Why a C6 is not an Am7?

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

I think "Muddy Waters rather than Mozart" is exceedingly dull.

When I was 14 maybe my two main things were Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland and Emerson, Lake and Palmer Tarkus, then a year later Pictures at an Exhibition. I had a stoned epiphany at the time, hearing music in my head I certainly couldn't identify as a particular memory but news to me, I should become a composer.

When I was 17 I developed a fascination for Bach Fugues. First fugue I experienced was probably on an ELP record. So I took the course at community college and learned some things.

I had actual life experience with pop music, the game, what it took. I didn't have the ambition towards that but I was involved with someone who kind of did. Musically it was not that compelling to me. I started off emulating blues guitar and so the record I arranged, the Beatles-y thing my singer wrote was informed by a nice Clapton-esque solo and some bass I modeled after McCartney. It was fun but I'd already sussed more involved music by Macca, You Never Give Me Your Number was another thing I wanted to understand at 14. And our record was derivative. It could have gone places because it was, but it didn't. It takes more than being a good song.

The Beatles seemed to exceed I IV V or very simple chords before very long, strangely enough.

if it sounds good it is good: who has, by having some interest in the details, shown any actual problem with this?
I always find it sad when people make this sort of thought-free argument against a person or persons.
One needs to find out where their perceived opponent or whatever is coming from before one goes off, or look a fool.
I don't construct music according to following rules, I write freely as a 20th and now 21st century composer.
It's just that I have some basis in thinking, some bloody chops.

Sorry, but when you don't, it shows.
And with no interest in communication, how is one's music going to communicate anything to anybody.
Why post at all, ever, in this case? Are you making music to be admired for it? Seems totally empty (and sounds it, frankly). Wouldn't you want to have better chops?
Rhetorical question.

Not for me to tell someone personally how to be, but every bit of what we saw here is a bad sign on every level.
Last edited by jancivil on Wed May 05, 2021 7:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Post

There is a widely held misconstruction of what 'music theory' really does, we saw it here.

Yes, you can have the Fux and some rules, or the parallel fifths is a never-do-this in later practice, but theory here is derived from practice. We find JS Bach breaking the rules seemingly derived from that practice so some things we can take with a grain of salt.

But if you learn I to IV to I to V to I in a 12-bar blues, you've learned the mechanics of the thing and this is doing music theory.
When you learn the common moves on blues guitar, you've learned some music theory. There are people who do more in the style, become virtuosic in it (Hubert Sumlin?); does one react negatively against that and argue for doing less because people doing more is suspect? COME ON.

If you did as I did and transcribed side 1 of Abbey Road, and it's something you can use, you've made sense of things in their consistent application, a common practice in play such as this, you've done music theory.

Post

How about this one: C G A E | A G A E | B F# A D# | (^)E G# B E

C6 | Am7 | B7 | E

Post

jancivil wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:50 pm If it's key of G major, it's ii6 or it's IV. Subdominant, both = same difference.
Nice example.

Imo, there is no notation system that should reject pragmatic concerns, easy of use and personal preference, and I would not expect any system to be perfect and unambiguous anyway. As long as you are able to explain your preferences and these do not violate the tonal framework as a whole, you are on the road. For broader communication, we all have to be conventional, of course, but as long as you can show your band what you mean, notation will probably not stop anyone from making music.
Last edited by IncarnateX on Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

excuse me please wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:19 pm
ChamMusic wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:59 pm
excuse me please wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:32 am To make a long story short: depends on the root note.
E-G-A-C could be perceived as an Em sus4 #5 chord. As G-A-C-E could be perceived as a G 6/9 sus 4 chord. Especially when the root note is about an octave lower.
More like making a short story into a very confusing epic full of narrative inconsistencies and plot flaws! :0)

What on earth are you going on about?

E-G-A-C could be perceived as an Em sus4 #5 chord. = utter nonsense to anyone who actually knows even a little bit about music.

G-A-C-E could be perceived as a G 6/9 sus 4 chord. = someone trying to be clever and messing up big time!

All you are doing is potentially confusing the OP + showing the many experienced and highly trained musicians on this forum that you have very little knowledge...

That's fine, nothing wrong there, but why jump in on a topic when you clearly don't actually understand the subject very well?
Oh dear.. I think we just found 'the expert.' Stop the presses!
Anyone who's had any meaningful interaction with me on any music forum or in 'real' life would struggle to argue against the fact that I'm a VERY experienced and knowledgeable musician.

Expert?

