Not being well versed in the above discussion=the only thing that came to mind instantly was" Barry Harris Harmonic Method for Guitar" by Alan Kingstone - or am I going up the wrong street? The guitar is hard enough to play as it is without all the extra "hardware." What about keep it simple?
Thanks for the clip Paul!
Though it doesn't really shed any light on why he likes 'm6b5'.
Knowing Ted though there's gotta be a reason especially if he thought that in the future we'd call it that - ?
*Getting back to Barry Harris. He laments the passing of the m6 chord in general as it 'usually' gets subbed for a dom9 a fourth above (when it's not a tonic minor).
Personally I think Ted was making an observation about the similarities between the m6b5 and the dim7. He liked to think from different angles. I believe this was more of a passing phase, not a permanent change in his approach. If we look at his work (writings and lesson sheets), the only place I see this m6b5 name come up is in the 7BQ pages for the V-system chords - and then he gives the m6b6 and dim7 names together. Ted was always investigating, so this is one of those examinations of a chord that can be seen from many angles. That's my 2cents.
Paul, I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Because on those Seven Basic Qualities sheets, he's emphasizing how each quality is just a slight adjustment (usually a half step change in one voice) away from the previous quality. So in that context, it may be helpful to see that the m6b5 comes from adjusting one note of the m7b5 by a half step. And the naming reinforces that. And, like you said, elsewhere he uses the normal term dim7 much more frequently.
On the other hand, he did say that in the future people might say m6b5 more. That would imply more than a passing phase.
May I add that perhaps Ted was thinking something like this.."Hmm, bb7, that's a 6, I'll call it dim6, but hang on, it would now follow that what we call m7b5 should be called dim7..this will get confusing...hmm, we know that the whole chord naming thing is full of anomalies anyway...this won't help...but m6b5 is not ambiguous, it makes sense...this is probably what people will end up calling it...(but really, dim6 is better, because it's building on a dim triad, rather than being an alteration of m6)"......etc!
Another thing that should be mentioned is the interval from 1 to bb7 is a diminished seventh. So the name dim7 also reflects this important interval that characterizes the chord.
Although I personally don't always name chords exactly the way Ted did, I respect that his way usually made it pretty unambiguously clear what chord tones were present.
You can also see evolution in his chord naming. In Chord Chemistry, he named a maj7 chord by using a slashed 7. Later, he favored triangle 7. So his thinking could change over time.
It's like the English language itself; riddled with inconsistencies but meaningful through context and common usage. Trying to make the whole chord naming thing perfectly logical will drive you nuts, but yes, things do gradually evolve. To me, G2 means notes G, A, and D (as opposed to G add2 with notes G, A, B and D), but hang on, by that logic, G6 should be G add 6...I'm going nuts and will stop this.
I think you all should look at "Barry Harris's Harmonic Method for Guitar"by Alan Kingstone.Its very self-explanatory once you realise that the diminished is the "mother lode".Check it out.
jazzuki, that book is currently unavailable on amazon. Don't know where someone could find it if they wanted to.
I personally think the book "Barry Harris's Harmonic Method for Guitar" is misleading and ultimately a waste of time for me at least. The idea of playing inversions of diminished chords between inversions of a m7 or other is as old as the hills (just listen to classical composers or Wes Montgomery). But to then create a whole "house of cards sytem" from that seems far fetched and misleading. And to base it all on a 6 chords? why would I want to think of Eb6 when I see or want to play Cm7? Ted was against this type of thing (hence the visual root system) and so am I. I'm trying to clear up all the clutter of harmonc equivalancies in my brain, not add more. The few things I see that are good about that book is to get people (who aren't already doing so) to think about movement as opposed to staying on one chord for the percieved duration of that harmony. and also the idea of bringing back the i° (something Ted was keen on). I could go on about what I feel are flaws or platitudes in the system, but honestly I think that basically you can get all the stuff presented in that book here for free. I mean, just look at the name they call that which is major bebop scale: major or minor 6 diminished scales?! That's pretty akward, not to mention misleading. It doesn't describe what the scale is, but certain chords you can make out of it? You could develop the same type of system off of any scale. Plus the diminshed passing chord is not always a desirable sound depending on the context. It sounds out of place (at least to these ears) in many contexys). Just my 2cents.
It makes more 'functional' sense when you actually hear/read Barry Harris explain it. Barry iterates that it's "just his personal way to tonal organization" ... though legions of modern boppers on all instruments are diciples.
The 'term' be-bop scale(s) is relatively modern - coined and then academically codified (I believe) by David Baker in the 60's or even early 70's. Barry's been making records since the late 50's and I assume evolved his concept (M or m6º scales) earlier than the be-bop scales coined term.
Personally I feel that the 'guitar' based re-visits of Barry's harmonic thing do seem unnecessarily complicated and murky due to the fact that they don't really go into the theory one needs for a complete understanding of Harris' 'personal' method. You really need a solid and functional understanding of jazz harmony.
*Barry's playing is fantastic and elegant - check out Lee Morgan's Sidewinder album for a good intro to Mr. Harris' playing.
I'm sure the system makes more sense if Mr Harris explains it, but the guitar book is quite akwardly explained, in my opinion. Plus I don't see that the end result warrants going through all this "rethinking". The diminished passing chord sounds good in some places but not all. I think one could make an easier system that made more logical sense just using Ted's materials. Plus you can easily get in a soloists way by adding too many extraneous notes. if you're playing solo guitar, that's slightly different, but in any event certain "movements" will always sound better than others depending on context. There's no one "miracle scale" that will work in all contexts. hence that's why i say it's misleading.
For example (correct me if i'm wrong): thinking Eb6 and D diminished (C D Eb F G ab Bb B natural C ) movement, over a Cm7 will give you a b6 over the cm7 ( a flat). therefore you don't get the dorian tone (the natural 6) which is a very important tone in jazz. and therefore the scale sounds wrong in certain situations, like when dorian is called for, like in a tune like "So What" and the million other dorian based tunes. You could just as easily create a system that's clearer and works better using the dorian scale, or the mixolydian, etc.
No doubt the system can work for people who are willig to take the time to rethink things in this seemingly awkward way, but why bother? You're better off using and expanding and extrapolating on what you know. It's often surprising what we can come up with when we do this.
But in any event, the barry harris question is off topic, and has no bearing on the original post, so I don't see why people keep bringing it up here.