C6 vs Cmaj6
Jeff Sherman
standard and brother, its like pushing a Cadillac up a hill with a
rope. OK, I've noticed this before: You'll see references to C6 in
alot of tunes but my JP chord book only shows Cmaj6. Same chord? The 6
in C is the A note, right? This is not based on a ninth chord,
correct? Me brain hurts. If we're just stuffing an A note in there
why don't we call it Cadd6.
Jeff
cjpark1
Here are a couple of positions for C6
302010
gaegce
3rd fret 115555
gcgcea
The chord is built on the 1,3,5,6 notes of whatever scale.
Jim Carpenter
Most of the jazz charts I struggle to learn that call for a C6, I end up
using a Cmaj6 and it works just fine. Now am I doing it right? What is
right? Who knows, but it works for me.
Jim
In article <3A991ECC...@lorainccc.edu>, Jeff Sherman
cjpark1
Doh!
cep
Todd Belden
the A note (as opposed to Cm6). It's the same chord as a C6. You can play
it as an Am chord with the pinky adding the C bass note on the 5th string
at the 3rd fret. Another nice way to play it is with the C bass note
played with your 2nd finger on the 6th string at the 8th fret, D note on
the 4th string with the 1st finger, E note with the pinky on the 3rd string
at the 9th fret, and G note with the 3rd finger on the 2nd string at the
8th fret, muting the open strings.
ple...@nospam.us
I don't know the reasoning behind calling it 6 instead of add 6 but
the 7 chord is named the same way and we don't call it add 7.
The CM6 is the same thing. I posted chord voicings for my suggestions
in the other thread. They are grouped together so you don't have to
jump from position to position too much.
Al
--
Reply to guitb0x "at" yahoo "dot" com
Todd Belden
2nd example. In the first example it sounds best as a 4-note chord, muting
the top string and bottom string.
cjpark1
I believe a Cadd6 could and most likely would be played without the
5th and the C6 must contain 1,3,5,6 to be a Cmaj6 (C6).
Hopefully if that is incorrect, someone will straighten it out. :-)
cep
Chief Noda
> Jeff,
>
> Here are a couple of positions for C6
>
> 302010
> gaegce
>
> 3rd fret 115555
> gcgcea
This gotta be "335555"...... I can't imagine doing "115555" stretch, no
matter what the chord is ;-)
Cheers
Chief
PS: I bet C6 is same as Cmaj6
Al Evans
I think the answer to that is that we use the "add" for extensions
above the octave (9, 11, 13) to indicate that there's no b7 in the
chord.
The C6 I meant was C-E-G-A. Note that an Am7 chord contains the same
notes (A-C-E-G). This is true for all major chords and their relative
minor chords, e.g. G6 is the same as Em7, A6 is F#m7, D6 is Bm7, etc.
This is a very useful correspondence.
--Al Evans--
--
"Some Folks" CD -- be the first on your block.
Or even the first in your state! <http://www.alevans.com>
cjpark1
I got the notes right anyway. I wonder why I hit the #1?
Thanks, I gotta get me a brain.
cep
Al Evans
Chief Noda <cn...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> cjpark1 <cjp...@home.com> wrote:
> > 3rd fret 115555
> > gcgcea
>
> This gotta be "335555"...... I can't imagine doing "115555" stretch, no
> matter what the chord is ;-)
Charles uses both hands for fingering, and plucks the strings with his
nose.
Incredible, but true.
--Al Evans--
Dar S.
b7...............except for "6" (as opposed to VI (Aeolian mode))
chords.
A Cmajor 7 means there's a natural 7,
C7 means a flat 7. Cmaj9 means a natural 7 , plus a "2" (in the second
octave). C add9 means there's no 7 of any kind, but there's a "2"
in the 2nd octave.
But you asked about a 6...............
My instructor would be happy to elaborate if he were here.
/^8
Josh Dougherty
Jeff Sherman <jshe...@lorainccc.edu> wrote in message
news:3A991ECC...@lorainccc.edu...
C6 and Cmaj6 are the same.
A couple ways to play it are:
x3221x
x3525x
These are both moveable so if you move it up a fret it's Db6.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
cjpark1 <cjp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A994FC8...@home.com...
No, that's not right.
Cadd6, C6, and Cmaj6 are all exactly the same.
a "Cadd6" symbol would tell the player that it's a Cmajor triad with an A
added. This is also what is meant by C6 and Cmaj6. They all include the
5th as part of the basic C triad.
The 5th (G) is *theoreticly* part of all of them, but it may (or may not) be
left out at the player's discretion. So, in effect, any of them could omit
the 5th and replace it with the 6th, or any of them could include both.
They're all the same chord.
Josh
cjpark1
This proves I should take a wide birth around "add" chords. I read
about them, but can't find where I read it, so I remain in the dark.(
"what else is new" Dorgan )
Thanks again,
cep
Lumpy
cjpark1 wrote:
> Thanks, I gotta get me a brain.
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin
You could be another Lincoln
lumpy
cjpark1
Ouch! Ford's theater, deja-vu all over again.
cep
Unsung96
Dar S.
important. Even the thing about Charles picking with his nose (so THAT'S
how Hedges does it on that one tune!).
OK, Here's a C6 (with G in the bass)
Key o C , so C is the (I)Ionian mode chord
8 x 10 9 10 8
Now try this Fmaj7 (F being the (IV) Lydian mode chord , key o C)
x 8 10 9 10 8 (or o)
Also Am , the (VI) Aeolan mode chord key o C
x 0 10 9 10 8
note the commonality
Now you normals can move the whole pattern up the neck , and into key o
F , and get
Fadd6 (I)
1x3230
Bbmaj7 (IV)
x13230
and
Dm (VI)
x x 0 2 3 1
(3)
note the same positioning of the 3 fingers on the left hand, same as the
key o C chords above.
....................Throw in the (V) C chord and you've got restaurant
quality progressions
all over the place, with almost no work.
Discovering (and being shown ) this kind of stuff was like magic, when
I started to see how everything's tied together.
Dar
Riddley
chord with the natural 7th included, i.e., Cmaj7, Cmaj9, Cmaj13.
I think that it would be more logical for C6 to be simply a C chord with an A
in it (with or without the G), and Cmaj6 to be Cmaj7 with an A in it--but then
that would be a Cmaj13-- (of course, with C, E, G, A, B, it's also an Amin9,
ain't it?).
I guess I'll have to chime in that Cmaj6 is simply an C6, but I think the
preferred term should be, and is, simply "C6".
Now, a much more important question: when putting a term such as "C6" in
quotes, at the end of a sentence, is the period correctly outside the quotes,
although normall, at the end of quoted material the close quote is outside the
period?
Riddley
Josh Dougherty
Riddley <rid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010226102203...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> In the musical works I refer to most often, the use of the term "maj"
implies a
> chord with the natural 7th included, i.e., Cmaj7, Cmaj9, Cmaj13.
> I think that it would be more logical for C6 to be simply a C chord with
an A
> in it (with or without the G), and Cmaj6 to be Cmaj7 with an A in it--but
then
> that would be a Cmaj13-- (of course, with C, E, G, A, B, it's also an
Amin9,
> ain't it?).
Cmaj6 would not be clear as to the inclusion of the 7th. It's not used that
way so no one would recognize it as such. It's just another way of saying
C6 or Cadd6.
The same way that C is short for Cmaj, so C6 is short for Cmaj6.
> I guess I'll have to chime in that Cmaj6 is simply an C6, but I think the
> preferred term should be, and is, simply "C6".
Either is used and you should be aware of both. Even if you prefer using
C6, you still are likely to see Cmaj6 written in music, so you still have to
know it.
> Now, a much more important question: when putting a term such as "C6" in
> quotes, at the end of a sentence, is the period correctly outside the
quotes,
> although normall, at the end of quoted material the close quote is outside
the
> period?
> Riddley
>
Ah...grammar. The period would be outside the quotes. The only time you
use a period inside the quotes is when the quote itself is a sentence,
whereby the period is actually part of the sentence being quoted. You would
put the period outside the quotes when writing "C6". Just as I did right
there.
Josh
Don Wallace
when I try to figure out what different jazz players mean by their notation.
A high-tech friend of mine once said "That's the nice thing about
standards -
everybody can have one." I had a lot of trouble breaking into jazz playing
because of the ambiguity in chord notation. My favourite is the min7b5
versus half-diminished. I forget the name of the book I used when
I first started but since then, I have found this mistake elsewhere. The
book in question harmonized the major scale with seventh chords and
when it got to VII7, it called it a min7b5. In the key of C, the chord
is B-D-F-A. If you disregard that the writer placed this chord on the
seventh degree of the scale, then, ok, it is a min7b5. But as VII7,
it ain't (i.e., there is no F# in the key of C to make flat). It is
a half-diminished chord. Since then, I have learned that most jazz
players play pretty fast and loose with harmony in terms of function
(i.e., they call chords whatever the hell they want and don't pay much
attention to progression unless it suits 'em). But for a beginner at jazz,
(but experienced in harmony), it almost fused a diode in my little pea
brain.
Don Wallace
now recovered
"Jeff Sherman" <jshe...@lorainccc.edu> wrote in message
news:3A991ECC...@lorainccc.edu...
Josh Dougherty
Don Wallace <don.w...@nlc-bnc.ca> wrote in message
news:3a9aa...@webserv.nlc-bnc.ca...
> everybody can have one." I had a lot of trouble breaking into jazz playing
> because of the ambiguity in chord notation. My favourite is the min7b5
> versus half-diminished. I forget the name of the book I used when
> I first started but since then, I have found this mistake elsewhere. The
> book in question harmonized the major scale with seventh chords and
> when it got to VII7, it called it a min7b5. In the key of C, the chord
> is B-D-F-A. If you disregard that the writer placed this chord on the
> seventh degree of the scale, then, ok, it is a min7b5. But as VII7,
> it ain't (i.e., there is no F# in the key of C to make flat). It is
> a half-diminished chord.
The "b5" notation is not based on the key (C), it is based on the *root of
the chord* (B). The "b5" is simply referring to the interval from the root
of the chord (B) to the 5th of the chord (F), which is a b5 interval.
formula - (Root-b3-b5-b7) - BDFA
What does the key have to do with anything? You'd say that the 3rd of the
chord (D) is a b3 right? but there's no D# in the key to make flat either.
If the chord was Dm you'd say that the F is the b3 of the chord right? but
there's no F# in the key to make flat. The name Bm7b5 isn't reliant on any
particular key location. It is a name that describes the construction of
this particular chord from the root up. It could be used in any key, any
time the chord appears.
BTW - It's more common to see it as a ii chord in minor keys like: (Bm7b5 -
E7b9 - Am), rather than as a vii in major keys. ...I've also seen it used
as a tonic, but that's rare.
Josh
Unsung96
Josh
>>
Go man!
Josh Dougherty
>
> "Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:97ej0q$61b$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
>
> > The "b5" notation is not based on the key (C), it is based on the *root
of
> > the chord* (B). The "b5" is simply referring to the interval from the
> > root of the chord (B) to the 5th of the chord (F), which is a b5
interval.
> >
> > formula - (Root-b3-b5-b7) - BDFA
> >
> > What does the key have to do with anything?
>
> will see that I was referring to examples where the min7b5 was given
> as VII7.
I don't need to look again. I was very well aware of what you were saying
the first time. That's why I was begging the question. It's fine to refer
to min7b5 when it's VII7 or when it bXV7, or when it's #IV7, because it
spells the chord in a universal manner (from the root up). It is not
reliant on any location in terms of key.
> You can call BDFA a min7b5, a min6, or a half diminished -
You can't call it a min6. Min6 would be BDFG. You can call it a
half-diminished or a min7b5.
> whatever you like. However, if you put this chord in the context of
> a key on VII, it is a half-diminished.
It's also a min7b5.
Explain why it is a half-diminished please.
> Let me give another example. I don't have my guitar right in front of me
so
> please forgive me if I blow it. Take the chord:
>
> 46x566 - Ab Eb C Gb B
>
> This is an Ab7 #9, right? Except when you play it before G in which
> case it functions as a dominant chord and is therefore more properly
> called D13b5b9, even though there is no root.
No, it's more properly called Ab7#9 because that is what is there. D13b5b9
is a *theoretical* relationship, but you're not actually hearing a D chord.
You're hearing an Ab chord.
It's good to realize that this will have a similar function as D7. Ab7 is a
tritone sub for D7. But, calling it D13b5b9 would tell the musicians that
the root movement is supposed to be D-G, when in actuality the desired root
movement is Ab-G. So, in effect (to be more true to diatonic analysis)
you've obscured the sounds actually intended and re-written the music.
Unless you actually think that "D13b5b9/Ab(no root)" is the appropriate
name. No thanks...Ab7#9 works fine for me.
When I see Ab7-G, I can still see it as V-I because I understand that bII7-I
and V7-I are harmonic equivalents. But, what is actually being played is
bII7-I, *not* V7-I. Often the composer *wants* the Ab as the bass. They
want an Ab chord not a D chord. Why would you suggest that it must be
written according to what it's "supposed" to be *if* it were diatonic?
The first and foremost job of a chord symbol is to convey what is actually
there, what the actual notes are. A secondary job is to try to choose a
symbol that also will help convey harmonic function if that function is
clear. You're trying to reverse the order on this and make harmonic
function the primary objective rather than coveying what is actually there.
Secondly, you're relying too much on diatonicism. The Ab chord might be
particularly desired for it's *NON*diatonicism.
Calling it a D chord would obscure what is actually supposed to be played.
It supposedly would give the player a better insight as to underlying
harmonic function, great!, but they're not playing what was intended.
They're playing a D bass note. IMO, it's up to the musician to flesh out
harmonic function. It's not the job of the composer to keep his music in
all diatonic terms so that the musician will understand the harmonic
function relative to diatonic major key analysis.
> random spellings is that it often obscures harmonic function (which
> in this case is a V-I function).
No. In this case the spelling is there for a purpose. To tell the player
that the root movement resolution is supposed to go Ab-G, not D-G. However,
the underlying function (dominant-tonic) will generally be the same.
Calling it D13b5b9 would tell the bass player and everyone else that the
root movement is supposed to be D-G, and in effect go against what was
intended, which is an Ab-G root movement.
> Sometimes the function is not
> always clear in which case I guess any spelling is ok. But, like I
> said, calling VII7 a min7b5 tends to obscure the harmonic
> structure.
>
Why? You've yet to really say why "half-diminished" is the appropriate
name. Why does half-diminished suit the vii position and not min7b5?
If you want to talk about confusing, why is the triad (BDF) called
"diminished", but when you *add* a note (BDFA) it's called
"half-diminished". Hmm.... I already know the answer, but it just shows
that nothing is really perfect from every angle.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> You can't call it a min6. Min6 would be BDFG.
