Chord Naming Conventions

[kanker.]

I do agree that I haven't encountered an unaltered C11. But C7(#11) or C7(+11) is pretty common, so how does the rule work in altered extensions.

 

I have never seen a C#11 or C+11 to equate to C7(#11). That would really confuse the hell out of me. So is there an addendum to this rule that alterations are not part of the rule?

Alterations are described after the 7th degree or any natural extensions are described. Basically you describe the root, then tonality (major or minor), then quality (dominant, major 7, natural extensions), then alterations (b5, #11, (b9 b13) )

[SpaceNorman]

Let's not overlook the inconsistencies in the mechanics of how things are charted. I'm a PPR (piss poor reader) to begin with (not making excuses ... just stating a fact). I can get derailed pretty quickly when get a chart that uses different syntax to denote the same thing - i.e., "+" sign, that little diamond thingy, a capital "M" all to denote "major" - and all in the same chart.

 

Equally confusing are the handwritten charts that use upper and/or lower case letters to differentiate between Major and Minor - both for the root chord at the "normal" alignment - as well as for 7ths in the "superscript" level.

 

Unless it's an incredibly simply chart - the inconsistencies end up leaving me scratching my head and turns any attempt to read it in "real time" into a exercise in "stumble-f*cking" for me.

[kanker.]

I tend to use - for minor and ∆ for major. That eliminates the possibility of an uppercase/lowercase mistake on my part, or the part of someone reading a chart I've written. I prefer + for augmented, º for diminished, and prefer to use b5 instead of ø for half diminished.

[MuzikTeechur]

∆ refers to the 7th, not the quality of the lower third of the chord (I think that's what you meant, Kanker)

Upper and Lower case for major and minor are well understood in college theory classes, but often not recognized in conventional writing.

Other ways minor is denoted are "min" "mi" "-'

"G7" always implies a dominant 7th. G∆7 implies the leading tone seventh (in this case F#) Also written GMA7, Gmaj7, GMAJ7, Gmajor7...

+ does not mean major (although one would think so, it being the opposite of "-") but refers to the raised 5th of the chord.

I know all this has been said, in this thread, but as I read through some of the replies I saw some inconsistent information.

 

Usually, if there's an odd extension or alteration of the chord it's because that note is in the melody (read through "Desifinado" for some prime examples) and that extension doesn't need to be doubled in the left hand. During solos, however, they add flavor.

 

"Sus4" and "6th" chords were not recognized in early (J.S. Bach) theory, but were instead 11th and 13th extensions that were voiced into the bottom triad. Most of us can read "sus4" and "6" easier than 11 or 13 so those conventions came into more widely accepted usage.

In music theory, there are so many things that only make sense at the very purest levels that we've all but abandoned them in favor of easier to read/recognize notation.

I had to learn to read "figured bass" in college as well, but I don't seem to be using it in the classroom or on gigs...

[Jazzwee]

Appreciate the information guys.

 

I will for now on understand that extensions above 7 (C7, and natural extensions) are dominant. I figure though that once more than one extension is indicated that it is better to put the 7 in there?

 

For example, C13(9). This seems more obtuse than C7(13)(9)?

No one seems to be approving of my always indicating the 7 but perhaps this passes as expected usage?

 

 

On slash chords, particularly SOME simple triads over a root, I think it's more tricky in jazz to figure out the scale implied for doing solos so I have to physically write it out. Sure I think it is easier to describe a voicing but since jazzers have to blow over this too, It'll be important to see the actual implied scale.

 

On the other hand, I just encounted this chord: A7/Eb7. Each chord played on separate hands (Basically a dominant and its Tritone combined - fully voiced). That took a bit of brainpower to recognize

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Floyd Tatum]

I tend to use - for minor and ∆ for major. That eliminates the possibility of an uppercase/lowercase mistake on my part, or the part of someone reading a chart I've written. I prefer + for augmented, º for diminished, and prefer to use b5 instead of ø for half diminished.

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm assuming you're talking about using m for minor vs M for major, right? I'm with you, I hate that - it's too easy to get confused - there's not really that much difference between an M and an m.

