Page 1 of 2
#1
Hi all, there's a particular type of chord that I've been using recently which sounds great when connecting major and minor chords.

The notes of this chord are
1 3b 5#
C Eb G#

It's a Cminor with a raised 5th or so I think as I'm using the c note as the root note. I was wondering if anyone could tell me the actual name of the chord.

The chord progression it works with is this:

Bmajor | Cminor #5 | C#minor

Any help would be greatly appreciated sorry if this sounds like a silly question.

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

Update following discussion

Thanks for all the replies everyone and my question has been answered.

By the looks of it, the chord was a G# in the first inversion.

E|x (G#)
B|4 (D#)
G|5 (B#)
D|6 (G#)
A|3 (B#)
E|x (G#)

Has all of the notes of G#Major except instead of playing D# on the A string (6th fret) I replaced it with B# (3rd fret).
Last edited by gerwynm at Jan 12, 2015,
#3
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
G# major

G# B# D#

The chord progression is VII V I in C# minor


So it is, just that if you replace the d# with a c on the a string it gives you a slightly different sound.

Cheers bud

Normal G# Major

E|G#
B|D#
G|C
D|G#
A|D#
E|G

Other Version

E|G#
B|D#
G|C
D|G#
A|C
E|G
#4
G# major triad, in 1st inversion.

If you play G#maj with root on 5th string, on possibility is

x
13 (maj 3 of the triad)
13
13
11
x (bass E string)

That maj 3 of the triad can also be found an octave lower, at 15th fret on 5th string, and we can use that in the bass instead (so-called "1st inversion"). Thus ...


x
13 (maj 3 of the triad)
13
13
15 (maj 3 octave lower)
x (bass E string)

Can then omit the higher maj 3. Thus ...

x
x
13
13
15 (maj 3 octave lower)
x (bass E string)


Another nice variation is to use the voicing an octave lower, followed by a Bbmaj and Cmin. Thus...

x x x
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 5
3 1 3
x x x

cheers, Jerry
#5
What I meant was the notes you have are G# major. You've spelt the B# as C and the D# as Eb but they're the same notes. So instead of writing C Eb G# you write B# D# G# which are the notes of G# major (rearranged).


You can voice that chord on a guitar any number of ways I'm sure.
#6
A simpler way to think of it is as a Ab 1st inversion, or a Cm #5.
Bruh? Brah? Breh? Bruae? Bruae.
#7
It's not a minor chord. It's a major chord.

Cm#5 just sounds a bit strange (especially in this context). I don't think such chord even exists because you won't hear it like that. You will hear it as a major chord.

In this context the correct name is G# major. The progression is in the key of C# minor and it is the dominant (V) chord of that key. It is enharmonically the same as Ab major but Ab major doesn't really even exist in the key of C# minor.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#10
JRF is right. A minor augmented chord is impossible.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#11
Quote by gerwynm
Hi all, there's a particular type of chord that I've been using recently which sounds great when connecting major and minor chords.

The notes of this chord are
1 3b 5#
C Eb G#

It's a Cminor with a raised 5th or so I think as I'm using the c note as the root note. I was wondering if anyone could tell me the actual name of the chord.

The chord progression it works with is this:

Bmajor | Cminor #5 | C#minor

Any help would be greatly appreciated sorry if this sounds like a silly question.


I love that chord. I use it often.

Try playing a B Maj7 or B sus2, then a Bb min #5 (A shape, but replace your 3rd finger with your 4th finger, 1 fret up). It's lovely.
#12
BMaj7-> Bbm#5 is just
BMaj7-> F#/A# (i.e. a I-V or IV-I chord change)

the Major 7th in the BMaj7 is A#. Thus you would not call that same pitch a Bb in the very next chord.

A good rule of thumb when it comes to naming chords is that if it's possible to stick to just sharps or just flats then you should. In this case it is possible.

So we wouldn't call that note a Bb but an A# which gives us A# C# F# - which isan F# major triad in first inversion (aka an F# major triad over an A# bass = F#/A#)

Once we recognize the Bbm#5 for what it is, namely F#/A# then...

Bsus2 ->Bbm#5 is just
Bsus2 ->F#/A#
Once again essentially a IV-I.

However, you could also interpret this as an F#sus4 (over a B bass) to an F# (over an A# bass) (an inverted F#sus4 to an inverted F# major)

F#sus4/B -> F#/A#

We can see why if we look at the chord spellings...

F# = F#, A#, C#
F#sus4 = F#, B, C#

B = B D# F#
Bsus2 = B C# F#

Thus F#sus4 and Bsus2 contain the same pitch classes. They are essentially inversions of the same chord. Thus resolving Bsus2 to F# major is essentially another way of resolving F#sus4 to F#major.

Si
#13
Probably been said, but:

Your progression: B, G#/C, C#m. You are simply taking the relative minor of B, which is G# minor, and making it major by just boosting that B to a C. You've also inverted it, so that the bass hits a C (the major third from the G#).
#15
Okay. I can see how that works.

But is it definitively VII VI I in C# minor? Why couldn't it be: I VI II in B major? Granted, the VI in B major is minor, but in this case it would be major. Is it just because it makes more melodic sense for it to involve the C# harmonic minor instead of the relative minor brought to major? Is it just musical suggestion?

It would be a kinda shoddy progression if thought of in B major, but couldn't it be such? I do think it sounds best used in C# minor, but what if the rest of the song suggested that it was in B? I'm really just theorizing, not arguing here.
Last edited by Will Lane at Jan 9, 2015,
#16
It's a pretty obvious and strong diatonic progression in C# minor. Like it's pretty tough to get away from that dominant tonic progression coupled with the bass root movement down to C#. There would have to be a lot going on melodically to convince me that progression was anything other than VII V I in C# minor.

Putting it in B major on the other hand would mean that not only is there a chromatically altered chord, but there is no dominant or subdominant resolution to the tonic. It's not impossible, but it's way less convincing in theory and to the ear.
#17
That V-i is strong to the touch. CAress it into the depths and see where the current births you out.
#18
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
It's a pretty obvious and strong diatonic progression in C# minor. Like it's pretty tough to get away from that dominant tonic progression coupled with the bass root movement down to C#. There would have to be a lot going on melodically to convince me that progression was anything other than VII V I in C# minor.

Putting it in B major on the other hand would mean that not only is there a chromatically altered chord, but there is no dominant or subdominant resolution to the tonic. It's not impossible, but it's way less convincing in theory and to the ear.

Though if you added a F# major chord in the end, it would be a pretty basic progression in B major: I-V/ii-ii-V. Really common in jazz.

But yeah, the original progression alone doesn't sound like B major because of the V-i (G#-C#m).
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#19
Sorry guys I'll post the whole chord progression so it makes more sense.

Thanks for all of the answers though, I'll refer to the chord I was confused about as a minor augmented as it's been mentioned a couple of times or a 1st inversion.

C#m | C#mAug or AMajor 1st Inversion | Emajor | Bmajor | CmAug or G#Major 1st inversion | C#m
Last edited by gerwynm at Jan 12, 2015,
#21
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
It isn't a minor augmented. I'm not sure I can say it any more clearly, but minor augmented chords don't exist.

That progression is C#m A E B G# C#m or I VI III VII V I in C# minor.


Cheers bud.

So many different answers I figured I'd write it as something other people would recognise as they had said it.

At least now I know that what I was playing was a G# but not playing either of the E strings and instead of playing D# on the a string was playing c

E|x
B|4
G|5
D|6
A|3
E|x
#22
Hi gerwynm,
The notes you've got there are B# G# B# D# = G#major chord in the 1st inversion.
#23
Quote by Harmosis
Hi gerwynm,
The notes you've got there are B# G# B# D# = G#major chord in the 1st inversion.


Thank you I will update it my theory knowledge isn't the best but I'm learning slowly. Is a nice sounding chord
#24
JRF is right. There is no such thing as a minor augmented.

A minor chord is
1 b3 5
That's its DNA, it can't be built any other way. It can be inverted, sure...but it will still be made of a 1, a b3, and a natural 5.

An augment chord is
1 3 #5
That is its DNA. It has to have a major (natural) 3rd and a #5.

Just because this chord in question appears to have a #5, doesn't mean it's augmented because it would require a major, or natural 3rd. And it doesn't have that...it has a minor 3rd. Calling it a minor augmented chord is trying to cross to animals together that can't be crossed together. It simply doesn't work that way. They each have their own DNA and it can't be mixed up.

It is just a basic major triad that's been inverted. Easy Peasy. If you invert a major chord to 2nd inversion (the 5th in the bass)...you would have a perfect 4th interval in the chord. That doesn't mean its a sus chord. Nor does it mean sus4 chords don't exist. It just means it's inverted.

The best way to figure it out is to analyze it with the letters always in 3rd. If you're new to that, simply put the letters in an order where they are skipping over every other letter of the alphabet. You actually have it that way...however, you mixed your #'s and b's together which you're not supposed to do and can cause problems and confusion. You can only have #'s OR b's.

So the spelling would not be

C Eb G#

It would either have to be

C D# G# or C Eb Ab

The first one can't be a triad because it has a 'C' and a 'D' note in there...so now we're not skipping every other note in the alphabet anymore. If you change the C to a B# and put the notes in an order that skips every other note in the alphabet, we would be left with

G# B# D# this is a G# Major chord. Putting the B# in the bass makes it 1st inversion

Or you look at the second option and spell it using every other note in the alphabet and you get

Ab C Eb This is an Ab Major chore. C in the bass makes it 1st inversion

These two chords are enharmonic to each other, meaning they sound and look the exact same but are called by different names. That name will depend on the key you're in. Remember that we can't use #'s AND b's...at least not in basic diatonic harmony. So if the key has #'s in it, then this would be a 1st inversion G#Maj chord...or G#/B# for slash notation. If we're in a key with b's...it would be a 1st inversion AbMaj chord...or Ab/C for slash notation.

Okay...now I'm going to go listen to music and try and forget about all this theory! hahaha

Great chord by the way!!! I'm a big fan of this chord with the F# (or Gb) note on the 2nd fret/6th string added underneath it. Gives a really cool Lydian sound!
***No Advertising!***
#25
Quote by jordanklemons
Gives a really cool Lydian sound!
Things were going so well up until there.

Adding a minor seventh (F# to G#major; or Gb to Ab major) does not give you a Lydian sound. Lydian has a major seventh and it's character note is the augmented fourth.

Maybe you were thinking of Mixolydian?
Si
#26
Right, you would need F##. Spelling, spelling.

In any event, it still probably ain't Lydian.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#27
Haha...no..that may have seemed confusing. Didn't mean to ruin what was going so well!

If you put the F# in the root it implies an F# lydian sound. It's no longer simply an Ab Major chord. Now it's a sort of funky F# chord. It's missing the 3rd and 5th of the triad, but it creates the tonality of F# Lydian. Or Gb. Whichever you prefer to call it.

Either way we get four notes...

Gb / Ab C Eb
R 2 Aug4 6

By changing the root note sound from an Ab down a step to the Gb, it changes the root note of the mode. If Ab were still the root note, this would be mixolydian sound, sure. But when you put the Gb in the bottom of the chord, it's hard not to hear it as a Gb chord. Ab mixolydian and Gb lydian are really basically the same thing. Just versions of the Db Major scale. And as you pointed out 20Tigers, the augmented fourth is one of the tell tale signs that we're in lydian. If Gb becomes the root than the C note gives us the augmented 4th.

I didn't see the exact fingering you had for your original post starting chord until after I had already submitted my previous post. It would be hard and probably impractical to add the note I'm talking about to that voicing. I usually voice it like so....

1xxxx
2xxx1
3xxx1
4xxx1
5xxxx
6xxx2

That puts your original three note triad all on the first fret, and then a nice low sounding Gb note in the root. Which just screams lydian to me. Sure, there's other scales that can fit with it. But my ear hears that low Gb, and that high C on the 2nd string and just starts beginning for Gb lydian.

Try throwing it down with a looper and riffing on top of it. I think you'll hear what I'm talking about.

But yeah. Sorry for the confusion. I just like messing around with chords...especially applying uncommon root notes underneath regular ole' triads. Just trying to add a little to the conversation. New kid syndrome I suppose. But no, for clarification and to clear up the confusion I cause....that note DOES NOT create Ab lydian. It creates Gb lydian.
***No Advertising!***
#28
Ok, I see the angle you were working from.

I guess I'd need to play around with it a bit to hear it. But yeah I guess if that Gb is grounding everything then yeah a Major II chord (Ab major) would suggest a Lydian flavour. But if it's part of a moving bassline that tonicizes something else then I imagine it would be hard to get that flavour.

Context is everything. Thanks for the clarification though.
Si
#29
Ha...yeah...all about context. For sure.

Sorry again if I mixed things up for you. Just new to the forum here and was looking around for conversations to jump into. And your post is near and dear to my heart. Love me some chordal study. I think I'm an addict. Haven't hear about any meetings yet though.
***No Advertising!***
#30
Oh well now that totally makes sense. Thought you were talking Ab Lydian. You could call it Gb Lydian without other chords involved.


Edit: What Maggara said. You can make a good case for Lydian without a progression but the chord itself is just an Ab7/Gb.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#31
Adding a Gb to an Ab major chord doesn't really change the root to Gb, even if it's in the bass. It just makes it an Ab/Gb (or Ab7 with the 7th on bass) chord. I agree that it does have kind of a lydian sound to it. But that depends on the context a lot. A chord progression like Gbmaj7-Ab/Gb-Fm7-Bbm is not that uncommon. And that's not a lydian chord progression, it's in Bbm. But a two chord vamp like Gbmaj7-Ab/Gb does have a lydian sound to it.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#32
Quote by MaggaraMarine
Adding a Gb to an Ab major chord doesn't really change the root to Gb, even if it's in the bass.


It does if you treat it as an entirely new type of chord with a different function. I'm not saying anything about your analysis is wrong. Just that there's more than one function for every type of chord. And while one function for the chord we're talking about is simply an Ab/Gb - which treats it as an Ab chord, and possibly there is a passing tone in the bass...or some type of bass melody - another function is simply to change the chord altogether and make it a type of Gb chord. This is not an uncommon voicing in the jazz idiom for a Gb chord. It implies a lot of important notes without actually stating them...but chances are good someone else is playing them anyways (horn player, other guitar, singer, piano, etc). There's no 3rd, 5th, or 7th. It's just the root note and the upper extensions...specifically the 9th the #11 and the 13th. And while I'm not saying your analysis is wrong, I am saying that the notion that the root note doesn't really change to Gb is wrong in some situations. Particularly the one I've been speaking of. It becomes a GbMaj7#11...or possibly a Gb7#11. And the first mode I that would come to my ear to utilize would be Gb lydian...though you could, again...depending on the context...also get away other scales. Gb lydian dominant and half-whole diminished are the 1st two that come to mind.
***No Advertising!***
#33
Quote by jordanklemons
It does if you treat it as an entirely new type of chord with a different function. I'm not saying anything about your analysis is wrong. Just that there's more than one function for every type of chord. And while one function for the chord we're talking about is simply an Ab/Gb - which treats it as an Ab chord, and possibly there is a passing tone in the bass...or some type of bass melody - another function is simply to change the chord altogether and make it a type of Gb chord. This is not an uncommon voicing in the jazz idiom for a Gb chord. It implies a lot of important notes without actually stating them...but chances are good someone else is playing them anyways (horn player, other guitar, singer, piano, etc). There's no 3rd, 5th, or 7th. It's just the root note and the upper extensions...specifically the 9th the #11 and the 13th. And while I'm not saying your analysis is wrong, I am saying that the notion that the root note doesn't really change to Gb is wrong in some situations. Particularly the one I've been speaking of. It becomes a GbMaj7#11...or possibly a Gb7#11. And the first mode I that would come to my ear to utilize would be Gb lydian...though you could, again...depending on the context...also get away other scales. Gb lydian dominant and half-whole diminished are the 1st two that come to mind.

OK, I understand if there are other instruments playing at the same time and they play the other chord tones. But if those are the only notes, it already has a root, third, fifth and seventh which have a strong sound. With the notes Gb, Ab, C and Eb alone it's an Ab7 chord because those notes have so strong sound. Root, third, fifth and seventh pretty much define a chord.

With those notes alone I just can't hear the chord being a Gb rooted chord.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#34
I totally understand if you can't hear the chord as a Gb...and certainly, if you're not interested in using it that way, that's absolutely fine. But as a teacher, I have a lot of students come to me with a lot of misinformation...so I have to reiterate again that while you can't hear it, and while it certainly IS an inverted Ab7 chord in its spelling...if we change the function of it, it not only can be used differently, but it no longer would be referred to as an Ab7. As I said earlier...in jazz we almost alway infer notes without playing them. I shouldn't even say in jazz...because everyone does this. In rock, it's very common to play power chords, which only have the root and 5th. If I only play a power chord...let's say C and G...we really don't know what chord is being played. We could be implying CMaj or Cmin...because there's no 3rd. But just because we're not playing the 3rd, doesn't mean it isn't implied. It's implied by the key and the chord progression and everything else going on before and after it. Again...all about function. Even if the singer isn't specifically singing an Eb note right when we hit the C5...our ears can still deduce that it's Cmin....if that's its function. We could call it simply C5...but there really isn't even enough information yet to know that for sure either...it could also be some type of Gsus sound. Or D7sus. There's not enough harmonic information for us to know exactly what it is as a stand alone chord. No different than if I use the word "LEFT". As a stand alone word, we don't really know what it means. We need context to give us function. It could mean something still remaining (I left my book at your house). It could mean someone departed (I left the house). Or it could be a direction of movement (I turned left). Same spelling, same sound, same everything...except function. And that different function gives it a new meaning.

Same is true with the chord in question. Yes, by the book nobody would argue that when analyzed it's an inverted Ab7 chord. I'm simply saying it can be used differently. And in one of those functions, it can become a Gb...whether or not anyone else is playing any of the other notes. The other notes would help define it more strongly...but they're not necessary. I could say..."I left"...and that would be enough to tell us which meaning I'm using. We don't need a giant sentence with tons of words and every single detail hit over the head. We can imply the other details.

If you're interested in trying to hear it that way, or just curious....try adding a few more notes to the mix to see if the harmony comes into focus. It's sort of like looking at one of those pictures where some people see it as an old lady and some as a gorgeous young woman. They're both there and they're both right...but different minds interpret it differently. Try playing the chord with these extra notes and see if it helps what I'm talking about come into focus. If you're curious.

1xxx1
2xxx1
3xxx1
4xxx1
5xxx4
6xxx2

Now it's a power chord on the lowest 2 strings and a barre covering the other 4. This will give you the 5 and Maj7 of the chord I'm talking about and might be a little easier for your ear to hear. It's still missing the 3...but again...it's implied. It's not necessary.

If that chord is easier to hear for you, then awesome! It's a great chord! It's just a little clunkier than the original one I've been talking about. The one I've been talking about is the same thing, we're just cutting away some of the excess and implying more stuff. And because all that's left is a root note and an upper structure triad...it's got a pretty fantastic sound...to my ear. Triads are tricky little chameleons. They can be used to build a lot of chords that we might not expect.
***No Advertising!***
#35
In a contextless environment (which this is), the chord is an Ab7/Gb.

But when you improvise over it AS IF it was a Lydian sound, the chord takes on the aforementioned Lydian sound via the context you put it in.

The chord scales for each sound have identical pitch classes. Your'e both right, we cannot make an ultimate determination of sound without context. It could easily be equally either. (Say that 5x fast)

We have to be careful with the whole inferring notes thing, because by the same logic I could play a G triad and claim its an Fmaj7 (9 #11) chord.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#36
Quote by jordanklemons
I totally understand if you can't hear the chord as a Gb...and certainly, if you're not interested in using it that way, that's absolutely fine. But as a teacher, I have a lot of students come to me with a lot of misinformation...so I have to reiterate again that while you can't hear it, and while it certainly IS an inverted Ab7 chord in its spelling...if we change the function of it, it not only can be used differently, but it no longer would be referred to as an Ab7. As I said earlier...in jazz we almost alway infer notes without playing them. I shouldn't even say in jazz...because everyone does this. In rock, it's very common to play power chords, which only have the root and 5th. If I only play a power chord...let's say C and G...we really don't know what chord is being played. We could be implying CMaj or Cmin...because there's no 3rd. But just because we're not playing the 3rd, doesn't mean it isn't implied. It's implied by the key and the chord progression and everything else going on before and after it. Again...all about function. Even if the singer isn't specifically singing an Eb note right when we hit the C5...our ears can still deduce that it's Cmin....if that's its function. We could call it simply C5...but there really isn't even enough information yet to know that for sure either...it could also be some type of Gsus sound. Or D7sus. There's not enough harmonic information for us to know exactly what it is as a stand alone chord. No different than if I use the word "LEFT". As a stand alone word, we don't really know what it means. We need context to give us function. It could mean something still remaining (I left my book at your house). It could mean someone departed (I left the house). Or it could be a direction of movement (I turned left). Same spelling, same sound, same everything...except function. And that different function gives it a new meaning.

Same is true with the chord in question. Yes, by the book nobody would argue that when analyzed it's an inverted Ab7 chord. I'm simply saying it can be used differently. And in one of those functions, it can become a Gb...whether or not anyone else is playing any of the other notes. The other notes would help define it more strongly...but they're not necessary. I could say..."I left"...and that would be enough to tell us which meaning I'm using. We don't need a giant sentence with tons of words and every single detail hit over the head. We can imply the other details.

If you're interested in trying to hear it that way, or just curious....try adding a few more notes to the mix to see if the harmony comes into focus. It's sort of like looking at one of those pictures where some people see it as an old lady and some as a gorgeous young woman. They're both there and they're both right...but different minds interpret it differently. Try playing the chord with these extra notes and see if it helps what I'm talking about come into focus. If you're curious.

1xxx1
2xxx1
3xxx1
4xxx1
5xxx4
6xxx2

Now it's a power chord on the lowest 2 strings and a barre covering the other 4. This will give you the 5 and Maj7 of the chord I'm talking about and might be a little easier for your ear to hear. It's still missing the 3...but again...it's implied. It's not necessary.

If that chord is easier to hear for you, then awesome! It's a great chord! It's just a little clunkier than the original one I've been talking about. The one I've been talking about is the same thing, we're just cutting away some of the excess and implying more stuff. And because all that's left is a root note and an upper structure triad...it's got a pretty fantastic sound...to my ear. Triads are tricky little chameleons. They can be used to build a lot of chords that we might not expect.

Yeah, I completely understand what you are talking about and don't disagree. It's all about the context.
Quote by Jet Penguin
In a contextless environment (which this is), the chord is an Ab7/Gb.

But when you improvise over it AS IF it was a Lydian sound, the chord takes on the aforementioned Lydian sound via the context you put it in.

The chord scales for each sound have identical pitch classes. Your'e both right, we cannot make an ultimate determination of sound without context. It could easily be equally either. (Say that 5x fast)

We have to be careful with the whole inferring notes thing, because by the same logic I could play a G triad and claim its an Fmaj7 (9 #11) chord.

Exactly.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#37
Quote by Jet Penguin
We have to be careful with the whole inferring notes thing, because by the same logic I could play a G triad and claim its an Fmaj7 (9 #11) chord.


