Theory behind using M7 chords as dominants?

[Prome]

A couple more... First, the original, old-fashioned changes to "I Can't Get Started," which every fakebook gets wrong (I'll highlight the part that drives people crazy, but which actually is correct):

| C Am7 | Dm7 G7 | E7 Am7 | D7 | C Am7 | etc.

Similarly, in "Ain't Misbehavin'":

| Cm Cm+5 | Cm6 C7 | Bb Gm7 | Cm7 F7 | etc.

[JensL]

I am not really a fan of explaining things as harmony moving backwards.

Harmony moves forward, and while a chord can be related in one way to the one before and another in the next one, it is still moving to the next chord.

To my ears Eb#dim resolves to Dm7 just fine: F# to F, Eb to D, and even more so when the progression is F#dim C.

I don't find anything back relating in the Dm7b5 Dbmaj7 since the only thing is that happens is a diatonic leading note D is altered to Db and resolved to C. That is all forward.

What happens if it is Cmaj7 Ebdim Dm7 G7? Is Ebdim then back-relating to Cmaj7?

@Prome:

Are the Ain't misbehavin' and I can't get started also back-relating (and in what way?)

I was once told that the changes of Fats Waller for "Ain't.." were in fact Cm Ab7/C F7/C C7, because he took the g and "split it" so one line moving op G Ab A Bb the other down G Gb F E which gives you those chords.
So the reason it looks funny is that chord symbols are to crude to describe the harmonic movement.

Jens

[Prome]

I am not really a fan of explaining things as harmony moving backwards.

Harmony moves forward, and while a chord can be related in one way to the one before and another in the next one, it is still moving to the next chord.

To my ears Eb#dim resolves to Dm7 just fine: F# to F, Eb to D, and even more so when the progression is F#dim C.

I don't find anything back relating in the Dm7b5 Dbmaj7 since the only thing is that happens is a diatonic leading note D is altered to Db and resolved to C. That is all forward.

What happens if it is Cmaj7 Ebdim Dm7 G7? Is Ebdim then back-relating to Cmaj7?

@Prome:

Are the Ain't misbehavin' and I can't get started also back-relating (and in what way?)

I was once told that the changes of Fats Waller for "Ain't.." were in fact Cm Ab7/C F7/C C7, because he took the g and "split it" so one line moving op G Ab A Bb the other down G Gb F E which gives you those chords.
So the reason it looks funny is that chord symbols are to crude to describe the harmonic movement.

Jens

Well, chords don't always relate (in the sense of "pushing" our ear) to the next chord -- sometimes they relate better to the chord before. Back-relating chords have been present since at least Bach, and well understood since almost as long. I mean, we're just talking about deceptive resolutions (an oxymoron, because the whole deception is in the lack of resolution!). Dm7 wants to go to G7 which wants to go to C, not Am7, for example.

Ebo7 has nothing of consequence in common w/ G, Gm, A, or A7, or any other subdominant/dominant sounds that lead the ear to D/Dm, so thinking of it as one of them is a mistake imho. Diminished chords, in the major/minor system, can only function as the viio7 chord in a minor key. That's it. If you want to think of these chords as resulting from chromatic voice-leading, that's fine, but it won't really help on the pragmatic level of revealing what the chord is doing in the key functionally, i.e. where the chord is pushing our ear. If you play this:

| C | C | B7b9 | B7b9|

Your ear is not expecting Dm7. It's only when we put a Dm7 after B7b9 that we can say, "oh, cool, look at the potential of voice-leading for these chords: G -> Gb -> F and E -> Eb -> E." I mean, in the hierarchy of chords Ebo7 pushes our ear to (Em, Gm, Bbm, Dbm), Dm comes way late on the scene.

You also keep ignoring the countless examples I've given of how master improvisers, not to mention the great classical titans, have handled these chords. If the history of harmony were a week long, diminished scales came about at 9pm Saturday night.

Re "Ain't Misbehavin'":
I double-checked Fats' playing (long time since I worked on the tune, was going from memory), and you're half right about the sequence in question, which is a killer harmonization of the line cliche Cm Cm+5 Cm6. Fats doesn't really play those chords w/ C in the bass, he just outright plays Cm Ab7 F7 C7, and of course I listened to other versions (Billie, Maxine Sullivan, Eartha Kitt, Pops, etc., etc.) and they're all usually doing the same thing -- on one of them, they play Cm Ab7 Cm C7, and Pops' goes Cm Ab7 Cm6 Gm6 (same guts in the chords, w/ different bass notes). I never heard the anecdote about the contrary, "split" G; that's amazing, thanks for sharing.

