flatted fifth vs sharpened fourth

synaesthesia · #1 03-04-2007, 11:48 PM

This may have been discussed somewhere or elsewhere, but has anyone noticed the recept spate of books - M Levine etc have mooted that the b5 is going out in favour of the more modern #4 in a chord. It is in Levine's jazz theory book and his pianist's book. Certainly it is the same note, and in working usage I don't see it much but initially one gets thrown off reading some of the C7#4 the chords in Levine's book. His work has been endorsed by everyone, including Aebersold, but I 'm not sure if Aebersold has included this in his series of books. I suppose the effect would be to operate with a different attitude to scale choices ... has anyone else got a take on this?

barthanatos · #2 03-05-2007, 12:21 AM

The four-chord of a given major key (in Ionian mode) has a ^#4. The seven-chord has a ^b5.
For example, in the key of G, you could have C^7#4, and F^#7b5.

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

You see when going along the scale, that the fourth note is F, and that it is a sharp-fourth interval from C.

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

Here, the fifth note is C, and it is a flat-fifth interval away from F^#. These intervals share the same distance away, but because of where the note is in the scale, that is what determines whether it is referred to as a sharp-fourth or flat-fifth.

Does that make sense?

ToR-Tu-Ra · #3 03-05-2007, 12:49 AM

The C7#4 chord has an augmented fourth and a perfect fifth. I'd spell it C7(#11) but that's just me. If I see this dominant chord with an augmented fourth in a chart, I'd expect it to move down by a half step.

On the other hand, a C°7 chord has a diminished fifth. and I'd expect it to move up by a half step.

a #4 and a b5 are, certainly, at the same distance from the root, but have not the same function.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

vier-personen · #4 03-05-2007, 03:32 AM

+1 what both said, except in the first reply it should say Cmaj7#11 (not C7#11) and F#-7b5 (not F#7b5).

hdiddy · #5 03-05-2007, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToR-Tu-Ra

On the other hand, a C°7 chord has a diminished fifth. and I'd expect it to move up by a half step.

Uh, wouldn't a C°7 also include a minor 3rd? I don't think it applies.

If I'm not mistaken, I think you want to use a #11 instead of a b5 to allow the player to include a perfect 5th (C E F# G Bb or an inversion thereof). If a chord is written as C7#11, the G natural can still be a part of the chord. That's probably what he means by "modern". There's more freedom for the musician innit.

C7b5 (C E Gb Bb) means that the natural G isn't meant to be voiced and is more of an "avoid" note (i.e. more restrictive).

That's how I would parse it. Like you guys say, different functions.

Bruce Lindfield · #6 03-05-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthesia

has anyone noticed the recept spate of books - M Levine etc have mooted that the b5 is going out in favour of the more modern #4 in a chord..

I don't see this at all - as people have said it's about context and function - not fashion!

I see plenty of charts with b5!

hdiddy · #7 03-05-2007, 04:54 AM

Yeah, minor tunes like AUTUMN WHEEZE or ALL THE THANGS YOU AM would be awful without the b5 chords! You can't just go and replace them with #11 chords indiscriminately.

synaesthesia · #8 03-05-2007, 06:02 AM

I'll dig up the relevant section from Levine's book and post it later.

TimoMetzemakers · #9 03-05-2007, 06:14 AM

Err...

Guys, I don't think anybody wants to replace ALL b5's with #11's.

IMHO, the OP's question has to be taken in the context of an altered 7th chord (for example the second chord of TAKE THE A TRAIN) where there are indeed different habits. Usually, people write 7#11 when they want a lydian dominant sound, but I've met many pianists and guitar players who would write 7b5 for the same purpose, since they don't use the fifth in their voicings anyway.

If I remember correctly, Mark Levine only says that in the bebop era, most players would call that note a b5 because they were thinking of arpeggios while improvising, but that from 1960 on, people started to think of scales, and therefore called it a #4 or #11 because there was already a fifth in the scale. I believe it's at the beginning of the book, where he introduces the lydian mode.

synaesthesia · #10 03-05-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimoMetzemakers

Err...
If I remember correctly, Mark Levine only says that in the bebop era, most players would call that note a b5 because they were thinking of arpeggios while improvising, but that from 1960 on, people started to think of scales, and therefore called it a #4 or #11 because there was already a fifth in the scale. I believe it's at the beginning of the book, where he introduces the lydian mode.

Yes that is the part I was referring to.

Bruce Lindfield · #11 03-05-2007, 10:24 AM

But that's hardly "recent" or evidence of a current trend!

You're talking about something that happened over 40 years ago!!

As I said - I still see plenty of charts with b5!

