Please help me chart a tune

[I-missRichardTee]

+11 sounds more dissonant to my ear than 11. Regardless, the question is one of conventions, and I'm sure that conventions vary.

 

Levine is definitely talking about chord construction when he raises the "avoid" note, but he also mentions leads and melodies: they tend to use these notes in passing rather than as stressed.

 

I find it odd that a note in the blues pentatonic scale is an "avoid" note. But I guess I'm OK with a fair amount of dissonance. After all, that blues scale is a minor scale often played over a dominant chord.

 

As a resource, we have Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_chord

 

The treatment there agrees with my understanding, for the most part, but doesn't show common voicings, and leaves a lot to the imagination. Furthermore, I bet folks here who know way more than I do would find things to object to.

 

Conventions vary yes.. but degrees of dissonance do not.

11+ more dissonant than 11, yes, math wise you are correct.

However That means on a C root, an F# is more dissonant then an F, yes, definitely more dissonant. That is mathematically true.

 

but in the case of a Chord it is a different matter

We are speaking of C E G Bb D F versus C E G Bb D F#- mathematically speaking as well.

Play both on piano, and tell me which is more stable sounding?

There are many interactions with the 2 chords above.

The issue is between the E and the F being played together with all the other notes versus the E and F# being played with the accompanying notes. You see the difference?

[uncledunc]

Aha! In my version of the C13 that's shown at the links I provided, the stack starts at Bb, followed by D, F, A. There's no E in that stack - no dissonance. I'm assuming this stack is based on some kind of theory, although, since it's on the internet, it could be just some clueless piano player posting stuff for other clueless piano players like me to repost.

 

I agree that if you build a 13 chord on top of the root triad and work your way up to include the 9 and 11, it does sound sort of horrible - doubly so with the #11. In my crowd, we use the 13 chord with the #11 in it as a joke to tack onto the ending of an otherwise pretty song.

[I-missRichardTee]

So uncledunc I was kind of specifically trying to help you!! So you say C bass Bb D F A is not dissonant to you? And raising the F in that stack to F# is amazingly dissonant? Hmmm.

I am late for work.. but C13 does not have an F natural in it. I evened troubled my music teacher about it! But online I saw a place which spelled C13 as containing an F yikes. No standards anymore. Wiki has no 11 of either kind, which is what I would expect. C (optional G ) Bb (optional D) E A.

Thanks buddy for listening

[NeverTooLate]

Aha! In my version of the C13 that's shown at the links I provided, the stack starts at Bb, followed by D, F, A.

 

Sorry, totally missed that link and your question about it. Yes, I think it's just wrong.

 

I agree that if you build a 13 chord on top of the root triad and work your way up to include the 9 and 11, it does sound sort of horrible - doubly so with the #11.

 

I agree about the 11, but disagree about the #11 if it's far away enough from the root. You may want to omit the 5, though.

[JeffLearman]

A major 7 has the same octave-minus-half-tone dissonance in it and certainly doesn't sound dissonant. Of course, the 11 is "worse". Still the +11 has much more tension in it and sounds even less sonorous than the 11. I'll admit that there's a difference between tension and dissonance, but the +11 seems to have a good measure of both.

[I-missRichardTee]

This is not entirely subjective. What you or I think.

It is the practice of musicians

C7 with F is less common over the history of jazz than c7 F#

 

Do you know to what I refer to when I say it is about math as well?

It's about ratios

 

An octave is a ratio of 2 to 1. Or is it. 1 to 2

 

A perfect fifth is. 2 to 3 Well tempered alters this slightly

 

The 1 to 2 ratio is purer, simpler, more consonant than 2 to 3, or 4 to 5 etc.

 

 

How many here feel a C9 with an added 11 and same C9 but with an F# that the F# is more tense more dissonant. Harder on the ears ?

 

There has been some disagreement about a 13th chord. Built on C root, some say F others F#

of course the 11th or sharp 11th is withheld when playing a C13, but because F is an "avoid note" aka a sensitive tone, F# is the preferred note.

I just now looked in my iReal B app and it spells C13 as follows:

C E G Bb D (F#) A

BTW the iReal b has no less than 61 C root based chords, quite a large number in the chord sylabus. Bravo to whomever created the iRealB

 

[JeffLearman]

How do they spell

 

C E G Bb D F A

 

?

