What do you call it?

[petermwright]

Currently, I'm listening to a simple track,
"Who Can I Turn To" · Enzo Orefice Trio
It's in Eb major.
Tempo: 92BPM.

In Intro the first chord is Ebmaj13(as ascending - Eb - Bb - G - C - F - G - D)
The second chord in Intro has two chords with a harmonic feel like it's going through a "regular" cadence - IV and V while the bass is pedaling Eb, but...
In terms of notation, we have the piano playing
the following notes (ascending) - Ab - Eb - G - Ab - Bb - Eb - F. There is no D in the chord. ]
It's like Eb11(omit b7)/Ab - piano and the double bass is pedaling Eb.
How would you notate it? Abmaj13 (no 3rd, no 11?)

And the second chord in the same second measure has the following notes:
Ab - D - G - Ab - Bb - as Bb7(add6) or Bb13 (no 9, no 11)

How would you notate that chord.

Thank you.

Ok, I had a listen to the track this time. Assuming you're talking about the first 3 chords at the very beginning of the track, I'd say the voicings are simpler than what you have described. The first one is Eb6/9 (from the bottom up: Eb Bb G Bb C F - though the pianist arpeggiates the right hand from the top down). The second one is perhaps Abmaj9 / Eb - he plays it softly, and it's hard to hear whether there is an F at the top of that piano voicing. It definitely feels like an Ab chord with Eb in the bass, in any case. The last one is Bb13/Eb (RH voicing is Ab D G, which is a standard Bb13 voicing).

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Are you saying this one still has the Eb bass pedal? That affects what I would call it.

Yes, the bass is pedaling Eb, kind of arpeggiating Eb - (Bb) - Eb.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

The first one is Eb6/9 (from the bottom up: Eb Bb G Bb C F - though the pianist arpeggiates the right hand from the top down).

Yes, it starts as Eb6/9 but immediately we hear the note D; therefore, instead of writing Eb6/9 / Ebmaj13, I've notated it as Ebmaj13, but, yes, the first time we hear it as Eb6/9.

The second one is perhaps Abmaj9 / Eb - he plays it softly, and it's hard to hear whether there is an F at the top of that piano voicing.

Yes, there is F on the top.

The last one is Bb13/Eb

Bb13 (omit 9, omit 11). There are no C and Eb in that chord.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I suppose you could also call it an Fm11/Eb. And the following one Bb13/Eb (assuming the pedal continues).

Yes, it's very close to Fmin11 but there is no C in the chord.

 

[petermwright]

Yes, it starts as Eb6/9 but immediately we hear the note D; ...

I disagree, I believe that is a straight Eb6/9 chord.

Bb13 (omit 9, omit 11). There are no C and Eb in that chord.

You don't need the omit 9 or omit 11. Bb13 doesn't typically contain an 11th, and the 9th is optional anyway.

 

[petermwright]

Yes, there is F on the top.

I'm interested in the fact that you seem very certain about this...

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Bb13 (omit 9, omit 11). There are no C and Eb in that chord.

As explained before, you don't need to specify those things.

First, you would basically never say "omit 11," because for the most part, very few people seeing a 13 in the chord name are going to expect to play the 11 as a matter of course, unless it's the #11.

Second, you don't absolutely need to have the natural 9 in there for the chord to be regarded as a 13 for practical purposes, (a) because the absence of the 9 doesn't really change the essential character of that chord for most purposes, and (b) because you can't necessarily assume that because a note is absent from one particular iteration of a chord, that means it's specifically intended to be excluded. There are plenty of reasons why a player wouldn't play every theoretical component of a complex chord every time.

Third, I'm not sure what your individual goal is here (personal use? use with other musicians?), but consider that, at least in working with others, there's substantial value in making your chord designations as simple and unfussy as you can without introducing error or ambiguity.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Yes, it's very close to Fmin11 but there is no C in the chord.

That doesn't really matter, for reasons previously explained.

 

[petermwright]

As explained before, you don't need to specify those things.

First, you would basically never say "omit 11," because for the most part, very few people seeing a 13 in the chord name are going to expect to play the 11 as a matter of course, unless it's the #11.

Second, you don't absolutely need to have the natural 9 in there for the chord to be regarded as a 13 for practical purposes, (a) because the absence of the 9 doesn't really change the essential character of that chord for most purposes, and (b) because you can't necessarily assume that because a note is absent from one particular iteration of a chord, that means it's specifically intended to be excluded. There are plenty of reasons why a player wouldn't play every theoretical component of a complex chord every time.

