Minor 6 chord question

[Christian Miller]

I think we should agree on something. Those who say:
"You don't need ears or language. Just play the 7th mode of melodic minor up and down, up and down, than dorian up and down, up and down. You're gonna sound great." are assholes.
I haven't met anyone who said this but apparently they are everywhere.

Ah I’m not going to get drawn into this one again, it’s irrelevant to the OP really.

The specific problem in this thread is not ‘theory’ but people looking for an explanation of something which is simply a notational convention. We call a minor 6th chord a minor 6th chord because that is what we call it. Everyone knows what it is and it’s all fine.

It’s like how we don’t need a reason why multiplication goes before addition in maths, that’s just how everyone agrees to do it and that’s how we write equations etc so that they can be understood by others.

often these conventions can be a bit quirky or illogical even in STEM subjects. But everyone uses them.

[mr. beaumont]

see the first page of the thread…

Is the answer there? I tuned out as soon as I saw a bunch of "instead of answering your question, I'll tell you something I think it's cool that I know" posts.

[Tal_175]

Yes. And closer to home (here) ... some credibility? I sometimes think the typing of theory has become a substitute for actual playing. As if you can type yourself into jazz significance? I dunno. The whole theory thing is alien to my nature. It bores the hell out of me. Never indulge in it.

DB

There is an intellectual cuteness to the hair splitting theory discussions. But from relating to actual music stand point, I agree it can be boring.

From the practical point of view, I like David Berkman's approach. He's got 10 pages of 'all the jazz theory you'll ever need' summary. One can read and move on.

After that all one needs is someone to show them some examples of how they apply to analyzing tunes and lines. Then off you go.

[Dutchbopper]

There is an intellectual cuteness to the hair splitting theory discussions. But from relating to actual music stand point, I agree it can be boring.

From the practical point of view, I like David Berkman's approach. He's got 10 pages of 'all the jazz theory you'll ever need' summary. One can read and move on.

After that all one needs is someone to show them some examples of how they apply to analyzing tunes and lines. Then off you go.

That is exactly how I went about. It is 100 times better to hear theoretic ideas as applied in samples of real playing. That is meaningful. Christiaan van Hemert works like this. Jens too I think.

DB


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Is the answer there? I tuned out as soon as I saw a bunch of "instead of answering your question, I'll tell you something I think it's cool that I know" posts.

it’s somewhere in there, maybe page 2.

Sorry for any snark, I just don’t get why anyone wouldn’t say ‘that what it’s called, cool’ and move on.

People seem to think music theory is like physics or something, but the joke is even physicists would be perfectly happy with that type of argument with regards to notation, so long as it’s what people use (which it is) and it’s reasonably clear (which it is).

[mr. beaumont]

it’s somewhere in there, maybe page 2.

Sorry for any snark, I just don’t get why anyone wouldn’t say ‘that what it’s called, cool’ and move on.
.

I get what you're saying...I just felt like there was actual confusion in the OP that would eventually mess them up somewhere else.

Chord naming always seems to be a "trip up" point for beginners. Maybe we should make chord formulas a sticky...

[Christian Miller]

Yes. And closer to home (here) ... some credibility? I sometimes think the typing of theory has become a substitute for actual playing. As if you can type yourself into jazz significance? I dunno. The whole theory thing is alien to my nature. It bores the hell out of me. Never indulge in it.

DB

Yeah there’s a strong element of that, trying to be credible by knowing the names of things. It’s the type of thing you can learn in a few tens of hours. To become a good musician takes a lot longer of course and involves a lot of practical hard work that can’t be typed about really.

Obviously I find a lot of nerdy shit interesting, particularly the music theory history thing (when did chord scale theory start off and what form did it have? That type of thing.)

I actually think the forum is sometimes quite good for stuff like this, but they are all academic points really and very niche.

I think I’m well aware that knowing this stuff doesn’t make me a better player per se.

[Christian Miller]

I get what you're saying...I just felt like there was actual confusion in the OP that would eventually mess them up somewhere else.

Chord naming always seems to be a "trip up" point for beginners. Maybe we should make chord formulas a sticky...

Good idea. Can just cut and paste that Berklee article I linked to.

[mr. beaumont]

Good idea. Can just cut and paste that Berklee article I linked to.

Ugh, does it have to be from Berklee?

I feel like people would take to it better if it was a YouTube video of a guy in a cowboy hat who played a telecaster and calls you "pal" and "champ" and all that.

[Christian Miller]

Ugh, does it have to be from Berklee?

I feel like people would take to it better if it was a YouTube video of a guy in a cowboy hat who played a telecaster and calls you "pal" and "champ" and all that.

Yeah but that dude went to Berklee innit

[Oscar67]

[Oscar67]

It’s like this. Someone created a theory forum in here. Wasn’t me. It’s there and it’s free so I thought I might as well use it. I asked a simple question and summarized the many useful answers (for which I thank y’all) somewhere on page 2 or so. After that, it’s bring out the popcorn and enjoy the show. Everyone’s viewpoints about theory in general or theory nerds posting bad clips, or the value of playing by ear… it’s entertaining and so forth but who’s trying to convince who of what here?

Now I’m settling in for part II.

[Tal_175]

Only 115 posts in 48 hours and no cursing in a "theory question" thread. This is very lame, even for a new member. Literally the most tranquil theory thread ever. This is making me sick.

[Tal_175]

That never worked for me ... I've never found that wood shedding some sort of melodic minor scale lead to licks that sounded good.


What it does to me is 3 fold.

1. the obvious one is dexterity
2. Secondly it's a label ... something I can attach to lick in order to group them
3. And thirdly hearing the entire scale is cool as you get that sound into your ears


So shedding the altered scale gave me a label to put altered licks into and an easier time identifying altered licks as my ear gotten used to the sound of the scale.

But musical use of the altered scale is from getting actual licks in my ears and under my fingers. references ... once you have a few of those you start hearing licks as variations of those and start to produce permutations of your own.


(altered, whole tone, diminished .. whatever ... )


I never found scales to be building blocks .. In my world they are boxes that you contain the building blocks you use (labels), but the blocks themselves is actual music.

In my world theory is an organizational tool .. more than a creative one.

I agree a scale without any structure wouldn't be very useful for working on lines. But Barry Harris actually used building blocks as a way of creating lines within a scalar reference.
Christian actually posted a good video a while ago that summarized the approach for the dominant scale (let me find it). Check out the PDF especially.

[Tal_175]

I think a distinction has to be made between theory as analytical knowledge and theory as how you organize your instrument.

Harmony comes from scales. So in order to play a very harmonically rich style in a chord specific way, it seems like scales are useful abstractions to internalize on the instrument as a reference (not just for running up and down). Scales are also useful for expanding comping voicings. Lines, chords, counter lines etc. can all be viewed in a unified way on the instrument with scales.

But I'm under the impression that there are other fretboard organization references that people are alluding to. One that doesn't involve seeing lines, chords, extensions within a scalar reference on the instrument.

I'd love it if people discuss these alternative approaches as I'm sincerely curious about them.

[AllanAllen]

Sure, a monkey mashing at keyboards will eventually write a real sentence too.

It’s a scale, it takes an hour to learn it’s not a big deal and I cannot understand why your life’s goal is attacking them on this forum.

[Tal_175]

Does it really?

I mean, sure ... you can write stuff like ... "And here the tune changes key into a blah blah blah ... "

But in reality the composer could be just "So I played these random chords and thought they sounded good together. Then I just played chord tones with a bit of passing notes and boom .. There you have it".


Or as a different typical example could be long essays the many chords in the ending of a tune and then you hear from the guy playing it and he is like "I was just thinking G7 over those bars before resolving to C".


Just asking questions ... Not portraying myself as an expert

Sure. Music is complex. "Harmony comes from scales" is an approximation. I find that such approximations simplify tunes for me as opposed to seeing them as completely random series of events. I can look at a tune like "Days of Wine and Roses" and see that the tune is in Fmajor with some secondary dominant expansions. The chords then have a reference source that matches how I hear they function and how I hear the effect of non-chord tone choices. The tune also has a modal interchange area. I take iv melodic minor as the source for the iv - bVII7 sections. That matches how I hear the tune etc.

This view applies well to most standards. So to me it's crazy not to take advantage of it.

[grahambop]

It’s like this. Someone created a theory forum in here. Wasn’t me. It’s there and it’s free so I thought I might as well use it. I asked a simple question and summarized the many useful answers (for which I thank y’all) somewhere on page 2 or so. After that, it’s bring out the popcorn and enjoy the show. Everyone’s viewpoints about theory in general or theory nerds posting bad clips, or the value of playing by ear… it’s entertaining and so forth but who’s trying to convince who of what here?

Now I’m settling in for part II.

It’s just an ancient tradition, don’t worry about it. Enjoy the show.

[Dutchbopper]

It’s just an ancient tradition, don’t worry about it. Enjoy the show.

The previous theory show starring Clint 55 and Donplaysguitar was way more exciting than the current episode though ...

DB

[Tal_175]

The previous theory show starring Clint 55 and Donplaysguitar was way more exciting than the current episode though ...

DB

Donplaysguitar is gone but I suspect that we'll have the new variant soon.

[Dutchbopper]

Donplaysguitar is gone but I suspect that we'll have the new variant soon.

Clint 55 is gone too. But indeed, these guys will appear under new variants so get your booster!!!!

DB

[AllanAllen]

Donplaysguitar is gone but I suspect that we'll have the new variant soon.

I think they’re already here, someone posted about vaccine’s in the controversial thread.

[grahambop]

I was deeply invested in that show, but after following the entire season, I missed out on the season finale

Now I'll never know the ending

Well it ended a bit like the Bond film.

[bako]

Historically speaking, 1 3 5 b7 has been in active rotation for a long while as an essential chord to delineate a key center and also to steer elsewhere. 1 3 5 7 has played a far lesser role.
Despite 1 3 5 7 being the I chord in a major scale, 1 3 5 b7 earned the title of 7th chord while 1 3 5 7 is presented as ma7 to describe how it is different from 1 3 5 b7.

1 b3 5 6 similarly was granted a similar priority over 1 b3 5 b6 and deemed the best to represent m6.

[mr. beaumont]

Donplaysguitar is gone but I suspect that we'll have the new variant soon.

Maybe he'll try FumbleFingers2 this time.