What chord is this?

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 3 Feb 2006 1:28 pm

I just don't hear anything diminished or minor about it. If it sounds major, it's a major of some sort.
And I think suspension is the best resolution of all.

Andy Volk · Post by **Andy Volk** » 3 Feb 2006 2:54 pm

Humans love to make things more complicated than they are. When I played it on the piano all the other convoluted names seemed beside the point ... it's a C triad over a Bb triad. But what's the chord symbol for two triads? Bb/C implys a C major chord with a Bb bass note. So I guess that's why it has to be 9b5 or a #11 or some other more-complex-than-it-needs-to-be name.[This message was edited by Andy Volk on 03 February 2006 at 02:55 PM.]

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 3 Feb 2006 3:21 pm

Bb/C implys a C major chord with a Bb bass note.

Um... I think you meant to say that the other way around...

Andy Volk · Post by **Andy Volk** » 3 Feb 2006 4:02 pm

Yeah, Jim, you're right ... C/Bb

Michael Barone · Post by **Michael Barone** » 3 Feb 2006 4:36 pm

BbMaj9+11 ? I would have thought a Major 9th included the NATURAL seventh not the 6th

I didn’t state that this chord had a sixth. I was merely saying that if you play BbMaj9+11, then lower the natural seventh a whole tone to the sixth, while the chord is sustaining, it becomes Bb9/6+11.

BbMaj9+11 R 3 5 7 9 +11
Bb9/6+11 R 3 5 6 9 +11

Mike

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 3 Feb 2006 5:47 pm

" it's a C triad over a Bb triad. But what's the chord symbol for two triads?"

Yup. I mentioned above that it's a lydian thing. If you were going to write a chart, it's simply, Bb, 9,#11,13. What's missing is the A for the maj7 chord. These can be thought of as "upper structure triads". For instance, on the piano, if you played a 10th chord (low Bb, F, D) then played the C triad, or an A-7 above that, they would make sense.

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 5 Feb 2006 9:31 pm

The most concise voicing name is b0b's Gm13,
but it can be the Bb6 9 +#11 too.

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 6 Feb 2006 5:25 am

Play the chord, don't spell it; does that sound like a minor chord? Sure, you can add a G bottom and it would start with a minor third, but that's different.

I rest my case.

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 6 Feb 2006 6:16 am

Bb6/9 #11 or you might see it in shorthand in modern jazz as "Bb lyd." You can also express it as simply a C triad over a Bb triad. The modern jazz guys like Dave Liebman don't use the slash ( C/Bb) as it indicates triad over bass note- they do it literally:

C
---
Bb

Liebman's book "A Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody" is a real eye-opener for those interested in extended harmonies.(Yeah, but can he play "A Waiter...")

b5 is "wrong" because there is a natural 5 in the low octave. That's why we call it #11, because b5 means b5 IN ALL OCTAVES. That'd be the Berklee take on it. Not all scales and harmonic events take place within one octave. YMMV.

You can break it down into all kinds of cool little other things, just as you can with a standard 10 string E9th tuning, there is a Bm triad nested in there among other things.

------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Rhythm Tuneup DVD and more...

[This message was edited by John McGann on 06 February 2006 at 06:19 AM.][This message was edited by John McGann on 06 February 2006 at 06:21 AM.][This message was edited by John McGann on 06 February 2006 at 06:24 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 6 Feb 2006 6:27 am

Bb Lyd, yeah I like that.
Gotta get that book.

This is a chord form I have used too.
X 6 9 with a tension up top.[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 06 February 2006 at 06:28 AM.]

basilh · Post by **basilh** » 6 Feb 2006 6:39 am

I'd like to say 'Thanks' to John McGann, I never knew that..
I come from an 'Old School' of UK small combo culture, where the Mickey Baker Jazz Guitar book was our only guide to chords and names.
I don't think it ever explained that flat fifth meant in all occurrences of the fifth within the given chord.
I now know better thanks to you.
This is NOT meant to be facetious or argumentative in any way.. I TRULY just didn't know
Thanks again..

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 6 Feb 2006 7:12 am

I only know G, C and D chords....and it ain't one of them!

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 6 Feb 2006 8:18 am

Hi Basil- I wrote "wrong" in quotation marks because it's not really "wrong", just different. I know those Mickey Baker books well as I learned from them too. This stuff can be very confusing. It's hard to not sound stuffy when talking about theory, and I appreciate your kind comments, thanks!

------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Rhythm Tuneup DVD and more...

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 6 Feb 2006 10:54 am

I like John M.'s answer, and it does carry about as much authority as exists for these things. I agree with Charlie, Gm13 is one of many names that could be given, especially if you jumble the inversions. It deserves no special merit merely because it is the briefest name. If you play the chord as written, especially if you play it as an arpeggio, there is no minor sound, and it clearly is two major triads.

In written musical notation, there is of course no problem, the notes are simply written and played. It is not necessary for them to have a name. Most people reading music just play the notes, without even considering what the name might be. If you think about it, the chord names that appear above the staff are for guitarists and others, who can't read the music. Or they are used as short hand in fake sheets which contain only the melody. Unlike the music on the staff, I'm not aware that musicians have ever codified a complete, noncontradictory nomenclature system for naming unwritten chords. Therefore, we just have what various music professors and instruction authors have come up with informally on their own. And there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps John can enlighten us.

Even though I earlier argued for b5 rather than #11, I felt a little uneasy about that, because it does not specifiy the octave. I had always heard that you start counting above 8 if the 7th has been used. However, that rule also does not necessarily specify the octave. For example, on 8-string E9 (bottom up: B D E F# G# B E G#), the F# is in lower, or middle octave. What if the D were at the top, and there was no B and D on the bottom. Would that still be E9? What if, in the chord at the beginning of this thread, the b5 was at the bottom, and the 5 was in the top octave? Would that still be #11? It seems to me the conventions do not always convey in which octave the notes are, only the overall harmony relationships. Is that right?

Finally, while John is available, I have an unrelated question. Accidentals are usually written as flats in flat keys, and sharps in sharp keys. Is this invariant? What about the key of C? Are accidentals written as flats or sharps? Inquiring minds want to know?

------------------
Student of the Steel: Zum uni, Fender tube amps, squareneck and roundneck resos, tenor sax, keyboards

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 6 Feb 2006 11:56 am

In written musical notation, there is of course no problem, the notes are simply written and played. It is not necessary for them to have a name. Most people reading music just play the notes, without even considering what the name might be. If you think about it, the chord names that appear above the staff are for guitarists and others, who can't read the music. Or they are used as short hand in fake sheets which contain only the melody. Unlike the music on the staff, I'm not aware that musicians have ever codified a complete, noncontradictory nomenclature system for naming unwritten chords. Therefore, we just have what various music professors and instruction authors have come up with informally on their own. And there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps John can enlighten us.

Well, you know how not a lot is standardized in the steel guitar world? Same thing in chord symbol practice.

Even though I earlier argued for b5 rather than #11, I felt a little uneasy about that, because it does not specifiy the octave. I had always heard that you start counting above 8 if the 7th has been used. However, that rule also does not necessarily specify the octave. For example, on 8-string E9 (bottom up: B D E F# G# B E G#), the F# is in lower, or middle octave. What if the D were at the top, and there was no B and D on the bottom. Would that still be E9? What if, in the chord at the beginning of this thread, the b5 was at the bottom, and the 5 was in the top octave? Would that still be #11?

E9 sounds more elegant than E2...actually you could argue that the "first E' is off the horn below the B which is the 5th, the D the b7, the E the 8 and the F# the 9th.

As for "b5 on bottom 5 on top"- in C would be F# with G above...That's not a likely voicing other than on paper, with a honkin' ugly b9 in the middle...it would be fine arpeggio-wise, but butt ugly chord voicing wise.

It seems to me the conventions do not always convey in which octave the notes are, only the overall harmony relationships. Is that right?

Well, in reality it varies because some people do it at the conservatory, some in "jazz education" and some on the bandstand and piecing together bits of info from various sources.

#11 presupposes the 2nd octave. b5 would be the "bottom" of the chord ( 1 3 5 7). The stuff on top is the 9 11 13 variations including #11 (which usually indicates a natural 5 in the lower octave).

Finally, while John is available, I have an unrelated question. Accidentals are usually written as flats in flat keys, and sharps in sharp keys. Is this invariant? What about the key of C? Are accidentals written as flats or sharps? Inquiring minds want to know?

Again, you see all kinds of things when you haven't got your gun

especially in classical music...

I like to try to have the accidentals "agree" with the chord symbol of the moment, so if it's a Bbm7 chord I wouldn't write C#. The chord implies a spelling Bb Db F Ab.

That Bbm7 chord might be in a jazz tune that shifts keys every 3 seconds, so even if it started in the key of 3 sharps, I'd use the flats there. It just seems the most logical both for sight reading and for understanding the chord/melody relationships (with Valentine's Day coming up and all..)

Just because it is logical doesn't mean you'll always see it that way, though!

[This message was edited by John McGann on 06 February 2006 at 01:00 PM.][This message was edited by John McGann on 06 February 2006 at 01:03 PM.]

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 6 Feb 2006 12:51 pm

What about the key of C? Are accidentals written as flats or sharps? Inquiring minds want to know?

I would bet you a steel guitar that there is no convention.
Music I have seen, it depends on what note is next--or last. It could depend on what note the note in question is passing to; but mostly it would be the concept of the composer--how he sees it.
And that, my friends, is why it's neither a b6 or a #5; there is no context, it's just a handful (or two) of notes.

John Steele (deceased) · Post by **John Steele (deceased)** » 6 Feb 2006 1:15 pm

Charlie, I suspect you meant b5 or #11.
I'd still lean toward #11 because, as John explained, the fifth is there, and quite intact.

FWIW, I agree with Chas and John McG. The cluster of notes would suggest that it came from the F major scale. For that reason, looked at as a rootless voicing, it could be interpreted as a G minor chord, as well as A Phrygian, Bb lydian, CSus4, D Aeolian, or even Em7b5.
My first instinct would be to look at it as Chas does: a Bb lydian chord. The absence of the 7th could be either troubling or liberating, depending on your point of view.
But nobody explained in what context the chord is found...
-John

------------------
www.ottawajazz.com

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 6 Feb 2006 1:42 pm

John S., Andy explained earlier that it is the last chord of Amazing Grace played in the key of Bb. Thus, it is 1 3 5 with the 2nd inversion of the II chord added on top (6 9 #11). Out of the many possible names for the chord, it would seem that it should be some version of a Bb chord, as that is both the key and bottom note of the chord. And if you play it and add the 7th, it mucks it up to my ear. So I'm thinking the 7th is not merely silent, it is just not any kind of a 7th chord. [This message was edited by David Doggett on 06 February 2006 at 01:45 PM.]

John Steele (deceased) · Post by **John Steele (deceased)** » 6 Feb 2006 2:21 pm

Thanks for clarifying that, David, I'd missed that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
it should be some version of a Bb chord, as that is both the key and bottom note of the chord.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'll go along with the key thing... but to anyone favouring rootless voicings, the bottom note of the chord would be less significant, imho.
As far as the 7th goes, I tend to look at every chord as containing a 7th, whether or not it's expressed.... although some are intentionally ambiguous.
If asked to state a lydian chord for the last chord of Amazing Grace, I think I'd lean toward the major seventh variety. Dominant would sound a little funky.
Thanks for pointing that out, David.
-John [This message was edited by John Steele on 06 February 2006 at 02:23 PM.]

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 6 Feb 2006 5:49 pm

I would bet you a steel guitar that there is no convention.

The thing is, there is no universally accepted convention. At Berklee, we have something called a b13, which is not exactly a #5 functionally, though the pitch is of course the same. The idea being that a #5 in the low part of the chord sounds very different than in the top part, and it is usually combined with another "tension" note such as #9, 9, or b9.

A7b9b13- you can leave out the root and 5th

3 b7 b13 b9 would be C# G F Bb in that order.

(C6th Strings 9 raise 1/2, string 7, string 4 raise 1/2, string 2 raise 1/2).

A #5 would make an augmented chord in the lower part of the chord. That sound, to my ears, is different, and deserves the b13 chord symbol. It has been used by thousands of jazz musicians (especially arrangers) for at least 60 years, so to me it is a convention, but there are plenty of people who would make the "#5 and that's all it is" argument too. It's kind of a fine point, but I can hear the difference and see why there is a distinction.

A similar and more obvious case is for the b3- if it is in the bottom of the chord, it makes it minor, but if you have a 1 3 5 b7 (say C E G Bb) with an Eb on top, it is a #9- because the E is needed in the bottom to "define the chord sound". The chord sound, in basic terms, is the 3rd and 7th of the chord. It is counterintuitive if you are used to triads!

The 6th and 7th of a chord are considered interchangable harmonically, though they sound way different. Django tended to play maj6 rather than maj7 as do modern Gypsy Jazz players- they don't buy the 'interchangeable' argument!

If I won a steel, do i get to pick the brand?

------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Rhythm Tuneup DVD and more...

[This message was tweaked by John McGann on 06 February 2006 at 05:52 PM.][This message was edited by John McGann on 06 February 2006 at 06:01 PM.]

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 6 Feb 2006 6:01 pm

Yeah, I never understood the jazz books claiming that a 6th and a Major 7th chord were interchangeable. Just try playing 40's swing music substituting a M7 for all the 6th chords and you'll see why they AIN'T!

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 6 Feb 2006 6:07 pm

Jimbo- I think once "they" started getting nerdy and labeling everything, they decided "all chords are built in thirds" And So they developed the 5 chord types (major 7, minor 7, minor 7 b5, dom 7 and dim 7) and anything that didn't fit the mold became "other". Since the 6th chord breaks the mold, they said "Aw, that's just like a maj7 and beisdes, it's old fashioned". Later, they had to explain voicings in 4ths and all the other cool stuff in relation to The Big Book Of Thirds.

when the Beatles sang the famous "yeah" on "She Loves You" George Martin told them "WHAT??? It's old fashioned!" They said " So...we're keeping it". Imagine if it was a major 7th- dweebsville!

------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Rhythm Tuneup DVD and more...

John Steele (deceased) · Post by **John Steele (deceased)** » 6 Feb 2006 11:48 pm

Jim, this refers to my earlier comment about my tendency to always define the 7th, whether it's expressed in the chord or not... it's related...
I think when they say a 6th and Maj 7th are "interchangeable" what they mean is, they come from the same tonality: they don't function as dominant chords.
Jazz musicians could rightfully be accused of seeing every chord as either a I, a II or a V of some sort. Both your examples fall into the I category. So would Maj9.
-John

John Steele (deceased) · Post by **John Steele (deceased)** » 6 Feb 2006 11:56 pm

Just to add, that's why I like the idea of using the little triangle, or delta symbol after a chord to signify a I or non-dominant type of chord.
They're not specifying what voicing.. whether it be 6th, Maj.7 , Maj. 9th, or even leaving the 7th out completely... it just tells you how the chord functions. In that way, they are all the same.
-John