Cm7b5, or C/o7?

[Mick-7]

There’s such a thing as a diminished octave too

Spelling is important in classical theory

Most obvious example is the chord of the augmented six, which jazzers write as “dominant seventh” chord (and lets not get into the confusion about dominant sevenths haha.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, two or three names for the same thing: augmented 6ths, diminished 7ths, etc. Is this pedagogy run amok or what?

[pamosmusic]

So, two or three names for the same thing: augmented 6ths, diminished 7ths, etc. Is this pedagogy run amok or what?

The description should match the role of the note in classical theory. You'd expected an augmented 6th to ascend into the next note in the melody. You'd expect a minor 7th (not diminished, btw --- that's equivalent to a major 6th) to descend to the next note in the melody.

You'd write E# if it's the leading tone of F#.

You'd write Fb if it's a chromatic neighbor of Eb.

[Ukena]

[...] You'd write E# if it's the leading tone of F#.

You'd write Fb if it's a chromatic neighbor of Eb.

No, I wouldn't. And nobody can make me.

[rpjazzguitar]

No, I wouldn't. And nobody can make me.

I might be marked wrong in a classroom for not writing E#. So be it. I'm not writing E#. And, although I imagine I've seen E# in a chart at some point, I can't think of an instance right now. Same for Fb and B#. I can recall seeing Cb.

I'll go for readability over theoretical precision.

[pamosmusic]

I might be marked wrong in a classroom for not writing E#. So be it. I'm not writing E#. And, although I imagine I've seen E# in a chart at some point, I can't think of an instance right now. Same for Fb and B#. I can recall seeing Cb.

I'll go for readability over theoretical precision.

Me too, I think the instance where readability dictates E# would be if you’re playing F# F F# … three pitches on the same line is confusing.

[Bob_Ross]

^^^This.

Often "readability" means overtly displaying the intervallic motion, regardless of what the resultant note names are.

[pauln]

Two

Which two?

[pamosmusic]

Which two?

Fifth and seventh

[rpjazzguitar]

Me too, I think the instance where readability dictates E# would be if you’re playing F# F F# … three pitches on the same line is confusing.

In music notation it's not all that unusual for experts to disagree about the best way to notate something. When two of them argue in my band, each insisting the other modify one of his own charts, well, after a while I feel like there's no right and wrong.

Assuming the key doesn't include an automatic F#, I'd rather see F# Fnat F#. My reasoning is that if I see a natural sign in front of the F, I don't have to think. If I see an E#, I'll think, "What's that? An E#? Really? They could have written F natural, because it's the same thing". That will work fine at 60 bpm and probably not at 200bpm.

[pamosmusic]

In music notation it's not all that unusual for experts to disagree about the best way to notate something. When two of them argue in my band, each insisting the other modify one of his own charts, well, after a while I feel like there's no right and wrong.

Assuming the key doesn't include an automatic F#, I'd rather see F# Fnat F#. My reasoning is that if I see a natural sign in front of the F, I don't have to think. If I see an E#, I'll think, "What's that? An E#? Really? They could have written F natural, because it's the same thing". That will work fine at 60 bpm and probably not at 200bpm.

I think the logic of it is that at those quicker tempos you’re reading shapes and contours as much as you’re reading actual pitches

[pauln]

Fifth and seventh

Thanks,

Does "diminished" act on the 5th, and the third by association because diminished is considered as minor, to result in 1 b3 b5 (where "flat five" acts only on the 5th)?

Does "diminished seventh" include action on the "seventh" which is really a b7 to result in 1 b3 b5 bb7, or is the action on the major 7th (7) where "diminished" results in bb7 (a whole step down vs a half step down from b7)? Is "half-diminished" based on the latter - a half step down from major 7th (7)?

[pamosmusic]

Thanks,

Does "diminished" act on the 5th, and the third by association because diminished is considered as minor, to result in 1 b3 b5 (where "flat five" acts only on the 5th)?

Does "diminished seventh" include action on the "seventh" which is really a b7 to result in 1 b3 b5 bb7, or is the action on the major 7th (7) where "diminished" results in bb7 (a whole step down vs a half step down from b7)? Is "half-diminished" based on the latter - a half step down from major 7th (7)?

Im not honestly sure I understand the question but ….

in their natural form (diatonic from their root) 2nds, 3rds, 6ths, and 7ths are major. If you lower the top note of any of those, the interval becomes minor. Lower them again and they become diminished.

4ths 5ths and 8ths are perfect. If you lower the top note of any, they become diminished.

