Coltrane Changes

[OddManOut]

As Dave Skylark once asked...

"Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?"



For a ii-V-I, such as

| Dm7 | G7 | C | C ||


The following substitutions are made

| Dm7 Eb7 | Ab B7 | E G7 | C ||


Wow...trying to hear it on my guitar, but my ear isn't catching on.
Does this lend itself to particular voicings of the chords to flow?

I see the dominant chords in the second chord of each bar leading to the
first chord of the next bar. I see D-Ab is a tritone, but the Ab-E is a minor sixth.

A bit beyond me at this point.

Thank you for any help you can provide.

[Wyllys]

Tune? Real Book? More info.

Likely the voicings/inversions need to slide into each other with interesting interior lines. I'd start out with an essential single note line on the 5th and 6th strings and then fill out triads. The occasional fourth "character" tone will likely show up on occasion.

Not knowing the tune, here is a compact set of changes along those lines:


Coltrane

x 5 x 5 6 (5) dm7 (5) optional

6 x 5 6 6 x Eflat 9/Bflat

4 x 4 5 4 x Aflat7

5 x 4 6 4 x B9/A

4 x 4 4 3 x E9/G#

3 x 3 4 3 x G7

x 3 x 2 5 x C6 or 3 x 2 4 3 x Cmaj9/G

[OddManOut]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

Tune? Real Book? More info.

Likely the voicings/inversions need to slide into each other with interesting interior lines. I'd start out with an essential single note line on the 5th and 6th strings and then fill out triads. The occasional fourth "character" tone will likely show up on occasion.

Not knowing the tune, here is a compact set of changes along those lines:


Coltrane

x 5 x 5 6 (5) dm7 (5) optional

6 x 5 6 6 x Eflat 9/Bflat

4 x 4 5 4 x Aflat7

5 x 4 6 4 x B9/A

4 x 4 4 3 x E9/G#

3 x 3 4 3 x G7

x 3 x 2 5 x C6 or 3 x 2 4 3 x Cmaj9/G

I'll fiddle with this. Many thanks!

[Wyllys]

Try this G7+ before the optional Cmaj9/G:

3 x 3 4 4 x

3 x 2 4 3 x

[stanron]

Wyllis, in a couple of previous threads you have stated a preference for naming chords in chord sequences by number from the root. I agree with this. It's what Nashville numbers charts is all about and it makes transposing a doddle.

I also like to look at the intervals between the chords in chord sequences and use the same number system. The original was a sequence of fourths. Dm7, G7, C.

In the embellished version the intervals are

minor second,

fourth

minor second

fourth

minor third

fourth


In tracing the interval patterns in chord sequences it is not uncommon to find that the pattern breaks in the last two bars to allow a resolution to root or to fifth. This is what happens here. ii, IV, ii, IV then change of pattern iii, IV to get resolution.

Here is an alternative set of shapes;



X X 0 2 1 1 standard Dm7

X 1 3 2 3 X Eb, I, V, I, b7

X 3 1 1 1 X Ab/C III, V, I, III

X 2 1 2 0 X standard B7

X X 2 1 0 0 standard E

X 2 3 0 3 X inversion of G7

X 3 2 0 1 0 standard C

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by stanron

Wyllis, in a couple of previous threads you have stated a preference for naming chords in chord sequences by number from the root. I agree with this. It's what Nashville numbers charts is all about and it makes transposing a doddle.

I also like to look at the intervals between the chords in chord sequences and use the same number system. The original was a sequence of fourths. Dm7, G7, C.

In the embellished version the intervals are

minor second,

fourth

minor second

fourth

minor third

fourth


In tracing the interval patterns in chord sequences it is not uncommon to find that the pattern breaks in the last two bars to allow a resolution to root or to fifth. This is what happens here. ii, IV, ii, IV then change of pattern iii, IV to get resolution.

Here is an alternative set of shapes;



X X 0 2 1 1 standard Dm7

X 1 3 2 3 X Eb, I, V, I, b7

X 3 1 1 1 X Ab/C III, V, I, III

X 2 1 2 0 X standard B7

X X 2 1 0 0 standard E

X 2 3 0 3 X inversion of G7

X 3 2 0 1 0 standard C

I don't mess with any of that stuff. I just play a couple of notes, add a couple more and let one thing melt into another. After a couple of minutes I write down the string/fret numbers. Then I figure out the names for the sounds I just made.

I came up with 5 or 6 more nice sounding tone rivers. Now they're all flowing into each other sort of spontaneously. I am not interested in systems or formulas, just sounds. Naming them is just a way to hand it off, not to make music.

[mr. beaumont]

It's not difficult if you think about it...set a target...then approach it by major thirds...set up each of those chords by its own V.

Lots of logic to it. Makes it possible to get anywhere from anywhere intetestingly.

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

It's not difficult if you think about it...set a target...then approach it by major thirds...set up each of those chords by its own V.

Lots of logic to it. Makes it possible to get anywhere from anywhere intetestingly.

Intetesting!

[rick-slo]

Moving key centers around by major thirds was one of Coltrane's things.

[mr. beaumont]

Hey, so I wanted to bring this thread up again, so I can explain a little more and hopefully make people realize this stuff isn't rocket surgery

So take the classic Giant Steps progression...the whole beginning is about key centers falling in major thirds (think root movement of four frets on the guitar)...each new key center gets set up by it's V, or a ii V...

So we start in B, fall to G. G gets set up by D7, the V chord in G

G falls to Eb, Bb7 sets up Eb

Second sequence is G to Eb to B. G gets set up by it's ii V in bar 4, Eb and B get set up by their own V's.

Makes it seem a lot less ridiculous, right?

So how can you actually use this stuff?

Well, the beauty of Major thirds is the 12 notes to an octave...

So if you want to get somewhere...let's say we want to land on C...you're never more than 3 "leaps" away...try the giant steps principle starting on a G# descending to C...

So you can use this to write...play with it in turnarounds...even completely reharmonize tunes...it adds great movement...