What is this chord?

[Jim Broyles]

I agree with your conclusion about the chart. A little detective work in that chart tells me that it is a 7 in the circle and it means major 7th. Look at the 5th bar - Gm > Gm(7 in a circle) then Gm7 without a circle > C7. The old "Summer Rain" descent. Obviously, the second chord in the 5th measure is GmMaj7. Why the guy didn't use Δ, I don't know.

[Jim Broyles]

The double flatted seventh is strictly because of staff notation, IMO. The intervals are all minor thirds, so you don't want to write C Eb Gb A for the chord, even though to the ear, Gb to A sounds the same as Gb to Bbb. It needs to be a B on the staff. This is where music gets stupid to some people and I can't say I disagree.

[Jim Broyles]

Ack! I made a mistake in post 47 to bobby bill. I said the third in a major scale is always two semitones above the tonic. This should be two whole tones.

Note to self: Please proof read, slowly!

[Paleosporin]

Note to self: Please proof read, slowly!

Good advice to all of us!

The double flatted seventh is strictly because of staff notation, IMO. The intervals are all minor thirds, so you don't want to write C Eb Gb A for the chord, even though to the ear, Gb to A sounds the same as Gb to Bbb. It needs to be a B on the staff. This is where music gets stupid to some people and I can't say I disagree.

I don't know, I think it's a matter of how you conceive of the interval. After all, it's a succession of thirds. I find it easier in my mind to think of all seventh chords as a 1 3 5 7 of some sort. If things start switching back and forth between 7 and 6, it gets all muddled up. After all, you can play every other note in an A harmonic minor scale, effectively playing a series of thirds...

A C E G# B D F

... and the last four notes are the chord in question. Why should it have different syntax from any other four-note chord built of thirds?

[Jim Broyles]

A C E G# B D F

... and the last four notes are the chord in question. Why should it have different syntax from any other four-note chord built of thirds?

Well, it doesn't really have a different syntax. Those are still stacked minor thirds. And what is the next sequence? Ab Cb Ebb Gbb. See how stupid it gets? Ab has to be next to be a m3 above the F. Cb I can handle, but why not D and F for the last two notes? Maybe all diminished notation ought to live within one octave or something, so you never have double flat or double sharp. I don't know, but it seems to me that even experienced sight readers would have to stop for a second on a chord with two doubles in it.

[ombudsman]

I am aware that in every genre there are building blocks, frequently re-used; but I am coming from ITM, where the building blocks are aural, the player recognising them by ear and mostly learning a new tune this way - hardly anything is written down, and then it's only a melody guideline.

The building blocks are aural in jazz and everywhere else too ! And there are of course many players that go strictly by ear.

The looks of the coded artefacts seem more interesting than the sounds they represent.

What a strange thing to say.

[Paleosporin]

Well, it doesn't really have a different syntax. Those are still stacked minor thirds. And what is the next sequence? Ab Cb Ebb Gbb. See how stupid it gets? Ab has to be next to be a m3 above the F. Cb I can handle, but why not D and F for the last two notes? Maybe all diminished notation ought to live within one octave or something, so you never have double flat or double sharp. I don't know, but it seems to me that even experienced sight readers would have to stop for a second on a chord with two doubles in it.

I'm only doing the diatonic thirds of the A harmonic minor scale. Every note in that sequence has but one name. If we continued, it would repeat all over again.

A C E G# B D F A C E G# B D F

Within that framework, we have the following seventh chords:

A C E G# = AmMaj7
B D F A = Bø7
C E G# B = C+Maj7
D F A C = Dm7
E G# B D = E7
F A C E = Fmaj7
G# B D F = G#°7

That's all there is. Every one of them is 1 3 5 7.

I am aware that in every genre there are building blocks, frequently re-used; but I am coming from ITM, where the building blocks are aural, the player recognising them by ear and mostly learning a new tune this way - hardly anything is written down, and then it's only a melody guideline. The apparent spontaneity here goes with its illiteracy, so to speak, the system behind it remains invisible. There is never any discussion about notation, at least none worth mentioning.