Third, I'm not sure what your individual goal is here (personal use? use with other musicians?), but consider that, at least in working with others, there's substantial value in making your chord designations as simple and unfussy as you can without introducing error or ambiguity.

This. Agree completely.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I'm not sure what your individual goal is here (personal use? use with other musicians?), but consider that, at least in working with others, there's substantial value in making your chord designations as simple and unfussy as you can without introducing error or ambiguity.

Thank you.
When I try to transcribe "something" and I hear that someone is mis-interpreting that "musical/harmonic sound," I don't like it. I think that is one of the reasons that the REAL Book has become the Real (Fake) Book, but...
I agree with your concept of notating, more or less, "correct" chords without too many adds on, or omissions.
Transcription (for me) is not "paraphrasing, and it's close."
I really value your input. Thank you.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Thank you.
When I try to transcribe "something" and I hear that someone is mis-interpreting that "musical/harmonic sound," I don't like it. I think that is one of the reasons that the REAL Book has become the Real (Fake) Book, but...
I agree with your concept of notating, more or less, "correct" chords without too many adds on, or omissions.
Transcription (for me) is not "paraphrasing, and it's close."
I really value your input. Thank you.

I understand your viewpoint regarding per-note accuracy in transcription. Just keep in mind that note-by-note transcription and chord symbol notation don't serve the same purposes and don't follow exactly the same rules.

 

[petermwright]

Thank you.
When I try to transcribe "something" and I hear that someone is mis-interpreting that "musical/harmonic sound," I don't like it. I think that is one of the reasons that the REAL Book has become the Real (Fake) Book, but...
I agree with your concept of notating, more or less, "correct" chords without too many adds on, or omissions.
Transcription (for me) is not "paraphrasing, and it's close."
I really value your input. Thank you.

Ok yes, so there is tremendous value in transcribing it exactly - note for note - I agree. Great ear training, and great for absorbing vocabulary. However, I'd suggest that - with this kind of music - trying to use chord symbols to capture the exact voicing is not going to be helpful. At least if other musicians are going to be reading it. If you're going to be conveying these chords to other musicians, the kind of chord symbols you're talking about using may not be helpful.

If you're not going to show anyone else these chords, then write whatever you want. Since you're asking us what we'd write, I guess you do want to follow the known conventions though?

I also totally understand wanting to convey the exact voicing to other musicians. In my band (a tribute band), I want the keyboard player to play exactly the part I want (so it matches the record), so all the parts are notated in full. No chord symbols.

If it were this style of music, though, I'd write down chord symbols (unfussy ones, as Richard says), and let the pianist voice it in their own way. That's part of the nature of this music (jazz).

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I disagree, I believe that is a straight Eb6/9 chord.

Here is the first piano arpeggio in M1 where I here that D note.
I've slowed down it to 20% and EQ-ed.

https://www.talkbass.com/attachment...7/?temp_hash=beb41397210675841abe7e12c2e4288c

Here is the second piano chord (slowed down and EQ-ed) in Measure 3.
This time it's clearly Ebmaj9.
https://www.talkbass.com/attachment...1/?temp_hash=beb41397210675841abe7e12c2e4288c

 

[Whousedtoplay]

The second one is perhaps Abmaj9 / Eb - he plays it softly, and it's hard to hear whether there is an F at the top of that piano voicing.

Here is that piano spot with F, just extremely slowly and EQ-ed.
In the second part of that soundclip, the piano loudly plays F.

https://www.talkbass.com/attachment...7/?temp_hash=beb41397210675841abe7e12c2e4288c

 

[petermwright]

Here is the first piano arpeggio in M1 where I here that D note.
I've slowed down it to 20% and EQ-ed.

https://www.talkbass.com/attachment...7/?temp_hash=beb41397210675841abe7e12c2e4288c

Here is the second piano chord (slowed down and EQ-ed) in Measure 3.
This time it's clearly Ebmaj9.
https://www.talkbass.com/attachment...1/?temp_hash=beb41397210675841abe7e12c2e4288c

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. But...

You have to be careful with slowing down recordings to work out piano voicings. Piano chords (particularly when played softly) can be slippery little things to work out, and pianos produce quite a lot of harmonics. Tempo change algorithms introduce artefacts. Slowing down has it's place, and is a useful tool, but be a bit careful. I've done this many many times, and I've driven myself half mad many times. My experience is that more often than not, we end up hearing notes that aren't being played, rather than missing ones that are. Are you playing these chords on a piano yourself?

When you listen to that first chord at full speed, and then play that voicing I described on the piano (Eb Bb G Bb C F), that voicing matches perfectly, IMO.

The second time, yes, the maj7 is definitely there, of course.

Here is that piano spot with F, just extremely slowly and EQ-ed.
In the second part of that soundclip, the piano loudly plays F.

Ok, so we were talking at cross purposes there. That F you're talking about is a melody note - I wasn't including that in the chord symbol. If you're going to try and include melody notes in the chord symbol, you're going to make things much harder still. Again - chord symbols are not well suited to that.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Again - chord symbols are not well suited to that.

I think a few TB members could learn a lot from your and/or Richard Lindsey's comments.
It's impossible to get that kind of information on Youtube.
That's why I like TalkBass.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Just an example of chord notation from the same source: musicnotes.com
Stevie Wonder "You are the sunshine of my Life"
Version 1:

Version 2.
Cmaj9 becomes C(add2)
F6 becomes G/F
Gb/Bb becomes A13b9

Version 3.
Cmaj9 or C(add9) becomes Cadd9
Gb/Bb or A13b9 becomes Gb/A.

 

[petermwright]

Just an example of chord notation from the same source: musicnotes.com
Stevie Wonder "You are the sunshine of my Life"
Version 1:
View attachment 5333901

Version 2.
Cmaj9 becomes C(add2)
F6 becomes G/F
Gb/Bb becomes A13b9

View attachment 5333902

Version 3.
Cmaj9 or C(add9) becomes Cadd9
Gb/Bb or A13b9 becomes Gb/A.

View attachment 5333903

Yep, so version 1 is not so accurate, versions 2 and 3 are essentially the same. Note how version 3 describes the 'mu' chord as Cadd9. The A13b9 chord symbol is equivalent to Gb/A*, except that Gb/A represents more closely the way Stevie voices that chord. Sometimes slash chords can give you a more accurate way of producing a specific voicing, although they don't give you as clear an analysis of the harmony. For me, this is an example of pop chord symbols vs jazz chord symbols. In jazz, I'd use the A13b9, in pop I'd use the Gb/A (actually I'd use F#/A). Actually, I say I'd use F#/A... I'd actually use F/G#, as the song is originally in B, not C

*As noted above, I prefer F#/A. In the context of an A chord I'd consider the 3rd and 13th to be C# and F#, not Db and Gb. Not a big deal though - chord symbols and actual chord voicings do vary in spelling, and that's ok.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

as the song is originally in B, not C

Thank you.
I've just tried to simplify those examples.

Now, I have another question.
The bass plays C.
The guitar/piano plays the C chord, but the lead melody has only B and D notes all measure long.
Is our harmony C major or Cmaj9?

What if the bass, guitar/piano have the "pure" C major chord, but strings(or brass) play B and D notes.
Do we have the C chord or Cmaj9?

Thank you.

 

[petermwright]

Thank you.
I've just tried to simplify those examples.

Now, I have another question.
The bass plays C.
The guitar/piano plays the C chord, but the lead melody has only B and D notes all measure long.
Is our harmony C major or Cmaj9?

What if the bass, guitar/piano have the "pure" C major chord, but strings(or brass) play B and D notes.
Do we have the C chord or Cmaj9?

Thank you.

It depends if you're analysing the overall harmonic effect, or writing chord symbols for a musician to play. If the guitar/piano play C and strings/brass/etc are playing B and D, and thus producing the effect of Cmaj9, then the overall chord is Cmaj9. However, if I'm writing charts for the guitarist/pianist then I'm just writing C.

If it's the melody that has B and D then... it depends, I'd say. There isn't really a cut and dried answer. If you're analysing the overall harmony, and there is a sustained B (for instance) in the melody, then you could say Cmaj7. But if they're short notes, then you could argue the effect is fleeting and doesn't really make it sound convincingly like Cmaj7 or Cmaj9.

So, are you writing chord symbols for your own purposes, for harmonic analysis - or are you making charts for musicians to play from? For me, in the real world, it's inevitably the latter - so I'd be writing chord symbols that reflect the chords for musicians to play (in your example, C not Cmaj7 or Cmaj9).

As an example that springs to mind - This Boy by The Beatles. The guitar chords are just D Bm Em7 A, but the vocal harmonies create Dmaj7, Bm7 etc. If I'm writing a chart, I'm writing D Bm Em7 A etc. I'm fully aware as I'm writing and playing it, that I'm hearing Dmaj7 etc, but have no need to write that down.