6th/9th/11th/13th chords

[Joseph4325]

Can someone explain to me which situations you would typically use these in? It just seems that outside of Major7/Min7/Min7b5/Dominant 7th i'm at a complete loss at understanding when to use a major9th, or a maj7#11, etc.

[teleharmonium]

Basically the situations are 1) the song as written calls for them, or 2) you're taking liberties with a song that was written with more basic chords in order to make them sound more like jazz

If you're playing in a traditional supportive bass role, depending on the group and the style, in some cases you may want to ignore some of the extensions, which are going to be outlined by other instruments.

Then again if you're thinking in terms of chord tones, and especially if the group is small and lacks a chordal instrument, it may be important for you to incorporate extended or altered notes frequently. Advanced jazz changes with small groups and no chordal instruments are some of the hardest gigs out there.

Altered notes , you should always be aware of, or else you may be making a big mistake.

For simplification purposes - when applicable or when you are in the learning process - any chord shown as a 7th that is not specifically designated as a maj7 or minor 7 is a dominant chord with extensions or alterations. So c13 is a c7, theoretically also including a 9th, 11th, and 13th... but usually not all of those. Bearing in mind that a full voiced 13th chord has 7 distinct notes in it, ie it is an entire scale played at one time. You could get away with looking at those as dominant chords.

Once a chord has been extended, it's not so important to include lower extended notes, or even lower triad tones, in order to keep the chords from always sounding very thick. So you may hear a piano or guitar player voicing a 13 chord with just the 3rd, 7th, and 13 (aka 6), with or without the root.

[MalcolmAmos]

Originally Posted by Joseph4325

Can someone explain to me which situations you would typically use these in? It just seems that outside of Major7/Min7/Min7b5/Dominant 7th i'm at a complete loss at understanding when to use a major9th, or a maj7#11, etc.

Pretty much as teleharmonium said. I regard anything up to and including sevenths as fair game for normal accompaniment and anything beyond sevenths fall into a jazz category, i.e. an extra chord note needed to harmonize the melody.

Of course that kind of statement is limiting and I'm sure some will take issue. But, in a nut shell that's pretty much how I feel.

[miltslackford]

teleharmonium's response is pretty comprehensive.

I would second the point that 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths are all of the type 'dominant' and are quite a lot of the time interchangable.

As the bass is providing the harmonic support in the low end, there's nothing wrong with using the first four chord tones, the 1,3,5 and 7 as your main choices for harmonic support or arpeggiated movement. It's unlikely that a 13th in the lower register will function as a 13th, most likely it will sound out as an out of place 6th, or slightly better as a passing note.

I would tend to use the starting point of grouping chords into dominant, major or minor and treat them in that way initially. As chords get more complicated, observe the complications if they get in your way. For example, in a diminished you'll need to flatten the 5 of your minor chord. Learning the chords in the context of tunes is really important, and will help to make sense of when to include these chromatic alterations and higher chord tones.

I would also say to make sure you understand how chord nomenclature works and make sure you understand that dominant chords, 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths, are constructed additively,

so a 7 contains 1,3,5,b7
a 9 contains 1,3,5,b7,9
an 11 contains 1,3,5,b7,9,11
a 13 contains 1,3,5,b7,9,11,13

Same goes for major 7ths,9ths etc which contain the major 7th instead of the b9, and minor 7s, 9s etc which contain the b3.

You probably already know this but many people don't know this about chord nomenclature. So sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs!

Hope this is factual and makes sense.

[FretlessMainly]

I'll try to add a bit to what's been said in various posts and to sum up some things too. First of all, on their own, the 9th, 11, and 13th scale degrees are "color notes." They correspond to the 2nd, 4th and 6th scale degrees, only they are an octave above. So, as has been posted, if you construct any chord with the 1, 3, 5 and 7, you are left with color notes - 9, 11 and 13. Based on the construct of the major scale (which is where one goes to determine how a chord is named), the 9th can be b9, natural 9 or #9 (#9 only really exists if the chord in question has a natural third, since the #9 is the same pitch as the b3). The 11 can be natural 11 (which can clash with a natural 3rd) or #11. 13 can either be b13 or natural 13.

