Questionable Bass Theory Poster - What Do You Think?

[foldyman]

Hello all,

It shouldn't be, but my music theory is a bit flaky, so hoping my betters here can confirm or expand on this...

I think I've been a bit duped by a questionable (and in some cases plain wrong) "bass theory" poster I bought online.
I've seen a few different iterations of it online now, all with the same mistakes.
I know I'm a pillock for even pressing buy, but I did and that's that

I'm going to keep it becuase it's not worth the effort seding it back, so I want to correct it.
I've noticed three things so far:

1. Not wrong per se, but why would you show key signatures in the treble clef and not the bass clef, given the massive bit of text in the top left?

2. Minor7 and Minor7[flat5] arpeggios are the wrong way around (that's going to be screwing people up!)

3. The Chromatic intervals section seems questionable to me. Why is it not showing a 10th in the box under Major 3rd? 10ths are pretty common right? Why is the Minor 3rd extension shown as a #9th instead of a flat10th? (I get it's the same note, but if it's an extention of a Minor 3rd then it should be expressed as a flat 10th, no? Realted to that, you could I think correctly say the #9th indeed is an extension of an aug 2nd, but if the previous point is true, the why are the aug 2nd and minor 3rd even in the same box at the top?

Anything else you can see that's wrong?

PRIZE: respect and admiration of the bass community!

Thanks all,

A

 

[Ed Fuqua]

1. I'm guessing sheer laziness, whoever put this together for publication likely put one together for the accompanying guitar version (otherwise, why tabs and not notation?) Plus, it doesn't matter if it's treble clef, bass clef, or movable clef, if B is flatted its still the key of F major/D minor.
2. Yes, that's just wrong. Likely sheer laziness, coupled with poor proofing.
3. Because the second line is NOT showing intervals in the second octave (per se), it's showing (as is marked the heading for that line) chord EXTENSIONS (more commonly called tensions). And since you can have a chord with a major third AND a chord can't have two thirds or two fifths, hence oh, let's say A7 b9#9b13, which can be written (from low note to high note, although a pianist prolly wouldn't want to voice it this way) A C# E G Bb B# F. NOT A C# E G Bb C E#.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

1. I'm guessing sheer laziness, whoever put this together for publication likely put one together for the accompanying guitar version (otherwise, why tabs and not notation?) Plus, it doesn't matter if it's treble clef, bass clef, or movable clef, if B is flatted its still the key of F major/D minor.
2. Yes, that's just wrong. Likely sheer laziness, coupled with poor proofing.
3. Because the second line is NOT showing intervals in the second octave (per se), it's showing (as is marked the heading for that line) chord EXTENSIONS (more commonly called tensions). And since you can have a chord with a major third AND a chord can't have two thirds or two fifths, hence oh, let's say A7 b9#9b13, which can be written (from low note to high note, although a pianist prolly wouldn't want to voice it this way) A C# E G Bb B# F. NOT A C# E G Bb C E#.

^This.

Also, note that what the poster lists as chords in minor keys is, not wrong exactly, but incomplete. It presumes that minor harmony is defined only by the natural minor scale, or in other words strictly by the key signature conventionally associated with a given minor key. Which is not the case at all.

 

[foldyman]

Thanks both.
I clealry need to understand more about intervals/extensions/tensions then, thanks.
And on the minor chords, i guess that would be corrected by having two more tables for harmonic and melodic minors?

 

[Richard Lindsey]

And on the minor chords, i guess that would be corrected by having two more tables for harmonic and melodic minors?

Well, you could do that; however, given that the poster refers to this section as chords in keys, this would tend to imply a way of thinking that considers the minor scales as representing three different keys somehow. In practice, they don't necessarily. Functional minor harmony can and often does include both the major and minor 6 and both the major and minor 7, and thus embraces natural, harmonic, and melodic scales. Perhaps you could instead think of that all together as constituting a "composite" minor.

Or instead of calling that section chords in keys, you could think of it more simply as just harmonizing the various scales.

 

[lfmn16]

 

[mrcbass]

While I agree it's not perfect , as a reference it could be useful. It's way too busy to be a good teaching tool on it's own - you have to understand what you're trying to work on in order to use this at all.

While I'm personally not a fan of tab only notation, I can see that it makes sense for this application. This is not supplied to help with reading music; rather to help find the notes on the neck.

Those arpeggio diagrams are very overly complicated for me - I know that info and it very difficult for me to make sense of there diagrams. And why the key signatures associated with the circle are in treble? Very lazy.

And the more I look at it the less valuable it becomes in my eyes....

 

[MVE]

I kinda like these posters when I am trying to learn other instruments, like piano, guitar, ukulele, violin, etc... as a quick visual reference.

But it is totally useless for Bass as my main instrument.

And yes, having m7b5 and m7 reversed is totally unforgivable.

 

[BarfanyShart]

I've never seen something like this, and it obviously has some problems ... but ... in my early days of playing jazz as a teenager, this is pretty much how I visualized the bits of theory that I was learning in practice. I don't know that it is a great teaching tool, but it does represent some connection between the theory and the practice.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

First I have to say, great to see the use of the phrase pillock.

I've never seen a bass clef rendition of the circle of fifths, they no doubt took that from somewhere else.
Despite the fact we spend most time in bass clef, I was always taught theory in treble clef.

There's still plenty of useful, correct information, on most of it.

Dirk

 

[Smooth_bass88]

The fact that they're using tabs and "formulas" is so wrong. They should show the notes and not the finger positions. I'd burn it.

