LOL more chord questions

..but I guess its the repeating notes, or voices ? that make the guitar such a special instrument, and its what makes some chords sound good, the notes that repeat, a Piano can't do that, well I guess it could O_O, but I don't think repeating notes for a chord in Piano is done, its just the basic notes for a chord.

Lol sorry I was having a conversation with my teacher that got to why I think the guitar is better xD than the piano, I know they are two waaay different instruments but, its just so much fun to explore in the guitar and learn by combining just exploring and theory...

Wow look at me babbling on lol, sorry I posted two separate Posts, I am on my PS3 and it only lets me post so many characters.

Lol but I should go to sleep, first day of school 2morrow, lol I've been up the past hour obsessing over this chord I did by accident.. I love it lol I am so going to study music when I grow up.

The best name for a chord depends on the context that it's used in. With no context, then you should name it according to its simplest arrangement in 3rds. That chord could be F# 6 (F# A# C# D#) or it could D# min7 (D# F# A# C#). It could be a rootless B maj9, if used in a context where the B is implied, or played by someone else.

Also, there's no need to figure in the lowest chord tone and call it as Bmaj9/A#. Again that's a context thing, i.e a direction on how to voice the chord in a particular instance. It doesn't change the name of the chord.

Pianos can, and often do, repeat notes in a chord at the octave, but, unlike a guitar, never at the unison as they don't have any notes repeated at the same pitch.

I hope the answer doesn't confuse you...

Chords names don't tell you the collection of notes you play - they tell you the skeleton of the harmony. What you play to flesh out that skeleton is up to you, and it won't change the chord name.

But that also means you can't tell what a chord is unless you have a context. Ok, sometimes you can - but that's just because with simple chords it's pretty clear what role it's going to take. But other times it's not so simple.

For example, what's this chord?

x3231x

Everybody knows that's C7. But C7 is C-E-G-Bb, and there's no G in that fingering. What we have is the critical notes to create a tension (E/Bb - they form a tritone), which makes it a dominant chord type. Since dominant chords have tension between the 3rd and 7th, we know either E or Bb is the third. That makes C or Gb the root. Since there's no Gb, but there is a C, it's probably going to fit the role of a C7 chord.

But what if the bass player is playing Gb?

Now the collection of notes we hear is C-E-Gb-Bb. Now we can look at those notes and say it's C7b5. But what you're playing (x3231x) hasn't changed!

Let's make it even more complicated.... you're still playing x3231x, and the bass is playing Gb. But you resolve from that chord to C#m7 (C#-E-G#-B#). And let's say the chords right before you play the C7 fingering were C#m and F#m7.

Now we've got something that sounds like a cadence - a tension and release. And we've got something that sounds like a chord progression, moving C#m -> F#m7 -> (C7b5?) -> C#m7

It sure looks like C# is the root here - we're resolving to it, and starting the series of events from it. So now we can label the chord roots: I - IV - (bI?)- I.

So if we're in the key of C#, we're using a C# minor scale of some kind. That means our "C" chord probably isn't labeled right - rather than being a bI, it should probably be a #7, coming from the harmonic minor scale. So let's check our harmonic minor scale and see if that makes sense:

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

That makes the chord tones in the guitar fingering B#-E-A# (the note we thought was Bb is now labeled A#, because we can't have two of the same letter in the chord name). And the note the bass player is using we'd now call F# instead of Gb.

Now, how to explain the A#?

The melodic minor scale raises the sixth and seventh, so the A# works in melodic minor. We're pretty clearly in the key of C#m, and we're pretty clearly using the melodic minor scale to construct the chord. Now we can go back to the chord roots and see what's really going on:

I - IV - vii - I

This sounds an awful lot like a jazzy I-IV-V progression. And the V in C#m is G#. What if that's the chord root?

(G#) - not played
B# - the third, played by guitar
E - the b6, played by guitar
F# - the b7, played by bass
A# - the 9, played by guitar

Everything is an odd number except the b6. But that's the same tone as #5. So let's call it Dx. Now we have a G#9+ chord, which makes a nice i-iv-V-i progression. And that would be the "right" name for the chord in this context.

Sure, this example is convoluted. But that's because in practice it usually works the other way - you've got a chord symbol on the page (G#9) and you're playing some of the notes - it's common to leave notes out of extended chords. The bass player is probably doing a walking line, and moving from F# to G# at some point, maybe directly, maybe not. The overall effect on the listener is something that sounds like a G#9+ chord, even if you're not playing G# at the moment

Lots of chords - in fact, most chords - can work like this... they'll be one chord name in one context, and another chord name in a different context. The correct name for any chord depends on its role in the entire progression. Even if you can give a chord a 'satisfying' name (one that looks like you're grabbing all the notes), that name won't be the best label in every context.... and chord names, being the skeleton of the big picture (the whole harmony of a progression) don't demand you play every note.

I came up with F#6 too, although I turned the A# into a Bb, the C# into a Db and so on, and came up with Ebm7 - Eb-Gb-Bb-Db

A

I came up with F#6 too, although I turned the A# into a Bb, the C# into a Db and so on, and came up with Ebm7 - Eb-Gb-Bb-Db

A

Yes I thought about that. Ebm7 is far more common than D#m7 - but as D#m is the relative minor key of F#, I let it stand. I was going to edit it and include the enharmonic equivalents Gb6 and Ebm7, but by that time, NoteBoat had published his harmony thesis - so I left it alone :D

I hope the answer doesn't confuse you...

Chords names don't tell you the collection of notes you play - they tell you the skeleton of the harmony. What you play to flesh out that skeleton is up to you, and it won't change the chord name.

