Hey Pacman - not only clear, but concise and understandable! If you aren't already, you should be involved in teaching both theory and execution, my man!!
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.
II chords vs. ii chords: qua?
- Thread starter Brad Barker
- Start date
Hey Pacman - not only clear, but concise and understandable! If you aren't already, you should be involved in teaching both theory and execution, my man!!
Hmmm...so would that be Harmonic Minor? I'm just a little confused. I understand about the key having to have the V7 chord (instad of v7) and that would make it major, hence E7 instead of em7, but G# is not in the key of Am or C so would that be the Harmonic Minor?
(looking back at Pacman's post he stated the ii (m7b5) chord coming out of the Harmonic Minor scale, progression being ii V i.)
Thanks,
Stephanie
As I learned it, a few too many years ago, a diminished chord, technically, was 1 b3 b5 (understood as degrees of the major scale); there was no such thing as a mb5 chord. A diminished 7 was 1 b3 b5 bb7. But most people I know, when they say diminished, they mean what is technically a dim 7.
I've never seen mb5 used in any chart I'd consider well written. And I wonder why anybody would ever use it even in a shorthand situation, since it's more work to write than a little circle would be.
The reason is because the little circle should mean a forth degree (1, b3, b5, bb7/not 1, b3, b5 only) "diminished" chord as a companion symbol to a little circle with a slash through it always meaning a "half diminished" chord which by definition must be carried to the forth degree. The reason for confusion on this is some writers/arrangers/transcribers, as of late, have become lazy (or don't know the difference) and have used the "circle" to mean m7b5 and then added a "7" when they wanted a forth degree diminished chord.
No, I respectfully disagree. In my experience, the laziness lies in using the circle, which strictly should mean 1 b3 b5, for circle 7, which strictly should be 1 b3 b5 bb7. The "lazy" use of the circle is what then leads to use of the slashed circle for m7b5. I have never seen anything in a harmony text to suggest that the circle "should" mean a fourth degree. Besides, your schema doesn't seem to leave room for any symbol to be used for 1 b3 b5. "mb5" doesn't strike me as a realistic option--I've read thousands of charts over the last 35 years, and I've hardly ever seen that one, and never in a really well-done chart.
I could of course be wrong--it happened before, just the other day
--but what you say doesn't accord with what I was taught. Of course, as I was given to understand the other day, I am kinda "old school."
Originally posted by ORCHARD LIMEY
No, I respectfully disagree. In my experience, the laziness lies in using the circle, which strictly should mean 1 b3 b5, for circle 7, which strictly should be 1 b3 b5 bb7. The "lazy" use of the circle is what then leads to use of the slashed circle for m7b5. I have never seen anything in a harmony text to suggest that the circle "should" mean a fourth degree. Besides, your schema doesn't seem to leave room for any symbol to be used for 1 b3 b5. "mb5" doesn't strike me as a realistic option--I've read thousands of charts over the last 35 years, and I've hardly ever seen that one, and never in a really well-done chart.
I could of course be wrong--it happened before, just the other day
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far...it was one of your notational conventions that was called "old school", if I remember correctly. I feel relatively certain that the person who made that remark never intended it to be taken personally.
I think the confusion about the jazz nomenclature stems from the same problem as in the other thread though - the growing pains of a language in progress. I've not seen "mb5" on any charts, but if that exists, you can bet that it's just a permutation of m7b5 with the 7th chopped off. Back when the original real book came out, all the half diminished chords were called mi7b5, and now it's at least as common to see the circle with the line through it. But before it was even an acknowledged chord, the guys Bud Powell and Monk played with used to call it "that minor 6th chord with the 6th in the bass". As in Fmi6/D = Dmi7b5. So our beloved minor ii-V7-i used to be a iv-V7-i! I remember thinking that I was terribly clever many years ago when I discovered (as a pianist) that I could play a rootless Bb7 voicing in place of a D half-diminished chord. Imagine what a dope I felt like when I discovered that this is how they thought of this chord in the beginning, more than 50 years ago.
But as far as legit theory is concerned, RICHARD III is correct: A diminished triad is notated with a circle only, and a fully diminished 7th chord uses a 7 in addition to the circle (AFAIK, anyway). The subject of jazz nomenclature is an interesting one, though, and one that has caused more than a few personality clashes.
Players of my generation (old school? New school? Middle school?) seem to break chords down into basic categories - like Major, minor, Dominant, Altered Dominant, diminished, etc. - when reading and basically disregard the more specific information given in the chord symbol as only one possibility of how to play it (unless the specifics in the chord symbols pertain to the melody, in which case they are honored until the blowing begins), leaving the "color tones" of each chord up in the air, to be determined by what's going on in the heat of the moment. (Ex. - if I see "G7#9", I might play any of the following: G7#9#5, G7b9#5, G7b9b5, G7b9(13), G7#5, etc....depending on what I'm hearing at that moment). There are other players I run into some times - usually older or younger - who read the exact changes (including all color tones) as gospel each time through, EVEN IF THEY SUCK. This causes much gnashing of teeth on both sides of the issue.
My favorite kind of chord notation is the kind where most of the specifics are left out of the changes, which forces the players to come up with their own interpretations (ex: G-, C7, F, D7, etc.) Then again, some people HATE this kind of notation because it doesn't give enough information. I guess it all just boils down to taste. You say ALUMINIUM, I say ALUMINUM, etc.....
Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
The "lazy" use of the circle is what then leads to use of the slashed circle for m7b5. Besides, your schema doesn't seem to leave room for any symbol to be used for 1 b3 b5.
I could of course be wrong--it happened before, just the other day
Yes, respectfully disagree, however, I know I can find, in print, in a theory book I have somewhere around here, that a little circle with a slash through it, IS the accepted symbol for half diminished.
Yes I have, on occasion, seen the circle used to signify mb5 with the 7 added to signify fully diminished (forth degree) but the circle with the slash is always half diminished. Thats what the slash signifies: cutting the diminished symbol in half.
I've never known there to be a "single" shorthand symbol to indicate mb5 anymore than a "single" symbol to indicate m+5 (m#5). All my Middle School, High School and College music instructors had this same stance on chord symbols and I've seen it in instructional materials (and practical application with a few acceptions). I can't imagine they've all been wrong all this time.
The problem in todays world is a lack of standards. Everybody thinks they have a better way of doing things and many try to put them into practice without a general concensus of whether it truly IS a better way. This is what has happened with much of music shorthand notation. Composer X uses one method while composer Y uses another so no one seems to know what is truly correct anymore.
Oh Well, at least it gives us something to talk about.
Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far...it was one of your notational conventions that was called "old school", if I remember correctly. I feel relatively certain that the person who made that remark never intended it to be taken personally.
My favorite kind of chord notation is the kind where most of the specifics are left out of the changes, which forces the players to come up with their own interpretations (ex: G-, C7, F, D7, etc.)
Aw, I didn't take that personally; I'm just having a little fun with it. Besides, I don't really mind being old school in some ways; newer isn't always better (or worse, of course).
I tend to like simpler notation too. A fairly common exception, though, is certain Brazilian tunes (e.g., Girl from Ipanema), where parts of the melody may depend on specific color notes. If you don't play those b5s at the end of the B part, it sounds off.
Originally posted by PhatBasstard
Yes, respectfully disagree, however, I know I can find, in print, in a theory book I have somewhere around here, that a little circle with a slash through it, IS the accepted symbol for half diminished not m7b5 (as you infer if I'm understanding what you are saying). Yes I have, on occasion, seen the circle used to signify m7b5 with the 7 added to signify fully diminished (forth degree) but the circle with the slash is always half diminished. Thats what the slash signifies: cutting the diminished symbol in half.
I've never known there to be a "single" shorthand symbol to indicate m7b5 anymore than a "single" symbol to indicate m7+5 (m7#5). All my Middle School, High School and College music instructors had this same stance on chord symbols and I've seen it in instructional materials (and practical application with a few acceptions). I can't imagine they've all been wrong all this time.
Oh Well, at least it gives us something to talk about.
True enough. At least it's a break from talking only about gear!
But I don't think you completely understood what I was saying. I agree that the slashed circle is commonly used to represent half-diminished--though I certainly don't agree that it's THE recognized symbol or or the generally preferred one in all contexts. My argument was that that usage most likely derives from a sloppy use of the circle to represent what should more properly have been represented by circle-7, as Chris outlines. And in fact I have actually seen charts where the half-diminished was represented by slashed circle plus 7.
But I agree entirely that there aren't the kinds of standards that some of us might wish there were. Practically, what we've all had to do is familiarize ourselves with several different ways of rendering most chords. I mean, is C major 7 rendered as CM7, Cmaj7, Ctriangle, C triangle7? Is C minor 7th flat 5 rendered as Cmin7b5, Cm7b5, C-7b5?
And again, in my experience, mb5 is NOT a standard symbol for anything. That's what the circle is for!
Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
True enough. At least it's a break from talking only about gear!
But I don't think you completely understood what I was saying. I agree that the slashed circle is commonly used to represent half-diminished--though I certainly don't agree that it's THE recognized symbol or or the generally preferred one in all contexts. My argument was that that usage most likely derives from a sloppy use of the circle to represent what should more properly have been represented by circle-7, as Chris outlines. And in fact I have actually seen charts where the half-diminished was represented by slashed circle plus 7.
But I agree entirely that there aren't the kinds of standards that some of us might wish there were. Practically, what we've all had to do is familiarize ourselves with several different ways of rendering most chords. I mean, is C major 7 rendered as CM7, Cmaj7, Ctriangle, C triangle7? Is C minor 7th flat 5 rendered as Cmin7b5, Cm7b5, C-7b5?
And again, in my experience, mb5 is NOT a standard symbol for anything. That's what the circle is for!
You're right, I didn't fully understand what you meant. As far as the others: M, triangle, Maj, maj, I would read as Major. m, -, Min(although I've never seen this one) , min, I would read as Minor. I would not add any more extentions unless the staff (if present) indicated it. I've only seen the triangle by itself (no 7) a couple of times and I just chocked this up to redundancy unless the staff indicated otherwise.
