Music theory/modal arpeggios question

[Nickweissmusic]

Bach didn't get the memo, I guess. Measure 8, Cmaj7 chord, 3rd inversion, B natural on the strong beat:

Uh, yeah, you can't obliterate a chord by playing a chord tone

And Bach didn't get any of the memos, even the ones he wrote.

 

[SteveCS]

...

... even the ones he wrote.

Which, one might argue, are still doing the rounds today, and still being missed...

 

[IJBurns]

I stand corrected Ed Friedland calls them chord structures. Sorry guys!!!!

 

[IJBurns]

FWIW, I practice "modal arpeggios" by fully arpeggiating each mode up to the 15th, if you will. R, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 (which is of course the double octave).

I called them modal arpeggios and got ripped a new one. I also stated that I practice "modal arpeggios" in the same manner you do and was ripped a new one!"
I'm learning that I have to be very careful how I tread in these TB parts.

 

[Ekulati]

3rd inversion, B natural on the strong beat

Eegads, we can debate which system of theory we most ascribe to but: in ANY system used and validated by any academic music theorist after about 1920 or so, there's no such thing as a "third inversion." I myself am primarily of the Schenkerian school, wherein the concept of "inversion" only carries to the FIRST, i.e. the 3rd of the chord in the bass. A so-called "second inversion" is a dissonance, creating an interval of a fourth in the lowest two voices, which is not a consonance (i.e. a stable harmony). It is a dissonance that must resolve. I know, we commonly refer to 6/4 "inversions" but in Schenkerian and other systems of explaining Western tonal music, they are not truly thought of as "inversions." Thus, certainly ANYTHING with the 7th as the lowest voice, or above (9th, 11th, etc.) in the bass, is a dissonance requiring resolution and not an "inversion."

 

[Schlyder]

.......playing a 1 3 5 7 9 #11 13 one note at a time all over the fingerboard in whatever key I'm working in..... ? What would it be called then?

Major 13 #11 chord.

 

[Mushroo]

Eegads, we can debate which system of theory we most ascribe to but: in ANY system used and validated by any academic music theorist after about 1920 or so, there's no such thing as a "third inversion." I myself am primarily of the Schenkerian school, wherein the concept of "inversion" only carries to the FIRST, i.e. the 3rd of the chord in the bass. A so-called "second inversion" is a dissonance, creating an interval of a fourth in the lowest two voices, which is not a consonance (i.e. a stable harmony). It is a dissonance that must resolve. I know, we commonly refer to 6/4 "inversions" but in Schenkerian and other systems of explaining Western tonal music, they are not truly thought of as "inversions." Thus, certainly ANYTHING with the 7th as the lowest voice, or above (9th, 11th, etc.) in the bass, is a dissonance requiring resolution and not an "inversion."

What would you call this chord, then, if not CMaj7? Are you saying that you hear it as some type of B chord?

 

[Reedt2000]

What would you call this chord, then, if not CMaj7? Are you saying that you hear it as some type of B chord?

Gotta side with Mushroo on this one

Seventh Chord Inversion

Not trying to ruffle feathers but I was taught that 7th in the bass is 3rd inversion by a guy with a masters in classical guitar from the new England conservatory of music

 

[IJBurns]

Major 13 #11 chord.

I was mistakenly calling the playing of a mode by playing the 1 3 5 7 and extensions 9 11 13 one note at a time a "modal arpeggio" in which I was quickly corrected. I then had to dig out my Ed Friedland jazz vocab book and find that he calls them chord structures, even played one note at a time, and not modal arpeggios.

 

[Mushroo]

I was mistakenly calling the playing of a mode by playing the 1 3 5 7 and extensions 9 11 13 one note at a time a "modal arpeggio" in which I was quickly corrected. I then had to dig out my Ed Friedland jazz vocab book and find that he calls them chord structures, even played one note at a time, and not modal arpeggios.

Ed Friedland is also only playing the 1, 3, 5, and 7 of each chord (if I am reading this example correctly).

 

[Groove Doctor]

What's most important is that YOU have a way of organizing these thoughts that works for you.

^ This @IJBurns @JKessell

28 years of Jazz has taught me a lot... IME some of the best players couldn't tell you what they're playing, they just picked it up by ear, ran with it and made it their own.

If you're the teacher, it's important to know "correct" terminology. But on stage your fingers do all the talking.

 

[Reedt2000]

^ This @IJBurns @JKessell

28 years of Jazz has taught me a lot... IME some of the best players couldn't tell you what they're playing, they just picked it up by ear, ran with it and made it their own.

If you're the teacher, it's important to know "correct" terminology. But on stage your fingers do all the talking.

