What is this chord?

[grassrootphilosopher]

hmmm...
How about it...other grass tunes with a dim chord?

- Little Rock Getaway (as played by Don Reno on the old King recording and with Bill Harrel on some later recording)

[AlanN]

Yep, suppose LRG could be considered a grass tune, based on who done it.

[ombudsman]

Bruce - Saying G# has eight sharps had my head spinning. My experience has led me to believe the maximum number of sharps or flats is six, and then you've gone around the circle and gotten back to none, that is, C. If I go along with you, then what I think you mean is a scale like this: G# A# C C# D# F G G#. I think you want to see this as G# A# B# C# D# E# F## G#. To that, I say nuts! And this is why that's not a G# scale at all, but an Ab scale, with four flats. Just easier to notate that way.

It's getting a bit academic, but the rationale for keys with more than 7 accidentals is because of composed pieces of music that modulate from a key with say 6 or 7 accidentals to a new root. It's considered to be difficult for a performer to suddenly, and briefly, switch from a key with lots of sharps to one with lots of flats and then back again.

The key of G#, with 8 sharps, is absolutely G#, A#, B#, C#, D#, E#, F##, G#. Each degree always gets its own letter, so the B# is the correct third, it is not only wrong but confusing to call it a C. If you think about the process of reading chords from notation it should be understandable how the music tells you the function of each note in the chord as well as absolute pitch. Otherwise a chord on a page would just be a sort of abstract cluster of pitches, and you would have no real time method to be sure which note was the third, etc, and it would be a lot easier to make mistakes and harder to understand how the chord is being used and why it works.

If you know the patterns of how the keys work you'll notice that the keys with more than 7 accidentals follow the same order as those with fewer accidentals, as do the accidentals themselves that are used. So as you move through the cycle of 5ths starting in C the keys are G D A E B F# C# and then keep going you would then be in G#, D#... never heard of any piece using anything further than that, but it's possible. And the order that sharps are introduced is F C G D A E B, so that's true of the double sharps as well, as you see with the F## in the key of G#. I'm just mentioning this to show why these keys aren't that intimidating if you are familiar with the basic 15 keys.

[journeybear]

It doesn't matter whether journeybear sees the sense of it or not.

Never has, never will. About time someone said it . Thanks!

All I meant is it seems an extra, unnecessary step. A chord is a chord regardless of the key the song is in. So if you want to build a Dm7#5b9 or whatever chord, you know what intervals go where to do so. You are probably not going to be playing the scale associated with the root of that chord when it comes up in the progression, but rather the scale of the spng's key, or something similar. You may play a melody line that accentuates a note or two in that chord, but you're not necessarily changing keys in the process. Or maybe you are, momentarily; I don't know, I'm not too hip on jazz. But if that's the way you were taught, and it's easier for you to compute it that way, fine. I don't see the need for it, that's all. And that doesn't matter.

As to the key of G# ... I understand the notation, honest I do, I just don't like it. I'll play in Ab and manage just fine. I'll grumble to the singer about it, asking why he can't shift the key to G or A, both of which are keys I can play in much more easily. But I'm not going to worry about it; I know which notes to play. If it makes it easier for me to think of moving the scale for either G up a fret or A down a fret, ai'll do so. Not important. It won't matter. Not intil the day I decide to write something in G#. If that ever happens, someone just put me out of my misery, please.

I wonder whether the OP ever got his answer? We've drifted far afield ...

[Nevin]

I am going to try and bridge the gap. Chord notation is an imperfect thing and often inconsitant. I learned classical theory and the first time I heard of a half dimminished chord I said there was no such thing. Now I understand the conveniance of the half diminshed notation even if I cringe a bit at the name.

So yes chords are built off scales but in a lot of music non scale excursions are common. Sometimes thinking in the scale is the best way to go. Other times it sure is handy to know the intervals that make up the chord.

I must say that if I saw the symbol in OP I would asume a triad. Looking through many reams of jazz charts the vast majority of them indicate a 7th when they want one. That said unless you are on the bandstand reading the chord on the fly, check out how the 7th would fit and play accordingly.

