David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Standard chord notation
#205977 - 03/11/05 08:32 PM
|
|
|
Hi folks,
here's a standard system of chord notation taken from Sammy Nestico's
book 'The Complete Arranger'. Having a standardised version of chord shorthand means less
chance of confusion on sessions and gigs. I beleive that this version is the standard form
used by all the top arrangers (Mr. Nestico is currently one of the major guys), so it's
useful to know this. He got it from 'Standardised Chord Symbol Notation' by Cark Brandt
and Clinton Roemer (pub. Roerick Music co, USA)
Here we go:
Major
chords will be indicated thus: C (and not Cmaj or ma).
Sixth chords: C6 (not C (A)
(addA) or similar).
Seventh chords with the flattened seventh: C7 (not C add
Bb).
Minor chords: Cm (rather than Cmin, C- or similar).
Minor 7ths: Cm7 (not
C-7, min7th or similar)
Major 7ths: Cmaj7 or Cma7 (not CM7, or C with a triangle,
although some people use the latter).
9ths work in the same way as 7ths (not
Cmaj7+9, add D or other confusing stuff).
Aug 7ths with a #5: C+7 (not C7+, C7 (#5)
or C7+5).
Aug 9ths : C+9 as for aug 7ths.
Thirteenths: C13 (and not C7 (13),
C7+6, C9 add A, etc).
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! (not C-, Cdim, C7o, etc).
Six nine chords: C6/9 (not C2/6, C13 (no7) or C6 add D).
Seventh with a flat 5
chord: C7(b5) (not C7-5, C7#4, C7(5b)).
Half diminished chords-a minor 7ths with a
flat 5: Cmi7(b5), although you'll find some folks use a o with a line through it, like the
phase reverse sign on your mixing desk (but avoid things like Cmi7-5 and Cmi7 5b).
Seventh with a flat ninth: C7(b9). (Avoid C9b, Cb9, C9-, C(add Db)).
Minor with a
major 7th: Cmi(ma7). (Not Cmi add B, Cmi+B, C-7.
Raised ninths: C7(#9) (rather than
C7(+9), C+9, C7(b3) or C9+).
Sus chords: C7sus (not C7(sus4), C7 (add F), C7 (alt
4th), C7 (+4) or C7 #3)).
Augmented 11th chords can be C9(#11), (not C+11, C11+,
C11#, C9+11, or C9 (b12)).
Note that the + sign is used to indicate augmented,
rather than a substitute for a #. Some musos use the dash (-) to mean minor, dim, or even
a flat. No wonder you can get confused
Try not to use lower case letters on your parts for other players: a badly written 'mi'
could be read as 'mj': is it major or minor? Is it real or is it Memorex (hands up all
those who remember that advert  )
MA is
never used by itself, only in Ma7 or Ma9. Just write the chord name alone for the major
chord (eg: Cm/ C). I once had a fine time on a gig with a rhythm guitarist who couldn't
work out major and minor chords, to chaotic effect on some tunes!
So that's it for the present. Even with this shorthand, sometimes you've got no
option than to write C13 #11 b9 b5!
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.....
|
DavidW
Joined: 30/09/04
Posts: 1839
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#205999 - 03/11/05 09:24 PM
|
|
|
Thats very helpful!
Simple Roman Numerals (all examples are in C major)
I - Tonic. (C Major)
II - Supertonic (D Minor)
III -
Mediant (E Minor)
IV - Sub Dominant (F Major)
V - Dominant (G
Major)
VI - Sub-mediant (A Minor)
VII - Sub-tonic (B-Diminished)
The triad is made up of a root, third and fifth. The Root always stays the same.
The fifth and third move accordingly
Triads come in different versions,
according to which note is in the base
a - root - CEG
b - 1st inversion
- EGC
c - 2nd inversion - GEC
d - 3rd inversion (in a dominant 7th where the
7th is flattened,) Bb-C-E-G
a flat or sharp sign before the chord indicates
that the root of the chord is sharpened/flattened accordingly
i.e
bIIb - first
inversion of the flattened supertonic
F - Ab - Db (the root is Db) known as the
now-infamous n6th!
Alternatively, type music theory into Wikipedia
-------------------- David
Edited by DavidW (03/11/05 09:28 PM)
|
David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#206021 - 03/11/05 09:56 PM
|
|
|
I've been looking at Dave Stewart's (the keyboard player, not the Eurhtyhmics axeman)
mighty tome 'The Musician's Guide to Reading and Writing Music' and he has a more
simplified version which seems to be easier to grasp. Here's the gist: C
: major chord. Cm: minor chord. C7: seventh chord. Cm7: minor 7th chord. C6: sixth chord. Cm6: minor sixth. Cdim: diminished. Caug: augmented. C7/9: ninth. Cm7/9. Minor ninth. Cmaj7: Major seventh. And he also
adds a system of inversion notation: C1: C/E, 1st inversion. C2: C/G, 2nd
inversion, C3: C/Bb, 3rd or last inversion. Which should keep you going
for a while! 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.....
|
Mike Senior
SOS Mix Specialist
Joined: 08/08/03
Posts: 1188
Loc: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#206188 - 04/11/05 11:12 AM
|
|
|
David E.: Is there any chance that you can add examples for each of the chord symbols you
list, listing the notes in the chord and indicating which is in the bass. I know this
might seem a little like overkill, but it's probably worth it all being completely cut and
dried for those who might not know what a given bunch of notes is even called in the first
place.
-------------------- Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.
|
DavidW
Joined: 30/09/04
Posts: 1839
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#206293 - 04/11/05 01:42 PM
|
|
|
Quote David Etheridge:
I've been
looking at Dave Stewart's (the keyboard player, not the Eurhtyhmics axeman) mighty tome
'The Musician's Guide to Reading and Writing Music' and he has a more simplified version
which seems to be easier to grasp.
Here's the gist:
C : major chord. (C-E-G-C)
Cm: minor
chord. (C-Eb-G-C)
C7: seventh chord.(C-E-G-Bb-C)
Cm7: minor 7th chord.
(C-Eb-G-Bb-C)
C6: sixth chord. (C-E-(G)-A-C)
Cm6: minor sixth
(C-Eb-(G)-A-C)
Cdim: diminished.(C-Eb-F#-A-C)
Caug: augmented. (C-E-G#-C)
C7/9: ninth.(C-E-G-Bb-(C)-D)
Cm7/9. Minor ninth. (C-Eb-G-Bb-(C)-D)
Cmaj7:
Major seventh.(C-E-G-B-C)
I've copied Dave's chart and added notation. Hope
it helps and is right!
-------------------- David
Edited by DavidW (04/11/05 01:44 PM)
|
EmGee
member
Joined: 13/06/03
Posts: 70
Loc: Birmingham, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#206406 - 04/11/05 04:42 PM
|
|
|
I know you're gonna hate me for being pedantic, but... I think that's a Gb, not
an F# in the C dim chord. EmGee
-------------------- EmGee
MBP, Focusrite Pro24DSP, Logic9, Yamaha Motif, Kontakt
|
Mike Senior
SOS Mix Specialist
Joined: 08/08/03
Posts: 1188
Loc: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: EmGee]
#206420 - 04/11/05 05:02 PM
|
|
|
Quote EmGee:
I think that's a Gb,
not an F# in the C dim chord.
On a slightly less humorous note, is there a way in this simpler system of
distinguishing between the diminished triad on C (C, Eb, Gb) and the diminished-seventh
chord on C (C, