two use it almost exclusively.

Mike.

electrik noize
05-19-2008, 05:13 PM
....... as in--for instance-C7/E
means a C7th chord but with an E as the bass instead of the root'C'.hope this helps
leegordo

it does indeed. thanks!

JonR
05-20-2008, 06:46 AM
As for having substitutions over substations and 'losing' the original function. In one respect your correct and it can, on paper, seem kind of silly. But I'm sure you and or anyone who listens to a lot of bebop will notice on occasion players will appear to be driving 100mph away from the changes that the rhythm section are playing. But all of a sudden it comes back and snap, it resolves beautifully.

Thats where all this stuff comes in. There are hundreds of paths you can get from bar one to bar 8 and so long as you end up at the same place as everyone else. You can get away with quite a lot.

Clearly it still needs to be tasteful and you need to be aware of the 'rules' of playing outside. Once your comfortable playing inside, and know these rules,
the possibilities are endless.

All these theories on Minor Conversions and Implied Harmony and Multiple Pentatonic Substitutions are, from my perspective, just like every other theory derived in musical history. A record of what others have done.All agreed. Except that PM is doing his own theory! (Damn musicians, why can't they leave that work to the theorists! what do they know!? :rolleyes: :D )
I guess it seemed to me as if PM was attracted by a certain symmetry or pattern in the theory, which led him into musical areas which didn't work - or worked in some other way unconnected to the derivation. I'm probably misrepresenting him (I respect him as a player).

I still don't see how Bm7 works over G7 though.
I mean, it's part inside and part outside. The outside would need to be resolved at some point.

OK, a melodic line can ignore the chords, and resolve later. But in that case, why invent theories - other than simple "inside-outside" ones?

The m7 arps (in m3 relationships) may well have strong melodic impact. But what's the point of relating them back to the dom7? You could use ANY m7 arps in the same relationship, they would have the same random inside-outside relationship to the underlying chord(s).



If you can develop a strong tight line that includes lots of dissonances, there is far more of a chance that it will sound nice. If you just nelly up and down a Jazz minor scale over a series of chords. Its going to sound dumb and you will wind up never wanting to use it.Very true. I do think a lot of this is about creating strong melodic structures, almost regardless of the chord. Finding arpeggio and pentatonic patterns that will do that.

But what I'm not seeing is the requisite resolution. The need to understand what is outside and what is inside, and deal with the outside accordingly.

Structural melodic ideas (based on various patterns) may sound great on their own - and against a variety of chords - but they will sound a whole lot BETTER if related back (resolved) to the chords in the end.
I haven't seen any reference to this in PM's writing - but maybe I just haven't read far enough... :rolleyes:

JazzMick
05-20-2008, 03:54 PM
I kind of see your problem with Bm7 over G7

G B D F (A) = G9
B D F# A = Bm7

Clearly we have a Maj7 over a 7 chord here.

One thing though. If we stick to the topic of Pat Martino. Is that he does not actually think in terms of scales and modes. This is clearly pointed out in his videos and presumably his writings, although I have not read everything on his website.

Bm7 over G7 is not an uncommon 'shape' when analyzing his lines. The only thing is that he uses lots of chromaticism's.

If you play the notes of a B Blues scale and a G Bebop scale together. Your getting closer to the full picture with his substitutions. And once you make these observations, the mystical nature of it all begins to fade.

The F#, for example, will be used as one of many passing tones. This kind of thing applies to all of those minor substitutions. Many of them can appear to have illogical note choices, and if you didn't actually pay attention to what he was playing in between the 'bad' notes. You would be eternally convinced it was rubbish.

It reminds me of some of the old Joe Pass vid's. He will be explaining how to play blues accompaniment and strike something like a C13b9 and say " OK so heres a C7 "

Its a psychological thing. If you can simplify a combination of scales and licks and just think of those sounds and visualize them in terms of minor pentatonic's with passing tones. That just makes life so much easier. This is something I am beginning to see the merits in.

Hopefully some day I can unlearn all of these Melodic minor modes and billions of chord voicing's and just think of them all as ' m7 Maj7 7 '

Kinoble
05-20-2008, 05:42 PM
Thanks guys-some useful info there!

Cheers,

-Ben

JazzMick
05-20-2008, 06:32 PM
OK so here is a transcription of the first two phrases Pat plays on this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDncVOQ1Jo

I have marked the first line with some things that I found helpfull when making sense of his 'concept'. It also supports what I was saying earlier.

1) His lines are almost allways in 16th notes(written as 8th's but feels more like 16) with strong tones on the down beat. Im sure we all know when you have strong tones on strong beats, you can get away with alot more so far as chromaticisms.

2) the tetra chords on beat two and three are, the way I see them, combinations of notes from the Blues scale (b5 chromaticism) and the Bebop scale (Maj7 Chromaticism).

3) the whole thing, as well as many other lines he plays. Are very neat and fall within simple pentatonic shapes. If you look at that first line which I have marked in red. You will see that it all falls perfectly into a Cm pentatonic form if you play it from that initial C in 3rd position(3rd fret)

There is also that G# which could be seen as many things. Im happy to just call it a nice chromaticism though. Once again, it falls into a weaker part of the beat and resolves nicely as a passing tone to get back to A.

Essentially he is still playing the Am7b5 but visually its easier to see it as a Cm. He is outlining more of a Cm9 chord really.

So as I said, Strong tones on strong beats give you much more room for creativity and freedom. So long as you keep it melodic and remember to resolve.

Im sure Pat would scowl at me summing up his years of harmonic contemplation. Probably not actually, hes a real nice guy.

This is my take on it anyway.

Pentatonics with chromaticisms. And of course that beautifull virtuoso melodic touch.

gersdal
09-05-2009, 07:02 PM
There is a great discussion on minorising on the All About Jazz forum with Pat Martino himself (http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=14335&page=30).
Generally I think it has to do with the simple question: How many scales do you want to learn? Pat Martino has decided that 1 is sufficient :p, minor will do (allthough he change between dorian, melodic, etc at will more as passing tones and for adding colour). The chords groups and their substitutions are (relative to the chord itself):
Maj7 : VI minor
m7 : no substitution is needed
m7b5 : bIII minor
Dom7 : V minor
Altered dom7 : bII minor

For us theory freaks, that would imply the folowing scales:
Maj7 : VI minor --> Lydian (VI dorian), and Lydian #5 (melodic minor)
m7 : no substitution is needed
m7b5 : bIII minor --> Locrian (from dorian) and Locrian nat2 (from melodic minor)
Dom7 : V minor --> Mixolydian or Lydian b7
Altered dom7 : bII minor --> Altered scale

All choices that would be fine with me, and according to any textbook. However, I'm sure that there is more to it than I have grasped. Check out his suggestions for minor substitutions for "Stain Doll", as shown on http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=14335&page=30