Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

A2 Chord?

45 Posts
6 Users
0 Likes
7,319 Views
(@noteboat)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 4921
 

Ok, an example is contrived - now we can discuss it in musical terms, rather than as an abstract idea.

You give a big clue:

"and if you use the EBF as a sort of pick up chord/grace note-ish to the EBG it gives a cool effect"

So let's start with that in MIDI. And yes, it sounds fine... because it doesn't affect the underlying harmony.

Whenever a tone or set of tones is used as a grace note, it doesn't have a harmonic function - it's simply decoration. The sound won't last long enough to make a harmonic impression on the listener. In harmony, the F would simply be a neighbor tone, and since the other two tones are contained in the chords on both sides, you're not looking at a 'chord', but a single moving voice laid on the harmony of C -> Em.

If instead we alter the example so the tones have enough duration to demand a harmonic role, it sounds out of place, as you can hear in this version. It's at a slower tempo to better focus the dissonance.

As you've said, anything can happen in music. And as I've said, the real purpose of a chord name is to indicate the underlying harmony.

Performers (and composers) will sometimes use a set of tones that is suggestive of a harmony without fully spelling it out; sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Add the open G string, making the chord a G13, and it makes more sense harmonically and musically, as you can hear. It sounds unusual, and unexpected... but now there is flow - it fits a heck of a lot better.

That's not to say a composer wouldn't use your abbreviated version. So the real question, as I see it, is what other problems may be caused or solved with each label. Let me delve a bit into one practical side of naming conventions beyond fingerings... solo improvisation.

By calling this set of notes a variation of a iii chord, a soloist playing over the progression will naturally choose notes from scales that fit well with Em. And since most good solos emphasize chord tones, no matter what scale is chosen, the soloist will work around iii chord tones. Here's what you get by using notes from the iii triad - the most dissonant interactions are in bold type:

E: unison with the E tone; minor 2nd/major 7th with the F tone; perfect 5th/4th with B
G: minor 3rd/major 6th with E; major 2nd/minor 7th with F; major 3rd/minor 6th with B
B: perfect 5th/4th with E; augmented 4th/diminished 5th with F; unison with B

A good soloist will be aware of how chord tones create tension against an underlying harmony. It's not a problem that you have dissonance against chord tones - a good solo demands both consonance and dissonance. The problem, harmonically, with calling this set a iii chord is in where those dissonances fall: on the root and fifth... the tones that a soloist would rely on as the most stable points in creating a solo.

Now let's see where expected chord tones fall if the set is called a V chord (whether or not you actually play the G tone). Here are the tones from the V7 against your chord:

G: minor 3rd/major 6th with E; major 2nd/minor 7th with F; major 3rd/minor 6th with B
B: perfect 5th/4th with E; augmented 4th/diminished 5th with F; unison with B
D: major 2nd/minor 7th with E; minor thrid/major 6th with F; major 6th/minor 3rd with B
F: minor 2nd/major 7th with E; unison with F; augmented 4th/diminished 5th with B

Dissonances are still there, of course. But now the most dissonant tones lie on the 7th - which we expect to be unstable, as it should be generating tension resolved by the next chord - and the third, which we expect to be less stable than the root or fifth (and in the case of a dominant chord type, it's the 3rd that supplies the 'other half' of the dissonance). The most consonant tones are now exactly where a soloist looks for them, on the root and fifth.

Looking back over this thread, your entire logic is built around making chord names easier for beginners to understand. I'm not interested in belaboring that point, so I'll agree beginners may find your method easier.

But at the same time, you're making things far more difficult for advanced musicians, because the tools used to extract information about the harmonic motion have been taken away. Over the long haul, a system that slightly confuses the beginner (but helps the pro) is a pretty simple problem to solve - if all you want is a fingering, it's readily available under the standard labeling system. It's not that hard to look up something in a chord dictionary.

You'll also have some beginners inspired to figure out why a given structure works, or what will go well with an unfamiliar chord. Your naming convention hinders that, while the standard system helps. In the long run, the study of harmony will make a better musician than the ease of identifying a chord fingering. Helping a beginner over an early hurdle by raising the height of all the later ones just doesn't seem like a good trade to me; it creates a big obstacle for understanding music.

So I'm very interested to hear how your system will address the other uses of chord labels: guideposts for improvisation, structures for arrangers, etc. Because if you're intending to revamp the way we all look at chords, these things have to be addressed - or else music will need to carry two labels for each chord, which will be confusing for everyone!

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL


   
ReplyQuote
(@shredgeek)
Eminent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 36
 

Ok I guess the system I am suggesting would make it easier to "see" and less confusion as to what the actual intervals a chord consists of by incorporating the intervals into the chord name.
There already are two or more ways to label a chord. Ie C or C Maj or even cmaj.

I don't understand how we could have adopted the term "b5" for so long and think that is correct. There is no interval of a "flat 5" I understand that it means "you have to flat the 5th" But I also think that leads to confusion as a beginner may want to flat something that is already flattend. If a chord name is to indicate the underlying harmony how does "flat 5" in a name accomplish that?

I don't think my way of looking at things is entirely complete. I do believe it can be made better. I do believe that if it "can" exist it then we should be able to have a system or naming convention to give it a name whether it has a name yet or not.

I do agree with your points to an extent but like with my example I don't have to play EBF as a "grace note"..... I could play it as quarter note. It doesn't matter if you think it sounds good. What matters is that you have to be able to name it. You can't say that it doesnt exist. I mean geesh people call a an A5 or an A and an E a Powerchord more often than they call it an interval of a 5th. And it is not a chord. .....but there is a name for it.

I understand what you mean about Pro musicians.........But don't you think that a "pro" would want to be more professional and trim down the "slang" in the language if it meant that in the long run even his ideas would be better understood? Maybe we can't teach old dogs new tricks.... I understand that too.

I don't claim my way of thinking is perfect by any means but as you said to the original poster about an A2 "There are a couple of different ways chords are noted. The Real Book series uses '-' in place of 'm'... you'll see that in many jazz charts. In jazz you'll also find triangles to indicate 'major' - C(triangle)7 would be a Cmaj7 chord." and we both know there are even other ways like to to say "min" for minor and deviations for other chords and the intervals they contain.

Now you have just said "or else music will need to carry two labels for each chord, which will be confusing for everyone!" It already does and you said it your self.

And yes it needs to be addressed the original post was asking for clarification on an A2.....was that an A2 as an A with a Major interval to B or with a minor interval to Bb? Is there a way to know by looking at it above a staff and seeing just "A2"? So we could say it needs to be addressed even in the "current" system

I am proposing we come up with a standard naming convention. Maybe my ideas are not the best....I know it can be added to and made better. But at least I'm doing something instead of saying that's just the way it is deal with it. Maybe there is a way to do as you say and be able to name chords keeping the harmonic function in mind ....but how does "flat 5" do that? It seems to me that conveying the actual interval would do more to help people understand it's Harmonic function. So some one could just look at the chord and see/say "hey this chord consists of a diminished 5th" NOT "Oh I have to flat the 5th" and the latter can be confused to flatten something that is already flat yet the first one tells you exactly what it consists of.

Oh well at least I am trying to do something....


   
ReplyQuote
(@noteboat)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 4921
 

It's true we have multiple notations already for the same chord; we can write 'A minor', 'A min.', 'Am', or 'A-' and the same notes are implied. But regardless of which one of the four you use, you know it's a minor type chord with A as the root; that conveys the harmonic information.

What I'm saying is that in your system, if you identify a set of chord tones as 'Bsusm2' when harmonically it serves the purpose of G13, the music would need to carry two labels at that point - showing G13 (for the harmonic role) and your symbol (for the fingering, or the subset of tones included in the voicing). It's probably easier to just use G13 and include a fingering diagram if you're requiring a non-standard subset of the G13 tones.

I'm also not sure why you think 'b5' is incorrect. The use of numbers in chord symbols doesn't indicate an interval, it indicates a scale degree. Look at a minor sixth chord, written as m6... it has a major sixth interval!. 'b5' is not only never incorrect - it's more reliable than your labels.

b5 means one thing in all circumstances: '5' means the fifth note of the root scale, and 'b' means it's a half step lower.

In contrast, 'Diminished' sometimes means a half step smaller, and sometimes a whole step. 'Minor' sometimes means a half step smaller, and sometimes it simply mis-identifies a diminished interval (since fourths and fifths have no minor intervals) If you want a scale degree lowered by a half step, you'll be using 'minor' at times, and 'diminished' at other times... requiring the understanding of two labels for the same concept - and enough understanding of intervals to know which is which, and when!

I understand your concern that chords weren't originally based on numbers, but intervals. What I don't get is why that's important...

When we develop a label for something in music - for example, a dominant chord - we have an application in mind: a dominant chord is built on the fifth (dominant) scale degree. It doesn't matter what type of chord that is - a major chord built on the fifth degree can be properly called a 'dominant' chord.

But we then developed four-part harmony, and the very pleasing V7-I cadence. Since the V was the dominant, we called these 'dominant sevenths'.

Now we play dominant seventh chords on non-dominant scale degrees, as when we use I7 or IV7 in the blues. The label now identifies the sound rather than the scale position, but we stick with it... because everyone knows what the label 'means', even if the meaning has changed from what it used to be. Calling C7 a 'dominant seventh' in the key of Bb, and something else in any other key wouldn't make sense.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL


   
ReplyQuote
(@shredgeek)
Eminent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 36
 

In contrast, 'Diminished' sometimes means a half step smaller, and sometimes a whole step. 'Minor' sometimes means a half step smaller, and sometimes it simply mis-identifies a diminished interval (since fourths and fifths have no minor intervals) If you want a scale degree lowered by a half step, you'll be using 'minor' at times, and 'diminished' at other times... requiring the understanding of two labels for the same concept - and enough understanding of intervals to know which is which, and when!

I can see why you are confused now.
When I was in college these were the rules for altering intervals and thus how to get to a diminished interval.

Alter any Major interval and make it minor by lowering it a half step.
Alter any Perfect interval and make it Augmented by raising it a half step.
Alter any Perfect interval and make it diminished by lowering it a half step.
Alter any Major interval into an Augmented Interval as well by raising it a half step.
Alter any minor interval into a Diminished interval by lowering it a half step.

The same rules apply when constructing chords so a diminished interval can NEVER mean a whole step smaller for approaching, but for example, an interval of a "diminished 3rd" (which is the same as a Major 2nd) which "consists" of a whole step, (because you altered a minor 3rd by a half step) is how many "steps" the actual interval "consists" of and does not refer to how it is aproached when building chords or when harmonically "moving" the voicings of a chord. So surely you don't mean a whole step smaller for a diminished interval do you? A diminished interval is always approached in half steps from either a Perfect or a minor interval. Hence the "b5" terminology to mean a diminished 5th. Unless you are thinking that if you started from an augmented 5th to reach your Diminished 5th but even then you have to first pass the Perfect 5th on the way down so you are still only really altering by half steps (this is probably where "bb5" or "double flat 5" comes from).

So if you think I am wrong about the above ( heck, maybe I learned wrong and maybe my theory books are wrong too ) I would like you to show me an example of Diminished sometimes meaning a whole step and sometimes meaning half step smaller.

and enough understanding of intervals to know which is which, and when! ...

Exactly my point! What I am suggesting would help tell you right up front which is which and when by conveying what intervals the chord is made of in the name.

After all you shouldnt be playing around with chords, progressions, harmony, or melody without an understanding of intervals.

It's strange to me that you say I am doing away with the harmonic functions of chord names in my system. Have you ever heard of counterpoint? The rules for counterpoint consist of strict rules for a "type" of harmony and no where in the rules of counterpoint does it say "approach or don't approach by a "b5". There is no such thing as an interval of a " flat 5" in the intervallic rules of counterpoint. I'm only mentioning cointerpoint because this is where the basic rules of Harmony come from.
.


   
ReplyQuote
(@noteboat)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 4921
 

I'm well aware of the rules of theory, thanks. I've been teaching it for nearly 30 years. Besides studying theory, harmony, counterpoint, form, composition, history, acoustics, etc., I'm the author of a book on music theory.

I'm not confused. You have not followed my argument.

Scale degreees form major or perfect intervals with a scale root. Either major or perfect intervals occur naturally on every degree of the major scale in relation to the root tone - the distinction between 'major' and 'perfect' is simply that a perfect interval remains a scale degree to the root when it is inverted (and is hence 'perfect'); a major scale degree becomes a minor interval to the scale root when inverted.

Any scale degree, major or perfect, has an alteration called a diminished interval. But the distance between the scale degree and its diminished variant is not standard:

d2 = whole step below M2
d3 = whole step below M3
d4 = half step below P4
d5 = half step below P5
d6 = whole step below M6
d7= whole step below M7

Nor does the application of 'diminished' naturally apply to chords, as you seem to be arguing. Consider a fully-diminished seventh chord. The intervals are:

MINOR third
DIMINISHED fifth
DIMINISHED seventh

We call it a 'fully-diminished' chord - but one of the intervals is NOT diminished. Two of the three intervals to the root are with scale tones reduced by one-half step... but only one of these is called 'diminished'. And there are two different diminished intrevals - one of which is a half step below the scale degree, the other a whole step below.

Contrast that with the Arabic number system. Every number represents a naturally occurring scale degree, and # or b indicate alterations. 'b5' is always one half step below the fifth degree; b9 is always one half step below the ninth degree. One concept, one symbol. The fully diminished chord becomes 1-b3-b5-bb7. Relationships to the underlying scale are in plain view, without labels that have different meanings at different times.

You mention counterpoint - and imply there is no such thing as a 'flat 5' interval. You're arguing the label, not the interval.

I don't have to look very far to find an example of a diminished fifth in counterpoint - I flipped open Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, looked at only the Fugues... and the first one I see is in measure five of the first fugue of book 1. It occurs on beat 3 between B in the bass played against the held F in the middle voice... and the upper voice immediately re-strikes the F note. You get it twice in half a beat.

Since it occurs, it must be covered by the rules of counterpoint. To quote from Piston's "Counterpoint" (page 89 in the hardcover edition):

It is the tendency of augmented intervals to expand, that of diminshed intervals to contract.

And since you've argued that intervals come from counterpoint, which is older than harmony (trying to put history behind your argument), I might as well point out that indicating tones with Arabic numbers comes from figured bass - dating from the 1500s. The earliest written identification of intervals in counterpoint used numbers, not interval labels.

I've already demonstrated how you've drained harmonic information - I detailed the problems in improvising over your chord notation, rather than G13. Just like counterpoint, there are rules for chord substitution, arranging, etc. that rely on the chord type, and root position within the key.

What type of chord is a Bsusm2? What will it resolve to? What chords may be substituted? Which tones will work best in each voice when arranged in close position, and which in open?

All of these questions can be answered if it's called G13. The name identifies a chord with harmonic information: a dominant type chord used as the V in the key of C. I know it's most likely to move to a C-root chord.

To give just one more example of harmonic information, all dominant type chords contain a tritone between the third and seventh. I know I can use a dominant chord rooted in C#/Db as a tritone substitution for G13. If the same voicing is called Esusm2... how is the tritone implied? And even after you parse it out (between the fifth and the 'm2'), you need an entirely new set of rules for substitution. A dominant chord's tritone sub is a tritone above the root. Your naming requires a tritone above the fifth (or above the minor second) - so additional rules are needed for handling your chord types. And adding rules isn't going to make things simpler.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL


   
ReplyQuote
(@shredgeek)
Eminent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 36
 

Yes you are right I am arguing the label "flat 5" I know perfectly well there is a diminished 5th and in counterpoint it is not called a "flat 5".
I did not say or mean to imply that intervals came from counterpoint. ...but am trying to point out with cointerpoint the rules of motion with regard to intervals and their names is that there is no "flat 5" _label_.

You hit the nail on the head right there...... I am arguing the labels. the labels are the "naming convention". that is what I am arguing all right.

You said ...."What type of chord is a Bsusm2. What will it resolve to? What chords may be substituted?".... Why would I have to substitute anything for it? I could play this chord along with other chords and I don't even have to imply a tonal center, my piece of music can be atonal....it doesnt have to resolve to anything. It could occur in a heavy headbanger riff with the crowd moshing in a mosh pit for all I care. So I should be able to put a name to it!

I agree with you that in a certain context you could say it was something else like a G13 with some missing tones...(maybe your missing tones are in the bass or whatever). However, YOU SAID YOURSELF that sometimes a chord could be a C6 or an Am7 depending on the context it was used in. So yes is could be a G13 or some other label depending on where and how you use it. But if I use is the tones EFB not implying anything else I should be able to give it a name. ESus2 has a name.

Again like the original poster for this thread was inquiring......somebody somewhere put an A2 above a staff ...does that mean they were trying to imply a B7?
No, they wanted to imply somthing with "A" maybe they didn't get their point accross or maybe they did I don't know.....but it left him questioning what type of "A2" or what A2 meant. Then later it was said that the chart in question was showing the fingering of an ASus2. My whole point is something with the naming convention (which are labels) could be made better or standardized and can even show for instance what type of A2 it is with out ever seeing the notes on the staff.

So maybe somewhere some one will want to put ESusm2 to mean it's like an ESus2 but different because the 2nd is a minor second.

Edit: and one more thing:

Any scale degree, major or perfect, has an alteration called a diminished interval. But the distance between the scale degree and its diminished variant is not standard:

d2 = whole step below M2
d3 = whole step below M3
d4 = half step below P4
d5 = half step below P5
d6 = whole step below M6
d7= whole step below M7

Nor does the application of 'diminished' naturally apply to chords, as you seem to be arguing. Consider a fully-diminished seventh chord. The intervals are:

MINOR third
DIMINISHED fifth
DIMINISHED seventh

I would say you are still confused about that because you don't make a Major interval diminished by a whole step without first passing and thus first it becoming a minor interval by way of a half step. So it is standard and like I already posted... the rules for altering an interval is stepwise by half. Yes the difference of steps between a Major and a diminished is a "whole step" which is two half steps.

I don't recall saying anything about the application of 'Diminished' applying to chords other than saying "flat 5" or "b5" in a chord label could be replaced with "dim5".


   
ReplyQuote
(@noteboat)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 4921
 

You don't 'need' to substitute anything for it. But you can, and that's my point - if you're doing anything other than an exact replication of what's on the page, your method offers no help.

I know plenty of classically trained musicians who can play piano at sight. When they do, they're not thinking of chords (and some of them haven't studied enough theory to even name all the chords they play). Names don't matter if all you're doing is reproducing a sound.

But we're not discussing how a set of tones can be named. We're discussing chord labels in a guitar forum, and when you see a chord notation you usually have NO other information to do on. What inversion, what voicing are left to the performer.

Because this leaves a lot of room, there are techniques used by guitarists (and other musicians who play from chord charts) that allow a musician to make logical choices for improvisation, substitution, arranging, etc. It's here that the labels really matter. And it's here that all the rules of thumb go out the window with a new system - because the old system a) isn't hard to understand, and b) supports entire layers of theory and rules of thumb that have developed over the past 100 years or so.

If all you're doing is labelling chords in isolation, use any system you like. Forte's pitch class of 0/1/7 works just as well as E5(addm2), G13 (no root), or standard notation of the pitches on a single stem.

But that's not what you're doing. You're propsing a system as 'easier' to apply to the guitar - in all situations. And when you say "If you were to use the "flat" terminology and call this chord an "ESusb2" you might confuse someone into thinking that what is being called to be done is the flattening of a minor second! " I fail to see where the problem is - the original notation says absolutely nothing about minor; anyone with enough understanding to build chords on an E root will already understand that the second is originally F# - if they don't, they're just as likely to assume the second is F under either system, and lower that to get a 'b2' OR a 'm2'.

I think what you've created is a solution in search of a problem. And for the life of me, I can't see the problem.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL


   
ReplyQuote
(@shredgeek)
Eminent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 36
 

I am sorry you have failed to see where the problem is from my explanations.
I can not stop you from seeing things one sided no matter how many books on the subject you have written and are trying to sell.
And that is ok. Someone out there will get what I am saying by reading this thread.....and even if they don't I can gaurantee that they will learn something if not from what you and I have said then by their own research because what we have said.


   
ReplyQuote
(@shredgeek)
Eminent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 36
 

so you would rather follow a more confusing system? Is that what you are trying to say?
Please also understand that what I propose is also a learning experience.
Not exactly - I'd rather follow a more confusing system that I already know. To be blunt, I don't find your system to be less confusing either, it's adding information to explain why a chord is constructed as it is - but do we need that to play it?

The other thing to note is that it's not good enough for your system to be equal or even slightly better than the current one. To outweigh the disadvantages of switching over, it would have to be a lot better. That was my point with the miles vs kilometers - there are advantages to using kms, but the country is not willing to undertake the effort of switching.
That is the smartest reply to my suggestions I have read so far.


   
ReplyQuote
(@noteboat)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 4921
 

I think I have an open mind on the issue, but I'm seeing more problems created than solved by your proposal. And I haven't said a thing about selling books - you questioned my education on theory, so I mentioned I've written a theory book. I've never pushed my book here (or anywhere else).

Anyway, here's how I see the train of thought:

'Flat' logic: Which tone is/are the (5, 9). I need to move that/those down one half step.

'Min' logic: same deal. I don't see any problem with 'm2' or 'm9' instead of 'b2' or 'b9'. One symbol, one idea. Lower the tone a half step.

Here's where I see the problem:

'Dim' logic: which tone is it applied to? What is the normal interval to that step - major, or perfect? Do I need to move it down one step or two?

Altered tones can't happen just anywhere, and they're pretty simple to grasp - only five alterations are ever used in chord symbols: b5, #5, b9, #9, and #11. I wrote a lesson for GN about a year and a half ago explaining how to figure them out... Altered States

I agree others will be helped by this discussion - I've already heard from some who are following it.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL


   
ReplyQuote
(@shredgeek)
Eminent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 36
 

I guess I assumed you were using your avatar to help "sell" your book especially after your comment that you had so many years experience and had written a book. I could say and do the same but didn't (my book is free by the way) but I have written one and I have 20 years experience and that doesn't mean I am necessarily right about anything and I would never throw my experience or accomplishments in your face to try to prove that my way is correct or better. But I felt that is what you were doing. I apologize if somehow I was confused about the tone of your "text".

Anyway:
Dim' logic: which tone is it applied to? What is the normal interval to that step - major, or perfect? Do I need to move it down one step or two?

for the dim logic :

Any question as to movement goes back to the rules I already stated.

Am7b5 for instance would be changed to Am7dim5 which is saying "An a minor 7chord with a diminished 5th" (A,C,Eb,G)

Now what I am saying is if a person who doesn't know anything but is trying to figure it out according to current conventions,,, he could come up against the notes of A,C,Eb.G and then see the chord name of Am7b5 and think to himself that he would need to "flat" the 5th which is currently an Eb and turn into something else. i.e "If I have these notes and 'flat' the 5th, Eb will be Ebb or D"
But Am7dim5 tells you its an A minor 7 but with a diminished 5th instead of a Perfect 5th. there is no confusion as to movement. It is what it is.

But looking at it in it's current form of Am7b5 and try to explain to this guy what the chord actually consists of, you would have decrypt the "b5" to tell him the chord consists of the intervals that, 1) make up a minor 7 chord and 2) the 5th is actually a diminished interval for this chord .

What I am saying is to tell him up front its an "A minor 7 with a diminished 5" ie Am7dim5.

I would be curious to know what you have heard from others who are following this thread...........I thought we were the only ones:) Why don't they post?


   
ReplyQuote
(@noteboat)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 4921
 

No apology needed, and no offense taken.

Why aren't others joining in? Intimidation, perhaps. Fear of being exposed for not 'knowing enough'. One message I got about this reads in part: thanks for the incredible amount of info in this thread - I've learned a lot even if most of it went over my head. So it's certainly worthwhile to some that we're hashing this out :)

What I'm saying is that anyone who can figure out an interval from a root tone already knows the major scale involved. That's a given, and required - if you don't know scales, you can't know the intervals in scales.

And anyone confronted with standard notation tones simply plays those tones, so if you're playing from the notes A-C-Eb-G, you're playing the Eb, and not looking at the chord symbol. I certainly don't compare symbols to the notation as I go along - I trust the notation is accurate. However, students DO question the chord notation - I had two (of 14) students today ask how the chord symbols related to the standard notation they were working on, so I'm not throwing away your concerns out of hand.

A better example for your argument would be something like Eb7b5, where the fifth scale degree of Eb is flatted by the signature; the fifth of Eb is Bb. Using the symbol 'b5' results in a double-flat, Bbb.

But anyone already knowing scales and accidentals would know that flatting a Bb results in Bbb... and anyone knowing the intervals knows that the diminished fifth above Eb is Bbb, and for the same reason: you find the perfect fifth from the root, and lower it by a half step - so I'm still not sure who you're helping.

People knowing scales (but not intervals) can figure out b5 without knowing the relationships of perfect/major/minor/diminished/augmented interval qualities - that a diminished interval is a perfect lowered by one, or a major lowered by two. And folks knowing either scales OR scales and intervals can have a tough time with a double accidental - I run into that all the time, and you probably do too.... because double accidentals are enharmonic to natural tones. "Why don't they just write it as A, instead of Bbb?" is a question I've probably answered a thousand times over the years.

But since knowing scales is a prerequiste for understanding intervals, anyone crossing the first hurdle (scales) can decipher 'b5'... but anyone who can tell the difference between 'dim5' and 'dim9' has already advanced another step, to understanding the qualities of intervals. I see 'b5' as serving more levels of musicianship, rather than creating confusion.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL


   
ReplyQuote
(@nicktorres)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5381
 

Gents,

This has been a fascinating thread, chock full o' information.

Any reason we shouldn't end it here?

I think you have both presented your cases really well. I don't think either of you are going to convince the other to change position. I'm not sure there is anything to add.


   
ReplyQuote
(@fretsource)
Prominent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 973
 

Nick - Sorry to post after your sensible suggestion to end this thread, but I had spent ages writing it - Last post - I promise.
I would be curious to know what you have heard from others who are following this thread...........I thought we were the only ones:) Why don't they post?

Fear? intimidation?. Certainly not in my case. In my case, I dropped out when I noticed that the discussion was taking a disappointing downturn.

In my last post, I had already made my point that the other chord in question (FBC) couldn't correctly be called F Sus Aug 4 in the key of C because:

1. An aug4 can't fulfill the function of a conventional suspension. If you call a chord a suspension, then I expect to be able to hear it 'suspend'. Otherwise the information is misleading. No attempt was made to address that, but I noticed that Noteboat relabeled your Esusm2 chord as E5 add b9, presumably also preferring not call it a suspended chord.

2. The sound and function is dominant more than subdominant - If you call it F something, in the key of C then I expect to hear a subdominant role and will be somewhat confused to hear it play a dominant role instead. Again, it's misleading so I disagree with calling it F anything

3. The only part of the chord name that I didn't disagree with was the use of AUG instead of #. And I think that was the whole point of your original post. Replace b and # with min, dim and aug. In fact, I neither agreed nor disagreed and I was interested in exploring that aspect of it. I wanted to know whether it was better or worse to use your terms over the traditional ones. Aug is already commonly used and with no problems as far as I know, e.g., aug 9 chord - so why not min and dim?

The discussion did throw up some worthwhile offshoots and caused me to think more deeply about chord naming. One point I wanted to explore was NoteBoat's comment that chord numbers refer only to scale degrees, not intervals, yet interval names are used, e.g., minor (maj7). Or that, in a minor 6 chord, 6 refers to the 6th major scale degree so there's no need to call it min maj6 as 6 is already major by default. So why is it different for a minor seventh? By the same logic, the name should imply a minor triad plus a major seventh, but it doesn't. I've always just accepted that as one of the inconsistencies of chord naming - but maybe there's another reason. The dominant seventh's seventh is named from being seven degrees higher than its root when counting from the dominant - so I was wondering if perhaps the minor seventh's seventh was (like the dominant 7th) originally counted from a fixed position such as the submediant (i.e. the relative minor)

These are the points I had hoped to explore but unfortunately the discussion took a steep downturn at that point and became a two man heated exchange between you and NoteBoat, with a lot of point scoring and thinly veiled sarcasm leaving the rest of us unable to find a suitable opening in which to come in. So, no - it's not fear of exposing our ignorance, it's fear of being hit by stray punches and flying glass. :lol:


   
ReplyQuote
(@nicktorres)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5381
 

Well yeah, and that too. :D

So on that note I think I will lock it down. There is too much valuable and well thought out information in here to let it travel further down the road that fretsource makes note of.

Thanks all.


   
ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3