• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Confusion about 7th chords

#21
dtsamples said:
Well, if you don't reference the modes, it's harder to account for the shifting roots. If you build it all off the major scale, then

Major 7 = 1,3,5,7
Minor 7 = 2,4,6,1(8)
Dominant 7 = 5,7,9,11

Or you have to do this

.............[-------G7--------]
....[-----Dmin7-----]
[-----Cmaj7-----]
..............1......3......5.....b7
....1.....b3....5......b7
1......3.....5......7
C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1

...and that was just a PITA to do, and it doesn't even look nice. Not the best way to explain theory on a text-based forum.

Either way, the trouble arises in that we use numerals to refer to the notes in the scale and the notes in the chord. People then get confused because they think 1 always refers to C.

True, you can explain this using C as the root in all examples, and then the note names reflect the flattened 3rd and 7ths, but that's not practical because, unless you're playing complex chord progressions, you aren't going to use Cmaj7, Cmin7, and C7 in the same song (at least not often). People learn different ways, but I found it easiest to understand 7ths (and to apply them practically) when I understood how the modes functioned relative to the major scale.

To me learning 7ths chords independent of the modes is like trying to learn cardiology independent of pulmonology or anatomy as a whole. You may know what a heart is, but you sure aren't going to be performing any surgery unless you understand how it functions in relation to the other systems.
Click to expand...

Could not disagree more regarding the modes. All of thus stuff has been adequately explained for a very long time without needing to drag in the modes at all. Not only are the modes not required to "explain the shifting root," they don't even explain that. That's not what modes do, it's not what modality is, and you don't need modes to get it.

In fact no explanation is necessary. All you have to do is say, take any given note of the scale as your root (= the 1 of the chord, or root, as opposed to the 1 of the key, or tonic), count that as 1 of a major scale, and than count upward from there.

Agreed, however, that the use of Arabic numerals for scale degrees is potentially confusing when you're simultaneously attempting to talk about (a) the scale associated with the key you're in and (b) chord-scales built off each degree of the scale. But modes don't help with that, because they add still another thing to learn, but a thing that doesn't add any explanatory power. IOW, they don't tell you anything you don't already know, so *in this context* they're just a pointless complication.

The whole point of thinking modally is NOT to explain relations within functional harmony that are already fully explainable without modes. It's to explain harmony that is *not* fully explainable in functional harmonic terms.
 
#22
onosson said:
I've always seen chords referred to with Roman numerals, e.g. I, IV, V, etc. Chord "flavours" are then noted with Indo-Arabic numerals, e.g. 7, 9, etc. Pretty easy to keep straight that way what a V7 (etc.) refers to.
Click to expand...

I meant the notes within the chord. As in ii = 1, b3, 5


onosson said:
I never learned a thing about modes when I started playing music 35 years ago (keyboards) or when I picked up guitar and bass 10 years after that... and can't say I've ever had any use for them. I don't recall anyone at any gig I've played *ever* referring to modes, and this is everything from rock to bluegrass to jazz to blues to country to ... you get the idea. I get their use "audibly", similar to alternative scales such as "gypsy jazz", Indian ragas, etc. but I don't think it's that necessary to put too much thought into them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm not saying that I use modes either. I've only ever used them as a tool to understand how chords are built and why they're built the way they are. If you don't need 'em, more power to you, but they exist, so some people must have needed them for something at some point.

However, I see how it was wrong for me to say that you have to understand modes to understand chord structure. I should have said, "I need to understand modes to understand chord structure." Guess I can't speak for anyone else.
 
#25
Richard Lindsey said:
Could not disagree more regarding the modes. All of thus stuff has been adequately explained for a very long time without needing to drag in the modes at all. Not only are the modes not required to "explain the shifting root," they don't even explain that. That's not what modes do, it's not what modality is, and I don't need modes to get it.
Click to expand...

Fixed it. You may be right, though. My understanding of modes might be completely wrong. In which case, sorry I offered up my help.
 
#30
dtsamples said:
Oh dude, don't say mode around here, people get irritated. :p
Click to expand...

;)

On that note - when did modes become de rigeur among guitarists and bassists? I don't recall ever hearing anything about them when I started playing in the 80s, and the first time I ever encountered them was in the context of classical music - I was dating a cellist then, sometime in the late 90s.
 
#32
onosson said:
;)

On that note - when did modes become de rigeur among guitarists and bassists? I don't recall ever hearing anything about them when I started playing in the 80s, and the first time I ever encountered them was in the context of classical music - I was dating a cellist then, sometime in the late 90s.
Click to expand...

Not sure, to tell you the truth. I took up guitar around '96, but I can't remember when I heard first mention of them. I played trombone in the school band from when I was a pup until the end of HS, and we never really discussed them, but then again I only had to worry about the notes on the page. Didn't really grasp music theory too well until picking up the guitar.
 
#36
dtsamples said:
Better if you remove the "C" from the equation and just look how seventh chords are built.

Seventh chords are like regular triads, but with another 3rd interval on top.

Major 7 = 1,3,5,7
Dominant 7 (or just "7") = 1,3,5,b7
Minor 7 = 1,b3,5,b7

These chords are built around the Ionian, Mixolydian, and Dorian (or Phrygian, or Aolean) modes.

Ionian = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Mixolydian = 1,2,3,4,5,6,b7
Dorian = 1,2,b3,4,5,6,b7

So, just start on the root, and grab every other note and you have your seventh chords. Now if you want to add note names:

C Ionian = C,D,E,F,G,A,B
C Mixolydian = C,D,E,F,G,A,Bb
C Dorian = C,D,Eb,F,G,A,Bb

or if you want it in context:

C Ionian = C,D,E,F,G,A,B = I chord = Cmaj7
G Mixolydian = G,A,B,C,D,E,F = V(7) chord = G7
D Dorian = D,E,F,G,A,B,C = ii chord = Dmin7

If you use these chords and scales, you get the common jazz theme, ii - V(7) - I

The only thing difficult about this example is that since G Mix and D dor have all natural notes, it's hard to tell which notes are flattened compared to their respective Ionian modes.
Click to expand...

Well posted sir. This is the correct definition.
 
#40
Here is the basic C Minor 7 arpeggio pattern for you.

Note that they are only one octave and do not use open strings.

All three can be moved around for any other arpeggios.

I hope these help and make playing to these chords in songs more understandable for you.


Peace,
Johnny StingRay
 

Attachments

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back