On the most basic level, what dictates whether the 9, 11, or 13 are b, nat or # is the function the chord is playing in whatever key the song or passage is in. For example, you asked about a Maj7(#11). More often than not, when you see a chord notated like this, for example, CMaj7(#11), this is telling you that the CMaj7 chord is functioning as the IV chord of the key G Major.

When you play a scale over this CMaj7(#11) chord, you need to stay in the key of GMajor, so there's an F# (the #11 of CMajor) and not an F natural like there is in the key of CMajor. Try playing a bassline over:

GMaj7 | CMaj7 | D7 |

and play a GMajor scale over all of it (except that you'll hear that the note G clashes with the F# in the D7 chord, as I mentioned above) - make sure you work in an F# over the CMaj7. Viola, you've played (or better yet, framed) a CMaj7(#11) chord.

Lastly, some notational sum-up. If a chord is written C9 or C13, this is a dominant chord - it contains 1, 3, 5, b7, and 9 (and 11 and 13 in the second example).

Another notation is CMaj9, which is similar, but contains the natural 7 instead of the b7 in te dominant chord. You may also see CMaj7 add 13, which implies 1, 3, 5, 7 and just 13 on top.

All for now...

[funkybass]

I'm with Malcolm. Generally speaking I have everything I need to groove up to the octave. Chord tones and chromatics are what make up 99% of my lines.

[Russell L]

For me, I don't worry about what's beyond the octave. Within the octave, I pay attention to whether or not the 3rd is major or minor, whether the 5th is perfect or altered, and whether or not to use a major 6th, b7, or major 7. Them chord fellers can take care of the rest.

[FretlessMainly]

But the theory still applies to the notes within the octave. If you're playing over a CMaj7 chord in the key of GMaj, you need to play a #4. It doesn't matter whether you think of it as a #4 or a #11, but it does matter if you get the note wrong.

[mambo4]

My father , jazz guitarist, taught me a simple view of "why" to use extended/altered chords:

The top note almost always matches the song's melody.

When you reharmonize a show tune with jazzy chords and lots of ii-V-I's, you need to keep supporting the actual melody somehow. So throw in some extensions /alterations...

It is an oversimplification, as voice leading and "what sounds good" also play a role, but that basic reason always made sense to me.

[teleharmonium]

Originally Posted by FretlessMainly

But the theory still applies to the notes within the octave. If you're playing over a CMaj7 chord in the key of GMaj, you need to play a #4. It doesn't matter whether you think of it as a #4 or a #11, but it does matter if you get the note wrong.

This example feels like a trap...

For one thing, the reason you might want to play the #4 (if you are playing a 4th at all) is not contained in the chord name CM7 but rather in the diatonic implication of that chord in that particular key.

Also, it's not an absolute in music theory nor in practice to always stick to strict diatonic note choices just because you're in diatonically related chords at the moment in the tune. A player like Thelonious Monk broke rules like that right and left with glorious results. It's generally good practice and a good thing to understand... but there are musical situations where you may want to use a more isolated, snapshot type of approach in relating to the current chord... or where you want to maximize the dissonance to create character over some otherwise boring changes.

Such musical situations include if the tune mixes chromatic or ambiguous harmony with diatonic, or it employs blues based superimposed or dissonant harmonies in some sections before resolving with a dominant progression (which might in itself, suggest the tune is more diatonic than it really is).

[mambo4]

Originally Posted by teleharmonium

This example feels like a trap...

I was gonna reply on that point too, but I realized that it was essentially response to Russell L's " I don't worry about what's beyond the octave. "

I believe FretlessMainly's point was essentially not that you must follow diatonic theory, but that you must be aware of those extensions/alterations in your playing and not clash. Just a bad example is all...

[teleharmonium]

Originally Posted by mambo4

I believe FretlessMainly's point was essentially not that you must follow diatonic theory, but that you must be aware of those extensions/alterations in your playing and not clash.

I'll buy that, with emphasis on the importance of this for alterations as opposed to extensions.

[FretlessMainly]

But alterations are identical to extensions in terms of relationship to the tonic. The same theory that might govern color notes within steps 1-7 applies to 9-13.

And my example wasn't intended to be a trap - I simply stated that if you want to play a CMaj7 chord in the key of GMajor, then you have to play a #11. Of course we needn't always be bound to the world of diatonic theory, but given the progression I posted above:

GMaj7 | CMaj7 | D7 |

to me, it sounds lousy of one were to play a CMajor scale over the CMaj7. That was my only point. That, and rules be damned when appropriate.

[teleharmonium]

Originally Posted by FretlessMainly

But alterations are identical to extensions in terms of relationship to the tonic. The same theory that might govern color notes within steps 1-7 applies to 9-13.

I don't see it that way, because you can simply ignore an extension and there is no conflict. It is impossible to distinguish between a bass player playing a 1 3 5 7 based line over a 13 chord, and one fully conscious of the 13 chord but but deciding not to bother playing the 13 (6) in his line.

However if you play a natural chord tone when it is written as altered, there is a conflict. Possibly one that could be OK as a passing tone, but otherwise suggests the player doesn't get it.

[FretlessMainly]

I think we're discussing apples and oranges. From what you posted, it strikes me that the term "alterations" you used refers to b3, b5, #5, b7 - chord tones, in other words. But not color notes.

I was thinking of alterations as b9, #9, #11, b13 - alterations of color tones, not chord tones. Now, maybe you think that the term "alteration" must apply only to chord tones. My experience has taught me that because of the varying methods of teaching the vast lexicon of music theory, many people describe the same thing two different ways. I once had what at first seemed to be a humbling expereince with a pretentious 'bone player who mentioned "a half-diminshed chord." I indicated that I'd never heard of one. Mockingly, he derided me. Turns out, he was using a term I believe to be less than standard; I'd been familiar with min7(b5) chords for 20 years, I just had never heard of such a "non-standard" term for that chord. And I'd been playing jazz gigs some 40 times a year for five years at that point.

Surely you are correct - a 6 or a 13 is irrelevant to a bass player who plays 1,3,5,7 lines, whether he/she is aware of the b6/b13 or not. Having spent most of my 30 years of bass playing doing jazz and/or prog, I spend as much time with non-chord tones as I do chord tones.

So, long-winded sorry for the misunderstanding.

[teleharmonium]

Originally Posted by FretlessMainly

I think we're discussing apples and oranges. From what you posted, it strikes me that the term "alterations" you used refers to b3, b5, #5, b7 - chord tones, in other words. But not color notes.

I was thinking of alterations as b9, #9, #11, b13 - alterations of color tones, not chord tones. Now, maybe you think that the term "alteration" must apply only to chord tones. My experience has taught me that because of the varying methods of teaching the vast lexicon of music theory, many people describe the same thing two different ways. I once had what at first seemed to be a humbling expereince with a pretentious 'bone player who mentioned "a half-diminshed chord." I indicated that I'd never heard of one. Mockingly, he derided me. Turns out, he was using a term I believe to be less than standard; I'd been familiar with min7(b5) chords for 20 years, I just had never heard of such a "non-standard" term for that chord. And I'd been playing jazz gigs some 40 times a year for five years at that point.

Surely you are correct - a 6 or a 13 is irrelevant to a bass player who plays 1,3,5,7 lines, whether he/she is aware of the b6/b13 or not. Having spent most of my 30 years of bass playing doing jazz and/or prog, I spend as much time with non-chord tones as I do chord tones.

So, long-winded sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem, we're using somewhat different semantics, but I think of alterations as any altered tone, so if the chord specifies b9 the player should not play a natural 9 except maybe briefly in a chromatic passing line. But if it's a garden variety 9th chord and the player ignores the 9 and pretends it's really just a dominant chord, no harm no foul. Usually some other instrument is responsible for using the extension.

In other words, it's not critical for a bass player in a traditional supportive role to worry about non altered 9ths, 11ths, or 13ths in constructing a line. The contrast I was making is that altered tones (no matter whether they are in the basic or in the 9,11, or 13th extended set of notes) need to be recognized and respected.

For a solo player or when the bass is soloing with a group, I would withdraw that generalization.