Progressions, numbers, major and minor, oh my.......help...

[Sascha Franck]

These failures cannot be reasonably attributed to my abilities, sir.

Whatever. We all know by now that your abilities are superior. No need to point that out again.

Have you actually claimed that 'IIminor' is different than 'ii' here? The sky must be pretty cloudy where you are.

While the sky *is* pretty cloudy over here these days, "ii" is in fact "IImin". No need for any claims.

You have chosen to be diagreeable personally beyond what interests me to mix in with. I know from myself caffiene can be a factor.

Fine to know that you know.

But the real question is: what's up with Sascha's notation above? Or do I need to wait for Sascha to answer that?

I'm really sorry in case I've added to whatever confusion.

Thing is, when it comes to naming and/or writing out chords as symbols, there's quite some grey matter.
When we talk about, say, "C major", we are talking about a C chord that basically features the notes C, E and G.
But once we talk about "Cmaj7" we're actually talking about what's happening with the 7th - which will be major, in this case. And then there's all those other things. A C major chord (C-E-G) with a major 7th is called "Cmaj7". But a "C7" chord (which actually *is* a major chord) isn't called "maj" or so anymore but just "C7". So, as long as we talk about triads, "major" defines that we're dealing with a major 3rd. But once we go into 7th chord territory, "maj7" is all about the 7th.
And there's more. A few examples:
"C9" - uh, wtf? With the 9th being mentioned, we are supposed to know that this is a C7 chord (major 3rd, minor 7th) with a 9th on top (or replacing one of the notes inside that chord - more on that probably later...).
"Cmaj9" - yeah, wtf again. This time we're dealing with a C major chord that has a major 7th and a 9th.
"Cadd9" - not *that* much of a "wtf". A plain C triad with an added 9th.
"Cminmaj7" - Again, the "maj" part only refers to the 7th. The basic chord is a Cmin. And there's a maj 7th added.
And then "C6". In classical music this might mean a chord where the 5th is replaced by the 6th (example for a C chord: C-E-A). In contemporary music it might mean that the 7th is replaced by the 6th (example for a C chord: C-E-G-A) - it's all depending on whether we're dealing with 3 part or 4 part analysis. Once you have a chord such as "C-E-G-A", you could as well just name it "Cadd6" - following a three part chord system. Just as we name "C-E-G-D" Cadd9. But it's not like that. I've never ever seen a "Cadd6".

All this really continues. There's no really widely acknowledged system for all the chord naming conventions.
As mentioned (in this thread?): You can still find things such as "Cadd9 (omit 3rd)". What a convoluted mess to write down a chord symbol for something as simple as C-D-G. There's no added ninth but the 3rd has been replaced in favour of the 9th. The easiest way to write this down would be "Csus2" (sort of following the principle of a "sus4" chord, hence the 3rd is replaced by something, in this case the 9th/2nd) or "C2" (pretty much like in "C5", which is describing a socalled "power chord" - which is pretty typical for guitar sheets).

After all, you need to be familiar with the way whatever folks are writing things down. There's sheets asking you to play a "C7-10" chord. In fact, theoretically, that isn't even all too wrong, but a "-10" in equal temperment is the same as a minor third - but in that very chord, there's already a major third present (the "C7" gives that away), so why add a minor third? In fact, it's an augmented 9th (#9). But even that one is a critical thing - because in ET it's the same as a minor third. As a result the "C7-10" chord would ideally be a "Cmin7/b11" chord, but our ears tell us to interprete the "b11" as a major 3rd.

Sorry if all this is confusing, but really, unfortunately there's still no chord naming conventions that would satisfy both the classical and "modern" musician. And even if it was just about the latter, there's still no conventions covering all chords properly once and forever.

Personally, I think that I've found some ways to leave little room for misunderstandings once I'm writing sheets, but there's still exceptions that leave me clueless.

- Sascha

[Sascha Franck]

Again, IMO this all "system" (which is not at al "systematized") can be confusing and cause misinterpretations.

Absolutely. See my last post.
Especially the 7th is horrible. "7" means a minor 7th. Ok, but why do we need a "min" then to describe a minor third? The major 3rd needs no further "description" but the major 7th does. And a "b7" is actually a diminished 7th, hence (in equal temperment) the same note as the 6th.
Etc. etc. MANY things that can be confusing!

- Sascha

[sjm]

There's no doubting that in standard (guitar/popular music) chord notation, a "normal" 7th chord always means a chord with the minor 7th; the major 7th is always specified explicitly.

In other words
C7: C E G Bb
CMaj7: C E G B
Cm7: C Eb G Bb
CmMaj7: C Eb G B


That's the system that every guitar chord chart I've ever seen has always, always used.