 

I can see using m for minor, as in Cm, or Cm7. That's a well-established convention. But CM7? That's not clear enough. Better would be Cmaj7. But if I were writing that by hand, the 'maj7' part would be super-scripted.

 

I know the use of triangle 7 for major 7 has become common, as in C∆7. I think that's unfortunate, because the triangle symbol would have been the perfect candidate to indicate a triad. In my perfect world, triangle would mean triad. And instead of triangle for maj7, we would use a square box instead, like this: C□7 (the square and the 7 should be superscripted, but I can't do that because of computer limitation). Or better yet, the 7 would be inside the square - that would save space. It would be more intuitive, since a maj7 chord has four notes. Oh, well.

 

If I could rule the world...

 

I think a lot of problems with chord symbols have been caused by the use of computers, which don't make it easy to write sub- or superscript. In the old days, when things were written by hand, there were problems with agreed-upon standards for symbols. Computers just added even more inconsistencies. People tried to get around the limitations of computers by using even more "standards" (like M for major).

 

[Jazzwee]

Dave, you do make me curious. I do not see 'In A Mist' in any of my books...

 

It's in the Jazz LTD fake book which states on its cover - over 500 tunes the real books missed, but I'd recommend buying the sheet music. I believe it's four pages in length and is written out as a piano work (no chord symbols).

 

 

Found 'In the Mist' Dave. I have Jazz LTD. It didn't look that bad though. As I expected, many altered chords were used here chromatically so this is something I specifically studied.

 

I think what's messy is altered chords (especially non-dominant) with no obvious functional harmony. This sounds like a cool tune. I'm going to pull a recording of this.

 

No sheet music for me. I'm a terribly slow reader. Reading classical music takes too much brainpower. Someday

[Dave Horne]

No sheet music for me. I'm a terribly slow reader. Reading classical music takes too much brainpower. Someday

 

It's not classical, it's jazz.

[Jazzwee]

No sheet music for me. I'm a terribly slow reader. Reading classical music takes too much brainpower. Someday

 

It's not classical, it's jazz.

 

I wasn't talking about this tune but just reading music in general. BTW, I'm listening to a modernized version of this by Marian MacPartland. Cool. A little slower than Bix which helps the harmony sink in more...

 

I think I stated this long ago that I don't listen to ragtime, or stride stuff. Not my cup of tea, but I do appreciate the harmonies.

[SpaceNorman]

I tend to use - for minor and ∆ for major. That eliminates the possibility of an uppercase/lowercase mistake on my part, or the part of someone reading a chart I've written. I prefer + for augmented, º for diminished, and prefer to use b5 instead of ø for half diminished.

 

ø is the sign for a half diminished chord? I've always interpretted that as either a demented or demolished!

 

[Blue JC]

After many years of playing gigs with home-made fake books containing charts from dozens of contributors (each with their own notational style), the key seems to be staying flexible and adaptable. If you're comfortable in a style of music (Real Book, Ethnic, Pop Songs, Great American Songbook, etc), it will soon become second nature what the next change should be and what voicing works best.

 

It would be great if everything was standardized from inception, but it's a messy old world and every musician I know thinks they have a better way to do it.

 

You could argue that the guys on the bandstand that had to read that chickenshit every night were so good simply because they had to be to deal with those messed-up charts.

[SK]

I also use - for minor and ∆ for major. Floyd, I also hate it when somebody uses m for minor and M for major... it's never very clear.

ø is the sign for a half diminished chord?

That is a half diminished chord, which I prefer to b5 since it's a more complete description of the chord.

 

Jazzwee, if you have an 11th or 13th chord, you don't have to denote (9) or (11) since it's included in the extension. So a C7#11 doesn't need a written 9, since it's part of an 11th chord. You probably knew this, but just in case.

 

And a slash chord is always preferable when you want to imply a simple triad sound or a triad over a different root.

[MusicWorkz]

When in doubt, write it out.

 

You jazz dudes remind me I'm always in doubt.... I write everything in slash chords. Bad habit I'm sure. Bb/C, Fsus/Bb, Eb Maj7/F. To me that's easy. 11 & 13 chords make me scratch my head. I soooo missed the memo on jazz theory.

