So what chord is this?

[JeffLearman]

Jazz, the thing is, "-" is often used to mean "minor", especially in hand-written charts. (In these same charts, a triangle denotes major. "M" and "m" were too easily confused.)

 

Also, a plus sign is often used to denote an augmented chord (that is, augmented 5), but with other color notes. So, we could see a Caug9 written as C+9, which is NOT a chord with an augmented 9, but an augmented chord with the 9 added.

 

My point is using "+" and "-" for "#" and "b" is ambiguous and really not very common. It's unfortunate that some people do it, because it just increases confusion. Especially because we already have perfectly good symbols to use: flat and sharp, or 'b' and '#' using ASCII characters.

 

It's also easy to distinguish 'b' and '#' used to modify the root versus color tones. Just stick the 7 in between. So, a dominant C with sharp 9 is C7#9, and a C# dominant with 9 is C#9.

 

It's true there are different conventions, but some are unfortuantely very confusing, and others are pretty easily understood by anyone. I recommend use of the latter.

 

So, I agree: use of plus/minus isn't wrong. It's just a bad idea.

 

Jeff

[Steve Nathan]

This is awesome

Who would believe the the one guy on this forum, least interested in notation or theory, could have lit the match that started this fire.

I am honestly enjoying the debate. Still, if I had to choose between knowing how to notate this chord or being able to recognize it upon hearing it (without benefit of a piece of paper), I know what I'd pick, but I absolutely envy those of you who do both effortlessly.

And I know Linwood was joking, but in fact one reason I use the C/Bb7 (or as we call it in Nashville: the 5 over 4(7)) is precisely because it conveys to guitar players that they may be able to just play a C (keeping the low notes clear). In a multi instrument recording setting, we all have to find ways to thin ourselves in order to balance the frequencies among us. This is why (on country records) I often choose to leave out some 3rds, or even more often, will spread out my voicings, while limiting them to as few as 3 notes.

[kanker.]

Oooh Steve. While you sit back and laugh, you share such great nuggets on fitting into recording nicely. Humor and wisdom. Nice.

[kad]

If memory serves, we had this same discussion on a "Clare Fischer" thread several months ago...

 

Many arrangers and theorists have adopted "+" notation as a way to mitigate confusion in cases where the note being altered is already a "black key" in its unaltered state. Take the key of C# minor for example... The dominant is G#7, which is spelled G#, B#, D#, F#. If we raise the fifth, we now have G#, B#, D##, F#. I suppose that to the jazz theory newbie, equating "#5" to "D##" could be confusing. Using a plus sign simply says "raise whatever note functions as the 5th".

 

Personally, I'm so used to seeing both conventions that I don't even give it a second thought

 

Kirk

[linwood]

I'm with ya, Steve. If the guitar guy grabs the top 3 or 4 notes, it's good for me and easier for them to understand what to do in a pinch. C/Bb7 would sure tell them all the info they need and fast. It tells them what you want better than any other way of writing it. If that doesn't work, I usually tell them to "get on the good string."

[Jazz+]

[moj]

OK, I've had enough of this..

 

The C/Bb7 = Bb7(9,#11,13) is pretty much the consensus here. I like to write it as Bb#11,13. If I see #11, I don't add the 13, while the 9 is always included.

 

If Steve had notated the chord as such:

 

C/Bb7(no 3rd) then it could be called a

AbMa7(#5)/Bb.

 

But, c'mon adding the D or not still makes it sound like a Bb#11,13 to me, especially if voiced like how Steve indicated.

 

I listened to the recording again and the C/Bb7, as Steve voiced it, is correct. I gotta give him the the "Golden Ears" award. He was the only one that knew the correct chord.

[cnegrad]

mojazz,

 

I like to write it as Bb#11,13. If I see #11, I don't add the 13, while the 9 is always included.

Just be aware that though you may interpret the chord that way, it doesn't mean that others will see it the same way. I don't understand why you apply those "rules" that you mention in this statement. All of those notes are available and sound fine together. I use them in varying combinations all the time.

 

If Steve had notated the chord as such:

 

C/Bb7(no 3rd) then it could be called a

AbMa7(#5)/Bb.

Only if you want to overcomplicate the situation and possibly inhibit other players from being able to sight-read the tune on the spot.

 

I listened to the recording again and the C/Bb7, as Steve voiced it, is correct. I gotta give him the the "Golden Ears" award. He was the only one that knew the correct chord.

It only proves that Steve was the only one who cared enough to go back and scrutinize the original recording. (It is HIS thread after all...)

 

Honestly guys; this thread is really much ado about nothing. It's a very standard chord voicing that's used _all_ the time. Now that we've disected every single piece of this chord and analyzed every conceivable wrong spelling of it, can we move on?

 

Next, someone's gonna start a thread that proclaims that there's really no such thing as a Bm7b5 chord; that it's only a Dm/B. Sheesh...

[moj]

cnegrad

 

It only proves that Steve was the only one who cared enough to go back and scrutinize the original recording. (It is HIS thread after all...)

Steve posted this thread as a response to MY thread. And, there were others who cared enough to post a reply.

 

Steve's first post referenced my thread:

In the "Etta James" thread, I gave Mojazz a chord that I call a C/Bb7, meaning a Bb & Ab in the left hand and a C/E/G triad in the right. I am perfectly comfortable calling this a C over Bb7, but it got me thinking about what do the "schooled" among us call this chord. Somehow Bb7/9/#11/13 seems like a mouthful.

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/18/t/020156.html

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like to write it as Bb#11,13. If I see #11, I don't add the 13, while the 9 is always included.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Just be aware that though you may interpret the chord that way, it doesn't mean that others will see it the same way. I don't understand why you apply those "rules" that you mention in this statement. All of those notes are available and sound fine together. I use them in varying combinations all the time.

Rules??!! They are not rules! It's how I like to apply the chord. It's my opinion, what I like, how I see it, my take on it... and so on. OK?

There is mention of Levine's and Aebersold's well-regarded and respected books. I considered the material in those books as "rules" when many musicians use them as a reference.

 

 

I like to write it as Bb#11,13. If I see #11, I don't add the 13, while the 9 is always included.

As an example, take a look at "Lush Life" from the New Real Book vol. 1 (Sher Music Co.). The 9th and 13th chords with a #11 are written in this manner:

 

D9(#11)

D13(#11)

 

It's pretty clear to me that the #11 is specifically indicated for the D9 or D13.

(I like how Sher writes the chords.)

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Steve had notated the chord as such:

 

C/Bb7(no 3rd) then it could be called a

AbMa7(#5)/Bb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Only if you want to overcomplicate the situation and possibly inhibit other players from being able to sight-read the tune on the spot.

"Over complicate the situation"? It's just an observation of the chord in question - C/Bb7.

 

Use the 3rd (D) in the Bb7 of the C/Bb7 and it's a Bb#11,13 and no 3rd and it's a AbMa7(#5)..or "interpreted" as such..

[cnegrad]

Mojazz,

Use the 3rd (D) in the Bb7 of the C/Bb7 and it's a Bb#11,13 and no 3rd and it's a AbMa7(#5)..or "interpreted" as such.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Whether you play the third in a voicing doesn't change the function of the chord. A Bb7 with 9 #11 and 13 is still a Bb7 whether or not you play the third; it's implied. While it may be a different voicing of the chord, it doesn't change the function of the chord, so it's still a Bb7, regardless of the myriad ways you want to voice and/or spell it.

Levine's and Aebersold's well-regarded and respected books..... take a look at "Lush Life" from the New Real Book vol. 1 (Sher Music Co.). The 9th and 13th chords with a #11 are written in this manner...I considered the material in those books as "rules" when many musicians use them as a reference.

Just because Levine, Aebersold and Sher voiced a chord a particular way on that particular day, doesn't mean that they voice it that way every time they play it. Be aware that when books are published, they tend to try to hold to certain specific guidelines to retain consistancy throughout their books. Do you actually think that professional jazz musicians always voice their Dom7#11 chords the same way every time they play them? Are you kidding me? Jazz is a fluid, malleable artform where voicings are constantly changing on-the-fly to match the ever-evolving mood of the moment. Sure, if it makes you happy to have your "favorite voicing", go head and use it the same way every day in every tune if that's what you really want. But in my opinion, it's a very limiting way to think. For every individual chord in a jazz tune, there must be at least a dozen different ways to voice it; whether you're playing a tight, closed voicing, a wide spread, using clusters, altered tones, modal voicings, polychords, including or excluding the basic chord tones, and the list goes on. To say, "whenever I play 'this' type of chord, I always voice it this way", is closing yourself off from many sources of harmonic creativity.

[Steve Nathan]

Cnegrad wrote:

It only proves that Steve was the only one who cared enough to go back and scrutinize the original recording.

Well, for the record, your honor, I did call that chord, and the rest of them that I found missing in the other replies, from memory. I used the CD (which was on my wife's shelf, about 4 steps from here) to confirm my recollection. I thereby petition the court to restore my Golden Ears award without delay.

 

Now as to:

Next, someone's gonna start a thread that proclaims that there's really no such thing as a Bm7b5 chord; that it's only a Dm/B. Sheesh... [Freak]

Lord knows I don't want to tussle with you again Cnegrad . I suspect you're still pissed at me over that Standards thread, but I hope you're not implying that there is no such thing as a Dm/B chord. Hopefully we can at least agree that you can't discuss chords definitively in a vacuum. That the surrounding context is what determines how best to describe a group of notes.

 

Besides, I'd call that a B half diminished anyway.

[cnegrad]

Steve,

Lord knows I don't want to tussle with you again Cnegrad . I suspect you're still pissed at me over that Standards thread

Steve, though I admit I still scratch my head over it, I let that one go a long time ago, and hold no grudges.

I hope you're not implying that there is no such thing as a Dm/B chord....

Besides, I'd call that a B half diminished anyway

The point that I'm trying to drive home here, is that there is an important distinction to be made between choosing a chord symbol to denote the function of a chord, as opposed to spelling a chord symbol to grasp a quick idea of it's voicing. Both have their place, but it's important to understand why.

 

Yes, context does play an important part. So let's say that for the sake of this discussion that we have the following progression:

 

Cmaj7 |Dm/B | E7 | Am

 

The second chord in this progression is clearly mispelled. It is no kind of D chord whatsoever. It is clearly a Bm7b5, also known as B half diminished. (I acknowledge the real-world existance of both monikers, and run into both of them regularly. For all intents and purposes, they're interchangable.) Now if someone walked up to just any random pianist and said, "play a Dm/B", yes; the pianist's hands would play something that sounds like a Bm7b5 aka B half diminished. But Dm/B won't tell them how the chord really functions or how to solo over it in context with other chords around it. On the other hand, Bm7b5 aka B half diminished gives an awful lot of info as to what will probably come after it, as well as several possible reharmonizations, as well as possibilities on how to solo on that chord and the ones that will in all likelyhood follow.

 

Once more, and for clarity's sake:

 

There is an important distinction to be made between choosing a chord symbol to denote the function of a chord, as opposed to spelling a chord symbol to grasp a quick idea of how to play it on the physical keyboard. The former gives you a wealth of information about how the chord functions in context, and the latter just puts the pianist's fingers into a position that may sound correct, but gives no information to the player as to why.

 

Some of the responses I've seen in this thread clearly demonstrate that some people don't understand the difference between the two types of spellings, and why it's important to recognize the rationale behind each.

[Jazz+]

[kanker.]

Man, you guys really do have a lot of time on your hands.

 

 

Just for the record, chords don't really exist. You're all wrong.

[cnegrad]

Originally posted by kanker, apparently:

Man, you guys really do have a lot of time on your hands.

Better discussing actual musical techniques than discussing what weighted action synths with aftertouch can be had for under $200 for the hundreth time....

[kad]

Originally posted by cnegrad:

Better discussing actual musical techniques than discussing what weighted action synths with aftertouch can be had for under $200 for the hundreth time....

+ 1,000,000

 

If we don't have a handle on the "music" part, all the equipment in the world is pointless...

[stepay]

Originally posted by cnegrad:

I'm gonna have to go along with the Bb7#11 camp. I guess it all depends on whether you want the chord symbol to communicate it's function, or if you want to communicate a particular voicing.

 

With regards to the statement:

Seriously, I know basic theory as well as most people, but if I play a chord that sounds sweet in context, I don't worry a hell of a lot about what to call it! After all, most of the time the audience comes to hear MUSIC, not to analyze chord progressions...