I got somewhat confused by the introduction of the "min" suffix in conjunction with the roman numerals, and contrived to think that the "maj" suffix was fulfilling the same purpose for a second. i.e., I thought that Sascha was now always using a suffix to distinguish whether the CHORD was major or minor, and then adding the 7th. As opposed to using maj to distinguish the major seventh. But it seems that everything is as it should be, at least as far as I can tell.


Edit: Changed b to lower case in Eb

[sjm]

@Sascha

Yeah I've sussed that you're using the same standards as I always have.

Just me having a daft moment for a second

Edit: In fact I actually posted a near carbon copy of your penultimate (long) post on another forum a week or so ago.

[fmr]

As mentioned (in this thread?): You can still find things such as "Cadd9 (omit 3rd)". What a convoluted mess to write down a chord symbol for something as simple as C-D-G. There's no added ninth but the 3rd has been replaced in favour of the 9th. The easiest way to write this down would be "Csus2" (sort of following the principle of a "sus4" chord, hence the 3rd is replaced by something, in this case the 9th/2nd) or "C2" (pretty much like in "C5", which is describing a socalled "power chord" - which is pretty typical for guitar sheets).

The first example may be convoluted, but is clearly stated. Your example of "sus2" by analogy to "sus4" is another confusing terminolgy. The "sus" prefix should mean that the note it is referring to is coming from the previous chord, and "enters" in that chord as "foreigner" (a note not belonging to that chord). But people is now using this terminolgy "ad libitum". If a chord is made of superimposed thirds, how would you explain "replacing" those thirds by other notes - would it still be a chord? Gray area, IMO.

After all, you need to be familiar with the way whatever folks are writing things down. There's sheets asking you to play a "C7-10" chord. In fact, theoretically, that isn't even all too wrong, but a "-10" in equal temperment is the same as a minor third - but in that very chord, there's already a major third present (the "C7" gives that away), so why add a minor third? In fact, it's an augmented 9th (#9). But even that one is a critical thing - because in ET it's the same as a minor third. As a result the "C7-10" chord would ideally be a "Cmin7/b11" chord, but our ears tell us to interprete the "b11" as a major 3rd. - Sascha

Again another thing that contadicts theory. You are wanting to have in the same chord a minor third and a major third simultaneously... by "pretending" that it is an augmented nine. I have no problems about note aggregates, which I treat as "timbral clusters" but I have no pretension to call them chords.
Again, chords are only meaningful within an harmonic system - that's the system we are moving on, or else we shouldn't be talking about chords, rather something else.
Therefore, we must be cautious about the coherence of the system, because a system only remains a system if it keeps coherence. Otherwise, it will be just "anything goes" - do whatever you want. You may reach somewhere, eventualy, in a trial and fail basis, but most of the time you wouldn't even know how you did get there, or find a rational explanation for what you did.

[Sascha Franck]

Yeah well, sorry again for any confusion I may have added.
All I was saying is that in contemporary analysis (*and* in sheet chord notation) it's pretty common to only use capital roman numbers for the degree (or capital letters in actual sheets) and then specify things as "usual" (II for a major chord, IImin for a minor chord).

Cheers
Sascha

[fmr]

Yeah well, sorry again for any confusion I may have added.
All I was saying is that in contemporary analysis (*and* in sheet chord notation) it's pretty common to only use capital roman numbers for the degree (or capital letters in actual sheets) and then specify things as "usual" (II for a major chord, IImin for a minor chord).

Cheers
Sascha

Not your fault at all. It's the "system", I guess. I got used to it (got to), but dislike that profoundly.

[sjm]

Not your fault at all. It's the "system", I guess. I got used to it (got to), but dislike that profoundly.

We could always make a "f**k the system" song using only 5th chords to drive home your point.

[fmr]

Not your fault at all. It's the "system", I guess. I got used to it (got to), but dislike that profoundly.

We could always make a "f**k the system" song using only 5th chords to drive home your point.

And even using just two chords
Of course, that recipe may work once, but I would think twice before repeating the recipe
Anyway, I thnk people should think more about what they want to say, and learn how to say it. In the baroque, it was about longer themes and variations, mainly. In the classic, composers started to use motifs, and developing more, but the theme and variations remained popular in the "tool bag". In the romantic era, harmony took a major role, but it was more or less in pair with themes and/or motifs. Development became more and more intensice and extensive. Then harmony kind of colapsed, and composers started to work within other universes (modes, exotic scales, rhythm, turning back to old poplyphonic techniques and forms, traditional folk themes and rhythms). AFAIK, chord progressions was something people studied, but just as a discipline within many, as counterpoint, harmony (structural functions), development, rhythm, modes and scales, etc.
And, above all, learning by studying the masters. All the great composers started by studying and imitating the ones the came before them.
People should free themselves of the tyrany of the "chords" and "chord progressions". Sometimes, you don't need to "progress" at all. You may very well remain in the same chord bar after bar. Or not. Or simply a drone.