 

Mcgoo, you are not alone. I find that while it might "cheat" as far as theory is concerned, it is one of the quickest ways to get the right voicing you need for a particular part of the tune or song. Plus its a great way to help train your ears for where the bass goes.

 

I always learned for 11th chords, simply play the root on the left and the major chord a whole step below on the right...that way, I don't get confrused [sic] with figuring out what gets omitted and/or played.

[Jazzwee]

Jazzwee, if you have an 11th or 13th chord, you don't have to denote (9) or (11) since it's included in the extension. So a C7#11 doesn't need a written 9, since it's part of an 11th chord. You probably knew this, but just in case.

 

 

Thanks SK. I did not know that specifically. I assumed it though since any jazz chord will have it's automatic share of colors regardless of extensions stated. So by default it turns out ok. But I didn't know this was a formal rule.

 

For example, it would seem that F13 is normally superflous to F7 since I would automatically use those extensions anyway. Although in this particular tune it was specific to the voicing and voice leading that it be an F13.

 

And a slash chord is always preferable when you want to imply a simple triad sound or a triad over a different root.

 

Agreed as I can see why it's important in certain tunes to communicate the desired special voicings. However, it's still harder to solo over since I still have to use a scale based on the root and I can't necessarily figure it out by sight in some cases (obviously Sus chords are very straightforward slash chords), like some complex Herbie chords.

 

 

 

[SK]

... it's still harder to solo over since I still have to use a scale based on the root...

 

No, actually don't let the root determine your scale - play over the chord itself, and incorporate the root in the lines if you want.

 

It also depends... is the chord a self standing chord, like Ab/A ... or a passing bass line like G- G-7/F Eb maj 7

 

Where the slash chord leads to (the next chord) can also indictate something about what you'd play.

 

Check out a Richie Beirach tune "Nightlake". I think it's in a Real Book. On the 11th bar, there's a whole section of slash chords that just hangs in space for a few bars. A good exercise for playing through slashes - plus, it's a nice tune.

[mcgoo]

I always learned for 11th chords, simply play the root on the left and the major chord a whole step below on the right...that way, I don't get confrused [sic] with figuring out what gets omitted and/or played.

 

Yeah I've thought of 11 chords that way & 13 chords as a Maj7 chord a whole step below the root. It got to be such a habit that when I write charts I'll write B Maj7/C# before writing C# 13 because the slash chord I'll visualize instantly & the 13 chord I'll have to think about. A bad habit that I'm sure has caused me to miss out on some basic understanding of jazz, which for the most part eludes me.

[Jazzwee]

No, actually don't let the root determine your scale - play over the chord itself, and incorporate the root in the lines if you want.

 

Help me with that SK. Are you saying my note choices are limited to the triad + the root? 4 notes? I was thinking about the root and triad combined suggesting a scale, with a bias towards the triad sound.

 

If the function of the triad/bass is clear as in a SUS chord of course the function of the chord is clear and I'm highlighting the Sus dominant function. But I seem to remember chromatic movements where we start off with the triad being chord tones, and the bass goes a half step down with the triad staying in place and now you're in the ALT of the chromatic chord below the first chord. So there at least an ALT scale seems appropriate, right?

 

There are places where slash chords are pretty messy like the last few chords of Dolphin Dance where you have multi-tonality. There I remember just coming up with some variant unnamed scale that fits (I just figure it out by trial and error there or listen to what the big guys do).

 

So I don't known of cases (so far) where I've just stuck to the triad and an occasional root. Am I doing something wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jazzwee]

I always learned for 11th chords, simply play the root on the left and the major chord a whole step below on the right...that way, I don't get confrused [sic] with figuring out what gets omitted and/or played.

 

Yeah I've thought of 11 chords that way & 13 chords as a Maj7 chord a whole step below the root. It got to be such a habit that when I write charts I'll write B Maj7/C# before writing C# 13 because the slash chord I'll visualize instantly & the 13 chord I'll have to think about. A bad habit that I'm sure has caused me to miss out on some basic understanding of jazz, which for the most part eludes me.

