Here's one for the ages

[nuffink]

Agreed. However, I HAVE seen the blues approach played without the 7th. This is more common in rock stylings thereof... but nonetheless valid.

The progression I was always taught was:

Code: Select all

I (IV or) I       I        I
IV        IV      I        I
V         IV      I  (V or)I

Though that's in terms of root notes and not actual chord characters, which evidently are dom7s

The V(it would be V7) in the last bar is a basic turnaround. It prepares the listener for the repeat.

[Toxikator]

Indeed.

And it's super cool.

One of my favorite tricks, too, is to go I I I I | IV IV I I | V-bV-IV I V

[JumpingJackFlash]

The 12-bar blues

In its basic form is as follows:

Code: Select all

I  I  I I7
IV IV I I
V7 V7 I I 

Sorry Jack, that simply isn't true. The blues have been based upon dominant sevenths at least since Satchmo was a kid. You seem to have an inbuilt mistrust of anything other than triads but it's impossible to talk about the blues without 7th chords. It's implicit.

Well, like I said, the blues isn't really my thing. - That came directly from the article I mentioned, which said that was the 12-bar blues' "simplest and presumably original form". - I suspect it considers the extra sevenths as decoration upon the basic structure. It cites an example of this "simplest manifestation" as Digging My Potatoes, by Washboard Sam.

And I don't have "an inbuilt mistrust of anything other than triads"; far from it, but I do consider triads to be the basic building blocks of pretty much most Western theory as we know it (the seventh is simply a triad with an extra note). (This is why I strongly advocate becoming familiar with triads before other more complex chords).

[nuffink]

I do consider triads to be the basic building blocks of pretty much most Western theory as we know it (the seventh is simply a triad with an extra note). (This is why I strongly advocate becoming familiar with triads before other more complex chords).

You could have made a case for that prior to about 1920 but things move on.

[jopy]

fwiw, and i'm sure some of you know this, but in jazz the logic of V-V-I-I* is more common than V-IV-I-I (omitting the higher degrees here)

*of course, we all know it's more likely
ii / V / I vi / ii V or something like that in jazz, BUT, for the sake of argument...

[jopy]

This is why I strongly advocate becoming familiar with triads before other more complex chords

now, i admit to not being an alumnus or anything, but i know secondhand (but for certain) that at least one approach taught at berklee is based on learning turnarounds and chord progressions developing absolute mastery of the triads first, and then eventually learning the 7ths.

[Toxikator]

I do consider triads to be the basic building blocks of pretty much most Western theory as we know it (the seventh is simply a triad with an extra note). (This is why I strongly advocate becoming familiar with triads before other more complex chords).

You could have made a case for that prior to about 1920 but things move on.

I think it's less about moving on and more about branching out. But agreed, for purposes of the blues, as with jazz and much of the southern US movements growing from the Miss. delta, the 7th is the fundamental harmonic unit.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I do consider triads to be the basic building blocks of pretty much most Western theory as we know it (the seventh is simply a triad with an extra note). (This is why I strongly advocate becoming familiar with triads before other more complex chords).

You could have made a case for that prior to about 1920 but things move on.

In tonal music, the triad is the fundamental basis of Western harmony. - I don't see how you can dispute that. (7ths, 9ths, 13ths etc, even sharpened 5ths or augmented 6ths or whatever - it's all just extensions of the triad.)

In atonal music (or polytonal, pantonal - whatever term you want to use), perhaps not. - But, and this raises an interesting point, according to my dictionary, the definition of harmony is:
"the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect".
- A pleasing effect. - Does atonal harmony produce a pleasing effect? - If it doesn't, can it really be considered harmony??

[Toxikator]

In tonal music, the triad is the fundamental basis of Western harmony. - I don't see how you can dispute that. (7ths, 9ths, 13ths etc, even sharpened 5ths or augmented 6ths or whatever - it's all just extensions of the triad.)

True, but then the triad is just an extension of the interval. And the interval is just an extension of the note. And the note is just an extension of the fundamental frequency.

You're tracing too far back. In Jazz theory (and blues theory), the 7th is the fundamental harmonic unit, chords being DEFINED by their 3rd and 7th rather than their 3rd and fifth. Therefore the triad cannot be considered fundamental.

[JumpingJackFlash]

In tonal music, the triad is the fundamental basis of Western harmony. - I don't see how you can dispute that. (7ths, 9ths, 13ths etc, even sharpened 5ths or augmented 6ths or whatever - it's all just extensions of the triad.)

True, but then the triad is just an extension of the interval. And the interval is just an extension of the note. And the note is just an extension of the fundamental frequency.

You're tracing too far back. In Jazz theory (and blues theory), the 7th is the fundamental harmonic unit, chords being DEFINED by their 3rd and 7th rather than their 3rd and fifth. Therefore the triad cannot be considered fundamental.

