m6 or dim

[Christian Miller]

This is all I needed.

Thanks to all that replied.
Later

No problem!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pingu]

i found this thread to be illuminating
and informative

and quite funny with it ….

[ragman1]

JC -

I know you think it's all over but...

(Christian) If you skip out the 5th the m6 and o7 chord has the same notes in - 1 b3 and 6.

But if it has the same notes, how will you know which one it is? That was the point in your very first post, wasn't it?

So I have to say it again: go by the context. The Analyzer doesn't know the context, it only has set answers for set fingerings.

Like the word 'bow'. Is that a ribbon on a gift, a thing that fires arrows, or a thing to play the violin with?

You have to see or hear the word in a sentence to know. But don't listen to me :-)

[wolflen]

Also, I feel insults are usually essentialist.

Whereas, I feel berk here is being used as a descriptor of behaviour.

Note: I say you are being a berk not that 'you are a berk.' Although a berk would obviously be more prone to exhibitions of berkishness in general, we all have within the capacity to be berks. And I feel it's important to flag up berkishness where it occurs so that remedial action can be undertaken.

OP your being new here..let me translate the above and demonstrate how it relates to your question>

Miller and Rag are having a dual-this happens very often-it keeps both happy and healthy-

Now to your theory question,

If we take a "berk" and add a flat fifth to it..that is a diminished fifth..it lessons the "berkness"

but if we add a major 6th to the berk..well..it may be cause to be reviewed by DIRK..who in noway allows berkness in ANY form

and in NO way is related to BERK!

To continue..now if you play the minor 6 which contains a major 6..and put it in front of a mirror..
you will then understand...

WHY THE SKY IS BLUE !!

[dconeill]

Alternatively, it might be the case that you are being a berk.

What's a "berk"? A graduate of the Berklee College of Music?

[Christian Miller]

What's a "berk"? A graduate of the Berklee College of Music?

Sometimes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

It’s one of those terms that is untranslatable really. There is no American term which correctly reflects the sense of ‘berk.’ The dictionary definitions don’t reflect the tone of mild, non-hostile dismissal implicit in the term.

For example ‘sorry to be late, I was a bit of a berk and got the wrong train on the way in and ended up in Uxbridge before I realised.’

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

JC -

If you're still there, or happen to pop in, there's actually an underlying problem here. Which is, according to your first post, that you're new to jazz chords and are studying shell voicings at the moment.

Shells are only 3-note chords and, as such, they may look easier than learning all those bigger chords. But that's a trap. It's also an issue that's been discussed on the forum before.

I would very seriously suggest you learn the full chords first before you do shell voicings. That's because the shells can be deduced from the full chords. At the moment it looks like you're trying to do it the other way round and that's why we're here.

Here's a simple example. Say you had the chords Am6 - Abo.

The full chords look like this on guitar:

Attachment 109311Attachment 109312

If you know these chords then you'll see that the simple 3-note version can be used for both chords, m6 and dim. That's 5x45xx, then just move it down a fret to 4x34xx. It'll sound okay.

But imagine trying to decipher that without knowing where that shape comes from. So I'm saying don't start with shell voicings because they look simpler, learn the proper stuff first. If you don't mind my saying so.

[pamosmusic]

JC -

If you're still there, or happen to pop in, there's actually an underlying problem here. Which is, according to your first post, that you're new to jazz chords and are studying shell voicings at the moment.

Shells are only 3-note chords and, as such, they may look easier than learning all those bigger chords. But that's a trap. It's also an issue that's been discussed on the forum before.

I would very seriously suggest you learn the full chords first before you do shell voicings. That's because the shells can be deduced from the full chords. At the moment it looks like you're trying to do it the other way round and that's why we're here.

Here's a simple example. Say you had the chords Am6 - Abo.

The full chords look like this on guitar:

Attachment 109311Attachment 109312

If you know these chords then you'll see that the simple 3-note version can be used for both chords, m6 and dim. That's 5x45xx, then just move it down a fret to 4x34xx. It'll sound okay.

But imagine trying to decipher that without knowing where that shape comes from. So I'm saying don't start with shell voicings because they look simpler, learn the proper stuff first. If you don't mind my saying so.

Hmm. I’m not sure I agree with this, but it is a good point.

[J.C.]

To continue..now if you play the minor 6 which contains a major 6..and put it in front of a mirror..
you will then understand...

WHY THE SKY IS BLUE !!

Now it all makes sense!

[J.C.]

JC -

But if it has the same notes, how will you know which one it is?

So I have to say it again: go by the context.

Understood...Thanks

[J.C.]

I would very seriously suggest you learn the full chords first before you do shell voicings. That's because the shells can be deduced from the full chords. At the moment it looks like you're trying to do it the other way round and that's why we're here.

So I'm saying don't start with shell voicings because they look simpler, learn the proper stuff first. If you don't mind my saying so.

I don't mind at all, and I understand your suggestion. I was actually trying to learn full chords when I first got interested in jazz and I must say I was very slow at some of them. I stumbled on these shell voicings and thought wow, I can actually do this.
I might try to incorporate a little of both into my chord studies. I hate to stop working on the shells all together, because people that don't know any better, actually think I can play a few jazz tunes.

[starjasmine]

Regarding "college bullshit":

Yeah, f--- those guys who went to medical school! I'd much rather have the self-taught doctor cut me open.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[J.C.]

The short answer is that both interpretations can be correct. Read on for details.

Chord symbols are just shorthand or nicknames for common chord constructions.

A C minor triad is C Eb G. The intervals from the root are a minor third and a perfect fifth
A C minor sixth is C Eb G A. It's a C minor triad with a major sixth. The intervals from the root are minor third, perfect fifth and major sixth.
An Ab major chord in first inversion is C Eb Ab. The intervals from the bottom note (not the root, since this is an inversion) are minor 3rd and minor 6th. If we have C Eb G Ab, we have a first-inversion Abma7, which you might see notated as Ama7/C.

So... in order for the add-a-sixth-to-the-chord shorthand to be consistent, the convention is that when adding a sixth to a minor triad the sixth is major, because if it were a minor sixth you'd have a first-inversion major chord. (And when adding a sixth to a major triad, that's also a major sixth*. Thus C6 is C E G A which is the same as Am7/C.)

In practice, if you omit the G from C Eb G A the listener may still hear Cm6, or they may hear A diminished. It depends on context. Shell voicings are all about context: you are playing a partial chord, and the rest of the band is filling in that context.

An A diminished triad is A C Eb. If we extend that A diminished triad by adding a diminished seventh (the interval that is one half-step smaller than m7) to get an A full diminished 7 we get A C Eb Gb... which is the same chord as C full diminished (C Eb Gb Bbb), Eb full diminished (Eb Gb Bbb Dbb) and Gb full diminished (Gb Bbb Dbb Fbb). They are all stacks of minor thirds.

Thus, the diminished sonority can be thought of as one chord spelled four ways - or four chords that are actually the same chord :-) which means that we can move the diminished sonority up or down by minor thirds and it will still function the same way. Consider that you could look at C Eb Gb as an A full diminished 7th with the root omitted. Or Eb Gb Bbb as A full diminished 7th with the third omitted. Or Gb Bbb Dbb as A full diminished 7th with the fifth omitted. So we can treat diminished triads as equivalent to each other as well. C dim == Eb dim == Gb dim == Adim.

HTH

SJ

* For the sake of completeness, while not wanting to go too far down a rabbit hole, if you add a minor sixth to a C major chord you get C E G Ab, which is Ab+ma7 in first inversion aka Ab+ma7/C. There aren't any special conventions when it comes to augmented chords because there is no ambiguity wrt adding sixths: the aug 5 and the m6 are enharmonic, so if you see C+6 the sixth HAS to be a major 6th.

