Which chord?

[Christian Miller]

Why might it be important to name a chord "correctly"?

1. The bassist is likely to play whatever is indicated as the root. So if it's a Csomething or something/C, the bass is likely to play a C.

If they want to get called again, the bassist will play what is indicated as the bass?

There’s a bit of judgment from the player surely. If it’s a chart full of slash chords or with a written bass part they will play what’s written. On a three chord number they may play with tasteful inversions where there’s space to be creative.

2. The rest of the chord symbol is supposed to make the desired sound clear, including the voice leading. So, the correct name gets the bass note in the ballpark and gives the chord player an idea of the moving harmony. An incorrect name would be one that points to the same notes but is unnecessarily difficult to decode/read. Or one that makes it more difficult to figure out how the harmony is supposed to be moving/sounding.

In Days of Wine and Roses, you have F^7 moving to Eb7#11 (which unlike Christian, works for me, although I think I usually omit the A on top) to Am7 and D7.

it works and if someone plays it on a gig, I’m not going to tell them off, I just prefer what Mancini wrote, the Am7b5/Eb, I think it’s nicer. Eb7#11 is a little bit ‘heeeyyy, jazz!’. it is meant to be a melancholy song…

Wes plays Ebmaj7#11

The A is in the melody btw, you don’t have to play it, but it’s very much part of the overall harmony

[Christian Miller]

That's what I do when I come across an unusual group of notes that I like the sound of - clear as crystal for the pianist. Single note improvisers don't seem to get too exercised about what that group of notes might be called by guitarists - but where's the fun in that?

tbf if you want to solo over a notated chord, you could of course just improvise with the notes in the chord…

[Christian Miller]

Thelonious Monk would have called it Abm6/F.

actually, I think Monk might have called this specific fellow a blues thing on an F7b5 chord going to E7… which is pretty Monk now I think about it!

Transpose this bad boy to Eb- and use it on Round midnight…

[ragman1]

I've no objection to theory and I've no objection to questioning, exploring alternatives, or just looking for loopholes.

But it's foolish to just mess with it for something to do. And it's even more stupid to try to fix what ain't broke. And, as far as I know, it ain't broke yet.

In any case, most discussions I see here aren't based on brilliantly insightful new theories, they're based on not properly understanding what's already there. It's a complex subject.

[PMB]

actually, I think Monk might have called this specific fellow a blues thing on an F7b5 chord going to E7… which is pretty Monk now I think about it!

Transpose this bad boy to Eb- and use it on Round midnight…

I've come across so many different changes for the end of bar 2 in 'Round Midnight (F-7b5-Bb7, Ab-7-Db7, Db7-Do7) and the basic voicings from your Tristan example - F, B, D#, G# to E, G#, D, B or their enharmonic equivalents - work nicely and are probably more 'Monkish'.

BTW, the first chord of bar 2 in that tune is a clear example of why Monk thought Eb-6/C rather than C-7b5 as the bass descends chromatically from the root.

[fep]

I like the G/C type chord and I associate it with Steely Dan.

Also, G5/C.

For example, Aja with the C/F and D5/G and a whole bunch or other chords of similar ilk. Aja has a lot of non-traditional (maybe nonfunctional?) progressions. Reminds me of Big Band Charts in the frequency of chord movements.

[AllanAllen]

I wish I didn’t read all this.

[pamosmusic]

I wish I didn’t read all this.

Whenever I see that Christian has become particularly involved in a thread, I do a command+F for “Rameau.”

If it turns anything up, I usually think it’s best to just move on to the next one.

[humphreysguitar]

A simple question for a theory forum like this, but I really like a certain chord and use it a lot and am in doubt about its name. Notes are C D G B low to high (frets D10, G7, B8, E7). Checked using a chord finder and it says Cmaj7sus2. If C were the root then I follow that. But my ears tell me this is an inversion of some G chord with an added 4. The G note within the chord is enough to tell me that it’s the root but becomes really obvious (to my ears at least) when adding a low G (A10). So if G were the root then it’d be a chord with scale notes 1, 3, 4, 5 and I’d try to name it from that. Since it’s a major chord with an added note (smaller than 7) I’d be inclined to call it G4.

Two questions basically:
When naming chords, to what extent can/should the root be determined by ear?
If this were a G chord, what would its name be? An inversion of G4?

I see it as a 7/5/2 chord. Very beautiful with the combination of the 7 and the 2.

You should check out Henri Reber or Emile Durand's Harmony treatises from the Paris Conservatory in the 19th century, French unfortunately, and they deal more in figured bass rather than chord symbols and function theory.

[humphreysguitar]

This is for Christian. It's neither functional nor non-functional. It's just there, like the breeze.

To me it sounds like you are changing key a lot.

I'm with Christian on functional theory being sort of not real. Riemann was very interested in psychology and Helmholtz.

[Christian Miller]

To me it sounds like you are changing key a lot.

I'm with Christian on functional theory being sort of not real. Riemann was very interested in psychology and Helmholtz.

Thats my point really. People go on about root movement as if it’s the laws of physics or something. In a way the psychological aspect makes it more interesting.

The difficulty of defining what is a key change exactly and so on is really very interesting.

[Christian Miller]

Whenever I see that Christian has become particularly involved in a thread, I do a command+F for “Rameau.”

If it turns anything up, I usually think it’s best to just move on to the next one.

Don’t worry I’ll fixate on something else random in six months.

[Christian Miller]

I've come across so many different changes for the end of bar 2 in 'Round Midnight (F-7b5-Bb7, Ab-7-Db7, Db7-Do7) and the basic voicings from your Tristan example - F, B, D#, G# to E, G#, D, B or their enharmonic equivalents - work nicely and are probably more 'Monkish'.
BTW, the first chord of bar 2 in that tune is a clear example of why Monk thought Eb-6/C rather than C-7b5 as the bass descends chromatically from the root.

yeah it feels silly to write Cm7b5 and not Ebm6/C there… but there’s a realpolitik to writing charts…

FWIW I hear Ebm Ebm/D Ebm/Db Ebm/C B13 Bb7 (or poss E13)

in monks original version, but it not prepared to die on that hill haha

Of course theoretical problem regarding the Tristan chord specifically is not its intervallic structure - half dim chords are common in baroque music - but its position in the key. Seeing that G# as a prolonged lower neighbour to A gets rid of that problem because it’s quite common to see F7#11 chords in a minor (as monk would know haha) as these are ‘French sixths’. Wagner’s spelling which has a D# not Eb clinches it for me- it’s an augmented sixth chord.

(The only slight issue is it doesn’t quite resolve like a classic aug 6th, the D# moves to D natural, not to the usual E - more like a jazz minor blues turnaround lol)

Stella by starlight has similar very prolonged dissonances that eventually resolve into chord tones, the original even more so (as a very Golden Age Hollywood post Wagnerian late romantic style score)


jazzers tend to think of these as extensions, but if you look carefully they all eventually resolve.

Mahler had some classic examples of this stuff too… the first chord of the Adagietto sounds like a maj7 to us

[ragman1]

To me it sounds like you are changing key a lot.

There is no particular key, it's a 12-bar modal progression. The first two solos are melodic and diatonic to the chords and the rest involves 'out' notes. I don't particularly like it but there you are.

I'm with Christian on functional theory being sort of not real. Riemann was very interested in psychology and Helmholtz.

I'm sure you are if you're intellectual type but, let's be honest, it hasn't got much to do with jazz guitar.

[ragman1]

You really are an attention seeker aren’t you haha

I don't really think it's got anything to do with me personally, that's not very interesting at all.

But let's put it this way. If you were as verbose, analytical and eloquent about what, say, Coltrane, Bernstein, Kreisberg, Scofield, or people like that are playing, I'd be quite impressed. But all this antiquated stuff about Bach, Rameau, classical theory, and all the rest of it has nothing to do with it. It's just your own hobby horse and you seem to be exploiting the forum to do it. Maybe it's part of your studies for a qualification of some sort, I don't know.

[humphreysguitar]

Interesting, I had a relisten and it sounds squarely "tonal" (don't like the term) with secondary dominants, 7th chords and abrupt shifts of key.

When you play what you consider an "out" note, all I hear is a signal for a key change, and if it doesn't change key, a deception, but only in hindsight.

I think we are selective in what we call "intellectual". I consider function theory and fundamental bass purely theoretical. Whenever I analyze music I try to be as practical as possible.

There is no particular key, it's a 12-bar modal progression. The first two solos are melodic and diatonic to the chords and the rest involves 'out' notes. I don't particularly like it but there you are.



I'm sure you are if you're intellectual type but, let's be honest, it hasn't got much to do with jazz guitar.

[Christian Miller]

I don't really think it's got anything to do with me personally, that's not very interesting at all.

