I am in the process of writing some chord charts out for a new composition.

My 6 string fretless bass is tuned (low to high) DADADE. The piece is primarily in D minor and it has fits of angry 15/8 to 7/8 to a comfy 16/8 at the end.

Technique-wise, I am tapping an open string harmonics triplestop chord at the 12th fret with my right hand (on the top 3-4 strings) while my left hand is comping the basic bass line on the bottom 2 strings around the 8th fret. Tab-wise, the 4 note bass line would be ascending 8-9 fret on the A string and 7-8 fret on the D string, with the four bass notes being F G A Bb.

The particular chord progression in question is as follows, with the initial low note being the bass note and the next 3 notes are all tapped harmonics (kind of like a pedal tone droning sustained chord, which in this case, is syncopated) at the 12th fret. As the lowest bass note moves, I change the chordal tension by dropping down a 4th to the next set of harmonics. So below, I have listed the 4 chords with their notes and underneath that, I have notated what I think the correct spelling of these chords might be:

(F)ADE
FM6 (add 7)

(G)ADE
G sus2 (add 13)

(A)DAD
AM4

(Bb)DAD
BbM7(add 10)


So, if you were thinking from strict piano theory, how would YOU spell out/notate these chords, and would that change if you were labeling them from a GUITAR/BASS perspective????????

Ah, the joys of notating alternate tunings!! BLAH!! I just want to make sure that other players can play this stuff! ;)

3 questions.

M = Major?

What is AM4?

BbM7(add10) - why would you add a 10th when you already have a Major 3rd?

Sweet, some hope finally!

1.) M = Major

2.) AM4= A Major 4 (Well, it's a major chord but it doesn't have the normal 3rd, 5th, notes, it just has a root and a 4th. )

3.) BbM7 (add10)= The normal spelling of a chord of this quality consists of Bb,D,F,A. But my chord doesn't have the 5th, it's notes are Bb, D, A, D. The top A makes it a Major 7th, but then what do I do with the added D on top.

Would you simply consider this a simple BbM7 and just ignore the upper voice quality of the 10th? ;)

If I was spelling these chords out for a piano player, and I just wanted to write out the 4 notes, stacked as they are on two staves, what would you call that chord?


3 questions.

M = Major?

What is AM4?

BbM7(add10) - why would you add a 10th when you already have a Major 3rd?

I would leave it as Bbmaj7.

I would write AM4 as - Asus or Asus4

And I would write Gsus2 (add13) as - G6 sus2

3.) BbM7 (add10)= The normal spelling of a chord of this quality consists of Bb,D,F,A. But my chord doesn't have the 5th, it's notes are Bb, D, A, D. The top A makes it a Major 7th, but then what do I do with the added D on top.

Would you simply consider this a simple BbM7 and just ignore the upper voice quality of the 10th? ;)



Yes, you never add a 10th in that situation, it's always considered a duplication of the 3rd.

You could call your 2nd chord G69(no 3).

You could call your 3rd chord Asus4(no 5).

Sweet, this will make my charts read much better.

I want all my chords to read as "G69".

THANKS!

JT

Since you have no 5th on that chord, I'd write D/A rather than Asus4...

An alternative look at the chords. To me is seems like an almost static harmonic change with a downward bass line.

So:

Asus/F

Asus/G

Dsus/A

Dsus/Bb

Write it out. See how your keyboard player responds (how he/she reads it) and make any adjustments that you need to.

Since you have no 5th on that chord, I'd write D/A rather than Asus4...

But most people seeing that would probably want to stick an F# in there, and Jat doesn't have one. SO maybe D(no 3)/A?

Po-tay-to, po-tah-toe.

Isn't it easier to just say it's not a chord!! ;)

I am tempted to quote Mingus :

"Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity."

Isn't it easier to just say it's not a chord!! ;)

Not if you're charting it out and want to tell somebody else what to play. He's not doing this as an academic exercise, he's trying to find the most efficient and clear way of communicating what he wants to other musicians.

Not if you're charting it out and want to tell somebody else what to play. He's not doing this as an academic exercise, he's trying to find the most efficient and clear way of communicating what he wants to other musicians.


Isn't that what standard notation is for? ;)

From the evdience of the thread, it sounds like it's not the kind of thing that suits a chord chart and it's going to lose something by being squeezed into this format - I see no chord symbols on my score of "The Rite of Spring"....:eyebrow:

Isn't that what standard notation is for? ;)

No, not necessarily. Haven't you ever gotten a chart that was just chord symbols? I get them all the time.

No, not necessarily. Haven't you ever gotten a chart that was just chord symbols? I get them all the time.