[Sascha Franck]

Your example of "sus2" by analogy to "sus4" is another confusing terminolgy. The "sus" prefix should mean that the note it is referring to is coming from the previous chord, and "enters" in that chord as "foreigner" (a note not belonging to that chord). But people is now using this terminolgy "ad libitum". If a chord is made of superimposed thirds, how would you explain "replacing" those thirds by other notes - would it still be a chord? Gray area, IMO.

Well, I totally agree. It's absolutely grey area here. And that's pretty much why I mentioned the "sus2" example. The weird thing being that all we want is a "C-E-G" chord to become "C-D-G". Should be pretty much a trivial task. Plus, in pop music that's like one of the most common variations of whatever major chord. Yet, there's no truly exact way to write that chord as a symbol. And that's true for quite some chords.

- Sascha

[sjm]

Anyway, I thnk people should think more about what they want to say, and learn how to say it. In the baroque, it was about longer themes and variations, mainly. In the classic, composers started to use motifs, and developing more, but the theme and variations remained popular in the "tool bag". In the romantic era, harmony took a major role, but it was more or less in pair with themes and/or motifs. Development became more and more intensice and extensive. Then harmony kind of colapsed, and composers started to work within other universes (modes, exotic scales, rhythm, turning back to old poplyphonic techniques and forms, traditional folk themes and rhythms). AFAIK, chord progressions was something people studied, but just as a discipline within many, as counterpoint, harmony (structural functions), development, rhythm, modes and scales, etc.
And, above all, learning by studying the masters. All the great composers started by studying and imitating the ones the came before them.
People should free themselves of the tyrany of the "chords" and "chord progressions". Sometimes, you don't need to "progress" at all. You may very well remain in the same chord bar after bar. Or not. Or simply a drone.

Interesting post. As someone who comes from a pop/rock background (and self-taught) I've always used chords to describe songs - even if it's just in my head. While I can read sheet music, I never play from sheet music. Being able to read a score is just a legacy of having played recorder as a kid and a year or so of piano tuition (which I really didn't enjoy). So even when I get sheet music, I distill it down to the chords in my head. I then ditch the score, and just play my own interpretation, improvising over the chords on the piano/guitar.

To me, Beethoven's Albumblatt (Fuer Elise) is just a basic Am - E groove (there's obviously a couple of other parts) and I play it as a jazz song (extending the chords accordingly). Pachelbel's cannon is just D A Bm F#m G D G A - or pretty much the same as Green Day's Basket Case and the other million pop/rock songs that are a variation thereof. Pomp & Circumstance is a classical tune that introduces the II instead of ii/IImin before switching to the dominant.

Given the post I quoted, to what extent is what I'm doing something that a classical music theorist would do? I don't find this approach tyrannical myself - to me, it's an easy and succinct way of describing a song. It also means that instead of pages of sheet music, I reduce the pieces to a line or two of chords to muck around with - and something that's easy to remember in my head too.

I appreciate that this won't work for every piece of music from every culture, but even when jamming with my Turkish friends (who might be playing a saz or oud or reed instrument whose name escapes me), the jam is still always based on a basic chord progression (to me as a westerner, not necessarily to them). Even if we're basically staying on the same note, I still think of it as, say, Em, Em7, Em6, Cmaj7/E in my head - which I suppose is sort of a variation on "Elanor Rigby" - maybe throwing in a diminished chord for effect as well.

[Sascha Franck]

sjm, this is pretty much *exactly* as I tend to look at things!
Just saying...

- Sascha

[tapper mike]

Sacha it gets worse.

I've been getting into "Cluster" piano chords. I've been reading a lot of fusion and contemporary gospel sheets.
Some cats play C as C-D-E-G The chart will read a C chord on top but it's represented as a cluster 2 chord not an "add 9" because in order for i to be technically a 9 chord it must cross the octave ala C-E-G-D

What kills me is "alt's" An "alt"ered 5th was something I'd always learned as a dominant b5 although I've seen it as a flat5 which should be read as augmented an "Alt" chord is based on the "altered" scale.
"altered scale" (7th mode of ascending melodic minor)
The altered scale that fits the E7 alt chord(s) is: E-F-G-G#-A#-C-D-E, (spelled in terms of the E chord not the parent Fm scale.)
I always freak when trying to decide what alt chord they want me to play.
E7b9,E7#9,E7b13,E7#11
The "chord scale" I've got no problems with, but "any alt7 will do drives me nuts.

At least the "half diminished" chord is starting to vanish. Everything I read now states it as a m7b5

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, I'm not having much problems with altered chords. In case the author wants me to play some specific notes, he/she should include them in the chord symbol.

Fwiw #2: As long as we treat melodic minor as a typical heptatonic scale (which it basically is), the 7th degree is not an altered scale. It just happens to work like that in our equal temperment system and you still need to use quite some enharmonic stunts. Theoretically it's not an altered scale at all but a locrian scale with a b4/11. It's just that our ears sort of not accept a b4/11.

- Sascha