-
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.
-
02-06-2011 09:47 PM
-
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
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
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
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
Originally Posted by 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 (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.
-
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
-
"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.
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 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.Last edited by Aristotle; 02-07-2011 at 08:33 AM.
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Last edited by Aristotle; 02-07-2011 at 08:27 AM.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
.
..
Originally Posted by 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.
Peace,
Kevin
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-07-2011 at 11:42 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
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.
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
IOW it's a system of additions to the basic model, not pairs of opposites.
Xsus means Xsus4. The "4" is always implied, only "sus2" is stated.
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 timeLast edited by Aristotle; 02-07-2011 at 01:47 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
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?
Originally Posted by Aristotle
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-07-2011 at 03:25 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
-
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
-
Originally Posted by max_power
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.Last edited by Aristotle; 02-07-2011 at 04:34 PM.
Autumn Leaves (Fingerstyle Chord Melody)
Yesterday, 11:56 PM in Improvisation