Maj7#9#11 options

[JohnW400]

Not to change gears but I've also seen this chord uses for a Cmi7b5 , except it would be a Cmi ma7b5. It resolved (C x B Eb Gb x) to (x Gb A Eb F) to a Bb ma7

[Reg]

It's cool to see how we hear things... when we see that chord notation... don't we need a little context to give a little background. I don't think we would simply be playing one voicing... there are obviously a few different ways to fill in the rest of the complete pitch collection or all the chord tones.... and in the last 20 or so years many times the use of non-chord tones in melodies,(notes outside of implied harmonic area), and non-functional chordal figures that pull from outside the implied harmonic area, like pedals or chordal patterns, or even as simple as using a G7#9b13 going to Cmaj7, where the V chords pulls from Cmaj's blue notes, b7 becomes #9,b3 becomes b13... anyway what ever we would interpret or hear that B/C from context would open doors as to how we might comp or improvise. And those doors don't have to go along with simple note analysis. As I was saying, I don't think we would simply be playing one voicing or chord, usually we play a series or chord patterns... and when we're improvising... lot of doors open. I totally agree that when see figure... you need to either recognize how it's being used. (bass line or harmonic figure). I played a gig yesterday and we played Chick's tune, "Bud Powell", I love the tune, but anyway there's a short six bar interlude like section that uses, Bmaj7 / Cmaj/B / Bmaj7 / Cmaj/B etc... and I played it a few ways, both as pedal with straight chordal 1/2 step movement and also as Sub-V or dom. function, many more interpretations , also the blue door... which I open quite a lot... I guess the audience usually guides me as to what doors I want to open... I know different slash example, but trying to show how context would determine how I would hear... other wise it's just a numbers game... Reg

[jzucker]

Oh, I think that there is a big difference. You've made some rather major changes to quality and function.

I don't agree. It's about interpretation. When jazz becomes a literal/notational music it's not jazz anymore. At best, the written chord is an abstract depiction of what tonality you want to hear. In most modern music, the chords can be constructed from any of the tones of the scale. It would be impractical to notate the chord as *Cmaj7#9#11 Natural 13* and often times folks will abbreviate that with a slash chord such as B/C. When writing a chart the composer often has to make a compromise between what is the quickest and most likely way to convey the chord to the accompanist and the complete picture of the chord the composer has in his mind. The composer needs to make the assumption that there are musicians and not robots interpreting the chart.

I.e. how many times have you seen Bb/C when the real function of the chord is a c9sus? If the chord resolves to an Fmaj7 chord, is it wrong to put an E Natural in the chord? I think not.

[JensL]

If B/C is a sort of major7th chord then Eb/C is a C7#9 chord?

I really don't hear it like that. The Bb/C is a C7sus4 with a 9 and no 5th, but it contains the basis of the sound, that cannot be said for B/C if it is suposed to be a major 7th sound. It could be said if it is a dim chord.

Jens

[jzucker]

If B/C is a sort of major7th chord then Eb/C is a C7#9 chord?

Again, as Reg said, you cannot talk about it out of context. If there is an F/G and then a B/C i would treat the B/C as a sort of C Maj7 chord but if the chord progression were written | C/D B/C | D/G | you might treat it differently.

I hope we can all agree on that at least.

[JensL]

I thought we were talking about it in a C major context? But maybe I misunderstood.

With in both progressions you could play G hamornic Major on them and it would fit the function of the chord

Jens

[jzucker]

I thought we were talking about it in a C major context? But maybe I misunderstood.

With in both progressions you could play G hamornic Major on them and it would fit the function of the chord

Jens

we were talking the context of C major. Therefore, if in the context of C major you see a tonic written as B/C I believe you can safely infer an E natural.

[JensL]

But is that not the whole point? The function of the chord. It is not tonic.

You said so yourself in the OP, it comes from F#dim/C Resolving to Cmaj7. It is a suspension of the tonic chord, so it wants to resolve to the I chord, and the E and the G is not in there in any way because the D# and the F# is the suspension of those notes. If it is tonic then it does not need to resolve.

I have never seen B triad over C in a context where it was meant to be a C major chord, in fact I am very likely to use other diminished structures when I interpret that while comping because I just see a dim chord with a specific voicing.

But if you choose to hear and see it that way then I guess we just have to leave it at that. At least it is clear

Jens

[jzucker]

But is that not the whole point? The function of the chord. It is not tonic.

Yes it is. There is no hard and fast rule that says the chord can't sit without resolving even as a tonic and there are hundreds of recorded examples of this chord as the final "tonic" at the end of the tune, not to mention utilized in modern harmonic structures ala Ritchie Bierach, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Dave Liebman, John Abercrombie, etc.

I have never seen B triad over C in a context where it was meant to be a C major chord

I have, plenty of times.

[mike walker]

Dm7-- Db/G-- B/C-- It's a I chord

Ebm9-- B/C-- Ab/Db-- It's a V chord

F#m11 -- B/C -- EMa9/B it's a V Chord

B/C -- F/B -- BbMa9 it's a II chord

Plus the various connecting diminished chords it can be....

and more besides....

It's a context thang.....

and many more...... all about context

[jzucker]

Agreed Mike.

Dm7-- Db/G-- B/C-- It's a I chord

Ebm9-- B/C-- Ab/Db-- It's a V chord

F#m11 -- B/C -- EMa9/B it's a V Chord

B/C -- F/B -- BbMa9 it's a II chord

Plus the various connecting diminished chords it can be....

and more besides....

It's a context thang.....

and many more...... all about context

[JensL]

I have, plenty of times.

Fair enough. Do you have any examples?

I am not sayin it has to resolve, I am saying it is a suspension. The major 7th is also a suspension that we rarely resolve.

The fact that a tune can end on a chord does not make that chord the tonic, but I guess you know that. Round midnight ends on Dtriad over Eb triad but that does not mean that it is in Eb major.

Jens

[jzucker]

Fair enough. Do you have any examples?

I am not sayin it has to resolve, I am saying it is a suspension. The major 7th is also a suspension that we rarely resolve.

The fact that a tune can end on a chord does not make that chord the tonic, but I guess you know that. Round midnight ends on Dtriad over Eb triad but that does not mean that it is in Eb major.

Jens

well if you don't buy that a B/C can be a C tonic I can't give you any examples. Transcribe some stuff off Abercrombie's Arcade. There are some examples...

[JensL]

Ok, I'll see if I can find that

Jens

[jzucker]

Ok, I'll see if I can find that

Jens

Even aside from the silly thread, it really is a great recording. That and sargasso sea (abercrombi / towner) greatly influenced my approach to composition (along with ronnie miller's tunes from the university of miami)

[ksjazzguitar]

...When jazz becomes a literal/notational music it's not jazz anymore. ...

Sorry, I find that sophomoric crap kind of boring. All music is more than what is written on the page. Classical musicians say the same types of things. The difference is that jazz musicians are the only ones foolish enough to think that they are the only ones. Besides, we are talking about elements of theory and analysis.

At best, the written chord is an abstract depiction of what tonality you want to hear.

Yes, but when you change the function and sound of the chord that drastically, then it looses it's meaning to some extent. To me, a B/C as a slash chord (CdimMaj7) has a very different sound and function than a B/C as a polychord (CMaj7#9#11.) If they sound the same and interchangeable to you, then go for it. But to my ear they sound different enough to call it a reharm.

In most modern music, the chords can be constructed from any of the tones of the scale.

I disagree. I couldn't sub a note cluster of F, G, and A for a tonic chord in C and defend it as "chords can be constructed from any of the tones of the scale." I think that there is still a place to consider harmonic function and voice-leading rather than grabbing any available notes from the scale.

It would be impractical to notate the chord as *Cmaj7#9#11 Natural 13* and often times folks will abbreviate that with a slash chord such as B/C.

Sorry, I've never seen that written as a slash chord. I've seen that written as a polychord, but never as a slash chord (as in a B triad with a C note in the bass.) I'm sure that some people do, but I think that they are in the vast minority. Really? Is drawing a horizontal line so much more difficult than drawing a diagonal line? Or even just writing out the chord?

When writing a chart the composer often has to make a compromise between what is the quickest and most likely way to convey the chord to the accompanist and the complete picture of the chord the composer has in his mind. The composer needs to make the assumption that there are musicians and not robots interpreting the chart.

But to me, that is too much of a shortcut. The most logical implication of B/C is a B triad with a C note in the bass - a very common chord, much more common (IMHE) than your CMaj7#9#11. I use dimMaj7 all the time. I can't remember the last time I used a Maj7#9#11. Your basic triad doesn't even have any of the basic chord tones of the original. To me, using the slash chord B/C to represent a CMaj7#9#11 is just unnecessarily misleading. That is, unless the line is horizonatal and it is a slash chord

I.e. how many times have you seen Bb/C when the real function of the chord is a c9sus? If the chord resolves to an Fmaj7 chord, is it wrong to put an E Natural in the chord? I think not.

But there the function is clear. I'm not trying to say that that Bb/C is really a Cm13b5. No, there the most obvious conclusion is the correct one. That makes for clear communication. We can argue about the merits of putting an E in there, but we still know what basic chord we are starting with. In your B/C example, you have completely interpreted it as a different chord with a very different sound and function and seem to not understand why we don't all psychically know that you are talking about.

If you don't want to write out CMaj7#9#11 (really, is it that hard?) then write it as a B/Ctriad polychord. But if you write B/C, my first assumption is that it will mean what most of the rest of the world interprets that as - a fancy way to write CdimMaj7. The two chords have a great chord/scale deal of overlap, but they have have different sounds and functions, at least to my ear.

I guess you can write chords however you want, but if you have your own little code, then don't be surprised when people don't understand.

It seems that there is a lot of this in jazz. People get taught something by some teacher who says, "This is how it is." and then they are shocked when people don't understand them. Again, it may be that some people do this, but I think that you've distorted it in your head that most people do this. I've been playing for quite a while and studied with many people I've never even seen what you're talking about. Yes, I've seen Maj7#9#11 chords. Yes, I've seen them abbreviated as B/Ctriad polychords. But abbreviated as simple slash chords and expecting the reader psychically know not to interpret it in the more common way as a slash chord, but to assume that it has the meaning of a completely different chord with a completely different meaning? I fail to see how that saves any time and makes things clearer. Especially when making the line horizontal (oh, the agony, so much work! ) would make things sooo much clearer and eliminate any confusion. Like I said, I've seen people use diagonal slashes on their poly chords (and vice versa) and I expect that that is ulitmately where this confusion comes from. I find it hard to believe that it is just a coincidence that your (IMHO) misinterpretation of the B/C just happens, but sheer mathematical coincidence to be exactly what it would be if it were interpreted as a polychord. I've seen this kind of confusion many times before. And as long as people continue to mingle the two meanings, we will keep hearing it.

Maybe you can find some famous example of somebody that notates it this way, but that doesn't make it the best or clearest way. This is just another example of fringe jazz notation that leads to confusion. There is no need to notate this as a slash chord (with a diagonal slash) when notating it as a polychord (with a horizontal slash) would eliminate all confusion. It's just so silly.

But is that not the whole point? The function of the chord. It is not tonic.

That's another good point. The B/C, CdimMaj7 is a CT diminished with has subdominant/dominant function, not tonic. The CMaj7#9#11 is just a tonic with tension. They are very different chords, regardless of the fact that they are built from the same scale. A CMaj7, an Fm6, and a G7b9 can be built from the same scale - does that mean that they are really the same chord? No, you have to consider function. Just showing that the chord/scale math works out is not good enough.

Peace,
Kevin

[mike walker]

Kevin,

One of the main reasons for using a B/C for Cmaj7#9#11 is the fact it makes it a 3rdless chord. Also, but less importantly, 5thless.

it's a specific sound.

[JohnW400]

Here's a few I like, polychord wise


[chord]

||---|-1-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-4-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-3-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|-1-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|-2-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|-2-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]


[chord]

||---|-1-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-3-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-2-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|4--|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|-1-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|0

[/chord]




[chord] Well , almost

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-1-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-1-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-1-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|-3-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-4-|---|---|---|

[/chord]



[chord] 4 = 12th

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-3-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-4-|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-2-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-1-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-1-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-H-| or open

[/chord]

[ksjazzguitar]

One of the main reasons for using a B/C for Cmaj7#9#11 is the fact it makes it a 3rdless chord. Also, but less importantly, 5thless. ... it's a specific sound.

I agree. It is a very specific (and different) sound and a very specific (and different) function. If you just voice it as C D# F# B, then you just have an enharmonic spelling of a common-tone diminished, a chord that has been around for centuries, even with the enharmonic spelling. (Jazz likes to "invent" centuries old ideas and then relabel it so they can pretend like it is original.) But that is very different than a Maj7 with a #9 and a #11 added.

Besides, any chordsmith worth his weight in beans is going to know that the 3rd and 5th need to be handled with care if they are playing a Maj7#9#11.

Peace,
Kevin

[mike walker]

I agree. It is a very specific (and different) sound and a very specific (and different) function. If you just voice it as C D# F# B, then you just have an enharmonic spelling of a common-tone diminished, a chord that has been around for centuries, even with the enharmonic spelling. (Jazz likes to "invent" centuries old ideas and then relabel it so they can pretend like it is original.) But that is very different than a Maj7 with a #9 and a #11 added.

Besides, any chordsmith worth his weight in beans is going to know that the 3rd and 5th need to be handled with care if they are playing a Maj7#9#11.

Peace,
Kevin

Not 'very' different. Just specific in it's 'thirdlessness'. This is one reason slash chords are used. D/G gives us the function of a I chord (coming from Am D7, obviously) but it's thirdless. This an important factor for a composer and a reason he/she wouldn't write Gma9.

So, likewise, one possible reason not to put Cma7#9#11 (apart from the fact with my totally crap typing skills it takes me 10 mins to write the humungous fella).

Also, why does the 3rd and 5th need to be 'handled with care' on a Cma7#9#11?

bestest,

M

[M-ster]

Here's a few I like, polychord wise ...

Ha! Nice, John. I had to pick up a guitar to strum those!

[jzucker]

Sorry, I find that sophomoric crap kind of boring.

We're even because I find public chest beating boring too. Another add to the ignore list.

[ksjazzguitar]

Not 'very' different. Just specific in it's 'thirdlessness'....

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - to my ear they are quite different.

Also, why does the 3rd and 5th need to be 'handled with care' on a Cma7#9#11?

For the same reason that a 5th needs to be handled with care over a Maj7#11 - because it is a half-step above one of the tension tones. I would even say that a root has to be handled with care over a Maj7 (ever had a singer sing the root a half-step above the Maj7 in your voicing? Talk about dirty looks.)

We're even because I find public chest beating boring too. Another add to the ignore list.

Sheesh, so many babies. Someone disagrees with them and they start pouting. I just find it ironic - you want to discuss theory and symbols, but when people start disagreeing with you you start in with this tired, "When jazz becomes a literal/notational music it's not jazz anymore." You were the one that wanted to discuss theory. This sophomoric crap is just a cop out to try to deflect opinions that you don't like. You were fine with being literal/notational when it was your opinion.

Look, the crux of your argument (at least the part that I have a problem with) is that B/C slash chord (CdimMaj7) and B/Ctriad polychord (CMaj7#9#11) are basically the same harmonic function and our interchangeable. My ear disagrees with you and in all the mountains of harmony texts that I've read and the numerous jazz classes and seminars that I've attended, you are the first person that I've heard assert that someone would write B/C slash chord (not polychord) but really mean CMaj7#9#11. But you assert that this is common. Really? What is your source. Show us the examples. Quote some texts. If it is as common as you say that it should be easy to do.

But like I said, it's not a coincidence that your implied meaning of this symbol is the exact same meaning it would have if it were a polychord. Again, it's origin is most likely in a misunderstanding or in a looseness in the notation of slash and polychords.

Why someone would use a slash chord to mean something else and creating confusion when simply turning the slash horizontal would alleviate all confusion - that is beyond me. It sounds like a combination of laziness and willful inscrutability.

It would be like if I said, "From now on, when I write AMaj7, what I really mean is AbMaj7." You may ask, "Why not just add the flat and avoid confusion, bringing you in line with standard practice." To this I would glibbly respond, "Because I want to and it is common practice. Everybody does it. The essence of music can't be caught on the written page, so stop trying to analyze it. And if you continue to disagree, I'll put you on my ignore list."

Peace,
Kevin

[mike walker]

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - to my ear they are quite different.

Well the sound has a difference. That's the point. But they don't have to function differently. The slash chord can take the place of the Cma7#9#11 and still function as that chord as a I.
Just a simple compositional device to take the third out of the sound which creates a certain tension for the listener and can also open the improviser to a few different sounds rather than just the prescriptive sound of the Cma7#9#11.

For the same reason that a 5th needs to be handled with care over a Maj7#11 - because it is a half-step above one of the tension tones. I would even say that a root has to be handled with care over a Maj7 (ever had a singer sing the root a half-step above the Maj7 in your voicing? Talk about dirty looks.)

The 5th or 3rd doesn't need to be handled with care as far as I can see,
chordally or in impro, any more than any other note. Not really the same as a 4th/root on a maj7 chord, tho they are starting to lose their 'hands off' thing more and more. . It's more a question of tension.
We could be specific to genre of course (like cma7 voiced xx9988x on a dixieland tune) but that kind of dilutes the point.
Of course classical music has been using the root a b9 above the ma7 for years.

Why someone would use a slash chord to mean something else and creating confusion when simply turning the slash horizontal would alleviate all confusion - that is beyond me. It sounds like a combination of laziness and willful inscrutability.

Could you clarify here, Kevin. Could you write a triad with a bass note under it and then write a polychord. I'm not quite getting your thought on this one.


Bestest,

M

[ksjazzguitar]

Well the sound has a difference. That's the point. But they don't have to function differently. The slash chord can take the place of the Cma7#9#11 and still function as that chord as a I.

I'm just saying that to my ear they have different functions. To me, a common tone diminished is subdominant function. True, it is often used as an expansion of I, but it's function is subdominant. True, since this IdimMaj7 has the leading-tone instead of the sub-mediant, we might say that it has dominant function, but it still isn't tonic function - a chord without the 3 or 5 (pretty much by definition) cannot have a tonic function. Just having the tonic is not enough. IV chords have the tonic and so do Aug6 chords. Most subdominant harmonies have the tonic.

The 5th or 3rd doesn't need to be handled with care as far as I can see,

It's just what I was always taught and it bares out in my experience: chord tones that are a half step apart should be handled with care. That doesn't mean that you can't play them - just that you need to use your ear a little closer. Especially when the chord tone is a half-step above the tension.

...Could you clarify here, Kevin. Could you write a triad with a bass note under it and then write a polychord. I'm not quite getting your thought on this one. ...

It just seems that we're writing one thing when we mean something else. A notation that already has a meaning is being used to describe something else, which in turn already has it's own specific symbol. My point is that, why would you write B/C to mean CMaj7#9#5 (when B/C already has an understood and much more common meaning) when simply making the line horizontal would make it so much more clear, i.e.:

B
--
C

That is essentially the same thing as CMaj7#9#5. Coincidence? I doubt it. This probably all stems from somebody that was too lazy to notate a polychord correctly (or didn't know) and this notation has spread like a cancer.

But notating it as a polychord makes it perfectly clear for those of us that contend that these are two different sounds and functions. If it is in text and a horizontal line won't work, then something like B/Ctriad makes it very clear.

Again, just taking a polychord and transliterating it into a slash chord is just going to cause confusion. And it is completely unnecessary since it takes no more effort to notate it correctly.

Peace,
Kevin