My point about the bolded sections of that tune and "I Can't Get Started," is that many musicians think a V7 chord should come after the V7/V in "I Can't," and most hear the C7 in "Ain't" as pointing to F. And of course, they do, but in both cases, the composers used deceptive resolutions. In the case of "Ain't," it's more like a direct tonicization to Bb, and in "I Can't Get Started," it's more like a hanging/dangling pre-dominant sound. Many inexperienced musicians want the V7 in there, and some put it in. In the fakebooks, "I Can't Get Started" has the V7 in there, but no recordings do, and when you hear it the way it's supposed to sound, the V7 sounds wrong (the cool bebop reharm of chromatically descending iim7-V7 aside).

[JensL]

Well, chords don't always relate (in the sense of "pushing" our ear) to the next chord -- sometimes they relate better to the chord before. Back-relating chords have been present since at least Bach, and well understood since almost as long. I mean, we're just talking about deceptive resolutions (an oxymoron, because the whole deception is in the lack of resolution!). Dm7 wants to go to G7 which wants to go to C, not Am7, for example.

I did not say that they could not resolve surprisingly, I just said that you still had to explain to me how that made sense. If they have been around since Bach you can explain it a bit more in detail?

How is Ebdim back related to Cmaj7?

Ebo7 has nothing of consequence in common w/ G, Gm, A, or A7, or any other subdominant/dominant sounds that lead the ear to D/Dm, so thinking of it as one of them is a mistake imho. Diminished chords, in the major/minor system, can only function as the viio7 chord in a minor key. That's it. If you want to think of these chords as resulting from chromatic voice-leading, that's fine, but it won't really help on the pragmatic level of revealing what the chord is doing in the key functionally, i.e. where the chord is pushing our ear.

I never said Ebdim was a sub dominant related to Dm, it is #IVdim in inversion in the key of C.
It is in face a suspension of the Dm7 chord with Eb suspending D and F# suspending F. To make the transition between Em7 (or C) and Dm7 smooth.

Understanding chords as a result of voice leading makes a lot of sense to me. There was voice leading before chords after all, and IV IVm I is about adding a an extra chromatic leading tone, so is IV #IV I or V I for that matter. They are descriptions of how the voices move.

If you play this:

| C | C | B7b9 | B7b9|

Your ear is not expecting Dm7. It's only when we put a Dm7 after B7b9 that we can say, "oh, cool, look at the potential of voice-leading for these chords: G -> Gb -> F and E -> Eb -> E." I mean, in the hierarchy of chords Ebo7 pushes our ear to (Em, Gm, Bbm, Dbm), Dm comes way late on the scene.

How is B7b9 back related to C?
You progression does not have a Dm7 chord but I expect it is the next chord in the row?

It is true that if you hear D#dim isolated you'll probably hear it as a dominant to E. In context that is not always so. As I described above it is a suspension of the sub dominant chord. To some degree it is working the same as a G7sus4 G7, but then for the sub-dominant function.

You also keep ignoring the countless examples I've given of how master improvisers, not to mention the great classical titans, have handled these chords. If the history of harmony were a week long, diminished scales came about at 9pm Saturday night.

It is not that relevant what people play on it, it does not tell you what they think. There are several reason melodic reasons to play A7b9 to Bbmaj7 over the Edim in a rhythm.

What would Kenny G play on C diminished? Probably a C for 30 minutes.

On a side note: What examples are you talking about? You just say that they do, that is not an example.

Re "Ain't Misbehavin'":
I double-checked Fats' playing (long time since I worked on the tune, was going from memory), and you're half right about the sequence in question, which is a killer harmonization of the line cliche Cm Cm+5 Cm6. Fats doesn't really play those chords w/ C in the bass, he just outright plays Cm Ab7 F7 C7, and of course I listened to other versions (Billie, Maxine Sullivan, Eartha Kitt, Pops, etc., etc.) and they're all usually doing the same thing -- on one of them, they play Cm Ab7 Cm C7, and Pops' goes Cm Ab7 Cm6 Gm6 (same guts in the chords, w/ different bass notes). I never heard the anecdote about the contrary, "split" G; that's amazing, thanks for sharing.

Well at least I'm half right And the realbook is completely right?