[ombudsman]

journeybear, fwiw I'm into jazz and have some classical training but I don't think I've ever actually had a piece of music in front of me with more than 7 accidentals in a key signature. I've looked up examples online out of curiosity but they are not in my world for practical purposes. So with us having different backgrounds I still have the same conclusion as you.

[journeybear]

Thanks. I have had precious little music theory training, so most of what I know is what I've learned from either playing or sussing out sheet music song by song, and relating what I learned from one or another source to a task at hand. While my level of expertise is bound to be considered rudimentary by some (including myself ), I prefer to think I have a fairly good working sense of what goes, and usually more than what I need for the music I usually play.

But yes, that said, I thought six was the limit for accidentals (F# or G#, also the exact midpoint of the 12-tone scale in C), then you're on the other side of the circle (if you had been going through the sharp keys, now you're in the flat keys, and vice versa.) But I did see a circle of fifths diagram while working through this subject that had a couple of keys with seven accidentals, albeit side-by-side with their enharmonic equivalents with five acidentals of the other type.

[Jim Broyles]

hmmm...seems I've heard this before. And seems I've said this before...around here with the pickers I pick with, we say "This one's in B chord...". You, Jim, likely, don't say that. No big deal, in my mind.

How about it...other grass tunes with a dim chord?

Well, Raw Hide has an augmented chord. Can't think of any right now with a dim.

[Jim Broyles]

Never has, never will. About time someone said it . Thanks!

All I meant is it seems an extra, unnecessary step. A chord is a chord regardless of the key the song is in. So if you want to build a Dm7#5b9 or whatever chord, you know what intervals go where to do so. You are probably not going to be playing the scale associated with the root of that chord when it comes up in the progression, but rather the scale of the spng's key, or something similar. You may play a melody line that accentuates a note or two in that chord, but you're not necessarily changing keys in the process. Or maybe you are, momentarily; I don't know, I'm not too hip on jazz. But if that's the way you were taught, and it's easier for you to compute it that way, fine. I don't see the need for it, that's all. And that doesn't matter.

As to the key of G# ... I understand the notation, honest I do, I just don't like it. I'll play in Ab and manage just fine. I'll grumble to the singer about it, asking why he can't shift the key to G or A, both of which are keys I can play in much more easily. But I'm not going to worry about it; I know which notes to play. If it makes it easier for me to think of moving the scale for either G up a fret or A down a fret, ai'll do so. Not important. It won't matter. Not intil the day I decide to write something in G#. If that ever happens, someone just put me out of my misery, please.

I wonder whether the OP ever got his answer? We've drifted far afield ...

Dude! Nobody is talking about the key of G#. If I wanted to write one in that key I would use Ab. I'm only talking about how to name the notes of a chord. The example was G#dim7 and the argument was that there are too many sharps in the G# scale. Fine, but if you want to name the notes in any kind of a G# chord, you alter the notes of the G# major scale.

Look at our example: Dm7#5b9. If the notes you have to flatten or sharpen aren't defined somehow, how do you know what note to do what with? So you see it's Dm.... so that means you have a flat 3rd, sharp 5th, flat 7th and sharp 9th. Why is it a flat third? If you used the Dm scale, the third is already 1 and a half semitones up from the tonic, so if we universally base all chord note naming protocol on the root's major scale, we automatically have the reference notes and the chord symbol tells us how to alter them to achieve the required chord. Otherwise what is a #5? You could say is an augmented 5th up from the tonic, but it says the same thing a little more easily if you know you have to raise the 5th degree of the major scale. How do you know what 7th to play? The diatonic 7th is not what the arranger wants in this chord. You have to start out with universal "rules" and what it is, is you name chord notes by altering the degrees of the major scale. Period.

[AlanN]

Funny, I was thinking of Monroe and wondering if he ever, ever used one (having writ [Big Mon speak] so many numbers). I came up with 'no'. And on Rawhide - yes, the banjo does the G+. Does Bill? Heck no, he goes to C chord Always wondered about that. Seems it was a clam left in the final take. Now, the adherents do it to be true to form....I never cared for it, meself.

[journeybear]

Nobody is talking about the key of G#.

It's come up repeatedly in many posts, including some of yours. I don't know why, since the chord the OP asked about was C#°.

But that second paragraph was meant more for Bruce, who may have introduced that part of the discussino. I was following the model of my post # 20, addressing the two of you separately, but neglected to mention you each by name this time. Sorry for any confusion.

[ombudsman]

Dude! Nobody is talking about the key of G#. If I wanted to write one in that key I would use Ab. I'm only talking about how to name the notes of a chord. The example was G#dim7 and the argument was that there are too many sharps in the G# scale. Fine, but if you want to name the notes in any kind of a G# chord, you alter the notes of the G# major scale.

Look at our example: Dm7#5b9. If the notes you have to flatten or sharpen aren't defined somehow, how do you know what note to do what with? So you see it's Dm.... so that means you have a flat 3rd, sharp 5th, flat 7th and sharp 9th. Why is it a flat third? If you used the Dm scale, the third is already 1 and a half semitones up from the tonic, so if we universally base all chord note naming protocol on the root's major scale, we automatically have the reference notes and the chord symbol tells us how to alter them to achieve the required chord. Otherwise what is a #5? You could say is an augmented 5th up from the tonic, but it says the same thing a little more easily if you know you have to raise the 5th degree of the major scale. How do you know what 7th to play? The diatonic 7th is not what the arranger wants in this chord. You have to start out with universal "rules" and what it is, is you name chord notes by altering the degrees of the major scale. Period.

I think you're conflating the way you (and to be fair, lots of other people) think of these chords, and how their names must work. G# sus as a chord name does not literally specify notes to be altered from a major scale. We know what the structure of the notes in a sus chord is, and it certainly can be expressed the way you describe, but they can also be expressed as intervals without reference to a hypothetical scale.

You're also being explicitly absolute about something that does in fact have exceptions. Quartal and quintal harmony, certain kinds of 12 tone harmony, and some types of chords used by Olivier Messiaen can use fundamentally different kinds of chord names that are not based on major scales or assumptions of tertial intervals. I'm sure there are other exceptions as well, but I don't need to win an obscure reference contest so I'll stop there.

[AlanN]

Confusion? This thread? No way...

[Jim Broyles]

I think you're conflating the way you (and to be fair, lots of other people) think of these chords, and how their names must work. G# sus as a chord name does not literally specify notes to be altered from a major scale. We know what the structure of the notes in a sus chord is, and it certainly can be expressed the way you describe, but they can also be expressed as intervals without reference to a hypothetical scale.

You're also being explicitly absolute about something that does in fact have exceptions. Quartal and quintal harmony, certain kinds of 12 tone harmony, and some types of chords used by Olivier Messiaen can use fundamentally different kinds of chord names that are not based on major scales or assumptions of tertial intervals. I'm sure there are other exceptions as well, but I don't need to win an obscure reference contest so I'll stop there.

Well, in the last decade or so, you have had to specify whether is was a 4 or a 2 that was getting suspended, but otherwise "G#sus" certainly does specify what to alter. The third is removed from a sus chord. Whether you replace it with a 2 or a 4 needs to be specified. 99+% of the time I'd play a G#C#D# for a G#sus chord. If the arranger wanted an A#, a 2 would be included in the chord symbol in most cases. I am, (I'm sure you know,) referring to protocols in so-called "Western" music which is really what we discuss here a vast majority of the time. You do win the obscure reference contest.

[ombudsman]

I am, (I'm sure you know,) referring to protocols in so-called "Western" music which is really what we discuss here a vast majority of the time.

All of the other examples I gave are also from western music. But if we've arrived at agreement that the vast majority of time is not the same thing as discussion-ending "never"/"period" statements, then that's a positive.

[ombudsman]

Oh, and, quartal harmony - not really obscure, if you like jazz or 60s pop.

[Jim Broyles]

Okay, but we are also talking about playing chords on a mandolin. I am not aware of any quartal and tertial chords we need to learn. I daresay every chart any of us is likely to encounter at a jam will have chord symbols, the notes of which will be named the way I described. Maybe I should have said "popular" rather than "Western" music. Furthermore, even in those examples, you still have to have a reference point, don't you? I mean if you encounter stacked triads or Lydian Dominant stuff, the notes in the chord symbols still have to start somewhere do they not?

[tree]

...around here with the pickers I pick with, we say "This one's in B chord..."

How about it...other grass tunes with a dim chord?

Around here we say "This here un's in B chord . . . who's gone kick it off?"

Although there are different schools of playing Kentucky Waltz, my school uses a (half-, I think) dim chord when it gets to the part where he longs once more for her embrace.

And in my personal musical life, ever since I was shown that a half-dim chord can be substituted for a rootless 7th chord, I try to do that every chance I get - typically, I overuse every cool new thing I learn.

[ombudsman]

Okay, but we are also talking about playing chords on a mandolin. I am not aware of any quartal and tertial chords we need to learn. I daresay every chart any of us is likely to encounter at a jam will have chord symbols, the notes of which will be named the way I described.

That may well be true for you, and that's fine, I'm not making value judgements about whatever music people are into.

It is not unheard of for me to take a stab at "Surf's Up" or "So What" or "Impressions", and some of my original tunes that I have played in bands do use quartal notation such as AQ4 for the chord that could alternatively be described as "Am7add11 no third". AQ4 is not only more succinct, but it also reveals how the chord was actually intended without invoking a key that it (or the surrounding song) isn't particularly related to (C major or A minor), and depending on the style it may also imply that the voicing is a straight up and down stack with no skips or octave displacement.

Maybe I should have said "popular" rather than "Western" music. Furthermore, even in those examples, you still have to have a reference point, don't you? I mean if you encounter stacked triads or Lydian Dominant stuff, the notes in the chord symbols still have to start somewhere do they not?

I suppose with any chord that can be conceived of as a structure that can be specific and also independent of one particular root, there has to be at least some specification of a root, or the lowest or highest note, plus some way to convey the set of other notes by a named structure or a list.

The point is that for the latter requirement, it needn't be specific about alterations from a diatonic scale, and in some cases relating it to a diatonic scale when the chord really wasn't built that way in the first place would only be confusing.

Not unlike how describing a whole tone scale, or many other scales that don't have 7 notes in them, as a set of alterations from a major scale is an exercise in ambiguity and confusion. Or how trying to describe basic blues harmony in terms of traditional, single key diatonic harmony and notation is next to impossible and a bad idea to try.

[bobby bill]

God I love this web site. May I throw in my observations?

Having different languages to describe the same thing is fine if we understand each other's language. I am not too conversant in pop or jazz theory so it really helps me here with these other languages.

To my ears, describing a c#dim chord as c# with a flat third and a flat fifth is confusing. Thirds are either major or minor. Fifths are either perfect, diminished, or augmented. And there are certainly no flats involved in an e natural (the third) or the g natural (the fifth). So I would have described the chord as c# with a minor third and a diminished fifth.

And although I read the chord as a triad, I have always taken the position that you can always add the diminished seventh to a diminished triad without changing the color of the chord. And frankly, because there are only three diminished seventh chords, it is a lot easier and quicker to find them on the mandolin.

I also think of chords in terms of their position within a key, but it should be noted that there can be very brief and temporary changes in the key. I am talking about secondary dominants rather than key changes. If I recall correctly, Georgia is in the key of F but the c#dim is moving to a dmin, the vi chord in F. The c#dim (the triad) are the top three notes of an A7 chord, which is the dominant seventh chord in dmin. So you might describe this chord as: V7/vi meaning it is the dominant seventh chord of the vi chord in F. Or you could describe it as viidim/vi. And if you played a c#dim7, you might describe it as viidim7/vi, but it also sounds very much like a V7flat9/vi. (And I am very much aware that I just called it a flat nine rather than a minor nine - go figure.) So for a very brief moment you are thinking in the key of d minor rather than F. And although it is true there is no c# in the key signature of d minor, the harmonic minor has the raised seventh tone, so I would still consider it diatonic to the key of d minor.