So a flat 5 is diminished. A flat 7 is minor. A double flat 7 is diminished.

Terminology like “b5” or “b7” or “bb7” is just colloquial. It’s not the technical musical name of the interval, but if you use it (and I do 99% of the time, unless I’m talking to a classical musician) then people will understand you.

EDIT: On a second or third or fourth reading, I think I understand you. The terminology all relates back to a the diatonic intervals off the root of the interval.

So if the low note is D, then the major and perfect (or natural intervals) are all notes of the D major scale … a major third, for example would be D to F#. The minor, diminished, and augmented intervals (or flat or sharp) are alterations made to those. So a minor third would be up to F … diminished third to Fb … augmented third to F*

(and “half diminished” is unrelated. It’s just the name of a chord. In a fully diminished seventh you have two diminished intervals — 5th and 7th. In a half diminished chord you just have one — the 5th. This it is only half diminished.)

[MinToyTot]

Stream of consciousness ahead:

It occurred to me reading these last few posts that I have never formally learned/interrogated the logic behind how I/we "know" which kind of 7 to put on our various chords of the 7th. Thinking about this, I immediately saw that ^7, –7, and °7 use the kind of seventh they have as their name, but (dom)7 is named after either/both its function or its root (in diatonic major harmony).

I have heretofore assumed dom7 to be in the same category as these other chord qualities (whatever category that is - primordial? basic?), but this discrepancy in naming conventions seems to indicate otherwise. Why don't we call dominants "^–7"? Two interesting points:

1. In J.G. Albrechtsberger's primer on figured bass from like 1800, when introducing 7th chords he says this: "The chord of the seventh may be major, minor, or diminished." That's it! Apparently specific terminology for dominant sevenths is more recent than I thought (that or Al was just a bad teacher)! It may also be worth noting that in a later example in C major meant to demonstrate minor sevenths, an A-7 is preceded by a G which is left as a triad. Did tritone avoidance mean that people just didn't usually put diatonic (or any) 7ths on dominant roots? I'm ignorant about the whole scene, as well as the path to tritone acceptance which must have taken place over the last 200 years.

2. We take the triads underneath sevenths for granted with jazz/pop harmonic notation: C^7 = C(^7), C–7 = C–(–7), C°7 = C°(°7), and C7 is really C(–7)... I might start writing doms like this for no reason other than my own sick pleasure. C(b7) when I'm feeling merciful towards potential future readers.

[pamosmusic]

Why don't we call dominants "^–7"?

Classical theorists do.

C7 being referred to as “C major minor”

[Mick-7]

Is there such a thing as an augmented 7th?

P.S. - Web search answer was (below), don't know why you wouldn't call it an octave.


"In classical music from Western culture, an augmented seventh is an interval produced by widening a major seventh by a chromatic semitone."

I suspect the above is false information, I did not see a reference to its source. I cannot think of a instance where it would make sense to write it that way, or to write a diminished second as a double flat, e.g., C & Dbb. Can you?

[pamosmusic]

I suspect the above is false information, I did not see a reference to its source. I cannot think of a instance where it would make sense to write it that way, or to write a diminished second as a double flat, e.g., C & Dbb. Can you?

It is not false information. But also it is not terribly practical information.

There are probably some very narrow circumstances, given a certain key and a certain sort of voice-leading where it might make sense to write an augmented 7th.

Say .... Dbo7 resolving to D7 ... maybe Db goes down to C but C# goes up to D, in which case the notes might be written that way to facilitate reading the individual melody lines. I don't know.

But it's not false information. It's accurate, per Christian and my explanations up-thread.

[Mick-7]

It is not false information. But also it is not terribly practical information.

o.k., thought it might be an AI hallucination, having a hard time thinking of an application for it, maybe when a modulation occurs.

[James W]

o.k., thought it might be an AI hallucination, having a hard time thinking of an application for it, maybe when a modulation occurs.

Even if there were no application for it, it would still exist as a theoretical construct.

[Christian Miller]

So, two or three names for the same thing: augmented 6ths, diminished 7ths, etc. Is this pedagogy run amok or what?

Not really. Classical theory is quite consistent and clear. It makes sense in that world to define the aug 6th differently from the minor 7th because it resolves differently - outwards as opposed to inwards. There’s similar reason for the other enharmonic intervals

It’s all derived from counterpoint and figured bass where it makes perfect sense - which is because that’s all based on diatonic intervals unlike chord symbols which are chromatically transposed intervallic objects.