But that also means you can't tell what a chord is unless you have a context. Ok, sometimes you can - but that's just because with simple chords it's pretty clear what role it's going to take. But other times it's not so simple.

For example, what's this chord?

x3231x

Everybody knows that's C7. But C7 is C-E-G-Bb, and there's no G in that fingering. What we have is the critical notes to create a tension (E/Bb - they form a tritone), which makes it a dominant chord type. Since dominant chords have tension between the 3rd and 7th, we know either E or Bb is the third. That makes C or Gb the root. Since there's no Gb, but there is a C, it's probably going to fit the role of a C7 chord.

But what if the bass player is playing Gb?

Now the collection of notes we hear is C-E-Gb-Bb. Now we can look at those notes and say it's C7b5. But what you're playing (x3231x) hasn't changed!

Let's make it even more complicated.... you're still playing x3231x, and the bass is playing Gb. But you resolve from that chord to C#m7 (C#-E-G#-B#). And let's say the chords right before you play the C7 fingering were C#m and F#m7.

Now we've got something that sounds like a cadence - a tension and release. And we've got something that sounds like a chord progression, moving C#m -> F#m7 -> (C7b5?) -> C#m7

It sure looks like C# is the root here - we're resolving to it, and starting the series of events from it. So now we can label the chord roots: I - IV - (bI?)- I.

So if we're in the key of C#, we're using a C# minor scale of some kind. That means our "C" chord probably isn't labeled right - rather than being a bI, it should probably be a #7, coming from the harmonic minor scale. So let's check our harmonic minor scale and see if that makes sense:

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

That makes the chord tones in the guitar fingering B#-E-A# (the note we thought was Bb is now labeled A#, because we can't have two of the same letter in the chord name). And the note the bass player is using we'd now call F# instead of Gb.

Now, how to explain the A#?

The melodic minor scale raises the sixth and seventh, so the A# works in melodic minor. We're pretty clearly in the key of C#m, and we're pretty clearly using the melodic minor scale to construct the chord. Now we can go back to the chord roots and see what's really going on:

I - IV - vii - I

This sounds an awful lot like a jazzy I-IV-V progression. And the V in C#m is G#. What if that's the chord root?

(G#) - not played
B# - the third, played by guitar
E - the b6, played by guitar
F# - the b7, played by bass
A# - the 9, played by guitar

Everything is an odd number except the b6. But that's the same tone as #5. So let's call it Dx. Now we have a G#9+ chord, which makes a nice i-iv-V-i progression. And that would be the "right" name for the chord in this context.

Sure, this example is convoluted. But that's because in practice it usually works the other way - you've got a chord symbol on the page (G#9) and you're playing some of the notes - it's common to leave notes out of extended chords. The bass player is probably doing a walking line, and moving from F# to G# at some point, maybe directly, maybe not. The overall effect on the listener is something that sounds like a G#9+ chord, even if you're not playing G# at the moment

Lots of chords - in fact, most chords - can work like this... they'll be one chord name in one context, and another chord name in a different context. The correct name for any chord depends on its role in the entire progression. Even if you can give a chord a 'satisfying' name (one that looks like you're grabbing all the notes), that name won't be the best label in every context.... and chord names, being the skeleton of the big picture (the whole harmony of a progression) don't demand you play every note.

Lol U just unloaded knowledge on to me xD, ok let me see if I can understand what you are saying

You Started with a C7, its a C7 if we like play it alone, but if we were playing that particular progression u said, then it isnt a C7 cause well it doesnt fit in.

So we assume the bass is playing Gb, and think its a C7b5, but that really doesnt fit in either, so we change the notes, change C to B# - E ( we leave that one because it is in the C minor scale ) and A#.

Ohhhh since it is now B# instead of C, and B# is in the melodic minor scale then this is a vii chord.

But then what if G# is the chord root, and now the bass is playing F# which is the b7 and so we have B# - E ( technically Dx) and A#. and now we have a G # 9# ?( or is that + augmented ? )

SO back to my chord, yeah It makes sense that its a F# 6 especially in the context that Im using it.

Because, using ( in my way xD ) the example noteboat gave.

I am pretty sure the I here is F#

I start with this F# 6? then go to Gm then to B then to F#

And this is a I ii IV I, which is close enough to a ii IV I progression yay.

But the bass in A# really gives it alot of texture!

SO lets saay, that I am playing with a bass, and he plays B, then this would be a B maj 9, and then I play G# and then B and then F#

SO this would be a I VI I V ?? o.o

lol new to harmony.

OK the chord I am using in the context that I am using it without a bass playing B, is F#6... thank you guys xD

Yeah, I mean augmented when I use "+" in a chord symbol. I know some publishers use that to mean sharp, so 9+ is a #9... and they often use a "-" for a flat, too... but I find that confusing. I read a lot of jazz charts, where "-" means minor, "+" means #5. So I stick with those :)

Wait lol is the 9 augmented ?? Or is the whole chord augmented ?? ( G#9#5 )

Lol There should be a universal written language, but I guess then people would still make stuff up.

Just the 5th is augmented when I use a "+". If the 9th needs to be raised, I treat it as an added tone for clarity, as in G7#9. That seems to be the most common method publishers use, too.

It'd be nice to have a standard, but there isn't one - even in "standard" notation :)

Well, it makes sense that there isnt music is like a big language, even here in Puerto Rico ( relatively small islands ) there are differences in how spanish is speaken and written, even more with the musical language ( in this case not as it is spoken, although there are differences, but on how it is written )