The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 46 of 46
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    To me having awareness of the notes I'm playing, especially when practicing a tune is not too much thinking. But then many guitarist draw the line of "thinking too much" at cowboy chords and one pentatonic scale. To each their own.
    For me much more important to know and feel the function of the note what I am playing I mean the 3rd, or b9, than knowing the name like E or Db. This is special to our instrument, all scales, all chord shapes are identical regardless of it is in G, D A or Eb. We should use this benefit, it begs for utilizing it both by ear and by visual and muscle memory.

    Besides of sight reading the absolute note names are way less important, than their relative functions in the tonality and chord context. I do not feel I am stuck at cowboy chords or one pentatonic scale because of this.

    Now the enharmonics... your question. If you still ensured you need to absolute name the tones “your awareness of the notes”, you always can take the next step in your awareness, and associate two names of every position in the fretboard and learn to sense and choose them according the current tonality. If it is important for you, this will be the price, no miracle shortcuts.

    Btw the way majority of the jazz tunes are in very few tonalities, 6#, 7#, 6b, 7b is not an everyday issue.

    So saying that your question is overthinking, definitely does not qualifies one as stuck in very low level as you implied
    Similarly paying attention on enharmonics does not qualifies one as advanced...

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27
    Some people trying to respond to things that aren't there. But that happens in every thread. Just the way communication is.
    It's ironic that some say awareness of note names is too much thinking hence imply that it has no place in the theory section of a jazz forum.
    Note functions are important. Note name awareness does not negate that.

    Sorry if this is obvious to many but if you're playing a B major arpeggio, it's still useful to know that your 3rd is D#. And yes that's even if you're playing guitar. That's because you are presumably coming to this chord from another chord or even whole other tonality and you want to be able to change your melodic curve freely. One should be able to find the 3rd this chord anywhere on the fretboard ideally to start an idea. Knowing major 7 arpeggio shapes and function of each dot in the shape doesn't automatically give you that. You should be able to instantly access any chord tone (or non chord tone) of any chord anywhere on the fretboard.
    When I improvise I don't think this way usually except when there is an important note in a certain place of the progression I want to bring out, say a cool melody note. But in the woodshed, when I'm working on a tune, internalising the harmony, working on ideas, building lines from different chord tone etc. I do find note awareness to be very useful.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 11-08-2019 at 10:38 AM.

  4. #28
    Also my cowboy chord comment didn't imply anyone specifically. I'm just saying there is a range of views as to where one should draw the line of theoretical knowledge. Again to each their own. But it doesn't make sense to go out of your way to come to the theory section of the forum and put a dismissive remark about a discussion because it involves note names.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Some people trying to respond to things that aren't there. But that happens in every thread. Just the way communication is.
    Mainly agree with adding, not every thread, and for not every posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    It's ironic that some say awareness of note names is too much thinking hence imply that it has no place in the theory section of a jazz forum.
    99% of theory can be described without note names, and done without note names. No one said the question has no place (here is what you are talked about regarding communication ). Both the question and the answers are useful, especially the question, which allows to add different answer, and a quite legal answer is "overthinking". Now all future reader in the next decades instantly can decide which answer is more acceptable for her/him just by reading this thread. Very valuable benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Note functions are important. Note name awareness does not negate that.
    Sorry if this is obvious to many but if you're playing a B major arpeggio, it's still useful to know that your 3rd is D#.
    This is the part we do not agree. To play a B major arpeggio it is not mandatory to know what is the name of the 3rd. What is mandatory to know the shape of the major 3rd in every place in your instrument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    And yes that's even if you're playing guitar. That's because you are presumably coming to this chord from another chord or even whole other tonality and you want to be able to change your melodic curve freely. One should be able to find the 3rd this chord anywhere on the fretboard ideally. Knowing major 7 arpeggio shapes and function of each dot in the shape doesn't automatically give you that. You should be able to instantly access any chord tone (or non chord tone) of any chord anywhere on the fretboard.
    Again, imho shapes are more direct way for this. That is a one step process which comes from both visual and muscle memory, instead of a three step process (knowing the key, then knowing the note name, then knowing where is that note and all the three steps are abstract, I mean not a visual and muscle memory what are way better, when time is critical few milliseconds).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    When I improvise I don't think this way usually except there is an important note in a certain place of the progression I want to bring out, say a cool melody note. But in the woodshed, when I'm working on a tune, internalising the harmony, working on ideas, building lines from different chord tone etc. I do find note awareness to be very useful.
    When working on a tune I still use note functions. After accepting the tonal center no need to know the melody and chord note names, just their functions. Maybe it is more beneficial for understanding than note names.
    Last edited by Gabor; 11-08-2019 at 11:04 AM.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Some people trying to respond to things that aren't there. But that happens in every thread. Just the way communication is.
    It's ironic that some say awareness of note names is too much thinking hence imply that it has no place in the theory section of a jazz forum.
    Note functions are important. Note name awareness does not negate that.

    Sorry if this is obvious to many but if you're playing a B major arpeggio, it's still useful to know that your 3rd is D#. And yes that's even if you're playing guitar. That's because you are presumably coming to this chord from another chord or even whole other tonality and you want to be able to change your melodic curve freely. One should be able to find the 3rd this chord anywhere on the fretboard ideally to start an idea. Knowing major 7 arpeggio shapes and function of each dot in the shape doesn't automatically give you that. You should be able to instantly access any chord tone (or non chord tone) of any chord anywhere on the fretboard.
    When I improvise I don't think this way usually except when there is an important note in a certain place of the progression I want to bring out, say a cool melody note. But in the woodshed, when I'm working on a tune, internalising the harmony, working on ideas, building lines from different chord tone etc. I do find note awareness to be very useful.
    I can only assume the people responding in this way don't spend very much time trying to communicate musically with non guitarists.

  7. #31
    Gabor I really don't have time to go through every point with you. You're missing the point. Knowing your major 7 shapes won't allow you to distinguish between where to play B major 7 vs Fmaj7. At some point you still have to refer to the note names. At least in the woodshed.

    Many tunes go through the harmony targeting a specific interval, for example ATTYA targets the 3rd of each chord.
    Now take tune, as an exercise play though the tune bringing out the 5th of every chord and tell me note awareness is useless.

  8. #32
    Most issues with enharmonics come out of dealing with written notation. In that context, there isn't anything philosophical . It's not a viewpoint or opinion. You have to know how to deal with them. In dealing with choirs , this kind of thing always comes up. You usually have to point some basics out like: " Remember that that F-sharp is the same note as the G-flat you just sang a couple measures back".

    There's always angst and questioning why this is so in notated music, but the reasons are good ones when you're reading things like that, especially as a singer or just reading fast passages on any instrument. It gets crazy when you start looking at things with crazy enharmonics, where 2nds look like 3rds or 3rds look like 4ths etc. at tempo, B-flat will absolutely be easier to read if it is part of the key signatureor key of the moment etc. meanwhile, we are mostly talking in these conversations as if these are ALL accidentals. They aren't.

    Now, chord symbols are a different beast, honestly. There are slightly different conventions for naming things when you're doing chord symbols above the staff. B-natural is going to be preferred mostly over C-flat.

    Finally, there's the part of " what do you think , solely for your own sake while improvising?". Honestly, I feel like that one's way down the list in importance. You can pretty much think whatever you want if you're the only person concerned.

    Just keep in mind that all of the talk about "not thinking one note at a time or even in letter names one note at a time while improvising" is true for notation as well. Most players reading notation aren't thinking single note or accidental at a time. They're reading entire phrases. Again, in THAT context, and at tempo, those accidentals which a lot of people don't like mostly start to make a lot more sense.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Gabor I really don't have time to explain to you this. You're missing the point. Knowing your major 7 shapes won't allow you to distinguish between where to play B major 7 vs Fmaj7. At some point you still have to refer to the note names. At least in the woodshed.
    Many tunes go through the harmony targeting a specific interval, for example ATTYA targets the 3rd of each chord.
    Now take tune, as an exercise play though the tune bringing out the 5th of every chord and tell me note awareness is useless.
    Well, I really do not want to waste your time. Agree with you, communication is a bottleneck. My only motivation to get involved was your answer to BBGuitar. Hopefully you will find your answer to your question. Many answer implies with reasoning that we will easily can overcome enharmonics except when standard notation involved. (also when communication with other musicians as Christian wrote). Those answers do not use the "overthinking" term but their conclusions are pointing to the solution.
    Also the OP is not about note names, it is specifically about enharmonics. No one stated you do not have to know the note names on the fretboard, and said that you can play an F major without knowing where are the Fs...

    Regarding ATTYA: Yes it is possible to play 3rds on all chords without knowing their note names, and especially possible without knowing their enharmonics...

  10. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    Well, I really do not want to waste your time. Agree with you, communication is a bottleneck. My only motivation to get involved was your answer to BBGuitar. Hopefully you will find your answer to your question. Many answer implies with reasoning that we will easily can overcome enharmonics except when standard notation involved. (also when communication with other musicians as Christian wrote). Those answers do not use the "overthinking" term but their conclusions are pointing to the solution.
    Also the OP is not about note names, it is specifically about enharmonics. No one stated you do not have to know the note names on the fretboard, and said that you can play an F major without knowing where are the Fs...

    Regarding ATTYA: Yes it is possible to play 3rds on all chords without knowing their note names, and especially possible without knowing their enharmonics...
    I didn't say it's impossible to do it otherwise. It's matter of whether one can access the chord tone directly (note names) or think indirectly as interval from the root. Some people will find ability to access the notes without a two step process useful. That doesn't mean they don't get the function of the note or neglect the importance of the function.
    If you do think note names at least for some types of exercises, it's not unreasonable to have a discussion of how to deal with less commonly occurring enharmonic spellings, especially in the theory section.

    Now if I understood correctly your point is "it is not unreasonable to say that OP constitutes over thinking". Good. Glad you made that point but I'd like to go back to the discussion with those you find it a point worth discussion.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 11-08-2019 at 12:39 PM.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    Well, I really do not want to waste your time. Agree with you, communication is a bottleneck. My only motivation to get involved was your answer to BBGuitar. Hopefully you will find your answer to your question. Many answer implies with reasoning that we will easily can overcome enharmonics except when standard notation involved. (also when communication with other musicians as Christian wrote). Those answers do not use the "overthinking" term but their conclusions are pointing to the solution.
    Also the OP is not about note names, it is specifically about enharmonics. No one stated you do not have to know the note names on the fretboard, and said that you can play an F major without knowing where are the Fs...

    Regarding ATTYA: Yes it is possible to play 3rds on all chords without knowing their note names, and especially possible without knowing their enharmonics...
    I will jump back in again.

    I did not take any offence to any comment here and enjoy a good discussion.

    As far as thinking too much I really don't think of Fb as being an E, I see a Fb and play a Fb or more common Cb In my head it is a Cb not B. We all have our own way of seeing things. Very rarely do I see a double flat or double sharp so I don't think of them at all.

    On cowboy chords I sometimes revert to them when I sub with a bluegrass band. My main band is a big band. Big Band has taught me to know the fretboard very well. When the bluegrass band plays in a different key other than G I am ready to play while the others are fumbling with their capos.

  12. #36
    I broadly see my musical activities as falling to two categories: ear training and performance. Everything I do in the woodshed ultimately is ear training. If I had great ears and could find strong melodies to tunes without working on them, I couldn't care less about theory. But I can't.
    Theory allows me to come up with ways to work on music that improves my ears and also help me aurally distinguish between subtle musical events. At first things start out as fingerboard exercises, then they expand my ears. Both my ability to hear ideas and access them on the fretboard improve.
    My point is the discussion of enharmonics in this thread still in the end is about ear training. Because a discussion of how you see the fretboard comes down to how you organize your ear training activities.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175

    Sorry if this is obvious to many but if you're playing a B major arpeggio, it's still useful to know that your 3rd is D#.
    There are no B major arpeggios in jazz.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    And yes that's even if you're playing guitar. That's because you are presumably coming to this chord from another chord or even whole other tonality and you want to be able to change your melodic curve freely. One should be able to find the 3rd this chord anywhere on the fretboard ideally to start an idea. Knowing major 7 arpeggio shapes and function of each dot in the shape doesn't automatically give you that. You should be able to instantly access any chord tone (or non chord tone) of any chord anywhere on the fretboard.
    When I improvise I don't think this way usually except when there is an important note in a certain place of the progression I want to bring out, say a cool melody note. But in the woodshed, when I'm working on a tune, internalising the harmony, working on ideas, building lines from different chord tone etc. I do find note awareness to be very useful.
    ... But seriously, what a bunch of us are saying is that we, of course, know note names and are aware of enharmonicity, but these don't come up while we're actually playing. We've been at it long enough that the mapping of fretboard locations to sounds and chord/scale steps is deeply ingrained and we do't have to invoke a note name to play/hear/see/understand it. Note names come up while we're talking about what we play, or explaining how to play something, or writing out music. Apparently your thought process is different - you explicitly think about the name of a note when you play it, and thinking of B as Cb messes you up. OK, that's you. Other stuff messes me up (but that's a topic for a bar or a shrink's office). I don't see any posts in this thread disputing the value of musoc theory.

    John

  14. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    There are no B major arpeggios in jazz.



    ... But seriously, what a bunch of us are saying is that we, of course, know note names and are aware of enharmonicity, but these don't come up while we're actually playing. We've been at it long enough that the mapping of fretboard locations to sounds and chord/scale steps is deeply ingrained and we do't have to invoke a note name to play/hear/see/understand it. Note names come up while we're talking about what we play, or explaining how to play something, or writing out music. Apparently your thought process is different - you explicitly think about the name of a note when you play it, and thinking of B as Cb messes you up. OK, that's you. Other stuff messes me up (but that's a topic for a bar or a shrink's office).

    John
    That's good. I wanted to know different views on this. How other people look at things. Actually what you said above largely describes me too. Yet that doesn't exclude note name awareness for me as much as some other players. That's fine. Regarding there being no B major arpeggios in Jazz, let's just say we disagree on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    I don't see any posts in this thread disputing the value of musoc theory.
    I don't see any posts claimed that anyone disputed the value of music theory.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    That said, at no point can I recall needing to think Cb instead of B. Unless there was a Cb in the chart.
    Occasionally I'll see a big band chart with two adjacent notes that are enharmonically the same pitch but are spelled differently (e.g. B and Cb) and so look different on the staff. While correctly reflecting the underlying harmony, this can be a real pain when sight reading at a fast tempo.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    I'd like to see an example of that!

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    The tricky thing is, as discussed, there are only sharp notes on telecasters, so you have to do a lot of enharmonic respelling to sight read on one.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    The notational strategy of employing 7 letters has both advantages and disadvantages.
    Major scales exist for all notes that offer from 0 - 7 sharps or flats.
    The spelling requires one note connected to each of the seven letters.
    There are 15 such major scale key signatures.

    C D E F G A B C
    F G A Bb C D E F
    Bb C D Eb F G A Bb
    Eb F G Ab Bb C D Eb
    Ab Bb C Db Eb F G Ab
    Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb C Db
    Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F Gb
    Cb Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb Cb

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

    The last 2 keys contain one or two of the 4 note spellings in question.
    Cb, B#, Fb, E# all exist within basic key signatures.
    Cb actually is a bonafide key, although perhaps the only reason to choose it over
    B major might be due to a mid-song modulation from a flat key.

    Intervals (pre-post tonal) are also codified in relation to variants of the 7 scale degrees.
    F - Gb is a minor 2nd while F - F# is an augmented unison even though both are the same half step apart.

    Correct naming on the surface facilitates correct analysis.
    However, the 7 letter system presents facility to move into even uglier notational territory,
    when technically correct spelling requires the use of double flats and double sharps.
    A numerical system avoids such pitfalls but at this time, it is not the commonplace conduit to
    communicate a composition.

    Music can be successfully played relying purely on a direct connection between sonic knowledge
    and the mechanical aspects of realizing those sounds. In this way, this issue is a non-issue
    until we are either reading or notating music.

    As reading musicians, these 4 note spellings appear only occasionally. Still, when this happens,
    what response will we choose to have for such an occasion. One way or another, it is our job to
    play the music to the best of our abilities. And when we are the person notating the music,
    what presentation strategy will we choose. What is the best balance between the technically
    correct spelling vs. an expedient alternative for easier comprehension/accuracy by the ensemble

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    I remember coming across published sheet music for a Blur song in C# major

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    C# - 7 sharps or Db - 5 flats

    Cb - 7 flats or B - 5 sharps

    Fielder's choice:

    F# - 6 sharps or Gb - 6 flats

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    C# - 7 sharps or Db - 5 flats

    Cb - 7 flats or B - 5 sharps

    Fielder's choice:

    F# - 6 sharps or Gb - 6 flats
    I remember a Rock player showing me a blues in A#...I told him it would be easier as Bb..he said "I dont know that key.."

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    C flat - F flat - B sharp - E sharp-capo3-jpg
    heh heh