How to make this kind of chords?

[Fogost]

Which chords are in begging? 7th, diminished or what?
Also, can anyone tell me what instrument is playing at high notes? Sounds a bit like bell

[jancivil]

...

[Fogost]

Hmm, thanks. It looks really complicated ant first glance

[jancivil]

the first chord is ambiguous, Simon is relating it to ii which would be normative but it contains Bb Eb F G and the F is not a chord tone. the next chord in the intro, the notes I can give are the G and the Db and the Eb still rings. I don't find a Bb or my Cb which was a mistake out of an assumption as my mind filled in 'whole tone scale' but that isn't accurate. So all of the chords at first are going to have not the most meaningful names. I think Simon's way of thinking is the more helpful approach and the best information. My ears are shot so fvck what I said.

[Sendy]

I read a jazz theory book and I ended up feeling dumb.

[jancivil]

I don't write well enough to make this any simpler. You say things about synthesizers I don't have the right background to grok either, even though I've been programming synths since the early 70's. I don't have sufficient maths basis for some things. For me, the terms used to talk about harmony were never baffling.

[Sendy]

Maybe I just need a better book. The one I have is Jazzology which seems to be popular and well reviewed. There was something very dry about the book which made me nonplussed and made the information hard to retain even when I involved myself with the sounds. Yet most books I find on harmony for computer musicians are boringly easy.

I would say, never EVER attempt jazz theory until you've got a total grasp of "normal" functional harmony. I'm not going to be transcribing any Charlie Parker solos any time soon but my knowledge is OK enough to get me places and it's improving over time which is all I can expect.

[jancivil]

Learning 'how-to' from reading isn't for me. Jazz 'theory' does presuppose you know your way around key, & cyclical, cycle-of-fifths relationships/ii V I is recognizable at once, and your tertial extensions is no mystery.

I think such a thing has to be done applying it, out of a reason for it. Such as you take a standard and re-harmonize it; and you're adhering to a style, it's finite, you say 'ok, swing ca 1940's' for an exercise. and later when you want the whole flat-five substitution principle you focus on that in particular context and models.

I never took a course in it. But I grew up with the sound of it, so when it's put into a framework, principles of, things click. I took harmony first at community college and there was an apparently pretty happening jazz re-harmonization course in the building. There were older people that hung around there, I hung around there a lot myself, the conversations with the jazzmen with some experience in life encountering more advanced things and having their guesses confirmed and firmed up was perhaps the most interesting social thing I had around school. This one guy would get excited about THE TV CHORDS! These things you hear in TV scores and you want to get that, but who knows WTF went on behind it. I could relate to that.

[tapper mike]

Can you play the blues?
Jazz was born of the blues and if you can't play the blues you'll never get jazz.

The blues is based on a 12 bar (measure) pattern. If you can play the chord progression and solo over it effectively then you can move on to jazz.

Jazz has several theorems depending on what era you enter it. As blues has the 12 bar blues pattern jazz has a 12 bar pattern called "rhythm changes" It's something jazz guys jam over and write from. The pattern is based on a song called...I Got Rhythm. Jazz is also resplendent with 16 bar progressions based on I-VI-ii-V progressions, and their permutations.



To understand it you have to live it. Work out the progression on your instrument first. Don't analyze it just play the chord changes. If you can't play a 12 bar blues progression then you can't play the blues. If you can't play Rhythm Changes then you can't play jazz. No amount of reading or thinking will change that. Get the progression down first. Get it down in your sleep and in a couple of different keys. Rhythm Changes are used in many many jazz songs. And if you can play the progression you'll adapt rather easily to learning or improvising over those songs.

Rhythm changes can be simple or complex. Don't try to play substitutions till you get the basic chord progression down.



Once you get the basic chord progression down. Then play them changes. See the chord play the chord. If you are working it out in Bb and you happen to see a Cm7 then that's the ii7 chord. Play Cm Dorian. If you see an F7 play off the mixolydian scale.

In jazz we use "guide tones" With jazz the most important notes are the root 3rd and 7th of the chord. Those become "guide tones" and are used to connect the melody across the changes. Getting used to always thinking in terms of guide tones is very boring and slow and it's not something that can simply be read and understood. It's something that requires practice. Play the guide tone for the chord on the first beat of the measure. Go thru all the changes just playing the guide tone. Then try to connect the dots with notes between the guide tone.

