How to Count Arpeggio Degrees?

[ksjazzguitar]

I'll ignore the requisite and childish personal attack against my "dinner jazz" recordings.

No, Kevin, you don't hear me. I don't have an "impression" of what Joe said or thought. My posts have been based on first hand information that I heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes. I was around Joe on an almost daily basis when I attended GIT in the early 1980s.

That's cool. I'm just basing my opinion on what I've seen, read and the opinions of people for whom I have a great deal of respect.

Maybe you're right, maybe he plays the fool in his instructional DVDs, purposefully stumbling over the names of extensions and basic concepts, sometimes misnaming chord tones, just to fool us. Maybe he cared so little about his audience that he cared more about keeping up his act than being an honest teacher. Maybe he did the same in lessons and masterclasses, with my tow university professors that had met him. (They were too polite to say anything bad about Joe, but it was clear that they felt that his theory was more practical than academic.)

But ultimately, it is Joe's responsibility to make a good impression. If he made a bad impression, it is his fault, not mine. And apparently, I'm not the only one.

But you got a different impression. Should that take precedence over my impression and my professors? (No offense, but I have no idea who you are - none of us really know who the other is.) No, it's just another opinion and I will file it away with the others.

But I'm not saying he sucked. I love Joe. I would have walked across broken glass to have studied with him

On more than one occasion you have berated posters on this forum for not providing documented proof and yet here you are positing facts based on an impression you got from something that was never said.

But I wasn't claiming it was a fact. I was stating an opinion. I didn't say "It's a scientific fact Joe didn't know theory because I read it on Wikipedia and anyone who says differently is an elitist snob." There is no misrepresentation here.

You obviously have a different impression. That's cool.

You have repeatedly set yourself up as the self appointed champion of the newbies with your self proclaimed goal of saving them from misinformation. Yet on two occasions you posted the terms "quasi-arps and quasi-triads". ...Triads and arpeggios don't have functions except in context. They are what they are. A triad is a triad is a triads.

I agree completely. When used as a sequence for practice, they lack harmonic context. Therefore they are not triads, etc, in my estimation, they are just patterns. To me triads are more than just a group of 3 notes - they are chords that relate to the harmony. If I play "D-F-A" as part of a sequence over a CMaj7, then to me I am not really playing an "F triad" but just a part of a sequence that has the same notes. A triad would have harmonic implications, this is just a series of passing tones.

If you want to define it differently, that's fine. Your anger would be relevant if there were some common definition for those sequences. If there is, please point me to the source. Until then, until there is a standard name, I will use mine. And my name doesn't cause confusion, it is just an added qualifier. I didn't call them "inversions" or "clusters" or "partials" or someother term already in use. I simply chose to name it with a prefix to distinguish from the harmonic use of triads. But if these sequences have a name, please point it out to me. Otherwise I am left to chose a name. I'm sorry if the prefix "quasi-" bothers you so much. I was giving my list of sequences and had to add names for the ones that don't have standard names to the best of my knowledge.

But really, isn't this a little OT?

Relax. It's amazing how many times I get raked over the coal because I try to correct someone on the definition of a triad or inversion, but I regularly get attacked for things that are clearly stated as opinions.

Peace,
Kevin

[monk]

I was giving my list of sequencesand had to add names for the ones that don't have standard names to the best of my knowledge.

THEY ALREADY HAVE NAMES. ARPEGGIOS AND TRIADS.

[ksjazzguitar]

THEY ALREADY HAVE NAMES. ARPEGGIOS AND TRIADS.

Relax man. I wasn't aware that those terms were universally applied to sequences. I've never heard it described that way. An arpeggio is playing chord tones. Playing D-F-A over a CMaj7 is not playing chord tones but a sequence of passing tones. It's a distinction I like to make. To me it's only an arpeggio if it is functioning harmonically. Typically, melodic sequences do not affect harmonic function. It is a series of notes that reduce to parallel passing tones. That's how melodic sequences reduce - to scalar lines. It's all about context.

It's cool if you don't want to make that distinction. BUT STOP YELLING AT ME BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS A MATTER OF OPINION. STOP FREAKING OUT ABOUT A PREFIX.

Really, you can yell at me about that, but I'm an ogre because I dare to correct someone that says that C-E-Gb-Bb is a diminished chord. Wow.

Peace,
Kevin

[czardas]

Let's refrain from polluting threads such as this with personal angst.

[matt.guitarteacher]

No, I make points. You've just gone on a childish rampage. You've interjected yourself into several threads with the clear purpose of taking cheap shots at me. I know you think that you're going to "bug" me or something, but I really tend to ignore childish behavior. I teach children for a living, I've learned not to let their antics get to me.