Stepay and Eric,

 

This comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me. First, unless you know what to call it you won't be able to properly communicate it to other musicians you are playing with. Second, unless you understand what to call it and why it functions the way it does, then you won't be able to properly solo on it (unless you're just "guessing"). Lastly, if your comment were true, then why bother trying to understand anything? Let's all just bash on the keyboard, and not bother trying to comprehend why it works so as to improve ourselves. Sounds silly to me....

Eric made that comment, so he gets credit for it, but I did agree to it.

 

I think the main idea is that the music is what is important, not the naming of the chord.

 

If I weren't able to communicate a AbMa7(#5)/Bb to someone in a band (either because I don't know what that means or they don't) then I could still explain it to them "There' a Bb in the bass..." so communication isn't lost.

 

The bottom line about music is that it ALWAYS is about how it sounds. Period. Anyone who tells me otherwise is just a theorist and not a player. Musicians who might not call a chord AbMa7(#5)/Bb can still understand what it is and know enough music theory to be able to use that chord.

[cnegrad]

Stepay,

 

Whatever floats your boat. Sorry for trying to help. If you're that dead set against knowing why music works the way it does, then that's fine. It's unfortunate that you feel it necessary to cast aspersions on those that are freely sharing this hard-earned knowledge.

 

I've been here at KC for a very long time, and folks around here know that I'm not one to go overboard self-advertizing, waving my credits around like an egotist. Those that do know me personally know that I've got a list of studio and live performance credits that prove I'm far from a "classroom theorist". I'm not some inexperienced amature sitting in his basement typing out BS to impress people in a forum. If it's really important for me to give you a list of all the big names I've played with, I'll be happy to oblige, if you really need that type of validation. But if it's easier for you to just make negative slurs against those that are just trying to help, then go ahead and say whatever you please.

 

I've spoken with Eric offline numerous times, and I doubt very much that he shares your ire. He is a kind, understanding person who has an open mind, and is willing to discuss music in a reasonable fashion, without taking personal offense.

 

I find it sad that so many here at KC (in numerous theory and harmony-related threads) only want the easy answers, the tricks, and the workarounds, and get supremely argumentative and defensive when harder (but ultimately more rewarding) responses are offered. But I guess that's what I get for trying to help.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

May I make a suggestion?

 

Let's all take a chill pill.

 

I enjoy discussing this theoretical stuff as much as the next guy or gal, but when it starts getting too heated, it's time to sit back and remember that, in the end, this stuff is not worth raising one's blood pressure over

[cnegrad]

Agreed. Where is all the hostility coming from?

[Dave Horne]

Four pages, one chord.

 

There should be a better way to communicate chordal construction. You know, there might actually be a ... it's coming to me .... wait, wait ... nope, it's gone.

 

[Jazzwee]

I think cnegrad's explanation is pretty clear. I wouldn't know how to solo over AbMa7(#5)/Bb or C/Bb7. I would not understand the context. So for communicating function, not voicing, and for those that need to improvise, the Bb7#11 is pretty definitive. No guesses. Simple too.

 

No one disputes the ease of picturing C/Bb7 for comping purposes and communicating a specific voicing. But IMHO, it's more limited as a method of communication.

[stepay]

Originally posted by cnegrad:

Agreed. Where is all the hostility coming from?

No hostility coming from me. You and I disagree about something -- how is that hostile on my part?

 

I threw out the statement that "The bottom line about music is that it ALWAYS is about how it sounds." Do you disagree with that? I don't think you do. How can you? You're a musician aren't you?

 

I'm a classically trained musician, so none of this discussion is over my head, but I play with and have played with tons of musicians who just don't think of music in the same way, and many of them are better players than I will ever be. Having to know exactly what a chord is called in some sort of official naming way is not necessary. Discussions are interesting, but if a musician can play that chord and knows how to use it and understands how it sounds the way it does within a certain chord progression, then that's fine with me.

[ProfD]

Surprised this got to 4 pages without adding my #.02 cents.

 

+1 Theoretical discussions about music are great and should be included among those about gear and techniques.

 

#1 Also agree that such discussions can be had free of hostility.

 

It is about music which is a beautiful thing regardless of how you say it or play it.

[Jazz+]

Originally posted by stepay:

Originally posted by cnegrad:

Agreed. Where is all the hostility coming from?

No hostility coming from me. You and I disagree about something -- how is that hostile on my part?

 

I threw out the statement that "The bottom line about music is that it ALWAYS is about how it sounds." Do you disagree with that? I don't think you do. How can you? You're a musician aren't you?

 

I'm a classically trained musician, so none of this discussion is over my head, but I play with and have played with tons of musicians who just don't think of music in the same way, and many of them are better players than I will ever be. Having to know exactly what a chord is called in some sort of official naming way is not necessary. Discussions are interesting, but if a musician can play that chord and knows how to use it and understands how it sounds the way it does within a certain chord progression, then that's fine with me.

Nobody is claiming that chord symbols are more important than the music itself. That is not Cnegrad's position. You are creating a straw man argument.

[BluesKeys]

Damn, I need to go back to my old theory books I neglected so many years ago.

 

Just for the record, I will bow to the higher knowledge and go with Bb7#11 as the actual chord. Though I read it a little slower it does give you more idea of the transition.

 

As for wicked I think it was Linwood who put up

lh A C F rh G C E and I agree that is wicked and I will find a place for it one day. LOL

 

Having met cnegrad and forced a few stories from his past studio work. I can vouch for his knowledge (though he doesn't need it) of his craft. If you were to listen to his CD Very First Dance you would recognize right away this guy IS a PLAYER and ARRANGER. I could learn lots from him and probably need to except I am looking for the short cuts because I am too old to start over.

 

So I guess what I am saying is there are an awful lot of very talented and musically intelligent people on this forum and some of us (mainly ME) should just shut up and pay attention when they speak.

 

Thanks for this moment of spew.

Hey Mark

Hey Tom

Hey Jeff

 

And to those I haven't met

Cheers

[stepay]

Originally posted by Jazz+:

Nobody is claiming that chord symbols are more important than the music itself. That is not Cnegrad's position. You are creating a straw man argument. [/QB]

But I'm not arguing against Cnegrad here, just stating an opinion. It has been said before in this message board that you are not a musician if you can't do notation (and I can). I disagree with that statement.

 

Besides, if anyone is casting aspersions here, it's Cnegrad. To quote him, "Let's all just bash on the keyboard, and not bother trying to comprehend why it works so as to improve ourselves. Sounds silly to me...."

 

So, he's saying that unless you can correctly name a chord that that's equivalent to bashing on a keyboard? Who says that a musician who thinks of that chord in a different way isn't trying to comprehend how it works? I know a ton of musicians who weren't trained classically that know more about theory than many who were. Making a leap from not trying to give a chord a "proper" name and not knowing anything about music is too huge. Way too huge.

[Jazz+]

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Jazz+:

Chord symbols are not intended to convey an exact voicing. An experienced jazz pianist knows dozens of voicings for Bb7 #11

True, but they can convey which notes to play, up to a point.

 

So, if you see Bb7(9,#11,13), that's more explicit than just Bb7(#11). While it's true that the pianist can voice the chord different ways, at least the notes b7, 9, #11, and 13 are being specified.

 

Same with C/Bb7, actually. There's nothing there that says I have to play a triad C-E-G. I could play the C as a tenth, for example, or in different inversions. In fact, it doesn't even specify that it's a triad - it could mean just the note C over Bb7.

 

If you want to convey a really explicit voicing, best way is to notate it on a staff.

[JeffLearman]

Right.

 

When writing, I would probably put down Bb7(9, #11, 13) or else just B7#11, depending on how micromanaging I wanted the chart to be. When getting together with the guys if someone asks how to play this chord, I'd probably say "Play an AbM7#5 over Bb. Or you could think of it as a C triad over a Bb7, but leave out 3 & 5 on the lower chord." (Which would probably reward me with hostile stares, so I'd say "Hand me a guitar and I'll show you ..." )

 

This points out the distinction cnegrad makes between conveying the concept of the chord and how to play it.

 

BTW, I might also write Bb13#11, but that seems to leave in doubt whether the 10th is played, because it usually is (instead of the 9 # 11) on a 13 chord.

 

The bottom line is that if you can't rely on the musician to make good musical choices, you're wasting your time anyway. And expecting someone to play exactly as written is also an exercise in futility. For one thing, jazz & blues musicians do what they think is right regardless of what you write. Also, they adjust their voicing based on what other instruments are present and what they're playing. So just remember you're really just trying to give clues and not spell things out completely. (To do that, use staff notation.)