All music is aural, even in a literate tradition. Illiteracy undoubtedly contributes to the vitality of the any tradition, as one needs to be intimately familiar with the repertoire in order to perform it. There is also the fact that this music was invented during a time when there were a lot fewer distractions around, and if you couldn't read a book, you probably entertained yourself by playing a musical instrument. That lack of boundaries fosters spontaneity. At the same time, spontaneity is certainly possible and even common in styles that rely on written music. In jazz, the notation is used more as a very loose suggestion than a hard fact. If you put a leadsheet in front of a jazz player, they will read it down, and the rhythm on the page will sound nothing like the rhythm coming from their instrument. Here is a computer playing Autumn Leaves as it is written in the Real Book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw4RXaM9DEg

Quarter notes and whole notes. Rather straight and boring, huh? Every jazz player that has ever read that leadsheet has read the notes like that. That's how the notation looks: straight and boring. Now here's Nat King Cole singing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=684eg6S8dCw

Completely different rhythm. Listen to how he pushes those notes around. Very often, the note on the downbeat will be moved to the 4 or the & of 4 of the previous measure. Each phrase may begin slightly earlier or slightly later than how it is written. Jazz is a language of rhythmic improvisation and spontaneous syncopation. It is a literate tradition, and one that requires a lot of chops and know-how, but jazz encourages intuition, fluidity, and spontaneity.

(When you get into bebop, the rhythms on the page look a lot closer to what a performer would do. That sort of music is much more dense, so it is a necessity. Non-solo parts on a big band chart will also be more strict in terms of rhythm, because ensembles need to stick together.)

What I see here is totally different. The looks of the coded artefacts seem more interesting than the sounds they represent.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion. To me and many others, the "code" speaks directly to what the music sounds like. I can hear a written chord progression in my head, mentally improvise a melody that works well on top of it, play it, and write down what I played. I don't see how that makes me different from a "by ear" player, except that I can quantify what I am doing.

[Bertram Henze]

The looks of the coded artefacts seem more interesting than the sounds they represent.

What a strange thing to say.

...not for an ex-programmer who's not into jazz...

[PaulBills]

So, what frets on what strings would it be then?

[Jim Broyles]

So, what frets on what strings would it be then?

What? C#°? 3243

[AlanN]

The wheels on the bus...

[Mike Bunting]

I thought it was a Db demented or a C# squashed.

[Will Patton]

which are better - A style mandolins or F- style?

[mandowilli]

I happen to think that this is some great material.

[Will Patton]

Yes, sorry . . . I did not mean to disrespect any poster on the thread. I guess I've just always had a feeling that 'theory' is a great tool to communicate ideas and help us understand musical relationships and concepts but should not be confused with 'music' which is something we hear and feel, not talk about. So all these ideas are valuable if they help anyone create or understand music better - no question. Theory is also a language with regional dialects (classical, jazz . . . ) and none of them are 'right or wrong'.
If the issue becomes contentious it wanders away a bit from the joy in creating or experiencing emotion through sound waves - more like rocket science than plumbing, if you will.

[Jim Broyles]

Will, I would remind you that this is the Theory Forum. This discussion is what it's here for.

[tree]

Agreed. But it did come across kind of like a **ssing contest for a while there, which I believe is why there was somewhat of a "peanut gallery" chiming in from time to time. I mostly enjoyed the posts, they went way deeper than my pitiful understanding of music theory. I'm confused at a much higher level now.

[Givson]

Hard Times by Stephen Foster has a diminished chord in the chorus, during the the first syllable of the word "weary" ("'Tis the song, the sigh of the weary"). However many bluegrass and other performers have simplified this progression by replacing the diminished chord with a IV chord. Many songs by the Delmore Brothers (Deep River Blues, etc.) use diminished chords. "Hard core" bluegrass tunes usually avoid the diminished chord, however I think you may find an occasional passing diminished chord in some bluegrass gospel numbers.

[ombudsman]

Yes, sorry . . . I did not mean to disrespect any poster on the thread. I guess I've just always had a feeling that 'theory' is a great tool to communicate ideas and help us understand musical relationships and concepts but should not be confused with 'music' which is something we hear and feel, not talk about. So all these ideas are valuable if they help anyone create or understand music better - no question. Theory is also a language with regional dialects (classical, jazz . . . ) and none of them are 'right or wrong'.
If the issue becomes contentious it wanders away a bit from the joy in creating or experiencing emotion through sound waves - more like rocket science than plumbing, if you will.

This cuts both ways Will. You're contributing to the topic being contentious when you define the problem as other people who are more into it than you are, basically having messed up priorities.

Y'ever notice how people that know more than us are taking things too far and missing what is really important, but people that know less are just hacks ?

The resulting isolation in a group beyond reproach of just one member, must be the price of perfection.

[AlanN]

what the...

It's a chord, for goodness' sake.

[journeybear]

Seriously. The question has been answered several times, long ago and also recently. Haven't seen a thread like this since the Jack White one. Some threads are vampire zombies. They just ... won't ... die ... ...

[Nevin]

The chord that ate the theory formum.

[Jim Broyles]

[Ralph Kramden] Har har HAR dee har har![/Ralph Kramden]:eyeroll: