Major-Minor

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='522427' date='Jun 24 2009, 11:04 AM']Am I right in thinking that the 'common tones' Spiltmilk was referring to are nothing more complicated than relative minors (the sixth mode of any major scale or a minor chord three semitones below that major)? C6 is Am7, D6 is Bm7, G6 is Em7 etc. As for the Neopolitan stuff, I think MM is right. This is another way of repackaging stuff that is known by other terms elsewhere. It sounds a lot like figured bass to me but I am not 100% on 'classical' theory; my knowledge all comes from the use of theory in jazz. Its the sounds that matter not the names! Stravinsky influences Ohad Talmor a lot (he even quotes the Rite of Spring in a solo) [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lhistoire-Du-Clochard-Bums-Tale/dp/B001PM2P0A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1245837764&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lhistoire-Du-Cloch...7764&sr=8-1[/url] or OhadTalmor.com[/quote] Hi Bilbo Thanks for bringing this album to my (our) attention. I've never been a big fan of Steve Swallow - I find his tone a bit lifeless - but this album (having listened to the clips on Amazon) sounds really interesting. I love the line-up ! Especially as there are no drums !! And compositionally, it does as you say have Stravinskyesque influences. Can you tell me more about this sextet - the players / who wrote the pieces etc I rarely buy CDs these days but I might have to get this one. The Major

[quote name='dlloyd' post='524880' date='Jun 26 2009, 02:33 PM']Yes. Here's an interesting article on the influence of jazz on French music in the time period we're talking about... [url="http://mq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XXI/1/53.pdf"]http://mq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XXI/1/53.pdf[/url] Let me know if you can't open it, but I don't think it's password protected. Edit: I just got to the end of it. I don't agree with the conclusion about the 'failure of French jazz', but then it was written from an American perspective in 1935.[/quote] Hi dlloyd I tried to get to read this article but got fed up with registration process - too convoluted for my poor brain ! Perhaps you could give us a precis of the contents ? The Major

[quote name='silddx' post='524690' date='Jun 26 2009, 10:42 AM']Ahh, the harmonic series! Gotcha. So fifths and fouths are prominent in the harmonic overtones of every note I play. Thank you. I expect what gives a particular bass its character is how the materials it comprises emphasise these overtones. Stacked fifths, they are so useful! I pull those out of the bag every now and then and my singer really likes them, presumably because of the lovely harmonic support they provide.[/quote] Just to correct and clarify: The most prominent overtone (harmonic) is the octave, then the fifth, then another octave higher, then the 3rd. After that the harmonics become somewhat indistinct and actually slightly out of tune. There is a flattened 7th in there but I am not aware of any 4th or at least not one that is easily heard. The Major

[quote name='dlloyd' post='522389' date='Jun 24 2009, 10:20 AM']It was more a point of interest than anything else, but I thought it worth mentioning since Spiltmilk had stumbled across Neopolitan sixths. I find this stuff interesting for a few reasons, but what particularly intrigues me is the influence that classical harmonies had on jazz. It's pretty well documented that Satie and Debussy (for example) had a big influence on various jazz musicians and composers, and their use of devices like the French sixth certainly appears to have filtered into the jazz vocabulary in the form of tritone subs and altered dominants. But yeah... there's no need to think of them in these terms.[/quote] Actually composers like Satie and Debussy (and Ravel/Walton/Poulenc/Stravinsky/Delius etc) were writing during the period when jazz was in development, so they were influenced by jazz as much as jazz was taking ideas from them. And lets be clear: All these terms like Neopolitan 6ths etc were theorised during the Classical period ie the 18th and 19th centuries. Composers like Haydn and Mozart rarely strayed from the 4 note chord. It was really during the late Romantic period that harmonies started to really thicken and extend. Think of Mahler / Rhakmaninov / Richard Strauss etc But you are right - its all very interesting ! The Major

One little tip that might help: On the BG you use all 4 fingers (mostly) as "independent" note producers. On DB, the 3rd finger in all the lower positions, should be thought of as being "joined" to the 4th finger ie whenever you place the 4th finger on the fingerboard, the 3rd finger should also be there with it, firmly placed on the f'board. The 3rd finger doesn't get used till you reach the octave position ie where the octave G harmonic is on the G string. Also try this: Hold you left hand in front of you and mimic the position it would have on the bass. There needs to be a gap between the 1st and 2nd fingers that should be the same distance as between the 2nd and 4th fingers. So the 3rd will appear squashed between 2 and 4. The thumb should be opposite the 2nd finger. This is the perfect hand-position. Yo need to stretch the gap between 1 and 2. To help develop this, place a matchbox or something similar between 1 and 2 while watching the telly or some other non active pastime. The Major

[quote name='silddx' post='523845' date='Jun 25 2009, 04:43 PM']Erm, sorry, what is the harmonic series? Something to do with the diatonic chords built on the major and minor scales? Or that the fourths and fifths commonly define the major or minor nature of a chord? I really am guessing here![/quote] Rob has again given some great detailed explanations re the harmonic series. But let me try to put it another way: Music THEORY is a man made system - developed over thousands of years. The HARMONIC SERIES is a fact - its science - its mathematical. I'm no scientist so this will be brief! Choose a string on your bass - lets use the G for my example. It vibrates from the nut to the bridge producing G. Lightly place your finger over the 12th fret and pluck - you get a HARMONIC also G an octave above the open string. Notice that you have divided the string in half to get this pitch. Place your finger over the 7th fret (D) - you create the note D one octave above the fretted note. Now place your finger lightly over the 5th fret © on the same string - you have quartered the string and you get G but now 2 octaves above the open string. Essentially you are making your way up the HARMONIC SERIES. Now it starts to get complicated and I won't go into details but if you move your finger lightly towards the nut plucking as you go you will find (with care) more HARMONICS getting higher and higher until they are almost inaudible. This is the HARMONIC SERIES. The Major

While Rob is spot on with his explanation, let me just add this: When we write C7 (for example) what we actually mean is C DOMINANT 7, and this word DOMINANT has the meaning that this chord DOMINATES the tonic key - in this case F. It does not want to stay still - it NEEDS to move. In other words, C7 naturally wants to RESOLVE its tension to the triad of F. (Harmony is all about tension and release). The Bb note in C7 wants to RESOLVE to A and the E in C7 wants to RESOLVE to F. The TENSION is caused by the tritone of E and Bb wanting to RESOLVE to F and A (a major third). This also works in the minor key C (dominant) 7 resolving to F minor. Having said all this, in a lot of jazz and rock music, this TENSION is left unresolved. Try to imagine this groove (or play it on the guitar/piano): C7 for one bar followed by Bb7 for another - loop this round. Feels good - that's because TENSION is there in the unresolved DOMINANT 7ths. But its a GOOD TENSION. Maybe add the 9th and the 13th to both chords - even more TENSION and starting to sound jazzy. This creates a great atmosphere. All these words - DOMINANT / TENSION / RELEASE / RESOLVE - are very apt in the world of music (and another area of life ! but we'll gloss over that!) The Major

The biggest difference with BG and DB is of course the lack of frets. This means you have to listen more carefully if you are to play in tune. You need to get into the habit of constant adjustment. Initially let the open strings be your guide, and judge every fingered note with reference to them. Get yourself a teacher asap so you don't get into bad habits which will be harder to correct the longer you leave it. Good luck - let us know how you progress. The Major

I think the Forum owes a huge debt of gratitude to you 2 guys for starting this thread. I'll add my twopennyworth when i have a moment, but for now - keep up the good work !! The Major

[quote name='dlloyd' post='521834' date='Jun 23 2009, 04:33 PM']While you've mentioned the Neopolitan sixth, it might be worthwhile mentioning the augmented sixths (to see if I understand them correctly): Italian sixth French sixth German sixth They also usually come before the dominant chord. An Italian sixth also comes before the dominant chord, but is built from a root that's a semitone sharp of the dominant... so in C major, you're talking about Ab. You add a major third ( C ) and the augmented sixth (F#). You end up with a chord that's enharmonic with an Ab7 without the fifth, which is almost like a tritone subbed secondary dominant. The French sixth is similar, but adds another note, which is the #4... in this case D, giving you a chord that is enharmonic with Ab7b5. The German sixth is like an Italian 6th with an added fifth. In C major, that would essentially add the 5th (Eb) to the Ab7 chord.[/quote] Whilst this is really fascinating stuff (and thanks dlloyd for bringing it to our attention), I think the jazzer should be aware that this all relates to 19th century musical thinking and is possibly not something that needs to be ingested and retained. I haven't heard any of these terms since music college 40 years ago ! The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='521477' date='Jun 23 2009, 10:04 AM']OK. I'll have a think today and kick something off. How about Key/tonal centres and modes? Any other ideas?[/quote] I love the idea of getting really stuck in with modes ! I THINK I know what I'm talking about with modes - but I had an argument last year with a very eminent classical soloist about this subject (quite fierce it was too!) and its left me wondering whether I'm wrong ! Yes please - lets pool our knowledge and understanding on this one. The Major

[quote name='dlloyd' post='521764' date='Jun 23 2009, 03:00 PM']Memorising is a good way to do it. C6 is the first inversion of Am7. When you put a standard chord into its first inversion, you're essentially placing the third at the bottom. This inverts the interval between the root and the third, turning it into a sixth. The inversion between a major interval is always a minor interval and vice versa. So a major 3rd always inverts to a minor 6th and a minor 3rd always inverts to a major 6th. In a m7 chord, the 3rd, 5th and 7th form a major triad built on the 3rd. In a maj7 chord, the 3rd, 5th and 7th form a minor triad built on the 3rd. In a dominant 7 chord, the 3rd, 5th and 7th form a diminished triad built on the 3rd. In a m7b5 chord, the 3rd, 5th and 7th form a minor triad built on the 3rd. See how that works? So (in the key of C), Cmaj7 will become Emb6 Dm7 will become F6 Em7 will become G6 Fmaj7 will become Amb6 G7 will become Bmb5b6 Am7 will become C6 Bm7b5 will become Dm6 (I think that's right)[/quote] This is all good stuff. And realizing that all common chords are made up of triads - major/minor/diminished and augmented - is a great starting point. But can I just say I have never seen the chord symbol Emb6. While it is perfectly logical, I think it better to write it (and think it) Cmaj7/E. As a bass player, I think its best to "see" patterns of arpeggiated notes on the fingerboard/ fretboard. Then the common tonalities between differing chords will become apparent. I can't really offer any more advice on this question - I think its mainly down to learning all possible arpeggio shapes and, as I say, recognizing the common tones as you go. The Major

[quote name='dlloyd' post='521742' date='Jun 23 2009, 02:37 PM']No doubt Major Minor will correct me on this, but I'll give it a go. It's a major triad built on a note a semitone above the tonic that resolves to the dominant chord. So in C major, you're talking about Db going to G7, the Db chord being the 'Neapolitan sixth'. It has some commonalities with tritone substitution, in that it is usually (always?) associated with the dominant chord and introduces the b5 and b9 of the dominant chord (Db and Ab in a Db major triad). Don't worry too much about the 'sixth' bit. It's not a sixth chord in the sense that we'd normally use it. (prepares to be shot down)[/quote] Actually I'm the one who should be shot down ! I used the term Neapolitan 6th in a post the other day, thinking i knew what it was. My elderley father, a died in the wool classical man, had used the term during a recent conversation and I thought I knew what it was. How wrong could I be !? I looked it up on wikipedia just now and you are absolutely right. Except that it is usually to be found in its first inversion - F Db Ab (a Db major triad with the 3rd at the bottom) hence the "sixth" - as it is a sixth from F to Db. It is to be fair very much a "classical" device having been used by Beethoven in particular - not something for the jazzer to worry about too much ! The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='521220' date='Jun 22 2009, 10:02 PM']Hear! hear!! And if people want to learn or gain a greater understanding of musical principles because of the content of "advanced conversation in a forum" then all well and good. But a word of warning MM, there are some really negative entities who will attempt to disturb your input. There is a considerable number of members who (believe it or not) poo poo the idea of theory and (god forbid) the ability to read music. Don't let them put you off, because I assure you, you will meet them fairly soon Perhaps it is time to start new thread, one that has educational and practical info that can give intermediate players advice and info that can help them advance. After all, it can only help interested people. Anyone up for it?[/quote] I certainly agree with this last idea. I'd be only too happy to contribute. Do you fancy starting us off ? The Major

[quote name='Eight' post='521207' date='Jun 22 2009, 09:53 PM']I don't see a big problem with chord names - but I've never taught or really dealt with theory outside of my own interest, so my point of view might be different. It generally makes sense to me - and when it doesn't I read more theory and come back to it later. Diminished sevenths ok to me. But if I had to explain it to someone then maybe I'd see more where you're coming from there. Ah I wish you'd taught me all those years ago - instead I had to unpick all the misinformation my teacher imparted.[/quote] Most modern chord names are perfectly straightforward and I have always advocated that it is the best way to learn about and understand harmony, at least for the beginner. I would encourage anybody with a thirst for musical knowledge to at least dip into the old traditional way of understanding harmony and theory but the chord symbol method is a good starting point. My point with this thread was simply to point out some of the possible areas of misunderstanding and confusion. The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='521117' date='Jun 22 2009, 08:26 PM']To go a very long way around your question: I have, over the years, accumulated a vast library of stuff because apart from piano lessons and a brief time at music college (where they gave out diplomas if you just turned up), I have had to "self educate" to achieve a modicum of understanding of this wonderful thing called music. I had a great degree of difficulty getting answers to problems like "avoid" notes (a poor terminology really) and things like minor scale choices for harmony, arranging and improvisation, key centres and modal music, so when I had a few quid, I bought everything and anything I could to satisfy my thirst for knowledge. Because of copyright probs etc, I can't upload most of it on to here unfortunately. But if you PM me your email address, I will "lend" you an electronic copy of that document. It is fairly basic, but very informative and as you can see, easy reading. I still believe that Mark Levine and his book on Jazz Theory is the most comprehensive I have come across. But even so, it is still missing in some areas. Especially if you have OCD for musical knowledge - as I do The best jazz educational publication I have is by [url="http://www.barryharris.com/"](link here)[/url] Barry Harris, who is a great educator and a brilliant musician and man, still teaching for no financial reward in New York at the age of 80. A DVD (4 hours) with him in a practical class allied to a superb book which explains in depth all of his theories (and he turns a few previous conventional ideas upside down) has been the most impressive I have in my library. You can borrow that too, if you like. He certainly puts a different take on Jazz theory. He actually played at the Vanguard (still does) and sat in with Charlie Parker et al. I have written this last bit with the intent of introducing Barry Harris to anyone who hasn't heard about him and wants to learn. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Harris"]Here is his impressive C.V.[/url], and profile. Rob[/quote] I will look further into this guy Barry Harris and also Mark Levine when I have a moment spare - many thanks for the info. I suppose my educational experience was the opposite to yours - 4 years of "classical" music college where I was filled with so many RULES and stylistic constraints that, to this day, i still feel, when i solo in a jazz setting, that my "diatonic" straight-laced upbringing is holding me back. I want to break free from this - but its hard. Its sort of ingrained in me. I watch and listen to people like Laurence Cottle and Jeff Berlin and try to get under their skin but usually fail ! The Major

[quote name='Eight' post='521070' date='Jun 22 2009, 07:49 PM']Well... you were suggesting that some of the terminology and concepts relating to music theory (I think chord construction was your example) was maybe a little confusing or inaccessible to newbies? Finding an isolated internet forum post about a concept that is far more advanced than what you've managed to learn so far is always going to be confusing. It'd be like me talking about programming with recursive functions before you've even learned what a function is. To an extent I can try and explain but then instead of a post about recursive functions I have to explain a much wider concept and you'd have to take in a lot more information in one go. Chord names aren't always self-explanatory, but they're not too bad if you've previously covered the material you need to make sense of them. I don't mean this in any kind of way to exclude newbs (hell, I still have lots to catch up on myself) - just that if a concept isn't clear then at times it would be better to recommend they go back to more fundamental information first. Oh and of course the 'you' in most of this message is referring to a general you - not you specifically. Since at a guess I'd say you know a lot more about theory than I do anyway.[/quote] Perhaps I didn't put things very well (as usual some might say). What I;m actually trying to say is this: Music theory/notation is not a science. It has developed over several hundred years, and particularly with the introduction of "jazz" type chord symbols, a few misnomers and anomolies (what IS the correct spelling ?) have appeared which are confusing enough for the experienced muso - never mind for the newbie. I can remember fretting over the meaning of the diminished 7 chord when I first saw it. Is it a diminished triad with a normal dominant 7 as you might imagine ? No its actually a dim triad with a major 6th from the root !! How confusing is that ? Have a look at the entry for diminshed 7ths on Wikipedia and you will see what I mean. Now I don't do much teaching these days (I must tell you all my teaching anecdotes sometime - all 2 of them) but when I do, I try to make sure my students don't go away with misunderstandings re the more complex chord symbols. To be fair, i did aim this thread at the more advanced musos who inhabit this chat room - and I'm beginning to realise that there are a lot of them. And they are very knowledgeable and we can all learn from each other - never stop the quest for better understanding in music I say. We all think in different ways and its great to get other peoples views. So I'll keep droning on and hopefully get people to reply, even if these discussions aren't for everyone. The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='520247' date='Jun 21 2009, 08:50 PM']Great post, thanks. The Scott Henderson info is interesting...... When I brought up the minor 9th "discussion" I didn't think it would develop this far Hopefully the attached document will assist as a GENERAL guide on why this interval can be the most dissonant of them all. [/quote] Rob - this "avoid notes" document is intriguing. What book is it from and by whom ?

[quote name='rslaing' post='520257' date='Jun 21 2009, 09:02 PM']I agree with everything you say And perhaps we are just putting things in different ways. I was trying to keep things really simple, because of the nature of the topic - and perhaps my points, although in agreement with yours, were a little too vague and therefore could be misleading. Anyway, it's been interesting and thanks for your input. I hope you can convey more of your wisdom and knowledge in future posts, I look forward to them. Rob[/quote] Hi Rob - I must say I'm enjoying all our various ramblings - it makes me think about things I've not thought about for years! Re 5ths: I think I've finally cottoned on to what you were talking about ! You are right of course - if there is one note that CAN be left out of a 7th chord it is the 5th. And this idea (as you know I won't call it a RULE!) stems from the classical period when all harmony theorising was in 4 parts or voices - a string quartet or SATB (soprano/also/tenor/bass) for instance. (This is the way I was taught at music college back in the dark ages. Endless 4 part harmony exercises with RULES like no consecutive fifths or doubled thirds - all perfectly reasonable if you want to write "church" harmony - but if like me you were into voluptuous jazz chords it was soooo boring!) So if a 5 note chord - say a C dominant 9th - was to be written for string quartet (4 parts), the 5th, being the least important note, was omitted. That is not to say that its omission won't make the chord sound different - its just the one note that has the least effect on the chord's overall tonality. As you said, the 5th is implied anyway by the harmonic overtones of the tonic. So we are in full agreement - OK ? (Note to self - I must learn to read people's words more carefully) The Major

[quote name='dlloyd' post='521018' date='Jun 22 2009, 06:57 PM']I certainly can when I'm playing them. And you'd certainly be able to tell the difference if you heard me playing flat keys on an A. I'd much rather play concert Eb major on a Bb clarinet (key of F major to me... kid's stuff) than on an A (Gb major... ouch). There's also a tonal difference between them, the A sounding darker than the Bb (all other things being equal, of course). Edit: Although if you were to ask me on listening to an unfamiliar piece whether it had been played on an A or a Bb, I probably couldn't [/quote] I hear clarinets every day of my working life and I've never been able to hear any difference between A and Bb although i think i could distinguish an Eb clari but maybe thats because usually the parts he plays are in quite a distinctive high shrill register. When I orchestrate I always use Bb clars mainly due to laziness - can't be bothered to think which is best ! I have had clari players ticking me off about this !

[quote name='Eight' post='520037' date='Jun 21 2009, 04:30 PM']Granted. But learning music theory is much easier if you start at chapter one and work your way from there. Not by jumping around topics and trying to pick up concepts you haven't done the ground work for.[/quote] I'm intrigued by your comments and wonder whether you would give us a more detailed viewpoint. Your first sentence is stating the obvious - the second leaves me wondering what you are trying to say ! The Major

[quote name='dlloyd' post='520170' date='Jun 21 2009, 07:03 PM']They don't play all notes equally well. Nor does a Bb clarinet (for example) sound the same as an A clarinet or (God forbid) a C clarinet.[/quote] You must have incredible ears if you can distinguish between A and Bb clarinets !

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='520064' date='Jun 21 2009, 05:06 PM']I've always felt that music is something that's constantly in development, and the theory of it tends to lag somewhat behind its usage. No one (at least, not many!) writes the theory before the music- they write the theory later to try and describe the music. We have a tendency to think of musical theory as something static and unchanging, when in fact its completely the opposite. The development of music can more or less be defined IMO as the breaking of the last generation's set of rules, and this accounts for a lot of the anomalies etc. That said, my favourite (or least favourite, I suppose) is the idea of transposing instruments (horns in F, E flat trumpets etc) when we now have a prefectly good trumpet (or horn, or whatever) capable of playing all 12 notes equally well. It just seems totally redundant.[/quote] Absolutely right. Just as language constantly changes, our approach to musical understanding changes. And believe me, my own approach to everything musical, be it playing composing or arranging is always under review. Without that desire to learn you might as well give up. I must just comment on the point re transposing instruments. Not that i am a brass/wind player, though I've written often enough for them, but as i understand it, it is to do with the fundamental notes (the roots of the harmonic series) on say a Bb trumpet or an Eb euphonium. And on a Bb or A clarinet, its the fingering which is the same but a semitone away. So a C trumpet or a C clarinet is easy to write for. Mind you with computer technology, you don't ever have to worry about transposing any more - its all done at the push of a button. The Major

You may have seen the debate that some of us have started on the "Walking Bass" thread. As this is getting a little off topic I thought maybe we should start a new thread. The discussion so far has really got my brain into gear, and I've consulted with some of my pro orchestral colleagues, and the more we talked the more we realised that there are many anomalies and misnomers in the world of music theory which can make the study of this subject rather tedious and misleading. I'm sure you will all have a few of your own examples to share with us but here are my first few: The words MAJOR and MINOR (apt considering my nome de plume) We all know what we mean when we talk about a major triad or a minor triad. But confusion arises for the newbie when we talk of the interval of a MINOR 2nd (C-Db) or MINOR ninth. What's MINOR about these intervals (if youv'e just had Major and Minor triads explained and demonstrated). They are simply dissonant surely ? A MAJOR second (C-D) is clear enough, because it is the second note of the tonic major scale - the supertonic in old parlance. However in a minor scale the supertonic is the same note (D) and not Db. So this still doesn't explain the problem. The truth is in the origins of the meaning of these words: Minor means less (flattened) Major means more (sharpened) So both words can be used to mean something slightly different depending on context. This needs to be made clear to the student from the start. Another example: Cm6 We all know that is C Eb G A But C minor has 3 flats in the key signature - so why isn't it an Ab ? That of course would give us Ab major 7 (second inversion) Oh you might say - the A natural is because of the melodic minor scale - that has an A natural in it. But this opens another can of worms (and maybe a debate for another thread) about natural, harmonic and melodic minor scales. But to the newbie, Cm6 can be a misleading chord name. I think the way jazz language has developed over the last 60 or 70 years has a lot to do with these confusions. "Classical" theory has always been fairly clear (but long-winded in its nomenclature). Chromatic supertonic 7th / Dominant 7th with a Neapolitan 6th / Tonic suspension / Tonic (in key of C) If we write this in jazz abbreviations we get D7 G13 Csus C. Much easier to read but THIS system has many misnomers: The 11th chord When I was first a young musician many moons ago, we never (or rarely) saw the 11th chord written on parts. It was always written: Gm7/C (G minor 7 with a C root) and I still always write it this way for clarity. Essentially the 11th chord is a miss-abbreviation (brought in I believe by the Americans - they have a lot to answer for, and not just in MUSICAL language) Viz: If you build up a C dominant chord in 3rds you get C E G Bb D F (A) - 1/3/5/7/9/11/13 This is quite a dissonant sound - very usable in the right context but nevertheless quite strident. So it is not so useful as a basic chord in a jazz sequence. But if you drop the "E" you get a lovely sound, and one which is easy to solo over (the scale of F major fitting nicely). Hence really it should be called Gm7((9)/C but that takes up a fair bit of space on the page so it has been reduced to C11. Not really theoretically correct, but we all know what is meant - unless you are a beginner who hasn't had this properly explained. Similarly for a dominant 13th chord - same as before C E G Bb D F A is the "correct" notage - building in 3rds (major and minor). But we all know that a 13th as written on a chart means no F and an optional D. (Of course we can sharpen the F giving us a "13 sharp 11" chord - but that's a whole different story). That lovely sound of the tritone (Bb-E) with a perfect 4th above(A) is really one of the most distinctive sounds in the jazz cannon. And of course if you change the root from C to Gb (so Gb Bb Fb Bbb or Gb Bb E A) you get another such jazzy timbre, the sharp 9 chord (or, as I was taught, the flat 10) So to summarize the point I'm trying to make: When we talk on this forum about the modern way of writing chord sequences, we should be aware that for the newbie, some of the terms used are confusing (indeed they ARE confused), and to the young enquiring mind, this can be most disheartening. Thats it for now. Looking forward to hearing your own thoughts and examples on this subject. The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='517862' date='Jun 18 2009, 09:40 PM']Too many pints probably I agree! But the point I was trying to make is that the chord is defined by the 3rd and the seventh. These are the most important notes that will define the "sound" of the chord. If you omit either of these in preference to the fifth, the chord will sound "weaker". Try it - play C - E(the third as against the fifth) - Bb as a chord (C7) and then play C - G (the fifth)- Bb as a C7. The latter is profoundly weaker. In other words, in a 3 note chord (in jazz) , the note to omit is the fifth, because it will be heard as a harmonic overtone from the root anyway. My points were made with reference to creating/writing walking bass lines. I add to my post by saying that if the fifth is an altered fifth, then it is very important that this note is effected. Apologies for not making that clear. Any altered note in a chord has to be obvious, and preferably but not necessarily by the bass player. Sorry, there are rules, as you pointed out in your previous paragraph above. As Charlie Parker said - “Master your instrument, Master the music, and then forget all that sh*t and just play.” It is important that you know the basic rules, then you can just eliminate what is not necessary, or apply your own preferences. Please re-read your paragraph And my quote. My comment is with reference to 11th chords - not a "normal" dominant. Minor 9ths are the most dissonant interval (as you are probably aware) and unless you are know what you are doing, avoid them. Dissonances in the hands of an expert are not a problem, and using them as an approach note they are possibly the definitive sound in jazz. I omitted to mention that a minor ninth in a dominant chord is the exception - apologies, and thanks for the correction. To a newbie or someone setting out in the area of harmony and in this case, walking bass lines, it is very important that they have this knowledge - IMO. Most non chordal and some chordal notes can be altered when reading, for example, a lead sheet, unless they clash with the melody note, just avoid minor ninths until you are aware of their impact. Not at all, you can't beat a good debate (unless it is a "massdebate" of course). We need more stuff like this. To get the brain working (difficult for me) and to educate the people who want to learn. Even if it provokes conversation, it's great.[/quote] Your right, a good debate is great for the old grey cells. But there is so much here now that I want to say, my brain is clogging up !! Firstly, I think we are coming at this jazz harmony disscussion from slightly different perspectives - and that is great, because if we all had the same approach music would be very boring. Creative musicians (and jazz musicians are by its very nature creative) all have a different way of looking at things and that is to be celebrated. My views are coloured by the fact that I am also a composer/arranger/orchestrater whereas I believe you are looking at it from the practical playing perspective. So I think we are saying the same thing but just in differing ways. Harmony and theory can be very daunting to beginners mainly because it seems very mathematical and almost scientific. I try to give my students a sense of the emotional effect of different groupings of notes - I talk about stable or unstable chords / warm or cold harmonies / comforting or discomforting sounds - this sort of thing. To the debate: Fifths: Your example of C E Bb as opposed to C G Bb doesn't hold up. C G Bb is not a C7 chord because there is no 3rd either major minor or suspended. These 3 notes together have a very distinctive sound. And its quite different from a dominant 7th chord. Let me put this example to you: Play C E G Bb - a regular dominant 7th - an unsettled unstable sound - it wants to resolve to its tonic chord of F. Now play C E Gb Bb - C7b5 - quite a different texture - it too wants to move - it is unstable but with an extra edge to it. But this chord could just as easily be called Gb7b5 and move to ITS home tonic of Cb (. The notes are the same just enharmonically different (Gb Bb Dbb Fb). What I'm trying to show here is that the 5th, whether it is natural, flattened or sharpened, makes a huge difference to the perception of that group of notes. Every note in a group of notes has an affect on the harmonic direction. I'm running out of time now so I'll discuss 11th s with you next time. Actually reading this back, I don't think I've addressed you comments properly - I think we agree more than we disagree. But its fun trying to clarify ones thoughts. I was playing on some commercial CD sessions today and i couldn't get these discussions out of my head ! I'm sure i wasn't concentrating properly on the job in hand ! The Major