OTOH jazzers don’t really have the same type of theory. We are dealing more with layering stuff on prexistent chord progressions rather than understanding the specifics of counterpoint and the way chord progressions work the way they do in 18th century music and so on. Not that it’s totally irrelevant but it’s not really where we live.

And of course jazz isn’t a notational music primarily.

Plus, even in 19th century European music things move on. Things became less strict and of course then you have post tonal music and so on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

In music notation it's not all that unusual for experts to disagree about the best way to notate something. When two of them argue in my band, each insisting the other modify one of his own charts, well, after a while I feel like there's no right and wrong.

Assuming the key doesn't include an automatic F#, I'd rather see F# Fnat F#. My reasoning is that if I see a natural sign in front of the F, I don't have to think. If I see an E#, I'll think, "What's that? An E#? Really? They could have written F natural, because it's the same thing". That will work fine at 60 bpm and probably not at 200bpm.

Depending obviously on the context I’d think I’d rather see E# because then I see ‘lower neighbour tone’. If you are reading at the phrase/contour level and not just note by note. But some music is less object based.

But in practice people write all sorts of ways. Many jazz musicians don’t really think in these terms and their spelling is pretty random even in commercially available music. Plus there’s the whole ‘no key signatures’ movement which also changes things.

I’m not saying any of this is good or or bad exactly, for a super classical approach I’ve got an old Mehegan transcriptions book I picked up at a thrift store and he has key signature changes for modulating bridges and things. It’s pretty pedantic and I wouldn’t do things that way- but it’s good practice and I can see pedantically why he thought that might be helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Classical theorists do.

C7 being referred to as “C major minor”

I wish jazzers would do that tbh. Although it would be a pig to say and I’d bet I’d spoonerise it haha, and then everyone would be confused.

I do things like say ‘seventh’ when I mean ‘dominant seventh’ so there’s no hope for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ukena]

"Dominant seventh" bugs me when it's not the seventh of the dominant chord.

For example, in "Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue" in the key of C, there are those who would call the chords C – E dom7 – A dom7 – D dom7 – G dom7 – C.

Sevenths in a circle of fourths (or circle of fifths, as I learned it) behave as dominant 7ths in the way they lead to the next chord, but that designation means the key center only exists for one measure, and instantly changes in the next.

I guess they're called dominant sevenths because of their behavior. But we don't call major sevenths sub-dominant sevenths (unless it's on the sub-dominant); perhaps because a major seventh chord doesn't lead us to expect any particular following chord.

[Christian Miller]

"Dominant seventh" bugs me when it's not the seventh of the dominant chord.

For example, in "Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue" in the key of C, there are those who would call the chords C – E dom7 – A dom7 – D dom7 – G dom7 – C.

Sevenths in a circle of fourths (or circle of fifths, as I learned it) behave as dominant 7ths in the way they lead to the next chord, but that designation means the key center only exists for one measure, and instantly changes in the next.

I guess they're called dominant sevenths because of their behavior. But we don't call major sevenths sub-dominant sevenths (unless it's on the sub-dominant); perhaps because a major seventh chord doesn't lead us to expect any particular following chord.

V/V/V/V haha

Depends what you think is a modulation and what’s a chromatic alteration

Tbh as all of those chords are functioning as secondary or applied dominants I don’t mind people calling them dom7s.

OTOH Ab7#11 G7 - that’s a French Sixth! ;-)

What do you mean tritone sub? Are you a witch from the future??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonah]

I write Dm7b5 (because it is more representative) but I say half-diminished (because of classical background where it is more common name I think).

By the way I think in jazz/pop music English nomenclature is used in the other languages... I know German, Russian, Dutch jazz players who say 'play Dm7b5' just as it is written only pronouncing letters and figures as they are named in their language which sound quite strange often..

but when they speak about classical harmony they use conventional term used in their language for the same chord.

On the other hand 'six-five chord' (or 7th with 3rd in the bass) in German or Russian will be 'quintsextakkord'

I can't imagine jazz player saying:

Play 'sol majeur quintsextakkord' please and then 'la minor septakkrod' and then 'great fa majeur quintsextakkord' and after 'si half-diminished sekundakkord' maybe... 'mi majeur terzquart'?

[Christian Miller]

I do hear people saying figured bass nomenclature in the jazz community. Usually keyboardists. Adam Manness says 6 4. Jeff Schneider had 4 2 recently too.

I wonder if it’s more common in Gospel circles or if figured bass is getting more popular with jazzers? Or maybe they just had a classical harmony teacher.

Haven’t heard anyone say 6 5 yet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk