The division between classical and jazz theory...

[ksjazzguitar]

But he didn't say that. He described the chord D# F A C, which does have a diminished 3rd: D#-F (inversion of augmented 6th).

OK, I missed that. But that just means that the D# should be an Eb. But in the example, they are talking about Aug6 chords ("misspelt" dominant 7th chords) not diminished chords. There is no diminished 3rd in a diminished chord (unless you want to talk about the 3rd inversion of a half-diminished in 3rd inversion, which he wasn't.) His statement:

I said double dimminished. Formula Root dimminished 3rd, flatenned 5th and dimminished 7th. The Hard Dimminished chord also has a dimminished third. Formula Root, dimminished 3rd, dimminished 5th and minor seventh. This is basic chord construction.

That is gibberish. He is trying to define fully diminished and half diminished 7tth chords. If you sub the word "minor 3rd" for "diminished 3rd" that is what you have. It seems that the "double" and "hard" are translation problems, but again, in no language is the 3rd of any diminished chord a "diminished 3rd."

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of "basic chord construction" and leads me to believe that he is being a little dishonest with his statement that his "music theory lessons were based in one of Europe's most prestigious Music Conservatories." Anyone who thinks that the 3rd of any diminished chord is a d3 has little to no theory training. Not to mention that he seems to think that all classical theory has to have a major/minor tonality - that is ridiculous.

And what he was discussing is not a diminished chord. There is no way to argue that it is. It is just an inversion of an Aug6 chord or a tritone sub.

If someone's theory knowledge is spotty, that is fine. But he shouldn't presume to lecture on the subject. There are plenty of subjects where my knowledge is spotty - that's why I keep my mouth shut and don't speak on those subjects.

But in using diminished 3rd (or augmented 6th), classical theory is being applied, because the chord resolves to the dominant,

Yes, I'd already mentioned that. His labeling of the D# on the F7, I accepted that:

Well, now you're sound like a classical guy. In jazz we would usually write that as an Eb, thinking of the F7 as a tri-tone sub. In classical of course, they would write it as D#, thinking of it as an Aug6 chord (the ultimate origin of the tri-tone sub.)

But when he started trying to label that as a diminished chord, he went off the reservation. In no way is that a diminished chord. Perhaps there are a few out there that call this "double diminished" - because it is a tri-tone sub (b5) with a diminished 2nd in it? [Correction: czardas pointed out the typo, it should read "with a diminished 3rd." ] But if this is the case, then it is an extremely uncommon usage of the term - contrary to his complaint that he can't find it because the "Internet is not so up to date." And it is in stark contrast with how he later defines "double diminished" as (13b9) and the two are mutually exclusive. He can't seem to decide which is the definition of "double diminished chord" - but it doesn't matter because they are both wrong.

I also agree with czardas that an F7 could be used as a dominant function chord in E phrygian mode. Of course, it's not jazz orthodoxy to alter the notes in a mode (we'd normally go for Fmaj7 as you said), but raising the 7th of a mode to get a leading tone at a cadence was common practice in the original modal era.

We agree that in jazz modal practice, leading tones aren't typical, being too tonal. We agree that in medieval modal practice, often leading tones are used. However the leading tone in Phrygian mode was extremely rare. The pull of the F to E was strong enough and the medieval ear didn't like the sound of the d3.

Again, you can do what you want if it sounds good, but I'm just talking about typical practice.

And ultimately, the OP question was about applying classical theory to jazz. Czardas seems to be saying that it is flawed because it can't be applied to flamenco. But clearly it can handle it.

To me the term double diminished, as commonly refered to in Jazz theory, is not a diminshed chord at all: but rather an octatonic dominant chord. I would use the formula G13-9-10+11 : notes G Ab Bb B C# D E F.

That is not what a double diminished chord is. It contains all of those notes, but is a very specific voicing that is not playable on the guitar. It is two diminished 7th chords a M9 apart, with each chord doubled at the octave. So really, it is just a slash chord with a 5 note dim chord and another above, the final voicing spanning a M9 + an octave. It is associated with Ellington's big band arranging. What you are describing is just a G13b9 - the rest of the extensions are implied. Now, you could argue, that the double diminished is a very specific voicing of the chord you are describing, but it is incorrect to label every 13b9 chord "double diminished."

...When I deliberate about music theory, I interpret the rules freely until I encounter some kind of contradiction. When I find errors in theoretical practice, I modify the rules to fit with standard harmonic principles, but only when needed (and as little as possible).

First of all, the term "theoretical practice" is an oxymoron. Second, no one is telling you how to play. I am saying that there is standard vocabulary that you are jumbling up. If was are to have a discussion, then you need to understand that if you start making up your own terms (and failing to define them) then there will continue to be confusion. Modify the rules all you want in your playing, but when you start modifying basic terminology, then there will be a lot of confusion. Your basically saying that you feel free to alter theories and terminology - but then you act surprised when no one knows what you're talking about?

@ksjazzguitar This is my first day as a member of the is forum, and I do not wish to get involved in any kind of arguments. However I would like to point out that after spending more than 20 years studying and investigating harmonic theories and concepts from different music genres, I do not appreciate being told that I need to brush up on basic chord construction by anyone. With all due respect, I request that you retract your statements. To add to that, if anyone is confused about what theory is and what classical music is, it certainly is not me.

Sorry, don't take it personally. I think some of this is due to translation problems. That is cool. But then if you are in an English speaking forum, then some of the burden is going to have to rest on your shoulders. But some of the statements that you have made here have been false at face value. They seem to indicate someone who is spottily self-taught rather than having a education from a prestigious conservatory.

There is already enough misinformation out there. We need to fight it whenever we can.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Why is 'theoretical practice' an oxymoron? That is a stupid statement.

Because it is - "theory" and "practice" are opposites. That's what an oxymoron is.

Putting words in my mouth again?