ToR-Tu-Ra · #12 03-05-2007, 03:23 PM

If I see a b5 in a chart, I'll play the b5 and not the natural fifth, If I see a #4, I'll play both the #4 and the 5, maybe #5 instead, depending on the chord.

I may be wrong or maybe I'm ignoring some trend or something, but that's how I see things. Of course, there's times when chords are "misspelled" on purposse, to make them "easier to read". When this happens, you got to look at the bigger picture and see what the function of the chord is, to know if the note is a #4 or a b5.

Oh, and hdiddy... I don't get why the minor 3rd in the diminished chord would rule it out as an example... Am I missing something?

fingers · #13 03-05-2007, 06:24 PM

I think the biggest thing is to look at the function of the chord. Is the note a color note? Does it have function as part of a cadence?

Many good piano players don't even play the chords exactly as they are written on the page. They analyze the function of the chords and react accordingly.

hdiddy · #14 03-05-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToR-Tu-Ra

Oh, and hdiddy... I don't get why the minor 3rd in the diminished chord would rule it out as an example... Am I missing something?

Probably not. I was just thinking that C7b5 vs. C7#11 was what we were comparing, not Cdim vs. C7#11 which are two different sounds altogether. I guess you can compare a Cdim vs. Cm7 in the manner I'm thinking of.

ToR-Tu-Ra · #15 03-05-2007, 08:35 PM

That's what I was mising... I thought is was a #4 vs. b5 thing but focused not only in dom7 chords. But yes, It would have been better if I had made my example with a C7#4 vs C7b5. Ultimately, it's the same point I wanted to make.

So... Yes

synaesthesia · #16 03-06-2007, 05:22 AM

See attachment. I don't see many charts with this 'tendency', hence the question.

Bruce Lindfield · #17 03-06-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthesia

This may have been discussed somewhere or elsewhere, but has anyone noticed the recept spate of books -

Again - this is hardly "recent"?

TimoMetzemakers · #18 03-06-2007, 06:15 AM

Well, Mark Levine is saying that as he's about to introduce the Lydian mode and the maj7#4 chord.

I wasn't around when the change he's talking about happened, of course, but here's my theory: I guess that he means that before the 1960's, nobody used the #4, whatever the context, and that everybody only thought of b5's. Since people weren't really thinking of scales, the presence of a fifth and a b5 didn't shock anybody. Maybe they just thought of Cmaj7b5 (C E Gb B), and since the perfect 5th is usually omitted in voicings, that chord has the same sound as Cmaj7#4...

Nowadays we use #4's/#11's and b5's, depending on the context, and that is the result of this change that happened 40+ years ago (yes, Bruce, we get it

). Levine never said that ALL b5's were going to disappear and be replaced with #11's.

That's my guess on this historical issue, anyway. Maybe the really experienced cats could weigh in...

**Chris Fitzgerald** · #19 03-06-2007, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimoMetzemakers

Err...

Guys, I don't think anybody wants to replace ALL b5's with #11's.

If I remember correctly, Mark Levine only says that in the bebop era, most players would call that note a b5 because they were thinking of arpeggios while improvising, but that from 1960 on, people started to think of scales, and therefore called it a #4 or #11 because there was already a fifth in the scale.

That's my take on it, too. Obviously in a Ø7 type of situation, the b5 is actually a b5. It's more complicated with altered dominant voicings involving an alteration of the 9th, where it could mean either thing.

debozkurt · #20 03-09-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthesia

This may have been discussed somewhere or elsewhere, but has anyone noticed the recept spate of books - M Levine etc have mooted that the b5 is going out in favour of the more modern #4 in a chord. It is in Levine's jazz theory book and his pianist's book. Certainly it is the same note, and in working usage I don't see it much but initially one gets thrown off reading some of the C7#4 the chords in Levine's book. His work has been endorsed by everyone, including Aebersold, but I 'm not sure if Aebersold has included this in his series of books. I suppose the effect would be to operate with a different attitude to scale choices ... has anyone else got a take on this?

When it comes to using either b5 or #4 in music, I believe it really depends on functionality.

For example, if you were playing some diminished triads or arpeggios, I would use the b5 notation, because it makes more sense in its function.

Or if you were running, say a Lydian scale, I would say #4 instead of b5 because there already is a P5 in the Lydian mode....phases out the redudancy of going 1 2 3 b5 5 6 7 8...Just easier to read to me as 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7 8.

Also, I would think it would depend on how the music goes. Say you were playing and you came across a #4 accidental, you may be more apt to see a #4 keep ascending, wheres if you ran across a b5 it would probably be descending...Not always the case, but such practices are employed when helping make the music as easy to read as possible for a performer.