This thread just cost me $60 - it reminded me to buy the Berklee jazz theory book.
Delivered to Oz.
Delivered to Oz.
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.
The Major Fourth
- Thread starter mrbell321
- Start date
I rarely identify a IV anymore, unless it's part of the chord motion...then I yawn, cos I'm probably playing a blues =^)
I tend to see any IV in a chord as an 11, then open it up by looking at the spelling of the chord (1-3-5-dom7-9-11) and work on those possibilities....
I tend to see any IV in a chord as an 11, then open it up by looking at the spelling of the chord (1-3-5-dom7-9-11) and work on those possibilities....
Been learning a lot of Rolling Stones songs recently. Mr Wyman plays maybe more fourths than anyone else I've heard, often seems to imply a quick chord change that no one else is playing.
My favorite use of a fourth as a melody note is the high note in Hey Jude... Take a sad SONG... it's an F sitting on top of a C7 chord, should clash but it sounds great.
My favorite use of a fourth as a melody note is the high note in Hey Jude... Take a sad SONG... it's an F sitting on top of a C7 chord, should clash but it sounds great.
Its a good place to live.
Minor 6 and 7 also do it. (waits for nitpicking comments on melodic minor etc...) but yeah the 3rd drives the bus on articulating that chord.
Root is the root, 5 reinforces it, 3rd is garlic. 7th is the chives, 6th is a dash of pepper.
Ha ha....food tones....
Without harmonic content, it's a solo. I can play a major solo in 4ths, changing keys every bar too...
Oh right; that's the cycle of 4ths.
You don't have to like it or agree with me - it's not my rule. It's been around a few hundred years longer than I've been alive.
Oh right; that's the cycle of 4ths.
You don't have to like it or agree with me - it's not my rule. It's been around a few hundred years longer than I've been alive.
EdwardofHuncote
I Still Dream of Jeannie
- Aug 21, 2013
- 6,644
- 2
- 16,407
- Disclosures
- I privately own and operate a local musical instument repair shop.
That's bad. You need to be able to play all the relevant notes well and not make musicial choices based on what's easier to play, but on how you want things to sound.
(If you're finding the M3 that much harder to hit than the 4, IMO you should be examing your technique - it should not be that much of a difference to you that it's compromising your playing. I have small hands and I play a full scale 5 string - I feel your pain but it just means you have to find a comfortable ax and do drills that strengthen your hands and not let your chops slide.)
I understand you're trying to get an academic perspective on this issue or maybe you're worried about reputation, so at the risk of sounding like a complete moron: Does the sound work for you? Is it working for others you're playing with? If so, play it. If not, don't play it. Theory and academic discussions are just tools for helping you figure out how to play what sounds good - that is what music is really all about: Let your ears be the judge.
Regarding passing notes as opposed to your fundamental line, to make it broader, I'll say it's not really about the note you're playing now, but about what you play before it and after it. If you want alleviate some of your "guilt", spend some time with the music of Thelonious Monk - he didn't worry much about teachers' rules...
Heard:
There's no such thing as a bad note, only a bad resolution.
Not a reputation thing. If I worried about reputation, I wouldn't ever let anyone hear me as I am not good. But I like to learn. My brain can pick up things WAY faster than my fingers. But does the sound work for me? I think it does, but I always think I sound good... until I hear a recording. And my timing is all over the place! That's a different discussion, though...
People imply the question "does it clash?" so I'd say "no". But if I thought it sounded bad, I'd stop doing it
Mostly I was curious why the fourth degree never gets much discussion, so it's somewhat academic. but I need the academics to get me to the functional.
Phil Lesh liked to treat the root as an avoid note...
I guess I probably do use it as a passing note. Say I've done a fill an octave up, and to get back down to the root, I'll hit the 5th and 4th and 2nd, so probably all sorts of wrong. In any case, I wouldn't say it's a TARGET note, but generally, I don't think a 6th is a target either and there are hundreds of videos and articles about adding the 6th to your basslines. On a strong beat, sure, but not necessarily a target.
