Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Just recently I got into a thing with somebody about power chords. I was saying a chord has three notes and he told me I was wrong, a chord can have two notes, I should study up on my theory. So is there a difference in terminology out there saying that two or more notes played together always make up a chord? This kind of throws the system I learned out the window. I rarely hear the terms diad and triad thrown around and I've never heard an interval referred to as a chord. It's weird to me.
Any thoughts from the studied musicians in here?
_____________________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things
As Manolo Sanlúcar describes, the ‘Occidental system”, also referred to as common practice period….music theory that basically starts with Bach, we have chords being the various “voices” that come together vertically in time, especially cadentially, as chords, basically triads and 7ths, or 9th chords. That means “triad” and “chord” might be synonymous, whereas “diads” and other types of intervals might NOT be. Here we see the issue that I have always railed against…..mixing up terminology with different disciplines.
Classical: a stack of intervals like CDG is technically NOT a chord as it is not comprised of root, third 5ths. In vocal polyphony these “things” happened and thou shalt never describe them or anything else for that matter as the evil “chords”. IN Renaissance music they (proud gate keepers) will MURDER you for even calling proper triads and PACs as chords. And there you can see vihuela music….miles and miles of chords on paper. But they are “not chords”, and a huge eyeroll there.
Pop Rock Jazz: Csus2 chord dude. Beato theory. Dylan!!!! What is this???
So there is your “snobby” thing that Manolo and many others probably don’t like about the evil “Occidental school” of academic teaching.
Power chords are “diads” with two busted voicing rule violations (parallel 5th and Parallel octaves at work). These “broken rules” are but a doorway into the world of other disciplines, including flamenco jazz etc. So rather than get confused and bent out of shape, first acknowledge who or what genre you are dealing with so that legit translation of concepts can take place.
If in doubt? “Tone clusters”.
For sake of clarity, about Renaissance and vihuela “rules” of vocal movement. I was in the thick of it re-writting and checking sources of some Fuenllana (1554) stuff. So in one spot, it appears that the added ficta (a personal choice of adding # to the mensural notation that was natural notes only, as per the performance practice of the times), which are deliberate and stamped out in print, pointed out that the accompanying vocal part that goes with it, would have a false relation (C# against a sung C Natural an octave higher in “soprano” part), unless your vocalist likewise “rectifies” this by also singing a C#. Assuming they behave and do this, it seems to create “parallel octaves” to what happens in the Vihuela (C#-D movement octave below soprano). This is a voice leading violation, so what gives? Next step Power chords and it is Black Sabbath going on! So I check the source and see that regardless about the “ficta” or accidental, what happens melodically is the vocal parts CROSS, such that the melody goes C(#)-F in tenor, and alto moves E-D, not violating the rules. But when you transport this to the vihuela it is not practical to say, keep that crossing heard by isolating each vocal part to individual strings of the instrument. For example:
So the compromise is made, and viola! CHORDS, parallel octaves with the voice (eventually 5ths and flamenco and jazz and rock and roll). Ficta giving rise to FUNCTIONAL TONAL HARMONY, to boot. Bermuda gluing the frets at a hair away from Equal Temp, and 443 years later? Cher sings “do you believe in love after love” perfectly in tune finally.
So these disciplines have their gate keepers preventing simple concepts from bursting the bubble of understanding, just like we have the flamenco police and etc. If we just are willing to learn some new terminology, every thing is perfectly translatable, and no need for arguements about freaking power chords!
Bloody hell. I saw the name john O and thought manitas had been at it... the necro posts... but no. This is real life, John O from 2024! Nice to see you . Interesting question and thanks for the info Ricardo.
Just recently I got into a thing with somebody about power chords. I was saying a chord has three notes and he told me I was wrong, a chord can have two notes, I should study up on my theory. So is there a difference in terminology out there saying that two or more notes played together always make up a chord? This kind of throws the system I learned out the window. I rarely hear the terms diad and triad thrown around and I've never heard an interval referred to as a chord. It's weird to me.
