Understand the scales, keys, and everthing else that goes with making songs. Then listen to the song very carefully.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
How do you learn by ear?
- Thread starter v1paul
- Start date
With respect, I would say yes, you do.
If you're adducing that link to argue that root = tonic, as you said earlier, the article doesn't say that or anything like it.
If you mean the link as an argument that C6 /= Am7/C, the article doesn't say that either.
I would like to start by thanking you for the exemplary kindness and respectfulness of your reaction.
The initial question between Ed and me was about Ed writing that root note was identical to bass note. the tonic issue came up later.
I hope we can agree that root note = bass note is not correct. That is made clear by the article:
"In a root progression, the most familiar form of labelling chord progressions, chords are labelled by their root, rather than bass if different, as above. "
About root note = tonica in chords also: Onlyclave said the same; we're both form Europe. On this side of the big pond tonica (as we call it in decent Latin) applies to chords as well.
And practically: we all know that if a composer writes Am7/C he or she means to prescribe the bass note C. However, if a composer writes C6, the choice of note is left to the bass player.
Moreover, as the article showes, roots of chords are used to indicate harmonic progressions. Therefore I liked your example, because chords get their meaning from progressions.
But here comes mine. If, in the key of F, I read C6 (harmonic function is V) I know that most likely I (F) or VI (Dm) is coming next, whereas, when I read Am7/C, we are very likely proceeding to a chord where Bb (or B) is to be the bass note. That chord could either be Bb (IV) or Gm (ii) or maybe G7 (ii+).
To me that's quite enough to call it a difference.
To clarify one point, onlyclave actually said, correctly, that the root was NOT the same as the tonic. != was meant to convey "not equal to," since the mathematical symbol is not available on the keyboard. The rest of his post makes this clear. So he's not agreeing with you on this point.
As for your example, thank you for providing it, but here's where we differ. I don't think C6 has a very strong dominant "pull" in the key of F. C7 or extensions thereof, yes, but not C6. So I don't feel I know anything of the sort about what would come next, and thus don't agree about what you would expect to see after the two chord symbols. I don't feel that there is any basis for assuming that C6 has to pull one way and Am7/C another. The sound doesn't back that up.
The larger point, however, is that it doesn't even matter what you would predict comes next. It only matters what actually could come next, and what actually does. In fact, an Am7/C could just as well be followed by an F or a Dm (as you cite for C6) as by a Bb or Gm. And there is not a single harmonic basis of which I'm aware for saying that that would be wrong if I had chosen to write it that way. Nor would there be such a basis if I had chosen to write it as C6.
There are, as I said, reasons of convention and habit why in a given case a given writer might choose to write the chord as either C6 or Am7/C. My point is that this doesn't mean there is a real and significant difference in harmonic terms.
So we sorted that out very nicely. My focus is strongly on classical sequences, even when I play jazz or pop. It helps me to find bass lines I like. So I always try to look for sequences lke I - iii - vi - ii - V7 and the like.
IMHO, the function of C6 in F could only be V. I have to disagree with you on the dominant pull of C6.
In many jazz standards, the 6 is in the melody right before the song comes to an end.
And what other function could C6 have? If it were iii, I would definitely write Am7. The point of chord names is to indicate those functions. That's just what the Wiki article says. And it is precisely my point as well. A notorious example is Adim = Cdim = Ebdim = F#dim. Are they the same? As separated chords, they are. In chord progressions, they are not.
There are many composers who write very good and creative music, but did not study musical theory. So their chords go in every direction... and everything s possible, you're right about that.
More proof that theoretical knowledge is sometimes overestimated
- Dec 13, 1999
- 11,736
- 8,941
- 70
- Disclosures
- Chuck Sher publishes my book, WALKING BASSICS:The Fundamentals of Jazz Bass Playing.
A major 6th chord is generally used as a color change for the tonic major 7th chord, in the jazz idiom. Rather than bang out 2 bars of one chord. SEPTEMBER IN THE RAIN is a good example, depending on whose changes you like to use.
And it remains a tonic chord if I play a 3rd inversion.
And it remains a tonic chord if I play a 3rd inversion.
So we sorted that out very nicely. My focus is strongly on classical sequences, even when I play jazz or pop. It helps me to find bass lines I like. So I always try to look for sequences lke I - iii - vi - ii - V7 and the like.
IMHO, the function of C6 in F could only be V. I have to disagree with you on the dominant pull of C6.
In many jazz standards, the 6 is in the melody right before the song comes to an end.
And what other function could C6 have? If it were iii, I would definitely write Am7. The point of chord names is to indicate those functions. That's just what the Wiki article says. And it is precisely my point as well. A notorious example is Adim = Cdim = Ebdim = F#dim. Are they the same? As separated chords, they are. In chord progressions, they are not.
There are many composers who write very good and creative music, but did not study musical theory. So their chords go in every direction... and everything s possible, you're right about that.
More proof that theoretical knowledge is sometimes overestimated
No, I don't think that the Wiki article says that the point of chord names is to indicate function. The point of naming a chord is to indicate the construction of the individual chord, what it is built on, and how it is built. A chord by itself has no function; that can only be determined in context.
I would say that you're conflating two different things: (1) the degree of the scale that the chord is built on and (2) the actual harmonic force that a chord has. They overlap but are not identical. So this is perhaps two different senses of the word "function." Not every chord built on the V has an equally strong dominant function.
Thus, you're quite right that C6 and C7 are both built upon the V, the "dominant" of the scale/key, but they are different in terms of the pull they exert toward the tonic. The C6 doesn't have that Bb that's begging to resolve down to the A in the F chord. That's what I mean when I say that they are different in terms of dominant pull. It's precisely because C6 and Am7/C are the same chord that C6 doesn't pull toward the tonic the same way that C7 does. So in that sense, C6 is more like Am7/C than it is like C7. Play the chords on the piano and see what you hear.
Remember that the conventions we use to notate and analyze things are secondary and logically subsequent to what is actually happening. What I'm saying is that regardless of whether you call something Am7/C or C6, the same thing is happening as you go through harmonic motion. The difference is only nominal. If the difference were as clearcut as you suggest, it should be possible to determine in every or nearly every case that either Am7/C or C6 would be obviously right or wrong, that it would have to be one or the other. I have seen little if anything to indicate that this is really the case. We do have preferences and tendencies and common practices, which sometimes weigh in, but that's not the same thing.
And yes, theoretical knowledge is sometimes overestimated....
"Walking Bassics" is a terrific book. I've been practicing from it when I can, and just reading from it when I'm away from my bass. I'm finding your explanations wonderfully easy to understand. I'm also aware, though, that what is easy to read is still going to take a lot of work, but that's okay since it feels like I have some real direction now.
One thing I want to ask: I can follow your step-by-step approach to building walking bass lines on paper--and that's an enormous help for me right there. Now, when it comes to improvising walking bass lines on the fly . . . that seems like another huge leap for me. Is it the sort of thing that--if you just keep studying pro bass lines, and writing new ones yourself, and spend a good bit of time practicing them, you'll suddenly find yourself able to improvise them on the fly.
Please tell me that's right, okay?
I would chime in and say walking lines are improvisational. Very slowly walk through chord changes following the rules you've already learned from the books, without resorting to the written page, except to follow chords. You'll never 'suddenly' do it. You do it by improvising and getting it ONE SONG (emphasis I'm not shouting!) at a time.
When I practice I will walk though a tune basing my practice on one rule, i.e. leading by chromatic above, then next time by the 5th, or double chromatic etc. Then mixing it up. Then just playing.
- Dec 13, 1999
- 11,736
- 8,941
- 70
- Disclosures
- Chuck Sher publishes my book, WALKING BASSICS:The Fundamentals of Jazz Bass Playing.
JACK, BE NIMBLE - the thing that I wish I had gotten into the book was - take ALL of the tunes in the book that aren't blues and do the chord line exercise with. I've found that this is a good way to get the sound of the chords and the progression in your ear. When you start really hearing the way the changes SOUND, you begin to hear your way through other tunes that you haven't really ripped apart (check also my thread here called REALLY LEARNING A TUNE). The work you put in on tearing apart a few tunes informs your approach to tunes you may be looking at/hearing for the first time.
So it's not just writing lines out, it's practicing the methodology regularly- play the melody, play the chord line and then use the REALLY LEARNING method to practice improvisational approach.
So it's not just writing lines out, it's practicing the methodology regularly- play the melody, play the chord line and then use the REALLY LEARNING method to practice improvisational approach.
Yes, Ed, I had already penciled in your comment (from an earlier post) about applying the chord line technique to the play-alongs on your CD--'cept I was planning to do it with the blues tracks also. And I have saved a copy of your Really Learn post, too. This is going to be a large amount of work, but I only have 44 more Mondays to retirement, so I'll be able to get serious by then, if not sooner.
As far as hard work goes, I had a chance to speak with Harry Pickens at the Idyllwild Jazz in the Pines Festival a couple of weeks ago. He signed his ear training book for me. It's only seven pages long, but it would take me many years to actually do Harry's program, assuming that my ear is even good enough. I asked Harry if he had had to put himself through that training, or if it had just (as I've always assumed) come naturally to him. He gave me a sad look and said, "Oh, no, what you see and hear on stage comes from a whole lot of sweat, blood, and tears." He didn't smile when he said that, either.
As far as hard work goes, I had a chance to speak with Harry Pickens at the Idyllwild Jazz in the Pines Festival a couple of weeks ago. He signed his ear training book for me. It's only seven pages long, but it would take me many years to actually do Harry's program, assuming that my ear is even good enough. I asked Harry if he had had to put himself through that training, or if it had just (as I've always assumed) come naturally to him. He gave me a sad look and said, "Oh, no, what you see and hear on stage comes from a whole lot of sweat, blood, and tears." He didn't smile when he said that, either.
How true. When I studied harmony, we were made to discover that the horizontal lines of the voices had priority over the verticality of chords. Reading from a score would give absolute clarity about what the composer meant. But we jazz/pop players use lead sheets with chord symbols, which are essentially a simplified notation, much like the figured bass from the dawn of classical music.
Yet we should try to get as much from that notation as we can. This means that indicating the functional root note correctly is very important, because it provides insight into the composition.
So I would prefer (in the key of F) to write I as F, ii as Gm7 iii as Am7 etc., so I could easily track the harmonic functions.
In a case of sightreading, hitting on C6 I would never think of A as bass note, because 6 mostly is in the melody (which we are meant to NOT double). Reading Am7 however, 90% of the guys on this board would see A as their first choice.
But you did a nice job trying to convince me. Have fun!
To the best of my knowledge, I have never played any changes that included a dominant C6 in the key of F. In the music I've played so far, C6 is usually an alternative to Cmaj7 or C6/9 - in other words, its function is I in the key of C, just like Ed explains a few posts above.
Would you care to provide a real world example where a major 6 chord functions as a V? That would really help to understand your position.
Just that it have been turned into "How do you learn by written chords" instead.
Sound out songs like, Do, a deer, a Female Deer,
This song will teach you how to be fluid with the Major scale. (And the Minor is relative so you will use the same finger pattersn to play the minor, you just start at a different place in the scale)
Sounding out any other nursery rhyme/church hymn/christmas carol is good for teaching your finger/ear relation since you know exactly how those songs should sound, and they are most all very scale oriented songs)
Work on really listening to each note and deciding if it is higher then you ar currently playing or lower. And then listen to how far the interval is.
That and playing along with the radio, the tv, bands you want to sound like, bands you grew up listening to.
Finding a few tabs is also a good way to learn licks, and then figure out how to play those licks in different keys and positions.
This song will teach you how to be fluid with the Major scale. (And the Minor is relative so you will use the same finger pattersn to play the minor, you just start at a different place in the scale)
Sounding out any other nursery rhyme/church hymn/christmas carol is good for teaching your finger/ear relation since you know exactly how those songs should sound, and they are most all very scale oriented songs)
Work on really listening to each note and deciding if it is higher then you ar currently playing or lower. And then listen to how far the interval is.
That and playing along with the radio, the tv, bands you want to sound like, bands you grew up listening to.
Finding a few tabs is also a good way to learn licks, and then figure out how to play those licks in different keys and positions.
Thank you sir!
Count Richard Lindsey in as well. He contributed some nice eyeopeners.
