What is a + 4 chord - Page 2

kambor · #31 05-31-2011, 04:38 PM

Hey Reg! I'm not a world-class nor a beginner, I kind of survive (literally) playing.

I might have been a little simplistic in my post, what I really wanted to say is that, given no other information, a G7b5 implies that a Db and, implicit, a C, are available. It wouldn't be the same with G7#11, where we have D and C#.

I think I know what you mean, people like to use various aproaches, like only modifying the available notes according to the new chord for example (from Cmaj7 to Dmaj7 somebody would alter F# and C# in that case).

I think the point is to make it clearly understandable to the players, so if anyone took a chart would be able to play it wthout any clashes or "uncomfortable tension points"

Henry Mars · #32 05-31-2011, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kambor

Hi! I must disagree here, as a b5 implies a natural 11 and viceversa. I don't think is splitting hairs to know which tensions are available to play. Maybe wich a bass drums trio there's not much to it, but when playing with piano players or vibes, that accidental can make a whole difference. Just my .02

Where did I imply a natural 11? Maybe I missed something.

mr. beaumont · #33 05-31-2011, 09:25 PM

7b5 does not imply a 4 (11) in the chord.

7#11 doesn't necessarily "imply" anything, but it does allow for a perfect fifth to be present.

Henry Mars · #34 05-31-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

7b5 does not imply a 4 (11) in the chord.

7#11 doesn't necessarily "imply" anything, but it does allow for a perfect fifth to be present.

Of course it does, but as practical matter in most cases you aren't going to miss the 5th ... especially if you have a cocky piano player.

I have studied theory and harmony ...voicing and the whole nine yards. The bottom line for me is that unless I am composing I need to deal with the practical aspect of things.

Now if you are putting a chord melody arrangement together and playing a solo you should split those hairs. For comping chords you don't need to.

mr. beaumont · #35 05-31-2011, 10:16 PM

Exactly.

My post was intended to agree with you, and to question kambor's statement.

kambor · #36 06-01-2011, 02:02 AM

Hi!

Sorry, english is not my mother language so sometimes I can't express myself very well.

What I meant is that, when soloing, a #11 chord allows for a perfect 5th, and a b5 chord allows for a diminished fifth and perfect fourth (given no other information).

mr. beaumont · #37 06-01-2011, 07:03 AM

And that I think we'd all agree with.

Reg · #38 06-01-2011, 10:12 AM

What else does the chord symbol imply... I think I'm beating a very dead horse.
The Harmonic Maj. has a few Dom chords, V7 b9 11 13 and sometimes from the 3rd degree... a dom7 with b9,#9, 5 and b13
Har. Min has the standard... V7b9b13, many add #9 to get rid of the aug 2nd interval.
Mel. Min has the standard ... V7b13, and the 4th degree version, which were mainly talking about... Dom7#11 and also it's tri-tone sub, built from the 7th degree of MM, which if spelled traditional is a min7b5... but through jazz practice we call Dom.7 altered... example of spelling...
1, b9, #9, 3, #11 or b5, b13 or #5, b7.
Double Har. Maj has V7 with b9, 11, b5, 13... ( and the min version)
There are the Dim. versions, whole tone with #11 and either #5 or no 5... locrian concepts and the list goes on...
There really is a lot more going on when playing jazz than chord tones, or just the actual notated changes. Even if you really can't cover playing more... you need to be aware... or not Reg

billkath · #39 06-01-2011, 10:41 AM

Lads-I think I'm going to just stick to dixie!!!

Henry Mars · #40 06-01-2011, 10:56 AM

You can over analyze anything. When you see a chord symbol on a lead sheet it is a crap shoot unless you have a full arrangement or know how the melody was derived. In a lot of cases it is obvious and in a lot of cases it isn't obvious. If you are old enough to have used what we used to call "volume one" fake book you know exactly what I am trying to say.