[I-missRichardTee]

Hi Jeff

Unfortunately, sadly, there is no longer any unanimity about the meaning of eg C13. This is upsetting to me, because my mind takes it beyond the obvious, into other areas of society.. into the movement towards chaos. Sorry about that digression.

I can assure you that in my experience as a musician, and from my teachers, and the musicians I have known C13 cannot have an F in it, YET in a few occasions, online I saw C13 with the F ( 11 ) in it.

And once again, a 4 is a 4 because no 7 is present in chord, if 7 is present, it is called 11. This comes from Pres of Music Arrangers Society. He taught Oscar Peterson his course on music!

 

I went to a lot of trouble ( my nature ;-) ) to verify this, including contacting my still living teacher, who immediately said "not F , F#". F# that is, if an eleventh is used. You see that is potentially confusing F and F# are both elevenths.

Generally C13 is Root 3rd 5th b7 9 13 though a natural ninth is optional because like the optional perfect fifth it has a neutral effect. The augmented 11 is a stronger sound and is not included in C13, but IF an 11th is decided to be added it has always been F# not F. The F against the E is a FUNCTIONAL conflict. However it is a more modern sound I have messed with.

 

[JeffLearman]

So, again, how do you write a C13 with a natural F in it?

 

What's the point of nomenclature if you don't follow it? Silly people.

 

C7b9 is a functional conflict, too, isn't it? That doesn't make it any less cool a chord. But I stand by my claim that for a DOMINANT chord, the +11 is way more dissonant and tense and less stable than natural 11. For a major chord, it's the opposite.

 

Regardless, if I see C13, I don't play an 11 anyway.

[wmp]

 

Y'all make a compelling case for just writing out the stack of dots.

[TrapperJack]

Yairs, if you really mean business, write the notes of the chords - the notes before and the notes after, not just the chord in question. I checked with the Guvnor of the Voice Leading and Harmonic Sounds Guild.

 

How a chord sounds is determined by a few other fings ... like, how loud or not loud (dynamics) it is, how you choose to bang it out (or creep into it), articulation, how fast or slow it comes and goes, and uvver rhythmic fings, and how many people are in the room talking while you play (acoustics), and how many beers you have had (reader's reception and cultural preparedness). Uvver fings, too.

 

It is not maths or ratios, after the first few basics: we play tempered scales. I checked with the Consolidated Pipe Welders and Blacksmiths (Anvil Chapter) local branch locker person. (He knows a bloke what choons pianos.)

 

And, as should be abundantly clear to all, by now, the chord notation system we use has limitations that we get around by saying, "I like it like this." And that works for me.

[I-missRichardTee]

Jeff. I just for kicks searched the 60 or so chords built on C in irealb

Out of all those chords. There was not a single instance of a chord built on C root

That simultaneously contained an E and an F

 

But wiki had a C13 as having F

 

Very discouraging for me. This lack of a standard

[JeffLearman]

Well, jazz is all about breaking the rules, isn't it?

[I-missRichardTee]

Well, jazz is all about breaking the rules, isn't it?

lol

 

First we have to absorb those pesky rules..!

 

Such as: Before the 21st century decided to turn the world on end.. aka no rules, or so it seems sometimes;

we had suspension and resolution. It is no big deal.. common as can be... used in all manner of ways. In my opinion a montuno manifests this.

 

If one has no interest in suspension and resolution ( not to mention the much earlier PREPARATION [ of a dissonant tone- aka Mark Levine's "avoid note" ] SUSPENSION and finally RESOLUTION ) then I feel one loses out on an important musical effect.

I am not sure if you theory guys will argue this, but to me A 2 chord montuno shows suspension and resolution.

 

If one takes the position, there are no rules, or minimal rules, their music will have the limits imposed by their not disciplining their ear to what, esp counterpoint, has to teach them about various rules; or if they smirk at idea of consonance dissonance which I learned about as a boy, same limitations.

Nothing wrong with avoiding rules.

 

Jeff you keep saying that the F# is more dissonant than the F. but to be clear

you were referring to this chord C E G Bb D F A, that seven note chord, is less dissonant to you than this chord C E G Bb D F# A ? I just want to be certain we are talking about seven note chords, and not C and F versus C and F#. Because C and F are much LESS dissonant than C and F#.

And arithmetic or ratio is involved in the determination of dissonance.

I learned about math ratios in music from Hindemith's book on composition.

Since Hindemith is an old old guy, maybe his ideas have lost relevance!

 

[TrapperJack]

I read that Hindemith book when I was doing one of my theses: have long since thrown it out. (Just as I have long since thrown out my first books on electricity --and, like Hindemith, they weren't wrong, either: we just have a bigger picture, now.)

 

At least you weren't going to quote Schillinger, John.

 

Math doesn't help you understand or play music. The fact that some simple math can readily be applied to some structures, and some complex math can be used to describe just about everything, doesn't mean harmony is based on ratio.

 

What sounds good is culturally defined. We learn it.

 

My grandfather told me that the chord symbol argument boiled along early in the fifties. My father said that when Jamey Abersold books first came out, and college jazz programs were flourishing in the seventies, the argument came again.

 

We don't have a comprehensive, modern chord labelling system. (We could go back to "figured bass", but I bet we don't. ) What we have works for those who need it: once you become a mature, skilled performer, you are looking for more than chord symbols to capture and explore sound. (So said Hindemith, and I agree.)

 

So, people should chill. Use chord symbols as much as you need to, and when they don't meet your needs anymore, (because they don't cover everything vertical and sonic), write the notes.

[NeverTooLate]

Math doesn't help you understand or play music. The fact that some simple math can readily be applied to some structures, and some complex math can be used to describe just about everything, doesn't mean harmony is based on ratio.

 

What sounds good is culturally defined. We learn it.

 

I don't think that's entirely true. It's also about how well the overtones of the notes in a chord match each other, which is very much about ratios.

 

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

[TrapperJack]

Hi NeverTooLate (great monica, may I say),

 

I bet its getting chilly in Germany now: the cold squats over the woods, here -- Christmas can't be far away.

 

Now, if I were older and more sensible, I would settle for "I agree with the rest of your post, though".

 

Lots of angles bother me about the "math" and music stuff.

 

First, math just about owes its growth and complexity to physicists evolving maths to help model and so "substantiate" their hypotheses of the physical world. That statement is not quite true, but it is largely true. But, the physical world existed without the math, not because of it. So it is with music and math. (Careful, now: just because some artists can sculpt a horse from some lumps of rock doesn't mean that there is a horse hiding in every piece of rock.)

 

Second, did your music teacher ever try to get you to improve your intonation by calculating ratio? Or tone?

 

Indeed, have you ever tried to identify all the ratio present when a triad is played low on a good piano (one that rings its sound for nearly a minute, using 2/3 of the strings)?

 

Even piano tuners don't use math in any complex way.

 

Every single piano tuner on this Earth (not using an electronic tuner) tunes a piano to different notes -- unless they fluke the same notes.

 

Do you play (program) synths? Use much math, as you "enrich" your basic, pure sine wave? And, what is the math for your sawtooth grunge?

 

Which song do you love best because of its "math"? Heavy duty symphonies played by big orchestras make every part of me tingle, but I'm not calculating. (How good were Beethoven's math skills?)

 

Other cultures had vast musical attainments, and little or no access to the same math? How did they do that?

 

How did we make such fine compositions prior to inventing calculus?

 

I accept that we count time, that simple steps in harmony can be described in ratio, that math and form can be aligned, that I am rooted to tonal music (not atonal, anyway), and that other basic math applies (root mean square to dynamics, etc), but I am restless about claiming too big a place for math in music.

 

Actually, I couldn't care less. It is cold outside, and today writing this is a better option than doing the snowshoe crunch.

[JeffLearman]

Jeff you keep saying that the F# is more dissonant than the F. but to be clear

you were referring to this chord C E G Bb D F A, that seven note chord, is less dissonant to you than this chord C E G Bb D F# A ? I just want to be certain we are talking about seven note chords, and not C and F versus C and F#. Because C and F are much LESS dissonant than C and F#.

And arithmetic or ratio is involved in the determination of dissonance.

I learned about math ratios in music from Hindemith's book on composition.

Since Hindemith is an old old guy, maybe his ideas have lost relevance!

I find the F less dissonant for either the 6-note chord (C11) or 7-note chord (C13).

 

Regarding math, to quote a popular movie: "You keep using that word but I do tnink it means what you think it means!"

 

The natural 11 has the E-F dissonance, but the #11 has G-F# dissonance. In addition, the #11 has triton dissonance between the Bb F#. and If there's a mathematical formula for dissonance, I want to see it, and show your work.

 

In any case, the #11 does sound better with a major 7th. It's only the dominant where the natural 11 sounds cleaner to me, and I think it sounds cleaner simply because the 3 doesn't factor in as much as the top 4 notes of the chord, in my mind.

[JeffLearman]

First, math just about owes its growth and complexity to physicists evolving maths to help model and so "substantiate" their hypotheses of the physical world. That statement is not quite true, but it is largely true.

Actually, it's largely false. The vast majority of math used in physics arose earlier in pure mathematics. Off the top of my head I can think of a lot of examples. The only counterexample I can think of is Newton's calculus -- but that probably did precede Newton's physics applications, especially if Leibniz has priority. Imaginary and complex numbers existed before Maxwell's work, and matrix math preceded comprehensive thermodynamics (in fact, physicists at the time groaned about having to learn a previously obscure set of math techniques to master their science). Even string theory rests mostly on previously known math, though no doubt they're pushing a few edges there. There are a number of other examples, but I'd have to root around in my science history books.

 

In any case, I believe that both you and NeverTooLate are correct, except when implying that the other is wrong. Certainly the math dictates a lot of what might work; it defines octaves and the basic intervals, and many facts of basic intervals are shared among all of the world's classical music traditions. (For example, classical music of India uses a 12-tone scale with 7 major tones and 5 minor ones, with many of the same modes.)

 

Within that framework dictated by basic physics (as well as principles of human hearing), there is a lot of variation based on cultural norms. While there are a lot of similarities between many Indian and Western scales, the size of certain intervals vary considerably more in Indian than in Western: in fact, the trend in Western music has been to minimize the variations, using math to provide tempered scales.

 

Even the development of tempered scales in the West is a result of differences in musical traditions (and the "cultured ear" of the players and listeners). In India, the primary path of harmonic exploration is horizontal, whereas in the West, it's markedly vertical. Indian music sets up a background tonality and improvises more on single-line melodic structures, whereas Western music explores harmony in motion, changing chords and even changing scales.

 

Fast forward to 19th and 20th century America and the "blue note", born of the shotgun wedding of Western and African musical traditions. Classical music studies took quite a while to codify and study the blue note, but now it's canon.

 

Western classical music is both analytic and heuristic. That is, a lot of it is predicted by theory that is based on pure math and physics (analytic), but a lot is also based on simply what works (blue notes, and rules of harmony like "avoid parallel motion" ... which is really "avoid too much parallel motion").

 

Music is like life. Try to fit it in a box, and it will break out. But that doesn't mean that the math is useless as an important tool to investigate, explore, and predict.

 

That said, while I'm ordinarily a very analytical guy (with the emphasis on the first two syllables, mispronounced), I rarely get much of inspiration from the theory. Instead, it helps me to understand why something sounds good after I've blundered into it. And of course, the small bits that I've mastered, help me to (a) quickly pick up stuff that's like other stuff I know, and (b) keep me happily plodding in my ruts.

 

But that's because I'm not a genius; I'm a lot closer to the "hack" end of the scale.

 

And yeah, it's cold outside!

[JeffLearman]

Regarding charts, let me retell a silly little story from my sordid past. The moral of the story is that good charts don't define the song, they give clues that a good musician can interpret.

 

My housemate was a bass player and overall much more accomplished musician than I was. He had recently put together a nice fretless, and I always had a nice 4-track recording setup, plus CP70 and Rhodes. One day he said he wanted to play Mingus's Goodbye Pork Pie Hat. I know I had probably heard the tune, but didn't know it. He gave me a chart -- the standard fake book one at the time, in E regardless that the tune is actually in Eb. The chords were at most 7ths (!!!)

 

I played the simplest voicings of each chord as it appeared on the page. Todd tried to play the lead on fretless but kept giving me nasty looks. Finally I had to say "Dammit, I'm playing what's written!" He took a good look at the chart, scowled, and stomped off. We didn't discuss it again for a long time. I thought he was annoyed at my ignorance, but found out later that he was annoyed by the chart.

 

Many years after that, I still really hadn't heard the tune, believe it or not (at least, not when paying attention). I think I had heard Joni Mitchell's version, but just once or twice. But the melody, as played by Todd, haunted me, and I still had the chart, so I thought I'd sit down and see what I could make of it.

 

I assumed that the chord, as charted, had the right bass note, and the simplest reasonable chord, and that the melody was correct. I "reconstructed" the piece from that, trying to find voicings or ways to play the charted chords that fit the melody.

 

Damn if the melody plus the notated chords didn't really dictate the tune as it really was. Still without having heard the Mingus version, that I knew of, I played it for someone who did know the tune, and I pretty much nailed it (without actually playing it like a jazz musician, which I'm not). He pointed out a couple mistakes I'd made, which were pretty minor.

 

The lesson from that was that there's a really deep logic to that tune, that's based on some rather simply chartable chords plus the rather left-field melody. I didn't re-invent the tune, I just discovered it in the clues that were on the page.

 

I gained a lot of respect for both Mingus, the guy who wrote that "horrible" chart, and jazz musicians in general (who can read that schmidt and play it on the fly!)

[I-missRichardTee]

Jeff and especially Trapper... you are taking my use of the words math and ratio, to areas I was never suggesting.

This funny routine comes to mind when you two go on about higher math and physics a buzz word with you.. I hit a raw nerve saying that word .... Math in the same sentence with music. ROTFLMAO so to speak.

 

 

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

Before I say anymore - I think I said it earlier... I do not believe math is a means to be a better player. Read that until it sinks in, K?

If you do I will restrain myself from saying that M word lol

 

Being naturally curious about music, I did mention ratios because I thought it might be a factor in why an octave sounds, the way it does ( fill in your own opinion about an octave- "pure" "stable" "clear" "simple" - neither words nor math are my talent... music is! ) and why a major 7th sounds the way it does. We have heard different attempts in books, to describe different intervals- since my point was about degrees of dissonance, I thought ratio might help. however one sticky fact is equal temperment makes things more difficult, more complex math wise. I still believe that ratios are relevant, as is the continuum of consonance to dissonance.

And further complicating ratios in a seven part chord is the fact that there are so many intervals involved, not to mention combination tones.

If anyone on this forum knows of a place where these kinds of calculations have been made with music, I would be curious. Please avoid using the M word though!

 

Jeff.. re: which is more dissonant .. I did ask you your opinion, and you have given it clearly, thank you.

 

Peace

 

[TrapperJack]

(Careful, now: just because some artists can sculpt a horse from some lumps of rock doesn't mean that there is a horse hiding in every piece of rock.)

 

 

Some scientists will grizzle about anything. But they are the "followers".

 

If you ever do spend time finding those science history books, I would be interested to follow that up (not in this forum, of course): it strikes me as "contrary".

 

I don't like Indian music much: it's everything I don't like -- timbre, melodic motifs, even rhythm ... just haven't been socialised to enjoy it, I guess. But don't tell anyone, please.

 

(Last trip to India, in Mumbai, I bought a rhythm box, an electric, programmable tone synthesiser of every imaginable rhythm, tempo, instrumentation, etc for Indian music. Very interesting, not MIDI, and sounds like Roland made it, but they didn't. Anyway, I haven't used it. It is in the cupboard.)

 

Yup, its cold.

[I-missRichardTee]

I am having a growing appreciation of Indian music.. hmmm. I won't tell anyone though.. your secret is safe here. Esp considering how many members here are ignoring this thread ha ha

[Jazz+]

I have an idea why many are ignoring it...

[Theo Verelst]

Just as a note for those who care, the math is in the music for sure, but so it is in physics and mechanics: that doesn't imply automatically it rules, even though many laws of physics indeed are phrased in solid (albeit horridly complex) math, it isn't the "Zeus of Math" on the Olympus of music.

 

More into the contemporary errors of judgment direction, it isn't right to deny the great synth and instrument makers that they used solid, sometimes complicated math. I've heard the latest Prophet, I've played a recent Yamaha (CP4) I know a lot of other instruments from recent and less recent past, I'm sure main engineers in the science, and forward area, of the "synthesizer" design realm, and I don't mean just the next rompler-like design, will have a say in the future about the connection of AND the musical abilities of an instrument AND the connection of digital instruments with certain errors/properties of that sport AND the connection of their instruments with certain A-grade production path dreams, AND (and this is the case since the greek, for sure) the connection between instruments and music and the solving of (proper) differential equations (as most will know: the mathematics of equating some function with another function stated with at least one differential component, and solving such equations), but at least the latter two are hard to explain in a community rusted to a almost full stop in pursuing the ultimate in f*cking with ants, becoming something of a full time Pharisee or at least having the, so to see, un-tamable desire to tame lions and all other people.

 

T