-
If I hear it correctly this C9 is IV chord...
I think it is important too becasue maj7 is very typical sound for IV and b7 that band plays is more like blues harmony sound..
It is the progression where the coincindence of maj7 and b7 would sound probably least dissonant because
and she phrases it also as typically 7th of the IV..
she puts a stress on it though it is off beat...
So the harmony essentially sounds like maj7chord (rather than dominant)
Andotehr point the band anticipates the harmony change from the next bar and she is still on the root chord (G) making a melodic embelishment...
Her note is short (though stressed), piano chords are fading away...
I do not think this will sound well if you arrange it for strings or horns for four beats with root, b7 and maj 7 sounding all the time.. something must move somewhere to avoid this clash...
Guitar also has this 'fade away' sound quality so it is not always representative...
-
01-21-2019 06:04 AM
-
Just study triads and 4 note chords in open positions (as opposed to closed), all inversions, and you got your 10s 12s and 14s covered
-
Try to see the funny bits... but eventually questions like this (coming from some "master guitarists") make me so sad... where are we heading?
-
Originally Posted by DonEsteban
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
And marketing himself as music/guitar teacher.... ????
First I thought it's a troll. But doesn't seem so regarding his follow ups. Still makes me sad. Also because I see it as a sign of the times... but I don't intend to kick off that kind of discussion in music/theory ..
Cheers
-
I present you the mother of all chords, my C 8 10 12 15 17 19 ... and so on, too lazy to count on...
-
Originally Posted by DonEsteban
-
One Name . . . Slonimsky
In his Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns he covers these extensions and more
-
Sure
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by JCat
-
I'm here for the replies. Some are pure comedic gold.
Btw, the OP was 8 years ago, is it possible their were not 'master guitarist' back then yet, and only self applied the title recently? How long does it take to become one?
-
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
A few things to consider relating to chord name convention and interpretation:
- 9th chords are built by adding a 9th from the root to a seventh chord. A 9th chord includes the 7th. Without the 7th, the chord is not an extended chord, but becomes an added tone chord, Cadd9. Alternatively for a C9 chord with no seventh, we could write C9 (no 7th)
- The convention for extended chords is that using an odd number (7 or 9 or 11 or 13) implies that all the other lower odd numbers are also included. Thus C13 implies that 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 are also there. To resolve the clash between 3 and 11 (4) one of them may be deleted or separated by an octave and/or, distributed to different color /timbre instruments.
- 13ths chords are theoretically 11th chords with the 13th (or 6th) note in the scale added. In other words, theoretically they are formed by all the seven notes of the scale at once. It is common to leave certain notes out. After the 5th, the most commonly omitted note is the 11th (4th). The 9th (2nd) can also be omitted. A very common voicing on guitar for a 13th chord is just the root, 3rd, 7th and 13th (or 6th).
- Added tone chord notation is useful with 7th chords to indicate partial extended chords. For example: C7add13. This would indicate that the 13th is added to the 7th, but without the 9th and 11th.
- Using an even number such as 6, implies that only that one extra note has been added to the base triad e.g. 1, 3, 5, 6.
- Even numbers such as 8, 10 and 12 can be added. However, these double the main triad, and as such are fairly rare. 10 tends to be the most common; it can be used both in suspended chords and (with an accidental) in major or minor chords to produce a major–minor clash (e.g., C7b10).
- The notation C/E bass indicates a C major chord, but with an E in the bass. Slash chords generally do not indicate a simple inversion (which is usually left to the chord player's discretion anyway), especially considering that the specified bass note may not be part of the chord to play on top.
- A common Maj7 chord is usually played 1,7 and would not be voiced so that the 7 clashes with the 8. (restricted inversion).
Now assume the chord C9add7:
- It's an oxymoron, since add-chords are not supposed to contain the 7th note. At least not the minor7 (dominant 7).
- Apparently it's not a CMaj9
- We obviously wouldn't voice it -7,7,8. We have to voice it 1, -7, 14 (Which sounds very different compared to 1,7,-14)
So how about C9add14 ?
- It doesn't comply with the guideline that an even number such as 6, implies that only that one extra note has been added to the base triad.
- But other than that it's OK. We don't have to use the notes 11 and 13 and it indicates that the dominant 7 is an octave below the 14th note (the major seven)
Why not call it "Em7add11+/C " ?
- The only advantage I see here is that slash cords restrict the use of inverted voicings (since this chord is not suitable for inversion). I have no desire to use a name like that just to comply with general guidelines that neither facilitate writing, nor interpretation.
-
Chord symbols are dumb
-
Originally Posted by JCat
When it comes to playing jazz (or improvisation in general) , I need a simple symbol that indicates the harmonic situation to me in the easiest to read and fastest to understand way.
My rules are as simple as this:
- C6 indicates major but the root is in the melody (be careful with the 7!)
- C7 is a dominant, don't tell me to use a 9 or 13 until you've got a really good reason to do so (is a melody thing mostly).
- C/B, C/Bb and so on indicate the desired bass line.
- C7 b9 indicates an altered dominant. I never write +9 unless I really need that major-minor clash sound.
- Trust me, I recognize #11 dominants, no need to write them down every time (unless it's really important)
- Avoid telling me voicings with symbols, please. There's a staff, write them down if you insist on certain voicings.
Maybe there are some more rules I'm forgetting now, but you get the picture.Last edited by DonEsteban; 01-24-2019 at 08:44 AM. Reason: typo
-
Originally Posted by DonEsteban
I played in a Swing band, there were hieroglyphs all over the scores that I had to translate. Lots of different names for the same chord and symbols that I haven't figured out till this day. But when the man said C9, I played C9.
Jazz is best spoken by playing but a common written language is a facilitator and could also inspire in new directions. Good ears beat theory, but once in a while a man may like to reflect. There's no harm in asking questions even though there may not always be answers.
In a place like this there's always a huge variation in member experience and knowledge. Some just like to chit-chat, some are looking for inspiration, some are looking for answers. How bizarre a forum would be if no one was asking questions and no one was willing to share. After all this is the Theory page. Theory is kind of hard to avoid, there are many talented players that don't know theory and many pioneers and role models in popular music didn't have any formal music education. Most of them did pick up a few things under the career though.
-
Originally Posted by DonEsteban
IMO #11 should only be written if the #11 is in the melody (e.g. Cherokee etc) and even then it may well be ignored in the blowing changes. Obviously as you say, you can spot the extensions of chords based on diatonic context. That said you'd be surprised at the number of musicians who can't do this.
In conventional changes upper extension usually refers to the melody.
Chord symbols exist only as a guide to the performer, not the Holy Writ. When you write an extension it's generally to stop the comper from clashing with the melody, or give them away to reinforce the melody without having to write the melody out in notation.
In some straightahead big band charts, chord symbols give much of the horn part, for some reason or other. No-one can hear it anyway, so it's somewhat overzealous. It can be fun to read.
If someone is writing modal or non functional music I will tend to be a lot more careful about the chord symbols, because that's how people write now. They melodicise harmony rather than harmonise melody.
I feel sometimes that modern jazz theory is the idolatry of chord symbols. Which are imperfect representations of real harmony, melodic note choices and their relationships, at best.
-
I think it worth to mention it again, and again, that chord symbols do not, I mean really not designed to show you where to place the voicings, in what octave. Except for bass obviously. So yea, try to put 14ths on my chart and see what happens.
-
Originally Posted by bluewaterpig
-
Originally Posted by TreyProdigy
His logics obviously is
'If there is 2 and 9 or 4 and 11 why would not there be 3 and 10 or 5 and 12'..
This is quite a chordscale approach and there is music where these things actually make difference...
Unfortunately chord symbols are incosistent..
-
There are no chord tones above an octave. Chords come from scales. Scales fit an octave by definition.
There are open voicings however. Chord symbols mix chords with voicings and do a bad job at that.
-
Originally Posted by TreyProdigy
This is the right place to find out all sorts of stuff!
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Not always, Tal...
the thing with jazz for me is that it is quite open theoretically as it is now still some kind of living form of musical language (unless we strictly define jazz to some completely deteremined style of the past like 'bop' or 'swing')..
That makes difficulties - because when people speak about theory they intuitively try to fit the scientific model of thinking, they try to be specific and exact, try to formulate a pattern and so on -- this is in general the problem with theories in Arts for me - actually in my opinion discussing music should be also some kind of artistic (not scientific) process.. there is too much of ambiguous nature in Arts to be able to be described in scientific terms.
Anyway... though I absolutely understand your mode of thinking here I still think that it is possible to think of chord tones doubled above as of an extention...
By the way it may be interesting that in baroque figuered bass there was a period of very dense figure writing and they had 14 and 10 there))) Exactly when they wanted to indicate a necessasity of this tone an octave above...
But anyway I think it is an open issue.
Theory should not put restirictions, it should help to somehow organize what we already hear as convinicing.Last edited by Jonah; 02-25-2021 at 07:10 AM.
Monk's Mood
Today, 04:25 PM in The Songs