I've got hundreds and hundreds of them - but there are many where there are written lines as well - it can't always be covered just by chord symbols, is all I'm saying!! :)

God, you have no idea how many times I have tried this: "It's not a 'real" chord (IT'S NOT A TUMOR!)! :)

I'll probably just notate the piece (a frickin' nightmare), but for now, I'll just writing it out in Finale as a basic chart with "fretboard" diagrams that depict the quality/fingering of the chord.

What I really want to do is get down a basic chart notation methodology that a KEYBOARD player OR a GUITAR/BASS player can digest without too many issues. But as you can see, there are some subtle differences between what a jazz, classical, and even a straight up "whiskey rocker" would want to see/can handle when it is stuck in front of them to "read". :)

SEE, THIS IS WHY I NEED A PERSONAL ASSISTANT!!! LOL! :)

Bass Chuck, compositionally-speaking, it is a "static harmonic change with a downward bass line" and other keyboard players have mentioned the same "/ chord OVER chord" notation as you suggested:

Asus/F

Asus/G

Dsus/A

Dsus/Bb

Is it me or does Finale BLOW? It just doesn't seem to be as intuitive as it should be. Then again, keyboard players have a distinct advantage here, when it comes to the hyperscribe keyboard entry.

Isn't it easier to just say it's not a chord!! ;)

Bruce, now that you've contributed to this thread, I trust that you can provide me with TWO World Cup tix for England V Paraguay on June 10th in Frankfurt!?? LOL!

I've got hundreds and hundreds of them - but there are many where there are written lines as well - it can't always be covered just by chord symbols, is all I'm saying!! :)

(F)ADE
FM6 (add 7)

(G)ADE
G sus2 (add 13)

(A)DAD
AM4

(Bb)DAD
BbM7(add 10)


Fmaj7(13)

G69

D5 (simple D power chord)

Bbmaj7 (no need to specify 10th)

I know very little about theory, but I'd love to hear this song when it's finished, if you could post a recording of it that is:D?
Judging from the technique you described, the time changes, and the chords (I'm not totally clueless), it sounds like it should be pretty sweet when it's done.

Go listen to "Judging By The Size Of Carnie" on my MySpace page. The tune, called "CRUSHAGE", is shaping up to be along those lines.

;)

Is it me or does Finale BLOW? It just doesn't seem to be as intuitive as it should be. Then again, keyboard players have a distinct advantage here, when it comes to the hyperscribe keyboard entry.

Yes, as a refugee of Finale I can give an unqualified "Yes" to this question. Finale is powerful notation software but it's also known to shave years off a person's life and exponentially increase the amount of gray in your hair. If you're shopping for a much more intuitive alternative might I suggest Sibelius. I used Finale for probably 4 or 5 years and became fairly effiencient with the software. Eventually made the switch to Sibelius and inside of a couple of afternoons I was as fluent with it as I had been with Finale. I've never looked back.

As to the piece itself, from your progressions you posted and the comment about your fairly static harmonic progression, it sounds to me like this piece isn't really based on tertiary harmony (based on thirds). That can make it pretty difficult to pull of with chord symbols. I'm also a composer and I use a lot with quartal harmony in my music. Charting out my music would probably deliver the same kind of challenges. At the end of the day, when you're dealing with a harmonic language that's not really tertiary chord symbols kindof lose their meaning. Just some food for thought.

If only Finale would allow me to start labelling chords as DQ and AQ!! I am finding that if I were to play a scale based off the root of the chord, certainly a major or minor third would fit in.

But with this piece, the third is sort of implied but NOT sounded in the actual chord. Given the fact that I am using a DADADE tuning, it actually does lend itself to quartal harmony nicely.

Charting this stuff out is a time-consuming challenge. I want to stick it all in Bozzio and Keneally's face and see how they react! :)


Yes, as a refugee of Finale I can give an unqualified "Yes" to this question. Finale is powerful notation software but it's also known to shave years off a person's life and exponentially increase the amount of gray in your hair. If you're shopping for a much more intuitive alternative might I suggest Sibelius. I used Finale for probably 4 or 5 years and became fairly effiencient with the software. Eventually made the switch to Sibelius and inside of a couple of afternoons I was as fluent with it as I had been with Finale. I've never looked back.

As to the piece itself, from your progressions you posted and the comment about your fairly static harmonic progression, it sounds to me like this piece isn't really based on tertiary harmony (based on thirds). That can make it pretty difficult to pull of with chord symbols. I'm also a composer and I use a lot with quartal harmony in my music. Charting out my music would probably deliver the same kind of challenges. At the end of the day, when you're dealing with a harmonic language that's not really tertiary chord symbols kindof lose their meaning. Just some food for thought.

