So I've read more than a few times in this forum that some like to refer to a Dm7b5 opposed to Dø.
Was wondering why in a functional harmony standpoint. Which is your preference and why?

Dø = D F Ab C Eb G Bb
When I see Dm7b5 I think: D F Ab C E G B
or does it imply Dø#2: D F Ab C E G Bb ? (Locrian#2)

I see: Dø > G7+9 > I more often than: Dm7b5 > G7+9 > I ; for ii - V7 - I progressions in particular. Any other places you prefer to use this chord/scale?

Just curious since I've seen this POV expressed.

To me of Cm7b5 and Cø are the same chord. Just different symbols for same chord. I also see a Cm7b5 as a dominant 9th without a root.

Locrian is a basic scale to use over the chord.
Locrian #2 is a more Coltrane-ish sound (mmi from 3rd of mi7b5)

They are the same chord to you and everyone else Doc, they both have the notes {D F Ab C}. I don't know what ryco is trying to say with his post, but that chord can imply a lot of things, first and foremost, I guess it will imply Locrian in scale terms, but it could be attached to a lot of other scales.

Also as Docbop said it can imply a dominant 9 without the root.

I prefer to use Dim7(b5) in notation because it avoids any ambiguity or misreading of the symbol.

They are technically the same thing, I think people just prefer the name m7b5 because it's technically not "half" diminished but more "3/4" diminished.

They are technically the same thing, I think people just prefer the name m7b5 because it's technically not "half" diminished but more "3/4" diminished.

So "technically" what is half diminished? {1 b3 5 b7} or maybe {1 3 b5 b7}?

What I was trying to say was I wasn't sure if both designations were for the same chord or not.
When I see the half-diminished sign ø, I hear/think the locrian chord/scale.

When I see the label m7b5, I think of a completely different series of notes.
I have heard people here say they would rather see it written out m7b5 because it helps them to think of all the notes they have available and it's easier to read on the fly.
What I am saying is I see the symbol on the fly and my brain flashes an altered Dorian with a flat five. Maybe I have Aebersold's Disease. :)

The ø desinates half-diminished because the chord contains a minor 7th instead of a fully diminished 7 (enharmonic with a M6).

I'm hip to the Dom9 w/o the root aspect. Cø could imply Ab7add9

The answer is yes, they do mean the same thing, then.

Now, what I want to know is how you get the "ø" sign in the first place when you type. I just cut and pasted it from your post, but is there are code for it?

The answer is yes, they do mean the same thing, then.

Now, what I want to know is how you get the "ø" sign in the first place when you type. I just cut and pasted it from your post, but is there are code for it?

Alt + 0216 (hold down alt, type 0216 on the numeric keypad, let go of alt)

Ø

You can look up symbols like that in the character map program (start / all programs / accessories / system tools )

HTH :)

Also as Docbop said it can imply a dominant 9 without the root.
That's how I'd read it.


I prefer to use Dim7(b5) in notation because it avoids any ambiguity or misreading of the symbol.

Good call; I'll have to remember that.

The answer is yes, they do mean the same thing, then.

Now, what I want to know is how you get the "ø" sign in the first place when you type. I just cut and pasted it from your post, but is there are code for it?I get ø by holding the "alt/option" key and pressing o.
Can get Ø by holding "alt/option" + "shift" and pressing O.
Different symbols for each key while holding down "alt", even more symbols if you hold down "shift" key as well.
I'm on a mac  (alt/shift K); I don't know if this works on PCs


I agree writing it out dim7b5 would eliminate ambiguity in my mind.

I guess this thread is about nomenclature and how confusing it can be.

Another thing that bothers me about the m7b5 designation would be referring to this as a minor chord at all. It clearly is a dim chord because it contains a diminished triad as its base = i - m3 - d5 .

Also in keeping with this train of thought: in the original post example the G7 is altered with the designation V7+9. To my mind, on the fly, it looks like an Augmented chord. This could work because G7 alt is [G B D#] F Ab A# C#. But most players would emphasize a b5 (really a #4, C#) and not D#. I realize the "+' is referring to the #2, but reading quickly it looks like an Aug chord is implied. I alsounderstand this chord is borrowed from Mel min harmony.

I can see why theory can be hard to grasp because one has to understand their are multiple ways to write the same thing. If you play long enough (and read), you grow accustomed to seeing these chord symbols and make your note selection. You know what the writer is asking for. But there is a kind of sloppiness about it. Maybe that's a good thing.

never mind.

Not to derail, but somewhat related:

I have always thought that if we are going to use "O" and "Ø" to denote diminished and half diminished respectively, for the sake of consistancy and due to the relationship of terminology, since "Ø" for half diminished, by definition is a chord taken to the 4th degree (b7), then it's related sister chord ("O" / diminished) should also automatically be taken to the 4th degree (bb7).

"dim7" or "O7" has always seemed weird to me. When the 4th degree is unneeded it could be written simply as "mb5" or "-b5".

My understanding of the implied scales is not up to many of your levels (I have a really good ear so I tend to play what I hear more than the mathmatics), so why am I wrong here?

So "technically" what is half diminished? {1 b3 5 b7} or maybe {1 3 b5 b7}?

The first one is min7

Second would be altered



dim7: 1 b3 b5 bb7

half dim: 1 b3 b5 b7

the half dim has 3/4 notes that make up the dim7. Therefore 3/4 diminished seems like a more suitable name than half diminished. Sorry I should have explained that earlier.

I like how Mark Levine (The Jazz Theory Book) sees it:

Dø = 2 pieces of information

Dmin7(b5) = 9 pieces of information

I think the reason why a lot of people prefer the nomenclature m7b5 (or -7(b5), or whatever) is because you see the "7" in the chord symbol, which is always nice to have, whereas simply "ø" doesn't have the visible 7 that we associate with 7th chords. Of course you could be redundant and do "ø7", which Jamie Aebersold does, I think. Regardlless of which way you symbolize it, though, its the same chord.

From a very theoretical standpoint, you can make the case that there are two separate FUNCTION's that separate the structure 1 b3 b5 b7 into two different chords, the "minor 7 flat 5" and the "half-diminished", the same way that you would separate functioning and non-functioning dominant chords. If you have a regular minor ii-V, like Dm7(b5) - G7(b9) - Cm6 or whathave you, the first chord would have subdominant, or predominant function, the same as its corresponding minor 7 chord would have if it were a major ii-V. There is a change of modality (major to minor), but the chord's function remain's the same within the chord progression. If, however, you had a CHROMATIC chord progression that related in the same way that diminished chords relate to others (descending/ascending by half-steps), then you would have something different. What I mean by that is something like the second half of the A in Night and Day, when you have a chord progression like F#m7(b5) - Fm7 - Em7 - Eb7 - Dm7 - G7. The F#m7(b5) has a diminished function, but isn't a fully diminished chord, hence, "half-diminished".

The reason why the term "half-diminished" came into vogue in the first place was because of a chord progression that behaved similarly. The beginning of Tristan and Isolde by Wagner starts dramatically on this chord and the voices all move chromatically towards resolution. You'll hear some classical people call it the "Tristan" chord for that reason.

Not to derail, but somewhat related:

I have always thought that if we are going to use "O" and "Ø" to denote diminished and half diminished respectively, for the sake of consistancy and due to the relationship of terminology, since "Ø" for half diminished, by definition is a chord taken to the 4th degree (b7), then it's related sister chord ("O" / diminished) should also automatically be taken to the 4th degree (bb7).


IMO for the dim or "O" chord it doesn't matter how far your build it out because it is a symmetric chord. Remember in a dim chord any note of the chord can be its root.

This is quoting from Carol Kaye's Jazz Improv for Bass book, page 21 about subbing for the m7b5:

"m7b5 = Use the minor chord 3 frets higher: For F#m7b5 (which is also called F# 1/2 diminished - no it's not a diminished chord at all , just a term) use Am7, OR, use the 7th it's going to as a diminished: F#m7b5 goes to B7, so use Cdim over both chords, OR, use the pivotal b5 of B7 (F13, F9, or Cm9 - again only if the B7 is resolving to its tonic of the E chord), or use the major note scale 1 fret higher than the m7b5 chord: F#m7b5 is the maj7 degree of the G note-scale, but this is a sort of a last-resort, don't use note-scales much, they are boring and non-melodic - notes scales are OK a few times, but usually only as traveling notes." :hmm:

This is for jazz improv/soloing. After reading all of that and trying to remember it while I'm playing:hmm:............I just came to the conclusion that playing ANY note, whether it is right or wrong, can be justified in jazz improv!!!!!! In my Christian group I always tease the members by saying, "I never play a wrong note on my bass......................if it sounds wrong, I just call it JAZZ!!!" Jazz for Jesus..........a nice little alliteration!:D

She also said that the symbol for m7b5 the 0 with the slash through it, was first used because some writer got tired of writing m7b5 over and over again, that's all there is to that.;)

Johnny

The first one is min7

Second would be altered



dim7: 1 b3 b5 bb7

half dim: 1 b3 b5 b7

the half dim has 3/4 notes that make up the dim7. Therefore 3/4 diminished seems like a more suitable name than half diminished. Sorry I should have explained that earlier.

I understood you perfectly actually. I was really making the point that it's not called half diminished because it has half of the notes of whole diminished. It's just nomenclature and it's not at all misleading in my opinion.

I was also pointing out that calling something else half diminished based on the logic you are applying doesn't work as far as I can see.

IMO for the dim or "O" chord it doesn't matter how far your build it out because it is a symmetric chord. Remember in a dim chord any note of the chord can be its root.

Yes, and also a diminished chord is one of Messiaen's modes of limited transposition, having only 3 transpositions.

Alt + 0216 (hold down alt, type 0216 on the numeric keypad, let go of alt)

Ø

You can look up symbols like that in the character map program (start / all programs / accessories / system tools )

HTH :)

Cheers

The fact that there are so many different opinions suggests that there's confusion - my preference is for m7b5 - it doesn't feel like 9 pieces of information to me, just 1, and it's accurate and unambiguous. What exactly is half-diminished 'half' of?

The fact that there are so many different opinions suggests that there's confusion - my preference is for m7b5 - it doesn't feel like 9 pieces of information to me, just 1, and it's accurate and unambiguous. What exactly is half-diminished 'half' of?

Simple it doesn't have the bb7 of a diminished 7, it has b7.

I see it this way: A "full" diminished chord consists of three stacked minor thirds (A-C-Eb-Gb, for instance). A "half" diminished chord consists of two stacked minor thirds plus one major third (A-C-Eb-G natural). That's why I prefer the "Half diminished" ("Ø") name instead of m7b5.