Sorry, cut and paste error. It happens. You should have accepted the attribution, it would have been one of the most coherent statements you'd made.

Quote ksjazzguitar
Perhaps there are a few out there that call this "double diminished" - because it is a tri-tone sub (b5) with a diminished 2nd in it?
/Quote
diminished 2nd ^^ LMAO What planet are you on?

Oops. A typo. Clearly I meant "d3".

I notice that you spend the thread acting hurt and avoiding discussing the numerous theory mistakes that you've made. The best you can do is complain about typos?

As to whether or not you spent six years in a prestigious European conservatory, I cannot say. People can make up anything on the internet. I can only go by what people say. And anyone who labels an Augmented 6th chord as a "double diminished chord" or that diminished 7th chords have d3s in them - he probably doesn't have much theory education. And the fact that you seem to think that all classical theory needs to be squeezed into major minor tonality tells me that you don't have much exposure to music theory or the corpus of classical music.

On reflection I've heard Aldwell and Schachter label that 3rd inversion Ger6 chord as a "diminished 3rd chord", but that isn't even close to what you were calling it. If it is, then you now have three contradictory definitions of "double diminished" going on simultaneously, all mutually exclusive.

Don't blame me because you got called out for using terms you didn't fully understand and claiming knowledge that you didn't have. Any one with six years in a prestigious European conservatory should have absolutely no problem with these terms and concepts. This is very basic stuff in classical theory - this is all prep work before you get into the hard stuff. I know guys in the second year at a state school that understand these terms. Sorry, but your words make me suspicious of your stated education. If you want me to believe you, then start speaking as someone with a solid theory education would.

Since you conspicuously avoid discussing any of the theory points that I made (preferring to play the victim and quibble about typos) I must assume that you have conceded all of my points and are just using personal attacks to hide your embarrassment. Thank you for the compliment.

Don't get so offended. It is your confused words that I am attacking, not you as a human being. If you are that defensive about your words, then take more care in how you use them. Why should I respect the words that come out of your mouth more than you do?

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

I think that more so than any other thread this really shows why Kevin is on this Forum.

I personally learned something about how flamenco guitar players approach Phrygian cadences. And I thank you for posting that info.

So here it is dude... analyze this extremely popular song (changes) with classical theory and prove your point....

North Portland - Robert Glasper

A Section
EMaj7-Fm7-C#min7-CMaj7-Am7-F#m7-C#m7-CMaj7

B section
DMaj7-CMaj7-DMaj7-EbMaj7 repeat EbMaj7-F#Maj7(+5)-Ab/E

Coda
Cmin7 - Abm7 - F#Maj7 - Fmin7 (back to top for solos)

Do it please, I would love you hear you explain these changes in detail using classical theory

[ksjazzguitar]

What mistakes are you refering to?

OK, let's examine your three conflicting definitions of "double diminished chord":

1. It seems that you are calling a 3rd inversion on an Aug6 chord a "double diminished chord." Apparently you and some random guy you found on the internet are the only one who call it that.
2. "I said double dimminished. Formula Root dimminished 3rd, flatenned 5th and dimminished 7th. The Hard Dimminished chord also has a dimminished third. Formula Root, dimminished 3rd, dimminished 5th and minor seventh." This appears to be a definition of fully-diminished 7th chords and half-diminished 7th chords, with the mistake of "diminished third" for "minor third." This is a logical inference since the only use of the term I'd heard for "double diminished" chords refers to diminished chords, not Aug6 chords. I've never heard of a "hard diminished chord." If we take your "diminished third" literally, then we are left with definition one and it's problems. But then that creates a problem with your so called "hard diminished chord," which ends up being an inversion of an enharmonically spelled F7#5, sometimes called a Rus6 (1 3 #5 #6). But neither of these are diminished chords. Even if this can be twisted and reconciled with the first definition, it can't be reconciled with the third:
3. "To me the term double diminished, as commonly refered to in Jazz theory, is not a diminshed chord at all: but rather an octatonic dominant chord. I would use the formula G13-9-10+11 : notes G Ab Bb B C# D E F." But this is an entirely different chord scale. And is still an incorrect usage of the term "double diminished."

All of these definitions are wrong. There already is a "double diminished chord" as I defined before. There are other things, but that's a good place to start.

If there is no standard theoretical practice then howcome you say I am breaking convention?

Again, please clarify what you mean by "theoretical practice." Those two words refer to opposites.

You say I can't alter theory. If what you are saying was true then jazz theory would not exist.

I didn't say theory can't be altered. I'm saying that people can't go around unilaterally altering theory and expect people to understand them. If I was a physicist and started to refer to electrostatics as a branch of gravity and started to make up words for common principles, then I would be a laughing stock. But in jazz, we just call it individuality.

I have some issues with some standard nomenclature being inappropriate. That's something that needs to be addressed.

What? Make your case. I might agree. But so far it's not clear to me that you understand the nomenclature.

When you say there is enough misinformation out there, I guess you mean jazz theory, with it's lazy attitude towards naming chords and loosley applied enharmonic vocabulary.

When you refer to my previous statement about tonality in classical music, you seem to overlook the fact that I actually said:

"I don't PERSONALLY know of any ESTABLISHED classical theory that goes beyond these constraints."

Then you don't know classical theory. Yes, it is beyond CPP theory, but that is a very narrow version of theory that is used as training wheels for undergrad music students. I don't see how anyone could spend six years in a prestigious conservatory and never get beyond the introductory theory courses.

You also have yet to provide an example of Am-G-F-E7 where E7 sounds like a tonic. You may be right, but every example I can think of ("Walk, Don't Run" for example) has Am as the tonic. If someone does interpret this as a quasi-Phrygian cadence, then that is fine, as long as the ear supports it, rather than just mislabeling. It makes me think of "Nana" by de Falla. But classical theory does not have some huge problem with this, it just finds a theory that works.

I personally learned something about how flamenco guitar players approach Phrygian cadences. And I thank you for posting that info.

There is nothing wrong with that, but the topic was not about flamenco, and the confused terminology occluded what was being explained.

So here it is dude... analyze this extremely popular song [North Portland - Robert Glasper](changes) with classical theory and prove your point....

Again, you guys think that classical theory is only the Common Practice Period theory that is taught in the first two years of music school. You guys seem to think that classical stares stupefied when anything goes beyond simple functional harmony.

This is not any harder to analyze than Chopin or Wagner. Actually, it looks easier. There is just some quasi-functional chords with some borrowed chords in the A section. Any basic theory student can analyze those.

The B section starts out with some Impressionistic planarism. The Ab can be thought of as a III chord subbing for a V - a favorite of Romantic composers.

The coda is a little more problematic. But you are under the mistaken impression that classical theory only works if there is a detailed, functional explanation for every chord. If you read any 20th century analysis, you'd see that this is not true. Sometimes chords just sound good. Often you can do a voice-leading analysis, but that can't really be done verbally and would require sheet music.

You are correct that this can't be understood with simple functional harmonic analysis. Your mistake is that you think that that is all that classical has to offer.

Sorry if you think that this is advanced and complicated harmony. If that is the case, you really need to listen to some Chopin, Wagner, Bartok, or Stravinsky. They do things much more complicated than moving some chords around.

As I said in the beginning, a lot of this "classical theory can't handle jazz" seems mostly to be based on a lack of knowledge of the subject.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

For someone who professes to know so much. ksjazzguitar you have not even begun to scratch the surface.

Can you show me where I claimed to be an expert on flamenco? I was just curious to hear an example. That's the difference between you and me - when I don't know something I just ask, I don't make something up.

Unfortunately, you are trying to hijack this thread into flamenco land. But even your point - that classical theory can't handle the flamenco Phrygian cadence - is ridiculously uninformed. As I said, there are lots of examples of this in classical theory too - the fact that you encountered none of them in six years at a prestigious European conservatory is disturbing. Maybe it was some conservatory in a time warp where they didn't know about any music after the middle of the 19th century.

The full quote for what you give should be:

• doubly diminished seventh: root + third + loss + decreased seventh diminished fifth (c eses beses sig) (no symbol for sounds like reverse dominant)
• hard verminderd septiem grondtoon + grote terts + verminderde kwint + kleine septiem ( ce ges bes ) (symbool C7b5)
  Hard diminished seventh root + + major third + minor seventh diminished fifth (ce sig berry) (symbol C7b5)

Why does this sound like non-sense? Because you can't do a word for word translation and expect to to come out making sense. I'd already said that those might mean something in a foreign language. But they don't mean that in English, the language being used on this forum. In English, what you've said is gibberish.

Sorry you have too many questions.

I simply asked you to reconcile your 3 contradictory definitions of "double diminished chord" - and have been for several posts. You've realized that you can't so you are running away from the argument rather than admit that you were pretending to know something you didn't.

Read the edit to my last post. It's time you showed some humility.

All you've shown is that in a word-for-word translation from Dutch - that is what you guys call it. I already said it might be called something different in another language! But we don't do word for word translations, we translate concepts. What you are calling a "dubbel verminderd septiem" we would call an enharmonically spelled 3rd inversion dominant 7th chord. (Notice that the page give no chord symbol because it is an inversion of a dominant chord.) And what you are calling "hard verminderd septiem" we would call a dominant 7b5. And notice that it (your "hard diminished seventh") has a M3, not a d3 as you tried to say. You're own source is saying that you don't even understand the chord in your own language. And this still conflicts with your definition of it as a 13b9 chord, a completely different chord/scale than an Aug6 chord (usually lyd dom.)

But if you want to be understood, you'll have to learn the chord names in this language. If I would participate in a forum in another language, I would learn their terms, not try and use mine and blame them for not understanding. I can understand it is a bit of work to learn them, but then just ask instead of using badly translated foreign terms and then acting like it is our fault for not understanding.

If you don't want me to "pick" on you, get your facts straight before you start acting like an expert.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

Kevin,

You could have at least tried to explain this chord progression instead of saying a freshman could do it.... then assuming I know nothing beyond CPP classical theory.

You completely proved my point, you're only here because you a insecure.

[ksjazzguitar]

I admit that I made a mistake with the Hard Diminished, but then Dutch is not my first language.

But presumably, when you studied for six years in a prestigious European conservatory, they didn't use telepathy.

My first language is English. I know all the chord names in English. And don't keep telling me I don't know my stuff. It's completely inappropriate.

And yet you quote a bad translation of Dutch web page as your support? I think that clearly you do not know "all the chord names in English" otherwise you would not be relying on names formed from bad translations of Dutch chord names.

So let me get this straight, you have the equivalent of an MA from a prestigious European conservatory, and you know all the names of all the chords in English, but you prefer to use bad translations of the what they call then in the Netherlands? Why would a native English speaker who knows his theory in English do that? I'm missing something here. What am I not understanding? Every time I think that I've got you figured out, you go and confuse me even more.

You were saying that no diminished chords have diminished thirds. I disagree.

Please provide an example. Again, inversions of dominant seventh chords are not "diminished chords" in our language. With the exception of an incorrectly spelled half-diminished in 3rd inversion, there is no example.

I have several other chords which also don't appear in books, also not as inversions.

I'll assume they do, basing my opinion of your harmonic knowledge on what I've read here.

Why? Because I insist that you stop this slander. And don't say I'm running away from you, because I will face you and debunk your ridiculous claims about my knowledge in this field.

First of all, it would be "libel," not "slander." Secondly, ultimately it is your own twisted definitions and contradictions that impeach your credibility. I'm just pointing them out.

Do you deny the existance of this chord built with these intervals? What possible reason can you give for denying such a chord built on the seventh degree of a scale?

I don't deny it's existance. I question your understanding of it (as evidenced by your own words) and your labeling (which is contradicted by your own source.) If you're talking about your F7 with the D#, I've already explained that, there's no need to do it again. It is a very common chord. Chopin used it a lot, like in his Prelude, Op. 28/22, m39. Or how about Brahms, Variations on a Theme by Haydn, Op. 56a, Variation 2, m.76. This is not some mystical flamenco chord.

You could have at least tried to explain this chord progression instead of saying a freshman could do it.... then assuming I know nothing beyond CPP classical theory.

I'm not aware that I said that a Freshman could do it. And my point is that if you'd studied classical beyond CPP (and even some of the later CPP stuff) then you would have encountered many things like this. The fact that you think that this is some harmonic conundrum that is going to bring classical theory crashing down indicates that you don't know much classical theory beyond CPP.

Functional analysis can only go so far. Not all chords have a functional, tonal explanation. (That is the kind of assumption that someone who only knows CPP theory would make.) Something like this would need a combination of harmonic an linear analysis that goes beyond what is easy to present in a text based forum. Can you point to a specific chord that you think is beyond the ability to classical theory? For that matter, is there an alternative theory that you think analyzes it better?

I just fail to see anything in there that requires much analysis. Just putting some non-functional chords in the middle of quasi-functional harmony - that is not some big amazing thing. Are you really going to compare this to Stravinsky or Bartok or Wagner? Look at some of that harmony and then come back and talk. This is just some non-functional harmony - Chopin did the same. So what? Where is the chord that drops classical theory in it's tracks and what is your better explanation that classical theory does not understand?

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

OK, let's examine your three conflicting definitions of "double diminished chord":

1. It seems that you are calling a 3rd inversion on an Aug6 chord a "double diminished chord." Apparently you and some random guy you found on the internet are the only one who call it that.
2. "I said double dimminished. Formula Root dimminished 3rd, flatenned 5th and dimminished 7th. The Hard Dimminished chord also has a dimminished third. Formula Root, dimminished 3rd, dimminished 5th and minor seventh." This appears to be a definition of fully-diminished 7th chords and half-diminished 7th chords, with the mistake of "diminished third" for "minor third." This is a logical inference since the only use of the term I'd heard for "double diminished" chords refers to diminished chords, not Aug6 chords. I've never heard of a "hard diminished chord." If we take your "diminished third" literally, then we are left with definition one and it's problems. But then that creates a problem with your so called "hard diminished chord," which ends up being an inversion of an enharmonically spelled F7#5, sometimes called a Rus6 (1 3 #5 #6). But neither of these are diminished chords. Even if this can be twisted and reconciled with the first definition, it can't be reconciled with the third:
3. "To me the term double diminished, as commonly refered to in Jazz theory, is not a diminshed chord at all: but rather an octatonic dominant chord. I would use the formula G13-9-10+11 : notes G Ab Bb B C# D E F." But this is an entirely different chord scale. And is still an incorrect usage of the term "double diminished."

All of these definitions are wrong. There already is a "double diminished chord" as I defined before. There are other things, but that's a good place to start.



Again, please clarify what you mean by "theoretical practice." Those two words refer to opposites.



I didn't say theory can't be altered. I'm saying that people can't go around unilaterally altering theory and expect people to understand them. If I was a physicist and started to refer to electrostatics as a branch of gravity and started to make up words for common principles, then I would be a laughing stock. But in jazz, we just call it individuality.



What? Make your case. I might agree. But so far it's not clear to me that you understand the nomenclature.



When you refer to my previous statement about tonality in classical music, you seem to overlook the fact that I actually said:



Then you don't know classical theory. Yes, it is beyond CPP theory, but that is a very narrow version of theory that is used as training wheels for undergrad music students. I don't see how anyone could spend six years in a prestigious conservatory and never get beyond the introductory theory courses.

You also have yet to provide an example of Am-G-F-E7 where E7 sounds like a tonic. You may be right, but every example I can think of ("Walk, Don't Run" for example) has Am as the tonic. If someone does interpret this as a quasi-Phrygian cadence, then that is fine, as long as the ear supports it, rather than just mislabeling. It makes me think of "Nana" by de Falla. But classical theory does not have some huge problem with this, it just finds a theory that works.




There is nothing wrong with that, but the topic was not about flamenco, and the confused terminology occluded what was being explained.



Again, you guys think that classical theory is only the Common Practice Period theory that is taught in the first two years of music school. You guys seem to think that classical stares stupefied when anything goes beyond simple functional harmony.

This is not any harder to analyze than Chopin or Wagner. Actually, it looks easier. There is just some quasi-functional chords with some borrowed chords in the A section. Any basic theory student can analyze those.

The B section starts out with some Impressionistic planarism. The Ab can be thought of as a III chord subbing for a V - a favorite of Romantic composers.

The coda is a little more problematic

You are correct that this can't be understood with simple functional harmonic analysis. Your mistake is that you think that that is all that classical has to offer.

Sorry if you think that this is advanced and complicated harmony. If that is the case, you really need to listen to some Chopin, Wagner, Bartok, or Stravinsky. They do things much more complicated than moving some chords around.

As I said in the beginning, a lot of this "classical theory can't handle jazz" seems mostly to be based on a lack of knowledge of the subject.

Peace,
Kevin

I don't think that that's all classical has to offer.... I'm very educated..... I'm asking you to please use what you know and educate me. Please kevin. Educate me. Don't just say that its easy..... actually tell me how these chords are functioning and where the cadences are.
Don't worry. If you use big words ill look them up.....

[ksjazzguitar]

I'm asking you to please use what you know and educate me. Please kevin. Educate me. Don't just say that its easy..... actually tell me how these chords are functioning and where the cadences are. ...

I did provide an explanation, the best I can do in a text analysis (without getting even more verbose.) Your point seems to be that some of those chords are not "functional." So what? Who says chords have to be functional. That is very CPP thinking. Again, if you want more than what I've provided, please just let me know what part bothers you. Or point to a chord that you think is beyond the ken of classical theory that you have a better explanation for it.