If you can't do the above then there is no reason to move forward with things like b5 subs or extensions beyond the 7th chord.

[someone called simon]

Do you play keyboards or guitar? (not that those are the only 2 choices of course!) It's much easier to throw all those notes in on a keyboard than a guitar.

Here's how I hear it... You can simplify the sequence down to Fm7, Db7, Cm7, F7. (If that's too hard you'll have to go back a few more steps before attempting to understand the chords in your example). If you play along using those chords, it will sound 'in the ballpark', but some notes will clash.

Some notes are being added to each chord to give it more colour, that sophisticated jazzy sound. Some notes are being left out too.

1st chord, based on Fm7:
Added is a 4th (actually he comes down from a 5th to a 4th quickly, that very first note is a 5th, C, but changes it to a 4th, Bb.) So you've added a 4th, Bb, and taken away the 5th, C. Also, I can't hear the minor 3rd, Ab, in this chord, but the second time through the sequence it's there. The melody note is the 7, Eb so that's at the top.

2nd chord, based on Db7
The most significant alteration is that the 5th of this chord, G#, has been flattened to G natural. Also, a 9th*, Eb is in there. I can't hear the 3rd either.
So, play a Db7 on a keyboard, flatten the 5th to G natural, leave out the third, F; add a 9th, Eb. Try it in different ocatves, combinations etc. The melody note is the flat 5.

3rd chord, based on Cm7
A 4th has been added here, which is an F. That's also the melody note. Again, play a Cm7 chord on a piano, put the added F as the top note.

4th chord, based on F7
A 9th*, G, has been added here. The melody note is on the 5th, C.

So if you play this sequence of standard 4-note 7th chords on a piano, then add/delete/modify as described, you should be pretty close. I would call the chords Fm7 add4, Db9 b5, Cm7 add4, F9. Someone may want to quibble there.

This is the way I understand things like this. You could go on to talk about the function of the various added/altered/deleted chord notes in the sequence, but to just keep it to what the notes in each chord are, this way of looking at the chords is helpful to me.


*in this context I should probably call that a 2nd rather than a 9th. Someone might weigh in on that, I'm about foggy about proper terminology, but the priciple is right. A 2nd and a 9th, being 7 notes apart, are 'the same', in this case both are an Eb, in a Db chord.

[jancivil]

2nd chord, based on Db7
The most significant alteration is that the 5th of this chord, G#, has been flattened to G natural. Also, a 9th*, Eb is in there. I can't hear the 3rd either.
So, play a Db7 on a keyboard, flatten the 5th to G natural, leave out the third, F; add a 9th, Eb. Try it in different ocatves, combinations etc. The melody note is the flat 5.

*in this context I should probably call that a 2nd rather than a 9th. Someone might weigh in on that, I'm about foggy about proper terminology, but the priciple is right. A 2nd and a 9th, being 7 notes apart, are 'the same', in this case both are an Eb, in a Db chord.

the rest of what you have works for me but I really can't call the second chord as any tertial Db, not with no third. I can guarantee the same 'Db Eb G' in it, but not more. I even hallucinated a Cb which kind of feels related; but functionally and in a kind of Occcam's Razor* I don't like 'bVII7b5 with no third'. and as I sing F it doesn't really work. *Eb7; I actually like my Cb [vs Bb] but that's quite imaginary. The pedal is bringing a couple of these notes in, the salient thing is G and Db.

The first chord I'm not even going to name although I can live with what I initially came up with as a type of Eb add2; once I really heard the body of the tune that first chord occurred to me as though suspended over V, really.

At any rate I'm fairly sure none of this is going to register to the OP. There's a whole can of worms that I'll candidly admit I'm not up to calling at all atm.

[someone called simon]

@ jancivil, Yes, it interests me how these things may be thought about. Like, I hear this progression as an embellishment of what could be a simple folk(ish) tune.. Fm, G7, Cm, F major.

So to me it's Db because it's a tritone substitution of the G7, even though the F note is absent. And listening with headphones, there is definitely a B natural in that chord too (although should I call that Cb as you did? that confuses me.)

With the first chord, even though the 3rd is absent, the second time through it's clearly there, so I see Fm as the 'intention' behind that chord when heard on context of the repeated sequence. So, because I see these chords as embellishments of the simple sequence I described, and because the second time through the Ab note is heard, I would describe it as being some kind of F in intention.... I wouldn't call the first time through an 'Eb something', and the second time an 'F something'. But that's just the way I hear it and think about it...

[Aroused by JarJar]

Do you play keyboards or guitar? (not that those are the only 2 choices of course!) It's much easier to throw all those notes in on a keyboard than a guitar.

Here's how I hear it... You can simplify the sequence down to Fm7, Db7, Cm7, F7. (If that's too hard you'll have to go back a few more steps before attempting to understand the chords in your example). If you play along using those chords, it will sound 'in the ballpark', but some notes will clash.

Some notes are being added to each chord to give it more colour, that sophisticated jazzy sound. Some notes are being left out too.

1st chord, based on Fm7:
Added is a 4th (actually he comes down from a 5th to a 4th quickly, that very first note is a 5th, C, but changes it to a 4th, Bb.) So you've added a 4th, Bb, and taken away the 5th, C. Also, I can't hear the minor 3rd, Ab, in this chord, but the second time through the sequence it's there. The melody note is the 7, Eb so that's at the top.

2nd chord, based on Db7
The most significant alteration is that the 5th of this chord, G#, has been flattened to G natural. Also, a 9th*, Eb is in there. I can't hear the 3rd either.
So, play a Db7 on a keyboard, flatten the 5th to G natural, leave out the third, F; add a 9th, Eb. Try it in different ocatves, combinations etc. The melody note is the flat 5.

3rd chord, based on Cm7
A 4th has been added here, which is an F. That's also the melody note. Again, play a Cm7 chord on a piano, put the added F as the top note.

4th chord, based on F7
A 9th*, G, has been added here. The melody note is on the 5th, C.

So if you play this sequence of standard 4-note 7th chords on a piano, then add/delete/modify as described, you should be pretty close. I would call the chords Fm7 add4, Db9 b5, Cm7 add4, F9. Someone may want to quibble there.

This is the way I understand things like this. You could go on to talk about the function of the various added/altered/deleted chord notes in the sequence, but to just keep it to what the notes in each chord are, this way of looking at the chords is helpful to me.


*in this context I should probably call that a 2nd rather than a 9th. Someone might weigh in on that, I'm about foggy about proper terminology, but the priciple is right. A 2nd and a 9th, being 7 notes apart, are 'the same', in this case both are an Eb, in a Db chord.

I would analize this in terms of quartal/quintal and secundal harmony. That way you don't have continual "add" or "alter", and I think that it better reflects the thinking behind the conmposition. Also, I think that if someone wants to write something of their own along the lines of the original (which is quite nice!), then quartal/quintal/secundal harmony is going to make it direct rather than a mass of "alterations".

So, stacked fourths on the tonic, stacked seconds on the submediant, stacked fifths on the subtonic, resolves to regular ol' ninth chord on tonic.

[someone called simon]

So, stacked fourths on the tonic, stacked seconds on the submediant, stacked fifths on the subtonic, resolves to regular ol' ninth chord on tonic.

For me, it's not natural to think like this, though I'm not by any means saying you are wrong, I just didn't learn this way. But the second time through the pattern, the first chord has a minor 3rd, a 2nd.... no 4th I think. So you have to find some other way of explaining that anyway. The way I explained it will work for any chord, occasionally the chords might have stacked 4ths etc, most of the time probably not.

Also, I can't hear the first chord as tonic, even though it ends on it too. The 3rd chord is the tonic to my ear.

[Aroused by JarJar]

So, stacked fourths on the tonic, stacked seconds on the submediant, stacked fifths on the subtonic, resolves to regular ol' ninth chord on tonic.

For me, it's not natural to think like this, though I'm not by any means saying you are wrong, I just didn't learn this way. But the second time through the pattern, the first chord has a minor 3rd, a 2nd.... no 4th I think. So you have to find some other way of explaining that anyway. The way I explained it will work for any chord, occasionally the chords might have stacked 4ths etc, most of the time probably not.

Also, I can't hear the first chord as tonic, even though it ends on it too. The 3rd chord is the tonic to my ear.

If you listen to pre-tonal (early counterpoint, late medieval) and Balkan music, you'll learn to hear for example F-C-G or F-Bb-Eb as tonic chords on F. The question is, what works for compositionally (analysis is a very, very distant second to that concern).