Maybe...maybe not, but thank you for saying so...very much appreciated!:)

I comment on threads like this in music forums because I know that my music knowledge can help OP's with questions / issues.

I would NEVER have written such inaccurate nonsense as you did towards the beginning of this thread because I 'know' music!

My point is very simple - don't offer help in a subject where your knowledge is clearly very limited...

You screwed up....accept it and move on.

I don't offer advice on angling forums because I know f**k all about fishing!

Post

Still.. a man's praise in his own mouth stinks.

Post

excuse me please wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:06 pm Still.. a man's praise in his own mouth stinks.
That's actually very funny...

1) If you understood the origin of that particular sound bite, you'd realize that it is often misused and misunderstood...as you have here! :0)

2) There was no self-praise, just simple statement of facts...

I've been doing music in various shapes and forms pretty much every day since I was 7 (in 1970)...EXPERIENCED

I studied an academic music degree at a red brick university here in the UK + I've taught / lectured in various areas of the subject up to degree level for 30+ years. Amongst other things, I've been a professional composer / sound designer for 25 years...KNOWLEDGEABLE.

There is NO self-praise there..just simple statements about my long background in various forms of music.

I NEVER praise my own music / teaching skills or anything else in public...others can (and do) form their own opinions.

Don't try and help people when you don't know enough...you were trying to be a smart-ass and you f**ked up...seen it before...will see it again...it's selfish and totally unhelpful to the OP's who are just looking for advice.

Stop the silly, defensive lashing out...each little extra comment makes you sound more and more pathetic.

On a recent harmony thread someone else made a complete cock-up of some advice..it was totally nonsensical and showed a totally inadequate knowledge of the subject being discussed...

I raised this, (as did others), and he admitted he was showing off and out of his depth, apologized and simply went away...

THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT!

Post

ChamMusic wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:47 pm
excuse me please wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:06 pm Still.. a man's praise in his own mouth stinks.
That's actually very funny...
It's very desperate. Look, excuse, there is no upside to continuing to post except, as indicated, to apologize.
Really to the whole world, the whole of the potential readership of this board anyway, for posturing foolishly and then trying to make it seem suspect to correct you.

But this is how it goes, isn't it. As I indicated it's the signal illustration of Dunning-Kruger Effect. One doesn't have the tools to grasp the correct answers before them, which takes a certain basic competence; to obtain said competence is a problem when one believes they are more-competent-than; from the top-down, 'you lot don't have it.' assessment of the lay of the land. It's a mistake.
So it's ironic to have at it with this 'a man's praise...' which itself is a mistake, as pointed out, and on more than one level.

At the level of knowledge you have, clearly, the thing one should be doing is listening to people that may have the correct answer. A couple of people here can be counted on to. But no, it's now about defending the ground you sought to establish {& where you pissed yourself} to the end, isn't it.

Post

Well, I obviously was kidding a bit, but if one truly wants to learn something, they'd better invest in a book or a course IMO. Otherwise it all becomes confusing at some point.

Post

Karma_tba wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:25 am I have no interest in being a musician, a composer, or superstar...but ego tripping elitist wonks tend to ruffle my feathers. Y'all could have enlightened the OP without demeaning him/her. The KVR clique never resists the chance to throw shade. Big fish in a small pond is the KVR way.
What are you talking about? Are you mistaken @excuse me please for the OP? I may have missed something, but as far as I am concerned, I have mostly been occupied with the topic for the sake of the OP and because I like nerdy discussions about music theory. A few pages ago, the OP seemed to suggest my approach was welcome rather than unwelcome. I have demeaned no one, not even @excuse me who I think is kind of funny rather than a PITA. Not even you either, really, though I think you should check these game results of yours once more, you may have been too wasted to get them right. Further; if you really were here to save the OP, trolling would not be the way, would it?

Post

IncarnateX wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:47 pm
Karma_tba wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:25 am I have no interest in being a musician, a composer, or superstar...but ego tripping elitist wonks tend to ruffle my feathers. Y'all could have enlightened the OP without demeaning him/her. The KVR clique never resists the chance to throw shade. Big fish in a small pond is the KVR way.
What are you talking about?
:lol:
Let's recap what actually happened, just for shits 'n giggles. For the person that is having trouble following events and who has done absolutely nothing positive here. Or in my experience ever on this forum.

Literally no one has demeaned Stamped Records, the thread starter. In fact that person has welcomed the good information provided herein.

So if the goal is to enlighten the person who was looking for some guidance per the question 'why a C6 is not simply an Am7 in first inversion', the goal has been met. I have done my bit here. However, early on someone chose to type some nonsense and, having been corrected, continued on to dismiss everyone and be snarky.

The original question having been quite sorted, in my reality-oriented assessment, i think if someone is going to double-down, triple-down, ad nauseum having produced only nonsense here, one might feel free to address what was said.

I can't demean that person; they went with degraded discourse early on and the first thing out of them was ill-considered ego-trip garbage anyway.

It's kind of hard to feature me, or Incarnate X as any clique or part of any. If you're an outsider in your isolation it's all you, karma. Maybe it's bad karma? It's funny the words you choose in your attack: 'throwing shade', as that is literally all you've got. The stance you took, as a point of fact, is against even thinking about such a question so I don't know what you expect in response. I wouldn't even see it if X hadn't quoted it; then I felt free to respond, having answered the original post and then some.

You're not interested in being a musician? Quelle surprise. Part of your criteria for _throwing shade_ was you figure one member isn't making platinum records. I don't know how that gets to be the metric for arguing against something in thread. You brought it in. I mentioned 'composer' only because of the notion that 'the average listener' not caring was brought in and the notion that this level of consideration of such 'music theory' was to be pitied. Your discourse is miserable & you have no point. You have nothing for the OP. The entirety of your discourse here demeans yourself to begin with.

edited for having said the exact same thing twice in one paragraph
Last edited by jancivil on Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

Karma_tba wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:25 amThe KVR clique never resists the chance to throw shade. Big fish in a small pond is the KVR way.
I was well on the way to being the big fish in a small pond (my home town) and I chose to expose myself to the wider world; so I went off to school where there was no possibility of such. I was the lowest figure on the totem pole and I well knew it.

KVR as part of any identity for me is meaningless. Once, a guy here who was having a problem with me opined I must be the most muted member here! LOL. But wth is that remark except throwing shade. So you have a surplus of shade, is it? I'm sorry about that.

When someone gets more out of the forum than you do it might be because they are contributing. You don't know who you're talking at, or why, do you. I don't think this approach is the right therapy. I can't help you.

Post

As regards the 'sus4' designation in a chord name where the chord has the 3rd present (which is nonsensical) I actually came across this in someone's arrangement of a Wayne Shorter tune [Go].

It's supposedly a Gm^7 with a C. G Bb C [D] F# A. There is a vamp before it which is clearly Gm6 to Gm^7, and then this C comes in.
It's obv. not our 'classical' suspension, but point is there's the third; I could now call this chord a C9#11(13); over the pedal G. The Gm6 has this element of C7(9) now.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post

jancivil wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:34 pm There is a widely held misconstruction of what 'music theory' really does...
Almost every time I dip into this forum I'm reminded of Roger Sessions' observation that what most people mean by "music theory" is actually musical craft, i.e. it's not about speculation, it's about demonstrable musical abilities.

I can't say if there was anything theoretical about going through intensive ear-training but it certainly did a world of good for my musical capabilities. Ditto for harmony and counterpoint, they were exercise regimens for the development of hard practical skills. Ditto again for years spent in bands playing hundreds of pop, rock, jazz, folk, and blues songs. A deep feeling for form, the ability to instantly recognize and predict chord types and progressions, improvisational melodic skill, rhythmic finesse - these abilities take time to cultivate and master. A lot of time, even with our fantastic modern software tools for learning.

After much study of various texts I've come to conclude that perhaps the most sound advice to the student is to master some sort of systematic understanding (from Piston, Kennan, Fux, Schoenberg, whoever) of the basics of harmony, rhythm, counterpoint, et cetera, and then hit the scores hard. Fux is terrific for building strength, but when it comes to the application of that strength I turn to Palestrina and Bach for the useful examples.

Regarding the OP's query why a C6 is not an Am7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2qEhGeLb6A

Best regards,

Dave Phillips

"Ten years is a good beginning."

Post

Well as far as a "name game" I would practice basically Occam's Razor, the fewer assumptions needed to construct the name the clearer the situation is for whomever has to deal with it.

Sadly the one statement missing in all this before that was 'it's just naming'. Except when it's a jazz add6 like on the I chord if not every major chord, it's two names for one thing.



So, C7 9 #11 over the G pedal rather than that. I don't really care about C6 vs Am7 as all that. And there's an actual case for, there, 'Gm6'.


But yeah, I grew up under '10 years is a beginning', nowadays 10 hours seems a big ask.

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”