My point about the bolded sections of that tune and "I Can't Get Started," is that many musicians think a V7 chord should come after the V7/V in "I Can't," and most hear the C7 in "Ain't" as pointing to F. And of course, they do, but in both cases, the composers used deceptive resolutions. In the case of "Ain't," it's more like a direct tonicization to Bb, and in "I Can't Get Started," it's more like a hanging/dangling pre-dominant sound. Many inexperienced musicians want the V7 in there, and some put it in. In the fakebooks, "I Can't Get Started" has the V7 in there, but no recordings do, and when you hear it the way it's supposed to sound, the V7 sounds wrong (the cool bebop reharm of chromatically descending iim7-V7 aside).

So it is not really related (or back-related for that matter) to the back-related dim chords we are discussing?

Jens

[Prome]

Jens, you're obviously way out of your element. Just stop.

[Prome]

(Re-read thread to double check...)

Jens, every unproductive question you've asked I've already answered or covered repeatedly in other posts, which you are apparently glossing over or not reading.

All back-relating chords have deceptive resolutions, but not all deceptive resolutions come from back-relating chords. In C - C - B7b9 - B7b9 - Dm7, the B7b9 - Dm7 is a deceptive resolution, because B7b9 points to Em in the key of C, not Dm. How is this not obvious to you? Have you not studied Tonal/CPP harmony?

With Em7 <- D#o7, the D#o7 is said to be a back-relating dominant of Em, as it is pushing our ear back to the chord that came immediately before it, rather than forward to the next chord.

In F - F#o7, F#o7 is really D#o7/F#, which deceptively resolves to C/G (a chord only one note different from Em, where it wants to go). Earlier in the thread I commented that F#o7 somewhat "points back to" F, but it doesn't -- to be clear, back-relating chords are those that push our ear back to what we heard before. My point had more to do with the way F#o7 prolongs the predominant sound, but it certainly doesn't push our ear to F. Just to be clear...

I've also given countless examples in this thread of not only reharmonizations of standards by beboppers, where said beboppers are treating all of the diminished chords in question as V7/iii, but at least two bebop heads with such a conception in them.

All the examples I gave of the "Ain't Misbehavin" changes are from the records, not fakebooks, thus the different examples of changes.

Finally, regarding chromatic voice-leading: look, if you are playing atonal music, chromatically melting one cluster of tones into another can mean just about anything, and perhaps said clusters can have multiple interpretations, can be laced w/ ambiguity. Like the the famous "Tristan" chord, for instance. But there is relatively no ambiguity with these diminished chords in a tonal context, which is what we're talking about. And on a pragmatic level, it's clear once you begin transcribing Bird, Bud and other beboppers, that they and legions of others improvised according to the V7/iii conception -- it's as clear, once you start working some of it out, as any other concept in jazz we know of. That you are so outright dismissive of it is your prerogative.

[Prome]

So it is not really related (or back-related for that matter) to the back-related dim chords we are discussing?

I never said they were -- they are examples of deceptive resolutions.

[Prome]

An

of Io7 interpreted as V7/iii, by Barney Kessel.

In the beginning he treats the first measure:

| I |

as | Io7(M7) |

at the beginning of the next A section, he plays

| iim7/iii -> V7/iii -> I |

Hmm, wonder how Barney thought of Io7 ...

[Prome]

For an example of a back-relating dominant in Bach.

The

of Prelude in Eb Major, from the Well-Tempered Clavier:

| I | <- V7 | iim7 -> V -> V7 -> | I |

T (BRD) PD D T

(Found on pages 452 and 453 of Steven Laitz's The Complete Musician.)

[Prome]

And of course, from the above, it's clear how often this happens in jazz. Think of how often motion like:

I V7 iim7 V7

happens.

Again, V7 does not "point to" iim7.

[JensL]

All back-relating chords have deceptive resolutions, but not all deceptive resolutions come from back-relating chords. In C - C - B7b9 - B7b9 - Dm7, the B7b9 - Dm7 is a deceptive resolution, because B7b9 points to Em in the key of C, not Dm. How is this not obvious to you? Have you not studied Tonal/CPP harmony?

I find the Dm resolution deceptive too, I just thought you meant to give that as an example of back-relating, which I could not see, so I asked.

With Em7 <- D#o7, the D#o7 is said to be a back-relating dominant of Em, as it is pushing our ear back to the chord that came immediately before it, rather than forward to the next chord.

Do you only see dim chords as dominants?