This isn't a game show where I win a year's supply of turtle wax if I can analyze whatever you guys throw at me. The point of the OP was that there is nothing in jazz that cannot be explained in classical theory (with the exception of the blue note.) All you've don't is given me a chord progression that is a mix of functional and non-functional harmony as if this is some groundbreaking thing that never occurred to anyone in classical music - but they've been doing it for more than a century. Again, show me what you think is indescribable and show me your better explanation.

Not all note combinations form chords constructable using standard rules.

What are you defining as "standard rules." It seems that once again you are talking about CPP theory and assuming that that is all there is. In your six years at this prestigious European conservatory, you never analyzed Wagner, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Kreneck, etc?

"[KS says] Please provide an example. Again, inversions of dominant seventh chords are not "diminished chords" in our language. With the exception of an enharmonically spelled half-diminished, there is no example."
What's wrong with the one I provided you earlier?

It wasn't a diminished chord. Diminished chords are built of diminished triads. They didn't teach you that in six years a prestigious European conservatory? Maybe it's the metric system.

Again, we're not talking in Dutch, this is English. In English, some might label that (a third inversion Ger6) as a "diminished third chord" but the "diminished" in that refers to the "third", not to "chord." Again, in English a diminished chord is built off of a diminished triad. I'm still waiting for an example.

I never saw this in any book => G13+5-10+11 ... Another octatonic construction.

It's just that most of us would have labeled that differently. Just putting your wacky labeling on something doesn't mean that you own it. How is what you wrote superior to G13#5#9#11? That is the way the rest of the planet describes it.

[more blather about strange chord labeling omitted...]

Perhaps they do exist somewhere else, who knows? The chances of them having been used at some point, without an identifiable name, is very high.

I guess I don't see your point. You've invented your own secret code to identify all these chords that rarely if ever get used. And they could all be named with conventional naming schemes anyway. Not to mention that 20th century analysis can use numerical naming systems that are even cleaner. I guess I really don't see that point, or how it relates to the discussion.

It has a dominant function with both leading and leaning notes. Built on the seventh degree. Something to add to your vocabulary.

We'd already explained Aug6 chords. Maybe you didn't realize because you don't know standard chord terminology. It's kind of pathetic to state the obvious, and then end it with a "witty retort" as if you've made some point. All you've done is show that the discussion before was above your head. Again, no one was denying how it functioned - I was just questioning your bizarre definition - which appears to be badly translated Dutch.

.

I'm sorry man, but the more you type the more I'm convinced that you really don't know what you're talking about. Using badly translated Dutch chord terms (even though you say that you are a native English speaker and know all the chord names in English.) You claim to have studied in this prestigious conservatory but didn't speak the language (in this country we have standards and boot people that can't speak the language.) You claim to have what you define as "basic chord knowledge", but then screw up your own definition of "hard diminished seventh chord" (Completely oblivious to the fact that badly translated Dutch names are irrelevant in an English speaking forum and you seemed oblivious to what we call it in English, despite your protestations that you know "all" the chord names in English. You don't seem to understand what a diminished triad is. You didn't realize that when we were talking about those Aug6 chords that we were talking about dominant chords where the root resolves down and the 7th (A6) resolves up. You seem to think that this is some mystical flamenco chord, rather than a very common chord. Anyone with a basic knowledge of harmonic function could see what that chord was. You seem to think that this Aug6 chord is the same as a 13b9. You also seem to think that a Phrygian cadence is beyond the understanding of classical music when anyone with basic knowledge would know that they invented it and continue to use it.

Your main "claim" is that you have invented some new chord language. You claim that it is needed because there are so many chords that classical music can't name. First of all, with numerical notation, they can name any chord, and second, they reason most of those chords don't have names is because they aren't very useful. But if you think you're on to something incredible, go for it. But you're going to have to get your facts straight (and your story straight) if you want to be taken seriously.)

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

G13#5#9#11 is not an octatonic chord at all. You miss my point completely. That chord only has seven notes in it.

It has the same number of notes as the chord that you gave. It is the same chord you gave, just labeled "correctly." It has eight notes because the 9 is usually implied in a 13 chord. (Or maybe they never got to that is your six years at a prestigious European conservatory.)

And of course, you just ignore everything else.

Man, you just won't give up trying to convince me that you really don't know what you're talking about. You can stop now, I'm convinced.

When people start getting confused about basic theory, don't know basic definitions, and start pushing their DaVinci code chord system, I usually put them into the "poorly self-taught but wants to pretend they are an expert so they make a lot of things up" category.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Not true. Octatonic chords have eight notes.

G13+5-10+11
contains the notes G B D# F A Bb C# E...

God, you are insufferable!

Why does your "A" get to be magically implied but mine doesn't?

Fine, it probably should be explicitely stated since it could contradict the #9. But the point is that it can be labeled in traditional notation, not requiring the "Czardas" system.

It also could have been written as a poly chord, F+Maj7/B+Maj7.

The flattened tenth has been added to a 13th chord, making 8 notes altogether. It's acceptable and makes sense. What's wrong with it?

What is "it"? The chord? Nothing if you can make it sound good. You're sudoku labeling system? Completely unnecessary.

If you think that it is some magical system, then publish a book and make your case. But stop expecting us to explain to you why it is unnecessary.

For some reason you seem to think I haven't thought this through thoroughly. I was absolutely meticulous.

Sorry, my secret decoder ring hasn't arrived in the mail yet. You are honestly surprised that you are more fluent in your invented language than other people are?

But I'm tired playing whack-a-mole with you. I don't care about your little chord system that you think is peachy. You still have several ridiculous statements that you have to explain before we get to that point.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Also I don't know what you are talking about when you say CPP. Common Practice Period. It sounds a bit dated to me.

I already explained that term. It is the theory of the Baroque to the Romantic. It is the training wheels for teaching theory. You guys seem to think that it is the only trick that classical theory has in it's bag. A lot has happened since the end of the Romantic.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

I did provide an explanation, the best I can do in a text analysis (without getting even more verbose.) Your point seems to be that some of those chords are not "functional." So what? Who says chords have to be functional. That is very CPP thinking. Again, if you want more than what I've provided, please just let me know what part bothers you. Or point to a chord that you think is beyond the ken of classical theory that you have a better explanation for it.

This isn't a game show where I win a year's supply of turtle wax if I can analyze whatever you guys throw at me. The point of the OP was that there is nothing in jazz that cannot be explained in classical theory (with the exception of the blue note.) All you've don't is given me a chord progression that is a mix of functional and non-functional harmony as if this is some groundbreaking thing that never occurred to anyone in classical music - but they've been doing it for more than a century. Again, show me what you think is indescribable and show me your better explanation.


Peace,
Kevin

Dude, you didn't analyze it at all, you said that's it's a mixture of functional and non-functional harmony WTF kind of answer is that?

And what kind of answer is.... Bartok and Wagner did that years ago.... it's a cop out answer from someone who wishes to appear smarter than he is.

How is it analyzed when Chopin does it? and could you point me to some of his pieces that do things like this? I do have all of his music in my library... so I will gladly look it up.

I love that you assume I've never played Bartok, or Chopin.... dude, I studied double bass for 4 years in college and I've been playing piano since I was 8. Don't assume things, and don't come back at me with "if you've been playing since you were 8 you should know which Chopin pieces", etc.... Because the point here is to get you to actually contribute something to the debate, I have presented my own personal analyzation method for these types of passages, it yields harmonic implication of each chord, cadences, tension, etc...

Where is the classical version? or should I just say "what you will defend as the proper classical way to view this passage harmonically" please don't say that you don't have time to get into it. you spend more time on here than anyone I've ever seen on here

[ksjazzguitar]

Anyway If I write E7#9 in music, I generally spell the sharp 9 as G rather than Fx. So I really don't understand your objections. It's quite watertight.

Number one, that has nothing to do with my objections. And number two, enharmonic spelling is just a reading convenience.

Look, I'm sick of talking about your stupid sudoku chord system. You seem to think that you're fixing a problem that is in your imagination. I'm just going to ignore that from now on. You spent 12 posts failing to show that you understand even basic chord construction and now you're pitching your super-duper sudoku-DaVinci code system that is going to allow us to describe a bunch of chords we don't use. (Even though they could be described fine before.)

I'm still waiting for an example of a diminished chord built on a d3, among other things.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Dude, you didn't analyze it at all, you said that's it's a mixture of functional and non-functional harmony WTF kind of answer is that?

It's the answer. There is no need to put functional names on every chord. Some chords are just voiceleading. Some chords are just common-tone color shifts. I don't see anything in there that I haven't seem before. Again, to simply try and label everything doesn't do it justice. That would require a combination of functional and linear analysis. I just don't have time to take that on. I'm not your manservant.

You're the one that is presumable claiming that this can't be explained by classical theory. Show me where.

Again, which chord do you think that classical theory can't handle? What is your better explanation?

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah we never did any of that.

Any of what?

...If I play an E pentatonic blues scale over an E7 chord ... Why would I want to do that when I can just say b10 and not cause all this confusion with the note Fx?

You are the only person for whom this is causing confusion.

I am not suggesting that you have to label everything, but why call something by a name that creates obscurity? That's not really useful.

What name created obscurity?

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

I'm not your manservant.

You're the one that is presumable claiming that this can't be explained by classical theory. Show me where.

Again, which chord do you think that classical theory can't handle? What is your better explanation?

Peace,
Kevin

Nice man, you didn't label a single chord, and somehow you think that... well, I'm really not sure what you are thinking.

Kevin I am not claiming that this can't be explained using classical theory, I am claiming that you can't explain it.

I will answer you're last question in another post.

[ksjazzguitar]

Kevin I am not claiming that this can't be explained using classical theory, I am claiming that you can't explain it.

This isn't the "Stump Kevin with Your Favorite Tune" show. The topic was about whether or not there was anything in jazz that didn't have a precedent in classical (other than blue notes.) In light of that, I answered your question. I have no interest in going through and doing a linear analysis. And you failed to provide your own analysis to awe and inspire, preferring just to mock me for not doing your bidding.

Old fashioned stuff, like CPP. We analysed some Elington, who I really like a lot. In fact to me Elington is the twentieth century's greatest composer, along with Stravinsky.

So, you can't spell the name of your favorite composer? And you studied for six years in a "prestigious European conservatory" but never got around to studying things like Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Wagner, etc. Wow, you're either full of it or you really got taken.

"#9" is a mental stumbling block for you. The only cure is to call it "-10"?

This is gone far beyond ridiculous.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

So it's like this, each major and minor chord has 2 scale options....

Maj7-Ionian/Lydian
min7-Aeolean/Dorian
Maj7(b5 or #11)-Lydian/Lydian Aug
min6- Dorian/Melodic Minor

These scale choices are categorized according to these names....

Tonic - Ionian/Aeolean
Non Tonic - Lydian/Dorian
Melodic Minor - Lydian Aug/Mel Min

The scale choice per chord is up to the composer/improviser and differs in only one or two notes per chord. The ear is influenced as to the "correct" scale based on the notes in the overall harmonic field (a few bars before and after the chord in question)

upon scanning the harmonic field, the most "inside" scale (which is not always"inside") is assigned to the chord thus giving it it's harmonic role in the progression.... Tonic, Non-Tonic, or Melodic Minor.

Basically it is a way of measuring tension and resolution when there is no tonal center but major and minor chords are still the building blocks... Keep in mind that the difference between a Tonic and non-tonic chord is subtle in some cases, while MM chords definitely add some darkness to the music. Also keep in mind that this is a personal thing that I do not teach, just wanted to share it with ya cause you asked.

