-
Hey hey,
I think I know the answer to this already but I'd like more light on the subject.
For example, the drop 2 voicing for Fmaj9 with C in the bass would also be C6, so would this chord be sub-dominant or tonic in the key of C major? I also realize the root of the chord (F) is omitted in this voicing but the 5th is present in the bass however, it's 5th (C) is tonic in C major.
Likewise Dm6/9 is also G13 with the root omitted. Dm is sub-dominant and G7 is dominant in C major, so which would it be?
Does the inversion of a chord and/or omitting the root (even if the 5th is present) alter it's function?
I assume Cm11 would still be tonic if C is in the bass but what happens to the harmonic function when you play it above F in the voicing? Furthermore, what happens when F is highest and C is the second highest note in the voicing?
Cheers
-
03-23-2017 11:34 PM
-
Harmony isn't usually just static. You're using the word "function" a lot in the above. Think about it . C6 is tonic in C when it "functions" that way.
What comes before a given chord in a progression? What comes after? Those mostly answer the question about what its "function" would be.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 03-24-2017 at 12:09 AM.
-
A lot of this boils down to what's going on with the bass. In general, if you're just playing solo or in a group with no bass - or if you're comping for the bass player to take a solo - and you play any number of these voicings there is a good chance it's going to cause some harmonic confusion. It's definitely all correct and possible, but yeah if you play that "C6" shape in the key of C and try and make it sound like the IV chord instead of the tonic, you might run into some issues. I could see it working if you were pedaling the root note and moving through a chord progression to build tension... or if you were just trying to be really post-modern... but depending on the style you're into, I personally think it's a good idea to really be cognizant of the bass motion through a form. Doesn't mean it has to be straight out of the real book or the same route through ever chorus... but the bass really helps pull the harmony through the form and can create alternate paths pretty easily, and if we lose sight of the bass motion and try and spice up our comping only with inversion without thinking about what the implied bass movement is, things can lose clarity. The C root note is a powerful place when playing in the key of C. Imagine playing in a tune in the key of C where the bass player just decides to stay put and pedal the C note throughout the entire form. It's not fun to me, I've been there. I'm not sure if they did it because they were lost in the form, or they thought it was hip, or whatever other reason... that note is like being home... and who wants to stay home all the time. Where's the harmonic journey? I'd rather them pedal on the 5th and at least give some sense of tension and build up, letting the chords move all sitting on top of that dominant thing bubbling under the surface and then eventually resolve us back home. Maybe that's just me though.
This is one of the reasons I really enjoy thinking in terms of upper structure vs lower structure and not inverting all the notes equally. That system is great and yields some fantastic sounds! But if we're talking about a Maj9 chord, that could be achieved by putting a triad built on the 5th of the maj7 chord above the basic maj7 chord. I always like to practice this stuff in E so I get the drone of that low 6E string to mimic what it would be like to play this along with a bass player. So an Emaj9 I would think of as an Emaj7 in the lower structure (the piano player's left hand) and a B major triad in the upper structure (the piano player's right hand). I'll still go through all the inversions of the triad... but only inverting the triad and keeping the other notes beneath it. This helps avoid the issues you're asking about while still yielding the ability to put any chord tone in the top voice.
0x6(442)
0x6(877)
0.11x(11.12.11)
Notice in the parenthesis that you have the 3 inversions of the B major triad on the top 3 strings. And then below that we have the G# added (the 3rd). And then the open 6th string or the bass player to cover the root. If I were trying to play any of these shapes or inversion in the key of B, I don't think anyone would get confused and think I was playing the I chord when I meant to convey the IV chord.
It's a nonstandard way of thinking and constructing this stuff... but it can yield some beautiful sounds and does help circumnavigate some of the problems that happen when we invert chords democratically (all notes treated equally) vs in a more rigid way (some notes are more important than others).
I will still do traditional inversions and slash chords as well... but to me they're generally going to get used based on the bass motion that I want leading me through the form.
Again... a lot of this depends on, and changes, with the instrumentation. If there's a bass player, this stuff becomes a little less important. But it's still really helpful to be able to understand it. If you play that C6 shape you were asking about and the bass player is playing the F root note underneath you, chances are good it will sound like a legit FMaj9. For the same reason that the process I'm talking about above works, and for the same reason that if a piano player played an F in the left hand and a C6 in their right, it would come together to sound like an F chord. But again, it's important to understand how and why all these things happen so we can see the pitfalls and the benefits of any of them. Especially when playing in different situations (guitar duo, trio, solo, with horns, etc) That's my personal feeling on it anyway.
-
as matt pointed out..function depends on context..something like your question on the Dmi6/9..its pentatonic scale does contain a G13-no root..but if the Dmi chord is the One (i 6/9) chord..then where do you go..see "Blue in Green" by Miles/Evans..its all D mi and related chords in an unusual 10 bar tune ...even though there is a Cmi7 chord there is a Db7 used in place of G7(13) perhaps to give the Dmin feel a slight rest ..and while some say the tune is modal..to me its very tonal by the use of several 2-5-1 changes. This is Evans influence Im sure..
Last edited by wolflen; 03-24-2017 at 12:57 AM.
-
I hear ya man but like Jordan said, no matter where in any chord progression in C major you play that rootless Fmaj9 chord without accompaniment, you're not going to get much of a IV chord sound, you're going to get the Tonic sound. Add a bassline and things change.
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, you're right of course. That's why I'm moving away from playing solo with the chord shapes approach. I just find that the functional side of the harmony isn't clear enough on guitar unless you stick with voicings that are not too ambiguous. Instead I'm adopting the bassline and melody approach with some notes in the middle where I can. I don't enjoy playing this way (physically) but it makes for more interesting solo arrangements and clearer harmony. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
-
Okay. That's a lot of pretty specific qualifiers. I think my example was C6. Rootless F maj9 and Dm7 have the same function anyway. Originally Posted by DaveF
I still say it's about context. Most things can be more than what they are statically, on the surface. Take the following:
XXX433
XXX433
XXX12.12.10
XXX12.12.10
XXX12.13.12
XXX12.13.12
XXX12.12.10
XXX988
XXX988
XXX787
XXX787
XXX535
XXX535
XXX433
I'm away from any instruments, but I think that it's mostly right. Anyway what chord is the XXX535? What is its function? What does it sound the most like?It's missing a crucial tone in the technical sense, but it voice leads better thanit's tritone-present counterpart: XXX575. Uncanny to me how my ear basically fills in the third on the first one, simply based on traditio , context and what I'm used to hearing in terms of voice leading. It's not all black and white in my opinion, and it's not solely about roots.
I didn't read all of Jordan's post before posting this btw. Not saying he said anything like that. Just responding to general ideas and this other post specifically. Thanks for the discussion.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 03-26-2017 at 06:51 PM.
-
Without having a guitar with me right now to hear what you're saying, do I understand correctly by summarizing what you're saying is that sometimes by observing the strongest voice leading possibility creates a good sense of movement to the ear irrespective of the presence/position of the root? Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
Yeah, but it's just an ear thing really. If it works with the ears it works. Some things work better with the ears than they do on paper. Even if something is missing, sometimes your "mind's ear " fills in, but in those cases, it's mostly about context, relationships between before and after. Originally Posted by DaveF
-
That is some food for thought, thanks. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
3X3333
3X4333
3X3333
3X2333
This one's weird to me. On paper, it's a leadline which goes up and then down, down, but for me, when I play this, it's mostly perceived as an all downward line. My ear basically wants to "remember" having heard the root which wasn't played in the middle octave. I wonder if my ears would perceive it the same way if I hadn't grown up with Western harmony and four-part voice leading etc.? Interesting thoughts....
-
This is great Matt. I "remember" that root note as well. Never really talked about this with anyone else. It wasn't that uncommon for me to play tunes like Funny Valentine and My Romance and anything with that descending chromatic line against a minor chord to play this... which is effective -7, -Maj7, -7, etc... which actually removes the chromatic line itself... though it's such a powerful sound that our minds seem to create it anyways. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
This was actually one of the things that REALLY convinced me to get more specific about harmony and to let go of the notion that the 7 chord is everything. While my mind does recreate the sound of the chromatic line... sitting with my guitar or a piano and comparing and contrasting the recreation of the mind versus the reality of the actual experience of hearing it I realized just how much clarity gets thrown out the window. I realized that it really is just a basic minor chord, moving down to something (arguments could be for multiple names/functions... I tend to think of it as an inversion of the V7 chord), moving down to the minor 7 chord. They really function and work better for me when I'm playing when I really draw that line in the sand and treat each one as it "should be". As silly and dumb as I used to think it was to get that specific and to skip the 7th of the first chord, it's turned out to do a world of good for me.
Love that you noticed the mind's ability to fill in too though. For me it doesn't feel right anymore to ask that the mind of the listener (including my own mind) create the music though. As a professional musician I feel like it's my job to perform what needs to be there. And it really does make it sound much better and more defined and musical when it's done so.
-
Since the chords include notes an octave below and above the imagined note, it's not a great leap for the ear fill it in. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
There's an element of illusion in music, or at least my favorite music, causing the listener to "hear" notes that aren't actually played, feel rhythms that are only hinted at, or to anticipate what is to come next (often satisfying that anticipation, but sometimes not). Those kinds of illusion are keys to engage me as a listener.
-
In regards to the function of a chord ( as in tonal function). It can only have one if it is in an established key. The cue for a key is the dominant chord. The tonic chord is not even necessary. So look at the latest Dom chord and there you know the function of wathever chord following.
-
Could you clarify what you mean by illustrating where a chord functions as a Tonic chord after a Dominant (V-I) and where a chord functions as a Sub-Dominant after a Dominant (V-IV )? Originally Posted by Takemitsu
-
As soon as a Dom 7 chord is played it becomes your V . So any chord that is not a dominant after that is Related to it. It is particularly evident when the b7 is played. So if for example you hear a G7 chord you are automatically in C . you tonic chord will be c chord. Subdominant will be an f chord. Now if you have a Ebmin 7 chord following it's gonna be a iii in c minor. It is not a I chord. For the sake of improvisation, to simplify in your mind you can tell yourself it is a I chord without the root (9) since it is a basic substitution. But it is not.
Also you may argue that there is another dom7 chord built on the VII degree in minor. If you hear a four note dominant chord it will transform functionally in a V.
Very simple. As soon as you have a dominant 7 chord. It's your V, you modulated.
This apply to tonal music. Hope this help
-
Yes, once you play G7 you're in the key of C major. If you play Em7 after the G7 it will have a stable, restful, sound as both C and E are Tonic in C major. However, should you play Fmaj9 without the root with it's 5th (C) in the bass after G7 you're not going to get a very sub-dominant (IV chord F) sound, instead you're going to get a very stable, restful C6 sound. So if you want there to be some instability/movement after the G7 you need to play another Fmaj chord (other than the aforementioned one). Originally Posted by Takemitsu
-
you ear is the judge then! For me it is an a minor chord. I understand the "without the root" (such appears especially on dominants and augmented sixth in common practice theory) thing and the "tonic chord with extensions" thing. It makes a lot of sense if you want to simplify your thinking which is necessary in the actual playing. There is two problems here. The first is to mix improvisational theory with book theory. It always create confusion because they overlap but One makes shortcuts and the other one dont. As an exemple you mention e minor 7 being a tonic in C major . It help you to play fast but it's a shortcut.
The second is thAt in the jazz tradition, especially since Bill Evans (who took it from Debussy) there is a lot of thirds stacked. To the point where almost all the notes of the key are heard simultaneously. This weakens the "functional" side of tonal music. ( this is also why Germans were very unsure about Debussy ). This gives more importance to the "bass" and less on inversions.
But for what I understand a c6 chord in jazz is pretty much synonymous with c major. am7 is a primary sub for C.
If you have time I would be curious to know what you mean by "function
-
Literally none of this matters if you are playing with a bass player, and some of them will tell you off for playing an inversion which clashes with theirs.
Guitarists should realise that we are responsible for middle voices, and as any Violist will tell you, that's usually the boring stuff that crawls around by steps. Unless you are playing Brahms (who did the counterpoint thing.)
An important conceptual leap for any jazz guitar player is to realise that many chords have the same note but a different function. If you play gypsy jazz even, one thing to get your head around the fact that minor and dom chords have an overlap in shapes (i.e. have at least some of the same notes). Also minor 7th and major 6th. And that's pretty simple stuff for jazz harmony.
It's one of these cases where I think the jazz theory practice of naming intervals from the root of the chord actually makes it harder to see how chords function.
--- ALTERNATIVE KEY CENTRIC ANALYSIS -----
This is my own theory of how it works which I have been using for around 15 years. I don't know if anyone else has seen a similar approach, but it came to very much as an 'oh yeah' moment, and it works (I think) relating to things like the T/D approach to soloing.
The basic idea is just this: in the key of C, diatonic chords can be divided into 2 basic categories - things with an F (4) in, and things without an F in.
Dm7 G7 Cmaj7 - Dm7 G7 have F in, and Cmaj7 doesn't.
Why choose F? Well, the F has no harmonic relationship to the harmonic spectrum of the major third C E - the defining sound of the major key. It doesn't fit anywhere up the ladder, while D A and B all have their place. There are even chromatic notes - F# for instance, even C# in the right context - that fit better than F to that basic sound.
That's why it's a so called 'avoid note.' But in harmony it becomes a very important note for driving things forward.
Chords with an F in can't be 'home' sounding or tonic function chords in C.
-- MINORS AND CHROMATICS ----
In a C minor key the important note becomes Ab - but in A minor (relative minor of C) it's still F. Also we alter the G to be a G#. With chromatic notes, depending on context you can add in more of these funny notes.
And so on.
--- SOME RAMIFICATIONS ----
Functional harmony to me is managing the movement of more and less harmonically stable notes. In jazz we like a bit of instability built into the basic chords (usually a 7th, 9th or 6th or something) compared to say 18th century music, but the F is always going to stand apart. Add in chromatics and dissonant intervals to intensify the resolution:
Dm7 D F A C - A fairly consonant chord - but as it has an F in, it stands apart from the tonic chord.
G7b9 G B D F Ab - Ab adds an extra 'avoid note' - note also the dissonant intervals created - G Ab, F B and Ab D that add spice
Cmaj7 C E G B - A fairly consonant chord - the B is contextualised in this case by its relationship with the note E. The F is absent.
Pretty much all functional jazz progressions that involve chromatics and return to chord I, iii or VI can be analysed this way.
If we take the major pentatonic scale on C as a stable collection of notes (you can voice them as a C6/9) I find it interesting that the other notes form a Db dominant scale (1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 on Db)
C D E G A
Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb B
So the tritone sub is a chromatically efficient cadence on many levels. Obviously this is similar to the altered scale except for Gb. This note is usually raised to G because it hurts the fragile shell like ears of modern jazz musicians to hear Gb over G7 :-)Last edited by christianm77; 03-28-2017 at 05:56 AM.
-
If we take the major pentatonic scale on C as a stable collection of notes (you can voice them as a C6/9) I find it interesting that the other notes form a Db dominant scale (1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 on Db)
C D E G A
Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb B
That's interesting. I always visualized that as C pentatonic and Gb/F# major.
Your viewpoint puts the cadential aspect front and center.
So the tritone sub is a chromatically efficient cadence on many levels. Obviously this is similar to the altered scale except for Gb. This note is usually raised to G because it hurts the fragile shell like ears of modern jazz musicians to hear Gb over G7 :-)
The enharmonazi in me hears F# resolving to G and Gb resolving to F usually contextualized via a secondary dominant
perspective, D7 (F#) or the tritone companion, Ab7 (Gb).
-
Quite right. :-) Originally Posted by bako
But that F# can obviously resolve to the 5th of the C chord just as much as the root of a G7. You will probably be able to think of a number of examples.
My theory doesn't really go into chains of dominants so much, although secondary dominants are in general handled as modulations within the key when convenient.
-
Speaking generically, half steps resolve strongly up or down. In a key centric environment,
it more often will move towards the diatonic note. Whole steps do the same with a bit less pull.
Descending 5ths and ascending 4ths have a strong pull. The inversion, ascending 5ths and descending 4ths
feel centric around the the 1st note, rather the the arrival note.
It's cool to listen for where notes seem to go on their own and then see what happens as they contextualize into intervals and larger harmonic structures. Those M-base conference calls have me revisiting this approach in greater detail these days.
-
One of the earliest and brightest Musical Theorists.. Originally Posted by DaveF
Rameau - stated that Inverting a chord does not change it's Harmonic Function or Identity.
IMO :Although it can change the 'Color ' and make or enable smoother resolution to other Chords etc .
-
I fucking hate Rameau
-
yeah always taking those marathon harpsichord solos, when he said he didn't know how to stop, Rousseau said 'try taking your hands off the keyboard, m*f*er!' Originally Posted by christianm77
Reply With Quote
mid-ranginess?
Today, 05:42 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos