The division between classical and jazz theory...

[matt.guitarteacher]

VERY COOL, Oneworld! Great playing - kudos to you! To rehash what you said earlier: all this debate and negativity - we'd rather hear some good playing. And now are we to wait 'breathlessly' for his challenger?

If that's supposed to be me, as I said earlier, I certainly don't have those kind of chops. I'm hear primarily to learn. If we have to play like oneworld to post something, then a lot of us wouldn't have anything to say. I just don't like the "look at his playing" posts, especially by someone who hasn't said much else in the thread. Great playing, oneworld, and thanks for sharing.

I do understand the frustration with the tone of Kevin's theory rants. I certainly don't think czardas is an evil liar, but I don't worship a music theory deity. :-)

However, czardas did jump with both feet into an argument with someone who likes to fight this stuff and then deleted a lot material.

Kevin's pretty intense about "truth in music theory". In the last Kevin dogpile it was suggested that he at least start his own thread for these kind of rants instead of hijacking every other thread. To a large degree, he's done that, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who prefers it that way.

czardas, welcome. Your video's great.

Kevin, I propose "Kevin's Disclaimer for Newbies".

Something to the tune of:

It should be understood that I am zealous for truth in music theory, and the standardization of music theory terminology. I believe that these standards can best be measured against a long tradition of classical music theory. I see no reason to create new terminology in describing jazz theory. I will ask you to reference any questionable assertion regarding music theory or history to a respected scholarly source.

I will begin with a civil tone in pointing out what I perceive as discrepancies in your post. If you fail to address the points I raise or otherwise fail to back up your claims with scholarly references, I will "take the gloves off" and post lengthy responses, the reading of which will make your eyes dry up in their sockets.

Before proceeding, please view the following thread (I've posted one but choose your own) which is an example of the way I like to discuss these topics.

The division between classical and jazz theory...

Edit to your liking and paste it into newbie posts or add to your sig.

I think harsh treatment of new members is pretty much everyone's gripe with you. Newbies don't know your standards for discussing music theory and may not be familiar with forum etiquette. I don't think "they were wrong" is a good enough reason to run off new members/posters. Maybe a less goofy version of this disclaimer would help you with newcomers and everyone who's irritated with the way you handle them.

Other users are already inserting their own versions of The Kevin Disclaimer. They're just nastier and make fun of your playing. So take the disclaimer into your own hands and use it.

[JonR]

hey jon, perfect description... !!! i agree with you 100 %...
especially if we as improvisors have to deal with shorter harmonic forms/cycles...

it's of course a little different when you play modern (larger jazz ensemble/orchestral type) compositions by let's say maria schneider, bob brookmeyer or vince mendoza where you solo over sections which can be composed (for sections) or improvised by rhythm sections only... just fooling around won't get you a lot of approval by these kinds of composers either... :-)

LOL.
For some perverse reason, that reminds me of that old Stan Freberg track, where he has a jazz pianist on a doo-wop session:

"You play that plink-plink-plink jazz or you won't get paid tonight!"
...

plink plink plink plink....

[oneworld]

"You play that plink-plink-plink jazz or you won't get paid tonight!"
...

plink plink plink plink....

hahaaa....

i was thinking more about along the lines of something like this
although it's not 'out there' at all:

[ksjazzguitar]

...
Kevin, I propose "Kevin's Disclaimer for Newbies".

Something to the tune of:

It should be understood that I am zealous for truth in music theory, and the standardization of music theory terminology. I believe that these standards can best be measured against a long tradition of classical music theory. I see no reason to create new terminology in describing jazz theory. I will ask you to reference any questionable assertion regarding music theory or history to a respected scholarly source.

I will begin with a civil tone in pointing out what I perceive as discrepancies in your post. If you fail to address the points I raise or otherwise fail to back up your claims with scholarly references, I will "take the gloves off" and post lengthy responses, the reading of which will make your eyes dry up in their sockets.

Before proceeding, please view the following thread (I've posted one but choose your own) which is an example of the way I like to discuss these topics.

