Do any of you have a major, or minor aversion to

[mcnoone]

Hey...this isn't fair I only know one chord. I don't like the sound of it either.

[Sascha Franck]

it just always kinda bugged me that b6's in its parent tonic minor key STILL have to be listed as "flat" when the formula for natural minor explicitly states that it already IS flat.

Yeah well - I'm afraid it's sort of like the other way round. Chord namings have their conventions completely away from being related to any scale.
If it was the other way around, you'd have to analyze each and every progression first and then name the chords accordingly - which is quite an impossible task, especially in any modal context.

Let's assume you'd have a really simple modal progression such as 2 bars Amin, 2 bars Cmin. Now, what would you call the chords if they should contain (so far any) 6th? Let's assume you'd just call the Amin Amin6 - which 6th would it be, following whatever logic that they are related to the parent scale? In this case, it could be either as you could treat the Amin as the 6th degree of C major or as the 2nd degree of G major (and probably as the 3rd degree of F major) - the G major thing being most likely in such a modal context. But only "most likely". So, if the naming conventions of the optional chord tones were scale-related, this would open up quite a can of worms, simply because one player might assume it'd be a 6th while someone else would assume it'd be a b6. And that's the very reason why chord namings are "absolute" rather than scale-related. An Amin6 is a minor chord with an additional (major) 6th, regardless of whether it's showing up in a context of C, F or G major.

There's a certain way of classical analysis handling things a bit different, but still, that's only for analysis and hasn't got much to do with chord naming conventions - which follow some interval naming conventions more or less by 100%.

[jancivil]

Any major chord with #9.

It's disgusting. May have to do with my lack of knowledge of practical (jazz) chord voicings, though.

Dude, what about Hendrix? I just love that chord to death in that funky rock context, like in Purple Haze.

Voice it so the #9 and the Maj. 3 are a M7 apart. put the (b)7 in between so you have a perfect then an augmented fourth.

Foxy Lady chord: F# A# E Gx (A)

[Melkor]

Let's assume you'd have a really simple modal progression such as 2 bars Amin, 2 bars Cmin. Now, what would you call the chords if they should contain (so far any) 6th? Let's assume you'd just call the Amin Amin6 - which 6th would it be, following whatever logic that they are related to the parent scale? In this case, it could be either as you could treat the Amin as the 6th degree of C major or as the 2nd degree of G major (and probably as the 3rd degree of F major) - the G major thing being most likely in such a modal context. But only "most likely".......

ok i finally get what your saying ........ it took a while for it to sink in .......

Im placing too much emphasis on the key, when we cant always be certain as to what key we are dealing with ...... hence the reason that the chord naming convention(s) comes BEFORE the key.

Thank You Sascha

[herodotus]

Im placing too much emphasis on the key, when we cant always be certain as to what key we are dealing with ...... hence the reason that the chord naming convention(s) comes BEFORE the key.

Well, yes, that is common practice in the worlds of Jazz and popular 'Real Book' music.

But there is a much older tradition in which chords don't really have an independent existence the way they do in contemporary music. In fact, they don't even call them 'chords', they call them 'scale degrees'. This is the case, for instance, in what is called 'Schenkerian analysis', which is often taught in music theory courses.

This might seem like academic nitpicking, but this very issue actually caused me no end of grief. One practical problem that can come up is the whole concept of the 'suspended fourth chord'. Traditional European theory recognizes no such animal. Suspensions and resolutions are 'voice leading' issues, which are treated quite separately from 'chords'.

In any case, this is of scant import in contemporary music, which pays little or no attention to 'proper' voice leading. I just mention it for the sake of anyone going through traditional theory hell and trying to figure out why they talk about the same issues in such different ways, but often using the same terminology.

[Sascha Franck]

In any case, this is of scant import in contemporary music, which pays little or no attention to 'proper' voice leading. I just mention it for the sake of anyone going through traditional theory hell and trying to figure out why they talk about the same issues in such different ways, but often using the same terminology.

Yeah, these things can indeed be highly confusing. I was rather familiar with "modern" (read: as used in jazz/rock/pop) chord namings and the likes already, when all of a sudden, during studying, I had to adjust to some classical analysis (4 semesters of classical theory were a requirement), which is indeed partially using the same terminology, just relating to (sometimes quite) different things.
IMO most classical analysis approaches are aiming towards just that indeed; analysing things that is. So, making "assumtions" about key relationships is perfectly valid. And, admittedly, as long as there are certain key relationships (which can go a long way - I mean, it's not as if classical analysis wouldn't cover quite some modulations and the likes), the approach is really nice, too.
However, as a tool for writing down lead sheets in any jazz/rock/pop context, "absolute" chord and interval names do a better job, all voice leading and chord interpretation is handed to the actual performer.

[H.Noury]

Stop to gave a name to the chords, listen to the melody.

Listen to my "Quatuor avec système" here fore example:

www.hervenoury.com (flash player, "Quatuor avec Système")

A part of the tune uses romantic harmonic style, another uses french polymodal harmonic style (like Messiean), another uses minimal harmonic style (like Pärt), and everything sounds together just because the melody makes the "thing", makes it going ahaid!

[jdtrbn]

Dude, what about Hendrix? I just love that chord to death in that funky rock context, like in Purple Haze.

Well, it sounds great when HE plays it . But I think he voices it without B?
I'll probably have to search for more contexts it works in. I spent the last 5 years with similar tasks and don't have any plans for the next five years either .

[jancivil]

Onions and leeks are yuck.

[Melkor]

Sorry jancivil, but you're posts are usually fairly eloquent, so i have to ask ............. WTF are you on about ?

[Dunbar]

I've resorted to using just broken chords. They could go anywhere - progressions are implied...

It all sounds shit though.

chuckle...

ho hum...

[jancivil]

Sorry jancivil, but you're posts are usually fairly eloquent, so i have to ask ............. WTF are you on about ?

It's as eloquent and succinct on this subject as I can be.

You eat an onion, by itself, never having looked into what an onion is for - it might not be something you'd want to ever eat again.

You take that onion, or that #9 chord and apply it to the right dish, in the right way, it might be that it's just the thing.

To have an aversion to a chord or object per se, seems silly to me.

[Melkor]

Eloquently Said .....

[ballbag]

I hate major chords and keys full stop but i also believe it is essential to master the major keys too. The trick with major chords is to either ommit the 5th, up it an octave or play it very quietly.

Edit: It also depends what sort of music you're creating too, major chords in jazz are the nuts but I haven't got a clue how they voice them without them sounding crap.

[welcome to the machine]

Sorry jancivil, but you're posts are usually fairly eloquent, so i have to ask ............. WTF are you on about ?

It's as eloquent and succinct on this subject as I can be.

You eat an onion, by itself, never having looked into what an onion is for - it might not be something you'd want to ever eat again.

You take that onion, or that #9 chord and apply it to the right dish, in the right way, it might be that it's just the thing.

To have an aversion to a chord or object per se, seems silly to me.

hehe, exactly. I have read this topic with an air of confusion, the very idea of a particular chord being distasteful seems a bit silly to me. The relation between two chords is the ultimate decider. if you listen to any of the greats, the beach boys or bill evans or stravinski etc you will hear all sorts of chords being used, probably more than you will ever care to learn.

and they all sound beautiful, each one leads perfectly from the last and with the melodies on top gives you goosepimples. Stop at any one chord and play it and it may sound cold. Of course, why should it not? music is a progression not a moment in time.

I think I could find an example of every chord mentioned here that people find boring/nasty etc where it is used so perfectly that any other chord would ruin the flow of the song. Movement is the art, not where the footsteps lay!