But let's put it this way. If you were as verbose, analytical and eloquent about what, say, Coltrane, Bernstein, Kreisberg, Scofield, or people like that are playing, I'd be quite impressed. But all this antiquated stuff about Bach, Rameau, classical theory, and all the rest of it has nothing to do with it. It's just your own hobby horse and you seem to be exploiting the forum to do it. Maybe it's part of your studies for a qualification of some sort, I don't know.

That's not entirely unfair, but I don't see what harm it's doing you?

I'm not sure I can be bothered to type a good faith response to any of this, which is a shame really as there are some fair points that could be addressed, and I would get into it if was someone else asking.

I've not found much value in engaging with you on those terms in the past decade or so. I don't think I'm alone in this.

[Christian Miller]

Interesting, I had a relisten and it sounds squarely "tonal" (don't like the term) with secondary dominants, 7th chords and abrupt shifts of key.

When you play what you consider an "out" note, all I hear is a signal for a key change, and if it doesn't change key, a deception, but only in hindsight.

I think we are selective in what we call "intellectual". I consider function theory and fundamental bass purely theoretical. Whenever I analyze music I try to be as practical as possible.

I find this is a big crossover with Barry Harris's approach, which is that we don't spend much time analysing the harmony, just coming out with idiomatic, beautiful sounding chords and lines using a clear method or recipe:

For example "Go up the scale this way, it sounds nice."

When people say things like:

"This sounds nice because #9, b13 etc"

I tend to think, do we need a reason for it to sound nice? That's theory. "If it sounds good, it is good" (Ellington) is almost a statement of anti-theory, but not anti-craft. Craft is essential for music making, theory less so.

I think lot of people confuse theory for craft. I get accused of being theoretical, when almost every post I make is highly skeptical of theory. This is mostly because I know the names of stuff. Mostly it's just labelling things. TBH I think a lot of this stuff is best taught non verbally through music, which I suspect is exactly how it was taught.

For example - the Stella example above is really about how you hear those 'clash notes'. The interesting thing is jazz musicians hear them differently to classical musicians. That's not really a theory thing at all, it's a perception thing.

It IS useful to know the difference.

It's the difference between knowing everything about the history of European furniture and being able to turn a nice table leg on a lathe. Music is not especially an intellectual pursuit.

A further layer of confusion is people often get hung up the names. Names have become more 'fancy' as music has moved into the Liberal Arts sphere. 'Primary major triads of the key' sounds more theoretical than 'three chord trick' - but is the exact same thing. Knowing why the primary triads (supposedly) work (such as the explanation Schoenberg gives) would be a more theoretical understanding.

On a side note it's weird how studying historic improvisation has made me better at solo jazz guitar. I wasn't expecting that.

[ragman1]

Interesting, I had a relisten and it sounds squarely "tonal" (don't like the term) with secondary dominants, 7th chords and abrupt shifts of key.

When you play what you consider an "out" note, all I hear is a signal for a key change, and if it doesn't change key, a deception, but only in hindsight.

All that is your affair. You can make what you like out of it. All I do is write the chords and play stuff. That's good enough for me.

All right, here's the progression. There's no key, it's modal, and deliberately so.

CM7 - B7 - Ebm7 - AM7
D9 - AbM7 - C#9 - C9
FM7 - B7 - DbM7 - Bb7

And it goes round in a circle.

[ragman1]

That's not entirely unfair, but I don't see what harm it's doing you?

It's not doing 'harm' as such. Nobody's breaking down or suffering. But you seem oblivious to the effect it creates. As an example, Oscar67 asked what his chord was. Simple question.

A few posts later you arrive and we get this:

'I’m not convinced about this whole root note idea. Take the second chord from days of wine and roses which is of course Am7b5/Eb (NOT Eb7#11 yuck). You put it in context and it obivously functions as the ii in a ii V I to Gm, but it sounds so utterly different from a root position Am7b5 I question whether it can be regarded as the same chord.'

That has absolutely nothing to do with his question. You're simply hijacking the thread for your own use. Aren't there classical music theory websites for this sort of discussion?

I'm not sure I can be bothered to type a good faith response to any of this

That's what you always say, or worse, and the insensitivity and cynicism is staggering. Hell, next time a nice beginner type asks a simple question I'll ignore it and start a big discussion about microtonal music and Schenkerian analysis. Why not? Doesn't hurt anybody, does it?

Except I could have started my own thread instead of using someone else's.

[pingu]

That has absolutely nothing to do with his question. You're simply hijacking the thread for your own use. Aren't there classical music theory websites for this sort of discussion?

.

I’m writing here in support of Christians post here (on root ambiguity) which i think is very
relevant to the OP question

I for one find Christians teachings very helpful ….

The OP got his answer here (which by the way is G/C)

As long as we don’t veer into ‘ad hominem’ attacks I think all views
are welcome here which is great

carry on

[ragman1]

Thank you for your paternalistic advice. To all us grown-ups!

It's not an ad hom attack, it's a valid criticism, at least for me. I see a simple question being swamped by a deluge of academic off-topic posts about classical theory involving Mozart and Wagner. It doesn't help the poster. And this same scenario has been played out on countless threads, not just this one. But people being what they are, there are always some who consider it helpful. To them, maybe, if they're academically inclined.

As for the answer to the OP's question, it wasn't G/C. The chord progression the OP provided was solidly in the key of C and the chord in question was preceded by a G7 resolving to his chord with a C root. In those circumstances there was no root ambiguity whatsoever. It happened to have a D in it next to the root so it was a CM7 with a 2, or CM7sus2.

[humphreysguitar]

I think lot of people confuse theory for craft. I get accused of being theoretical, when almost every post I make is highly skeptical of theory. This is mostly because I know the names of stuff. Mostly it's just labelling things. TBH I think a lot of this stuff is best taught non verbally through music, which I suspect is exactly how it was taught.

For example - the Stella example above is really about how you hear those 'clash notes'. The interesting thing is jazz musicians hear them differently to classical musicians. That's not really a theory thing at all, it's a perception thing.

It IS useful to know the difference.

It's the difference between knowing everything about the history of European furniture and being able to turn a nice table leg on a lathe. Music is not especially an intellectual pursuit.

A further layer of confusion is people often get hung up the names. Names have become more 'fancy' as music has moved into the Liberal Arts sphere. 'Primary major triads of the key' sounds more theoretical than 'three chord trick' - but is the exact same thing. Knowing why the primary triads (supposedly) work (such as the explanation Schoenberg gives) would be a more theoretical understanding.

On a side note it's weird how studying historic improvisation has made me better at solo jazz guitar. I wasn't expecting that.

Agree with you. Knowing classical music will definitely make you a better jazz musician, the overlaps are crazy.

I'll never forget Charlie Parker approaching Edgar Varese for formal lessons.

"He stopped by my place a number of times," said Varèse. "He'd come in and exclaim, 'Take me as you would a baby and teach me music. I only write one voice. I want to have a structure. I want to write orchestral scores."

Like Barry Harris said, jazz is a continuation of Classical music.

The only problem is function theory and chord symbols have obscured everything lol.

[pingu]

Thank you for your paternalistic advice. To all us grown-ups!

It's not an ad hom attack, it's a valid criticism, at least for me. I see a simple question being swamped by a deluge of academic off-topic posts about classical theory involving Mozart and Wagner. It doesn't help the poster. And this same scenario has been played out on countless threads, not just this one. But people being what they are, there are always some who consider it helpful. To them, maybe, if they're academically inclined.

As for the answer to the OP's question, it wasn't G/C. The chord progression the OP provided was solidly in the key of C and the chord in question was preceded by a G7 resolving to his chord with a C root. In those circumstances there was no root ambiguity whatsoever. It happened to have a D in it next to the root so it was a CM7 with a 2, or CM7sus2.

1 you’re welcome ….
2 you don’t know that it didn’t help the op
3 you’re analysis is valid ( except that
calling it CM7sus2 implies that
it’s a maj chord , but analysing it from the C root , it has no third)

note
to my ear (and some others here)
it’s better named as G/C
and this is also valid

so it’s not always true that there’s one correct answer ….
hence the root ambiguity discussed by Christian

hey I’m a reductionist too
I like the idea that if it sounds good it is good

but sometimes there is more than
one valid explanation for a thing

[Oscar67]

Regarding CM7sus2 or G/C: I see both points of view now and learned something (although pingu’s remark about the 3rd has me thinking about it again).
Regarding the wider discussion: I’m OK with it. I’m hearing about stuff I’d never have heard about otherwise. Not planning to become a music theory scholar because deep down I’m practical about it and focus on playing. But it’s interesting and this _is_ a theory subforum, so seems like a legit place to dive deep.