Ok, so you have two considerations when you name a tertian tetrad. Firstly you name the triad and then the 7th. Both Ø and O chords have diminished triads. This is why EADG mx's theory that the former is "technically" really 3/4 diminished falls apart. Take away that triad and it's not anything diminished at all.

The second consideration is whether the 7th is also diminished. Technically (it's my turn to say it now) a b7, as most of us know is a minor 7th where a bb7 is a diminished 7th. Hence the former gives us a half diminished and the later gives us a whole diminished.

When we go to notating this it is sometimes preferable to use m7(b5), because it is less ambiguous than trying to figure out whether the slash is a slash or a smeared penmark on the page. It all comes down to preference in this case, though.

Mark Levine is talking about the visual impact of reading 9 pieces of info versus 2. I guess I should have mentioned that. Easier to read Dø.

Mark Levine is talking about the visual impact of reading 9 pieces of info versus 2. I guess I should have mentioned that. Easier to read Dø.

Yeah, in your opinion maybe, my opinion is that I would prefer to see m7(b5) on the page. That is one piece of information to me since I immediately understand what it means without having to think of how it is formulated. As I just said in my previous post I would rather that than try to figure out whether the little circle is just a bit smudged or whether it is actually a line. This is probably more the case with hand written charts, and once again is a matter of opinion.

Mark Levine is talking about the visual impact of reading 9 pieces of info versus 2. I guess I should have mentioned that. Easier to read Dø.

But that's a rather irrelevant point, and very misleading. We interpret related pieces of information very quickly when its in a coherent order.

For example, there were 122 pieces of information (not including spaces) in that last paragraph. It sure didn't take you long to read it now did it? The human brain processes words as a whole, not letter by letter. When you read the word "MUSICIANS" you don't think "M" then "U" then "S", etc, you read it and take it in as a full word as quickly as you see it. It too has "9 pieces of information" but is just as easy to read for the experienced reader as the word "AT" is (2 pieces of information). It takes no time to read either one.

But that's a rather irrelevant point, and very misleading. We interpret related pieces of information very quickly when its in a coherent order.

For example, there were 122 pieces of information (not including spaces) in that last paragraph. It sure didn't take you long to read it now did it? The human brain processes words as a whole, not letter by letter. When you read the word "MUSICIANS" you don't think "M" then "U" then "S", etc, you read it and take it in as a full word as quickly as you see it. It too has "9 pieces of information" but is just as easy to read for the experienced reader as the word "AT" is (2 pieces of information). It takes no time to read either one.

Good post. I wanted to say something similar but I just couldn't process that much information at once.

I understood you perfectly actually. I was really making the point that it's not called half diminished because it has half of the notes of whole diminished. It's just nomenclature and it's not at all misleading in my opinion.

I was also pointing out that calling something else half diminished based on the logic you are applying doesn't work as far as I can see.

This is not "my" theory. I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just sharing what I've heard.

3/4 notes of the diminished chord would seem to = 3/4 diminished in theory.

But you're right 2/4 notes of the diminished chord does not necessarily mean min7b5 so that doesn't work.

Really, I don't think either name makes a lot of sense. But that's the way it is and there's not much we can do about that now besides sticking with less ambiguous names like min7b5.

Guys, I've been a pro bass player for 26 years and I can read chord symbols reeeel guuuud! I don't really care what way it's wrtttieeen, I just like a more elegant visual. No big deal either way.

ø

But that's a rather irrelevant point, and very misleading. We interpret related pieces of information very quickly when its in a coherent order.

For example, there were 122 pieces of information (not including spaces) in that last paragraph. It sure didn't take you long to read it now did it? The human brain processes words as a whole, not letter by letter. When you read the word "MUSICIANS" you don't think "M" then "U" then "S", etc, you read it and take it in as a full word as quickly as you see it. It too has "9 pieces of information" but is just as easy to read for the experienced reader as the word "AT" is (2 pieces of information). It takes no time to read either one.

That's true, but what about saving space on a page? That alone seems like a good enough reason to use ø over min7b5.

This is not "my" theory. I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just sharing what I've heard.

3/4 notes of the diminished chord would seem to = 3/4 diminished in theory.

But you're right 2/4 notes of the diminished chord does not necessarily mean min7b5 so that doesn't work.

Really, I don't think either name makes a lot of sense. But that's the way it is and there's not much we can do about that now besides sticking with less ambiguous names like min7b5.

I think if you read what I wrote in post 25 you can see where the terminology came from.

From time to time I am known to argue about the nomenclature of certain things. For example I insist that calling a scale with the "spelling" [1 2 b3 4 b5 b6 b7] Locrian#2 makes no sense because it is misleading, but I think in this case the rationale behind whether something is half or whole diminished is fairly easily understood.

Seems like it would be more appropriate to say "Locrian nat. 2" in that case.

How many pages you reckon we could get out of Amin7 vs. Ami7?

Seems like it would be more appropriate to say "Locrian nat. 2" in that case.

Yeah, I'm not going to get into it again, but that is what you would probably think and it is also known by that name, but it is most commonly held that the term Locrian#2 describes that scale correctly. Not only that, but it is also the most common name for it.

Seems like it would be more appropriate to say "Locrian nat. 2" in that case.

Shhhhh then the rookies won't be scared of the name. :hiding:

Shhhhh then the rookies won't be scared of the name. :hiding:

It would also leave me with less to argue about.

How many pages you reckon we could get out of Amin7 vs. Ami7?

All in good time. I think we can get another 27 pages out of this topic yet.

Yeah, I'm not going to get into it again, but that is what you would probably think and it is also known by that name, but it is most commonly held that the term Locrian#2 describes that scale correctly. Not only that, but it is also the most common name for it.

I can see how either would work, that's just what I would call it were I the authority on music theory nomenclature. :)

And yes, I think this thread has pretty much degenerated into nitpicking at this point.

All in good time. I think we can get another 27 pages out of this topic yet.

With you and me here, I have no doubt.

That's true, but what about saving space on a page? That alone seems like a good enough reason to use ø over min7b5.

If you're using standard manuscript paper, and the standard 4 bars to a line, you'd have to have pretty gigantic handwriting for "m7(b5)", or even "min7(b5)" to feel crowded. Granted, if you need to write for harmonic rhythms of four to a bar or even more, it would make sense, but that is rarely even the case for lead sheets, and ever more rare would you be using multiple minor 7 flat 5 chords.

With you and me here, I have no doubt.



If you're using standard manuscript paper, and the standard 4 bars to a line, you'd have to have pretty gigantic handwriting for "m7(b5)", or even "min7(b5)" to feel crowded. Granted, if you need to write for harmonic rhythms of four to a bar or even more, it would make sense, but that is rarely even the case for lead sheets, and ever more rare would you be using multiple minor 7 flat 5 chords.

What if you want to use more bars to a line to save paper and cut back on page turns?

What if you want to use more bars to a line to save paper and cut back on page turns?

You obviously haven't done much copywork, man. You'll be selling yourself out of a lot of money if you do that. =)

You obviously haven't done much copywork, man. You'll be selling yourself out of a lot of money if you do that. =)

Just trying to think of the trees.

A minor triad has a P5. If you flat the fifth (D5) of this triad, it becomes dim. HS theory.
Therefore mutedeity, I agree with your earlier post and could accept the designation dim7b5 and will use it.

When I'm sightreading and I see m7b5, I have to think about it for a split instance (wha? a minor with a b5?). I've grown so accustomed to this particular label, having seen it used a lot, I know what it means. But music should be written as clear as possible so as not to cause distraction.

Yeah all, let's go for a part II! :smug:

Here (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446080) ya go Malamute!

A minor triad has a P5. If you flat the fifth (D5) of this triad, it becomes dim. HS theory.
Therefore mutedeity, I agree with your earlier post and could accept the designation dim7b5 and will use it.


dim7b5? That's like saying min7b3.

Mutedeity didn't come up with that did he?

What if you want to use more bars to a line to save paper and cut back on page turns?

Never make a chart unreadable to cut back on page turns. 4 bars to the line is standard copy and if you have a page turn coming up it's better to just omit one line instead of adding more bars.

I have played some really bad charts that sucked simply because they were written out poorly.

dim7b5? That's like saying min7b3.

Mutedeity didn't come up with that did he?

As if I would

Y U I orta

Never make a chart unreadable to cut back on page turns. 4 bars to the line is standard copy and if you have a page turn coming up it's better to just omit one line instead of adding more bars.

I have played some really bad charts that sucked simply because they were written out poorly.

I'm not saying make it unreadable, I'm saying put more on a line. I've played plenty of charts that I know could have been compressed for space and still been easy to read.

Was college really that long ago?!?
Jeeeeeze, my head hurts.

....and I used to think I had a pretty good grasp of theory.
It's not often I feel this stupid. :bawl:

I think I might start using the Ø symbol more from now on, perhaps with an added "7" just for a bit more redundancy. That's still only 3-4 letters long including the note name. m7b5 is still my favorite designation though because it's easier to write on a computer; just normal letters and numbers needed. Regarding "dim7b5", I agree with projectMalamute above. IMHO it just sounds and looks stupid (no offense meant to you who like the designation, I just don't), and it seems to be too long for use in a lead sheet with lyrics and chords if there's limited room for writing out the chords.

And slightly related to this topic - For you that like writing out "dim" in the chords, do you also write out "aug" for augmented chords (i.e. major chord with a raised 5)? I don't recall I've ever seen this. It's always either +, +5 or #5, the latter two being more used if the chord also contains the 7. Like G7+5 or G7#5. I must say I prefer the # sign, unless the + is used alone and it's written on the same line (not in superscript like I wrote it out here...

I think I might start using the Ø symbol more from now on, perhaps with an added "7" just for a bit more redundancy. That's still only 3-4 letters long including the note name. m7b5 is still my favorite designation though because it's easier to write on a computer; just normal letters and numbers needed. Regarding "dim7b5", I agree with projectMalamute above. IMHO it just sounds and looks stupid (no offense meant to you who like the designation, I just don't), and it seems to be too long for use in a lead sheet with lyrics and chords if there's limited room for writing out the chords.

And slightly related to this topic - For you that like writing out "dim" in the chords, do you also write out "aug" for augmented chords (i.e. major chord with a raised 5)? I don't recall I've ever seen this. It's always either +, +5 or #5, the latter two being more used if the chord also contains the 7. Like G7+5 or G7#5. I must say I prefer the # sign, unless the + is used alone and it's written on the same line (not in superscript like I wrote it out here...

