What does Mark Levine mean by a triangle with a line under it?

[Aristotle]

Any attempt for a uniform system is hampered by non uniform language
C major seventh
C minor seventh
in one, the adjective refers to the 7th, in the other it refers to the 3rd.

and conflicting use of convenient symbols is already enshrined
C-7
C+7
In one, the math sign refers to the 3rd, in the other it refers to the 5th.

It's to broke to fix, but it can get worse.

[ksjazzguitar]

No, in both "C major 7th" and "minor 7th", the "major" and "minor" refer to the triad. An "Augmented 7th" chord doesn't have an "augmented 7th" interval in it. I'm not saying the system isn't effed up, but you assumptions seem once again to be based on intuition rather than history. Perhaps some teacher teaches it that way, but that doesn't make it true.

I could go into a long explanation, but I'll spare y'all.

Peace,
Kevin

[matt.guitarteacher]

No, in both "C major 7th" and "minor 7th", the "major" and "minor" refer to the triad.

Please do explain. I think he's talking about "C major 7th" as opposed to "C 7th". The "major" in this chord name does describe the 7th as not being dominant but being a major 7th. In C minor 7th it's clearly different. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Reg]

I think were talking about jazz usage... it's not just the triad anymore... major and minor with inflections... Kevin... that's a joke... really I've been diggin your post lately. You seem like your helping people...Reg

[Ron Stern]

Personally, I prefer it that way. I think that writers assume that if they give you the basic chord, that you can figure out what all the chord tones are.

Yes but this isn't a song, it's an exposition of a system of principles of harmony -- in theory.

[max_power]

Any attempt for a uniform system is hampered by non uniform language
C major seventh
C minor seventh
in one, the adjective refers to the 7th, in the other it refers to the 3rd.

What are you talking about? Both the terms "major" and "minor" refer to the third and the seventh. "C major seventh" means that the chord has a major 3 and a major 7, and "C minor seventh" means that the chord has a minor 3 and a minor 7. Seems pretty clear to me.

and conflicting use of convenient symbols is already enshrined
C-7
C+7
In one, the math sign refers to the 3rd, in the other it refers to the 5th.

Again, the minus sign refers to both the 3 and the 7. And this notation using plus and minus signs makes sense: for a minor chord you're lowering two chord tones (subtraction), and for an augmented chord you're raising a chord tone (addition). I don't see this as being confusing. There are some very fucked up ways in which people write chords, but this isn't one of them.

[matt.guitarteacher]

C7 and C major 7.

That the "major" in Cmaj7 may have originally described the triad doesn’t really change the fact that adding the word “major” between “C” and “7” only tells the player the differences in the 7ths of those two chords (both of which have major triads). What the word “major” implies for playing the chord is more important for the player than what the word may have originally referenced. The history of the naming conventions for these chord types may be interesting, but the language still isn’t uniform as was pointed out earlier.

I’m with you guys on the need to just understand what all the different symbols mean and definitely wouldn’t argue for a completely new system, but it does seem to be reasonable to argue that this is a confusing carry-over from an earlier tradition for describing harmony.

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah, we've inherited a lot of terminology that holds over from other conceptions of music and harmony that has been adapted as the conception change, but in the process we get some confusing things that are less than ideal. I often say that if we could start from scratch, we'd build an entirely new system of writing music - what we have now is adapted from how they thought of music over 1000 years ago. The way we write chords has been a gradual adaption over the last 500 years. Both are less than ideal for how we think of them now. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and accept it. But arguing that it isn't ideal isn't going to get you anywhere - we all already know that.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

"Flamable, inflamabe, and non-inflamable: why are there three?"
--George Carlin
Where is George when we need him?

What are you talking about? "C major seventh" means that the chord has a major 3 and a major 7, and "C minor seventh" means that the chord has a minor 3 and a minor 7. Seems pretty clear to me.

This is what I am talking about. Comparing/contrasting
C7 and Cmin7 (the adjective "minor" changes one note, the 3rd), and
C7 and Cmaj7 (the adjective "major" changes one note, the 7th.

In my experience, that's how comparative and system analysis is done. Before vs After.

Also: you can't apply the same - obviously the adjective refers to both - logic to C7 and Cmin maj7. (Because with no adjective, C7 would have no third or fifth?). (And because two adjectives in Cmaj min7 would be the same as no adjectives in C7?).
-And you can't apply that - obviously the adjective refers to both - logic to Cmin 6. (And that opens the door whether a 6 is really a 13).

The point is, these adjectives don't "mean" the same thing every time in the system. Even though we know what they mean in terms of what notes should be sounded...almost all the time.

Again, the minus sign refers to both the 3 and the 7. And this notation using plus and minus signs makes sense: for a minor chord you're lowering two chord tones (subtraction), and for an augmented chord you're raising a chord tone (addition). I don't see this as being confusing.

I am not confused, because I know the convention, but that is not the same as saying it isn't a confused convention.

I agree that plus and minus seem like good candidates for symbology. However, one sign refers to 5ths and the other to 7ths and 3ths. In order to have un-confused conventions, pairs like plus and minus should cancel each other out.

[Aristotle]

C7 and C major 7.

That the "major" in Cmaj7 may have originally described the triad doesn’t really change the fact that adding the word “major” between “C” and “7” only tells the player the differences in the 7ths of those two chords

Exactly. And the same is true between C7 and Cmin7. The adjective only changes one note. So, someone looking at the chord symbols has sound reasons not to infer that the adjective refers to two notes and not one.

[Ron Stern]

The way I understood it - -

The letter name of the chord, by itself, means major triad.
Adding 7 makes major triad, minor 7th.
Adding maj7 makes major triad, major seventh chord.
Adding m makes minor triad.
Adding m7 makes minor triad, minor seventh.
m/maj7 means minor triad, major seventh.

IOW it's a system of additions to the basic model, not pairs of opposites.

This one has given me trouble, because I always have to guess which position the writer is taking:

1. Xsus means Xsus4. The "4" is always implied, only "sus2" is stated.
2. Not

Then there's extensions. According to Mr. Levine the ninth and the second are the same note, which is one of those partial truths that have huge costs and no benefits.

X9 means you got the ninth in there within an octave of the root. If it's in the next octave, it's Xadd9.

People object to writing all the letters so they invent their own hieroglyphics. That's fine for you and your pals but in my view does not show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. It's not that I object to innovation, on the contrary.

But as I said before, neologisms without prior explanation wastes my time and forces you to disprove the presumption that you are incompetent if not a fraud. I don't care how long you've been using your invention or how good it is. If you just whip it out and expect me to deduce its meaning, **** you. I gave you my time and attention in good faith. Not to mention money.

[ksjazzguitar]

C7 and C major 7.

That the "major" in Cmaj7 may have originally described the triad doesn’t really change the fact that adding the word “major” between “C” and “7” only tells the player the differences in the 7ths of those two chords (both of which have major triads)....

Yeah, but this is just part of Aristotle's anti-theory campaign. He finds some little idiosyncrasy of theory, and complains about it in an attempt to make it all look stupid. It is usually, as in this case, based on a misunderstanding of the basic premise that gets extrapolated out to ridiculous proportions. But you can't convince him of anything because his "because I say so" is the only authority he accepts. He's just a troll that likes poking fun at theory. It wouldn't be a problem except that his misinformation campaign will cause a lot of confusion with people who don't know enough to see him for what he is. (He has me on ignore, so I don't have to worry about him being insulted.)
.

..

X9 means you got the ninth in there within an octave of the root. If it's in the next octave, it's Xadd9.

I have to disagree with that. "X9" just mean that there is a 9th and a b7. It doesn't matter what octave the 9 is in, it can even be in the bass (although some might prefer a slash chord for that, but it is not required.) An "Xadd9" is a major triad with a 9 added to it, regardless of octave. Levine's statement that the 9 and the 2 are the same, is true in this case. True, the 9 will often be in the top voice or voices, but that is a stylistic choice, not something mandated by the chord name.

We sometimes like to make assumptions that the chord name is telling us the voicing, but (with the exception of inversion) our chord names typically tell us nothing about voicing.

Peace,
Kevin

Peace,
Kevin

[Ron Stern]

We sometimes like to make assumptions that the chord name is telling us the voicing, but (with the exception of inversion) our chord names typically tell us nothing about voicing.

Well, yes, I thought that was the deal with "X9" vs "Xadd9". I assumed, without knowing, that there were times where the writer wanted to specify the voicing of the chord i.e. with the ninth within the same octave as the triad. IOW this was the one and to my knowledge only time that the name specifies the voicing (along with X11 and 13).

Then it would actually be the 2d so why call it the 9th? Beats me.

Meanwhile add9 means you can put it above or below the octave that the root is in, just not in it.

[Aristotle]

The letter name of the chord, by itself, means major triad.
Adding 7 makes major triad, minor 7th.
Adding maj7 makes major triad, major seventh chord.
Adding m makes minor triad.
Adding m7 makes minor triad, minor seventh.
m/maj7 means minor triad, major seventh.

Me too. It is also my understanding that deer is the plural of deer; and offspring is also both singular and plural. In some cases, it is better to memorize than impose common sense, because as you say...

IOW it's a system of additions to the basic model, not pairs of opposites.

Exactly. It reminds me of an old house, where things got added on for decades. Now, you got rococo meets colonial meets modern. Then, if you are looking for a bathroom...oh well, let's not go there.

Xsus means Xsus4. The "4" is always implied, only "sus2" is stated.

And sometimes sus means a non-chord tone held over from a previous chord, imminently awaiting resolution. Can it get an Amen (cadence) on that?

Above the root, there are six notes left in the scale, which all can be altered in at least one direction (if you flat the 11th, you have another note, but the 5th can go either way, etc.). So, you would need
1. a method of establishing the controlling key or scale (which we have, osrt of)
2. six icons, one for each note above the root, and
3. another pair of directional icons (like + or -) to indicate when the note is raised or lowered from what it would be in the controlling key.

Problem is, you'd never fit all that on the page. Radical suggestion: A fake book with a grand staff, and the notes of the harmony on the lower staff. Oh, that's right, it already exists. They call that piano music.

But as I said before, neologisms without prior explanation wastes my time

Infidel! The orthodoxy nazi's will be along presently to purify you with tortrue.

[ksjazzguitar]

Well, yes, I thought that was the deal with "X9" vs "Xadd9". I assumed, without knowing, that there were times where the writer wanted to specify the voicing of the chord i.e. with the ninth within the same octave as the triad.

That has nothing to do with the definition of these terms. There may be some people who use terms like "add9" or "add2" to differentiate between the two, but there is no rule about this. You assume this at your own risk. Again, with very few exceptions, chord symbols are not meant to tell us about voicing. People may have their own little systems, but there is no kind of a standard.

The choice of "9" over "2" is just because in teritian harmony we tend to think in terms of the odd numbers. True, pop chord symbols have added in other numbers to the mix, but don't let them confuse you into thinking that it is referencing the octave. For example, the "sus2" does not refer to the octave, but merely the fact that the "2" is a suspension (or technically a "retardation") of the "3" - but it can be in any octave you want.

Again, people need to disabuse themselves of this notion that the chord symbol is telling them something about the voicing - it doesn't. You could argue that things like quartal notation tells us something about the voicing, but that is the exception. With the exception of the bass note, the chord symbol doesn't really tell us anything about where the notes are, just what notes are available. Again, there may be a few people here and there who try and imply voicing by how they put the symbol together, but when you look at a chart you can't know if they are trying to tell you or what they are trying to tell you, unless you know the arranger personally and he's explained his code to you. We don't have any standard way to encode voicings into our chord symbols, and frankly, with hundreds of possible voicings for a 13th chord, how could we?

And sometimes sus means a non-chord tone held over from a previous chord, imminently awaiting resolution. ...

Not in this context. It tells us the ultimate origins of the term (in classical use of non-harmonic tones) but pop/jazz doesn't really use that term in that way. You're just trying to create confusion again.

Peace,
Kevin

[max_power]

Radical suggestion: A fake book with a grand staff, and the notes of the harmony on the lower staff. Oh, that's right, it already exists. They call that piano music.

Surely you're joking.

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah, wouldn't that be the opposite of a "fake book"? I thought that the whole point of a "fake book" was that it was just the melody and the basic harmonic outline. If you want a piano arrangement, then get that.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Surely you're joking.

You have an acute sense of humor.

Of course, having basic harmony actually written out...well, who'd want a book like that. When you could have a triangle with a line under it. Which after reading this thread, we all should know stands for Neological 7th.