Most people will agree that a 'chord' must have at least 3 notes in it. - At least three, not at least two, and certainly not at least one. - Therefore, a 3-note chord is the simplest you can get; and in tonal harmony, those 3 notes are based on superimposed 3rds, hence the triad.
Harmony cannot be based on only 2 notes, certainly it's very rare as it just doesn't work. (And where it is used, more notes are always implied).

I hear what you're saying about Jazz harmony, but I for one view the seventh as an extension of the triad. - If you like, it is effectively a combination of 2 triads; one based on the root, and another based on the 3rd. (e.g., G,B,D,F is a combination of a G major triad and a B diminished triad). The seventh originally came about melodically anyway, when it was used as a passing note between the dominant note and the mediant note, thus giving a stronger sense of resolution to a perfect cadence. You cannot have a seventh without first having a triad; the triad is the building block, the basic unit.

[Toxikator]

Most people will agree that a 'chord' must have at least 3 notes in it. - At least three, not at least two, and certainly not at least one.

Actually, my first theory professor had a doctorate in music and remained quite adamant that two tones could constitute a chord, but that's another argument for another time.

Therefore, a 3-note chord is the simplest you can get; and in tonal harmony, those 3 notes are based on superimposed 3rds, hence the triad.
Harmony cannot be based on only 2 notes, certainly it's very rare as it just doesn't work. (And where it is used, more notes are always implied).

Actually a triad is so named for having three notes, not notes made of thirds. Harmony indeed CAN be based on two notes which is entirely what the first species of Counterpoint deals with

I hear what you're saying about Jazz harmony, but I for one view the seventh as an extension of the triad.

Indeed you may. But regrettably that logic isn't coincident with a Jazz analysis. Jazz musicians consider harmony built out of 4-note 7th chords, they just do. You can view it as an "extension" if you like but in reality that would imply that the harmony would work without the extensions, since they aren't part of the core, and that simply isn't true.

If you like, it is effectively a combination of 2 triads; one based on the root, and another based on the 3rd. (e.g., G,B,D,F is a combination of a G major triad and a B diminished triad). The seventh originally came about melodically anyway, when it was used as a passing note between the dominant note and the mediant note, thus giving a stronger sense of resolution to a perfect cadence. You cannot have a seventh without first having a triad; the triad is the building block, the basic unit.

Wrong. First, as I understand it, the first 7th chord was the dominant 7th and was used because it was observed that both the V and viio had strong tendencies toward the tonic which could be amplified, in a way, if they were fused into a single chord.

Your logic of 7ths is absolutely true for Western European Classical/romantic music, which treated the 7th as an extension of the triadic harmony. But Blues and its daughter genres are different; a 9TH is the lowest level of "extension", the 7th is the fundamental, with an irrelevant 5th that doesn't even NEED to exist. The root, third, and 7th define the harmonic function and position, with the 5th, 9th, and to a further extent 11th and 13th added, subtracted, augmented, or diminished to taste, and with little bearing on the FUNCTIONAL harmony.

By contrast, triadic harmony is ever-concerned with the 5th scale degree, as evidenced by the redefining of certain chords in Romantic compositions as "borrowed diminished chords" rather than simple alterations.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Therefore, a 3-note chord is the simplest you can get; and in tonal harmony, those 3 notes are based on superimposed 3rds, hence the triad.
Harmony cannot be based on only 2 notes, certainly it's very rare as it just doesn't work. (And where it is used, more notes are always implied).

Actually a triad is so named for having three notes, not notes made of thirds.

Yes, I know that. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

Harmony indeed CAN be based on two notes which is entirely what the first species of Counterpoint deals with

Well, yes to a degree, but first species counterpoint is exactly that - counterpoint. The rules are primarily governed by the movement of the individual parts rather than the 'harmonic' relationship between them. The sense of harmony (as we now understand it) didn't really develop until later.

I hear what you're saying about Jazz harmony, but I for one view the seventh as an extension of the triad.

Indeed you may. But regrettably that logic isn't coincident with a Jazz analysis. Jazz musicians consider harmony built out of 4-note 7th chords, they just do. You can view it as an "extension" if you like but in reality that would imply that the harmony would work without the extensions, since they aren't part of the core, and that simply isn't true.

The seventh may be the smallest harmonic unit in Jazz (I'm not disputing that). But in theory anyway, I still think the seventh is an extension of the triad - it is the basis of the seventh, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can be substituted for the seventh, or that it has the same function.

If you like, it is effectively a combination of 2 triads; one based on the root, and another based on the 3rd. (e.g., G,B,D,F is a combination of a G major triad and a B diminished triad). The seventh originally came about melodically anyway, when it was used as a passing note between the dominant note and the mediant note, thus giving a stronger sense of resolution to a perfect cadence. You cannot have a seventh without first having a triad; the triad is the building block, the basic unit.

Wrong. First, as I understand it, the first 7th chord was the dominant 7th and was used because it was observed that both the V and viio had strong tendencies toward the tonic which could be amplified, in a way, if they were fused into a single chord.

No, I think you're wrong here. The dominant seventh was the first, but I'm fairly sure the 7th originally came about melodically, as I said. (Indeed, it sort-of came out of counterpoint like you mentioned earlier).

Your logic of 7ths is absolutely true for Western European Classical/romantic music, which treated the 7th as an extension of the triadic harmony. But Blues and its daughter genres are different; a 9TH is the lowest level of "extension", the 7th is the fundamental, with an irrelevant 5th that doesn't even NEED to exist. The root, third, and 7th define the harmonic function and position, with the 5th, 9th, and to a further extent 11th and 13th added, subtracted, augmented, or diminished to taste, and with little bearing on the FUNCTIONAL harmony.

By contrast, triadic harmony is ever-concerned with the 5th scale degree, as evidenced by the redefining of certain chords in Romantic compositions as "borrowed diminished chords" rather than simple alterations.

I don't think triadic harmony is overly concerned with the 5th, it is certainly the least important of the three notes, and music in 3-parts usually leaves out the 5th.

But I think we may have to agree to disagree here.

[nuffink]

I do consider triads to be the basic building blocks of pretty much most Western theory as we know it (the seventh is simply a triad with an extra note). (This is why I strongly advocate becoming familiar with triads before other more complex chords).

You could have made a case for that prior to about 1920 but things move on.

In tonal music, the triad is the fundamental basis of Western harmony. - I don't see how you can dispute that. (7ths, 9ths, 13ths etc, even sharpened 5ths or augmented 6ths or whatever - it's all just extensions of the triad.)

In atonal music (or polytonal, pantonal - whatever term you want to use), perhaps not. - But, and this raises an interesting point, according to my dictionary, the definition of harmony is:
"the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect".
- A pleasing effect. - Does atonal harmony produce a pleasing effect? - If it doesn't, can it really be considered harmony??

You might as well say triads are just extensions of the dyad. To say that a 7th chord is just an extension of the triad means that there is a basic similarity between a dominant 7th and a major 7th. After all they're both just extensions of the same triad. To my ears they're at least as distinct from each other as each is from, say, a minor 7th.

And who's talking about polytonal, atonal or non-harmonic. This is the theory behind the music of people like Sinatra and Crosby too. It can be as familiar as an old shoe.

It doesn't replace conventional triadic harmony, it embraces and extends it.

[liqih]

comeon, you started with the research of a Blues theory and ended talking of triadic harmony and chords only!, <grin>

IMHO to understand how blues works you have to start from african music not from jazz or rock,
first learn Mali music,
also chantours from Senegals and other storytellers of north Africa, that's where it blues come from,
Zimbawe music and oher iterative melodic musical expression help too,

then the interaction of the melody invention with the basic western harmony I IV V7 makes the rest,
...
blues harmony is the less important part of the 3 among melody and rythm,

also note that most of the blues harmony
was "invented" on open tuning guitars, actually forced to some intervals by the achitecture of the intrument
...
the blues is also a highly individualistic music,
where the artist learns orally from the tradition,
selects and transforms a small part of it adding his/her own small inventions,
...

[liqih]

yeah but it's not theory. Just because you can create clever amalgams and imitations doesn't mean you understand the mechanics. I can probably BS some blues licks, but I'd really like to UNDERSTAND what I'm doing, which opens up a whole world of blues composition, including the country styles that I'm also interested in. Theoretically, the two are linked (as is much of rock), but in practice they're different. Copying the practice won't elevate your musical ability.

Problem is I've spent a lot of time studying engineering and a lot of time studying classical music, but not so much time on the Blues and on Jazz (though I've learned a lot about Jazz from this forum and a bit about the blues along the way from certain professors).

Hi Toxikator,

I think it strongly depends on the meaning you give
to the "UNDERSTAND" verb,
for a blues player to UNDERSTAND the blues means
to FEEL the blues, particulary to feel his/her blues
for they play what they feel.

On the other hand if you are a composer and want to "imitate" blues music, there are a lot of tricks you can do, but that will never be true blues music,

even though I must admit only an experieced listener can recognize true blues from blues imitations.

One trick is the timing of the so called
blues notes, usually accented on the weak or off beats.

And those notes are mostly expressed as glissando, not static notes, that's why blues pianists uses a lot of "acciaccature" (english?)

but even blues violinists don't play static (constant pitch)
blues notes, there is alway a movement in the pitch
towards another note