Was it the Joe Pass method that taught you how to incorrectly build basic chords? We still haven't traced the origin of that.

I'd call that a cheap shot. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with this thread.

[ksjazzguitar]

It was both: a cheap shot and a point. I found it ironic that someone that admits to not knowing much about jazz and has trouble building basic triads would be giving endorsements on where to learn jazz theory.

But it was also a cheap shot, you got me there.

Peace,
Kevin

[czardas]

Many aspects of theory are the same in different styles of music. The main differences appear to be in systems of notation.

Regarding systems of labeling chord notes, I prefer to use a system that is clear and consistant. One thing I notice is that chord symbols generally employ the same nomenclature as the intervals in the formula (particularly with altered notes #5, b9, #11 etc...). This is my main reason for adapting the system in Joe's book. At least in the case of the seventh.

Symbol G7 ........ Formula 1 3 5 7
Symbol Gmaj7 ... Formula 1 3 5 maj7

I can't remember ever having seen the term b7 in a chord symbol, although I accept that it is commonly used in chord formulas. I think it's inconsistant to some degree, however I do think it's important to realise that when someone says the seventh, they may mean a minor seventh interval (not chord).

[monk]

czardas,
Every theory book I own gives the chord formula for a dominant seventh chord as 1 3 5 b7 and for major seventh as 1 3 5 7. These are intervals relative to the root. The theory classes I took at the University of Tennessee and later at GIT used these same formulae.

I examined my old copy of the Joe Pass Guitar Style and it does list the formulae as you have previously stated. However, one must consider that this may be a error that wasn't edited in the final version. The original manuscript was said to be almost 200 pages edited down to the 58 pages of the final version.

I would offer that 1 3 5 b7 and 1 3 5 7 are as clear as it gets. Historically, common usage of the dominant 7th chord preceded that of the major 7th chord. Since the dominant seventh was and had been called the "seventh chord" for many years, the name "major seventh chord" was used to describe the chord 1 3 5 7 when it came into common use. It certainly seems to work for most people and is certainly less cumbersome than "major/major seventh" and "major/minor seventh".


Regards,
monk

[czardas]

That's fair enough. Perhaps it is down to editing mistakes. Although the mistakes are consistant throughout the text. He gives the formula for dim7 chord as follows:

1 b3 b5 6(b7)

... which is kind of confusing. I'll see if I can find other text which refer to the seventh in this way. Maybe I won't. It could also just be something that Joe invented.

[monk]

That's fair enough. Perhaps it is down to editing mistakes. Although the mistakes are consistant throughout the text. He gives the formula for dim7 chord as follows:

1 b3 b5 6(b7)

... which is kind of confusing. I'll see if I can find other text which refer to the seventh in this way. Maybe I won't. It could also just be something that Joe invented.

czardas,
The diminished formula is most assuredly a typographical error. It should read 1 b3 b5 bb7(6) or 1 b3 b5 6(bb7) if you prefer.
Regards,
monk

[czardas]

Okay, I'm reading what Joe Pass has to say

Joe Pass
The chordal theory is presented in its briefest form as it directly relates to the guitar. If some of the explanaitions differ from those in formal theory books, you're free to change the words to suit your own way of thinking. It is the idea that is important, not its explanaition.

I also found this strange at first. If you look at the C Major/Minor scale on the first page, it has the same spelling. At the time I read this, I figured that there was some connection between this and the letter H used in the German note naming system. See the following link:

Note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in German music notation, H is B♮ (B-natural) and B is B♭ (B-flat)

This being the case, I never thought to question it.

Edit
Actually I did question it, now I think back.

[monk]

Joe and Bill Thasher probably should have written out separate scales to be more clear, IMO. They apparently used the composite scale to save space.

I've heard jazz musicians to refer to the b7 in a dominant chord as the 7th but only as a verbal shorthand. It is understood to be the b7. However, for the book, it would have been better to have used standard theory terminology in the interest of clarity.

I think that the Germans only used the H in their scale vernacular so that Bach could write the musical variations on his name.

Regards,
monk

[czardas]

I think that the Germans only used the H in their scale vernacular so that Bach could write the musical variations on his name.

LOL. Okay you convinced me.

[ksjazzguitar]

It has nothing to do with the German H. (Don't get me started on H. )

The reason we call it a G7 and not a G(b7) is that when the 7th chord was "invented" it was essentially the only 7th chord. The 7th chord built on the dominant was the only game in town. Maj7ths and m7s appeared first as apparent chords as triads non-harmonic tones and only later as 7th chords. Even then, the X7 was still the most common 7th chord. Additionally, when these chords were first in use, it was still in the figured bass way of thinking where you though of the interval relative the the key signature - since there was no chromatic alteration, there was no need to qualify the "7". Nowadays, ultimately, the "7" in X7 just refers to the family of chord, the "7th" family, along with all the other 7th chords (maj, min, dim, half-dim, etc.) and it is just understood to tell you that it is a 7th chord and without qualification it is understood to be the default type, the dominant 7th.

Of course other extensions were added latter and by then we were no longer thinking in terms of figured bass so for the other extensions we tend to refer to them with their alterations in the chord names. (OK the above explanation is a little simplified, but you get the idea.)

Yes it is a little imperfect. That's the nature of modern music notation and we have to deal with it.

But I still think that it is useful to use the "correct" name for the intervals as you say them as you practice your arpeggio. It helps to cement the sounds and what they are into the brain. Monk's "verbal shorthand" explanation makes sense - we all do it sometimes. But the point of practice is to learn things the "right" way.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Lets say you are practicing all your aprpeggios in the key of C

Would you count a G7 in 5 7 2 4? or would you always take the root of the "chord" in the key as the 1 3 5 7(for G7)? or both? what are the advantages of either way?

Unfortuneately, looks like the the thread has been KurSed.

And part of the problem is 5 7 2 4 is also 5 7 9 11.

I'd say both, plus some not mentioned. The chord works diffently in different situations. The G7 could be the tonic, like in blues; or it could be static, like in funk. There 1 3 5 7 thinking might be fine. (BTW, that's 1 3 5 b7 for the dickheads who might not realize I assume most everyone around here ought to know that G7 has an F-nat).

1 2 5 7 type thinking might lead to confusion when the chords are part of a moving progression (say to some type of C chord). If you are using the tonic as 1 in your numbering, then 5 7 2 4 leads naturally to 3. That's your classic 4-3 or F-E notes, part of the basic cadence, that some of us learned to sing in sight-singing class by using the lyric "falling third" for 4-4-3 or Fa-Fa-Mi (and more on those syllables later).

If you always number your chords from the root, you have to recalibrate your number system for every change. And this creates confusion as to exactly when to change. Suppose you like anticipation and want to resolve the F to E before the G7 sounds. Do you recalibrate before the E, and think of it as 7 of the G-chord to the 6 (or the 13th)? Do you start thinking in terms of the C chord before that, so you can switch to calling the 7 of the G-chord, the 4 of the C-chord?

I suppose the are multiple solutions possible in order to rehearse this into the subconcious. Here's what I did. When I practiced chords, scales and arpeggios up and down the neck. Each time I'd go through the pattern, I would switch naming systems. So, one time I am thinking (singing) note names, then syllables Do Mi Sol Te, the next time Sol Ti Re Fa, the next time 1 3 5 b7 (of G, the next time 5 7 9 11 of C), then next time I am concentrating on the right hand (up-down or i-m etc), the next time the numbers of the LH fingers, then note names (and on the wall in front of me is my jumbo guitar neck diagram that I alternatively look at and the close my eyes) - then the next rehearsal pattern.

If you don't think a year of that type of saturation bombing will work for you, then try something else.

[Aristotle]

Okay, I'm reading what Joe Pass has to say

Just a little thought, but you could be quoting from God himself, and the effect on the intended audience might well be the same.

[czardas]

I have asked several different musicians about this in the past, and recieved different replies. It is perhaps because they all came from different countries. I would say that it is the verbal common usage that throws you.

Just a little thought, but you could be quoting from God himself, and the effect on the intended audience might well be the same.

I'll ask St. Peter what he reckons.

[Aristotle]

I'd call that a cheap shot. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with this thread.

Oh, I get it, it's cheap in general, but in this neighborhood it's the going rate.

[czardas]

So I take it that the following interval nomenclature is prefered when constructing formulas (including exotic scales):

0 semitones ... 1
1 semitone ... (#1) & b2
2 semitones ... 2 & bb3
3 semitones ... #2 & b3
4 semitones ... 3 & b4
5 semitones ... #3 & 4
6 semitones ... #4 & b5
7 semitones ... 5 & bb6
8 semitones ... #5 & b6
9 semitones ... 6 & bb7
10 semitones ... #6 & 7
11 semitones ... 7 & (b8)
12 semitones ... 8

etc...

[czardas]

Interesting website here: C Ionian Scale

The scale calculator includes some curious named scales such as:

Balinese Pelog 1 b2 b3 5 b6 8

I don't know how they got the symmetrical scale name. I can't find any symmetry in it?

[bako]

Balinese Pelog 1 b2 b3 5 b6 8
I don't know how they got the symmetrical scale name. I can't find any symmetry in it?

Original: C Db Eb G Ab C

The one symmetrical element that I can see is if you arrange the notes like this:

Ab C Db : Eb G Ab

I get 2 halves each containing a major 3rd and minor 2nd linked by a whole step.

Not unlike the 2 tetrachords of the major scale.

The post tonal theory camp have some methodologies for determining symmetrical elements in a note collection.
I observed this one by arranging the notes starting on each degree.
However, I didn't look at the article and have no idea as to whether this is what they were referring to.


In that interval semitone list, I believe you meant

10 semitones ... #6 & 7 to be #6 & b7

[ksjazzguitar]

... If you always number your chords from the root, you have to recalibrate your number system for every change. And this creates confusion as to exactly when to change. Suppose you like anticipation and want to resolve the F to E before the G7 sounds. Do you recalibrate before the E, and think of it as 7 of the G-chord to the 6 (or the 13th)? Do you start thinking in terms of the C chord before that, so you can switch to calling the 7 of the G-chord, the 4 of the C-chord?

It really doesn't cause a problem for me. If I "recalibrate" and that b7 becomes a 4, it still needs to be resolved in the same way. Perhaps I'm just used to it from analyzing so much CPP music. I just really don't see why there is any problem. I would much rather have a student think of it as some kind of a 7th because they need to learn how 7ths move. And when practicing it, I would want them to think of it as a b7 so they begin to learn what it sounds like.

Again, I don't want my students thinking of a G7b9#5 as 1 3 5 7 9 - that would be the same as any other 9th. I want them thinking 1 3 #5 b7 b9 because I want them to start hearing what those altered notes sound like and start programing them into their ears. But you don't have to do it if you don't want to - but some of us think that it has value.

So I take it that the following interval nomenclature is prefered when constructing formulas (including exotic scales):

I wouldn't say that it's preferred, but it is sometimes used for exotic scales as some might consider it out of place to put western symbols on foreign music. I think that it's no big deal. I'm not aware that it's preferred. It does make it nice in that now you don't have to decide, "Is that a #9 or a b3?" superimposing Western harmonic ideas on top of these non-Western musics. But I don't think that it is a problem as long as you understand that those notes are just labels.

Integer notation shows up in some 20th century atonal and serial music. Since the way we notated music is steeped in the tonal tradition, they like to get away from it. It also makes some of the math for chromatic transposition a little easier.

...I don't know how they got the symmetrical scale name. I can't find any symmetry in it [Balinese scale]?

Me neither. Where is it labeled as "symmetrical"? As bako points out, you can find quasi-symmetry in it, but that's not really what symmetrical is. It usually meaning limited transposition, meaning that one or more of the transpositions has the same notes as the original.

By mathematical definition, the number of transpostions possible is always 12 divided by the lowest of the sums of intervals that is also a factor of the others. Since the intervals of this scale are m2-M2-M3-m2-M3, that number is 1, therefore the number of possible transpositions is 12, meaning that it is not symmetrical. In order for it to be symmetrical, that number would at least have to be 2 (and even that just means that symmetry is possible.) (This is ignoring the chromatic scale of course.) In other words, in order to even begin to be possible to be symmetrical, there has to be at least 2 of each interval type and all the rest have to be multiples of 2 - but there is only 1 M2 here so it isn't even possible. Of course, you can have symmetry as multiples of 3 (augmented arp or scale), 4 (diminished arp or scale), 6 (WT scale), etc. (I know, too much math.)

Peace,
Kevin

[czardas]

I was refering to the scale on that webpage I linked to. They call this "The Symmetrical Scale"

1 b2 b3 4 #5 6 b7

E Symmetrical = E F G A B# C# D

How on Earth do they get symmetry with this? http://jguitar.com/scale/E/Symmetrical

I think that website is stupid: http://jguitar.com/chordsearch/G7sus2sus4 LMAO

bako: Thanks for pointing out the above mistake, I intended to write #6 & b7.

[ksjazzguitar]

IC. I don't know what they're talking about. It's not symmetrical by the standard definition.

I got bored with the long list of scales a long time ago. Major, harm minor and mel minor - that's 90% of what you need. Throw in the blues scales, the WT and the diminished and you're golden. The rest is just a waste of time, IMHO.

Peace,
Kevin

[billkath]

I got bored with the long list of scales a long time ago. Major, harm minor and mel minor - that's 90% of what you need. Throw in the blues scales, the WT and the diminished and you're golden. The rest is just a waste of time, IMHO.

Peace,
Kevin

IMHO also.