 

It's funny how we're analyzing all this at two different levels. In my case, it takes me awhile to visualize Bmaj7/C# although it is clearly easier to remember a voicing with that.

 

Unless the slash chord shows some obvious moving bassline over fixed upper chord, I'm lost too. So I look at guys who visualize slash chords in an instant with a little awe as well. I often do think that I missed some aspect of music theory (non-jazz)

 

This must be a specialization thing.

[SK]

No, actually don't let the root determine your scale - play over the chord itself, and incorporate the root in the lines if you want.

 

Help me with that SK. Are you saying my note choices are limited to the triad + the root? 4 notes? I was thinking about the root and triad combined suggesting a scale, with a bias towards the triad sound.

No, you're not limited - and you don't have to create a scale based on the root of some slash chords. Your description sounds right - but you can play lines in a solo beyond those 4 notes.

 

It all depends on the chord of course, but most of the time you can play lines/melodic ideas over the chord (above the slash) as you normally would, incorporating the bass note - if you want to, and if that's the way you hear it. But I wouldn't worry about correct scales here, or have too much concern over doing something wrong.

 

And sorry, it's probably almost impossible for me to answer this well without being able to demonstrate at a piano or writing it all out.

 

Also, I don't know what you mean by multi-tonality at the end of Dolphin Dance, which I assume is right before it repeats to the top. What chords do you play there?

[Dave Horne]

While I love theory, the lines you play come first and then, if you are so inclined, you can set those notes in a row and see what scale they might form.

 

I've see the Abersold books where the chord is given and the scale is spelled out. It's a good way to start someone to improvise who is clueless but I personally wouldn't recommend it as a method per se. Using one's ears and a touch of theory could provide more musical results. Using scales given to you in advance defeats the purpose of using your ears to find out what works and what doesn't work.

 

Music - the actual playing, comes first and the analysis comes ... simultaneously, a few seconds later or years later.

 

The final judge is one's ears.

[SK]

Dave has eloquently stated what I vaguely alluded to... when I said melodic lines can be played over slash chords without worrying about the correct scale. Use your ears - the discovery is the reward.

 

Confession: I learned basic scales but actually never practiced them because, by themselves, I thought they were too generic to be a musical expression I'd use. I was impatient to start playing right away, and was discovering theory but didn't know the terminology. So when I decided to learn to read, I was surprised to find that these scales/lines I played were modes with actual names like Lydian, Phrygian, etc.

 

But when you learn things on your own, they stick with you. Most standards I learned off records (which irked me a bit when I realized how easy it might have been with a Real Book.)

 

One thing to know: in improvisation, at some level there is no such thing as a wrong note, if you can hear it - and you play it with intent. So don't get hung up on theoretical correctness - just dig in and enjoy it. Improve your ears by the music you read and listen to, and your playing will follow suit.

 

And every time you sit down to practice, always find something new.

[Jazzwee]

SK and Dave, I think we're on the same page here.

 

I think I was just little confused on the statement 'play the triad'.

 

When I say scale, if the scale isn't obvious, I have nothing to go on but my ear and then later I go back and realize it looks like something I recognize. I wouldn't necessarily recognize some obscure mode of a melodic minor or harmonic minor by sight, and I wasn't taught that way anyway. I'm similar in that I do the scale evaluation after the fact, which is good for eventually quickly remembering.

 

SK, on Dolphin Dance before the repeat, in the Real Book it is shown as Bb7(b9) and then Bb7Sus4(b9) but I know this is incorrect because it has an Eb Root on the recording. As you know these chords are notated differently in every Real Book and Aebersold. I think I play this (hard to know for sure without a keyboard)

 

.... (2nd and 3rd chord)

Eb Ab Db Gb |Eb A D G Bb | Eb Ab C E G Bb | D-m7b5 | G7b9 | repeat

 

In any case, this was the example I was giving where the scale isn't obvious (at least to me). I couldn't even tell you what scale I use here but I just automatically know the shape when I play it or I just derive it from the original melody.