 

[PillO]

Hello all,

It shouldn't be, but my music theory is a bit flaky, so hoping my betters here can confirm or expand on this...

I think I've been a bit duped by a questionable (and in some cases plain wrong) "bass theory" poster I bought online.
I've seen a few different iterations of it online now, all with the same mistakes.
I know I'm a pillock for even pressing buy, but I did and that's that

I'm going to keep it becuase it's not worth the effort seding it back, so I want to correct it.
I've noticed three things so far:

1. Not wrong per se, but why would you show key signatures in the treble clef and not the bass clef, given the massive bit of text in the top left?

2. Minor7 and Minor7[flat5] arpeggios are the wrong way around (that's going to be screwing people up!)

3. The Chromatic intervals section seems questionable to me. Why is it not showing a 10th in the box under Major 3rd? 10ths are pretty common right? Why is the Minor 3rd extension shown as a #9th instead of a flat10th? (I get it's the same note, but if it's an extention of a Minor 3rd then it should be expressed as a flat 10th, no? Realted to that, you could I think correctly say the #9th indeed is an extension of an aug 2nd, but if the previous point is true, the why are the aug 2nd and minor 3rd even in the same box at the top?

Anything else you can see that's wrong?

PRIZE: respect and admiration of the bass community!

Thanks all,

A

View attachment 4144929

1. Not wrong. Assume most read treble clef seems like a pretty standard assumption.
2. Yeah, it's wrong.
3. I don't think it's wrong, but honestly, don't care.

Bonus: in the chord name/formula section, Dom 7 Sus 4 shows the wrong formula.

You don't need to burn it in a sacred ritual but I wouldn't have bought it either.

 

[SmokinJoe992]

I have the guitar version of this hanging in my office. I reference it occasionally when practicing guitar and bass (mostly guitar). For my needs it is quite useful, but I would imagine for others it may be very limited.

 

[BunchyMutt]

The fact that they're using tabs and "formulas" is so wrong. They should show the notes and not the finger positions. I'd burn it.

I'm a complete beginner when it comes to music theory and I'm trying to understand this. I understand the tabs vs finger position argument. What's 'wrong' or educationally detrimental about the formula section?

 

[StatesideRambler]

What's 'wrong' or educationally detrimental about the formula section?

Well, in every music theory course I took (high school and university, in the 60s and 70s, none of which addressed the trifle that was rock music at the time) we spelled chords, to wit, “A Major seventh chord is spelled Root-3-5-7”. There were no “formulas.” If you’re going to communicate clearly you avoid slang and nonstandard terminology.

That being said, language is not static and what’s a misuse in one era becomes standard in another. We old pedagogues can lament all we want but that’s just the way it is. Go ahead and use the slang but be aware that that’s what it is.

 

[BunchyMutt]

Well, in every music theory course I took (high school and university, in the 60s and 70s, none of which addressed the trifle that was rock music at the time) we spelled chords, to wit, “A Major seventh chord is spelled Root-3-5-7”. There were no “formulas.” If you’re going to communicate clearly you avoid slang and nonstandard terminology.

That being said, language is not static and what’s a misuse in one era becomes standard in another. We old pedagogues can lament all we want but that’s just the way it is. Go ahead and use the slang but be aware that that’s what it is.

Thanks for explaining that. It just sounds like it's a labelling issue (in the context of common practice that eschews or never adopted the use of "formula") unless I'm still missing something. Calling them "formulas" isn't common practice, but there's nothing functionally incorrect with the information provided, with the exceptions of at least the Dom 7 Sus 4 pointed out by @PillO

 

[Bisheri]

Does anyone have a clear image of a similar but accurate "bass poster"? Something free and redistributable (to respect licenses/copyright).
Some of the stuff on that poster I have totally ignored in my first three months of bass playing (I tend to lean more heavily on the maqam system than the Western system)

 

[FritzM]

I'm a theory teacher, not that means anything, but I look at this stuff on a daily basis. The chart is incomplete and a little misleading. After playing Jazz for nearly 40 years, I have rarely seen a ii/V/I. You will see ii7/V7/I major7 all day long. The chart was obviously taken from a generic template, so minor changes could be used to create different instrument charts. However, I have been known to be wrong, so . . .

 

[bassically_eli]

Despite the fact we spend most time in bass clef, I was always taught theory in treble clef.

That's a good point. Theory classes aren't typically instrument specific. Treble clef for key of C instruments is the common ground for musicians. Anyone serious about reading and theory should at least be able to make do with treble clef (this might be a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do moment, I certainly struggle with treble clef). It's a useful skill, too, no one ever hands me a lead sheet in bass clef.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

I'm a theory teacher, not that means anything, but I look at this stuff on a daily basis. The chart is incomplete and a little misleading. After playing Jazz for nearly 40 years, I have rarely seen a ii/V/I. You will see ii7/V7/I major7 all day long. The chart was obviously taken from a generic template, so minor changes could be used to create different instrument charts. However, I have been known to be wrong, so . . .

What you say about the 7 chords is quite true for jazz, certainly. (I've been playing that for decades myself.) But perhaps not as commonly so for other forms of music (eg, folk, rock, Afropop, etc). Not that 7 chords can't be or aren't used in those, just that they're not ubiquitous. And in any case, the addition of the 7 doesn't change the essential harmonic function, which can be illustrated perfectly well with triads, so I wouldn't say just referring to ii-V-I is misleading, exactly. Incomplete, perhaps, since anybody looking at this stuff is probably gonna have to deal with 7 chords eventually.