Let me say this once and for all on behalf everyone who knows. The term dim7(b5), (I always use brackets for clarity) is redundant, unless you take it to mean bb5, since a dim7 chord is [1 b3 b5 bb7]. It will never equate to a half diminished chord, because, the whole reason the term m7(b5) is used in the first place, "diminished" will refer to the diminished triad. Furthermore the use of the term 7 to give the tetrad dim7, unaltered refers to a bb7.

Let me say this once and for all on behalf everyone who knows. The term dim7(b5), (I always use brackets for clarity) is redundant, unless you take it to mean bb5, since a dim7 chord is [1 b3 b5 bb7]. It will never equate to a half diminished chord, because, the whole reason the term m7(b5) is used in the first place, "diminished" will refer to the diminished triad. Furthermore the use of the term 7 to give the tetrad dim7, unaltered refers to a bb7.

I get this, but I still dislike the use of the "7" if it in practice means a note that my ears interprets as the major 6th. bb7 = 6. It adds confusion at least in my mind. I'd rather leave out that 7 completely. If someone writes Cdim or C° they virtually always mean Cdim7 anyway, right? I'd rather see Cdim(bb7) being used than Cdim7, actually.

As a side topic, why is the seventh in chords never written out with the "b" as b7, when that is what it in practice next to always means unless it's a dim chord? I must say I've never really understood this although I've been aware of it since I leaned my first chords on guitar. Dmaj7 has the term maj in front of the 7 to assure that it it is the major 7 that is played, so why is there nothing in a dim chord that gives the hint that the 7 should be lowered from the b7?

Sorry if this sounds confusing, but I am confused about this.

I get this, but I still dislike the use of the "7" if it in practice means a note that my ears interprets as the major 6th. bb7 = 6. It adds confusion at least in my mind. I'd rather leave out that 7 completely. If someone writes Cdim or C° they virtually always mean Cdim7 anyway, right? I'd rather see Cdim(bb7) being used than Cdim7, actually.

As a side topic, why is the seventh in chords never written out with the "b" as b7, when that is what it in practice next to always means unless it's a dim chord? I must say I've never really understood this although I've been aware of it since I leaned my first chords on guitar. Dmaj7 has the term maj in front of the 7 to assure that it it is the major 7 that is played, so why is there nothing in a dim chord that gives the hint that the 7 should be lowered from the b7?

Sorry if this sounds confusing, but I am confused about this.

Actually, your ear doesn't interpret it as anything other than an interval. You are mentally interpreting it as a M6 probably, with all due respect, because you don't understand the implications of the chord. In the context of a dim7 chord there is no way it functions at all like a M6. By the way a bb7 appears attached to a dim7 in the 7th mode of harmonic minor.

Sorry but you will never see Cdim(bb7) that term is redundant unless it is taken to mean you are flatting the 7 twice more after the bb7. If I ever saw a chart with that written on it I would assume that the author was pulling my leg or had no idea what they were writing.

When we describe tetrads or seventh chords we make two assumptions firstly that the triad is major unless otherwise notated and secondly that the seventh is minor unless otherwise notated. The exception to this is when you see dim7, in which case you have a diminished triad with a diminished 7th. A diminished 7th, as almost anyone will tell you, is double flat.

For example:

CMaj7 is really shorthand for CMajMaj7, we assume that the triad is major so we shorten it to CMaj7

cmin7 is shorthand for cminmin7, but we assume that the 7th is minor so we shorten it to cmin7

C7 is shorthand for CMajmin7, but we shorten this to C7 because we assume that the triad is major and the 7th is minor.

For this reason we call the first tetrad attached to harmonic and melodic minor CminMaj7 as we have to notate to accommodate both assumptions.

When it comes to a diminished7th it is instead assumed that the 7th degree attached to a diminished triad is a diminished 7th unless notated otherwise. This is also why a half diminished chord is notated as m7(b5) since it is the same as a min7 chord with only one exception, the b5.

[edit] After research regarding tetrads with augmented triads I will say:

CAug7 will follow the assumption that the 7th is minor and has the degrees [1,3,#5,b7]. It is probably less ambiguous to present the chord as C7(#5)

It will follow that CAugMaj7 or CMaj7(#5) has a major 7 with an augmented triad.

I don't know if these are the best way to describe things but that's the way it is. Unless you want to revert to talking in terms of PC sets, you are best to try and understand the common language used.

Actually, your ear doesn't interpret it as anything other than an interval. You are mentally interpreting it as a M6 probably, with all due respect, because you don't understand the implications of the chord. In the context of a dim7 chord there is no way it functions at all like a M6. By the way a bb7 appears attached to a dim7 in the 7th mode of harmonic minor.

I hear it as a M6 interval over the root, not as a 7. Calling that a 7 have just always raised a big cloud in confusion in my head. It wasn't until recently (thanks TB :)) that I learned that the fourth note in the dim tetrad actually is the double-flat 7, not the 6th. I would never notate it with a "6", because that would be even more confusing.

Sorry but you will never see Cdim(bb7) that term is redundant unless it is taken to mean you are flatting the 7 twice more after the bb7. If I ever saw a chart with that written on it I would assume that the author was pulling my leg or had no idea what they were writing.

I don't expect I'd ever see that either. It would just help my min understand I shouldn't play the minor 7th. Guess it's easier for me to learn to cope with that than to try to change how the world sees this... ;)

When we describe tetrads or seventh chords we make two assumptions firstly that the triad is major unless otherwise notated and secondly that the seventh is minor unless otherwise notated. The exception to this is when you see dim7, in which case you have a diminished triad with a diminished 7th. A diminished 7th, as almost anyone will tell you, is double flat.

For example:

CMaj7 is really shorthand for CMajMaj7, we assume that the triad is major so we shorten it to CMaj7

cmin7 is shorthand for cminmin7, but we assume that the 7th is minor so we shorten it to cmin7

C7 is shorthand for CMajmin7, but we shorten this to C7 because we assume that the triad is major and the 7th is minor.

For this reason we call the first tetrad attached to harmonic and melodic minor CminMaj7 as we have to notate to accommodate both assumptions.

When it comes to a diminished7th it is instead assumed that the 7th degree attached to a diminished triad is a diminished 7th unless notated otherwise. This is also why a half diminished chord is notated as m7(b5) since it is the same as a min7 chord with only one exception, the b5.

Also with CAug7 we assume that the 7th degree is Major.

I guess the rule of thumb is that the 7th degree will be assumed to remain a m3 from the 5th.

I don't know if these are the best way to describe things but that's the way it is. Unless you want to revert to talking in terms of PC sets, you are best to try and understand the common language used.

Thanks for that, pretty much what I have assumed. I have never had a single lesson in jazz theory, only some basic classical theory lessons that I had in my early teens. Everything past that I have learned by myself, or read here at TB...

Also with CAug7 we assume that the 7th degree is Major.



Well, perhaps you guys do down there. At least as far as conventions go in the New York/New England jazz-type community an augmented 7th chord is spelled R-3-#5-b7, and often appears on a chart as C+7. The chord you are talking about would be written Cmaj7(#5).

Well, perhaps you guys do down there. At least as far as conventions go in the New York/New England jazz-type community an augmented 7th chord is spelled R-3-#5-b7, and often appears on a chart as C+7. The chord you are talking about would be written Cmaj7(#5).

Yep. +1

Well, perhaps you guys do down there. At least as far as conventions go in the New York/New England jazz-type community an augmented 7th chord is spelled R-3-#5-b7, and often appears on a chart as C+7. The chord you are talking about would be written Cmaj7(#5).

This one I see were are talking about two different chords. Again Augments is another symmetrical chord built in all intervals of major 3rd. So R, 3, +5 is an augmented triad, but go up another major 3rd and you are back to the root. So there is no naturally occurring 7th degree in a augmented chord.

So a C+7 is a shorthand for a C7 with a raised 5th. From a technical perspective I guess it should be written C7+5 or C7#5. C7+ I've seen but typically means same as C7 alt. IMO changing the 5th isn't like changing the 7th degree of a chord like the mi7b5 is doing. The fifth can be left out and not effect the base chord quality of the 3rd and 7th.
Happens a lot playing Latin tunes, then have lots of mi7b5's and you hear bass players avoid the 5th because it can get muddy depending on register.

So a C+7 is a shorthand for a C7 with a raised 5th. From a technical perspective I guess it should be written C7+5 or C7#5. C7+ I've seen but typically means same as C7 alt.

No, not at all. Augmented chords are definitely not the same at altered ones. Altered dominants in general are expected to resolve to a minor tonic, and all of the altered tensions have specific chromatic resolution patterns that behave differently from an augmented 7th chord. This is the age old question, b13, or #5? and the answer lies in its expected resolution. The #5 on the dominant 7th resolves up to the major 3rd on the target tonic, and the b13 on the dominant seventh resolves down to a natural 9 on the target tonic. That's the chief distinction between what makes a 7th altered versus augmented.

An easy way to hear this is play C E G#(Ab) Bb on the piano, and then above it play a D (natural 9). The entire character of the sound will suggest that the resolution of the G# will be an A, the third of the target tonic, F major. Play a Db, on the other hand, (b9) and you'll start to hear the resolution of the G#/Ab differently. Natural 9s are impossible on altered chords, but very possible, and a big part of augmented seventh chords.

No, not at all. Augmented chords are definitely not the same at altered ones. Altered dominants in general are expected to resolve to a minor tonic, and all of the altered tensions have specific chromatic resolution patterns that behave differently from an augmented 7th chord. This is the age old question, b13, or #5? and the answer lies in its expected resolution. The #5 on the dominant 7th resolves up to the major 3rd on the target tonic, and the b13 on the dominant seventh resolves down to a natural 9 on the target tonic. That's the chief distinction between what makes a 7th altered versus augmented.

An easy way to hear this is play C E G#(Ab) Bb on the piano, and then above it play a D (natural 9). The entire character of the sound will suggest that the resolution of the G# will be an A, the third of the target tonic, F major. Play a Db, on the other hand, (b9) and you'll start to hear the resolution of the G#/Ab differently. Natural 9s are impossible on altered chords, but very possible, and a big part of augmented seventh chords.

Yes aug and alt are two different things I don't thing I said they are the same, but the + is an overloaded symbol. The + can mean Aug, Alt, or sharp a specific note all depending on how the copyist wrote the chord symbol. At same time most will add a b7 to aug chords, and alt will have an altered 5. How and what people do depends on the tune and style its being played in. If I'm doing a pit band and see a Aug or + I'm sticking to the triad. In Jazz or Rock I will probably add the b7 or other color tones, but again have to keep ears open to what's going on.

I was always taught Alt or Altered means any combo of altered 5's and 9's. Typically on V in minor but with care can used on any resolving dominant style depending. The b13 is a classic "Juicy Note" in major, you hear Jazz masters resolve it up to the 3rd of a major.

m7b5 is incomplete info (unless you're familiar with how ppl tend to notate).
When I see this I instantly think an altered Dorian with a b5 - with a M2 and M6.
Then common sense kicks in and I go "OK, he means half dim or Locrian" - b2, b6.

Ø = means one thing, one series of tones - no question. ø7 is totally from the Dep't of Redundancy Dep't, but it's not uncommon to see.

dim7b3 -- hahaha. I like it - but OK won't use dim7b5

As for Augmented, I see A+, A+7, A Aug (or aug), Aaug7 (= m7). A7+9 signifies Alt to me, but that's mostly from reading Aebersold material.

However if you see A+4, *hint* don't raise the fifth. I went through three verses (cringe) before I figured this out.

I say Dm7b5 to alleviate any confusion. There are proper ways to name a diminished or half-diminished chord but not everyone does it the same way...I've been in a couple of situations where people have gotten confused about notating that particular chord...much moreso than others.

m7b5 is incomplete info (unless you're familiar with how ppl tend to notate).
When I see this I instantly think an altered Dorian with a b5 - with a M2 and M6.
Then common sense kicks in and I go "OK, he means half dim or Locrian" - b2, b6.

This thread is great!

Ryco, I am not saying the following to single you out. Several other people have made similar comments in the thread, and you just happen to be the most recent! :)

"m7b5 is incomplete info"

Let's look at Cmin7b5 for a moment. The chord consists of 1-b3-b5-b7: C-Eb-Gb-Bb. That is the complete chord. It is not "incomplete" because it doesn't have a D (or Db), F, or A (or Ab).

You (and others on the thread) are confusing scales with chords. The notes in the chord are fixed, and when you are improvising, there is often more than one scale that fits over a particular chord.

It doesn't mean that the copyist isn't giving you enough information, which is what I thought your post implied. :)

ps

I usually encounter min7b5 chords as part of a minor ii-V-i progression. In that case, I just treat it as two bars of V. In other words, Dmin7b5-G7-Cmin, any scale that works over the G7 will probably work fine over the Dmin7b5 as well.

ps

I usually encounter min7b5 chords as part of a minor ii-V-i progression. In that case, I just treat it as two bars of V. In other words, Dmin7b5-G7-Cmin, any scale that works over the G7 will probably work fine over the Dmin7b5 as well.

Now you sound like Robben Ford. I remember when Robben played a short time with Miles Davis. Robben coming from a Blues background isn't into a lot of changes. When asked about having to play a lot of II-V's he said he just plays on the V, its going to get there soon enough. :D

Now you sound like Robben Ford. I remember when Robben played a short time with Miles Davis. Robben coming from a Blues background isn't into a lot of changes. When asked about having to play a lot of II-V's he said he just plays on the V, its going to get there soon enough. :D

I got it from Joe Pass actually... in a masterclass, someone asked him "how do you approach soloing over a ii-V?" and he replied, "what's a ii-V? oh, you mean like Dmin7-G7? I've never really thought about it like that." Works for him! :)

edit: I found the Joe Pass quote:

"First of all, if I have a ii-V... forget the ii! You don't need it. Why are you playing the ii, what is it? (noodles on guitar) If you play the V, you've got the ii. Here's the scale for the V (plays G mixolydian). Here's the scale for the ii (plays D dorian). It's the same scale, it just starts on a different note. I found out a long time ago... that you don't have to think of it as two separate chords, it's just a V chord. When you learn a song, you must learn the harmony really simple..."

Let's look at Cmin7b5 for a moment. The chord consists of 1-b3-b5-b7: C-Eb-Gb-Bb. That is the complete chord. It is not "incomplete" because it doesn't have a D (or Db), F, or A (or Ab).

You (and others on the thread) are confusing scales with chords. The notes in the chord are fixed, and when you are improvising, there is often more than one scale that fits over a particular chord.

It doesn't mean that the copyist isn't giving you enough information, which is what I thought your post implied. :)True - fair enough. I see this stuff and I think of the chord tones right off the bat. But the only place I see these kinds of chord symbol/designations is when I'm playing jazz out of somebody's book. In the jazz idiom the bass is walking 3 or 4 to the bar. So I'm thinking in terms of chords, but I'm also thinking in connecting lines (tetrachords and chromaticisms).
I don't hear a lot of these chords being used in rock/country and I've never see a piece of paper on a rock gig. To those guys paper is for rolling - period. :bassist:

When a Dm7b5 is marked, I'm gonna guess the keyboard player is going to play the full chord up to the 13th and I'd rather not clash with his treatment of 9 or 11 or 13 . That's the reason I think in terms of chord and scale. Which is why I prefer to use the term chord/scale so it doesn't sound like I prefer one over the other. They are two sides of the same coin, with the key being the coin.

One could play just chord tones, but it starts to sound kind of bland in jazz. Arpeggios are much more common in rock/country/pop.

What I like trying to do is kind of like Classical Melodic Minor, only experimenting with M2, M6, A4 on lines going up; and m2, m6, P4 descending (instead of M6, M7 asc & m6, m7 dec -- although this can work, too). IF I even have time to think about this stuff when playing :)

What I like trying to do is kind of like Classical Melodic Minor, only experimenting with M2, M6, A4 on lines going up; and m2, m6, P4 descending (instead of M6, M7 asc & m6, m7 dec -- although this can work, too). IF I even have time to think about this stuff when playing

There's a lot more to that whole alteration of scale degrees 6 and 7 than just ascending or descending - that's a very very popular misconception, and misleading. It's hard to simplify what exactly goes on, but the easiest way of thinking about it is "on the V, use M6 and M7, on anything else, use m6 and m7." You'll find examples of both ascending/descending, but you'll never find V with m6 and m7, or the tonic with M6 and M7. That is, in classical music, which is what you're trying to emulate.

One could play just chord tones, but it starts to sound kind of bland in jazz. Arpeggios are much more common in rock/country/pop.

Transcribe some Charlie Parker. Arpeggios are bland, eh? Not common in jazz? They're the essence of bebop and hardbop, and playing in that style is at the core of what jazz evolved from.

When a Dm7b5 is marked, I'm gonna guess the keyboard player is going to play the full chord up to the 13th and I'd rather not clash with his treatment of 9 or 11 or 13 . That's the reason I think in terms of chord and scale. Which is why I prefer to use the term chord/scale so it doesn't sound like I prefer one over the other. They are two sides of the same coin, with the key being the coin.

As a bass player, you're going to have a little more leniency with the "in between" notes than a pianist might, because of the very reason that a bassline is linear and melodic versus the comping which is vertical and harmonic. This is an interesting phenomenon. For example, a pianist likely would not voice the b9 on a Dm7(b5) chord, since its a minor 9 dissonance and in a lot of ways obfuscates the function of the chord (try playing an Eb on a Dm7(b5), sounds blah). However, a very typical bassline for a measure of Dm7(b5) would be D Eb F Ab, or something of the like. It would also be perfectly acceptable to play D E F Ab, which would give it a more "modern" sound, but wouldn't clash with the piano because the chord tones are on the strong beats. You could even do D Gb F Ab, which would sound even more modern (diminished 4ths are a very Michael Brecker-type thing to do, very hip), but because the melodic stress is on the chord tones, thats what will make it work.

The fact is, know exactly what chord/scale to use in what situation might be useful, but isn't necessary as far as bass playing goes (if you tried to memorize the list for the many varieties of diminished chord scales, I'm sure you're head would explode) If you use diatonic passing tones, that will be enough for anybody to connect the chord tones on the strong beats.

There's a lot more to that whole alteration of scale degrees 6 and 7 than just ascending or descending - that's a very very popular misconception, and misleading. It's hard to simplify what exactly goes on, but the easiest way of thinking about it is "on the V, use M6 and M7, on anything else, use m6 and m7." You'll find examples of both ascending/descending, but you'll never find V with m6 and m7, or the tonic with M6 and M7. That is, in classical music, which is what you're trying to emulate.No, no - that's not what I meant. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. My point wasn't about classical music and why the Mel min is voiced different asc & desc - that's about Harmony. My point in that post was along linear lines of moving bass lines and how I might treat the sub-mediant and supertonic notes in connecting chords.
And I'm never gonna say "never" do this or that ('cept just now) because I'm not going to pretend I know so much to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't be doing. This is why I have a hard time teaching bass - therefore don't. Transcribe some Charlie Parker. Arpeggios are bland, eh? Not common in jazz? They're the essence of bebop and hardbop, and playing in that style is at the core of what jazz evolved from.No argument there! I paint with way too broad a brush, I guess.
I didn't mean as an improvisational tool. I was talking about your basic support/foundation meat and potatoes walking 4s as a jazz rhythm section member. Of course Parker's solos were phenomenal and filled with arpeggios and inversions. Wish I could think that fast. Of course arpeggios and hitting chord tones are important is jazz - it's what we do, outline chords. But you gotta admit it's going to sound out of character to play 1-3-5-7, 1-3-5-7 [ch change] 1-3-5-7.... almost do-wop. It's a balance of everything - outline, chromatics, scales, devices. I merely was saying this style of "pattern" playing is far more common in rock/pop and country. And there's nothing wrong with it. I write/play way more rock than jazz or fusion -- I like patterns in rock.
As a bass player, you're going to have a little more leniency with the "in between" notes than a pianist might, because of the very reason that a bassline is linear and melodic versus the comping which is vertical and harmonic. This is an interesting phenomenon. For example, a pianist likely would not voice the b9 on a Dm7(b5) chord, since its a minor 9 dissonance and in a lot of ways obfuscates the function of the chord (try playing an Eb on a Dm7(b5), sounds blah). However, a very typical bassline for a measure of Dm7(b5) would be D Eb F Ab, or something of the like. It would also be perfectly acceptable to play D E F Ab, which would give it a more "modern" sound, but wouldn't clash with the piano because the chord tones are on the strong beats. You could even do D Gb F Ab, which would sound even more modern (diminished 4ths are a very Michael Brecker-type thing to do, very hip), but because the melodic stress is on the chord tones, thats what will make it work.Yes I agree. I have found just through real time experience that these little clashes really aren't much to worry about between me and the piano player. Mostly because of the different tambre of the instruments and because it goes by to quickly - esp up tempo walking. I just want to play good, interesting lines with at least a little thought behind them.
I love experimenting with ideas like this. Borrowing stuff from a couple of modes up. Playing a minor chord up Dorian and next verse down Phrygian just to see what happens. That's what I was referring to in the Mel Min statement. The fact is, know exactly what chord/scale to use in what situation might be useful, but isn't necessary as far as bass playing goes (if you tried to memorize the list for the many varieties of diminished chord scales, I'm sure you're head would explode) If you use diatonic passing tones, that will be enough for anybody to connect the chord tones on the strong beats.I haven't memorized all the dim scales, but I've probably played through most of them. I haven't got all the scales memorized, but I do know a lot of them and do make an effort to use some of this stuff - everyday. I work on this stuff all the time. Even though to heavy-duty players I'm an amateur hack - I do what I can to the best of my ability and do what I can to progress just 'cause I like playing bass. I read theory because I like the mechanics of music and trying to describe/define what makes devices/melodies/progressions work/sound like they do.

I really appreciate this forum where we can talk about stuff like this and bounce ideas around. A lot of you are way more advanced and I really have a lot of lightbulb moments reading what you have to say in these threads.
I don't always express my ideas very clearly is my fox-pass.

Well, perhaps you guys do down there. At least as far as conventions go in the New York/New England jazz-type community an augmented 7th chord is spelled R-3-#5-b7, and often appears on a chart as C+7. The chord you are talking about would be written Cmaj7(#5).

Actually I think you are right. I had always believed that was the case actually, however I did some cross referencing in order to explain some uniformity in the rationale behind why the 7th is assumed to be a bb7 in a diminished chord. I did come across one site (http://www.zentao.com/guitar/theory/7th-chords.html) that did spell and aug7 chord as [1,3,#5,7].

I am going to edit my original post for now but I wonder what you all think about what is said on that site. Is it a mistake or a difference of opinion? In a way if an Aug7 chord did have a M7 it would be a good way to explain the rationale of where we assume a the 7th degree of a tertian tetrad to be as a m3 from the 5th. [edit] Actually I will hold on editing my original post since on that particular site it equates CAug7 to CM7#5 [CMaj7(#5)]

By the way don't justify things to me by what the "jazz community" thinks is right. I only care about what is uniform and logical and in line with rational convention.

I am changing my mind on this by the minute. I have to admit that I have always been a bit uncertain about this particular thing, but I am leaning towards thinking that CAug7 and CMaj7(#5) are enharmonic. I would think that the chord with the spelling [1 3 #5 b7] is an "altered" chord.

By the way don't justify things to me by what the "jazz community" thinks is right. I only care about what is uniform and logical and in line with rational convention.

Good luck with that, I think you are going to find that any 5 sufficiently diverse musical communities are going to have 5 different sets of conventions, not to mention 5 different ideas of what constitutes 'rational'.

As far as the web site you linked to, that guy has a well thought reasoning for why the +7 chord should have a major 7th. Doesn't change the fact that me and thousands of others from this part of the world are going to play something else if we see that on a chart.

This thread is great!

Ryco, I am not saying the following to single you out. Several other people have made similar comments in the thread, and you just happen to be the most recent! :)

"m7b5 is incomplete info"

Let's look at Cmin7b5 for a moment. The chord consists of 1-b3-b5-b7: C-Eb-Gb-Bb. That is the complete chord. It is not "incomplete" because it doesn't have a D (or Db), F, or A (or Ab).

You (and others on the thread) are confusing scales with chords. The notes in the chord are fixed, and when you are improvising, there is often more than one scale that fits over a particular chord.

It doesn't mean that the copyist isn't giving you enough information, which is what I thought your post implied. :)

Agreed

No argument there! I paint with way too broad a brush, I guess.
I didn't mean as an improvisational tool. I was talking about your basic support/foundation meat and potatoes walking 4s as a jazz rhythm section member. Of course Parker's solos were phenomenal and filled with arpeggios and inversions. Wish I could think that fast. Of course arpeggios and hitting chord tones are important is jazz - it's what we do, outline chords. But you gotta admit it's going to sound out of character to play 1-3-5-7, 1-3-5-7 [ch change] 1-3-5-7.... almost do-wop. It's a balance of everything - outline, chromatics, scales, devices. I merely was saying this style of "pattern" playing is far more common in rock/pop and country. And there's nothing wrong with it. I write/play way more rock than jazz or fusion -- I like patterns in rock.

Of course its out of character to play a bunch of root position arpeggios, just as it would be out of character to play all roots in a walking bassline. Learning arppegios to the ninth and how to voice lead progressions in the inversions and both descending/ascending is one of the fundamental aspects of jazz improvisation. You wish you could think that fast? Practice them, like anything. Chord scales are important as a theoretical device, but if you're locked into playing scales, that is, seeing a chord and thinking "oh, I should play dorian over this", that will be a big indicator of being an amateur.

I haven't memorized all the dim scales, but I've probably played through most of them. I haven't got all the scales memorized, but I do know a lot of them and do make an effort to use some of this stuff - everyday. I work on this stuff all the time. Even though to heavy-duty players I'm an amateur hack - I do what I can to the best of my ability and do what I can to progress just 'cause I like playing bass. I read theory because I like the mechanics of music and trying to describe/define what makes devices/melodies/progressions work/sound like they do.

Just FYI, there are two diminished scales, HW (also known as symmetric dominant) and WH. There are a whole heck lot more diatonic diminished CHORD/scales. What I meant by that, is for every diminished chord that happens in a typical diatonic situation, like #Idim7, #IIdim7, bVIdim7, etc, there is a different scale based upon what notes occur diatonically between the chord tones. For example, in the key of C, your #Idim7 chord/scale would be C# D E F G A Bb C (1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 bb7 7), but your #IVdim7 chord/scale would be F# G A B C D Eb F (1 b2 b3 4 b5 b6 bb7 7) This is confusing enough, since there's going to be a separate unique chord/scale for every single different chord, but depending on how you look at it, you might even have a different chord/scale for an ascending diminished versus a descending, since sometimes there's more than one note that exists diatonically between the chord tones (bIIIo7 might have a different one than#IIo7).

If you're really into this stuff, check out Modern Jazz Voicings by Ted Pease and Ken Pullig. It gives a brief synopsis of chord scale theory categorizing all the chord scales for major/minor key harmony and giving an overview of tensions. Chord scales in practice are best for arranging (it's an arranging book), but if you want to know a lot of the mechanics of what is going on, give it a looksie.

Actually I think you are right. I had always believed that was the case actually, however I did some cross referencing in order to explain some uniformity in the rationale behind why the 7th is assumed to be a bb7 in a diminished chord. I did come across one site that did spell and aug7 chord as [1,3,#5,7].

I am going to edit my original post for now but I wonder what you all think about what is said on that site. Is it a mistake or a difference of opinion? In a way if an Aug7 chord did have a M7 it would be a good way to explain the rationale of where we assume a the 7th degree of a tertian tetrad to be as a m3 from the 5th. [edit] Actually I will hold on editing my original post since on that particular site it equates CAug7 to CM7#5 [CMaj7(#5)]

By the way don't justify things to me by what the "jazz community" thinks is right. I only care about what is uniform and logical and in line with rational convention.

We're dealing purely with convention, here, man, we're dealing with chord symbols. If somebody can't understand a chord symbol, even if its "more logical", its not going to get played correctly. Now, I don't know where you have ever seen an "aug7" that could be understood by context to mean a major 7th chord with a #5, but I know that I've never heard of it before used in that context. I personally think that the site is wrong to call it "aug7", because whenever I've seen an "aug7" written, its been on a dominant or secondary dominant resolving to a tonic, usually major. Although its filled with plenty of tension, the lack of the tritone between the tonic and dominant 7th precludes it from having dominant function. If you've ever seen in actual music an example where, based on context, you can reasonably assume a major 7 sharp 5 chord notated as "aug7", please post.

I am changing my mind on this by the minute. I have to admit that I have always been a bit uncertain about this particular thing, but I am leaning towards thinking that CAug7 and CMaj7(#5) are enharmonic. I would think that the chord with the spelling [1 3 #5 b7] is an "altered" chord.

That's another discussion entirely, but let me quote myself from earlier on and see what you have to say on the matter

No, not at all. Augmented chords are definitely not the same at altered ones. Altered dominants in general are expected to resolve to a minor tonic, and all of the altered tensions have specific chromatic resolution patterns that behave differently from an augmented 7th chord. This is the age old question, b13, or #5? and the answer lies in its expected resolution. The #5 on the dominant 7th resolves up to the major 3rd on the target tonic, and the b13 on the dominant seventh resolves down to a natural 9 on the target tonic. That's the chief distinction between what makes a 7th altered versus augmented.

An easy way to hear this is play C E G#(Ab) Bb on the piano, and then above it play a D (natural 9). The entire character of the sound will suggest that the resolution of the G# will be an A, the third of the target tonic, F major. Play a Db, on the other hand, (b9) and you'll start to hear the resolution of the G#/Ab differently. Natural 9s are impossible on altered chords, but very possible, and a big part of augmented seventh chords.

I think probably the confusion is that the term Aug7 isn't used very often. If you think about that chord, the close harmony voicing of the M2 interval between the #5 and b7, if we assume Aug7 to mean [1,3,#5,b7] probably has lead to it being thought of less as a tertian chord and more a suspension and therefore altered.

I have personally always used the term CAugMaj7 or CMaj7(#5), myself for the spelling [1,3,#5,7] . It seems that the term Aug7 though could be taken to mean that tetrad as well. Though I can see how it might be assumed otherwise. I can also see though, that it would rationalise where I said "I guess the rule of thumb is that the 7th is assumed to be a m3 from the relative 5th of the tetrad.

I am going to amend my previous post accordingly, but I still think there is room for interpretation on this one. I would probably continue to use CMaj7(#5) myself.

That's another discussion entirely, but let me quote myself from earlier on and see what you have to say on the matter

Yes that is why I would see it more as an altered chord though. I don't think, and in reference to my last post as well, that because of the close harmony voicing of the #5 and b7 that the tertian reference will be to have an Augmented triad with a b7 attached. I think the context would be more to have a dominant with a #5.

One other thing. I think to avoid ambiguity I would also probably notate the chord [1,3,#5,b7] (in C) to be C7(#5).

One other thing. I think to avoid ambiguity I would also probably notate the chord [1,3,#5,b7] (in C) to be C7(#5).

Some people use that notation, but we are talking matters of style here.
Caug7, C+7 and C7(#5) all mean the same thing. In the exact same way that Cø and Cmin7b5 mean the same thing. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

Some people use that notation, but we are talking matters of style here.
Caug7, C+7 and C7(#5) all mean the same thing. In the exact same way that Cø and Cmin7b5 mean the same thing. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

Except when CAug7 means CMaj7(#5). Have you been reading these posts? Read what I said in post 77 and reiterated in post 78. Now, I would make the argument almost from a tertian point of view that it actually does make more sense that a Aug7 chord should mean a M7 based on the fact that having a b7 creates a suspension between the #5 and b7 rather than the tertian interval between the #5 and M7. It is only because I can see that for the most part Aug7 would be taken to mean a b7 that I don't enforce that view. So for the sake of ambiguity I would write those two chords as I said before.

Except when CAug7 means CMaj7(#5). Have you been reading these posts? Read what I said in post 77 and reiterated in post 78. Now, I would make the argument almost from a tertian point of view that it actually does make more sense that a Aug7 chord should mean a M7 based on the fact that having a b7 creates a suspension between the #5 and b7 rather than the tertian interval between the #5 and M7. It is only because I can see that for the most part Aug7 would be taken to mean a b7 that I don't enforce that view. So for the sake of ambiguity I would write those two chords as I said before.

I don't care how elegant your argument regarding tertian intervals is, we are dealing with notation here. A notation only means what the people using it have agreed it means, elegant or not. That notation is clearly and unambiguously defined amongst every group of musicians I have ever associated with. Off the top of my head you will find it in: the Real Book, any of the Aebersold books, instructional materials from the Berklee school, instructional materials from New England Conservatory, and every book of lead sheets I've seen playing jazz gigs from Detroit to Boston. Outside of that website you linked to I have never heard of someone expecting a major 7th in that chord.

Actually I think you are right. I had always believed that was the case actually, however I did some cross referencing in order to explain some uniformity in the rationale behind why the 7th is assumed to be a bb7 in a diminished chord. I did come across one site (http://www.zentao.com/guitar/theory/7th-chords.html) that did spell and aug7 chord as [1,3,#5,7].

I am going to edit my original post for now but I wonder what you all think about what is said on that site. Is it a mistake or a difference of opinion? In a way if an Aug7 chord did have a M7 it would be a good way to explain the rationale of where we assume a the 7th degree of a tertian tetrad to be as a m3 from the 5th. [edit] Actually I will hold on editing my original post since on that particular site it equates CAug7 to CM7#5 [CMaj7(#5)]

By the way don't justify things to me by what the "jazz community" thinks is right. I only care about what is uniform and logical and in line with rational convention.

I think the site that you referenced in this post is full of crap:

"G# to Bb is a 2nd interval", no, that is a diminished 3rd

"Gb to B is a 4th interval", wrong again, augmented 3rd.

I think of augmented chords as being related to the whole tone scale. If you take a C whole tone (C D E F# G# A#) and build a chord using every other pitch you get C E G# A#(Bb), the C+7. You will have to agree that this chord is different than Cmaj7(#5).

I don't care how elegant your argument regarding tertian intervals is, we are dealing with notation here. A notation only means what the people using it have agreed it means, elegant or not. That notation is clearly and unambiguously defined amongst every group of musicians I have ever associated with. Off the top of my head you will find it in: the Real Book, any of the Aebersold books, instructional materials from the Berklee school, instructional materials from New England Conservatory, and every book of lead sheets I've seen playing jazz gigs from Detroit to Boston. Outside of that website you linked to I have never heard of someone expecting a major 7th in that chord.

Once again you should read what I post before you respond like this. It's not about my tertian argument at all, though I am willing to bet I'm not far off the mark with the argument I make there, it's about the fact that the IS SOME ambiguity involved. Writing the chords as C7(#5) and CMaj7(#5), respectively, completely removes any ambiguity involved. You must be nuts to want to argue that point.

Once again though, music theory wasn't invented by the American jazz scene.

I think the site that you referenced in this post is full of crap:

"G# to Bb is a 2nd interval", no, that is a diminished 3rd

"Gb to B is a 4th interval", wrong again, augmented 3rd.

I think of augmented chords as being related to the whole tone scale. If you take a C whole tone (C D E F# G# A#) and build a chord using every other pitch you get C E G# A#(Bb), the C+7. You will have to agree that this chord is different than Cmaj7(#5).

Granted that is a good argument. By the way I never posted that site as a way of proving anything just to say that I found an example where CAug7 was equated to CMaj7(#5).

Your reference of the wholetone scale has only one shortcoming as far as I can see and that is that there is no tertian context for a 7th unless you take it that you are omitting something from the scale.

While I agree that you could see the interval from G# to Bb as a diminished 3rd I still think you are stretching it outside of diatonic reference to do so. Your argument is valid I agree but then I come back to what I was saying about uniformity in making assumptions about naming chords. How do we now justify that a dim7 has a bb7 other than by saying "that's just how it is"?

Once again though, music theory wasn't invented by the American jazz scene.

Fine, whatever. That's where the notation comes from, but I suppose if it wasn't invented by a dead white guy it doesn't count. Find me a community of musicians anywhere that will interpret C+7 as having a major 7th and I will concede that it is ambiguous.

Chord scales are important as a theoretical device, but if you're locked into playing scales, that is, seeing a chord and thinking "oh, I should play dorian over this", that will be a big indicator of being an amateur.I guess the key word would be "oh, I could play a Dorian over this" not that I'm am required to or locked into. Experiment. And your right - if I truly wished to play arpeggios that quickly, I would practice doing so.
I'm not too concerned about what/how ppl may or may not label me. I think that all has to do with reflection and esteem issues that I'm too old to care about anymore. Not to be rational or defensive -- just sayin'. Just FYI, there are two diminished scales, HW (also known as symmetric dominant) and WH. There are a whole heck lot more diatonic diminished CHORD/scales. What I meant by that, is for every diminished chord that happens in a typical diatonic situation, like #Idim7, #IIdim7, bVIdim7, etc, there is a different scale based upon what notes occur diatonically between the chord tones. For example, in the key of C, your #Idim7 chord/scale would be C# D E F G A Bb C (1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 bb7 7), but your #IVdim7 chord/scale would be F# G A B C D Eb F (1 b2 b3 4 b5 b6 bb7 7) This is confusing enough, since there's going to be a separate unique chord/scale for every single different chord, but depending on how you look at it, you might even have a different chord/scale for an ascending diminished versus a descending, since sometimes there's more than one note that exists diatonically between the chord tones (bIIIo7 might have a different one than#IIo7).Yeah, I'm hip to the two diminished scale WH, HW. But I'm not familiar with the two you posted.
They seem to break the symmetrical pattern that I learned:
Diminished =WHWHWHWH C D Eb F Gb Ab Bbb B
Dom 7 (using a dim scale) = HWHWHWHW C Db Eb E F# G A Bb
Reading through the chord scales you posted these are fully diminished scales. And it seems the prerequisite is one starts between the scale tones and plays up the diatonic scale with the exception of making sure to play the bb7. Weird.
C# play the remainder of the C scale except for Bb = bb of C#
F# play the remainder of the C scale except for Eb = bb of F#If you're really into this stuff, check out Modern Jazz Voicings by Ted Pease and Ken Pullig. It gives a brief synopsis of chord scale theory categorizing all the chord scales for major/minor key harmony and giving an overview of tensions. Chord scales in practice are best for arranging (it's an arranging book), but if you want to know a lot of the mechanics of what is going on, give it a looksie.Interesting, but I dunno. Thank you for the recommendation though.

I think the reason why a lot of people prefer the nomenclature m7b5 (or -7(b5), or whatever) is because you see the "7" in the chord symbol, which is always nice to have, whereas simply "ø" doesn't have the visible 7 that we associate with 7th chords. Of course you could be redundant and do "ø7", which Jamie Aebersold does, I think. Regardlless of which way you symbolize it, though, its the same chord.

From a very theoretical standpoint, you can make the case that there are two separate FUNCTION's that separate the structure 1 b3 b5 b7 into two different chords, the "minor 7 flat 5" and the "half-diminished", the same way that you would separate functioning and non-functioning dominant chords. If you have a regular minor ii-V, like Dm7(b5) - G7(b9) - Cm6 or whathave you, the first chord would have subdominant, or predominant function, the same as its corresponding minor 7 chord would have if it were a major ii-V. There is a change of modality (major to minor), but the chord's function remain's the same within the chord progression. If, however, you had a CHROMATIC chord progression that related in the same way that diminished chords relate to others (descending/ascending by half-steps), then you would have something different. What I mean by that is something like the second half of the A in Night and Day, when you have a chord progression like F#m7(b5) - Fm7 - Em7 - Eb7 - Dm7 - G7. The F#m7(b5) has a diminished function, but isn't a fully diminished chord, hence, "half-diminished".

The reason why the term "half-diminished" came into vogue in the first place was because of a chord progression that behaved similarly. The beginning of Tristan and Isolde by Wagner starts dramatically on this chord and the voices all move chromatically towards resolution. You'll hear some classical people call it the "Tristan" chord for that reason.

I think for purposes of text based forums, the "∅" symbol shouldn't be used. It's not the correct symbol the begin with. The proper one is a degree symbol with a slash through it. I had to look at the OP for a good 20 seconds before I realised which symbol he meant.

Granted that is a good argument. By the way I never posted that site as a way of proving anything just to say that I found an example where CAug7 was equated to CMaj7(#5).

Your reference of the wholetone scale has only one shortcoming as far as I can see and that is that there is no tertian context for a 7th unless you take it that you are omitting something from the scale.

While I agree that you could see the interval from G# to Bb as a diminished 3rd I still think you are stretching it outside of diatonic reference to do so. Your argument is valid I agree but then I come back to what I was saying about uniformity in making assumptions about naming chords. How do we now justify that a dim7 has a bb7 other than by saying "that's just how it is"?

Dude, measuring of intervals is taught in the first week of any music theory course. There is nothing being stretched outside of the diatonic reference.

Diminished < Minor < Major < Augmented

except in the case of perfect intervals

Diminished < perfect < Augmented

dim7 has a double flat because it is tertian. I don't care if Bbb is a white key that looks like an A natural. Tertian harmony is based on thirds only.

What's a better discussion is based on the little chart above, what happens if you take a perfect prime interval and lower one note?

Yeah I'm trying to derail this thread. We've already had our ambiguous chord symbol argument for this month.

Reading through the chord scales you posted these are fully diminished scales. And it seems the prerequisite is one starts between the scale tones and plays up the diatonic scale with the exception of making sure to play the bb7. Weird.
C# play the remainder of the C scale except for Bb = bb of C#
F# play the remainder of the C scale except for Eb = bb of F#

That's just a coincidence. The chord/scale for the #IIdim7 in C is D# E F# G A B C D. The point is to find all the notes in between the chord tones that are diatonic to the key. In this instance, F# isn't diatonic, but its a chord tone, so its part of the chord/scale.

EDIT: I love how pointlessly off-track these threads get. Let's keep it going, shall we?

Dude, measuring of intervals is taught in the first week of any music theory course. There is nothing being stretched outside of the diatonic reference.

Diminished < Minor < Major < Augmented

except in the case of perfect intervals

Diminished < perfect < Augmented

dim7 has a double flat because it is tertian. I don't care if Bbb is a white key that looks like an A natural. Tertian harmony is based on thirds only.

What's a better discussion is based on the little chart above, what happens if you take a perfect prime interval and lower one note?

Yeah I'm trying to derail this thread. We've already had our ambiguous chord symbol argument for this month.

So you are saying that suspended chords are tertian harmony, I take it.

EDIT: I love how pointlessly off-track these threads get. Let's keep it going, shall we?

I told you so

I told you so

Well, it's easy to get off track when some people (not giving any names) don't understand that there is no 7th in a whole-tone scale. But that doesn't stop them from commenting...

That's just a coincidence. The chord/scale for the #IIdim7 in C is D# E F# G A B C D. The point is to find all the notes in between the chord tones that are diatonic to the key. In this instance, F# isn't diatonic, but its a chord tone, so its part of the chord/scale.

EDIT: I love how pointlessly off-track these threads get. Let's keep it going, shall we?

On that subject. Here is a little bit of trivia. A diminished scale is actually the constituents of two dim7 chords a m2 apart.

Fine, whatever. That's where the notation comes from, but I suppose if it wasn't invented by a dead white guy it doesn't count. Find me a community of musicians anywhere that will interpret C+7 as having a major 7th and I will concede that it is ambiguous.

Music notation comes from American Jazz theory?

So you are saying that suspended chords are tertian harmony, I take it.

Absolutely not. In tertian harmony a suspended chord would be analyzed with an accented non-harmonic tone. Without having something to analyze I cannot say definitively if it is a upper neighbor, passing tone, suspension.

Tertian is based on thirds. Suspended chords (C sus4 C F G) are quartal (G C F).

Are you feeling ok these days Mutedeity? I thought you knew that stuff.

Here's a question HaVIC5 might be able to answer: What interval is Gb-B#? I can't seem to wrap my brain around it, either it's the heat or I've become stupid in my old age.

Here's a question HaVIC5 might be able to answer: What interval is Gb-B#? I can't seem to wrap my brain around it, either it's the heat or I've become stupid in my old age.

Obviously it's not an augmented 4th, or a diminished 5th, but I think we can safely call it a tritone. :)

Music notation comes from American Jazz theory?

That's where you are going to find the symbol we are talking about, yes. Unless of course you are able to show me some other community which supports your interpretation of it.

You spend a lot of time on this forum making pronouncements as to other peoples lack of knowledge and understanding. The fact you were led astray by some hack website surprises me. Perhaps you should just admit that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about when you made that statement.

Presumably not much of a Jazz scene in Australia...? :eyebrow:

So - Europe and of course America has a strong tradition of Jazz - but I've never heard of any Australian Jazz and I do look out for all sorts - Cuban, Brazilian, etc.

What interval is Gb-B#?

What you hear there is a tritone, but technically that's a double augmented third.

I think that the ø7 symbol comes from a "classical" theory background, where the chords are analyzed using Roman numerals and the symbols are placed underneath the bass note of the chord. Originally developed from Baroque era (1600-1750) Basso Continuo, where a keyboard player and a bass instrument had just one piece of music to share, only the bass line was written out. Using the numbers and symbols under the bass note, the keyboard players would improvise right hand chords above the bass note in a stylistically appropriate way. Many times the harmony moves very quickly in this type of music, maybe a chord change every quarter or even every eighth note. When doing analysis in theory classes, there is often not much room to indicate the all chords in a measure. In G major, for example, the chord built on the 7th note of the scale would be indicated in classical theory as viiø7. If the 3rd of the chord was in the bas, it would be viiø65 (the 6 and 5 are actually written vertically, like a fraction.) This is still a big symbol, but F#m7b5/A is a long chord symbol that would mean the same thing. The slashes in classical harmony are used for secondary dominants, so they don't use them for bass note indications. I believe these symbols are used in analysis because of the function of certain chords in each key, for example, the V-I relationship.

In jazz, the harmony often moves away from the original key signature, and the Roman numerals don't make as much sense in many tunes. And although the harmony sometimes does move quickly, a lot standards have 1 or 2 chord changes in each bar at most. Many players, of course, use substitutions and make more chords than are indicated on the chart, but the purpose of jazz chord symbols is to make them as readable as possible. I do think the m7b5 is a better symbol to use on a jazz/pop chart, written above the melody. Easier to read, IMHO, and better suited to the way that jazz harmony moves, with all the ii-V-I going on in many different keys in the same song, like All The Things You Are is a good example.

I am an orchestra director in a public school (27 years) with a masters degree and I teach HS music theory as well. I also play bass in a jazz/pop combo on the side. I try to teach my students both methods of identifying chords, and I probably talk more jazz/pop than my college theory professors would approve of, but I think it is all important stuff to know.

Also - I am always wanting to learn more, so please, if I have indicated anything above that you think is wrong or needs improvement, reply with your suggestions. My goal is to find the best way to teach kids about music, so I welcome any help from anywhere I can get it.

Thanks!

What you hear there is a tritone, but technically that's a double augmented third.

Double augmented, eh? Well you learn something new everyday.

Aside from being academic, have you ever seen anything like that in the wild? It's almost like a Great Dane/Chihuahua mix dog.

Double augmented, eh? Well you learn something new everyday.

Aside from being academic, have you ever seen anything like that in the wild? It's almost like a Great Dane/Chihuahua mix dog.

Of course, it is not practical. But the name comes from the fact that the interval between G and B is a third. No matter if it's major, minor, augmented, diminished... there's a third between G and B. Sticking to that rule is the first step to name the interval properly. The second step is looking at the semitones, 6 in this case (From Gb to B#). But I can't name the interval "fourth" or "fifth" since already know that it's a third, and that third must be augmented twice to reach that distance. So that's why it's called a double augmented third. Totally academic and impractical, but that's the "right" way of thinking of it.

Of course, it is not practical. But the name comes from the fact that the interval between G and B is a third. No matter if it's major, minor, augmented, diminished... there's a third between G and B. Sticking to that rule is the first step to name the interval properly. The second step is looking at the semitones, 6 in this case (From Gb to B#). But I can't name the interval "fourth" or "fifth" since already know that it's a third, and that third must be augmented twice to reach that distance. So that's why it's called a double augmented third. Totally academic and impractical, but that's the "right" way of thinking of it.

How about "Diminished Prime"

or Cx - Dbb?

;)

How about "Diminished Prime"

or Cx - Dbb?

;)

Haha, that's a triply diminished second. Good times.

Haha, that's a triply diminished second. Good times.

Exactly. ;) :cool:

Haha, that's a triply diminished second. Good times.

No, no, it's the Augminished fourth only playable after laying the entrails of goat on your drummers snare at midnight.

That's just a coincidence. The chord/scale for the #IIdim7 in C is D# E F# G A B C D. The point is to find all the notes in between the chord tones that are diatonic to the key. In this instance, F# isn't diatonic, but its a chord tone, so its part of the chord/scale.Thanks much! Just trying to understand! :) EDIT: I love how pointlessly off-track these threads get. Let's keep it going, shall we?OK for you. Since HaVIC gets to go non-diatonic and mutedeity gets to talk about Augmented chords, here's this I posted awhile back because I kind of agree with mute's idea that Augmented chords should have M7s:
In Key of C starting with B Locrian (half dim), to E Phrygian (nat min w/ b2), to A Aeolian (nat min), D Dorian (nat min w/ #6), G Mixolydian (Dom 7), Ionian (nat Maj), F Lydian (Maj w/#4).

So I thought what if I kept going "around the horn" from F to Bb. and came up with another Lydian:

Bb Lydian: Bb C D E F G A = another Lydian!

Eb = an Aug (R M3 A5) #4 = Eb F G A B C D, so "major" it winds up in the Aug realm, features a H W H (A5 > M6 > M7 > "R").
Also third mode of Melodic Minor scale; Eb Lydian Augmented.

Ab = an Aug #2 (keeping the #4 as well) = Ab B C D E F G, the first interval is a step and a half from "R" to the #2.
1 1/2 semi-tones is good enough for Harmonic Minor (m6>M7) so really doesn't set a precedent.

Db = Aug (#2 #4 #6 (enharmonic b7)) = Db E F G A B C, features a HH between #6 > M7 > "R" (sixth would be an A6?)

Gb = Aug (#2 #4 #6 #3 (A3?) = Gb A B C D E F = C (A4) sounds like b5, #3 (B) sounds like sus4.
Bluesy with #2 an enharm b3, and HH (A6 M7) sounds like blues scale's featured P4 b5 P5

Cb = well now it's into an enharmonic of Locrian because Cb is enharm of B so that tone is taken - unless you wanted a 6 tone scale that negates the root. Cb D E F G A B/Cb. No root = no Key of C.

So dim to min to Dom to Maj to a slew of Augments that get so Augmented they wind up turning diminished. Interesting

Thanks much! Just trying to understand! :) OK for you. Since HaVIC gets to go non-diatonic and mutedeity gets to talk about Augmented chords, here's this I posted awhile back because I kind of agree with mute's idea that Augmented chords should have M7s:
In Key of C starting with B Locrian (half dim), to E Phrygian (nat min w/ b2), to A Aeolian (nat min), D Dorian (nat min w/ #6), G Mixolydian (Dom 7), Ionian (nat Maj), F Lydian (Maj w/#4).

So I thought what if I kept going "around the horn" from F to Bb. and came up with another Lydian:

Bb Lydian: Bb C D E F G A = another Lydian!

Eb = an Aug (R M3 A5) #4 = Eb F G A B C D, so "major" it winds up in the Aug realm, features a H W H (A5 > M6 > M7 > "R").
Also third mode of Melodic Minor scale; Eb Lydian Augmented.

Ab = an Aug #2 (keeping the #4 as well) = Ab B C D E F G, the first interval is a step and a half from "R" to the #2.
1 1/2 semi-tones is good enough for Harmonic Minor (m6>M7) so really doesn't set a precedent.

Db = Aug (#2 #4 #6 (enharmonic b7)) = Db E F G A B C, features a HH between #6 > M7 > "R" (sixth would be an A6?)

Gb = Aug (#2 #4 #6 #3 (A3?) = Gb A B C D E F = C (A4) sounds like b5, #3 (B) sounds like sus4.
Bluesy with #2 an enharm b3, and HH (A6 M7) sounds like blues scale's featured P4 b5 P5

Cb = well now it's into an enharmonic of Locrian because Cb is enharm of B so that tone is taken - unless you wanted a 6 tone scale that negates the root. Cb D E F G A B/Cb. No root = no Key of C.

So dim to min to Dom to Maj to a slew of Augments that get so Augmented they wind up turning diminished. Interesting

Your chain of reasoning is irrelevant. This is not like physics, where we can hypothesize and experiment and prove things. The terms used in music theory are derived from the actual practice of making music, and the notations used by those actual practitioners. In the real world that symbol has a well defined and unambiguous meaning. No amount of arguing the elegance of a theory is going to trump the actual conventions used by real musicians in the real world. G+7 is spelled G-B-D#-F. period.

Your chain of reasoning is irrelevant. This is not like physics, where we can hypothesize and experiment and prove things. The terms used in music theory are derived from the actual practice of making music, and the notations used by those actual practitioners. In the real world that symbol has a well defined and unambiguous meaning. No amount of arguing the elegance of a theory is going to trump the actual conventions used by real musicians in the real world. G+7 is spelled G-B-D#-F. period.No argument from me, bud. Nothing to prove - just observation.
If I see G+7, it gets a F natural.

It's not about physics. It's about phun.

Well, like with any theory, you can hypothesize things, same with music theory. If there is no real world application of your system, you can put it into practice with your own music and own composition, that's the beauty of it. Schoenberg did that on a very broad scale, but jazz improvisers do it all the time too, Coltrane especially. Ryco wasn't proving anything, he was just making an observation of an operation to a diatonic system. Relavent or useful? Perhaps not, but to same, maybe.

Absolutely not. In tertian harmony a suspended chord would be analyzed with an accented non-harmonic tone. Without having something to analyze I cannot say definitively if it is a upper neighbor, passing tone, suspension.

Tertian is based on thirds. Suspended chords (C sus4 C F G) are quartal (G C F).

Are you feeling ok these days Mutedeity? I thought you knew that stuff.

Here's a question HaVIC5 might be able to answer: What interval is Gb-B#? I can't seem to wrap my brain around it, either it's the heat or I've become stupid in my old age.

Of course we can say that for anything. C to D### is a triple sharp 2nd, for example. It's funny but you don't really read what I say and then unwittingly make my case for me. Unless I spoonfeed you you think I pose these questions because I am confused. I'm not confused at all.

Let us revise so that we know where we are at with this discussion. The debate I believe is about whether there is any ambiguity with the notation of the chord "Aug7". While I am of the belief that probably the most common interpretation of that chord would be to play it with a m7 I am pretty sure that there are those that might interpret it other wise.

My intent was initially to find some kind of logic behind analysing how we interpret reading the placement of the 7th degree in a tetrad. For example, if we read that major and minor triads have unaltered 7s attached we assume that the 7th is minor. If we see a diminished triad with a seven we assume it's a diminished 7. So far you might think it follows that the way the 7th is written is based on the 5th of the triad. P5 → m7 , d5 → d7, in other words the 7th is assumed to be a m3 from the 5th. By the way I wasn't asking in that post why you would have a bb7 in a dim7 chord. I was discussing the logic of why it is written the way it is, following on from what I have just said here.

If you were to follow that logic you would come to the conclusion that the term Aug7 means that you have a M7 when the 5th is augmented. That would give uniformity to the way that 7th chords are named.

You might even argue that makes more sense using tertian harmony because in a diatonic context you are not going to find a d3 interval, which is what you have to assume you have if you are going to say that Aug7 is tertian and has a m7. Yes, it is possible to have a bb3 in a tertian context, but the assumption, as I was alluding to with my comment about suspended chords, is that it is not tertian, otherwise they would be called (bb3) or (#3) chords respectively.

Now I am sure that most people will see Aug7 as having a m7, it follows the assumption that an unaltered 7 written on a tetrad is minor. This just means that we are assuming that the case with a dim7 chord is an exception.

I'm not even trying to argue that it should be otherwise. As I said I am discussing the logic behind the naming of the chords. I personally think it is more logical that the term Aug7 should mean a M7, but the norm is that it is taken to mean a m7 so there is no point changing convention at this stage if you put a chart in front of someone with Aug7 and they are going to play it with a b7.

As to the ambiguity of it all. I have pretty much always written augmented chords as Maj7(#5) or AugMaj7 for augmented major and 7(#5) for augmented minor, anyway.

Presumably not much of a Jazz scene in Australia...? :eyebrow:

So - Europe and of course America has a strong tradition of Jazz - but I've never heard of any Australian Jazz and I do look out for all sorts - Cuban, Brazilian, etc.

We have our share of jazz idiots here, to be sure.

As to the ambiguity of it all. I have pretty much always written augmented chords as Maj7(#5) or AugMaj7 for augmented major and 7(#5) for augmented minor, anyway.

True, true. I don't think anybody will argue that 7(#5) and maj7(#5) are ambiguous. I personally use those symbols, because nobody will have any misunderstanding, at least those with any experience.

Thanks much! Just trying to understand! :) OK for you. Since HaVIC gets to go non-diatonic and mutedeity gets to talk about Augmented chords, here's this I posted awhile back because I kind of agree with mute's idea that Augmented chords should have M7s:
In Key of C starting with B Locrian (half dim), to E Phrygian (nat min w/ b2), to A Aeolian (nat min), D Dorian (nat min w/ #6), G Mixolydian (Dom 7), Ionian (nat Maj), F Lydian (Maj w/#4).

So I thought what if I kept going "around the horn" from F to Bb. and came up with another Lydian:

Bb Lydian: Bb C D E F G A = another Lydian!

Eb = an Aug (R M3 A5) #4 = Eb F G A B C D, so "major" it winds up in the Aug realm, features a H W H (A5 > M6 > M7 > "R").
Also third mode of Melodic Minor scale; Eb Lydian Augmented.

Ab = an Aug #2 (keeping the #4 as well) = Ab B C D E F G, the first interval is a step and a half from "R" to the #2.
1 1/2 semi-tones is good enough for Harmonic Minor (m6>M7) so really doesn't set a precedent.

Db = Aug (#2 #4 #6 (enharmonic b7)) = Db E F G A B C, features a HH between #6 > M7 > "R" (sixth would be an A6?)

Gb = Aug (#2 #4 #6 #3 (A3?) = Gb A B C D E F = C (A4) sounds like b5, #3 (B) sounds like sus4.
Bluesy with #2 an enharm b3, and HH (A6 M7) sounds like blues scale's featured P4 b5 P5

Cb = well now it's into an enharmonic of Locrian because Cb is enharm of B so that tone is taken - unless you wanted a 6 tone scale that negates the root. Cb D E F G A B/Cb. No root = no Key of C.

So dim to min to Dom to Maj to a slew of Augments that get so Augmented they wind up turning diminished. Interesting

I know where you are going with that one and it proves that Lydian is the true major scale. I'm not going to go into the whole thing just at this point though.

Your chain of reasoning is irrelevant. This is not like physics, where we can hypothesize and experiment and prove things. The terms used in music theory are derived from the actual practice of making music, and the notations used by those actual practitioners. In the real world that symbol has a well defined and unambiguous meaning. No amount of arguing the elegance of a theory is going to trump the actual conventions used by real musicians in the real world. G+7 is spelled G-B-D#-F. period.

Gee, who asked Mr fun to this party?

Actually music is physics. Playing music is only one aspect of it. It would be a sad sad world if everyone went around saying, well let's not think outside of convention, it never works in the "real world".

Gee, who asked Mr fun to this party?

Actually music is physics. Playing music is only one aspect of it. It would be a sad sad world if everyone went around saying, well let's not think outside of convention, it never works in the "real world".

Whatever pal, the fact of the matter is this: you provided some straight up wrong information. Upon being corrected you launched in to some long winded explanation of why, real world usage be damned,. you should be correct. Along the way you managed to throw in a casual dismissal of the jazz community.

You spend a lot of time talking about how much of an authority on these matters you are, this thread makes me doubt that very much. Not that you were wrong about something, we all make mistakes. I am just surprised that anyone who posits themselves an authority and a scholar is getting their information from some random, hack website.

Man up and admit you spoke without having any idea what you were talking about.

Whatever pal, the fact of the matter is this: you provided some straight up wrong information. Upon being corrected you launched in to some long winded explanation of why, real world usage be damned,. you should be correct. Along the way you managed to throw in a casual dismissal of the jazz community.

You spend a lot of time talking about how much of an authority on these matters you are, this thread makes me doubt that very much. Not that you were wrong about something, we all make mistakes. I am just surprised that anyone who posits themselves an authority and a scholar is getting their information from some random, hack website.

Man up and admit you spoke without having any idea what you were talking about.

Oh boy. Pull your horns in. Nothing I said here was wrong. My reference to that site wasn't to prove or disprove any point it was only to show there there are some people that will read that chord as having a M7 and therefore it led me to questioning the reasoning behind the name of the chord. Try reading what I write before you go off on these insulting rants trying to make me look stupid, believe me it's not me that looks stupid with these emotional outbursts about "whatever".

This isn't about me being right or wrong it's about discussing the logic behind how 7th chords are named. As for dismissing the jazz "community", (lets all define ourselves as a social group by playing ii V I progressions) all I said was that music theory and notation wasn't invented by it. Sorry if you believe it is, but Jazz music isn't the definitive application of theory. Your arguments are looking less intellectual and more like a desperate defence of your inferiority complex. "Whatever".

I did in an earlier post say, since you are obviously selectively reading what I post, that I was a bit unsure about what the Aug7 spelling denotes since I use either Maj7(#5) or 7(#5) when dealing with tetrads that have an augmented triad. Obviously you ignored this.

I'm not going to get into this with you any more so any more of this "man up" nonsense and I'll just ignore you.

By the way I don't talk about how much of an authority I am about anything. If that is your perception, it might be for a reason though.