I'd see that one as a Dm7 with some suspensions, I seem to recall that Barry Harris does that too.

In F - F#o7, F#o7 is really D#o7/F#, which deceptively resolves to C/G (a chord only one note different from Em, where it wants to go). Earlier in the thread I commented that F#o7 somewhat "points back to" F, but it doesn't -- to be clear, back-relating chords are those that push our ear back to what we heard before. My point had more to do with the way F#o7 prolongs the predominant sound, but it certainly doesn't push our ear to F. Just to be clear...

So you do see the sharpened subdominant with diminished seven as a dominant that is resolved surprisingly.

What is Pre-dominant? (I don't think that every possible chord before a dominant sounds the same, so it is not a function I guess?)

When you say prolong do you mean suspend?

I've also given countless examples in this thread of not only reharmonizations of standards by beboppers, where said beboppers are treating all of the diminished chords in question as V7/iii, but at least two bebop heads with such a conception in them.

I never disagreed with that you can reharmonize dim chords with II Vs, and especially IIm7b5 V7b9 are used often in the examples you've given.
I just don't think it says anything about the function of the chord, when reharmonized as a II V or in its original form.

That's probably also why I did not see any examples in your posts, and it is also why I don't think that the recording of Misty with the Adim/Eb Ebmaj7 is telling us anything about the function of the chord or how Barney Kessel saw the function of the chord.

Finally, regarding chromatic voice-leading: look, if you are playing atonal music, chromatically melting one cluster of tones into another can mean just about anything, and perhaps said clusters can have multiple interpretations, can be laced w/ ambiguity. Like the the famous "Tristan" chord, for instance. But there is relatively no ambiguity with these diminished chords in a tonal context, which is what we're talking about. And on a pragmatic level, it's clear once you begin transcribing Bird, Bud and other beboppers, that they and legions of others improvised according to the V7/iii conception -- it's as clear, once you start working some of it out, as any other concept in jazz we know of. That you are so outright dismissive of it is your prerogative.

I am not talking about chromatic atonal voice leading. I am talking about tonal simple music. If you play I IV IVm I, it is a description of how the bass moves and this melody G A Ab G (in C....) And the chord symbols are there to describe how the voices move. The voices where there before the chord symbols. Counterpoint and Harmonical analysis was invented to describe melody and harmony, not the other way around.

The way I analyze the chords I don't come up with other scales or have any trouble fitting in Bird, or Coltrane lines on #IVdim sounds, they are in there too. We end up with the same scale. How somebody played on a chord or reharmonized it is not going to be a good description of the function of the chord.

On a side note: a Tristan chord is a Fm7b5 in Am which is resolved first to a F7 and then moves to E7 back to Am it is not much more mysterious than a Hendrix chord or a So What chord, if you know what it is.

With the Bach example: I find it over complicating things to say that V7 IIm7 V7 is making one V7 back relating. It is a temporary suspension of the V7 chord it is just to avoid standing still on a long stretch of V.

This will probably all boil down to whether you only see dim chords as dominants or not. Because that is the reason you need to let them point backwards to make sense of them.

Jens

[Prome]

Did you read this post?

In it, I make it very clear where diminished chords lead our ear in a tonal context. It is not a "reharmonization" to treat B7b9 as B7b9 in the key of C, namely as the V7/iii.

To you, if your fakebook has C Ebo7 Dm7 G7, you think Ebo7 is some sort x/Dm7, but if your fakebook had C B7b9 Dm7 G7, you would recognize instantly what's happening:

C B7b9 -> (Em), deceptive to Dm7 G7

You're relying on fakebook/sheet-music chord symbols instead of the actual pitches and where they lead our ear. You also foolishly disregard the way great musicians have treated the diminished chord in question, but that's your prerogative I suppose.

If you are correct, that Ebo7 leads our ear to Dm7, then surely C Ebo7 -> Em is deceptive.

Of course, what about C Ebo7 -> C/E? You're saying the Ebo7 leads our ear to Dm, but deceptively resolves to C/E? (I realize, correctly, that C/E is an intimately related chord to the iii, but that even then Ebo7 -> C/E is deceptive)

What about Dm7 -> D#o7? You're saying the D#o7, being a "suspension" of Dm7 (lol) is deceptively resolving when it goes to Em?