Just to address the points (not trying to be uncivil - I understand the tone with which Matt means it):

Hmmm. I'm not sure why expecting people to get not make things up and to get their facts straight before they start pontificating is not something that we all expect. In this example, czardas clearly didn't even have basic theory knowledge and yet entered into others' threads and started to lecture us on how our chord notation system was confusing that that he knew how to fix it. All this besides the fact that he didn't know what a diminished chord is (and yet continued to defend his crazy definition for a couple dozen posts even after it was pointed out that it was wrong.)

Keeping misinformation from clogging up the forum and getting the same weight as real information should be everyone's goal, IMHO. I know that many of you can look at czardas' redefinition of a diminished chord and roll your eyes and know that he is a fool. But there are noobs that can't tell the difference, and if you have two people, one saying "A diminished chord is any chord with a d5, regardless of what the 3rd is" and the other saying "No, it is built off of a R b3 b5, and nothing else" then the noobs don't know whom to believe. Personally I think that it would be a little bit selfish for the more knowledgeable of us to just leave the noobs to fend for themselves in a confusing sea of misinformation.

"It should be understood that I am zealous for truth in music theory, and the standardization of music theory terminology." - I think truth is a good thing in all things. And I don't fight for the "standardization in music theory terminology" - I just fight against the un-standardization caused by people inventing their own terms for preexisting concepts just because they are uninformed. That just causes unnecessary confusion.

"I see no reason to create new terminology in describing jazz theory" - I see no problem in creating "new terminology in describing jazz theory" as long as there is a reason to. If jazz is using it in a unique way and using the same term would cause confusion, then by all means, create a new term, or at least modify/qualify the existing term. Additionally, when some people misapply classical terms out of ignorance, that creates more confusion.

"I will ask you to reference any questionable assertion regarding music theory or history to a respected scholarly source." It depends. Is it a statement characterized as a "fact" or just an opinion? If someone says "D# F A C" is diminished chord, and claims that they were taught that during studying an MM at a prestigious European conservatory and that it is that way in the textbooks - then I will ask for some a citation. If on the other hand, he'd said something like "That D# F A C functions so similarly to D#dim7, that I think of it as related." That is more a statement of opinion - I may disagree, but I'm not going to go on the war path.

Another solution would be if czardas had simply, when confronted with someone pointing out that his definition of a diminished chord, had simply checked his facts. He could have picked up a music dictionary and realized that he'd made a mistake (especially since he'd stated that he didn't know jazz or classical theory well.) He doesn't even have to make a public mea culpa, just stop defending his lie. But he chose to not check his facts and spent a week defending his ridiculous notion. Then he decided to go back and edit his posts (adding and deleting) well after several posts had elapsed to make it look like he'd said something different in order to deceive (which I was taught was lying.) Then he through a hissy-fit and just deleted it all.


Again, you guys look at the few flame wars I've had and judge everything from that. Y'all ignore the threads where I am gently helpful to noobs and have simple disagreements with others without devolving into flaminess. The difference in those threads? No one is making anything up and asserting it as fact, even after being shown that it is demonstrably false. I engage in plenty of disagreements that don't go flamey.

Again, I'm not aware that we should have to tell people not to make things up and to get their facts straight before they start asserting things as facts and to not lie and deceive. If anything, that should be in the TOU. Maybe not even for this site - maybe that should be the TOU everywhere in life.

Peace,
Kevin

[matt.guitarteacher]

Keeping misinformation from clogging up the forum and getting the same weight as real information should be everyone's goal, IMHO. I know that many of you can look at czardas' redefinition of a diminished chord and roll your eyes and know that he is a fool. But there are noobs that can't tell the difference, and if you have two people, one saying "A diminished chord is any chord with a d5, regardless of what the 3rd is" and the other saying "No, it is built off of a R b3 b5, and nothing else" then the noobs don't know whom to believe. Personally I think that it would be a little bit selfish for the more knowledgeable of us to just leave the noobs to fend for themselves in a confusing sea of misinformation.

Dude, seriously. If you explain why you think someone else's statement is incorrect and do it well, the reader has two viewpoints to consider. Who really makes the determination of which carries more weight? At some point, it's kind of up to the reader to do some research and determine which is correct or at least ask the parties involved for some basis for their assertions.