I do appreciate your reply...thanks

[AllanAllen]

I don't mind at all, and I understand your suggestion. I was actually trying to learn full chords when I first got interested in jazz and I must say I was very slow at some of them. I stumbled on these shell voicings and thought wow, I can actually do this.
I might try to incorporate a little of both into my chord studies. I hate to stop working on the shells all together, because people that don't know any better, actually think I can play a few jazz tunes.

You can get by with 13 grips. I couldn’t handle the mental gymnastics of the same grip having multiple uses for a year or two. But I recently worked this out. Trying to reduce my options so I can read through a big band chart I’ve never seen in time.

There’s so much to learn. Take your time, and enjoy it as much as you can. Forum related, don’t be afraid to let some advice go over your head, and check to see what people upload to see if you even want their advice.

[pamosmusic]

You can get by with 13 grips. I couldn’t handle the mental gymnastics of the same grip having multiple uses for a year or two. But I recently worked this out. Trying to reduce my options so I can read through a big band chart I’ve never seen in time.

There’s so much to learn. Take your time, and enjoy it as much as you can. Forum related, don’t be afraid to let some advice go over your head, and check to see what people upload to see if you even want their advice.

Yeah this is a good sheet.

I think also to address Ragman’s concern, I don’t think you need the big chords first. But you definitely do need to know what notes are in those chord so that you can interpret what’s going on. Even though you’re not playing them all. The shell voicings are just so good to start with.

Looking at someone like Peter Bernstein, or even Jim Hall when he’s playing duo … a pretty huge percentage of what they’re playing is probably on this sheet.

[J.C.]

You can get by with 13 grips. I couldn’t handle the mental gymnastics of the same grip having multiple uses for a year or two. But I recently worked this out. Trying to reduce my options so I can read through a big band chart I’ve never seen in time.

There’s so much to learn. Take your time, and enjoy it as much as you can. Forum related, don’t be afraid to let some advice go over your head, and check to see what people upload to see if you even want their advice.

I saw that earlier in one of your posts somewhere. I already have it saved in my jazz folder. It's part of what I've been studying everyday.
Thanks

[ragman1]

I don't mind at all, and I understand your suggestion. I was actually trying to learn full chords when I first got interested in jazz and I must say I was very slow at some of them. I stumbled on these shell voicings and thought wow, I can actually do this.
I might try to incorporate a little of both into my chord studies. I hate to stop working on the shells all together, because people that don't know any better, actually think I can play a few jazz tunes.

I'm glad you're still around!

I might try to incorporate a little of both into my chord studies. I hate to stop working on the shells all together, because people that don't know any better, actually think I can play a few jazz tunes.

Ah, you have fans already :-)

Well, in that case only use shells that are the ones that sub for the chord you want. Don't worry if they can be used for chords with different names, just play what you know and know what you play. I'll tell you why, because there a hundred combinations and ways of using 3-note chords, hundreds. There are all the inversions, and the inversions of them, and so it goes on.

It can get pretty tricky if you go that far. Personally, I've never bothered that much. I just use the obvious root voicing usually and occasionally alter them to achieve an effect, and that's about it. That's probably all most players need anyway. A lot of players reduce the shells by dropping the root so they're just playing 2-note chords. In a band the bass or the piano can put in the root note sound.

If you want a couple of hot tips... Don't forget that shells don't have the 5th in them, only the 3rd and 7th. So a Dm7b5, for example, is just a Dm shape. If you're playing a minor 2-5-1 like Dm7b5 - G7#5b9 - Cm9 you still only play Dm - G7 - Cm7 shape-wise. But you see the confusion that can create.

Which is why they can be dangerous. Just by changing one note you can produce the right sound for what you want but it might be the shape for a completely different chord. And if you played that chord as the full chord it wouldn't work, it would sound wrong.

Sorry, I don't mean to write a lecture! Just keep it all very simple and clear, try it on a tune or two and you'll begin to understand it. Eventually :-)

[ragman1]

Yeah this is a good sheet.

I think also to address Ragman’s concern, I don’t think you need the big chords first. But you definitely do need to know what notes are in those chord so that you can interpret what’s going on. Even though you’re not playing them all. The shell voicings are just so good to start with.

We had this conversation before. I know you know how to use them but I asked you which you learned first, the full chords or the shells. And, of course, you said the full chords and the shells came some time later. Which is the point, you see?

[starjasmine]

I do appreciate your reply...thanks

Sorry if I over-explained.

If my answer confused you, you might want to step back a bit and learn some basic harmony. Jazz is advanced harmony. If you don't know the basics, advanced stuff is going to be monumentally difficult.

My answer assumed that you know some of these basics. That's why I was giving examples based on how chords are spelled.

Knowledge of harmony will show you that music is not a bunch of arcane rules to memorize but a system that always works. You will never forget "how" if you know "why."

That's not to say you can't play jazz while you are learning harmony. You can. Play with it, listen to it, have fun with it. But learning something about what's called "diatonic harmony" will give you a framework into which you can fit the rest. You will appreciate even more the beautiful and clever ways that jazz breaks the rules ;-)

[Christian Miller]

Shell voicings were literally the first thing I was taught in jazz guitar and it never did me any harm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Regarding "college bullshit":

Yeah, f--- those guys who went to medical school! I'd much rather have the self-taught doctor cut me open.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Do you know they don’t even teach them to use leeches these days? These trendy academics with their modern ideas! They’ve lost touch with reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

We had this conversation before. I know you know how to use them but I asked you which you learned first, the full chords or the shells. And, of course, you said the full chords and the shells came some time later. Which is the point, you see?

Yes and then we had this long laborious back and forth where we established that I always give my students shells first, forever and always, and you accused me of musical malpractice.

For what it’s worth … my first guitar teacher was excellent but was not a jazz guy *at all*. He brought in photocopies from Mickey Baker for a few weeks, so I got those chord shapes because that’s the book he had. I got nothing from at all from that book (yes, I know people like it, and that’s fine). After a while, he settled on teaching me technique while I went in on the jazz stuff on my own. Which was great.

Point being, what I learned first has essentially nothing to do with what should be taught first.

[ragman1]

Yes and then we had this long laborious back and forth where we established that I always give my students shells first, forever and always, and you accused me of musical malpractice.

I doubt those were my actual words! But do I think it's unwise to start with shells? Yes, I do, as we know. At the very, very beginning we learn really easy chords like Em, Am, or the D triangle, etc, but that's not shell voicings. Shell voicings are actually theory-based because they involve stripping a chord down to its 3 essential components for comping purposes, a la Freddie Green, probably involving multiple chords per bar at speed and producing great voice-leading.

Substituting those for learning proper chords and harmony I think would probably not be very responsible teaching, in my view. But each to their own, I suppose. Sooner or later they'll have to learn full chords and how to use them anyway.

[pamosmusic]

I doubt those were my actual words!

Correct. I’m rather better at turning a phrase.

Shell voicings are actually theory-based because they involve stripping a chord down to its 3 essential components for comping purposes, a la Freddie King, probably involving multiple chords per bar at speed and producing great voice-leading.

I think you mean Freddie Green. And the multiple chords a bar stuff is a sort of yes and no. See above posts to Allen.

Substituting those for learning proper chords and harmony I think would probably not be very responsible teaching, in my view. But each to their own, I suppose. Sooner or later they'll have to learn full chords and how to use them anyway.

No one said “substituting.” I said “starting with.” And I specifically said you have to learn harmony too. And shells are actually a great way of making harmony visible on the fretboard because big voicings obscure that.

Anyway. Around and around we go. Do your thing.