Oops...min6 would actually be BDF#G#.
Josh
Dar S.
not. Please explain YOUR use of roman numerals!!! I only know how to
read them as modal designations. V = "5 chord" (dominant ) Mixolydian
mode . VII = 7 chord, meaning it uses the 7th scale degree of a key as
the root note of a chord , giving (me) the Locrian Mode (chord). The
only place I (in my
non-diatonically challenged experience) where a b5 isn't a #4.
I think you are using the numerals the same way, but I never hesitate to
ask a dumb question when careful reading and thought might reveal the
answer.
Dar
Greg N.
> However, if you put this chord in the context of
> a key on VII, it is a half-diminished.
Don,
I hear what you're saying, and I guess you have a point, theory-wise. I
would not want to ignore a few practical aspects though:
One way to alleviate your logic problem with the min7b5 is simply not to
call it "flatted fifth", but a "flat fifth". The interval b-f is a flat
fifth, no matter what scale, no? Just like a third in a minor scale is
a flat third, although you can't call it "flatted" in that context.
I doubt it's the task of a chord symbol code to explain or describe
harmonic structure. Conventional staff notation doesn't do that
either. It is nothing but a convenient shorthand to document tones.
Convenience means to make do with a limited number of symbols. The half
dim symbol "Ø" is not on my keyboard, what a mess.
> 46x566 - Ab Eb C Gb B
> This is an Ab7 #9, right? Except when you play it before G in which
> case it functions as a dominant chord and is therefore more properly
> called D13b5b9, even though there is no root.
If you want to see it that way, you'd have to spell out the inversion,
so you'd need to call it D13b9/Ab. I sincerely hope nobody ever comes
up with such a chart on me.
> The problem with random spellings is that it often
> obscures harmonic function (which in this case is
> a V-I function).
Call it "convenient" instead of "random", and you have a justifiable
system there.
Again, it's not the task of chord symbol notation to explain
substitutions and document harmonic function. It is something that you
see through analysis, or on the fly if you're competent, but it's
patently *not* the task of the chord symbol code to get into this. If
it were, you could criticize G, Bm7, C6, D7 (as common as dog fleas),
and suggest to write G, D/B (dominant), Am/C (ii), D7 (v) instead -
give me a break.
--
Posted from e21.nc.us.ibm.com [32.97.136.227]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Josh Dougherty
> If you want to see it that way, you'd have to spell out the inversion,
> so you'd need to call it D13b9/Ab. I sincerely hope nobody ever comes
> up with such a chart on me.
Actually that doesn't work anyway. If I saw a D13b9/Ab, I would have no
cause to assume that the 5th of the D13b9 is supposed to be flat.
Josh Dougherty
Dar S. <Shel...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:803-3A9...@storefull-122.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
exactly. I'm using them the same way you are, referring to scale degrees.
Though i'm not talking about modes at all. The numerals just show what
degree of the scale is being used:
If we assume that "I" is C, then:
bII is Db
II is D
bIII is Eb
III is E
IV is F
bV is Gb
V is G
bVI is Ab
VI is A
bVII is Bb
VII is B
For instance:
Dm7 - G7 - C, would be: ii-V-I
Dm7 - Db7 - C, would be: ii-bII-I
I used some nonsense numerals in the last post, like XV7, don't let that
confuse you. Quote the part of my post that's confusing you and I'll tell
you what it means.
Josh
Josh
Dar S.
I'm learning using numbers to designate scale degrees , and numerals for
mode chords and mode scales.
In key o C: A "I" (Ionian mode (scale)) is
C=1 D=2 E=3 F=4 G=5 A=6 B=7
Also in C, the "V" is the Mixolydian mode , the scale is (using the
5th note "G'" as the root of the mode chord or the "one" of the scale)
G=1 A=2 B=3 C=4 D=5 E=6 F= b7
And so the other mode chords and scales are built using other notes as
the root or the one.
I bet you know this already. I'm not that far along with complicated
chord structure now,
far enough to get into serious trouble though.
Thanks,
Dar
Don Wallace
in your system.
Don
"Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97h49t$sr7$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Don Wallace
You're just not getting this are you? :>) The argument I am making is
about
chord function. The name of the chord outside of its function can
vary. If you place it in a functional relationship with other chords then
the name of the chord is tied to function.
Imagine this chord change :
C C6/A
Correct, if you don't care about function but rather stupid if you do.
"Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97h3hq$b7o$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> You can't call it a min6. Min6 would be BDFG. You can call it a
> half-diminished or a min7b5.
Fuck, I blew it. I hate it when my little guitar is not in front of me
and I have not had coffee yet. Next example!
>
> Explain why it is a half-diminished please.
>
I didn't make up the name "half-diminished" . I suspect that it came about
because the chord is not quite a dim7. Stupid name but no less
confusing than calling VII7 min7b5. One of the pivots of this argument is,
I think, how one thinks harmonically. To repeat what I said yesterday,
it is not the fact that this arrangement of notes was called min7b5 but that
the author called VII7 (placing the notes in a SPECIFIC harmonic
context) min7b5. Wrong.
> > This is an Ab7 #9, right? Except when you play it before G in which
> > case it functions as a dominant chord and is therefore more properly
> > called D13b5b9, even though there is no root.
>
> No, it's more properly called Ab7#9 because that is what is there.
D13b5b9
> is a *theoretical* relationship, but you're not actually hearing a D
chord.
> You're hearing an Ab chord.
Josh, like I said, you are just not getting this. If you play the sequence
I I V7 like G Am D7 and then use the classic jazz substitution
Gmaj7 Am7 D13b5b9, you will see that it is not an Ab chord but a
D chord. It is not a "theoretical" relationship but a contextual
relationship.
>
> It's good to realize that this will have a similar function as D7. Ab7 is
a
> tritone sub for D7. But, calling it D13b5b9 would tell the musicians that
> the root movement is supposed to be D-G, when in actuality the desired
root
> movement is Ab-G.
Good argument but I still disagree. The root movement is based around
the I-II-V7 sequence. By using the D designation you allow the other
musicians, particularly the bass, a range of appropriate inversions whereas
the Ab designation confuses the issue, which was my original point.
> So, in effect (to be more true to diatonic analysis)
> you've obscured the sounds actually intended and re-written the music.
> Unless you actually think that "D13b5b9/Ab(no root)" is the appropriate
> name. No thanks...Ab7#9 works fine for me.
You can call it whatever you like and then explain to everyone else involved
that you are really playing a V-I.
> The first and foremost job of a chord symbol is to convey what is actually
> there, what the actual notes are.
Well, that's where you would be wrong again. What you said is true only
if (and this seems to be the case) you don't care about harmony. This
is why books of thousands of chords are actually quite useless unless one
has a knowledge of basic harmony. And by basic harmony, I don't just mean
the content of the chord but the CONTEXT of the chord.
>You're trying to reverse the order on this and make harmonic
> function the primary objective rather than coveying what is actually
there.
The ONLY purpose a chord has to exist in a piece of music with other chords.
You have this completely backwards. Don't forget that historically, the
description of chords we have now evolved much, much later than actual
harmony.
> Secondly, you're relying too much on diatonicism. The Ab chord might be
> particularly desired for it's *NON*diatonicism.
Now this is a better argument and one to which I would have to concede
some ground. Cadences on the flattened supertonic are, of course, not
that uncommon. If that is what you wanted to imply, then, yes, it would
be called some kind of Ab chord. I'll buy it. However, the previous
arguments you have made really have theory ass-backwards.
> > Sometimes the function is not
> > always clear in which case I guess any spelling is ok. But, like I
> > said, calling VII7 a min7b5 tends to obscure the harmonic
> > structure.
> >
> Why? You've yet to really say why "half-diminished" is the appropriate
> name. Why does half-diminished suit the vii position and not min7b5?
min7b5 implies notes that are not in the key. VII7 cannot be described
as such without some gymnastics that confuse the issue.
>
> If you want to talk about confusing, why is the triad (BDF) called
> "diminished", but when you *add* a note (BDFA) it's called
> "half-diminished". Hmm.... I already know the answer, but it just shows
> that nothing is really perfect from every angle.
Like I said, I didn't make up the name but it is more appropriate when
describing VII7 IF you care about harmonic context.
Don
Josh Dougherty
> Josh:
>
> You're just not getting this are you? :>)
I am "getting it". I just don't agree with your thinking. You should call
something what it *IS*, not what it's "supposed" to be if it was in an
entirely diatonic setting. Of course it's good to try to be clear (when
possible) about function, but this is secondary to conveying the desired
sounds in the music. If the symbol conveys what is *supposedly* the correct
harmonic function but doesn't convey the *correct sound*, it's wrong!
> The argument I am making is about chord function. The name of the chord
outside of its function can
> vary. If you place it in a functional relationship with other chords then
> the name of the chord is tied to function.
>
> Imagine this chord change :
>
> C C6/A
>
This is a different example than the others. In this case the sound would
be the same for both and the root movement would remain the same, but one
name (Am7) would probably be preferable.
In another scenario, C6/A might be preferable....for instance:
C - C/B - C/Bb - C/A - C/G
That might be preferable for conveying a certain idea there, especially if
writing for a specific guitar idea with the open C chord....but really this
is neither here nor there because both chords convey the same sound whereas
in the other case, D13b9b5 would lead a player to an entirely different (and
wrong) root movement than Ab7#9.
Ab7#9 is what the chord *IS*. D13b9b5 is what you think the chord is
"supposed" to be so that it will jive with how *you* understand diatonic
harmonic analysis. If I see D13b9b5 I generally *won't* play the same thing
as if I saw Ab7#9. I would play a chord rooted on D, and this is not what
is desired. What *you* are not getting is that music and music notation
should represent the sounds that are desired. In this case that would be a
chord rooted on Ab. You're D13b9b5 obscures this. Seeing how one
non-diatonic chord may be related in function to a diatonic one is fine, but
that does not mean that the music must or should be notated in those
diatonic terms. This is a theoretical analysis process, and is up to you to
decifer from the actual notes that the composer wants played. It's not the
job of the composer to change what sounds he wants so it fits your diatonic
understanding (or lack thereof) of harmony.
> "Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:97h3hq$b7o$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Explain why it is a half-diminished please.
> >
> I didn't make up the name "half-diminished" . I suspect that it came about
> because the chord is not quite a dim7. Stupid name but no less
> confusing than calling VII7 min7b5.
Maybe no less confusing, ok. I find neither confusing really. But, why is
"half-dim" the *right* name for this function?
It seems to me that:
"half-diminished" - not quite a diminished7th chord
or "min7b5" - minor 7 chord with a flatted 5th
...neither is really specific to this particular function. The VII chord in
major keys has nothing to do with diminished harmony or the diminished
scale, and it has nothing to do with a dim7 chord. That name would lead
someone to believe that the VII chord is somehow a derivation of the dim7
chord and diminished harmony, and that has nothing to do with how it
functions in a major scale/key. So why is it "correct" and min7b5 is
"wrong"?
You've still yet to really explain this. Forget the "min7b5" chord for a
minute and explain why the name "half-diminished" represents this particular
VII function correctly.
>To repeat what I said yesterday,
> it is not the fact that this arrangement of notes was called min7b5 but
that
> the author called VII7 (placing the notes in a SPECIFIC harmonic
> context) min7b5. Wrong.
>
Why is it wrong? Why is "half-diminished" right? You're argument does not
make sense IMO.
> > > This is an Ab7 #9, right? Except when you play it before G in which
> > > case it functions as a dominant chord and is therefore more properly
> > > called D13b5b9, even though there is no root.
> >
> > No, it's more properly called Ab7#9 because that is what is there.
D13b5b9
> > is a *theoretical* relationship, but you're not actually hearing a D
chord.
> > You're hearing an Ab chord.
>
> Josh, like I said, you are just not getting this. If you play the sequence
> I I V7 like G Am D7 and then use the classic jazz substitution
> Gmaj7 Am7 D13b5b9, you will see that it is not an Ab chord but a
> D chord. It is not a "theoretical" relationship but a contextual
> relationship.
>
Oh brother....*You* are not getting it! The whole point is that the desired
root movement is *NOT* I-II-V (G-A-D), but rather I-II-bII (G-A-Ab).
Calling it D13b5b9 totally obscures this and inhibits any composer from
getting the proper root movement from the musicians.
> >
> > It's good to realize that this will have a similar function as D7. Ab7
is
> > tritone sub for D7. But, calling it D13b5b9 would tell the musicians
that
> > the root movement is supposed to be D-G, when in actuality the desired
> > root movement is Ab-G.
>
> Good argument but I still disagree. The root movement is based around
> the I-II-V7 sequence.
Says who! The Ab might be the desired sound, and the D might be nothing
more than a possible substitution. If someone writes a song and they want
the Ab, who are you to say, "no what you actually want is D."
> By using the D designation you allow the other
> musicians, particularly the bass, a range of appropriate inversions
whereas
> the Ab designation confuses the issue, which was my original point.
>
No. The Ab designation *clears up* the issue because that is the desired
bass note! D is not the desired bass note. By using the D designation you
tell the bass player to favor the WRONG bass note.
> > So, in effect (to be more true to diatonic analysis)
> > you've obscured the sounds actually intended and re-written the music.
> > Unless you actually think that "D13b5b9/Ab(no root)" is the appropriate
> > name. No thanks...Ab7#9 works fine for me.
>
> You can call it whatever you like and then explain to everyone else
involved
> that you are really playing a V-I.
I'm "really" playing a bII-I, but I'll tell the musicians that it is similar
in function to a V-I if they don't know that already. This is really
elementary jazz theory anyway and all the musicians I play with already know
this.
> > The first and foremost job of a chord symbol is to convey what is
actually
> > there, what the actual notes are.
>
> Well, that's where you would be wrong again.
Oh man......So, if a composer wants an Ab heard in the bass with a certain
note in the melody, this isn't what should be conveyed. Instead, what
should be conveyed is a sound that jives with diatonic harmonic analysis
even when it isn't the sound that the composer wants heard. Oh boy.
> What you said is true only
> if (and this seems to be the case) you don't care about harmony.
No, it's true if you *DO* care about harmony. You have this completely
backwards.
If you have a melody note D used over the chord in question, if you want
that D melody note heard as the root you would use the D13b9b5 symbol. If
you want the D note to have a #11 sound *harmonicly*, you would use the Ab
symbol. If I "didn't care about harmony" I would revert all the chords back
to where they "supposedly" should be in a diatonic senario and not get the
harmony that I want out of the tune.
> This is why books of thousands of chords are actually quite useless unless
one
> has a knowledge of basic harmony. And by basic harmony, I don't just mean
> the content of the chord but the CONTEXT of the chord.