[Prome]

The point of the Tristan chord is its inherent ambiguity, and the fact that it can be interpreted and analyzed endlessly, from countless angles, and has been squabbled over for well over a century by the greatest theoretical minds Western Music has ever seen. It is either naivete or hubris (both?) that would lead someone to compare it to the Hendrix chord or the "So What" chord, and to presume their shallow interpretation is the last word on the chord that killed tonal harmony.

[Prome]

I am not talking about chromatic atonal voice leading. I am talking about tonal simple music. If you play I IV IVm I, it is a description of how the bass moves and this melody G A Ab G (in C....) And the chord symbols are there to describe how the voices move. The voices where there before the chord symbols. Counterpoint and Harmonical analysis was invented to describe melody and harmony, not the other way around.

This demonstrates the problem in your reasoning. You are looking at a series of chords and retroactively superimposing your idea of function based on what chord came after another, rather than looking at the voices of chords themselves and determining thereby where they are leading our ear within the key. IV IVm I does make sense, in a way iiim7 viio7/iii iim7 does not. viio7/iii wants to go to iii, not ii. Why is this so difficult for you to get?

[brwnhornet59]

Prome while I have enjoyed reading some of your many posts, and have learned a few things along the way, I find the air of the conversation becoming very unpleasant (needlessly so). Great teachers/players do not use the "beat down" methodology, and then delight in their own words and self superiority.

This is a very close knit group and we do not express ourselves like this. You make your points with more vinegar than honey. One does not need to tear down another in order to lift themselves up..There are better ways....Especially if you want people to take you seriously here. Just a thought.

[Prome]

Fair enough, brwn, but I'm responding in kind to Jens' attitude with me.

[JensL]

Did you read this post?

In it, I make it very clear where diminished chords lead our ear in a tonal context. It is not a "reharmonization" to treat B7b9 as B7b9 in the key of C, namely as the V7/iii.

Yes you are describing how the dim chord acts and voice leads IF it is a dominant.

To you, if your fakebook has C Ebo7 Dm7 G7, you think Ebo7 is some sort x/Dm7, but if your fakebook had C B7b9 Dm7 G7, you would recognize instantly what's happening:

C B7b9 -> (Em), deceptive to Dm7 G7

You're relying on fakebook/sheet-music chord symbols instead of the actual pitches and where they lead our ear. You also foolishly disregard the way great musicians have treated the diminished chord in question, but that's your prerogative I suppose.

Funny thing is: From my perspective that is what you are doing, because you can only understand a dim chord as a dominant function and therefore has to start moving harmony backwards to make any sense of it.

If you are correct, that Ebo7 leads our ear to Dm7, then surely C Ebo7 -> Em is deceptive.

Of course, what about C Ebo7 -> C/E? You're saying the Ebo7 leads our ear to Dm, but deceptively resolves to C/E? (I realize, correctly, that C/E is an intimately related chord to the iii, but that even then Ebo7 -> C/E is deceptive)

Well if every chord is only to have one function then that is true, but Bb7 is dominant in one key and minor subdominant in another.

What about Dm7 -> D#o7? You're saying the D#o7, being a "suspension" of Dm7 (lol) is deceptively resolving when it goes to Em?

No then it is functioning as a (auxiliary) dominant.

This will probably all boil down to whether you only see dim chords as dominants or not. Because that is the reason you need to let them point backwards to make sense of them.

Jens

[JensL]

Fair enough, brwn, but I'm responding in kind to Jens' attitude with me.

It's ok I am not getting offended.

The dim discussion thing is always like this....

It has been an issue in music theory for decades

@Brwnhornet59:
But thanks for the support and reminder (for me too, I take it..) to stay civil.

Jens

[JensL]

This demonstrates the problem in your reasoning. You are looking at a series of chords and retroactively superimposing your idea of function based on what chord came after another, rather than looking at the voices of chords themselves and determining thereby where they are leading our ear within the key. IV IVm I does make sense, in a way iiim7 viio7/iii iim7 does not. viio7/iii wants to go to iii, not ii. Why is this so difficult for you to get?

Or is it possible that you just can't hear how the voices actually move because you brain tells you a dim chord is always a dominant?

Jens

[Prome]

Because that is the reason you need to let them point backwards to make sense of them.

You keep stating this, but it simply isn't true. When I say:

C B7b9 -> Em

I'm not referring to the C to make sense of the B7b9.

You're hung up on the back-relating dominant concept, which again, refers to where the V7 wants to go, not where it ended up. In the Bach example, the V7 pushes our ear to I, not to iim7. Only after hearing the iim7 does the effect of a suspension come about. Harmonic analysis sets out to explain where the voices lead, not where they went (which is self-evident). It is redundant to say "V7 went to the iim7" (we can just look at the page to discover that). Saying "V7 wants to go to I but deceptively goes to iim7, which then creates a back-relation," actually tells us something about what the harmony is doing.

If I say, "we're going for ice-cream after this nasty harmony conversation," or "after this nasty harmony conversation, we're going for ice-cream," the meaning is identical, though the style of delivery may be different. The adjective clause "after this nasty conversation" works the same before or after the main clause. The same goes for the V7 in the Bach example -- just because a iim7 came after it does not mean the V7 somehow "modified" or led our ear to the iim7. In fact, the V7 was modifying/prolonging/describing/embellishing the sound of the I, it was relating back to the I, not leading us to iim7!

What I'm talking about is the difference between analysis (my approach) and description (Jens'). I'd rather analyze than describe, I guess.

Following brwn's, advice, I'll respectfully bow out of this thread/forum, as it's clear my own frustration with someone, whom I feel is responding in bad faith (Jens), is leading to unproductive rhetoric on my part (which I have tried to stay away from in this post).

Take care, guys, and best of luck shedding/analyzing.

[JensL]

I am sorry you feel that way. I know I am stubborn but I did not set out to drive you away, even if I did criticize the way you sometimes took part in the discussion.

We have to be accept the fact that we can not convince people via a forum about everything.

On internet forums, as in real life, you encounter people that you don't agree with. That's life.

Jens

[bako]

Observation of similarities and differences between chords.

Transformation of Em7 - Ebdim (no common tones)

1 note

E B D G---Eb B D G
E B D G---E A D G
E B D G---E B C G
E B D G---E B D Gb

2 notes

E B D G---Eb A D G
E B D G---Eb B C G
E B D G---Eb B D Gb
E B D G---E A C G
E B D G---E A D Gb
E B D G---E B C Gb

3 notes

E B D G---Eb A C G
E B D G---Eb A D Gb
E B D G---Eb B C Gb
E B D G---E A C Gb

4 notes

E B D G---Eb A C Gb

Transformation of Ebdim to Dm7 (A and C are already common tones)

1 note

Eb A C Gb---D A C Gb
Eb A C Gb---Eb A C F

2 notes

Eb A C Gb---D A C F

Defining matters of function is trickier business and could even lead to differences of opinion and debates.

[Philco]

You keep stating this, but it simply isn't true. When I say:

C B7b9 -> Em

I'm not referring to the C to make sense of the B7b9.

You're hung up on the back-relating dominant concept, which again, refers to where the V7 wants to go, not where it ended up. In the Bach example, the V7 pushes our ear to I, not to iim7. Only after hearing the iim7 does the effect of a suspension come about. Harmonic analysis sets out to explain where the voices lead, not where they went (which is self-evident). It is redundant to say "V7 went to the iim7" (we can just look at the page to discover that). Saying "V7 wants to go to I but deceptively goes to iim7, which then creates a back-relation," actually tells us something about what the harmony is doing.

If I say, "we're going for ice-cream after this nasty harmony conversation," or "after this nasty harmony conversation, we're going for ice-cream," the meaning is identical, though the style of delivery may be different. The adjective clause "after this nasty conversation" works the same before or after the main clause. The same goes for the V7 in the Bach example -- just because a iim7 came after it does not mean the V7 somehow "modified" or led our ear to the iim7. In fact, the V7 was modifying/prolonging/describing/embellishing the sound of the I, it was relating back to the I, not leading us to iim7!

What I'm talking about is the difference between analysis (my approach) and description (Jens'). I'd rather analyze than describe, I guess.

Following brwn's, advice, I'll respectfully bow out of this thread/forum, as it's clear my own frustration with someone, whom I feel is responding in bad faith (Jens), is leading to unproductive rhetoric on my part (which I have tried to stay away from in this post).

Take care, guys, and best of luck shedding/analyzing.

It would be a shame if you left the forum. I have found this debate very informative.
Conversations on forums can be easily misinterpreted.....especially the tone.
Prome and Jens, I have learned some good things from both you guys.

Let's keep the brain trust well stocked!

[aniss1001]

Hmmm ... I had no idea it could be that dangerous to discuss chords I am sorry if I have been part of the reason that Prome no longer wishes to participate in this forum.

I hope you'll reconsider Prome!