I was really talking about an accompanying bassline. Poor choice of words when I said "Major 4th". WHat I meant was "Perfect 4th over a Major chord, as in a fill."
Indeed. I wonder if Wyman is where I picked this up. He's certainly one of my main influences.
DOuble indeed. Usually my posts either kill a thread or just get ignored. Let's see about this one
It's music people. The theory may not fit nicely. But in general, you don't want to hit the perfect fourth in a major tonality on the strong beats, 1 and 3. It radically changes the key center. It will sound awkward.
And Whousedtoplay, that riff is @#% boss. What are you doing to get those triplets? Hammer plucks, or straight up down pluck? That bass sounds monstrous unplugged.
As far as I can tell, you're doing it right. As long as you don't hang, jump to or pivot on an avoid note, it adds color to the phrase. Add some chromatic notes, and you're playing a great jazz line.
And I knew what you meant about the 4th - pass through, and don't stand on it, and you're in good shape.
I really think this post nails the reason why the perfect 4th played as a non-resolving tone over a maj7 chord sounds funny. (Notice, I don't mean the 4th of the key, I mean the 4th of the chord.) To me, if I have the notes C-E-G-B-D in the piano up higher and I play and hold an F, it will probably sound more like an Fmaj13 than a Cmaj7/F. Just look at the notes, it makes sense why it would sound this way and not the other. Even without a 3rd (A), our ears will probably fill in the details and here the F sound. The bass dictates the chord in music in a lot of ways. What you are doing may very well sound good, and maybe the reason it sounds good is because its introducing new chords.
If you want to see why classical music theory says that the 4th is so bad over a maj chord, consider sitting at the piano and playing CEG and then an F a minor 7th above the G. This ought to, at least in the strict, traditional tonal sense, clash and sound bad. But remember what register your instrument is in. If you take the same notes and drop the F below the C, it suddenly sounds like a pretty F chord.
Another note that can really change the chord sound/quality is the 2nd. Once again at the piano, one of the prettiest sounds can be taking a B minor triad, voiced say D-F#-B, and playing a C and a G the octave below. This C is a minor 2nd to the B, but I think it really just changes the chord altogether into a Cmaj#11. Now try playing the B minor triad, but with only the C below. Your ear probably fills in the gaps and isn't bothered by the missing G, and E of the voicing. In fact, in a lot of ways, C-G-D-F#-B may sound better than C-E-G-D-F#-B. This has to do with density of notes, and also the fact that the E, even though its a very important chord tone, makes the sound muddy when played really low and close to the bass note.
Notice I'm using a lot of theory to think about this but I always return to the sound. And I think further, you've got to deal with the sound at the piano, where you can hear all the notes resonating. But then you have to take it to whatever instruments you are playing with and ask how the notes sound in the group. A 12th fret G on the bass is the same pitch as the guitars open G string, but sounds vastly different. So listen, listen, and listen more to how everything interacts.
Okay, I'll probably have a different opinion about all this by tomorrow, but that's my $.02 for the day.
As others have said, I've gotten more out of this one thread than all others i've ever read on TB and any theory before.
Huh. I dunno, man. A fourth in my improv (jazz, rock and metal) would probably be hit around 15% of the time, maybe once every 2 measures. That's just me, it's your improv.
Chords and chord color being built from the bottom up suggests that when the bass is playing the 4th degree of the scale , the chord sound and chord quality adjusts to the 4th suggesting a new root..
CMin 7 with C in the root is just that. Change the root note to an F , now you have F7 sus 4 add 9... Big color shift mood changer...
Melodically speaking, the 4th above the octave functions as an 11 or natural tension as it is a whole step above the flatted third of the minor chord.. Use this to start a melodic phrase and it sounds wonderful ...
Love the 4th..and when you play it, don't forget the groove!!!