As a rock guitarist I got a lot of theory from guitar mags like GFTPM and Guitar World. That info does not always complement the theory I learned as an undergraduate music major. Furthermore, Jazz has borrowed a lot of its conceptual and theoretical toolkit from "Classical" music without being aware of its sources and sometimes losing the original meaning of the concept.
Most of what classical guitarists (and other classically trained musicians) learn is scale degree theory inherited from scholars who interpreted Rameau and Weber, and also interpretations of the function theory of Riemann. So our theory is mostly scale-degree and triad based with some function theory lightly added. Nonetheless, the concept of "diad" was discussed by some theorists of "classical" music. Check out Christensen's History of Music Theory if you want to nerd out.
"Triad" is used all the time. It is the building block (theoretically speaking) of much of the Western canon. However, although a chord is a harmony, "harmony" and 'Chord" are not synonymous. For example, in 18th century music in Italy, the fourth degree was often HARMONIZED with a 3rd, 5th, and 6th. Someone today analyzing it might see the vertical stack F-A-C-D and think that it is a minor chord in first inversion. That would be incorrect and this is the problem with thinking with chords as opposed to harmony, voice-leading and counterpoint. That is actually the "chord of the added sixth." In some cases the fifth would be omitted leaving F-A-D. This is STILL a chord "of the added sixth." But, because Rameau's concept of fundamental bass has been so prominent, and because we are not aware of the historical practice of so many geographical and temporal musics, we look at that and go "That's D minor in first inversion...derp."
As to Ricardo's point, the Renaissance guitarists were mostly working in counterpoint and voice-leading, so no, many vertical sonorities in vihuela and 5-course guitar ARE NOT Chords. That is not the way they thought of them and anything that LOOKS like a chord is probably just an isolated sonority. However, Amat publishes his work on chords in 1596 (some argue 1586 but he would have been very young). The Renaissance composers must have figured out how to abstract vertical sonorities to arrive at chords but it was the folk/popular musicians who seem to have developed the strummed style. So there is no documentary evidence before Amat of an understanding of chords as distinct and autonomous sonorities, although we can infer that somebody figured it out.
NEVER throw the system you learned out the window. It is most likely just a partial picture of theory and practice that was useful at the time you learned it. DON"T FORGET THAT THEORY DESCRIBES AND EXPLAINS PRACTICE, AND SINCE PRACTICE IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND INTERESTING. SO SHOULD THEORY BE. IF IT'S TOO EASY, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
Welcome back. Now where is Florian? Miss that dude's presence.
As to Ricardo's point, the Renaissance guitarists were mostly working in counterpoint and voice-leading, so no, many vertical sonorities in vihuela and 5-course guitar ARE NOT Chords. That is not the way they thought of them and anything that LOOKS like a chord is probably just an isolated sonority. However, Amat publishes his work on chords in 1596 (some argue 1586 but he would have been very young). The Renaissance composers must have figured out how to abstract vertical sonorities to arrive at chords but it was the folk/popular musicians who seem to have developed the strummed style. So there is no documentary evidence before Amat of an understanding of chords as distinct and autonomous sonorities, although we can infer that somebody figured it out.
Beautiful example of Renaissance “gate keeping” I was describing. Because these guys were not “thinking about chords” (a subjective hypothesis –without a Time Machine nobody has a right to assume what people were thinking or not, it is all only based on PUBLISHED TREATISES evidence only, of which is limited vs actual music happening at the time), we are therefore PROHIBITED from using a fair translation of concept with a different discipline’s terminology. And just because someone doesn’t know the “conventional name for a chord”, does not negate two things: their occurrence as “vertical sonorities” of different pitches and FUNCTION, within the person’s music.
There are details such as a tritone appearing, and the way a chord is plucked on a vihuela, the offensive note appears off set by timing….yet as sustained voices they are permitted to be heard TOGETHER. While this staggering effect is achieved by literally copying the vocal parts as best possible (in tabulation), for the practical reasons I described earlier (stretching the hand to allow vocal parts to cross on adjacent strings is nonsensical), the vertical creation in time becomes what we can translate as “triad”. Just because the violence of a STRUM is not experienced the same as a careful plucking of certain strings, does not require a military police style intervention to the concept.
Even when doing RASGUEADO on a big chord in flamenco, it is often the case the sound is achieve by staggered voices heard SEPARATELY, yet ring together later in time. (Think Tangos i-a-i where i up only gets strings 1,2,3, then ring gets strings in the middle 4 3, maybe 2, then the index down snaps into the basses 5 and 4, like that cascade of voices in Queen bohemian rhapsody “magnificoooooo”., the same concept of vocal polyphony). So the compromise required in MANY cases I see with Vihuela is that the vertical concept of MARCHING BLOCK CHORDS violating voicing rules etc. is produced due to practicality of fingering all the voices. That is a huge percentage of the intabulations I look at with only special fugal canon type sections that are NOT doing block chords.
I don’t give a ratt but that “back then nobody thought that way”, the concept was a result of the practical compromise. Bermudo gluing frets down is only reinforcing the concept that, call em what you want, “chords” were being used to reduce or represent the “choir” on the fingerboard. And this just with the published “orthodox” educated practice. Who the hell knows what was going on in popular culture…likely a shyte ton of chords going on as well. I encountered in my research, entire towns that had popular culture of singing vocal harmony or improvising polyphony (uneducated versions compared to choir singers trained in church), and would accompany themselves with instruments…implying that the known publications were not exclusive works for the trained musician, but could have been even “average joe” training tools, in hopes they stop parallel 5th making (LOL). Probably why the first guitar Fantasia (Mudarra) gets included in the collection, cuz average joe had the ukulele, excuse me “guitarra”, and deserved to know how fugues work as well.
The Amat thing you mention appear only a few decades later (1590s) and once again, only reinforces the obvious situation going on already. I see it as an inevitable result of TRYING to follow the rules, however, not to deliberately avoid it, as the gate keepers make it sound.
Well, to be honest I liked your “vertical sonorities” vs my “tone clusters” safe words. I will use yours from now on. . “Black Sabbath uses lovely vertical sonorities in their piece ‘Iron Man’, practically a treatise on the perfect usage of these specific vertical sonorities in fact”. Sort of amusing to me that Smoke on the Water, or parallel 4ths would have been perfectly acceptable organum, yet an Iron Man motet set to print would mean death.
NEVER throw the system you learned out the window. It is most likely just a partial picture of theory and practice that was useful at the time you learned it. DON"T FORGET THAT THEORY DESCRIBES AND EXPLAINS PRACTICE, AND SINCE PRACTICE IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND INTERESTING. SO SHOULD THEORY BE. IF IT'S TOO EASY, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
That is just what I was thinking. In the end it's about communication and teaching a complete system, and considering different genres it may not all fit together perfectly. But the way this dude was explaining it felt like simplifying rather than expanding, anything with more than one note is basically a chord. Teaching flamenco, I always explain that the flamenco key functions differently than the other keys, but I don't throw the other stuff away, it also has a use. So what's a C major chord? I mean, when you see a C included in the notes or tab, do you want the 5th included or does it matter at all? We could call that a Cadd5 chord then. But what would a C5 be - it's also a chord. What about a C-5 chord? Do you want the 3rd in there or not? And while we're at it we can just call a Cadd9 a C9, doesn't matter if the 7th is in there or not. And so the system as I learned it falls apart. And maybe you don't need it for certain genres but it doesn't make it obsolete. This may sound rediculous to a scholar of music or anyone playing jazz, but I'm probably just hardened like that. But it goes back to what Ricardo was saying - if you know who you're playing with for which genre you know which terminology you need. Like I'd never ask to a dancer if she wants me to play 16th triplets, I'd ask about "diddle-a diddle-a diddle-a diddle-a da..."
_____________________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things
Ricardo was saying - if you know who you're playing with for which genre you know which terminology you need. Like I'd never ask to a dancer if she wants me to play 16th triplets, I'd ask about "diddle-a diddle-a diddle-a diddle-a da..."
I remember in Music theory class in college, I was just starting to, on my own, get into chart reading with the real book, and when the teacher was explaining the half-diminished7th chord, I raised my hand “is this the same as the minor 7th flat 5 chord?”, and she just stared at me then said “uh biggity baggity boop, what??? Is that some kind of jazzy language, I have no clue what you just said”. And I was frankly shocked by that. But now, I use “biggity baggity boop” for those triplets when I talk to dancers.
So what's a C major chord? I mean, when you see a C included in the notes or tab, do you want the 5th included or does it matter at all? We could call that a Cadd5 chord then. But what would a C5 be - it's also a chord. What about a C-5 chord? Do you want the 3rd in there or not? And while we're at it we can just call a Cadd9 a C9, doesn't matter if the 7th is in there or not. And so the system as I learned it falls apart. And maybe you don't need it for certain genres but it doesn't make it obsolete. This may sound rediculous to a scholar of music or anyone playing jazz,...
Sure does.
It isn't what we could or could not call it - it's what we do call it through common agreement and understanding. If my Aunt etc etc.
Anyway, as a final explication of chord naming convention I offer this from a post I made on an alien forum:
I thought it would be useful to clarify things for the beginner guitarist as chords are really quite simple...
If we have a Major chord, like C Major, we don't say it's Major, we just say C If we have a minor chord, like C minor, we DO say it's minor, so we say Cmin (C-, Cm, Cmi...)
If we add a 7th to the standard triads, how we name it depends on the type of 7th.
All major 7ths are referred to as Major, i.e. M7, 𝚫, sometimes 𝚫7), so we may have CM7. That's not CM, it's C and the M refers to the 7.
And not +7 as that means something else.
If we have a minor 7th, then we don't specify that that's the case. So we may have Cm7 - a minor triad with a minor 7th. Not a Major triad with a minor 7th...
If we have a major triad with a minor 7th, we don't say the triad is Major and we don't say the 7th is minor. So C7 is a major triad with a minor 7th. CmM7 is a minor triad with a Major 7th. CMm7 is right out.
Unless otherwise stated, all 9ths are considered as major intervals from the root and not the harmonised 9th that results from parsing a scale. This means that some chords will contain notes that do not belong in the key but are erroneously played in accompanying comping. So, the diatonic 9ths are occasionally marked flat.
Piano players don't do any of this, but as they tend to write guitar parts in bass clef we can't talk to each other anyway.
I think she was trying to say "of the two possibilities for diminished intervals within the chord, only one half of them are taken, hence 'half diminished'. But you are also correct in your slightly less cool nomenclature".
Funny, here I'd certainly call this an F6 since the 5th reinforces the root. Without the C my gut would tell me Dm first inversion because it comes up that way in so many tientos falsetas resolving the A7. In a Solea though I'd most likely see it as F6. So shouldn't it's context within a melody or progression play a roll?
_____________________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things
I think we need to consider the instrument used to play the "chord". Electric guitar played with some distortion produces so much overtones and harmonics that a simple power or shell chord sounds reach and "complete". I doubt that this can be achieved on other instruments, especially a flamenco guitar that often is built to produce mostly fundamentals.
I think she was trying to say "of the two possibilities for diminished intervals within the chord, only one half of them are taken, hence 'half diminished'. But you are also correct in your slightly less cool nomenclature".
She was doing tonal Harmony text book theory.
As in minor 3(B-D), diminshed 5th (B-F), minor 7th (B-A), vs minor 3 (B-D), diminished 5th (B-F), DIMINISHED 7th (B-Ab!), assuming no enharmonic misspelling (too many people think the G# instead of Ab to be the same chord, it is not). So the terminology used is half vs FULLY diminished 7th chords. Note that “diminished triad” is relevant to both if neither has a 7th going on.
In jazz and general chart reading of chords, we don’t care about spelling and key signatures, each chord is an island unto itself. “Flat 5” is a convention that implies diminished 5th, though in context that might be a wrong spelling (B-F is not claiming a “flat” but a natural 5th relative to B, which happens to be diminished in this case, as normally a 5th is F#).
A deeper situation is Jazz improvisation I learned from Mclaughlin’s excellent DVD. When describing the chord scale of the melodic minor, he notes that the 7th chord built on the 6th scale degree (lets say D melodic minor scale), which is a RAISED interval (Bb->B nat), produces the half diminished chord (same spelling as described above). So when encountering a proper Bm7b5 in a chart (which might derive from key of C major or A minor as vii or ii), his words:”can be read as the half-diminshed”, meaning, ignore context, always RUN your D melodic on that chord. I wish Mclaughlin was my theory teacher in college.
quote:
𝚫, sometimes 𝚫7
How do you make the triangle symbol? I always have to type out “maj7”.
Funny, here I'd certainly call this an F6 since the 5th reinforces the root. Without the C my gut would tell me Dm first inversion because it comes up that way in so many tientos falsetas resolving the A7. In a Solea though I'd most likely see it as F6. So shouldn't it's context within a melody or progression play a roll?
The voicing might play a role in the way we as players THINK of the chord and its function in context. However, the fact remains the F6 and Dm7/F, or first inversion of Dm7, is the exact same “vertical sonority”. . The FACD, I can’t actually find a legit practical fingering for (unless you put the D an octave high, barre 10, and repeat at octaves F and A), so I offer two options for voicing that might have different function:
—10–1— —10–1— —10–2— —10–0— —-8—X—- ———1—-
The first chord functions better as F6 where as the second, EVEN with the F doubled top and bottom, functions best a Dm7 with F in the bass. When playing Soleá traditional, the sequence changes from F to Dm/F, because the C walks up to D. Even D# might appear, making the augmented 6th. Basically Dm/F-E and the Italian 6 are serving the same cadential function to E tonic. And to be honest, the Aug6 is an old voice leading violation relaxed in the Classical period, yet the F-E has parallel 5th that were almost never allowed in “serious music”, so that leaves good ol Solea escobilla as the only “legitimate” Phrygian cadence going on. (Dm/F-E), and that goes back to the Renaissance believe it or not.
As in minor 3(B-D), diminshed 5th (B-F), minor 7th (B-A), vs minor 3 (B-D), diminished 5th (B-F), DIMINISHED 7th (B-Ab!), assuming no enharmonic misspelling (too many people think the G# instead of A♭ to be the same chord, it is not). So the terminology used is half vs FULLY diminished 7th chords. Note that “diminished triad” is relevant to both if neither has a 7th going on.
yes, yes....jeez...it's almost like old times...
quote:
In jazz and general chart reading of chords, we don’t care about spelling and key signatures, each chord is an island unto itself.
You might not...
quote:
“Flat 5” is a convention that implies diminished 5th, though in context that might be a wrong spelling (B-F is not claiming a “flat” but a natural 5th relative to B, which happens to be diminished in this case, as normally a 5th is F#).
Are you confusing 'natural' with 'perfect'? 'Flat' refers to the flattening of the perfect interval. If it is 'naturally' flattened in the mode, it is still a ♭5. You couldn't ignore that when naming the chord just because the voicing came from a non-Major scale source. Did John McLaughlin teach you NOTHING? ( )
quote:
A deeper situation is Jazz improvisation I learned from Mclaughlin’s excellent DVD. When describing the chord scale of the melodic minor, he notes that the 7th chord built on the 6th scale degree (lets say D melodic minor scale), which is a RAISED interval (Bb->B nat), produces the half diminished chord (same spelling as described above). So when encountering a proper Bm7b5 in a chart (which might derive from key of C major or A minor as vii or ii), his words:”can be read as the half-diminshed”, meaning, ignore context, always RUN your D melodic on that chord. I wish Mclaughlin was my theory teacher in college.
What about....
vii in C Maj scale (Locrian) - Bø ii in C Har min (2nd mode or Locrian ♮6th) - Dø ♭2 vi as you say in C Asc. Mel min (Locrian ♮2 or Aeolian ♭5) - Aø9 and ii in C Har maj (2nd mode or Dorian ♭5) - Dø.
You can control the tensions in the melody by using a different mode to that implied by the chord (i.e. say the half dim on the 3rd of a dom7th no root (as I have said before...) or as chord ii in a minor ii V i.
quote:
𝚫, sometimes 𝚫7
How do you make the triangle symbol? I always have to type out “maj7”.
Yeah, I had to work at that - in that case I used 'emoji and symbols' which is a text option on a Mac probably Windows too, to locate the Greek delta symbol that had the good side. I used Reddit to find the half dim symbol for this post!
Are you confusing 'natural' with 'perfect'? 'Flat' refers to the flattening of the perfect interval. If it is 'naturally' flattened in the mode, it is still a ♭5. You couldn't ignore that when naming the chord just because the voicing came from a non-Major scale source. Did John McLaughlin teach you NOTHING? ( )
I was explaining why that “b5” is not used in your typical western tonal theory class, and why the teacher got all bent out of shape about me asking if it was the same chord. They say “diminished 5th” instead. I thought it clear when I specified “normally” meaning, in the major or minor key based on the root B, the 5th was F#. If they say “here kids, the B-F is a b5” and the beginning students there are like “what flat??? I see F natural!”. When I say the b5 is a spelling convention for DIMINISHED 5th, it should be obvious that it is quicker to spell and read for charts, just like the little circle symbol, and big etc.
why that “b5” is not used in your typical western tonal theory class
In Germany it's not used at all. There's literally no way to say it well in German, it's only used for A-G, same goes for major/minor.
Otherwise we only use +/-, augmented/diminished or large/small - the latter of which basically means major/minor, but for major/minor chords in German we have the terms dur/moll, which originate from Latin for hard/soft.
_____________________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things
why that “b5” is not used in your typical western tonal theory class
In Germany it's not used at all. There's literally no way to say it well in German, it's only used for A-G, same goes for major/minor.
Otherwise we only use +/-, augmented/diminished or large/small - the latter of which basically means major/minor, but for major/minor chords in German we have the terms dur/moll, which originate from Latin for hard/soft.
German classical music yes. And Flamenco they use “bemol”, at least verbally. So full circle, different disciplines use different terms, though, perfectly translatable in some way. In jazz the “b5” derives from the transposable major scale (and only that) numbered 1234567, where you would flat that 5th, and depending on the chord, other intervals. So what I described earlier, the McLaughlin example, was the 6th mode of melodic minor, or:1 2 b3 4 b5 b6 b7. Some call that scale “Aoelian flat 7”, in jazz etc.
When I say the flat 5 is a spelling convention for DIMINISHED 5th, it should be obvious that it is quicker to spell and read for charts, just like the little circle symbol, and big etc.
Sounds like she wasn't going to be naming a chord on a chart so didn't see the point of another name. Maybe she was talking of reading the notes vertically on the stave. Let's face it classically taught musicians who are not interested in popular music don't think much to jazzers/educated popsters who talk a more practical language.
quote:
but for major/minor chords in German we have the terms dur/moll, which originate from Latin for hard/soft.
John, out of interest do you use 'dur' on a chart? You don't ignore some of it as I tried to joke about up top? Don't you also have H or something? Is that B♭ or ♮? Could look it up I suppose.
Some call that scale “Aoelian flat 7”, in jazz etc.
Only if they are wrong. Aeolian b5 as I said above.
I was writing that out the door, Aeolian b5 of freakin course…I had just typed the scale out with the b7.
I know you despise long explanations sorry:
The H business comes from very old thinking back to Greeks. The concept of “music Vera” or true notes, includes B natural and Bb as concepts, such that when necessary, a piece of music will use either note depending on the phrase, not thought to affect the integrity of the modal center (unlike todays jazz thinking). In the time of Medieval and Renaissance polyphony the Bb started getting used as what today we think of as a key signature, only because it was convenient vs writing out a majority of Bb everywhere. So the concept of say “F lydian”, or mode 5 as it was called, was not the same as we think in modern pop or jazz music. It meant the final note and important cadences would be to the tonic F, however you might see equal amount of B naturals or Bb’s along the way. More like a general key of F major, which is how those modes collapsed down later when they started using key signature.
The Germans were the first I am aware of to start traversing the circle of 5th in the Renaissance, by adding “musica ficta” explicitly in the score. Converse to musica vera, the “ficta” are fake notes, or what we call today accidentals. Originally there would not be many in the score as the PERFORMER would use taste and training to apply them to what looked like natural notes. It is cool to compare the Spanish Vihuela vocal intabulations to the sources (as I explained in this post earlier) to see a subjective take on how that was done (tons of accidentals they used are surprising to historians still).
Since the Germans were modulating and stamping ficta into their scores, I guess it eventually become required to use “natural” signs as well. The Natural sign is like a scripted “h” where as a flat is a scripted “b”. Hence the Germans still are using H for B NATURAL and B for Bb, as those are part of the old “musica vera”, and reserve the sharps (# different than the scripted h for natural, Germans used to use X for sharps or X next to Bb implied by key sig made it natural), flats and natural symbols for “ficta”.
It was a good point to John regarding GERMAN JAZZ CHARTS, if they are different than British or American ones, I suspect not. The H and B dur and moll are for classical music.
When spoken, it's pretty much like what you wrote, if necessary we say dur for major and moll for minor chords. On charts we'll either write capital for major and lower-case for minor or add the m for minor where needed, also like you mentioned.
And today lots of terms are taken from English, like add9 is pronounced "att-neun". For A-G we add -is for # and -as for ♭, like F# is pronounced "Fis", D♭ is pronounced "Das". This is only used for the root, though. You otherwise often hear Kreuz (cross) for # and the letter b or English "flet" for ♭. So C#m7♭5 would be "Cis moll sieben beh fünf", "Cis moll sieben flet fünf" or "Cis moll sieben minus fünf".
I try to get my students away from the H as it's the only thing that can get really confusing and it's not necessary anymore, though it's still used in a lot of modern material for all kinds of styles.
The story about H as the B in Northern and Eastern Europe is interesting and I always tell it to my students before I tell them to throw it out. It's also the origin of the natural sign ♮ - the B-Quadratum with a square belly became h, as opposed to the B-Rotundrum with the round belly ♭.
_____________________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things
Thank you guys. I had a quick read and will return for a MUCH LONGER read in order to try and understand it. Ricardo, I was put in mind of the usual school definition of melodic minor which behaves differently going up to coming down. That's sort of a phrasal intent in a way? Of course, we, as jazzers etc don't like things to get too complicated, so we use what one could call Half melodic minor instead
quote:
The concept of “music Vera” or true notes, includes B natural and Bb as concepts, such that when necessary, a piece of music will use either note depending on the phrase, not thought to affect the integrity of the modal center (unlike todays jazz thinking)
Printable Version
Miss that dude's presence.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread