-
I'm wondering what the theory behind this is, when should you call a chord/note a Gb, and when should you call it a F#? (Thinking about all chords and all roots in general, not just a Gb/F#). I thought of this as I'm memorizing chords, starting with memorizing the major triads, then the other triads, then all the 4 note 7th chords, and so on up to memorizing 13th chords and scales. So far it's been useful, but this question about which spelling to use, flat or sharp, is confusing the hell out of me.
-
03-07-2012 04:11 PM
-
Every key and major scale contains each letter of the musical alphabet only once.
-
Are you in a sharp or a flat key signature? Is it an accidental? If I'm in D Major- it's an F#. Frankly, if I'm on the "sharps" side of the circle of 5ths, I'm probably going to call it an F#- even if it is an accidental in C major...
I've got sheet music that has G# listed as A flat in a piece that switches between E minor and E Major... it just looks so messed up- like a piano player was involved...
-
Sometimes the key will determine the spelling, for example one would use Gb in the key of Db however the same note would be called F# in the key of A. Then there's the convention of directional motion, with flats for notes in decending motion and sharps for ascending. E.g. G-Gb-F and E-F#-G occurring in say the key of C. This is not absolute, some jazz charts just use which ever. Hope this is of help.
Last edited by John Curran; 03-07-2012 at 04:38 PM.
-
Good answers all. It is a slippery slope, but is usually easily remedied. If you get really stuck, I would go with the ascending, descending rule.
-
Got an example that's confusing you, Sammie?
Sometimes it's six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other. How would you write down a chord that given as G7#5 when you suspect that #5 is more of a b13?
-
The basic rules are as has been said:
1. One of each note (and only one) in any major or minor scale. (In 2 or 3 harmonic or melodic minor scales this results in flats and sharps occurring together.)
2. In a melodic line, chromatic notes (outside the key sig) are sharp or natural when ascending, flat or natural when descending. This is to save ink (or pixels?
)) when writing - there are many notation conventions designed for similarly economical purposes (and they make reading clearer and quicker as well as saving time and effort writing). Eg, F-Gb-G would require two symbols (including a natural on the G); F-F#-G only requires the "#".
Complications might arise in certain altered chords, as BigDaddyLoveHandles says. G7#5 is one example: in key of C minor, wouldn't Eb make more sense than D#? (especially as a D# would imply an E natural before the F...) Dim7 chords are another, where enharmonics can be arbitrary.
Eg, "Cdim7" should strictly contain a Bbb note (because C-Bbb is the required "diminished 7th" interval). But I doubt anyone - at least in jazz - would spell it with anything but an A.
(Strictly speaking C-Eb-Gb-A is an inverted Adim7, vii chord of Bb minor. But if you want a C bass, much simpler to call it Cdim7 than a pedantic "Adim7/C" - or alternatively "Cm6b5"; both of which are correct, but which would each raise a few cynical eyebrows....)
In addition, the diminished scale has 8 notes, so one letter needs to occur twice. And which one it is can be optional.
-
No particular example is confusing me much more than the rest. I'm just wondering more do I memorize C# E# G# or Db F Ab as the C#/Db major triad? Well I already did both anyway. What about Gb / F#, a Gb major triad would have Bb as a major 3rd, is that incorrect since it's a major 3rd not a flattened third? Little things like that keep stumping me.
-
Sammie, what is the key the tune is written in? If you are playing in keys that have flats in them, F Bb Eb Ab Db Gb, then you call the naturally occurring notes in the key by their natural or flatted names. As long as you are dealing with the Major scales, not MM, HM, H/W etc..
If you are playing in keys that have sharps, G D A E B F#, then it is by their natural or sharp names. If accidentals come into the mix then follow the ascending/descending rule.
Did this help?
BTW, the notes in Gb are, Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F
So Bb is the natural 3rd of GbLast edited by brwnhornet59; 03-09-2012 at 02:33 AM.
-
If I'm being careful (which is not usually!) I think: the diminished chord has a diminished seventh, and the diminished scale also has a leading tone, so it is the seventh that occurs twice in the scale for me.
Originally Posted by JonR
But in a "close enough for jazz" style, I usually scribble a Cdim7 as C-Eb-Gb-A, not C-Eb-Gb-Bbb. And if one is being careful, a Cbdim7 is Cb-Ebb-Gbb-Abbb <-- triple flat?!
EDIT: Just one more! How do you write out the altered scale, say an altered lick over a Galt chord? If one thinks of it as the seventh mode of the Ab jazz minor scale you get weird stuff like Cb instead of Bnat. I usually write it out with b9, #9, #11 and #5. Writing it with a b5 is okay by me, but the #11 avoids "doubling up" the 5th.Last edited by BigDaddyLoveHandles; 03-09-2012 at 11:49 AM.
-
Interesting point about the #11 b5. I usually as a rule exclude the 5th when voicing a #11 in a chord. It has worked well so far. When I see a b5, I think natural 4th, which I would rarely voice in a major chord anyway. As for alt scales, I write whatever I know the interval to actually be. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Last edited by brwnhornet59; 03-09-2012 at 07:55 PM.
-
Given an opportunity I will always write B instead of Cb (5 vs 7) and Db instead of C# (5 vs 7) Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
F# and Gb each with 6 is a draw.
If the diminished chord in question is resolving upwards a half step then what is the target chord?
One half step of is C so the chord would be Bdim (BDFAb).
If the progression is Cb Cbdim Cb I guess the choice is pass the theory test and alienate the band
or use pragmatic spellings.
12 notes with 7 letters is less than a perfect concept.
There are reasons that post tonalists analyze using numbers.
-
In a perfect world... we would all know what vertical collection of notes the note in question is from... what it implies. That simple concept takes care of how we should notate.
I generally notate for ease of reading... there are plenty of examples of same actual note being repeated a few attacks in a row... and being notated differently, F# going to Gb, Cb going to B etc... I read very well... that's what I do... all the time. I would rather have something notated for ease of reading as compared to harmonically implying where from... so long story short... if your notating for other musicians to read... spell for ease of reading.... if you composing theoretically etc... spell with harmonic implication.( there could be a type of melodic conception or implication as compared to harmonic).
Reg
Small note... When we spell out the 7th degree of MM... altered, it's actually a Min7b5... 1, b9, b3, b11, b5, b13, b7... we decided to change to Dom chord ... well there are a few stories of how, why and when. Generally #5 implies augmented, whole tone or other symmetrical or synthetic source.
When I was young... I was taught to add #9 to 5th degree of Harmonic Min. for somewhat altered Dom. sound or even the Dim/Dom blend... never really covered and didn't cover the Blue Notes... Thank You MM
-
Indeed. Who came up with that? I would like to slap them. Originally Posted by bako
-
Well, for the sake of simplicity (or sanity Originally Posted by SammieWammie
) I suggest memorizing the version with fewer accidentals first, so Db over C#. This keeps you out of double-sharp and double-flat territory, where it can get really confusing. C# minor is not that uncommon a "guitar" key (although not so common a "jazz" key), but C# major is a fairly rare key in general.
-
Well, you're doubling the 9th, so why not the 5th too? Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
If you can have b9 and #9, why not b5 and #5? That's really what the alterations amount to.
I have no problem with #11 (and b13 to go with it). That kind of recognises the fact that sometimes a bassist will play a P5 under the chord, even if we omit it from any improvisation scale.
In truth, the altered scale is kind of screwy whichever way you look at it. Isn't the #9 really a b3? In G7#9 in C minor, do you really think of the #9 as A# and not Bb? Of course B is B (and not "Cb"), because the scale doesn't really come from Ab melodic minor; it just happens to resemble it.
I just think of it as the root-3rd-7th of the chord, with everything else shifted a half-step out (both ways). What we call the individual notes is neither here nor there, IMO.
-
Hey Jon... Not always... but at least 75% of the time when I play or pull from, comping or improve, I'm pulling from Melodic Minor. And most of the time I do use that #9... especially when I'm using Modal interchange and Blue notes... in your example, G7#9. The other 25% would be the old... very straight standards with vocalist etc... movies, shows, musicals etc... or when I'm covering Rock or classical blues or rock jazz tunes... Originally Posted by JonR
Well, you're doubling the 9th, so why not the 5th too?
If you can have b9 and #9, why not b5 and #5? That's really what the alterations amount to.
I have no problem with #11 (and b13 to go with it). That kind of recognises the fact that sometimes a bassist will play a P5 under the chord, even if we omit it from any improvisation scale.
In truth, the altered scale is kind of screwy whichever way you look at it. Isn't the #9 really a b3? In G7#9 in C minor, do you really think of the #9 as A# and not Bb? Of course B is B (and not "Cb"), because the scale doesn't really come from Ab melodic minor; it just happens to resemble it.
I just think of it as the root-3rd-7th of the chord, with everything else shifted a half-step out (both ways). What we call the individual notes is neither here nor there, IMO.
Harmonically... I don't use MM functionally, more of in the concept of a modal application or even like Blue note influence... Not all the time , but that's where I start... Obviously depends on gig and audience...
When a bass player plays that natural 5th... it gets pretty dirty, at least to my ears and I usually need to set everything up... simplify my approach... or as I said... spell harmonically as I solo. No right or wrong
just different.
Might be easier to see with examples, anyway it's usually easier to spell when you know what your spelling. at least for me... and since as a guitarist, my pitch is set... make it simple to read.
Reg
-
While you might see dim7 chords written incorrectly, they should never be arbitrary. If so, you're doing something wrong. Originally Posted by JonR
Remember, diminished 7 chords can function as dominants, so spelling is important.
Spellings should be based on context and function.
And yes, we should stop letting piano players name chords.
-
I just write everything that goes down with b`s and what goes up with #`s.
I do that for the melodie and also for the progression.(it also trains the enharmonic thinking a lot)
I found that it is the most easy way to read for me, and other musicians also love it.
-
In theory yes, I agree. The dim7 chord derives from the vii degree of harmonic minor, and correct spelling should reflect that. Originally Posted by Gitarguy
But how many times do you see a "Cdim7" chord in jazz charts? That ought to indicate the vii chord of Db minor - a key which doesn't exist (it's an enharmonic mispelling of C# minor). Would you go through jazz charts and alter all Cdim7s to "B#dim7"? Or insist that one of the other notes must be the root, even if C is in the bass?
Of course, there is the "common tone diminished" function, where Cdim7 can resolve to C major. I guess that makes that spelling OK.
I do agree with you in principle, but in practice I have no quarrel with mispelled dim7 chords. Their tonal ambiguity means they are frequently used outside of their original context, and function might be vague anyway. (If we are going to use the WH dim scale to improvise on it, then correct spelling and knowledge of function is irrelevant. I'm not saying that's a good thing... but it won't always matter.)
Quite often a dominant function dim7 will be in inversion. Should we reflect that in the symbol? If a chart shows "Ddim7" resolving to Cm, should we insist on writing it as "Bdim7/D"?
I wouldn't mind that personally, but it seems unnecessarily fussy, and would cause some momentary scratching of heads in quite a lot of readers. (Not as to what the chord is, but why it's been written that way.)
-
I don't disagree with any of that, so maybe I wasn't clear: I would use the same notes as you, probably in much the same contexts. Originally Posted by Reg
My point was that thinking in melodic minor (7th mode) is not necessary, and is kind of irrelevant.
IOW, if I use a #9 on a G7 (and/or b9 and/or altered 5th) I don't need to think "Ab melodic minor": it's a coincidental parallel, that's all; which is handy if you know all your melodic minor scales intimately.
I'm just thinking "alterations on G7", and usually in terms of finding half-step moves to chord tones on the next chord (eg from that #9 down to the 6th of Cm or Cmaj).
Partly, I admit, that's because I don't know my Ab melodic minor scale too well!
. But mainly I find (with melodic minors I know a lot better) it doesn't help anyway. I know what the alterations are for. (I struggled with the altered scale until I realised this.)
Right. I guess a bassist using the P5 would suggest HW dim? That has the b9 and #9 at least. Originally Posted by Reg
As a (sometime) bassist myself I would probably avoid the 5th altogether on an altered V7, to leave the soloist freedom - or play it flat, at least to lead down to the following root. Hopefully I'd be able to tell where the soloist was going regarding the 5th...
-
Originally Posted by SammieWammie
It was 7 letters for a long time, irregularly spaced, before anyone thought of filling in those whole step gaps... And that was a very gradual process (they started with one... and then another... it was a few centuries before they had the lot).
It made sense then to regard the notes in the gaps as altered versions of the existing 7, depending on which way you moved them. So if you raised the G, it would be G#. If you lowered the A, it would be Ab. G# and Ab were different notes then (tuned differently)
.
And you think scales are complicated now.... Be thankful you're not living in pre-equal temperament times.
(Believe me, renaming the 5 chromatic notes with different letters would have made it even worse, much harder to understand. In parts of Europe they still use "H" for what we call "B", and they use "B" for what we call "Bb". So their musical alphabet goes CDEFGABH...)
The serious point is that we make music, generally, using 7-note scales. That's a historical habit. There was an attempt at making 12-tone music in the early 20th century, in which all 12 notes had equal weight (no keynote) - and a renaming of the musical alphabet might have made sense then - but it didn't catch on.
Most of the music we make is easier to understand using the 7-note system, even if many of them are often altered. We know we always have one of each letter, whether it's natural, sharp or flat. (Any of those 7 notes might still be altered in the course of the music; but - trust me - the basic idea of 7 is a very useful concept to hang on to. Music would be much harder to make sense of without it.)Last edited by JonR; 04-10-2012 at 08:32 AM.
-
There are kind of 2 approaches I guess.
First: Keep it in the key. If you are in a flat key try to keep it flat.
Second: If the melody is going up you use sharps, if the melody is going down you use flats.
-
Or naturals, if they were sharp or flat before... Originally Posted by S_R_S5
Reply With Quote
Jeff Beck Truth
Today, 01:06 PM in Other Styles / Instruments