CMin 7 with C in the root is just that. Change the root note to an F , now you have F7 sus 4 add 9... Big color shift mood changer...
Melodically speaking, the 4th above the octave functions as an 11 or natural tension as it is a whole step above the flatted third of the minor chord.. Use this to start a melodic phrase and it sounds wonderful ...
Love the 4th..and when you play it, don't forget the groove!!!
Sorry to derail again, but thanks for the instruction. Monster line man. I'm practicing it as we speak. Thanks!
To the earlier question of why 4ths are more commonly referred to as 11ths:
The notes of a scale are sometimes referred to as scale degrees, the tonic being "1" with consecutive numbering for the rest (2 through 7 for 7-tone scales). So in that scheme (and for the sake of argument, let's just assume we're talking about the key of C major), then the tones D, F, and A would be referred to as the 2nd, 4th, and 6th scale degrees. But when speaking in terms of chord tones, the fundamental assumption becomes that we're combining intervalic stacks of thirds. So assuming I'm still in C major - starting on the root - and I want to play an ascending diatonic arpeggio based on thirds through all of the scale tones (diatonic just meaning notes that exist naturally in a given key), I'll play the following:
C - tonic, or 1
E - 3rd
G - 5th
B - 7th
D - 9th
F - 11th
A - 13th
The interval between each of those chord tones is some sort of third - in this case, they're all either major or minor thirds. If I were to mash all of those tones together and play them at the same time, I'd be playing a C major 13th chord. So, yes, the fourth scale degree is most commonly referred to as the 11th in a chordal context. 2nd scale degree is referred to chordally as the 9th, 4th scale degree as the 11th, and 6th scale degree as the 13th.
That's not to say you'll never see the numbers 2, 4, or 6 used in a chord symbol, because you will (Gadd2, A7sus4, Fm6), and when chords are notated using these "degrees" it usually just implies that the other extension tones are to be omitted. So for Fm6, the implication is an F minor triad (F, Ab and C) with a D included. Gadd2 is usually interpreted as a G major triad (G, B, and D) with an A thrown in. A7sus4 is open to even more interpretation. A folk guitarist might spell the chord A - D - E - G (omitting the third), whereas a jazz pianist might choose to include the 3rd. So his version may wind up spelled as A - C# - D - E - G. Regardless of stylistic context, though, chordal extensions beyond the 7th are left out.
When you see the "big numbers," (Db7+9, Em11, B13), the implication is that the chord contains all of the extension tones up to the one indicated. So Db7+9 is a five-note chord technically spelled Db - F - Ab - Cb - E natural. Em11 is a six-note chord spelled E - G - B - D - F# - A. B13 is a 7-note chord spelled B - D# - F# - A - C# - E - G#. The main theme, though, is that the chord "spelling" relies on stacks of thirds all the way through the highest included extension tone.
I realize all of this goes a little bit beyond the original question, but I put it in to illustrate that there is method to the madness when referring to scalar elements versus chordal elements.
Everybody in here has already offered their takes on the use of the 4th scale degree in (assumedly) the context of bass riffing or solos, and it's been pretty well established that bass notes used on strong beats (1 and 3, if in 4/4 time) against chords rooted a fourth below that note will create an ambiguous color that strongly implies an entirely different chord. That's why most of the posts here encourage either avoiding that scale degree entirely, or using it only as a passing melodic element on a weak beat. Those are guidelines, though, to help newer players get off the ground. By quickly intellectualizing some basic dos and dont's, aspiring players can still make expressive and good-sounding music without having to get too hung up on the minutiae of why certain notes don't work in certain contexts. That's what makes pentatonic scales such easy to learn but universally applied "gimmicks," if I may. Then again, for every argument against using 4ths this way, there are examples to the contrary. Quite a few have already been brought up, and there have been thousands on thousands of solo lines recorded that employ 4ths in some fashion. Steely Dan would have been in a world of hurt without chords like Bb/Eb, C/F, A/D - in each case, a major chord sitting on top of a bass note that's a fourth above the triadic root. In fact, a great many of their songs employed this chord type, and they fit like gloves with all the other tonal creativity that gave that music such a distinctive sound.