To all the nerds adding to this conversation, thank you for helping me understand all the various languages out there.

[Bertram Henze]

Around here we say "This here un's in B chord . . . who's gone kick it off?"

30 years ago, when I joined a band, they called all the triads "major" and the more complicated ones with a 7th, 9th or 6th "minor" ...

[Jim Broyles]

God I love this web site. May I throw in my observations?

Having different languages to describe the same thing is fine if we understand each other's language. I am not too conversant in pop or jazz theory so it really helps me here with these other languages.

To my ears, describing a c#dim chord as c# with a flat third and a flat fifth is confusing. Thirds are either major or minor. Fifths are either perfect, diminished, or augmented. And there are certainly no flats involved in an e natural (the third) or the g natural (the fifth). So I would have described the chord as c# with a minor third and a diminished fifth.

And although I read the chord as a triad, I have always taken the position that you can always add the diminished seventh to a diminished triad without changing the color of the chord. And frankly, because there are only three diminished seventh chords, it is a lot easier and quicker to find them on the mandolin.

I also think of chords in terms of their position within a key, but it should be noted that there can be very brief and temporary changes in the key. I am talking about secondary dominants rather than key changes. If I recall correctly, Georgia is in the key of F but the c#dim is moving to a dmin, the vi chord in F. The c#dim (the triad) are the top three notes of an A7 chord, which is the dominant seventh chord in dmin. So you might describe this chord as: V7/vi meaning it is the dominant seventh chord of the vi chord in F. Or you could describe it as viidim/vi. And if you played a c#dim7, you might describe it as viidim7/vi, but it also sounds very much like a V7flat9/vi. (And I am very much aware that I just called it a flat nine rather than a minor nine - go figure.) So for a very brief moment you are thinking in the key of d minor rather than F. And although it is true there is no c# in the key signature of d minor, the harmonic minor has the raised seventh tone, so I would still consider it diatonic to the key of d minor.

To all the nerds adding to this conversation, thank you for helping me understand all the various languages out there.

Well, you seem to be interchanging scale degrees and intervals. I am strictly talking scale degrees when I talk about how to name chord notes. I don't say a C#dim is a C# with a flat 3rd and a flat 5th, which it is. I say when you see a chord symbol, you deduce the notes in the chord by altering the notes of the major scale of the root. Yes, the interval of a third is either major or minor, but the third degree of a major scale is always two semitones above the tonic. A minor nine and a flat nine are two different things. Minor 9th refers to a minor triad with the b7 and the 9th added in. Flat nine refers to lowering the 9th degree one semitone. Also, I do not ever use the "chord"/"chord" (V/vi) method to name a chord. Seems way too complicated. If I were charting a C#dim in the key of F using a number system, I'd write #5dim or #Vdim. I think this is how they do it with the Nashville Numbering System. And yes, you can add the diminished 7th to a diminished triad without changing the color of the chord. It's the diatonic 7th that changes the color when added to the diminished triad.

[ombudsman]

AQ4 for the chord that could alternatively be described as "Am7add11 no third"

duh make that "Am7add11 no fifth"

[Jim Broyles]

Delete

[Jim Broyles]

duh make that "Am7add11 no fifth"

Okay, you'll have to trust me on this, but I did not read that original post, but this is how I would spell that chord: To me, the important bits of info aside from "no fifth" are "m", "7" and "add." I will explain after I spell the chord: A C G D. The small m tells me it's minor, so flat the 3rd, the 7 means add the b7, and the "add" means add the 11th, but not the 9th, which would ordinarily be found in an 11th chord. No fifth means exactly that. How'd I do? I would never know this by seeing AQ4, and although I do admit it is more succinct, it requires learning a whole new set of information. Us self-taughters don't always know where to go to find that stuff.

I still do not invoke a key to spell my chords, though. You guys seem to be saying I do, but all I'm talking about is using the major scale of the root to help spell a chord. The key of the piece does not matter.