Seems we all agree that it's all based on the context...but I see no reason to be careful here. If you are literally just playing a G triad outside of the context of a musician situation...that's one thing. Then it's not music...it's just a music theory exercise. But if you're actually playing music and using the G triad in the context of FMaj7#11...then I see nothing to be careful about. I would prefer to be creative than to be careful.

I was just looking over a Jim Hall transcription recently which was published by Hal Leonard. During the intro he's starts off with a 16 bar intro vamp. Above the notation/tab, the only chord listed is Am7...but if you analyze what he's playing...it's all over the place. He's using all sorts of triads...Cmaj, Dbmaj, BMaj, Ddim, Edim, BbMaj, Asus4, Ebdim...plus a CMaj7 chord and an E7#9. It wouldn't be wrong to go through and analyze all those chords and write in the name of each triad. But I don't think Hal Leonard was wrong to simply put "Am7" above those 16 bars...because that is the tonality being created. And I personally think it would overcomplicate the notation to see all of those chords written out every beat or eighth note. Yeah, it would be more theoretically accurate...but it's not seeing the forest for the trees...and it's really overcomplicating a very simple A aeolian vamp.
***No Advertising!***
#38
Totally. What I mean by being careful is this:

It would be misleading, unnecessarily complex, and incorrect to take a song from the 50s with this chord progression:

C - Am - F - G

and analyze it as:

Bbmaj7 (9 #11 13) - F#7 (b5 #9) - Dbmaj7#5 - Cmin/maj7(9)

Sure, those are all valid triadic impositions, but if I just play the four triads in the first progression, do you really hear the second progression? I severely doubt it.

Just like the Jim Hall example. The reason the book doesn't list all those chords in the progression is simple. Hall isn't soloing over those chords. He's soloing over Am7, and implying other harmonies with his lines.

His implications don't change the fact that he's soling over Am7. The reason that long string of chords you posted isn't written is because it isn't the progression Hall is working over. He's just playing over the Am the band gives him.

My point being that implied harmony is one thing, but we shouldn't go searching around for things that aren't there.

You don't hear Lydian in an unaccompanied pentatonic melody. Lydian could be there depending on context in the music, but it doesn't make sense to imply it from the melody alone. You need something else to confirm it. Otherwise we're just analyzing the music in an overcomplicated and misleading way.


Anyway, none of this is directed as a dig at Jordan or anything, he knows his stuff and I agree with much of it. Like I said, it can be both in the previous Gb example.

I just want to make sure we don't run down some insane rabbit hole of analysis.

However, OP doesn't care about any of this and this thread is radically off-topic from his original question, so let's try and rein it in a bit.

P.S. Welcome to UG by the way, you sure know how to make an entrance!
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#39
Hey thanks for the welcoming Jet! I'm not really sure how this got so far off topic. I originally just wanted to offer an answer to the chord in question as to it's name. And then my inner geeky teacher wanted to take it one step further by showing one way that I personally enjoy using that chord by adding an extra note.

Not sure how it got turned into a debate about whether or not we should be reinterpreting and analyzing other people's music...specifically music that is obviously diatonic to a particular key...and just making up our own non-sensical analysis of it. I was just showing how I like to use it and the idea that when we choose to, we are allowed to imply notes.

Anyways...I definitely agree about what you're saying...and if I came off that I wanted to deconstruct super simple, diatonic pop and rock progressions into weird, atonal, 12-tone, key changing insanity and justify it by saying that they must have meant to put the other notes there and were implying it...I assure you...I would be on your side of the debate on that one.

Thanks again for the welcome.
***No Advertising!***
#40
Hey man its no biggie whatsoever. If anyone's guilty of always wanting to push it to the next level of complex, it's me.

I just wanted to make sure that we were clear on the process implying notes and imposition for those who may not be professionals or hard core jazz/classical-ers. I knew what you meant.

Anyway, its always good to have another jazz cat on the team, and don't be a stranger. Feel free to PM me and we can talk key changing insanity anytime!

I think we are all in agreement that OPs "mystery chord" is a G# major, 1st inversion (G#/B#), so unless he has any questions, I think we can close this bad boy up.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
Page 1 of 2