 

Developmentally speaking, I'm at a stage now in my learning where I'm able to focus on the melody and don't usually have to think of scales. But in cases like this, I'd have to do it offline. I'd stumble if I saw it for the first time.

 

I remember in the intro for Tones for Joan's Bones there's that quick chord that looks like an Eb7 / A7 but each being a tritone of the other, then the Alt Scale is apparent (but this is quick slam chord so there's no soloing). Nevertheless it's an interesting play on slash chords.

 

 

 

 

 

[kanker.]

No, actually don't let the root determine your scale - play over the chord itself, and incorporate the root in the lines if you want.

 

Help me with that SK. Are you saying my note choices are limited to the triad + the root? 4 notes? I was thinking about the root and triad combined suggesting a scale, with a bias towards the triad sound.

No, you're not limited - and you don't have to create a scale based on the root of some slash chords. Your description sounds right - but you can play lines in a solo beyond those 4 notes.

The root can be one of the most deceptive things, even in basic harmony. When you begin to ignore the root, ie quit playing it in your voicing, and begin to just look at the notes you're playing above the root, all of a sudden you'll start to see intense common tonality among seemingly disparate voicings. For a quick and incomplete example, C7, E-7b5, and G-∆7 are all closely related harmonically. Once you see those relationships, you start to see how things that relate to each different voicing individually can relate to the other voicings. Simple lines you might play over a C7 suddenly have meaning over an E-7b5, a Bb∆7, or even a C#-. These relationships start to go even deeper once you quit looking at a C7 as C, E, G, and Bb, and begin looking at a C7 as the voicing that contains a third, and a flat seven, and then any other extension or alteration that your ears hears. C7 describes a basic minimum requirement to which you add color.

 

 

[kanker.]

I tend to use - for minor and ∆ for major. That eliminates the possibility of an uppercase/lowercase mistake on my part, or the part of someone reading a chart I've written. I prefer + for augmented, º for diminished, and prefer to use b5 instead of ø for half diminished.

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm assuming you're talking about using m for minor vs M for major, right? I'm with you, I hate that - it's too easy to get confused - there's not really that much difference between an M and an m.

Yeah, in hand written charts, that's the worst. Symbols are so much easier to read.

 

I can see using m for minor, as in Cm, or Cm7. That's a well-established convention. But CM7? That's not clear enough.

I agree. If you have to use a letter, just use the m for minor and denote major with either a ∆ or a Maj.

 

I know the use of triangle 7 for major 7 has become common, as in C∆7. I think that's unfortunate, because the triangle symbol would have been the perfect candidate to indicate a triad.

I've seen ∆ used for a triad, as in 'G∆' or 'G∆ Triad', on charts. I don't mind that at all.

[kanker.]

I always learned for 11th chords, simply play the root on the left and the major chord a whole step below on the right...that way, I don't get confrused [sic] with figuring out what gets omitted and/or played.

 

Yeah I've thought of 11 chords that way & 13 chords as a Maj7 chord a whole step below the root. It got to be such a habit that when I write charts I'll write B Maj7/C# before writing C# 13 because the slash chord I'll visualize instantly & the 13 chord I'll have to think about. A bad habit that I'm sure has caused me to miss out on some basic understanding of jazz, which for the most part eludes me.

I generally look at a dominant 13 as a voicing that does not include the 11 unless stated, or unless I 'hear' it. There's generally a little too much rub between the major 3rd and the 11. The natural 11, to me, almost always excludes the major 3rd, and the existence of the major 3rd almost always excludes the existence of the 11. All these symbols are shorthand for 'use your ears'

[kanker.]

I know the use of triangle 7 for major 7 has become common, as in C∆7. I think that's unfortunate, because the triangle symbol would have been the perfect candidate to indicate a triad.

I've seen ∆ used for a triad, as in 'G∆' or 'G∆ Triad', on charts. I don't mind that at all.

