Talk:Montgomery-Ward bridge

ii vs II
Isn't the ii chord usually actually V7/V (II7)? I'm pretty sure the II is dominant.BassHistory (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The II chord should be dominant.  Furthermore, the IV chord should be major, not dominant.  I would correct the article but then I'd also have to correct the graphics!  Solomon Douglas (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Name origin
Need a discussion about why this is called "Montgomery-Ward" bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMPInstructor (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. From Montgomery Ward? (cf http://forum.saxontheweb.net/archive/index.php/t-154703.html). Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The origin, as most older jazz musicians know, is this. The very simple bridge from I've Got Rhythm is used so commonly that people started referring to it as the "Sears & Roebuck Bridge" -- because it was like just pulling a standard interchangeable part out of the catalogue. They would refer to it this way when describing an unfamiliar tune to somebody on the bandstand, e.g.: "You just play THIS and THIS and then go to the dominant and that's the A section. Then just play a Sears & Roebuck bridge and repeat the A part."

The next most common bridge during this period was the Honeysuckle Rose bridge, which is very similar but goes the opposite direction through the circle of fifths. So since Ward's was the big competitor to Sears, this alternative bridge started being called the "Montgomery Ward Bridge." This usage was commonplace among working jazz musicians from the 40s-60s, and would have been familiar to most professionals. It is probably discussed in some of the more technical histories of jazz, but I am not able to cite a source. Nevertheless, it would be hard to find an older musician not aware of both terms.

Since this is so widely known, I will add a brief mention with a citation needed flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.80.189 (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)