Again, I'll plug Sibelius. They're not paying me for this either. I don't use a midi controller or a keyboard to input my music. I do it all with the computer keyboard and I can input music like typing a letter in a word processor. You just learn where everything is and don't even have to look at your hands anymore. The interface is more like you're working with a piece of paper than a computer file too, which is nice. Kinda pricey but well worth it.

I am going to check out Sibelius now. ;)

Finale = crap. I do everything by hand because it's less of a hassle. This includes score writing.

I like Sibelius

Isn't that what standard notation is for? ;)

From the evdience of the thread, it sounds like it's not the kind of thing that suits a chord chart and it's going to lose something by being squeezed into this format - I see no chord symbols on my score of "The Rite of Spring"....:eyebrow:


it sounds to me like this piece isn't really based on tertiary harmony (based on thirds). That can make it pretty difficult to pull of with chord symbols. I'm also a composer and I use a lot with quartal harmony in my music. Charting out my music would probably deliver the same kind of challenges. At the end of the day, when you're dealing with a harmonic language that's not really tertiary chord symbols kindof lose their meaning. Just some food for thought.

I was saying the same thing earlier, but in layman's terms!! ;)

Yes, but that seems to me to miss the point somewhat. I thought Jay was asking a practical rather than an academic question, which was how to render what he was doing in a way that would enable other people to follow it accurately, without necessarily having to notate everything. I mean, that's precisely why you write a chord chart anyway--so you don't have to write out all the notes! It's a timesaving device.

To the ends of writing out a chord chart, if you can write the thing out in terms of chords, you should, because that's the whole point. Whether tertian harmony is the most appropriate descriptor of what you're trying to do harmonically is kinda beside the point, and debating whether the harmony is tertian or quartal isn't really helpful if all you want to do is write a dang chord chart. You know?;)

Well - the sort of chords you are talking about are based on stacking thirds - so if Scriabin had wanted to write chord charts for his Poem of Ecstasy - he would have been stuffed!! ;)

So below, I have listed the 4 chords with their notes and underneath that, I have notated what I think the correct spelling of these chords might be:

(F)ADE
FM6 (add 7)

(G)ADE
G sus2 (add 13)

(A)DAD
AM4

(Bb)DAD
BbM7(add 10)


So, if you were thinking from strict piano theory, how would YOU spell out/notate these chords, and would that change if you were labeling them from a GUITAR/BASS perspective????????

Ah, the joys of notating alternate tunings!! BLAH!! I just want to make sure that other players can play this stuff! ;)

I would notate them in standard notation i.e. stacked notes on the bar if these are the voicings you're looking for but it depends on who and what purpose the chart is for.

Essentially, I do want the practical (a time-saving simple to read, standardized "jazz" chord chart) to mesh with the academic (a really accurate chord notation that is not confusing to either a piano player, bassist, or "jazz" guitarist (Yeah, I mean WARR). ;)

It's like wanting the best of both worlds and achieving that with the least amount of headache.

If I simply put Bm (even if it is a Bm6/9) or Dm or A, that would "work" for someone who has a minimal grasp on theory and little knowledge of advanced spellings of chords/voicings. Eventually, they'll improv. something that will "work", usually the root and the fifth. ;)

But I'd prefer to give the most accurate information to a player, which is why I really want to focus on making sure that my chord spellings are CORRECT and easily digestible by a variety of players. Then again, as we all know, nothing is "better" than having the whole piece transcribed note for note on a sheet.

I am sure that these types of "bass" compositions will be displayed as standard notation, with a basic chord symbols for the progressions as well as a guitar-tab fingering above the progression. But man, that is TIME-CONSUMING. ;)





Yes, but that seems to me to miss the point somewhat. I thought Jay was asking a practical rather than an academic question, which was how to render what he was doing in a way that would enable other people to follow it accurately, without necessarily having to notate everything. I mean, that's precisely why you write a chord chart anyway--so you don't have to write out all the notes! It's a timesaving device.

To the ends of writing out a chord chart, if you can write the thing out in terms of chords, you should, because that's the whole point. Whether tertian harmony is the most appropriate descriptor of what you're trying to do harmonically is kinda beside the point, and debating whether the harmony is tertian or quartal isn't really helpful if all you want to do is write a dang chord chart. You know?;)

Asus/F

Asus/G

Dsus/A

Dsus/Bb



This is certainly the most practical way of notating it...it show that the overlaying harmony remains while the bass note changes, and even suggests voicing. Wish I had really looked at it before I answered the first time...

Ok, so the final consensus on these 4 chords, as they are spelled out below is:
1.) FADE = FM6 (add 7)
2.) GADE = G6 sus2 (G 69)
3.) ADAD = A sus4
4.) BbDAD = BbM7

???????? ;)

Agreed.

:)

This is certainly the most practical way of notating it...it show that the overlaying harmony remains while the bass note changes, and even suggests voicing. Wish I had really looked at it before I answered the first time...

I think I'll give the slash progression to a guitarist and if I land a "Chick Corea", he'll get the more complicated written voicing. ;)

This is certainly the most practical way of notating it...it show that the overlaying harmony remains while the bass note changes, and even suggests voicing. Wish I had really looked at it before I answered the first time...

Asus/F

Asus/G

Dsus/A

Dsus/Bb


I agree with the basic premise here - a moving bass line under static chords.

What you're calling Dsus is actually a D5 chord. So the last 2 are D5/A, D5/Bb.

If the notes you're naming are the real tones and note the position of where the normal note should be on the neck because of your alternate tuning, and if we respect theory of chords from the F major scale, your chords are simply:

F-A-D-E FM7 could also be FM7add13
G-A-D-E Gm6/9
A-D-A-D Dm / A or Asus4
Bb-D-A-D BbM7

M=Major
m=minor

The notes I named are in an ascending order exactly where they are on the neck, as specified in my first post. Sweet. :)

Ok, so I finally put up a score for this composition called "Crushage":
Sibelius Session: http://jayterrien.com/The%20Twelve/SCORCH%20UPLOADS/CRUSHAGE(SCORCHMASTER).htm

Rough Audio Demo: http://jayterrien.com/mp3/2006/CRUSHAGE%20ROUGH%20MIX%201.mp3

More about the work HERE: http://jayterrien.com/The%20Twelve/The%20Twelve.htm

Hopefully, you be able to make better sense of the progression in discussion!! :)

JT
Isn't that what standard notation is for? ;)

From the evdience of the thread, it sounds like it's not the kind of thing that suits a chord chart and it's going to lose something by being squeezed into this format - I see no chord symbols on my score of "The Rite of Spring"....:eyebrow:

An alternative look at the chords. To me is seems like an almost static harmonic change with a downward bass line.

So:

Asus/F

Asus/G

Dsus/A

Dsus/Bb

Write it out. See how your keyboard player responds (how he/she reads it) and make any adjustments that you need to.

This is what I'm thinking...and it is the way that I'd prefer to see it written. It's just logical. To me, it implies that the root changes, and the chord stays the same...which is what you have going on there. When I write out charts for other musicians, I allow them to interpret the voicings on their own.

(F)ADE
FM6 (add 7)

(G)ADE
G sus2 (add 13)

(A)DAD
AM4

(Bb)DAD
BbM7(add 10)



Don't know what genre this is, and it would help to hear the piece. But this is what I SEE:
(F)ADE = i, dm9
(G)ADE = iv, gmsus(add13)
(A)DAD = i, dm (no 3rd)
(Bb)DAD = VI, BbM7 w/ repeated 3rd

Again, it would help to hear it.

The motive in discussion appears at about 3:09 Minutes here:

Rough Audio Demo: http://jayterrien.com/mp3/2006/CRUSH...%20MIX%201.mp3

Sibelius NOTATION Session: http://jayterrien.com/The%20Twelve/S...RCHMASTER).htm

More about the work HERE: http://jayterrien.com/The%20Twelve/The%20Twelve.htm


Don't know what genre this is, and it would help to hear the piece. But this is what I SEE:
(F)ADE = i, dm9
(G)ADE = iv, gmsus(add13)
(A)DAD = i, dm (no 3rd)
(Bb)DAD = VI, BbM7 w/ repeated 3rd

Again, it would help to hear it.

Much of the effect you're creating here is in the specific voicing and technique on your bass (enabled to some degree by your unusual tuning). IMO, you're best off using traditional notation here rather than a lead sheet. You can still throw the chord symbols over the top.

I know. That's why I finally chose to just notate the damn thing. It looks hilarious in notation at mm. 57-73 :http://jayterrien.com/The%20Twelve/SCORCH%20UPLOADS/CRUSHAGE(SCORCHMASTER).htm

;)

JT


Much of the effect you're creating here is in the specific voicing and technique on your bass (enabled to some degree by your unusual tuning). IMO, you're best off using traditional notation here rather than a lead sheet. You can still throw the chord symbols over the top.