I should also add that I would naturally interpret G∆ as a G major triad because the 7 was not stated. As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the 7 needs to actually be stated in a symbol for me to assume its existence in the voicing. My ears, of course, may lead me to it anyway, but sometimes nothing but a triad will do. Witness the way Monk resolves the 2nd and last A on 'Round Midnight - Eb triad/Bb. After all that gorgeous harmony, to resolve to that seems crazy, but the way Monk plays it, nothing else will do.

[Jazzwee]

Hmmmm. I'm seeing a conflict here SK.

 

Jazzwee, if you have an 11th or 13th chord, you don't have to denote (9) or (11) since it's included in the extension.

 

I generally look at a dominant 13 as a voicing that does not include the 11 unless stated, or unless I 'hear' it.

 

Now even beyond what Kanker said, it triggered some more questions.

 

If a chord is CMaj13, I think we could safely assume it could not have an 11 right (because it is dissonant)? And I wouldn't necessarily assume a #11 in the voicing unless specified.

 

So I take it that you were just referring to the 9th. Which I agree with that natural 9ths are normally superflous in an unaltered chord.

 

This is probably why I never thought such a rule of assuming lower extensions existed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wmp]

Yeah, well said Dave.

 

It's good to see that I'm not much more confused than many folks.

 

Exactly what is a 13 chord? I often play 7 3 13. Some times 7 9 11 13. They are very differnt chords for sure. When in doubt (always), I play 7 13 and listen to what everybody else is doing.

 

The turn around in the verse of Don't Get Around Much Anymore is written ...

 

G13sus G13 C6

 

G13sus? What the heck is that? What sounds the best to me in this context is 7 9 11 13 for the G13sus and 7 3 13 for the G13. Hmmm. Is that really considered 7 9 4 13 and not 7 9 11 13? If I knew anything about music, I'd have an opinion on that. The two G chords resolve very much like a simple sus4 to major triad, only richer. Could be.

 

This sort of analysis requires thought, and if I start thinking while I'm playing, I'm screwed. There is no simultaneous analysis in my world without a resulting train wreck. At least at a conscious level. This is why I glance at the chart and think "no problem" or "holy crap", put it aside and listen carefully. I don't read and play at the same time. It gets in the way of the unconscious analysis that occurs when I listen and play.

 

Confession: I learned basic scales but actually never practiced them because, by themselves, I thought they were too generic to be a musical expression I'd use. I was impatient to start playing right away, and was discovering theory but didn't know the terminology. So when I decided to learn to read, I was surprised to find that these scales/lines I played were modes with actual names like Lydian, Phrygian, etc.

Ditto. Almost word for word. And don't quiz me on that mode stuff now. When folks start talking like that I tell 'em to shut up and play. Is that dorian? I dunno, have some and you tell me.

 

 

 

 

[Jazzwee]

G13sus? What the heck is that? What sounds the best to me in this context is 7 9 11 13 for the G13sus and 7 3 13 for the G13. Hmmm. Is that really considered 7 9 4 13 and not 7 9 11 13? If I knew anything about music, I'd have an opinion on that. The two G chords resolve very much like a simple sus4 to major triad, only richer. Could be.

 

wmp, this one was an easy one for me to figure out because I encounter it a lot.

 

After enough repetitions, I instantly see the 13 of the G resolving to the 9 of the C in a V-I.

 

And vice versa, 9 resolving to the 13.

 

This is so common in jazz voicings that fortunately I don't have to use brain power for it

 

 

[Byrdman]

Any chord that has it's extensions from the 7th degree or higher described immediately after the root note are dominant. Period.

 

This is a personal pieve of mine, but bare with me. And I know you are going to be able to point to bunches of text books that do this so I am out in left field.

 

I find the confluence of "dominant" and x7 (G7 D7 etc chords) unfortunate.

 

My reasoning being that dominant is a harmonic function while G7 is the name of a chord independent of its function.

 

I would argue, first, that that chord is only a dominant if it acts as a dominant in the particular harmony and, secondly, that other chords (Bdim in key of C for example) also act as dominants and can reasonable be called dominants in a functional analysis (though you will often see the prevaricating "acts as a dominant").

 

So I think its clearer if these concepts are kept separate. So G7 is only a dom7 in the key of C or if it establishes C as a region in some other key.