Supposedly Erroll Garner and Wes Montgomery didn't know traditional theory but you cant argue with their results

 

[Don Kasper]

Eegads, we can debate which system of theory we most ascribe to but: in ANY system used and validated by any academic music theorist after about 1920 or so, there's no such thing as a "third inversion." I myself am primarily of the Schenkerian school, wherein the concept of "inversion" only carries to the FIRST, i.e. the 3rd of the chord in the bass. A so-called "second inversion" is a dissonance, creating an interval of a fourth in the lowest two voices, which is not a consonance (i.e. a stable harmony). It is a dissonance that must resolve. I know, we commonly refer to 6/4 "inversions" but in Schenkerian and other systems of explaining Western tonal music, they are not truly thought of as "inversions." Thus, certainly ANYTHING with the 7th as the lowest voice, or above (9th, 11th, etc.) in the bass, is a dissonance requiring resolution and not an "inversion."

From - "Harmony" Fourth Edition, Walter Piston. 1978. (First Edition 1941.)
It's a common term in the Non-Schenkerian world.
Not looking for a bass-brawl - just clarifying for the discussion here.
Thanks.

 

[Reedt2000]

From - "Harmony" Fourth Edition, Walter Piston. 1978. (First Edition 1941.)
It's a common term in the Non-Schenkerian world.
Not looking for a bass-brawl - just clarifying for the discussion here.
Thanks.
View attachment 1131777

Sure, if the V7 chord is on 3rd inversion the 7th on its bass is the 4th of the key and wants to resolve down a 1/2 step to the 3rd of the I chord which ends up in 1st inversion. Thats one of the strongest tendancy tones along with the leading tone resolving up to the tonic (I love it, takes me right back to harmony and theory class... memories )

No hard feelings here man, I truly enjoy these kind of discussions

 

[Don Kasper]

Here is an example of that downward resolution of the 7th to the 3rd of the following chord.
(In this case - @ 0:27 - 0:30 - Gb is the 7th of Ab7, resolving a half-step downward to F, which is the 3rd of the Db chord there.)
This was NOT the musical example that was used when I was in Theory Class, last Century, BTW!
Thanks.

 

[Groove Doctor]

So if I want to work on, again I'll use Lydian arpeggios, me playing a 1 3 5 7 9 #11 13 one note at a time all over the fingerboard in whatever key I'm working in...

I learned a similar spider exercise all the way up the neck on the Major Scale as triads & arps. Much more useful for playing a walking bass line.

CEG EGB GBD BDF DFA FAC

CEGB EGBD GBDF BDFA DFAC FACE

For extra fun, do these as descending only.

 

[IJBurns]

^ This @IJBurns @JKessell

28 years of Jazz has taught me a lot... IME some of the best players couldn't tell you what they're playing, they just picked it up by ear, ran with it and made it their own.

If you're the teacher, it's important to know "correct" terminology. But on stage your fingers do all the talking.

I'm not a good player at all but man, the terminology thing really makes me seem like I don't know what I'm doing to others. I probably don't, and it shouldn't matter anyway, but I've(probably in failed and incorrect attempts) transcribed and analyzed(probably incorrectly) more Don Cherry, Miles, Sonny Stitt, Joe Henderson, Kenny Barron, Ray Brown, Paul Chambers, Sonny Rollins, etc than I honestly care to remember or admit. Though all that work has no bearing on my ability to communicate in words a concept I've worked on to get through things like scales, modes, intervals, chord movement, structure, cadences, etc, I still did the work and am still doing the work. Yeah I don't sound like I have a degree because I don't. And yeah I'm not as knowledgeable as guys who do. But I've been beat out of jobs by guys who do and I've won jobs over guys who do. It's my fault for trying to get involved trying to instruct on a subject that I really shouldn't be because I'm not a qualified instructor and the educated guys should really be the ones to tackle these issues in order to diffuse the spreading of incorrect information that only causes more confusion.

 

[SteveCS]

Eegads, we can debate which system of theory we most ascribe to but: in ANY system used and validated by any academic music theorist after about 1920 or so, there's no such thing as a "third inversion." I myself am primarily of the Schenkerian school, wherein the concept of "inversion" only carries to the FIRST, i.e. the 3rd of the chord in the bass. A so-called "second inversion" is a dissonance, creating an interval of a fourth in the lowest two voices, which is not a consonance (i.e. a stable harmony). It is a dissonance that must resolve. I know, we commonly refer to 6/4 "inversions" but in Schenkerian and other systems of explaining Western tonal music, they are not truly thought of as "inversions." Thus, certainly ANYTHING with the 7th as the lowest voice, or above (9th, 11th, etc.) in the bass, is a dissonance requiring resolution and not an "inversion."

You are taking about a retrospective analysis tool, not a compositional or improvisational tool.
In the heat of the moment, mid solo, I don't imagine many folks have time to carry out a full Shenkerian Analysis in order to work out 'where next' before the next bar begins...

 

[IJBurns]

This thread feels tense. It's making me tense. Let's not lose perspective. In the words of the great Curtis Mayfield, "Just move on up." Take a deep breath and enjoy. It's all music, baby.

 

[IJBurns]

I'm wrong, you're wrong, he's wrong, she's wrong, Jenner is wrong, it's all wrong. When music becomes perfunctory in lieu of music, what's the f***** point? So we can all jack off to who had the most intellectually composed come back? Because that's all this is. Who can one up the other guy to prove his bass balls are bigger. We all play the same 12 notes!!!