I guess I can understand your wanting to debate topics to death for whatever reason. I just can't swallow the idea that the "danger" of noobs believing misinformation (even in the presence of a clearly-stated opposing argument and based on supposedly verifiable facts) is greater than the "other danger": that many other noobs may be completely turned off to this forum and all of the content available from its many knowledgeable participants because you have to fight to the death over absolute truth in chord theory.

No guitarist who has any real aspiration to be a serious jazz musician is going to be scarred for life by reading one piece of misinformation on simple terminology. This belief completely disregards the overwhelming amount of reliable written material that the reading player would have to digest to learn to play at any kind of respectable level.

It also disregards the sensibilty of the majority voice on the forum. And that doesn't neccesarily mean that people have to chime in with their vote for one viewpoint or another. It means that if something is important it will get covered pretty often in the boards.

I don't think I've ever made a comment about anything without someone arguing the point. :-) Forum members do a pretty good job of questioning assertions made by others. I don't see it as being in "danger".

I think it's unsettling that there has to be some kind of moral implication with someone having a different opinion, even if their opinion is not verifiable, based in fact, rational or even consistent from post to post.

The accusations of willful spreading of disinformation and lies in czardas's case and others' portray what is in my opinion an illogical suspicion. It just seems over the top to talk about these folks' motives using such strong moral language. I think you always have to assume that an individual may actually believe what they're saying for whatever reason.

Much was implied re. czardas's character in relation to his website and video in the welcome thread. His claims were then verified as far as I can tell without much acknowledgement of the slight other than added insult to the education cred of the entire European continent.

I assumed an undue level of respect for European institutions. First of all, in the US, the word "conservatory" is reserved for only the best, most prestigious music schools, with the highest standards for acceptance and graduation. Additionally, the BM is the most respected 4-year degree that you can get. But it appears that we require more theory in our first year at a community college than a European conservatory does for the six years of an MM.
Czardas, I guess I accept that you are who you say you are. But unfortunately that requires me to lower my opinion of what an "educated" flamenco player is and forces me to forever be suspicious of European credentials.

Czardas, if you want me off your back, then just learn your basic theory before trying to pontificate on advanced theory - that is an insult to everyone on this forum. By your own admission, you don't know classical or jazz theory and yet you came onto a jazz forum and tried to tell us we were notating chords wrong and tried to redefine what a diminished chord is (something that anyone with half of a class in "real" music theory can spot as ridiculous.)

[ksjazzguitar]

Dude, seriously. If you explain why you think someone else's statement is incorrect and do it well, the reader has two viewpoints to consider. Who really makes the determination of which carries more weight? At some point, it's kind of up to the reader to do some research and determine which is correct or at least ask the parties involved for some basis for their assertions.

Perhaps, but for far too many, this is research. I just don't think that it is too much for us to expect to keep blatant misinformation at bay.

It also disregards the sensibilty of the majority voice on the forum.

Yes, I'm sure that most of the people on the forum know that D# F A C is not a dim7, but it's not them that I was worried about. And they remain shockingly quiet when this happens. Even a few one lines posts of support of reality might have ended it.

Forum members do a pretty good job of questioning assertions made by others. I don't see it as being in "danger".

And yet, for a long time, I seemed to be the only one challenging this nonsense. And in other similar situations, again, I am often the only one challenging the misinformation.

The accusations of willful spreading of disinformation and lies in czardas's case and others' portray what is in my opinion an illogical suspicion.

I watched him do it. It's not a suspicion if I see it happen. I watched him edit, delete, and augment previous posts to try and change the appearance of what he said. At least one other person commented on it too. He also several times misrepresented his harmonic knowledge, claiming his six years at a prestigious European conservatory and that he had extensive chord knowledge. I could show you, but he deleted it all.

It just seems over the top to talk about these folks' motives using such strong moral language. I think you always have to assume that an individual may actually believe what they're saying for whatever reason.

I just didn't know what to think of someone who claimed to have an MM from a prestigious conservatory but didn't know his basic triads.

Much was implied re. czardas's character in relation to his website and video in the welcome thread. His claims were then verified as far as I can tell without much acknowledgement of the slight other than added insult to the education cred of the entire European continent.

As far as his identity, he had brought his own cred into question with his actions in other threads. That was not an assumption but an observation. Someone else brought up the possible "identity theft" angle and I commented on it. Based on the childish and misleading behavior I didn't think it was too "out there." Would it be so impossible that someone on the internet would pretend to be someone they're not? Especially a professional musician with an MM who doesn't seem to know the basics of chord construction that the rest of us learned in the 1st semester of theory? Which is the most logical conclusion? But we did confirm that he is who he says he is, and I acknowledged that.

But that only makes me question more what Europe calls a "conservatory." How can you get a six year music degree and not learn your basic theory? Looking over the course catalog of the Rotterdam Conservatory, I was shocked. You can get a BM (or even an MM) with that little theory?!?!? We have more in our first year of a BA. There is no way a school like that could even hope to get real accreditation like that in the US - it would be a joke.

I didn't say that all schools in Europe are bad, but I now have to be extra careful in considering schools with fancy sounding names and fancy sounding degrees. There are bad schools in the US where you can get an unaccredited MM in the US (more accurately they are "accredited" but through an accreditation that is not recognized by "real" schools.)

Hey, I went to the source, I looked at the Rotterdam Conservatory's web site and saw what they call a program. It would be a joke here in the states. Again, it appears to be more of a trade school for musicians. That does not mean that it is worthless, just that its not an academic education and I doubt that it's accredited in the same way that their best universities are.

Again, what am I supposed to think about a school that awards an MM to someone that can't build basic chords, and doesn't teach it's students any general theory? I understand that flamenco students don't need to know how to do 12-tone matrices, but basic 7th chords? C'mon man, that's pathetic. Ultimately, I'm not condemning the school - czardas' arrogantly defiant ignorance is. Personally, I thought that the "impostor" solution was the cleanest - now I have to realize that he does have an MM from a "prestigious" European conservatory.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Perhaps I may add to this. There was some discussion about chords that do not appear in any books. Chord names that I had invented using a method different to the standard construction techniques.

Really, NOW you tell us that you're inventing your chord names?!?!?!??! After all this crap, you finally come clean and admit that this has nothing to do with six years of theory study at a prestigious European conservatory? Man, your story never stops changing.

My argument was that these chords have value, although they are not given names.

What chord? Your D# F A C? That has a name. In classical it is an inversion of a Ger6. In jazz it is an F7, regardless of the enharmonic spelling - the b7th often resolves up in a TT sub - that is one of the characteristics of a TT sub, the 3rd and 7th switch function. We often don't bother with the enharmonic spelling in jazz, but that doesn't change the function, it's just labeling.

So what the heck do you mean "chords have value, although they are not given names." Point to me where anyone said that. Unlike you, I don't delete my posting to hide my mistakes.

You were told these chord names, several times, so don't go whining now that we were saying that these chords don't have value or don't have names. You just wanted to invent your own name for it. To make matters worse, you were trying to use another name that already had a meaning - "diminished chord" - and were applying it incorrectly.

This is when this argument broke out. It was claimed that I had no right to be changing theory - not that I was but anyway.

Yes, labeling D# F A C as a diminished chord is changing the theory. Your definition of a diminished chord as "any chord with a b5, regardless of the 3rd" is redefining basic theory. I could go on, but whatever, you just don't seem to get it.

You still don't seem to get that you don't get to jump the the "expert" part without going through the beginner stage. You need to get a beginners book of theory and master that before you can even begin to hope to build a new system - you don't even understand the old one.

All you've done since you came on this forum is pontificate on your theories and criticized jazz/classical theory that you clearly don't even understand. You've admitted to not knowing much about jazz and classical, which is evidenced by what you've said. So, why do you keep trying to "set us straight" in this and other threads?

Would it be alright for me to go onto flamenco forums and start criticizing their theory and notation? Even though I know no more about flamenco than you know about jazz guitar? Or would that make me an arrogant tool who is too stupid to know the difference between informed judgment and uninformed opinions? Wouldn't that make me a troll?

Peace,
Kevin

[Banksia]

Yes, I'm sure that most of the people on the forum know that D# F A C is not a dim7, but it's not them that I was worried about. And they remain shockingly quiet when this happens. Even a few one lines posts of support of reality might have ended it.

And yet, for a long time, I seemed to be the only one challenging this nonsense. And in other similar situations, again, I am often the only one challenging the misinformation.

This is partly your fault Kevin. By your emphasis on academic credentials, you have cut many of us out of these threads. You once referred to a notion as "something we learnt in our very first Music Theory class." I've been playing 40 years and I still haven't been to my very first Music Theory class.

You also once referred to people getting their info from Guitar Player magazine. Well I lived in a small rural town and most of my early theory literally came from the articles at the back of GP.

Why would I risk joining one of these threads, just to be shredded for my hick ignorance and lack of formal credentials?


As far as his identity, he had brought his own cred into question with his actions in other threads. That was not an assumption but an observation. Someone else brought up the possible "identity theft" angle and I commented on it.

I raised that issue, because I was amazed at Czardas' lack of basic chord construction knowledge, given his claimed academic background. I emailed Nick Wilkinson because I thought he may want to know if somebody was using his identity. I don't have a policy of checking up on people.

....

[czardas]

Okay let's settle this once and for all:

1. I build a diminshed triad with two minor thirds stacked on top of each other.
2. I add to this a diminished seventh.
3. I flatten the third again to create a chord with a diminished third which is used to interpret a certain type of cadence used in flamenco.
4. If a classical music scholar doesn't like it, that's too bad because it won't deter me from doing whatever I want.
5. I don't care if it exists in a book or not.

That's the last I have to say about it.

[Banksia]

OK let's try it:

1. C Eb Gb
2. C Eb Gb A
3. C D Gb A

Congratulations! you've just invented D7!

[Banksia]

Indeed I have, but it's harmonic context is C# phrygian.

Ah, so it's a C# b13b9sus4maj7 (no root). When you put it like that, I've been playing that chord for 40 years and didn't even realise.

[oneworld]

can you be a bit more specific about the source re:'certain individuals' ?

Seriously this is accepted theory among certain individuals. It's not something I just made up. The chord has theoretical value when interpreted in this way. The D drops down to C# by a semitone and the B# moves upwards to C#. It is treated as if it was a chord built on the raised seventh degree of the phrygian scale. It can also be viewed as a chord built on the second degree of the phrygian scale. However theoretically the note C in the chord D7 is not a seventh, but rather an augmented 6th B#. I have never had any argument with that. I really find it strange that people seem to think I don't understand this.

[djangoles]

C# b13b9sus4maj7 (NO ROOT)......

If I were playing with a group, and this chord was on the chart, the song would be over before I figured out it was a D7......

[Banksia]

C# b13b9sus4maj7 (NO ROOT)......

If I were playing with a group, and this chord was on the chart, the song would be over be I figured out it was a D7......

The tricky part is that there's no root note!

[djangoles]

So is this chord (D7 for simplicity sake) being played over some kinda of C# minor/phrygian vamp type thingy????

[ksjazzguitar]

Seriously this is accepted theory among certain individuals. It's not something I just made up. The chord has theoretical value when interpreted in this way. The D drops down to C# by a semitone and the B# moves upwards to C#.

But it doesn't need your artificial and awkward definition as a diminished chord. We already explain that resolution in classical music as an Aug6 chord (since at least the Baroque) and in jazz as a TT sub. No need to invent a third definition that fails to add anything to it.

It is treated as if it was a chord built on the raised seventh degree of the phrygian scale. It can also be viewed as a chord built on the second degree of the phrygian scale. However theoretically the note C in the chord D7 is not a seventh, but rather an augmented 6th B#....

That explanation has been fine for hundreds of years.

Indeed I have, but it's harmonic context is C# phrygian.

But for us (in jazz and classical) a non-diatonic chord doesn't need to have the key tonic in it. The standard scale for a Ger6 would be lyd dom, not that monstrosity you invented. Really, it is the same scale as the altered scale for the TT sub original.


I'm sorry that you got taught that watered down theory. Frankly I'm a little surprised that they think so little of flamenco players that they can't handle standard theory (looking at the course catalog, they give a much better theory background to the pop students.) But if you want to play with the big boys, I'd pick up a book on basic theory. Really, if you keep trying to apply your "flamenco theory" over the top of classical/jazz theory you will keep getting these confusions.

You are on a jazz guitar forum. Learn our theory before you start trying to correct it.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Seriously this is accepted theory among certain individuals. It's not something I just made up. The chord has theoretical value when interpreted in this way. The D drops down to C# by a semitone and the B# moves upwards to C#.

But it doesn't need your artificial and awkward definition as a diminished chord. We already explain that resolution in classical music as an Aug6 chord (since at least the Baroque) and in jazz as a TT sub. No need to invent a third definition that fails to add anything to it.

It is treated as if it was a chord built on the raised seventh degree of the phrygian scale. It can also be viewed as a chord built on the second degree of the phrygian scale. However theoretically the note C in the chord D7 is not a seventh, but rather an augmented 6th B#....

That explanation has been fine for hundreds of years.

Indeed I have, but it's harmonic context is C# phrygian.

But for us (in jazz and classical) a non-diatonic chord doesn't need to have the key tonic in it - that really isn't a problem for us. The standard scale for a Ger6 would be lyd dom, not that monstrosity you invented. Really, it is the same scale as the altered scale for the TT sub original.


I'm sorry that you got taught that watered down theory. Frankly I'm a little surprised that they think so little of flamenco players that they can't handle standard theory (looking at the course catalog, they give a much better theory background to the pop students.) But if you want to play with the big boys, I'd pick up a book on basic theory. Really, if you keep trying to apply your "flamenco theory" over the top of classical/jazz theory you will keep getting these confusions.

You are on a jazz guitar forum. Learn our theory before you start trying to correct it. I'm not sure why you keep trying to lecture us on flamenco theory.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Manuel Granados uses the phrygian scale to build chords in his book "Teoria Musical De La Guitarra Flamenca"....

Again, you keep falling back on flamenco theory. This is a jazz guitar forum. If flamenco players want to invent their own crazy theory, then go ahead. But please don't pollute these waters by trying to mix the two together.

And again, you fail to realize that classical music has been using the Phrygian scale and building chords off it for centuries. This is the kind of thing that you would have learned in a standard music degree. The building of chords off of a Phrygian scale and their quasi-modal use in flamenco is not the use - they do the same thing in classical, listen to Albeniz or de Falla. The problem is your bizarre way of labeling and analyzing the chords.

You seem to be working on two contradictory assumptions:

1. Flamenco theory is related to jazz/classical theory: This is evidenced by your tendency to mix your flamenco theory in discussion of jazz theory as if they are the same thing, much to the confusion of everyone involved.
2. Flamenco theory is not related to jazz/classical theory: Whenever you get cornered you run back to the safety of your flamenco theory, which seems to be increasingly irrelevant. I had at one time assumed that flamenco players used standard theory like the rest of the Western world. You have disabused me of the assumption. And I had thought that jazz guitarists were a bunch of anti-theory, anti-intellectual individualists! Man, they ain't got nothing on flamenco cats!

And again, why are we discussing flamenco?!? Why can't flamenco guys get their own dang forum?

Peace,
Kevin

[oneworld]

i wanted to stay out of this troubled discussion but the much put down
dutch description (i understand some dutch) of that chord which 'doesn't exist' (dubbel verminderd septiem : grondtoon + verminderde terts + verminderde kwint + verminderde septiem (c eses ges beses) (geen symbool want klinkt als omkering van dominant)
triggered a memory... so i did some research on my way back from the gig today...

i have to mention that in 'classical' theory there is a triad called 'double diminished triad' (C Ebb Gb) as well as (translated from German) the 'diminished double diminished seventh chord' (C Ebb Gb Bbb). i haven't found
any english/american source yet, but i'm very sure i will... anyone with a real background in 'classical' theory can check it out... it's complicated stuff, but if you can read standard notation and know the symbol system for functional analysis you can verify it nicely on a piano. i don't have the time to do a full translation from German but it should be selfexplanatory if you have the proper background...

about triads:

http://www.mu-sig.de/Theorie/Tonsatz/Tonsatz05.htm#t2231

about seventh chords:

Tonsatz: weitere Septakkordtypen

so i can gladly say czardas was only 'sort of' right but was doing a very bad job communicating whatever he wanted to put across
and ksjazzguitar should do his research before claiming certain chords/structures don't exist and playing 'mindpolice'. let me add that imho this particular topic has nothing to do with 'jazz' theory/guitar and i couldn't care less... hope this contribution helps to cool things down... although i
did learn a new thing or two... a triple diminished triad ?!? get outta here...
number 2.2.3.3 on the triads link...

peace...

[oneworld]

OK let's try it:

1. C Eb Gb
2. C Eb Gb A
3. C D Gb A

Congratulations! you've just invented D7!

not at all....

ok... last contribution...

if you look at that seventh chord page you have the notes

C Ebb Gb Bbb

it's called a diminished double diminished seventh chord... for real ! :-)

the music examples actually list 10 different functions (enharmonic uses included) for its use and resolution...

[oneworld]

Okay let's settle this once and for all:

That's the last I have to say about it.

i hope the above did help to settle certain aspects of this mess ...

on to more interesting things...

[ksjazzguitar]

i have to mention that in 'classical' theory there is a triad called 'double diminished triad' (C Ebb Gb) as well as (translated from German) the 'diminished double diminished seventh chord' (C Ebb Gb Bbb). i haven't found any english/american source yet, but i'm very sure i will...

Well, a quick check of the online sources of Grove's (the gold standard in English-speaking music world) and the Oxford Companion to Music and the Oxford Guide to Music failed to show any entries. A Google search has a few hits, often of people arguing about it (not a scholarly source, but can be an indication of usage.)

I realize that these may exist in other languages. But even the Dutch source that Czardas quoted failed to give a chord symbol for his double diminished chord - the only chord out of the 18 defined that didn't have one. Why wasn't one given? Because it is an inversion of a 7th chord - exactly what I'm saying. If the term were in common usage by scholars, there would have been a symbol used.

The so-called double diminished chord (as Czardas is defining it, in contrast to how Ellington used the term) is just an inversion of a Ger6. A pretty standard one at that. I see no reason to give it its own name. Similarly, the so-called double-diminished triad that you give is just an inversion of It6. (Hmmm, a pattern is forming here. ) Scanning through your page, it appears that they are just using this term to describe Aug6 chords. But what they call them in German is not relevant to what we call them in English - translation does not involve a word for word translation. Concepts are translated.

But do we need to give special names to all the inversions? I use a first inversion of an X7 a lot more than I use a 3rd inversion of a Ger6. Should it get it's own name too. Let's see, a dim triad with a b6 on top, lets call it a dimb6. I can look at the voice-leading and point out that the dim portion of it is indeed functioning as a dim chord. Should we do this for every inversion that we use? No, let's just learn to understand the chords as they are.

We live in a tertian harmony world, let's label tertian harmony symbols. I know that Aug6 chords are confusing for people that aren't used to them. Even to those of us that are - I remember having a theory placement exam when I got into grad school and I had to analyze some Schumann. I couldn't figure out what that II7b5 was doing there, until it dawned on me that it was just a Fr6 - the enharmonic spelling was throwing me off. Yes, they are confusing. But rather than invent a new system of triads and seventh chords to deal with them, let's stick with what we have, which works just fine.

ksjazzguitar should do his research before claiming certain chords/structures don't exist and playing 'mindpolice'.

I didn't say that the chord doesn't exist, just that the labeling is wrong. I didn't say that D# F A C "doesn't exist," just that it is not a "double diminished seventh" - it is an inversion of a Ger6. That is how it is labeled in English and that is how it is functioning musically. I don't care what they call it in Dutch, German, Swahili, or Pig Latin. I can't get into arguments about how they label things in other languages that I don't speak. But again, if it were in common usage in Dutch, then there would be a symbol for it - chord descriptions that get used have symbols. But the page got it right - it doesn't need one because it's just an inversion of another chord.

It may be that these terms were at one point used in English too. But they clearly aren't in common usage now. We just label them as inversions of Aug6 chords. That is what they are and that is how the function. If you can find me an example of either of these two chords that is not functioning as an inversion of an Aug6 chord, then let me know - you may be on to something.

And all of this is made even more silly with czardas' declaration that anything with a b5 is a diminished chord, regardless of what the third is.

C Ebb Gb Bbb ...it's called a diminished double diminished seventh chord... for real ...

Not in English it's not. Again, it is irrelevant to what some web page calls it in a foreign language. All that proves is that some people in a foreign land have a different name for it. So what?

Peace,
Kevin

[oneworld]

I realize that these may exist in other languages. But even the Dutch source that Czardas quoted failed to give a chord symbol for his double diminished chord - the only chord out of the 18 defined that didn't have one. Why wasn't one given?

read the functional analysis symbols... it's all there if you'd actually care to look... :-) i'm not even German, but they did lay the foundations of modern
western music theory or do you really think everything started with piston ?!

No, let's just learn to understand the chords as they are.

we'll talk after you've played through the examples... if you can...
aren't you interested to expand your knowledge ?

I don't care what they call it in Dutch, German, Swahili, or Pig Latin. I can't get into arguments about how they label things in other languages that I don't speak.

you only speak english ?!? not even spanish livin' in CA ?

It may be that these terms were at one point used in English too. But they clearly aren't in common usage now. We just label them as inversions of Aug6 chords. That is what they are and that is how the function. If you can find me an example of either of these two chords that is not functioning as an inversion of an Aug6 chord, then let me know - you may be on to something.

i'm awaiting your source in anticipation ... :-)
my research is on...

Again, it is irrelevant to what some web page calls it in a foreign language. All that proves is that some people in a foreign land have a different name for it. So what?

Peace,
Kevin

according to you it seems that Germany is located in some faraway 'other world' without a history in western classical music...

i'll find the book... :-)

btw, why are you always so upset when there's a different opinion ?

i don't give a ... but it's weird...

addendum... i'll join the pissing contest for a little while...

[oneworld]

I personally think Kevin has a good understanding of theory and have respect for his historical knowledge.

hhmmm... i'm not convinced... we shall see...
judging the info in his bio the academic credentials are lacking... :-)

[ksjazzguitar]

read the functional analysis symbols... it's all there if you'd actually care to look... :-) i'm not even German, but they did lay the foundations of modern
western music theory or do you really think everything started with piston ?!

That's debatable - I'd hag that medal around Rameau's neck but OK. But even if you are correct, before that it was the Italians - maybe we should check the Italian Wikipedia page. Before that it was the Greeks, maybe we should check the Greek Wikipedia page.

we'll talk after you've played through the examples... if you can...aren't you interested to expand your knowledge ?

I can read, I don't need to play through them. Point out which one doesn't function as an Aug6. If you can do that, I'll concede that there may be a need for a different label.

you only speak english ?!? not even spanish livin' in CA ?

On what are you basing that assumption?

i'm awaiting your source in anticipation ... :-)
my research is on...

I mentioned Groves and two Cambridge guides - you don't consider them good sources? That's besides finishing an MA in music. So far all you've offered are foreign Wikipedia pages.

according to you it seems that Germany is located in some faraway 'other world' without a history in western classical music...

No, just that they use different labels. But until I go to study music in Germany, I don't really care. This is an English speaking forum. Mistranslating foreign terms is not an argument.

btw, why are you always so upset when there's a different opinion ?

I don't mind different opinions. I mind "different" facts. I have many different opinions with people that never explode.

Look, if all you have to offer is bad translations and cheap shots then don't waste our time. You're just being a troll.

Do you have something to offer the discussion other than cheap shots and red herrings? You really don't seem interested in the issue at hand, just being an a$$.

Peace,
Kevin