Resolution = moving to a tonic mode
non resolution = moving to a non tonic mode
Melodic minor creates tension in all cases

So, if you apply this idea to this "modal" tune.... you get. (Chord names include implied mode)


E ionian (resolving to) F Aeolean (Non resolving to) C# dorian etc....

which would put the resolutions on the EMaj7, Fm7 and F#m7 in the A section. (making those ioninan/aeolean) and all other chords non tonic. it's not a coincidence that the EMaj is at the top of the tune.

I personally think of this Section as being in E major, but the modal thinking allows for really seamless passage through all 12 pitches.

The cool thing about the bridge is that the Dmaj is tonic because of the G in the two other chords surrounding it. But the CMaj and Ebmaj are both non tonic or even melodic minor, so D emerges as the obvious center.

The strong melodic minor nature of the last 2 chords of the bridge create more tension than any other chords in the song, these act as sort of the "dominants" of the tune as their resolution to the tonic C aeolean (because of the Ab in the surrounding chords) is the biggest resolution of the entire song.

The coda (after the big resolution) non resolves to Ab dorian to ceate some tension the resolves to F#ionian, then Faeolean, before resolving back to the top to E ionian.

that's how I think about it, and it allows me to use all letter names on any chord at any time. it also gives me insight into how much tension and release is expected in particular modal passages, I find it very helpful for composing, improvising, and fun to think about.

[timscarey]

The topic was about whether or not there was anything in jazz that didn't have a precedent in classical (other than blue notes.) In light of that, I answered your question. I have no interest in going through and doing a linear analysis. And you failed to provide your own analysis to awe and inspire, preferring just to mock me for not doing your bidding.

Peace,
Kevin

I brought something up that challenged your point, and you have failed to give me an explanation in classical theory, or even one example of this kind of harmony being used... So far, I am winning this argument.

Why don't we use the first 4 chords as my specific example.

[bako]

North Portland - Robert Glasper

A Section
EMaj7-Fm7-C#min7-CMaj7-Am7-F#m7-C#m7-CMaj7

B section
DMaj7-CMaj7-DMaj7-EbMaj7 repeat EbMaj7-F#Maj7(+5)-Ab/E

Coda
Cmin7 - Abm7 - F#Maj7 - Fmin7 (back to top for solos)

Normally I would start with the melody but for now, working from the chords that Tim provided.

A few observations

The A section is moving largely between E Major and C Major

E Major
I---Ema7
II--F#m7
VI--C#m7

C Major
I---Cma7
VI--Am7

Both Ema7 and Cma7 have a minor 7th chord a half step up
Ema7 Fm7
Cma7 C#m7

There are 2 common tones between each of the pairs and the other 2 notes are a half step[ away.

E--G#--B--D#
F--Ab---C--Eb

C---E--G---B
C#-E--G#-B

I don't know anything about Robert Glasper's thought process but check this out.

Start with 2 simultaneous keys E and C
Ema7 Cma7

For each key add a minor 7th a half step up from each
Fm7 C#m7
(To my ears the common tones are more prominent than the tritone sub modal interchange idea but we all hear differently and that's a positive thing)

Add a few diatonic chords to each key and that's all of them
C#m7 F#m7
Am7

That accounts for all the chords

I agree with czardas that C is the prominent key because it arrives there twice in the A section

There are also many common tones between adjacent chords in the A section

Ema7---Fm7----2
Fm7----C#m7---1
C#m7---Cma7---2
Cma7---Am7-----3
Am7----F#m7----2
F#m7---C#m7----2
C#m7---Cma7-----2
Cma7----Ema7-----2 (the repeat adjacent chords)

If I continued on this path I would explore commonalities and differences between possible implied scales.

The B section and coda on the surface seem to derive from a different logic but I feel even more than before the need to check out the melody and see what unifying factors that reveals.

Fun stuff. Thanks Tim

Addendum:
You posted a modal analysis while I was formulating this but I'll check it out tomorrow. I can't stay up as late as you West Coast folks do.

[timscarey]

Bako,

Totally dig it, in the A section, common tones are everywhere.

I think there is something to that minor 7th a halfstep up from the root. I've used it before in tunes, but only after learning this one. I wonder if it's in any other tunes?

[ksjazzguitar]

Shut up about my spelling.

Yeah, it's a cheap shot. But I find it ironic that you list it as a favorite but misspelled it twice.

My super-duper sudoku-DaVinci code system does not in any way interfere or try to replace your CPP or whatever you want to call it.

*Sigh* you still don't get it. Your system fails to solve a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

I brought something up that challenged your point, and you have failed to give me an explanation in classical theory, or even one example of this kind of harmony being used... ....

What exactly do you mean? Do you think that the only way that classical music analyzes anything is with Roman numerals? You guys have a very narrow idea of what is classical analysis is. Again, you think that it ends with CPP analysis. Personally I think that Roman numerals wouldn't be very meaningful in this - I would find a linear analysis to be more meaningful.

But the first 4 chords, OK that is more manageable. "EMaj7-Fm7-C#min7-CMaj7" If we are thinking in E, then the Fm7 is the only troublesome chord, the C#m7 is a vi and the CMaj7 is just a bVIMaj7, just a borrowed chord from the parallel minor.

The Fm7 can be thought of in different ways. One is just to think of it as common tone modulation. Notice that it shares two notes with the previous chord, Ab (G#) and Eb (D#). The other two notes are just half steps. Notice that the C#m7 is the same relationship to the CMaj7 in reverse. So perhaps he is thinking of it as two key centers interwoven. The relation of the key centers? Well M3 key center relations are common enough in jazz. They were also popular with Romantic composers like Beethoven and Chopin.

We can also just think of the Fm7 as a voice-leading chord. It simply non-functionally connects the EMa7 and the C#m7 by line. This kind of chord has been common since the middle of the 19th century. We usually just labeled them with "V.L" to indicate that it was linear and not functional. I would be surprised if we couldn't find this exact chord sequence somewhere in late Romantic writing.

A more interesting way to look at it is the lines that are formed. For example (making adjustments for enharmonic), E-F-E-E or G#-G#-G#-G or B-C-C#-C or D#-D#-E-E. Another might be B-C-B-B. When you look at it, the voice leading is very smooth which is why it sounds so solid even though it is non-functional. Notice that every chord tone can be approached by half-step or common tone. This is not an accident.

This type of linear analysis is more interesting for a piece like this, but it's easier if you write it out on a staff. The voice-leading in this makes me thing of Chopin's Prelude Op.28, No.4. Again, a lot of non-functional chords that make more sense if you look at them linearly. If you want to see the classical equivalent of how the chords are connecting here, an analysis of that piece would be a good start. It is a pretty standard example of this type of thing. That piece is usually analyzed similarly.

But again, you seem to not realize that this type of analysis is perfectly valid in classical analysis. It's only in the beginning theory classes where everything has to be labeled as functional harmony. You guys seem stuck on that notion.

Is there something here that classical theory couldn't handle? And in order for that to be meaningful, you would have to show that there was some other theory that clearly explained it better.

*** Oops, look like Bako was working on similar lines. He's seeing the common-tones, but I think the linear concept is clearer if you do a voice-leading reduction. But again, you'd need a staff to do that properly.

Again, the B-section is clearly just Impressionistic planarism, moving around parallel chord structures. Debussy loved to do this.

Peace,
Kevin

[matt.guitarteacher]

"#9" is a mental stumbling block for you. The only cure is to call it "-10"?

I'm pretty sure my old Hal Leonard Incredible Chord Finder called them
-10's or b10's. Always drove me nuts!

[timscarey]

What exactly do you mean? Do you think that the only way that classical music analyzes anything is with Roman numerals? You guys have a very narrow idea of what is classical analysis is. Again, you think that it ends with CPP analysis. Personally I think that Roman numerals wouldn't be very meaningful in this - I would find a linear analysis to be more meaningful.

But the first 4 chords, OK that is more manageable. "EMaj7-Fm7-C#min7-CMaj7" If we are thinking in E, then the Fm7 is the only troublesome chord, the C#m7 is a vi and the CMaj7 is just a bVIMaj7, just a borrowed chord from the parallel minor.

The Fm7 can be thought of in different ways. One is just to think of it as common tone modulation. Notice that it shares two notes with the previous chord, Ab (G#) and Eb (D#). The other two notes are just half steps. Notice that the C#m7 is the same relationship to the CMaj7 in reverse. So perhaps he is thinking of it as two key centers interwoven. The relation of the key centers? Well M3 key center relations are common enough in jazz. They were also popular with Romantic composers like Beethoven and Chopin.

We can also just think of the Fm7 as a voice-leading chord. It simply non-functionally connects the EMa7 and the C#m7 by line. This kind of chord has been common since the middle of the 19th century. We usually just labeled them with "V.L" to indicate that it was linear and not functional. I would be surprised if we couldn't find this exact chord sequence somewhere in late Romantic writing.


This type of linear analysis is more interesting for a piece like this, but it's easier if you write it out on a staff. The voice-leading in this makes me thing of Chopin's Prelude Op.28, No.4. Again, a lot of non-functional chords that make more sense if you look at them linearly. If you want to see the classical equivalent of how the chords are connecting here, an analysis of that piece would be a good start. It is a pretty standard example of this type of thing. That piece is usually analyzed similarly.

But again, you seem to not realize that this type of analysis is perfectly valid in classical analysis. It's only in the beginning theory classes where everything has to be labeled as functional harmony. You guys seem stuck on that notion.

Is there something here that classical theory couldn't handle? And in order for that to be meaningful, you would have to show that there was some other theory that clearly explained it better.

*** Oops, look like Bako was working on similar lines. He's seeing the common-tones, but I think the linear concept is clearer if you do a voice-leading reduction. But again, you'd need a staff to do that properly.

Again, the B-section is clearly just Impressionistic planarism, moving around parallel chord structures. Debussy loved to do this.

Peace,
Kevin

Cool, thanks for the reply, now we can have a discussion. So, I hear what you are saying, and I would respond like this....

First, I just went through Chopin Op.28 No.4 and there is nothing like this in that piece of music, there are some interesting chords in there, but nothing like this.

Chopin, Frederic - Prelude in E minor Op.28 No.4 sheet music - 8notes.com

Also, I think this discussion answers your original question about the division between classical and jazz theory.

See, "Voice leading chord" while it may be a good explanation of how the chord is being used, gives you absolutely no insight into how to improvise over it, nor do any of the other ways you analyzed this chord, or any of the other chords. nice work Kevin, you have told us who did it first and how a classical musician might label these things, but this in no way helps us in our jazz quest.

And yes, I'm going to say it..... "Voice leading chord" is a cop out answer as well. WTF kind of explanation is that? none at all, especially when the chord in question is of the same duration as every other chord in the song, and the root is a major 3rd above the next chord. (not the smoothest movement there) take a look at Chopin's work above, pretty much all passing chords are moving one voice at a time by half-step and in pretty much all cases dominant and diminished chords are the result, not full minor 7th chords. I think the most "out" he goes is beat 3 of measure 17 where he has essentially a Gmaj7+5 with a D natural in the melody, it's obvioulsy used to resolve to the tonic via the D# in the left hand, but pretty "out" from a jazz perspective. unless you just call it a B7(#9), then it's totally in.

and keep in mind, I let you get away with just the first 4 chords.

That's why there are two kinds of theory, actually there are hundreds of kinds of theory and looking at what you presented, I think mine is much more useful than yours if you want to actually "play" music.