>
Why should a composer of music determine what chords he wants based on the
premise that you don't understand basic harmony? The notation is there to
convey *exactly the sounds desired by the writer* first and foremost. If
you can't understand what those sounds are supposed to mean then go buy a
book on basic harmony!
> >You're trying to reverse the order on this and make harmonic
> > function the primary objective rather than coveying what is actually
> > there.
>
> The ONLY purpose a chord has to exist in a piece of music with other
chords.
Huh?! I think you left out a word or two. I am "just not getting" this
sentence. :)
> You have this completely backwards. Don't forget that historically, the
> description of chords we have now evolved much, much later than actual
> harmony.
>
> > Secondly, you're relying too much on diatonicism. The Ab chord might be
> > particularly desired for it's *NON*diatonicism.
>
> Now this is a better argument and one to which I would have to concede
> some ground. Cadences on the flattened supertonic are, of course, not
> that uncommon. If that is what you wanted to imply, then, yes, it would
> be called some kind of Ab chord. I'll buy it. However, the previous
> arguments you have made really have theory ass-backwards.
>
I have to disagree again, and say that I think you really have it
ass-backwards here.
> > > Sometimes the function is not
> > > always clear in which case I guess any spelling is ok. But, like I
> > > said, calling VII7 a min7b5 tends to obscure the harmonic
> > > structure.
> > >
>
> > Why? You've yet to really say why "half-diminished" is the appropriate
> > name. Why does half-diminished suit the vii position and not min7b5?
>
> min7b5 implies notes that are not in the key. VII7 cannot be described
> as such without some gymnastics that confuse the issue.
>
I've never thought it does imply that. To me it implies (and in fact
states) that the 5th of the chord is a b5 interval from the root.
It's just the formula for the chord (R b3 b5 b7)
the II chord Dm7 has a formula (R b3 5 b7). You would think of the notes F
and C as being b3 and b7 but they are not notes that are "not in the key".
All the common chord symbols have formulas based on the root of the chord
itself, and this is just another. If you had the progression: Dm7b5 -
G7b9 - Cm, in the key of C minor, would "Dm7b5" be appropriate here? How
about G7b9? You could assume that the Ab note is in the key (it is in the
key signature) for both of these chords, so why would you say "b5" or "b9"?
Does this also imply that the notes are out of the key? I don't think so.
I think it just shows the proper construction of the chord and what notes
are needed.
These chords symbols are all generated from isolated root-based
construction. Trying to base the symbols on function all the time is really
a slippery slope because there could be many different interperetations of
even basic ideas of function (as this exchange proves) and the music might
not even be based on traditional chord-function principles. Often times,
the composer will want a different chord than what it's "supposed to be".
Using your way, you'd come along and say, "oh no it's really this..." when
in fact it is *really* what is written and you've just obscured it for the
assumed benefit of not confusing someone that doesn't know anything about
basic harmony. Great. They're not confused, but they're also not playing
the music the way it was meant to be played.
> > If you want to talk about confusing, why is the triad (BDF) called
> > "diminished", but when you *add* a note (BDFA) it's called
> > "half-diminished". Hmm.... I already know the answer, but it just
shows
> > that nothing is really perfect from every angle.
>
> Like I said, I didn't make up the name but it is more appropriate when
> describing VII7 IF you care about harmonic context.
>
Why? Why is it appropriate?
We may have to agree to disagree, but I really can't see the validity of
your arguments here.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> Oh..........
> I'm learning using numbers to designate scale degrees , and numerals for
> mode chords and mode scales.
Ok. That's fine.
Scale degrees are usually referred to in regular numbers like: 1 2 3....
But....*chords* built on those scale degrees are referred to in roman
numerals: I - II -III
Roman numerals represent chords.
We are discussing chords here. And, we are using roman numerals to
distinguish which note of the scale the chord is built from.
We are not discussing modes at all. Some people may or may not use Roman
numerals in regard to modes as well as chords, but first and foremost they
represent chords. Modes are an entirely different topic, and nothing we're
talking about here has anything to do with that.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
reply of his:
Don Wallace <don.w...@nlc-bnc.ca <mailto:don.w...@nlc-bnc.ca>> wrote
in message
<news:3a9d1...@webserv.nlc-bnc.ca>...
> >Josh:
>>
>> You're just not getting this are you? :>)
>I am "getting it". I just don't agree with your thinking. You should call
>something what it *IS*, not what it's "supposed" to be if it was in an
>entirely diatonic setting.
But, Josh, that is EXACTLY the example I gave in my original post. If
you look back you will see that the context about which I was complaining
was a book which labelled VII7 (i.e., a diatonic setting) as a min7b5. With
what you have just said, you basically support my argument.
Also, I screwed up yesterday in saying that B D F A cannot be a min6. I
don't know what I was thinking when I confessed to a mistake but of course
it is a min6: it is a third inversion of Dmin6. I think one of the problems
you are having is that you assume the bottom note of the chord as you
play it on the guitar is the root.
>Of course it's good to try to be clear (when
>possible) about function, but this is secondary to conveying the desired
>sounds in the music. If the symbol conveys what is *supposedly* the correct
>harmonic function but doesn't convey the *correct sound*, it's wrong!
"Correct sound" and "harmonic function" are, in most cases, the same thing.
The reason I called that chord D13b5b9 is because it in the chord sequence
I gave you, it SOUNDS like a dominant chord. And the dominant of G is not
Ab.
>> Imagine this chord change :
>>
>> C C6/A
>>
>This is a different example than the others. In this case the sound would
>be the same for both and the root movement would remain the same, but one
>name (Am7) would probably be preferable.
"Probably" doesn't cut it. It sounds to me that you are arguing less from a
musical than a personal standpoint as in "I may not know harmony but I
know what I like". :>)
>In another scenario, C6/A might be preferable....for instance:
>
>C - C/B - C/Bb - C/A - C/G
Josh, what you have give here is not a harmonic description of a set of
changes but simply indications as to a guitarist as to how the base
melody should go.
>That might be preferable for conveying a certain idea there, especially if
>writing for a specific guitar idea with the open C chord....but really this
>is neither here nor there because both chords convey the same sound whereas
>in the other case, D13b9b5 would lead a player to an entirely different
(and
>wrong) root movement than Ab7#9.
Look, let's get this straight: a root is not the bottom note in a chord. A
root
can be played as the highest note.
GBDF, BDFG, DFGB, and FGBD are ALL V7 in the key of C.
>What *you* are not getting is that music and music notation
>should represent the sounds that are desired. In this case that would be a
>chord rooted on Ab. You're D13b9b5 obscures this.
Josh, you are way off the mark here. I am trying to be rude but I suspect
that you have not actually studied harmony. You are accusing me of
making some sort of abstract assessment of the name of a chord. But
harmony describes what is going on in actual music and is not used
to describe a pile of notes out of context. It is not some alienated
abstract
language. You are taking a chord completely out of context
(i.e., removing it from actual music) and assuming that its root is the
bottom
note. This is to misrecognize the sound of it and the sound of a chord is
meaningful only in the context of other chords. Otherwise it is just
an abstract assemblage of intervals and you can call it whatever you like.
So, to use the first example in this discussion, BDFA can be
Bmin7b5 (root position)
Dmin6 (3rd inversion)
B halfdim (root position)
And in the key of C, that chord is B halfdim.
Don
Josh Dougherty
From: Wallace Don <don.w...@nlc-bnc.ca>
To: <jbd...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: C6 vs Cmaj6
> Don Wallace <don.w...@nlc-bnc.ca <mailto:don.w...@nlc-bnc.ca>> wrote
in message
> <news:3a9d1...@webserv.nlc-bnc.ca>...
> > >Josh:
> >>
> >> You're just not getting this are you? :>)
>
> >I am "getting it". I just don't agree with your thinking. You should call
> >something what it *IS*, not what it's "supposed" to be if it was in an
> >entirely diatonic setting.
> But, Josh, that is EXACTLY the example I gave in my original post. If
> you look back you will see that the context about which I was complaining
> was a book which labelled VII7 (i.e., a diatonic setting) as a min7b5.
With
> what you have just said, you basically support my argument.
I don't agree that min7b5 is a faulty spelling. The b5 in the chord symbol
is stating an interval based on the root of the chord, and it has nothing to
do with what that note will or won't be in the key. The chord G7b9 would be
diatonic in the key of Cm, and "b9" is still appropriate because as with all
chord symbols, these these things are based on construction from the root
up.
>
> Also, I screwed up yesterday in saying that B D F A cannot be a min6. I
> don't know what I was thinking when I confessed to a mistake but of course
> it is a min6: it is a third inversion of Dmin6. I think one of the
problems
> you are having is that you assume the bottom note of the chord as you
> play it on the guitar is the root.
I am aware of inversions. That's not the problem. However, if the desired
effect is for an inversion of D7b9b5 then that must be explained in the
chord symbol somehow. If you just write D7b9b5, everyone's going to assume
that D is the desired bottom note. And, unlike Ab7, it also even assumes
that the note D is supposed to be heard when it may very well not even be
particularly wanted. Like I said, I think you're opting for a sound that
jives with your understanding of diatonic theory, but doesn't get the
specific desired sound across in an accurate or practical way.
> >Of course it's good to try to be clear (when
> >possible) about function, but this is secondary to conveying the desired
> >sounds in the music. If the symbol conveys what is *supposedly* the
correct
> >harmonic function but doesn't convey the *correct sound*, it's wrong!
>
> "Correct sound" and "harmonic function" are, in most cases, the same
thing.
> The reason I called that chord D13b5b9 is because it in the chord sequence
> I gave you, it SOUNDS like a dominant chord. And the dominant of G is not
> Ab.
Ab7 (bII) is understood as a dominant substitution.
F#*half-diminished* in this sequence will also SOUND like a dominant, so
shouldn't we call it D9?!?
In practice, the symbol D13b5b9 will generally result in the wrong
sound....a chord with D in the bass! ...or even just with the note D in the
chord, which is not assumed with an Ab7 symbol.
I will concede that on a functional basis, a good analysis would be that
it's a D13b5b9 voiced without it's root and with the b5 in the bass.
However that is not the only way to see it, but it is a valid way. In
standard notation the 3rd of the chord would be written as F# (the leading
tone in G) *not* as Gb (the b7 of Ab7). So what you are saying is valid.
But, the point you are missing is the practical value of enharmonic
spellings in chord symbol usage.
If the (enharmonic) sound of Ab7 is desired, and you feel a D symbol is more
appropriate. You must then find a way to tell the musicians that the
desired bass note should be Ab and the root D should not be voiced. This is
difficult and results in a clumsy chord symbol like:
"D7b5b9(no root)/Ab".
That is the only D symbol that will specificly produce the same sound as an
Ab7 symbol. That would seem to virtually nullify the practical benefits of
using chord symbols in the first place, and it wouldn't necessarily produce
any better understanding of the music.
Imagine if these kind of tri-tone substitutions were being used liberally in
a piece. Imagine a progression like: Am7-Ab7-Gm7-Gb7-Fm7-E7-Ebm7, and how
that would look using your preferred notation. It seems even more
ridiculous when a piano player or guitarist looks at their instrument and
sees that after all that they're just playing a simple Ab7 chord. I'd hate
to have to play from one of your charts, and so would everyone else.
It's a matter of practicality. It is quite a common substitution and is
generally *understood* that in a progression like: Am7-Ab7-Gmaj7, the Ab7 is
functioning like a V7 chord. That being the case, who the hell wants to
write, read, or use a ridiculously complicated symbol when an enharmonic
spelling will provide the correct sound, and is still understood the same
way.
> >> Imagine this chord change :
> >>
> >> C C6/A
> >>
> >This is a different example than the others. In this case the sound would
> >be the same for both and the root movement would remain the same, but one
> >name (Am7) would probably be preferable.
> "Probably" doesn't cut it. It sounds to me that you are arguing less from
a
> musical than a personal standpoint as in "I may not know harmony but I
> know what I like". :>)
>
If you're willing to presume that then it seems to me that you are doing the
same. I don't see any basis for saying the min7b5 isn't accurate. I also
don't see why "half-diminished" is particularly accurate in describing VII
in any capacity other than it describes the intervallic structure of that
chord. I think someone (probably with a classical theory background who
never actually uses these chord symbols in practice) told you it was wrong a
long time ago and you think you're "in the know". IOW...you just don't like
it.
> >In another scenario, C6/A might be preferable....for instance:
> >
> >C - C/B - C/Bb - C/A - C/G
> Josh, what you have give here is not a harmonic description of a set of
> changes but simply indications as to a guitarist as to how the base
> melody should go.
>
Yes, but each chord could also be notated as an individual chord. This
example really didn't matter, I was just showing an example where the C/A
symbol might be more useful than calling it Am7. It's not really all that
relevant to the discussion.
> >That might be preferable for conveying a certain idea there, especially
if
> >writing for a specific guitar idea with the open C chord....but really
this
> >is neither here nor there because both chords convey the same sound
whereas
> >in the other case, D13b9b5 would lead a player to an entirely different
> (and wrong) root movement than Ab7#9.
>
> Look, let's get this straight: a root is not the bottom note in a chord. A
> root can be played as the highest note.
> GBDF, BDFG, DFGB, and FGBD are ALL V7 in the key of C.
Ok....fine. Let's call it a "bass note" then. If seeing a D symbol for the
chord in question, the players will favor the WRONG bass note.
Let's also get this straight, you *could* also consider the lowest note of
any of those chords as the root. DFGB could be better viewed as Dm13 in
some cases, BDFG might be better viewed as a Bm6b5 in some cases. There's
more than one way to skin a cat.
>
> >What *you* are not getting is that music and music notation
> >should represent the sounds that are desired. In this case that would be
a
> >chord rooted on Ab. You're D13b9b5 obscures this.
> Josh, you are way off the mark here. I am trying to be rude but I suspect
> that you have not actually studied harmony.
I don't know why you would assume that I've never studied harmony just
because I happen to disagree with you on some specifics on the usage of
chord symbols. I accept the concepts of "substitution" and I accept
enharmonic spellings when there are practical benefits. I think you place
to much emphasis on diatonicism and diatonic theory, and I have a different
view on some things. No need for that kind of presumptuos derogatory
statement.
> You are accusing me of making some sort of abstract assessment of the name
of a chord.
I'm am not at all saying that your analysis is abstract or random. What I
am saying is that using your symbol would lead the musicians to favor the
wrong "bass note" and it would be unecessarily complicated for its'
practical application. In my book that's a bad symbol to use.
> But harmony describes what is going on in actual music and is not used
> to describe a pile of notes out of context. It is not some alienated
> abstract language.
And, there is more than one way to describe music. Calling it a 2nd
inversion of D7b9b5 is a acceptable and logical, but I'm still not convinced
at all that the Ab couldn't or shouldn't be considered the root if seeing it
a different way. The melody notes on the chord might be used based
particularly on their harmonic relationship to Ab. ie - the note D used
here could *sound* like #11, not like the "root". And, I don't feel that
the Ab must be justified by how it relates to a diatonic equivalent. That's
certainly beneficial information, but as i said before, the non-diatonic Ab
root may be the whole point. Diatonicism and major/minor keys is really
just *one* way to organize musical sounds (one i think is overemphasized
BTW). To me, A-Ab-G is just as good as roots, as A-D-G. It just so happens
that movement in 5ths is the most common way to organize sound and we have
more names for that. If the chord were A7sus-Ab7sus-G, how would you
explain that? You can't say it's a D7 anymore.
> You are taking a chord completely out of context
> (i.e., removing it from actual music) and assuming that its root is the
> bottom note.
The root very well could be the bottom note. You're assuming the root must
be a traditional diatonic one and that anything different must be justified
in relation to the diatonic traditions. I don't assume that. There's more
than one way to see or approach it. Of course, that is not to say your way
is wrong. But, conversely it doesn't mandate that any other way is wrong.
> This is to misrecognize the sound of it and the sound of a chord is
> meaningful only in the context of other chords.
Really? Meaningful? What the heck does that mean?
> Otherwise it is just an abstract assemblage of intervals and you can call
it whatever you like.
> So, to use the first example in this discussion, BDFA can be
> Bmin7b5 (root position)
> Dmin6 (3rd inversion)
> B halfdim (root position)
Not really, if the chord was standing alone in a one-chord piece of music,
the lowest tone would tend to sound as the root. For instance, if the bass
were laying on the note B, it would be near impossible to hear it as Dm6.
Calling it such would be kind of silly. Likewise, if the bass was
emphasizing D, it would be difficult to hear it as B(name of your choice).
> And in the key of C, that chord is B halfdim.
> Don
>
You've still to really explain why the term "half-diminished" is definitive
of a VII function. This is my point from before. You just like it more.
It seems to me that the name could be "purple" and be just as appropriate as
the term "half-diminished" is to this particular function. IMO the usual
function of VII in a major key would be "dominant", so we should really be
calling it G9(no root)/B right? The term "half-diminished" explains nothing
in particular other than the understood chord construction (R b3 b5 b7) and
it *could* even create a faulty assumption that it is somehow related to the
diminished scale or dim7 chords. It is just a name that describes the chord
construction, just like min7b5. If you respond to nothing else, please
explain this for me. I've asked more than once, and I really need your help
because I've never studied harmony. :)
And, I still accept a min7b5 symbol because I don't think it assumes that
the 5th is out of key. Any more than saying "a Dm7 has a b3" assumes that
the note F is out of key, or any more than saying G7b9 used in Cm, would
mean Ab must be outside the key. I notice you also didn't respond to those
examples in my previous post. Please do so.
Typing too much,
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> Like I said, I think you're opting for a sound that
> jives with your understanding of diatonic theory, but doesn't get the
> specific desired sound across in an accurate or practical way.
>
guitar...@hotmail.com
David L. Martel
A C6 chord is a C major chord with a 6th added. So, C E G A . It's not a
C7, C4 etc. Not sure what you mean by "dominant 6th and dominant 7th".. Are
you playing inversions? The 5th is the dominant in the scale.
Dave M.
Nil
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic:
> Isn't C6 referring to C dominant 6th,a substitute or variation of
> the dominant 7th chord ,whereas Cmajor 6th is a variation of the
> Major7h chord, 4th chord and 5th chord
C is a major triad (c e g)
C6 is a C major triad with an added major 6 interval (a).
Cmaj7 is C major triad with an added maj. 7 interval (b).
C7 is a C major triad with an added minor 7 interval (b flat).
C13 is a C7 chord with an added major 13 interval (a). Notice that this
is the same note as the maj. 6, but up an octave. Of course, the note
can be placed in any octave depending on the desired voicing. C13 also
implies that the 9 (d) and possibly the 11 (f) or #11 (f#) can be
included, too.
Les Cargill
C6 is identical to A minor ignoring inversions. C E A
Cadd6 has both the V note and the VI note - C E G A
Cmajor6 live in context with a C9 chord but is
otherwise the same as an Cadd6
--
Les Cargill
Bill Brewer
<guitar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:50c27ed7-b911-4925...@googlegroups.com...
> dominant 7th chord ,whereas Cmajor 6th is a variation of the Major7h
> chord, 4th chord and 5th chord
>
to a C Major chord (the triad, as one of the answers pointed out), we
usually drop the "Major" part as a matter of convention, so we just refer to
a "C chord", when we actually mean a C Major chord. What's confusing is that
"Major" can be used for some extended chords to mean that the Major 7th note
is present. This doesn't apply to the 6th chord. So, CMajor6 is the same
thing as C6. The chord formula is 1-3-5-6 (note: no Major 7th note!),
whether you call that chord C6 or CMajor6.
Confusing, huh?
Steve Freides
> guitar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Isn't C6 referring to C dominant 6th,a substitute or variation of the
>> dominant 7th chord ,whereas Cmajor 6th is a variation of the Major7h
>> chord, 4th chord and 5th chord
>>
>
>
>
> There is C6, Cadd6 and Cmajor6.
>
> C6 is identical to A minor ignoring inversions. C E A
>
> Cadd6 has both the V note and the VI note - C E G A
inversion Am. No one bothers to say C add 6 because C6 says the same
thing.
"Add" tells you to skip notes, e.g., C9 is C-E-G-Bb-D but C add 9 is
just the triad plus the 9th, C-E-G-D. Thus C add 9 is "take a C triad
and add a 9th."
> Cmajor6 live in context with a C9 chord but is
> otherwise the same as an Cadd6
hank alrich
basic open tunings. Could be wrong.
--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
Steve Freides
of instruments, save that the guy who play with Allison Kraus is just
plain awesome at it. Would love a primer.
-S-
Les Cargill
> Steve Freides <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
>
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> guitar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Isn't C6 referring to C dominant 6th,a substitute or variation of the
>>>> dominant 7th chord ,whereas Cmajor 6th is a variation of the Major7h
>>>> chord, 4th chord and 5th chord
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is C6, Cadd6 and Cmajor6.
>>>
>>> C6 is identical to A minor ignoring inversions. C E A
>>>
>>> Cadd6 has both the V note and the VI note - C E G A
>>
>> Both the above are C-E-G-A. Your C6 is Am/C in guitar lingo or 1st
>> inversion Am.
was optional but the A wasn't.
>> No one bothers to say C add 6 because C6 says the same
>> thing.
>>
>> "Add" tells you to skip notes, e.g., C9 is C-E-G-Bb-D but C add 9 is
>> just the triad plus the 9th, C-E-G-D. Thus C add 9 is "take a C triad
>> and add a 9th."
>>
>>> Cmajor6 live in context with a C9 chord but is
>>> otherwise the same as an Cadd6
>>
>> Never seen Cmaj6.
>
> I think Les came by that one via steel guitar, where it's one of the
> basic open tunings. Could be wrong.
>
are a superset of the chord they are named for anyway.
I honestly don't remember where I got the idea from. Yeah, Cadd6 and C6
are often the same thing. "You mean Cadd6?" will disambiguate.
Most people do not mean an inversion on Am; they mean CEGA.
--
Les Cargill
hank alrich
exemplary taste.
He plays mostly resonator guitar, and probably can preach on steel
guitar, too, but neither of those are "pedal steel".
Resonater guitars, "dobros, "lap steel" guitars are essentially guitars
tuned open and played with a steel.
> Would love a primer.
Long ago I could play resonator ("dobro") decently, but I haven't done
that in years. My attention span is too short to really deal with pedal
steel. One needs to become a mechanic skilled in adjusting fussy stuff
in order to keep one's instrtument properly functional. The history of
those is fascinating and includes a lot of pioneers who developed their
own tunings and mechanisms. Some of the instruments have become
fascinatingly complex, with multiple necks in different tunings, lots of
pedals, knee levers, and probably more of which I know nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_String_Instrument_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissenborn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedal_steel_guitar
gtr
> Isn't C6 referring to C dominant 6th, a substitute or variation of the
> dominant 7th chord,
No, it isn't. It is referring to a CMaj6. A "dominant 6th" is called a C13.
Steve Freides
in the bass, I say Am7: A-C-E-G. If you have a bass player, then it
mostly doesn't matter, anyway.
-S-
Les Cargill
Joe Wright:
http://www.sierrasteels.com/lessons/e9th-lessons.html
Mickey Adams.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Singlpilot
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
E9 tunes B-D-E-F♯-G♯-B-E-G♯-D♯-F♯ open ( big to small ).
the (5)B & (4)E are the same as strings 1 & 2 on a six string.
The D# and F# on strings 2 and 1 are *lower in pitch* than the E and
G# on 4 & 3, respectively. This is by historical accident. The (3)G#
is highest in pitch, then (1)F#, then (4)E, then (2)D#.
The reason is that Buddy Emmons put them on that way when
going from 8 to 10 strings and other people copied him before he could
put them in order. Literally pure path dependence.
After a while, it actually makes sense for them to be that way - your
main triad is all together that way. You hit fewer F# and D# strings;
they are mainly there for passing tones, or -add notes (2, 9 or maj7)
For E9 ( Nashville ) steel, the main pedals/levers are:
A - Raises the B strings to C# for a vi chord.
B - Raises the G# to A. A+B gives you a IV chord, B is a sus4, A alone
is a vi chord. Rocking on and off the A pedal with B down is *THE*
steel sound - IVsus2-IV ( relative to no pedals - A and B down
could be the tonic depending. )
C - Raises (5)B and (4)E to C# and F# to give you a ii chord.
E lower lever - Lowers all E's to D# for a iii (G# at the open string )
chord. Provide for the vii chord in a chord scale. It may be
half-diminished; I forget.
The E lower with the B pedal give you a Vdom7.
F lever - Raise the E's to F. Makes for a dim or dom7 dependent on
context. Also turns the A-alone pedal into a major VI.
Which lever or pedal is which varies form guitar to guitar. There
are a couple of standards.
There are other levers and pedals. The main one is the X lever, which
turns an AB pedal A major into a minor by lowering the B strings to A#.
Most have a lever to drop (2)D# to D or D and C# ( with what is
called a half-stop ) Pedal steels are "programmable" and you can make
any "copedent" you like. There are lots of them.
Tune string (9)D to A# and it's a completely different guitar.
The ideas is to be able to play a chord scale without moving the bar.
And sure enough, you can. You can't hit the same strings for all
chords, though. On real material, it is not a sin (quite the opposite
) to move the bar, it's just riskier. I hear big name players who plant
the bar wrong now and again.
C6 is even more complex but somehow also simpler. It's
C-F-A-C-E-G-A-C-E-G or C-F-A-C-E-G-A-C-E-D
There are five standard pedals
4 - Raise the (4)A and (8)A to B. Moves a 6th onto a major 7.
5 - Raise (1)G to G#, lower (5)G to F#, raise (9)F to F# and (10)C to D
. I don't actually know what that makes, but you can slide up three
frets and get a very minor-sounding IV chord.
6 - IV chord in place *or a minor* - lower (6)E to D# and raise (2)E to
an F.
7 - Raise (3) and (4) a whole tone each. It's the 13th tuning pedal, I
believe.
8 - Dunno, don't have one. (7)C to C#, (9)F to E, (10)C to A ( same a
as on an open bass guitar ). Lol, whut?
C6 pedals *replaced necks* on multiple-neck guitars. Mostly. You can
have any tuning and copedent you desire.
Obviously, picking strings carefully you can get a shipload of things
without even moving a pedal. Chord scale without a lever/pedal involves
at most two frets either side from the home fret.
There may be levers, but they are not particularly standard.
I use a U12, which is both an E9 and B6 in one, with some
pieces missing but real advantages for some things.
http://www.larrybell.org/id24.htm
I think Ralph Mooney just about used only three pedals.
Eddie Rivers don't need no pedals at all.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Different disciplines entirely. IMO, the really great steel
players tended not to play pedal, partly because it's new
so the test of time favors those who were before.
>> Would love a primer.
>
> Long ago I could play resonator ("dobro") decently, but I haven't done
> that in years. My attention span is too short to really deal with pedal
> steel. One needs to become a mechanic skilled in adjusting fussy stuff
> in order to keep one's instrtument properly functional.
> The history of
> those is fascinating and includes a lot of pioneers who developed their
> own tunings and mechanisms. Some of the instruments have become
> fascinatingly complex, with multiple necks in different tunings, lots of
> pedals, knee levers, and probably more of which I know nothing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobro
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_String_Instrument_Corporation
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissenborn
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedal_steel_guitar
>
--
RichL
news:1m4fnl7.1su3f3hlu92wiN%walk...@nv.net...
my lap steel tuned that way (I think actually following a suggestion of
Les).
Nil
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic:
> For me, if I want a C in the bass, I say C6: C-E-G-A, and if I
> want an A in the bass, I say Am7: A-C-E-G. If you have a bass
> player, then it mostly doesn't matter, anyway.
moment. If it's acting as a C or substitute thereof, I'd call it C6 or
C/A depending on the bass note. If it's more of an Am thing I'd call it
Am7 or Am7/C depending on the bass note. Sometimes the bass note is
what it is for nice voice leading and doesn't really describe what the
chord is doing.
Les Cargill
--
Les Cargill
Bill
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedal_steel_guitar
Thanks for posting this. It answered more questions about pedal steel
guitar than I even knew I had!
Bill
RichL
news:mj66tc$hjh$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1m4fnl7.1su3f3hlu92wiN%walk...@nv.net...
>>> basic open tunings. Could be wrong.
>>
>> Usually it's just referred to as C6. Most common is C-E-G-A-C-E. I've
>> got my lap steel tuned that way (I think actually following a suggestion
>> of Les).
>
> SCHWEET! Fun ain't they? Put a pic up on teh Facebook, plz.
it gives you lots of different closely spaced intervals (major 2nd, minor
3rd, major 3rd...).
If you look at my FB album called "Family Room" (which I put together for a
relative who does interior decorating, who I had asked to give me some
suggestions to spruce it up), you'll see it on a stand underneath the
Gretsch Tenny, the Seagull acoustic, and the Jerry Garcia pic :-) Not close
enough to see any detail, though.
It's a homemade job that I bought used - cheap. It's got a Fender-style
pickup about in the same location where the middle pickup would be on a
Strat. Purists tell me that's "wrong" but it gives the thing kind of a
unique tone that I like. I'll get some close-up pics and put 'em up.