Experiment and have fun. If you can break a rule while still being musical, by all means, do it.
The notes of a scale are sometimes referred to as scale degrees, the tonic being "1" with consecutive numbering for the rest (2 through 7 for 7-tone scales). So in that scheme (and for the sake of argument, let's just assume we're talking about the key of C major), then the tones D, F, and A would be referred to as the 2nd, 4th, and 6th scale degrees. But when speaking in terms of chord tones, the fundamental assumption becomes that we're combining intervalic stacks of thirds. So assuming I'm still in C major - starting on the root - and I want to play an ascending diatonic arpeggio based on thirds through all of the scale tones (diatonic just meaning notes that exist naturally in a given key), I'll play the following:
C - tonic, or 1
E - 3rd
G - 5th
B - 7th
D - 9th
F - 11th
A - 13th
The interval between each of those chord tones is some sort of third - in this case, they're all either major or minor thirds. If I were to mash all of those tones together and play them at the same time, I'd be playing a C major 13th chord. So, yes, the fourth scale degree is most commonly referred to as the 11th in a chordal context. 2nd scale degree is referred to chordally as the 9th, 4th scale degree as the 11th, and 6th scale degree as the 13th.
That's not to say you'll never see the numbers 2, 4, or 6 used in a chord symbol, because you will (Gadd2, A7sus4, Fm6), and when chords are notated using these "degrees" it usually just implies that the other extension tones are to be omitted. So for Fm6, the implication is an F minor triad (F, Ab and C) with a D included. Gadd2 is usually interpreted as a G major triad (G, B, and D) with an A thrown in. A7sus4 is open to even more interpretation. A folk guitarist might spell the chord A - D - E - G (omitting the third), whereas a jazz pianist might choose to include the 3rd. So his version may wind up spelled as A - C# - D - E - G. Regardless of stylistic context, though, chordal extensions beyond the 7th are left out.
When you see the "big numbers," (Db7+9, Em11, B13), the implication is that the chord contains all of the extension tones up to the one indicated. So Db7+9 is a five-note chord technically spelled Db - F - Ab - Cb - E natural. Em11 is a six-note chord spelled E - G - B - D - F# - A. B13 is a 7-note chord spelled B - D# - F# - A - C# - E - G#. The main theme, though, is that the chord "spelling" relies on stacks of thirds all the way through the highest included extension tone.
I realize all of this goes a little bit beyond the original question, but I put it in to illustrate that there is method to the madness when referring to scalar elements versus chordal elements.
Everybody in here has already offered their takes on the use of the 4th scale degree in (assumedly) the context of bass riffing or solos, and it's been pretty well established that bass notes used on strong beats (1 and 3, if in 4/4 time) against chords rooted a fourth below that note will create an ambiguous color that strongly implies an entirely different chord. That's why most of the posts here encourage either avoiding that scale degree entirely, or using it only as a passing melodic element on a weak beat. Those are guidelines, though, to help newer players get off the ground. By quickly intellectualizing some basic dos and dont's, aspiring players can still make expressive and good-sounding music without having to get too hung up on the minutiae of why certain notes don't work in certain contexts. That's what makes pentatonic scales such easy to learn but universally applied "gimmicks," if I may. Then again, for every argument against using 4ths this way, there are examples to the contrary. Quite a few have already been brought up, and there have been thousands on thousands of solo lines recorded that employ 4ths in some fashion. Steely Dan would have been in a world of hurt without chords like Bb/Eb, C/F, A/D - in each case, a major chord sitting on top of a bass note that's a fourth above the triadic root. In fact, a great many of their songs employed this chord type, and they fit like gloves with all the other tonal creativity that gave that music such a distinctive sound.
Experiment and have fun. If you can break a rule while still being musical, by all means, do it.
