theory question

[mambo4]

If your note is lowest sounding and you play that 4th, it's no longer a 4th. You've defined a new root.

Yes! Very important to keep in mind. The 4th has this effect more than most other notes.

 

[BOOG]

Yes! Very important to keep in mind. The 4th has this effect more than most other notes.

I don’t understand. Can you explain this?

 

[BOOG]

Hmm, yeah, kinda sorta. But if you're the LOWEST SOUNDING note, you DON'T want to play the 4th. Why? Because, again, it's defined as a 4th by being "a 4th above" something else, a root (usually but that's another treatise).

If your note is lowest sounding and you play that 4th, it's no longer a 4th. You've defined a new root.

Edit: Are we talking about BLUES? C'mon...

Edit 2: I seriously need to stay away from these theory threads. Back to Band Members Behaving Badly...

It seems you and @mambo4 are saying the same thing about the 4th and I don’t understand. Can you guys help me out?

 

[SteveCS]

It seems you and @mambo4 are saying the same thing about the 4th and I don’t understand. Can you guys help me out?

I don’t understand. Can you explain this?

Imagine a Dsus4 chord - D, G, A. Take the G and put it in the bass. The relationship between G and the D above is a 5th. The chord will now tend to sound more like Gsus2, or G9, depending on what else is/has been going on.

 

[Ekulati]

It seems you and @mambo4 are saying the same thing about the 4th and I don’t understand. Can you guys help me out?

This is a product of "modern" (not just rock, guitar) but stemming from popular, folk, then later jazz styles, where the traditional "classical" music principle that PLACEMENT of chord tones (order if you will, or so-called "inversions" which really don't exist in classical theory) MATTERS. That is, you can't just stack all the tones of a chord in any old way you want - as long as they're all there (ok maybe not the 5th) - and expect it to sound the same - to be the same chord. Especially when it comes to the lowest note sounding. The extreme example of where this doesn't work, and the one which still DOES apply in most popular, jazz, folk, rock, etc. is the idea of a sus. If you're "suspending" a tone, it has to be suspended ABOVE another tone. Dont think of that note as "the 4th of a CHORD," think of it as a "4th above the bass (lowest sounding) note." Which then usually resolves. Because a 4th above the bass is a dissonance. Or at least used to be until, non-classical players invented a shorthand called "inversions."

 

[SteveCS]

This is a product of "modern" (not just rock, guitar) but stemming from popular, folk, then later jazz styles, where the traditional "classical" music principle that PLACEMENT of chord tones (order if you will, or so-called "inversions" which really don't exist in classical theory) MATTERS. That is, you can't just stack all the tones of a chord in any old way you want - as long as they're all there (ok maybe not the 5th) - and expect it to sound the same - to be the same chord. Especially when it comes to the lowest note sounding. The extreme example of where this doesn't work, and the one which still DOES apply in most popular, jazz, folk, rock, etc. is the idea of a sus. If you're "suspending" a tone, it has to be suspended ABOVE another tone. Dont think of that note as "the 4th of a CHORD," think of it as a "4th above the bass (lowest sounding) note." Which then usually resolves. Because a 4th above the bass is a dissonance. Or at least used to be until, non-classical players invented a shorthand called "inversions."

Yes, apart from the bit about inversions not being born of classical music. They absolutely are. 'Figured bass' is as old as the hills, and a crucial component of the baroque "basso continuo".

 

[BassChuck]

During the 4 to 5 'ramp', start as low as you can and work up higher and higher finding notes that work (against the melody and/or harmony).
Or, start in the mid range of the bass, work down to lowest and then up as far as you'd like.
--It's an original (right?). The 'rules' will only give you what everyone has heard before. Fine, if that's what you like. But then, doing the same thing as others has it's advantages (you know what to do before you do it).
Don't sweat mistakes, especially mistakes in concepts. That's where the creativity is. Trust yourself

 

[SteveCS]

... Because a 4th above the bass is a dissonance.
...

And I don't accept this. A perfect 4th is about as consonant as it gets after the octave and 5th. After all, from 5th to octave is a 4th, and the 1-5-8 'power chord', to use modern parlance, is highly consonant, albeit not particularly interesting.

 

[reverendboom]

But the 4th and the 5th ARE dissonant which what makes our ears what to/need to resolve it.

 

[SteveCS]

But the 4th and the 5th ARE dissonant which what makes our ears what to/need to resolve it.

Since when?

Or are you referring to the Major 2nd between them, which is indeed dissonant.

 

[mambo4]

I don’t understand. Can you explain this?

My explanation might be poorly thought out, but:

If you play a major triad, most of the notes of that major scale will sound OK against it ( 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 ,7)
And importantly they won't imply any motion, the major chord still has the same basic function.
That is, adding the 2,6, or 7 will sound like a colorful extension of the basic major triad.

Because the descending 5th (ie up a 4th) is the strongest melodic and harmonic resolution,
playing the 4th strongly implies the harmony wants to resolve to something else.
so we tend to hear that interval as harmonic motion -unless it quickly resolves to a 3 or 5.
( it's one of the reasons the 4th is often the "avoid note" over a major chord in jazz solos)

So by emphasizing the 4th in the bass our ears will pretty much tell us it's a new chord,
with a different harmonic function. It's no longer perceived as the I maj , but as an altered IV chord.


At least that how I think of it

 

[Ekulati]

Yes, apart from the bit about inversions not being born of classical music. They absolutely are. 'Figured bass' is as old as the hills, and a crucial component of the baroque "basso continuo".

Right. I've performed tons of early music. But the way the concept of chord inversions is used and understood by modern "non classical" musicians of many stripes is completely different from how figured bass works. Yes, vertical sonorities were inverted, but not in the way most people playing rock, jazz, pop etc. in the modern era think of them.

 

[Ekulati]

And I don't accept this. A perfect 4th is about as consonant as it gets after the octave and 5th. After all, from 5th to octave is a 4th, and the 1-5-8 'power chord', to use modern parlance, is highly consonant, albeit not particularly interesting.

It doesn't matter whether or not you accept this. Until roughly... the baroque era or so, a 4th was considered a dissonance. That's a fact, whether you accept it or not.

It's no longer considered a dissonance, but it most certainly WAS, historically.

 

[SteveCS]

It doesn't matter whether or not you accept this. Until roughly... the baroque era or so, a 4th was considered a dissonance. That's a fact, whether you accept it or not.

It's no longer considered a dissonance, but it most certainly WAS, historically.

Was being the operative word here.

Right. I've performed tons of early music. But the way the concept of chord inversions is used and understood by modern "non classical" musicians of many stripes is completely different from how figured bass works. Yes, vertical sonorities were inverted, but not in the way most people playing rock, jazz, pop etc. in the modern era think of them.

You need to explain how a first inversion from 1939 is different from one played in 2020. Sure the use and function may have evolved, but if the 3rd of the chord is in the bass, its a first inversion. Always was and always will be.
From "First Year Harmony", W.Lovelock, 1939...

 

[BOOG]

My explanation might be poorly thought out, but:

If you play a major triad, most of the notes of that major scale will sound OK against it ( 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 ,7)
And importantly they won't imply any motion, the major chord still has the same basic function.
That is, adding the 2,6, or 7 will sound like a colorful extension of the basic major triad.

Because the descending 5th (ie up a 4th) is the strongest melodic and harmonic resolution,
playing the 4th strongly implies the harmony wants to resolve to something else.
so we tend to hear that interval as harmonic motion -unless it quickly resolves to a 3 or 5.
( it's one of the reasons the 4th is often the "avoid note" over a major chord in jazz solos)

So by emphasizing the 4th in the bass our ears will pretty much tell us it's a new chord,
with a different harmonic function. It's no longer perceived as the I maj , but as an altered IV chord.


At least that how I think of it

Wow, excellent explanation. Thank you!

When I get home tonight I’ll play around with what you’re saying. I understand it now but I want my fingers to hear it and my ears to feel it (if that makes any kind of sense).

 

[SteveCS]

My explanation might be poorly thought out, but:
...
So by emphasizing the 4th in the bass our ears will pretty much tell us it's a new chord,
with a different harmonic function. It's no longer perceived as the I maj , but as an altered IV chord.


At least that how I think of it

As always it depends on context. By default - being an old git - I look at it slightly differently, in that the sus4 is more commonly encountered (by me) on the V within some kind of cadence (where the 4th of the V chord is actually the tonic of the key) so I would see that 4th in the bass as more akin to stating a tonic rather than subdominant.
But either way, it changes the 'preferred nature' of the chord in exactly the way you describe (I > IV or V > I), so I have no problem with your explanation.

 

[Ekulati]

I never said a 1st inversion from 1939 is different from one in 2020. I am saying that the way musicians conceptualized things like inversions in, say 1439 is indeed VERY different from the way they conceptualized in 1939 or 2020. And conceptualization informs practice.

Also, to your excerpt: believe it or not, even THEORY evolves. Things come into common acceptance and they go out of common acceptance. You will not find, today in academic circles, any reputable theorist who references much of anything at all, beyond very basic conventions, from a book on harmony published in 1939. Things have just gone far, far beyond mid twentieth century thinking, in terms of theory.

 

[byacey]

From what I understand, in 1439, harmonies were very simple and often just parallel 3rds and 5ths, typically with the root on the bottom.

 

[byacey]

My explanation might be poorly thought out, but:

If you play a major triad, most of the notes of that major scale will sound OK against it ( 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 ,7)
And importantly they won't imply any motion, the major chord still has the same basic function.
That is, adding the 2,6, or 7 will sound like a colorful extension of the basic major triad.

Because the descending 5th (ie up a 4th) is the strongest melodic and harmonic resolution,
playing the 4th strongly implies the harmony wants to resolve to something else.
so we tend to hear that interval as harmonic motion -unless it quickly resolves to a 3 or 5.
( it's one of the reasons the 4th is often the "avoid note" over a major chord in jazz solos)

So by emphasizing the 4th in the bass our ears will pretty much tell us it's a new chord,
with a different harmonic function. It's no longer perceived as the I maj , but as an altered IV chord.


At least that how I think of it

In the bass range, even 9ths, 11s and 13s will sound dissonant because they are too close in frequency to the root. As you go up in the higher octaves, it sounds more pleasing to the ear.

 

[SteveCS]

...You will not find, today in academic circles, any reputable theorist who references much of anything at all, beyond very basic conventions, from a book on harmony published in 1939. Things have just gone far, far beyond mid twentieth century thinking, in terms of theory.

I don't disagree, but it's the basic concepts (in the context of a blues band) being discussed here. There is little to be gained from going to the higher concepts without good grounding in the fundamentals. The book I quoted from is book 1 from a set of 3, so is basic stuff. The same concept is presented in pretty much the same way in the equivalent standard text used by schools/colleges for elementary theory today (The AB Guide to Music Theory, Part I, E.Taylor, 2014, published by ABRSM (the Associated Board of the Royal School of Music))...