Reg · #41 06-01-2011, 01:30 PM

Hey Henry sorry... if I'm going to extremes... and yes I was at berklee when Volume I was put together.( lots of mistakes just as in the new versions) And 40 years ago there were pretty standard harmonic understanding of how standards were played... generally. The difference is in the years that followed we now have and use different harmonic concepts that may be applied to standards as well as newer tunes, and generally when making lead sheets the quickest method of notating where that concept is from or even simply what the harmonic concept is... is with the use of labeling chords... The melody doesn't always imply the harmonic area. Again different harmonic schemes that aren't basic chord tones etc... That's a different discussion... Half my calls for gigs are because I can interpret what charts say or are trying to imply. I'm very use to crap shoots... I'm simply trying to eliminate as many as possible... there getting worse, and should be getting better. It's not like the info. isn't out there... It really doesn't effect my playing or ears... I know what charts are trying to say... generally, and when played by composer, arranger or even a soloist, I can hear what someone wants. But I can also hear many musicians who don't hear or understand ... I'm simply trying to get guitarist off the top of that list... Might be a relationship to how many guitarist there are... I don't usually get into these discussions at gigs... Unless somethings really bad...Reg

Henry Mars · #42 06-01-2011, 02:29 PM

We're on the same page Reg. There is a lot of serious confusion out there.
I had to "unlearn" a few things over the years. The real problem lies around the lack of standard notation in chord symbols. It causes a great deal of confusion.
A lot of this confusion comes from people that write "guitar method" books and should know better.
When I was an active player and had students my biggest problem was to teach them to be a musician who happens to play guitar as opposed to a guitar player trying to play music.
If you pick up some of the published sheet music out there, the chords are often incorrectly notated and yet the earth still spins.

whatswisdom · #43 06-01-2011, 02:48 PM

Given that Abersold and the Real Books are filled with errors, is there anyone out there publishing correct lead sheets and transcriptions? It's especially frustrating for someone coming in to the game from a different background. One thing I have been enjoying is the Jazz Standards website. At least there is some decent information and harmonic analysis on a lot of the repertory.

Billnc · #44 06-01-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

Given that Abersold and the Real Books are filled with errors, is there anyone out there publishing correct lead sheets and transcriptions? It's especially frustrating for someone coming in to the game from a different background. One thing I have been enjoying is the Jazz Standards website. At least there is some decent information and harmonic analysis on a lot of the repertory.

Chuck Sher's series of real books are supposed to be good. I've got three. Alternate changes are listed too.

timscarey · #45 06-01-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kambor

Hi!

Sorry, english is not my mother language so sometimes I can't express myself very well.

What I meant is that, when soloing, a #11 chord allows for a perfect 5th, and a b5 chord allows for a diminished fifth and perfect fourth (given no other information).

Hmmm. I don't agree with this statement. If you use the perfect fourth on a 7b5 chord, then you get 2 halfsteps in a row in the scale, for example...

C7b5... E and Gb are in the chord, so if you play F, you get a cluster. Just wanted to point that out.

Reg · #46 06-01-2011, 05:51 PM

Hey Thanks Henry... It can be a little frustrating... +1, as Bill said the Shur books are by far the best, the only problem is the #5 as b13... But that is because they use "Standard Chord Symbol Notation" by Carl Brandt and Clinton Roemer as source for chord symbols from the mid 70's... I have an old copy.... Reg

oldane · #47 06-02-2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

Given that Abersold and the Real Books are filled with errors, is there anyone out there publishing correct lead sheets and transcriptions?

The question is what are the correct changes.

Is it the changes that went with the song when it was first composed and performed in a Broadway show back in the 1920s or 1930s. Is the correct changes those used in the famous version by Coleman Hawkins from the late 1930s? Or is it the modernized version by Herbie Hancock from the 1970s?

I have often been surprised when I had the chance to to see the original (but by now little known) versions as they came from the composers hand. They can be rather different from the versions which are used most now (and are considered the "correct" one?).

In older sheet music the modulation to a new key in the bridge is often approached by a series of dominant 7 chords descending along the cycle of fiths, whereas in newer leed sheets the same modulation is often approached by II-V-I cadences.

In another post, the changes in Hal Leonard fake book has been labelled as sometimes incorrect. But Hal Leonard own the rights to most of the songs they publish in their books. Of course there can be printing errors, but who can say that the version published by the owner of the rights is wrong.

So ... it may be a futile task to establish the "correct" version. Maybe we should just take those leeds sheets as a starting point for our own versions.

Reg · #48 06-02-2011, 08:54 AM

I think the discussion was for the most part dealing with notation of chord symbols, not so much what the original harmonic concept was... but the correct notation for chord symbol. But I totally agree with your point about actual original changes as compared to more modern harmonic treatment.... but isn't that what chord symbols are for... telling the player what harmonic scheme or concept is implied. Most fake books list what version the lead sheet is transcribed from.
My goal is simply to have the actual notation be correct... reflect where the changes are from... not just voice leading concepts or based on a harmonic concept that has nothing to do with tune... I may be in dream land... but what else is new....Reg

Henry Mars · #49 06-02-2011, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldane

The question is what are the correct changes.

Is it the changes that went with the song when it was first composed and performed in a Broadway show back in the 1920s or 1930s. Is the correct changes those used in the famous version by Coleman Hawkins from the late 1930s? Or is it the modernized version by Herbie Hancock from the 1970s?

I have often been surprised when I had the chance to to see the original (but by now little known) versions as they came from the composers hand. They can be rather different from the versions which are used most now (and are considered the "correct" one?).

In older sheet music the modulation to a new key in the bridge is often approached by a series of dominant 7 chords descending along the cycle of fiths, whereas in newer leed sheets the same modulation is often approached by II-V-I cadences.

In another post, the changes in Hal Leonard fake book has been labelled as sometimes incorrect. But Hal Leonard own the rights to most of the songs they publish in their books. Of course there can be printing errors, but who can say that the version published by the owner of the rights is wrong.

So ... it may be a futile task to establish the "correct" version. Maybe we should just take those leeds sheets as a starting point for our own versions.

I guess that I will add to the confusion. There are differences between "changes as written " and "changes as they are commonly played". Over the years some of this stuff kind of evolves as substitutions more or less become standard changes. I believe that the Real Books try to use the "commonly played" approach which may account for the mistakes. I'm just speculating though.

mr. beaumont · #50 06-02-2011, 09:49 AM

The Sher Real Books seem to pull their info from a well known recorded version (often, they'll tell you where) whereas the Hal Leonard Real Books are more of a blend of specific versions and common changes...

All in all, the fact remains the same. Your ear is the #1 tool. The book is a resource, a suggestion, a possibility.

Reg · #51 06-04-2011, 09:53 AM

Hey Mr. B. The ear is the #1 tool, sure should be.....but many haven't taken the time to teach theirs ears to hear. And it's an on going education...
I'm not implying that what somewhat might hear as cool could be not so cool, but it's pretty amazing when you become aware of different musical concepts and how they influences how your ears hear. I'm just reflecting of my to many years involved in music and how my ears have changed.
I played a showcase gig last night, was subbing for regular keyboard player, all original cool tunes, had to read and only had short sound check to get dialed. But this one tune had a bunch of 8bar grooves with little pedal like ties... about half way through the tune I finally start to hear the his concept...he was using this simple 1/2 step melodic motif and moving it around different changes from Melodic Minors... sometimes changing the actual key and sometime changing the melodic motif in same MM, different modal feel from same MM key. The head was blazing...(tune was around 260) so at first was hard to hear harmonic concept. My point is I'm not sure at what point I became able to hear this level of harmonic construction or organization, but I know it isn't instinctive and my ears had to be taught to even be aware of what was going on. Reg

ronjazz · #52 06-06-2011, 07:00 PM

The original Real Book is good for learning how to find the right changes and the right bass motion, as Fake Book 1 was, since there are so many mistakes that correcting them will lead to a very clear understanding of harmonic motion, in the diatonic sense, anyway.

TommyD · #53 06-13-2011, 05:22 PM

I think that this thread has taken a tumble into a deep well - at least for me - and I beg leave to pull us up into daylight again.
I think what happened with Jamey Aebersold was that while they were preparing the music-minus-one accompaniment, the pianist played a chord that sounded just right - possible a chord that he had been playing in similar contexts for years - and Jamey said, "What is that chord? I have to write them down as we go, here, for use in the books." The pianist probably said, "Yeah, I know what you mean, Jim. I've always called this one 'E7 plus 4'. To which Aebersold likely replied, "Hey, works for me! Sounds great, too!"
And that, my friends, is why you can never take the word of saxophone players who try to play piano.

Speaking of music minus one, when he was a little boy my son commented that when I played along with music-minus-one it was still music minus one. How's that for a bratty fifth-grader? (He later went on to play all the Goldberg Variations up to tempo on piano, so I guess I forgive him.)
Tommy_