How to Count Arpeggio Degrees?

**bobsguitars09** · 02-17-2011, 10:18 PM

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?

**czardas** · 02-17-2011, 10:24 PM

I would personally prefer 1 3 5 7. I prefer it because it tells me more about how the chord is constructed.

**billkath** · 02-17-2011, 10:31 PM

I'd say the word "b7", though-not "7", as it's important that you get it into your head that that 7th is flattened in a dominant. I know what you mean, and that you know what you mean-just saying it's important, like calling the 3rd in a minor a flat third.

**czardas** · 02-17-2011, 10:49 PM

The 7th occurs as a minor seventh naturally when building the chord on the 5th degree. The scale note (F in the chord G7) isn't altered (can lead to confusion). Joe Pass refers to the minor seventh as 7, and the major seventh as maj7, in his book Guitar Styles. As long as the difference is understood. Playing the arpeggio is more beneficial than thinking about counting it.

**fumblefingers** · 02-17-2011, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by bobsguitars09

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?

a bit of an odd question.

but, if you are practicing, which is to say, NOT making music, and in your mind you are practicing "skips" from a modal (Ionian) frame of mind, then I suppose you could think in terms of C scale degrees (5 7 2 4 etc).

but the more common analysis example would be in context of playing or analyzing real music. the frame of harmonic reference is/are the chord(s) being played in a particular measure. from that point of view you look at things from the chord's root. 1 3 5 7. it is up to you to also take into consideration the chord's quality. in this case its dom7.

**ksjazzguitar** · 02-18-2011, 02:14 AM

Yeah, R 3 5 b7.

I understand your logic czardas, but it is important to keep track of the relation of the extensions to the root, not to the key. (Your logic would make sense in figured bass notation, but that died out a few hundred years ago.) Any time you alter from what would be the Maj13 relative to the root. If the chord was G7b9#11b13, would we just count it R 3 5 7 9 11 13? No, that would be misleading. Again, even in Cm, where the G7b9 would be diatonic, we don't call it a G9 - no, that is a b9.

It might happen that someone casually refers to the b7th of the G7 as a 7, but referring to it as the b7 is clearer in the long run.

Peace,
Kevin

**czardas** · 02-18-2011, 02:34 AM

I personally like the Joe Pass method.

**lkmuller** · 02-18-2011, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by czardas

I personally like the Joe Pass method.

Well, it obviously works for you, because you are one hell of a guitar player, and just to be sure that nothing is lost in the translation, that is a compliment of the highest nature.

**czardas** · 02-18-2011, 03:18 AM

Thank you for for the compliment. I think which ever system you follow, you need to be sure you understand these differences. Both systems are widespread. I think fumblefingers' responce puts it in a nutshell.

**ksjazzguitar** · 02-18-2011, 03:45 AM

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

And being a good guitar player really doesn't mean that you know jack about theory. BB King was a great guitar player, but couldn't tell a b9 from shinola.

Pass was a great player, but I wouldn't call him a great theorist or analyst. I can remember watching a video of his where he struggled to name the chord extensions he was playing, and sometimes named them wrong. I think that he was more of a "by ear" kinda guy. Don't get me wrong, playing through his stuff is great, but I wouldn't build my theory on a guy that doesn't really do theory.

Also, in his later book, Joe Pass Chord Solos, he is apparently using a very different chord system than you have suggested in other threads, using "b" instead of "-" and using what you feel to be a confusing "°" so you seem to be mixing and matching here. So either you are misremembering some things or Joe evolved.

So, czardas, in your infinite wisdom, would you label the V chord in Cm a G9 or G7b9? Your statement that it would be confusing to put a flat on it if it is not flat relative to the key signature, would seem to indicate the former, which would again put you at odds with pretty much every other musician on the planet. I think that Joe just thought of the Maj7 and the 7 as the 7th of the X7 so he thought of it as a b7. Again, Joe was not a great theorist (by his own admission) and I think that anyone would do themselves a disservice by trying to base their theory on how Joe talked about it. Again, great player and I love transcribing his solos and playing through his books, but his his attempts to explain what he was doing theoretically were often a little tortured.

Originally Posted by czardas

Playing the arpeggio is more beneficial than thinking about counting it.

I disagree. In jazz we like to think about the notes that we play instead of just run patterns - maybe it's different in flamenco. I think that it is extremely important to be aware of what extensions you are playing. Otherwise you are just a parrot.

You know, czardas, for a guy that admits to not knowing much about jazz, you sure do a lot of pontificating and "correcting" people that do. Is that how it works in your flamenco classes, the students do the lecturing and "correct" the professor?

Peace,
Kevin

**oneworld** · 02-19-2011, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

In jazz we like to think about the notes that we play instead of just run patterns - maybe it's different in flamenco. I think that it is extremely important to be aware of what extensions you are playing. Otherwise you are just a parrot.

can you please point us to your very best example on the 'awareness of extensions' on your channel ?

YouTube - ????? ?? ksjazzguitar

guys, i'll stop tomorrow... havin' a little fun...got too much time tonite...

**oneworld** · 02-19-2011, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

You know, czardas, for a guy that admits to not knowing much about jazz, you sure do a lot of pontificating and "correcting" people that do. Is that how it works in your flamenco classes, the students do the lecturing and "correct" the professor?

Peace,
Kevin

for a guy who knows everything and corrects everyone you should post some more clips of your playing reflecting your wisdom... talk is cheap...let's hear some MUSIC please...

anything here that you recommend ?

Kevin Smith Guitar - Playing - Listening

**monk** · 02-19-2011, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

Yeah, R 3 5 b7.

I understand your logic czardas, but it is important to keep track of the relation of the extensions to the root, not to the key. (Your logic would make sense in figured bass notation, but that died out a few hundred years ago.) Any time you alter from what would be the Maj13 relative to the root. If the chord was G7b9#11b13, would we just count it R 3 5 7 9 11 13? No, that would be misleading. Again, even in Cm, where the G7b9 would be diatonic, we don't call it a G9 - no, that is a b9.

It might happen that someone casually refers to the b7th of the G7 as a 7, but referring to it as the b7 is clearer in the long run.

I agree. Conventional naming of tones is 1 3 5 b7 for dominant 7th and 1 3 5 7 for major 7th.

**ksjazzguitar** · 02-19-2011, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by oneworld

for a guy who knows everything and corrects everyone you should post some more clips of your playing reflecting your wisdom... talk is cheap...let's hear some MUSIC please...

Theory is theory. I don't need to post a clip to show that a chord with a b9 should be referred to as a b9. Your schoolyard challenges to meet you behind the gym after lunch so we can duke it out is childish. If you think that I have nothing to offer, then don't listen, but quit running around from thread to thread to pester me. You weren't even a participant in the thread - all you did was come in here to pester me. You didn't even talk about anything related to the thread - you just came here to take a cheap shot. Grow up.

Peace,
Kevin

**oneworld** · 02-19-2011, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

You weren't even a participant in the thread - all you did was come in here to pester me. You didn't even talk about anything related to the thread - you just came here to take a cheap shot. Grow up.

Peace,
Kevin

so ?!? then you should be able to understand how other people feel
when you get off on them...

**ksjazzguitar** · 02-19-2011, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by oneworld

so ?!? then you should be able to understand how other people feel when you get off on them...

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.

I "get off" on people (that must be a German idiom, it means something very different in English) when they provide misinformation, or distort things, or lie, or misrepresent.

Do you have anything to add to the thread besides insults?

Peace,
Kevin

**monk** · 02-19-2011, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

Pass was a great player, but I wouldn't call him a great theorist or analyst. I can remember watching a video of his where he struggled to name the chord extensions he was playing, and sometimes named them wrong. I think that he was more of a "by ear" kinda guy. Don't get me wrong, playing through his stuff is great, but I wouldn't build my theory on a guy that doesn't really do theory.

Again, Joe was not a great theorist (by his own admission) and I think that anyone would do themselves a disservice by trying to base their theory on how Joe talked about it. Again, great player and I love transcribing his solos and playing through his books, but his his attempts to explain what he was doing theoretically were often a little tortured.

Peace,
Kevin

Actually Joe knew theory very well and if pressed could discuss it quite lucidly. He had this "Aw shucks, I'm just a Pennsylvania coal miner's son" schtick that he ran because he didn't like to discuss theory. He loved to talk about music and musician's but not theory. He felt that learning songs was the most important thing.

Regards,
monk

**ksjazzguitar** · 02-20-2011, 12:04 AM

I'm just going off what I've seen him say in interviews and in instructional materials. I'm sure he knew theory, but it really didn't seem to be his focus. Some of his explanations I've seen on his videos seem strained and occasionally confused. I remember him describing a #9 as a #5, and several other little mistakes. Most of the time when I saw him talk about theory, he even seemed a little annoyed by the whole thing. I think that he dealt with theory in an aural way instead of analytical way.

I'm not saying I don't like him. I love the guy. It just seems to me that 1) he wasn't really into analyzing the way that we do and 2) the theory that does use is based on what he learned back on the job in the 40s and the terminology and labeling that we use has changed a lot since then.

It's great stuff. It's just not the labeling that is in common usage nowadays.

Peace,
Kevin

**monk** · 02-20-2011, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

I'm just going off what I've seen him say in interviews and in instructional materials. I'm sure he knew theory, but it really didn't seem to be his focus. Some of his explanations I've seen on his videos seem strained and occasionally confused. I remember him describing a #9 as a #5, and several other little mistakes. Most of the time when I saw him talk about theory, he even seemed a little annoyed by the whole thing. I think that he dealt with theory in an aural way instead of analytical way.

I'm not saying I don't like him. I love the guy. It just seems to me that 1) he wasn't really into analyzing the way that we do and 2) the theory that does use is based on what he learned back on the job in the 40s and the terminology and labeling that we use has changed a lot since then.

It's great stuff. It's just not the labeling that is in common usage nowadays.

Peace,
Kevin

What he said in interviews and videos was the schtick I mentioned.

Explanations on videos can be strained and confused. Consider the pressure of doing an unscripted video in a small studio with hot lights and a producer waving his arms trying to get you to speed up. Especially when the video is for a small company with a limited budget and time is of the essence.

Yes, he got annoyed when people wanted to talk about theory. He felt that the music was more important than the theory.

Joe had great ears no doubt but few players reach the level that he did as a player without some analysis of the subject. With Joe most of this took place when he was and adolescent.

Regards,
monk

**lkmuller** · 02-20-2011, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

Theory is theory. I don't need to post a clip to show that a chord with a b9 should be referred to as a b9. Your schoolyard challenges to meet you behind the gym after lunch so we can duke it out is childish. If you think that I have nothing to offer, then don't listen, but quit running around from thread to thread to pester me. You weren't even a participant in the thread - all you did was come in here to pester me. You didn't even talk about anything related to the thread - you just came here to take a cheap shot. Grow up.

Peace,
Kevin

He's not challenging you to "go behind the gym". He's telling you to put your playing where your big mouth is.

How'd youy like that smiley? Same one you use all the time.

Geez, I took you off of ignore for one day and I'm sick of you already, as many here are also. Back ya go..........C'ya.

**ksjazzguitar** · 02-20-2011, 02:10 AM

Monk,

I hear what you're saying, but I'm just going off of what I've seen and heard and comparing it to what others of the time did. Two of my teachers had lessons or masterclasses with him at some point and (while they never said it explicitly I got the the impression that) they thought Joe was a great player but more of a "whatever it takes to get the job done" kind of player, rather than a theory wonk. But that's cool if you got a different impression.

But my ultimate point was that Joe may not be the best place to learn modern chord symbols - a lot has changed since he learned his symbols in the 40s.

lk,

I think that he is trying to draw me into a childish war of video clips. He's been popping up in threads to harass me without even adding anything to the thread. For example, in this thread, what video sample would I provide that shows that it is best to label a b9 as a b9? Videos can be great, but I think that too often on this forum they are used as chance to show off for the kiddies and often lack much in the way of being helpful. And especially in this case, how would a video of me playing an arpeggio while counting the chord tones illuminate anything that can't be done verbally? If you can't understand what I've written, then a video won't be much help and it's too much hassle for me to record vid to make it worthwhile. And why am I the only person to whom this challenge is extended? Most people on this forum don't offer videos of any sort.

Peace,
Kevin

**czardas** · 02-20-2011, 05:18 AM

Joe was a guest teacher in RC. I observed one of his lessons It was pretty revealing.

**musicalbodger** · 02-20-2011, 05:18 AM

I have just edited out my comment as I note it's irrelevant.

peace and love.
Bodge

**monk** · 02-20-2011, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

Monk,

I hear what you're saying, but I'm just going off of what I've seen and heard and comparing it to what others of the time did. Two of my teachers had lessons or masterclasses with him at some point and (while they never said it explicitly I got the the impression that) they thought Joe was a great player but more of a "whatever it takes to get the job done" kind of player, rather than a theory wonk. But that's cool if you got a different impression.

Peace,
Kevin

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.

My information comes from the "horse's mouth" not from drawing conclusions from the unspoken opinions of two people who took lessons or masterclasses. 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.

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".

When I first questioned you, this was your reply:

"That's just my own thing, because they are not functioning as "triads" or "seventh chords" in any real harmonic sense. To me a triad has a harmonic function (even if arpeggiated) and this is just moving through a scale in a pattern. People can call it whatever they want, that's just what I call it."

You have excoriated people here for making up terminology and calling things what they want.

Triads and arpeggios don't have functions except in context. They are what they are. A triad is a triad is a triad. Whether a C triad is the I of C, the IV of G, the bVI of E or the V of F is moot until it appears in a progression. Context is everything. There is no such thing as a "quasi-arpeggio or quasi-triad". However when you brush it off with "that's just what I call it" you are guilty of the same sins that you accuse others of.

Internet forums are referred to as social sites but your behavior has been anything but social. You have insulted people, bludgeoned them with your as yet unreceived degree and generally created a toxicity on this forum that exceeds almost anything I've seen elsewhere. You seem to have an almost pathological need to be right. Perhaps instead of graduate school you should have considered psychotherapy.

I've noticed that most of the sensible members no longer respond to you, at this point I intend to join them.
Regards,
monk
　
　
　
　