Quote onesecondglance:

---

hi Wurlitzer, just out of interest, C-D-G can sound (in some contexts) more "C" to me than "G", hence i would say (as above) that that is Csus2 and not an inversion of Gsus4. is there a reason it should be Gsus4/C or is this just another way of seeing the "same" chord? just for my future reference... (i.e. is calling it "sus2" bad form, as technically you can only have sus4? or something?)

---

No, it can just as rightly be described as Csus2, that's a perfectly accepted notation. And if you're thinking of it with a C root, that probably makes more sense.

Quote Knut Skaarberg:

---

Thanks for the thorough reply!

I agree in principle on could write C-F-Bb as Fsus4/C, but that indicate it resolves to F/C, wouldn't it? As a piano player I would tend to play with different positions of the "double quarter" chords over a C bass, such as

G-C-F
A-D-G
C-F-Bb
D-G-C

and so on. Maybe that's a bit on the edge of what standard chord notation is useful for.

---

Hi Knut,
if you did this with C in the bass, the chords could be annotated as:
(C) G C F : Csus4
(C) A D G: C6/9 (no 3rd)
(C) C F Bb: C7sus
(C) D G C : C2.
and to my ears C D G sounds simply like a C2.

Hope this helps,

Dave.


--------------------
Lots of Ataris which keep on going, 12 Kurzweil 1000 modules, a bunch of hardware synths. Still recording to tape -the old ways are best.....

Quote Wurlitzer:

---

Quote onesecondglance:

---

hi Wurlitzer, just out of interest, C-D-G can sound (in some contexts) more "C" to me than "G", hence i would say (as above) that that is Csus2 and not an inversion of Gsus4. is there a reason it should be Gsus4/C or is this just another way of seeing the "same" chord? just for my future reference... (i.e. is calling it "sus2" bad form, as technically you can only have sus4? or something?)

---

No, it can just as rightly be described as Csus2, that's a perfectly accepted notation. And if you're thinking of it with a C root, that probably makes more sense.

---

excellent. always nice to know you've not made an idiotic remark in public

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Hello David.
I read your review a while ago of the BASSIX Electric Bass.
I currently play an ARIA SB1 Electric Upright. It is OK ish at low volume but when I take it up a bit it goes into the fretless bass guitar sounding.
Your review of the BASSIX made it sound that maybe it would be worth investing in. Would you recommend the BASSIX.??

Regards
Tony Dunmore

Quote Tony D:

---

Hello David.
I read your review a while ago of the BASSIX Electric Bass.
I currently play an ARIA SB1 Electric Upright. It is OK ish at low volume but when I take it up a bit it goes into the fretless bass guitar sounding.
Your review of the BASSIX made it sound that maybe it would be worth investing in. Would you recommend the BASSIX.??

Regards
Tony Dunmore

---

Not sure why you are in Music Theory with this but a few words from me on MY experience with EUB`s.

PLayed a Clevinger in the USA back in er 83 or 84.
The full size one was excellent, the Baby sounded like a fretless bass guitar.

Fast forward to last year.

Picked up a pretty crappy ol dupright and have been slowly making headway on it.

In the meantime I have played two or three more EUB`s, all of them short scale, as this BASSIX appears to be.

They don`tplay like an upright and they don`t sound like one either.

If BASSIX do a full (40-42") scale EUB, that might be a horse of a different color, but for the time being I am looking into a pickup for my doghouse.

Eager posters please note: An AFFORDABLE pickup for my upright.

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Hi Tony and Ivan,
yes, the Bassix range are essentially 3/4 scale basses, which means they're still longer in scale than yer average electric cricket bat.
The pickups on the Bassix range combine Piezos on the bridge PLUS extra pickups at the top (bridge) end of the fingerboard. The resulting combination provides to my ears the most faithful sound of a genuine double bass I've ever heard, and way better than Y**(-you know who)
Also at £1100 for the top end one, Bassix is much cheaper!
So they sound right, and they do play like a double bass, once you get over the culture shock of not have a large body to wrap yourself around/support your beer gut (delete applicable).
For me the only drawback is that Bassix don't do a 5 string!

Dave.



........and now, back to chord notation!

--------------------
Lots of Ataris which keep on going, 12 Kurzweil 1000 modules, a bunch of hardware synths. Still recording to tape -the old ways are best.....

Quote David Etheridge:

---

Diminished chords: Co; the o is a superscript placed next to the top half of the C but I can't do that on this computer!

---

As in C°

Alt+248 (on the keypad)

Hi Folks
Read the thread on the notation of chords. Well - has any one else come across the use of Tonic Sol-fa used for writing chords? Some while ago, 1960’s I was working the American Bases in France and one Saturday night the floor show was an Italian speciality act. They had their own MD with them and when he handed out the dots the bass and guitar parts were written out with chord symbols I didn’t recognise. An example of which appeared thus.
Written on standard manuscript paper, the first to appear was the appropriate clef symbol, bass for me, followed by the key signature – then Doh 6/// Lah m7/// Ray m7b5/// Soh 9/// Doh 6/ Doh 9/ Fah 7/// Fah m7/// Doh 6 /// Soh 7 /// Doh M7 /// etc etc. After a number of choruses a key change, indicated by an appropriate key signature and then Doh 6 /// Lah m7 /// etc. I eventually sussed it out half way through the second act. I’ve never come across parts like this again and I don’t think I want to.

Quote Musomech:

---

Hi Folks
Read the thread on the notation of chords. Well - has any one else come across the use of Tonic Sol-fa used for writing chords? Some while ago, 1960’s I was working the American Bases in France and one Saturday night the floor show was an Italian speciality act. They had their own MD with them and when he handed out the dots the bass and guitar parts were written out with chord symbols I didn’t recognise. An example of which appeared thus.
Written on standard manuscript paper, the first to appear was the appropriate clef symbol, bass for me, followed by the key signature – then Doh 6/// Lah m7/// Ray m7b5/// Soh 9/// Doh 6/ Doh 9/ Fah 7/// Fah m7/// Doh 6 /// Soh 7 /// Doh M7 /// etc etc. After a number of choruses a key change, indicated by an appropriate key signature and then Doh 6 /// Lah m7 /// etc. I eventually sussed it out half way through the second act. I’ve never come across parts like this again and I don’t think I want to.

---

I have come across this a lot as I often used to read off Italian popular songs' sheet music. You get used to it very quickly, assuming the music is not too complicated (i.e. Giant Steps).

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Hi,

As a keyboard player, I hate the way chords and bass notes are expressed as the chord first slash the bass note. For example a Gm7 with a C bass is Gm7/C.

I prefer my own system whereby the bass note for my left hand is on the left and the chord in my right hand is on the right. So I would write the above example as c-Gm7. Visually and logically my brain takes these in naturally without having to cross them over. This has always worked for me but I am sure those guitarist out there would disagree, especially as most of them leave out the other notes. They will probably want the Gm7 to be their first thought and then as an after thought think about the possibility of playing the C bass - only kidding. Seriously from a keyboard point of view I have found this is far easier.

Tony Long
tonylongmusic.co.uk

Hi Tony,
I actually disagree with you on this. Mind you, I can understand C7+9+11 13 quite happily, but the slash chord system is very useful for those folks who can't get their head around upper structure tones of a more complex chord.
take your example, which might ordinarily be written C11.
Now to the beginner, that works out as C-E-G-Bb-D-F -in theory at least.
In practice you won't use the 3rd E because it will clash with the 11th F -unless you like 'orrible clashes! When dealing with 13th and 11th chords you can leave out the lower tones to get the full smooth voicing. So you have in your left hand C and in the right G-Bb-D-F = Gm7.
Likewise if you used C11 13 you could write that as Gm9/C or (if you leave out both the E and G) Bbmaj7/C
Which seems a lot simpler and quite logical to me.
With C13 you can leave out tones and get an effective voicing as C-Bb-E-A (you can add G if you like) although as far as I know there's no slash equivalent!

Hope this helps,
Best wishes,
Dave


--------------------
Lots of Ataris which keep on going, 12 Kurzweil 1000 modules, a bunch of hardware synths. Still recording to tape -the old ways are best.....

I've got some sheet music (While My Guitar Gently Weeps) which has a chord notated as a D with a superscript 9 and a subscript 7 next to it. What's this called?

---

As a rule it's considered poor form (by those Bach fans among us) to mix and match sharps and flats within a chord.
The consistancy of this approach alows for all dim 7 chords to be correctly recorded without ever mixing #s and bs, so, for instance, F#dim is F# A C (and i'd always write c natural), D#. Gbdim is, rather horribly Gb Bbb Dbb Fbb. Yuk!

Yours, pretensiously,


EmGee

---

Dear EmGee,
You may wish to re-examine your spelling of F#dim7. A "dim7 is built on stacked minor 3rds, as you stated with Gb. So your "D#" really should be "Eb" for two reasons:
1. C to D# is a "#2" not a "b3"
2. The seventh scale degree of an F# is some sort of "E"; in this case "Eb"
I understand some people's aversion for mixing sharps and flats, but a "dim7" chord is not a diatonic chord, so it will necessarily contain an accidental not common to the key.

Respectfully,

Lance "koolbass" Martin

--------------------
Lance "koolbass" Martin
BoogieHouseMusic.com

Actually Emgee,
Bach never had to play jazz or show material. You'll find that sharps and flats are mixed in chords with gay abandon -particularly diminished 7ths and extensions. In fact this last weekend I was on a band call for a presentation of 'Crazy for you' which features lots of tap dancing and jazz standards and we were trying to work out the chords for the guitarist from the piano part. Many of them made no sense at all until you start thinking enharmonically (F#s to Gbs etc) and at one point in the score the piano parts were flat chords, but the vocal parts above were printed in sharp keys
I suppose it all helps in the rehearsing.......

Best wishes,
Dave.

--------------------
Lots of Ataris which keep on going, 12 Kurzweil 1000 modules, a bunch of hardware synths. Still recording to tape -the old ways are best.....

Sorry, raking over old ground here, but I'd like to pick up on the C2 notation mentioned earlier... I find this notation ambiguous, as it could mean 'replace the third with the second', as in the example above: CDG, or it could mean 'add the second to the complete triad', which would be: CDEG - cf: C6 which adds the 6th to the complete triad.

Is it better to write CDG as Csus2, because you are suspending the third and replacing it with the 2nd, and CDEG as Cadd2 (or maybe C2 if you ask really nicely)?

Quote Knut Skaarberg:

---

Quote Daniel Davis:

---

Just to clarify - inversions are decided by the lowest sounding note - and any other repositioning of notes are referred to as voicings.
If you play in a group with say a guitar and a bass guitar then any "inversion" the guitarist plays is just a voicing. the real inversion is decided by the bass player.
Equally the guitarist can play simpler(or just other) chords where required. e.g if the guitarist plays Em and the bass plays a C# it is a C#m7. Assuming there are other part to cover the gaps you can often get away (or even improve) your voicings by leaving out notes. The power chord is just one example of this.

---

An Em with C# bass would be a C#m7(b5), wouldn't it?

Anyway, does anyone here know what's the standard notation for open voicings (no 3rd) such as C-D-G, C-G, C-G-Bb, C-D-F-G etc? What about quarter chords (4th, but no 3rd or 5th) such as C-F-Bb?

BTW, it's a great pleasure to meet all of you!

---

bugger, I meant E with C# bass! thanks for the correction.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

I find the conversation on grammar of sharps and flats quite interesting. As a composer and engraver of choral music I get to make that sort of decision all the time, and the two "grammars" of harmony and voice leading are often at odds.

The only way to really know how a singer will read (or misread) the part is to mentally sing it yourself, and I find that most of my engravings contain enharmonic chromatic lines that are simple to sing but more difficult to interpret vertically.

The point about having flats in the keyboard part and sharps in the chorus parts is well made. Also, consider the needs of transposing instruments. Sometimes it's best to notate for these poor players in a different key entirely!

Another anecdotal fact: complex harmony may lead you to notate chords that don't actually exist. F flat minor, for instance.

--------------------
Composer;
www.ogonline.org

Chord structure 101 boys... Years ago, when I first starting playing guitar and piano, it was seriously confusing, but if you use a midi/digital piano in your production, then sitting down with a chord chart get can you a long way in short time. Take your [ ****** ] to the next level

--------------------
make dubstep music

I'm finding Progression for the ipad very useful for notation. In the past I've only used tabs and chord charts but now I'm learning to read notation for the first time! I soon will be able to jam with my daughter the violinist. I also recommend Notion for the ipad...a powerful composing app for the whole orchestra. amazing!

In tonal music the idea is you write harmony with correct "grammer" no matter how out of the way things end up

i.e., bviidim7 in Cmajor is Bb, Db, Fb, Abb and so fourth, with all you're weird notes you'd never 'spell' in everyday playing.
Or a chord containing C, Gb (a Diminished 5th) theoretically wants to resolve inward; the Gb wants to fall to F. (with perhaps the C, going up to D)
where as C, F# (an Augmented 4th) wants to resolve outward: the F# wants to rise to G (with perhaps the C falling to B)


Anyway once you're not dealing with "traditional" harmony, for example in the instance of serialist music, atonal writing or other things, the preferred grammar changes. You no longer bend over backward to name intervals according to their function but instead you just designate a name to each semitone from the offset be it "whites and sharps only" or "whites and flats only" and either don't flop from one to the other at all, or if you must and have a very good reason to, not willy-nil-lily or illogically.

The other complication is microtonality, (notes in-between semi tones) in which case the same rules apply only on a finer scale. Unless you're indicating special fingering on particular instruments, you ought to select four terms in a row from the following array of seven and stick to them for the whole piece: [3/4 flat], [flat], ([1/4] [flat], [natural], [1/4 sharp], [sharp]), [3/4 sharp]. The four in the red bracket would be what I'd use. You'd also need to sort out the definite names given to the micro tones between semi tone whites i.e. if you call the microtone between B&C "C1/4b" don't then call it "B1/4#" elsewhere in the same piece (again, unless you have a good logical reason too).

--------------------
I'm hope I'm alive to see the 70's

I have only dipped into bits of this thread, so forgive me if what I'm about to type is besides the point!

It is NOT at all true that mixing sharps and flats within the same chord should be avoided. The relevant rule here is that you should use the notes within the harmonic chromatic scale of the key you are in. So, for example, if the piece is in C major (or its relative minor, A minor) you would use the C harmonic chromatic scale. ie. C Db D Eb E F F# G Ab A Bb B.

This rule is actually extremely cool as it ensures that intervals retain the same VISUAL relationship in different keys. So a piece looks how it sounds. Simples! I should add that rules are made to be broken and there are definitely times when this one needs to be...

I can explain how to work out the harmonic chromatic scale easily for any key... but dinner's ready so will have to return later to do this!!

So here's how to find the harmonic chromatic notes for any key:

We need to start with just the note letters only. Lets say we want to know the correct chromatic notes for Db major: Our tonic letter is D, we then need 2 notes of the next letter (E), 2 of the next letter (F), 2 of the next (G), then just 1 of the next note letter (A) as it is the 5th note of the major scale, then 2 of the next letter (B) and finally 2 of the the next letter (C). So putting all those together with whatever sharps or flats give us a chromatic scale we get: Db, Ebb, Eb, Fb, F, Gb, Gnat, Ab, Bbb, Bb, Cb, C.

You just need to use the tonic note letter once, the letter of the fifth of the major scale once, then all the others, twice. That's it!

One beautiful thing when in Db is that you don't use E natural, you use Fb. This means that (for example) a jump between the tonic and the minor third has the same relationship on paper as if we were in D major, which it wouldn't if we used E natural.

In some keys there are both flats and sharps used at the same time. eg. the chromatic notes for G major are: G, Ab, A, Bb, B, C, C#, D, Eb, E, F, F#.

Hope that makes clear why it can be fine to use flats and sharps together.

I can at times veer away from keeping to the harmonic chromatic note names when in the world of diminished chords or when loitering in an other key that has not been reflected in the key signature.

On a more pragmatic level - if you're writing something that will be heard as a major or minor triad - something you might write a chord symbol above - make it LOOK like one too! A Db chord in the treble clef will have a note in the space under the stave, then notes in the next two spaces. It will LOOK like a triad. So no question - the middle note will be some sort of F, not some sort of E. F natural for Db major, Fb for Db minor.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

On a more pragmatic level - if you're writing something that will be heard as a major or minor triad - something you might write a chord symbol above - make it LOOK like one too! A Db chord in the treble clef will have a note in the space under the stave, then notes in the next two spaces. It will LOOK like a triad. So no question - the middle note will be some sort of F, not some sort of E. F natural for Db major, Fb for Db minor.

---

Db minor is 8 flats. Fb is the 7th flat. So the Fb could not occur earlier than in the key of Ab minor. In Eb minor, for example, the bVII chord is Db major - with a natural F.

So I guess that chord can occur - in Ab minor - I was thinking that you would not choose to notate in Db minor, you would use C# minor instead, but notating in G# minor would be weird. In Ab minor, as Db is the iv, you can also use the (major) IV chord, so the distinction really is F versus Fb rather than F versus E natural.

As a practical matter, if your charts are copied by your average copyist (I should talk), and if the note ends up a little high, and somewhat dubious as to whether it is an E or an F, with the natural in front of it, I think most musicians would read it as an F. So you really don't want to write it as an E natural.

Edited by damoore (05/11/12 07:29 PM)

Quote windbag:

---

Sure, there are rules, but as in music engraving, the 'rules' can profitably be considered 'guidelines' on occasion. The acid test is making it clear to the musician so you get the result you want. For example, in music notation, extremely chromatic passages are often better notated in sharps going up and flats going down. Nothing to do with enharmonics, simply it's quicker to read, say, G, G sharp, A rather than G, A flat, A natural. But a 'genuine' scale should be notated so that you get seven different note names, even if it means double flats or sharps. By my reckoning, G harmonic minor would be G, A, Bb, C, D, Eb, F#, G. Liekwise, some chords look much clearer one way than another, which may or may not be theoretically correct. There are times when Eb and F# look right, others when Eb and Gb look better. Usually it turns out that the theory is 'better', but not invariably. Judgment is needed.

---

I don't think convention should be changed to help people sight read.

In fact good performers should be playing from memory anyway if you want to have
a chance at decent phrasing, especially in difficult keys.

One musician I respect the most is a young jazz cat. While his peers are off playing hip hop,
he has built a list of hundreds of standards and other tunes he can play in every key and all tempos.

Thats how jazz education used to take place....you'd get on the bandstand and they would call donna lee in a crazy key and BPM.

We've gotten so lazy these days!

I don't mean to criticize your post, it seemed the quickest to reply to on this page, I know you've all made many of the same points, just thought I'd add another musician's perspective.

Edited by The Pablo Augustus (12/04/13 12:45 PM)

Quote:

---

In fact good performers should be playing from memory anyway if you want to have
a chance at decent phrasing, especially in difficult keys.

---

That's not at all how it often works. Playing in a pit, you get a large book and very small number of rehearsals and often short runs, so everyone is sight reading most of the time. Added to the fact that the books have all been copied by foot, and you need all the help you can get.