How would you name these voicings?

[Mick-7]

It’s not an 11th though.

Just resembles one? What do you call this chord? > | 3-x-3-3-1-x |

Would you give it different name than this one? >| x-x-5-5-6-6 |

[Mick-7]

"F7add11" doesn't require explanation?
When I see that chord symbol I assume the composer wants to hear a chord that contains both the major 3rd and the 4th.

You understood its meaning immediately and yet you ask if it requires explanation? Do you have a more descriptive name for it?
Would you understand what Fm74 meant the first time you saw it?

[Bob_Ross]

You understood its meaning immediately and yet you ask if it requires explanation? Do you have a more descriptive name for it?

No, because that's what I've been saying all along: Some specific voicings are easier to describe via standard musical notation than via trying to get the text-string of a "chord name" to communicate exactly what you want.
If you'd included parenthesis -- e.g., "F7(add 11)" -- I'd probably be slightly more confident that you did indeed want to hear a dominant 7th chord that contained both the major 3rd and the perfect 4th...but it's such an uncommon sound that I'd still be inclined to ask the bandleader if that was the intended voicing.

Would you understand what Fm74 meant the first time you saw it?

No, not at all.
On first glance I'd probably wonder what a "74" chord meant. And then if/when I figured out that "7" and "4" referred to two separate scale degrees/chord tones, I'd wonder whether that "4" was in addition to the (implied) 3rd of a normal dominant 7th chord, or whether it was supposed to supplant the 3rd, as in an "F7sus4"

[Mick-7]

No, because that's what I've been saying all along: Some specific voicings are easier to describe via standard musical notation than via trying to get the text-string of a "chord name" to communicate exactly what you want.
If you'd included parenthesis -- e.g., "F7(add 11)" -- I'd probably be slightly more confident that you did indeed want to hear a dominant 7th chord that contained both the major 3rd and the perfect 4th...but it's such an uncommon sound that I'd still be inclined to ask the bandleader if that was the intended voicing.

(Re: Fm74)
No, not at all.
On first glance I'd probably wonder what a "74" chord meant. And then if/when I figured out that "7" and "4" referred to two separate scale degrees/chord tones, I'd wonder whether that "4" was in addition to the (implied) 3rd of a normal dominant 7th chord, or whether it was supposed to supplant the 3rd, as in an "F7sus4"

I think you just agreed with me?

I don't think a chord made up of stacked 4ths is that uncommon, but agreement on what it should be named seems to be.

[djg]

isn't music fun

[rpjazzguitar]

[QUOTE=Mick-7;1428561]If Fm74 = F-Bb-Eb-Ab, what would they name the other chords I mentioned? - F-Bb-E-A and F-Bb-Eb-A.[/QUOTE

Depends on function. I don’t know what the names should be. R 4 7 3? Fmaj7susno5?
R 4 b7 3 I use as a melmin chord, parent scale is from b7.
Idk what to call it.

[Christian Miller]

Just resembles one? What do you call this chord? > | 3-x-3-3-1-x |

Would you give it different name than this one? >| x-x-5-5-6-6 |

Yes.

Assuming the composer/arranger wants to imply a specific voicing, which is the case with this one because it’s a classic.

Boring theory thing - there is no 11th in the second voicing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

Yes.

Assuming the composer/arranger wants to imply a specific voicing, which is the case with this one because it’s a classic.

Boring theory thing - there is no 11th in the second voicing.

But those two chords contain the same notes! (just in a different order). Makes no sense to say one of them can't be called an 11th chord.

[Mick-7]

Depends on function. I don’t know what the names should be. R 4 7 3? Fmaj7susno5?
R 4 b7 3 I use as a melmin chord, parent scale is from b7. Idk what to call it.

I just think that chord names should be consistent, having a different name for each type of voicing will create confusion. So if you think that Fm74 is a suitable name for F-Bb-Eb-Ab, then F74 should be an appropriate name for the same chord with a raised 3rd (i.e., F-Bb-Eb-A), and Fmaj74 should work if you raise the chords 3rd & 7th. (i.e., F-Bb-E-A).

[ragman1]

(talks to self)

Say nothing. Don't forget they actually like this sort of thing!

[Bob_Ross]

I don't think a chord made up of stacked 4ths is that uncommon, but agreement on what it should be named seems to be.

Yes, precisely. If you literally want a stack of perfect 4ths -- F Bb Eb Ab, in that order low to high -- there is absolutely no "chord name" that will guarantee a player gives you that exact voicing. None.

[Christian Miller]

But those two chords contain the same notes! (just in a different order). Makes no sense to say one of them can't be called an 11th chord.

Because it's a 4th. In the same way that the 6th in a major 6th chord is not a major 13th.

[Bob_Ross]

Because it's a 4th. In the same way that the 6th in a major 6th chord is not a major 13th.

But anyone who seriously believes that "chord names" represent actual pitches, rather than pitch classes, is misguided...and/or hasn't fully thought through the limitations of that naming system.

As soon as designating what octave/register a particular chord tone occurs in becomes important to the sound or function you're striving to achieve, "chord names" cease to be useful for the task. Again, wrong tool for the job. Just write out the desired verticality in standard musical notation.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think it's a little more complicated.

if you decide to write in the notes on a staff there is no way to efficiently designate that the rhythm should remain ad Lib. The keyboard player will play that staff exactly where it's written. Because of that you have to use an Ossia staff or some other means (EG X'ed note heads) of making it clear that that staff is not supposed to be played as written.

However you choose to do that one player or another reading the chart is going to look askance.

During the solos, some of the players will miss the chord symbols if you omit them. and, for them, it won't matter which octave some of the notes are in.

So, my choice has been for something like a stack of fourths to use the notation F4 and define at the beginning of the chart. I've done that in different ways, none fully satisfactory.

[Mick-7]

Because it's a 4th. In the same way that the 6th in a major 6th chord is not a major 13th.

You've just undermined your argument, it is a major 13th chord if it contains the major 7th (i.e., it's not simply a triad). The chord we're discussing, which rpjg named a Fm74, contains the minor 7th, ergo the Bb in it is an 11th and not a 4th.

So, my choice has been for something like a stack of fourths to use the notation F4 and define at the beginning of the chart. I've done that in different ways, none fully satisfactory.

We had a discussion a while back about the so-called 5ths "power chord," e.g. G5, and it was suggested we use that nomenclature for 4th chords too, but when you start adding other chord tones to the name, like your 74, it gets confusing.

I mean, you may as well spell the while chord out, F1473, and each band member could be equipped with a bar code scanner to scan the charts and get all the the voicings right.

Or you could indicate the number of notes in the chord, like 4x3 = 3 notes, stacked in 4ths from the root; or 4x4 = a 4 note stacked 4ths chord, etc.

[Bob_Ross]

I've done that in different ways, none fully satisfactory.

My work here is done.

[rpjazzguitar]

My work here is done.

I regularly play with 2 players who are chart hounds. Often enough they disagree about details with bitter argument following.

From that, and other exeperiences, I've figured out that there isn't one correct way to make a chart.

For this issue, my first attempt was to write in staffs with x'ed noteheads, but some kb players would play them as written And there didn't seem to be anything I could do to stop that.

Next, I tried an Ossia staff. But the day after I made the chart I got confused by it myself because it's so unusual to see one.

Then, instead of a floating staff I tried one connected to the main staff but below it and in smaller type. I ended up having to add the text "suggested voicing, rhythm ad lib". That worked. The chart has been played a number of times without confusion.

I didn't want to have horn players suddenly encounter a staff with multiple notes when they're trying to take a solo. So I thought that it's important to have a chord symbol to guide the soloists, bearing in mind that I'm talking about giving everybody the same lead sheet, not preparing separate parts for each instrument. Perhaps surprisingly, I can't recall a horn player complaining or being unclear about what the chart called for.

As you point out, sometimes our system for naming chords gets overwhelmed. It seems surprising that there is no accepted chord symbol for a stack of fourths even though it's a common voicing. And as Mick pointed out, there are logical approaches to the problem which may fail only because they're unfamiliar.

All that said, we played Blue Skies today and it worked fine.

[Christian Miller]

But anyone who seriously believes that "chord names" represent actual pitches, rather than pitch classes, is misguided...and/or hasn't fully thought through the limitations of that naming system.

As soon as designating what octave/register a particular chord tone occurs in becomes important to the sound or function you're striving to achieve, "chord names" cease to be useful for the task. Again, wrong tool for the job. Just write out the desired verticality in standard musical notation.

You can do that, but it seems a bit silly we don’t have a specific symbol for this extremely common voicing.

Of course chord names represent pitches to some extent. It’s not super consistent, but the 6th verses maj13th is a good example of this. One is a part of extended structure beyond the octave and the other is not. Progressive jazz musicians might choose to use more unusual voicings but that’s their perogative really.

A versatile professional musician will obviously make stylistic decisions based on the context and the information implied by the chart. A big band chart is a good example of this type of thing. We know what Bb6 means in a Basie chart. We probably wouldn’t see it in a modern chart anyway.

The nomenclature is mostly by convenience anyway, but we are seeking here to make a distinction between two types of voicing.

The voicing of a m11th in a jazz standard almost invariably has the 11th in the melody for the reasons I’ve explained. The So What voicing has the b3rd (or 5th) on top and the 4th in middle. It makes sense to differentiate these as chord symbols because they are both quite different and really common. To reflect the actual intervals in these voicings makes sense.

[Christian Miller]

Chord symbol use in the Real World is not constrained by (for example) the Berklee style guide anyway.

Spend enough time on the bandstand and that becomes hilariously clear.. but often there’s sort of a reason behind apparently odd choices.

If you see enough instances of a symbol in the wild it becomes normalised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

When I write, I find myself very sensitive to the ordering of notes, i.e. the octave of each note in a chord. The 4th and the 11th don't sound at all the same to me. So I look for ways to make clear to the keyboard player which one I want.

I don't really know, but I have the impression that some players aren't all that sensitive to the note order.

In Brazilian parlance it looks like 74 is the equivalent of sus. That is, it raises the 3rd, not the 10th. So Dm74 isn't Dm11, or Dm(add 11).

And, unfortunately, writing out the notes on a staff has its own difficulties, as I pointed out in an earlier post.

[Mick-7]

When I write, I find myself very sensitive to the ordering of notes, i.e. the octave of each note in a chord. The 4th and the 11th don't sound at all the same to me. So I look for ways to make clear to the keyboard player which one I want.

I don't really know, but I have the impression that some players aren't all that sensitive to the note order.

In Brazilian parlance it looks like 74 is the equivalent of sus. That is, it raises the 3rd, not the 10th. So Dm74 isn't Dm11, or Dm(add 11).

I think you want the relative V7 chord, G7/D(sus), not Dm74 or whatever.

G7sus| x-5-5-5-6-x | from: G7| x-5-5-4-6-x |

[rpjazzguitar]

I think you want the relative V7 chord, G7/D(sus), not Dm74 or whatever.

G7sus| x-5-5-5-6-x | from: G7| x-5-5-4-6-x |

If you write G7sus The bassist is Likely to play G. What if you want D in the bass?

Bear in mind that my application is using the same lead sheet for every member of of group - typically a quintet, keys guitar bass drums and a lead instrument. So I'm always on the lookout for a chord symbol that gives me the bass note I want and the rest of the chord I want. Won't always work, but that's the goal.

[ragman1]

Actually, Brazilian notation is like this:



There's no Cm7sus4 for obvious reasons, the sus4 replaces the minor 3rd.

But C7sus4 is also written C7(4). Which rather implies there's no Cm7(4). So no Fm7(4).

But why do you want to be Brazilian? Presumably none of you are Brazilian!

[rpjazzguitar]

Actually, Brazilian notation is like this:



There's no Cm7sus4 for obvious reasons, the sus4 replaces the minor 3rd.

But C7sus4 is also written C7(4). Which rather implies there's no Cm7(4). So no Fm7(4).

But why do you want to be Brazilian? Presumably none of you are Brazilian!

I Just checked and found it in Charts by Dori Caymmi, Edu Lobo, Toniho Horta and Milton Nasimiento, Sometimes written 47 other times 74.

It doesn't matter what's right. What matters is that if you play this music eventually you'll see it

[ragman1]

It's the same thing. Personally, I'd say (4) is obviously clearer than 74. But it's the same thing.

There is a further complication. The F7(4) is not the So What chord you started with:

x88889x

So you're back to square one. And I'm not going to say how to notate it for reasons already given!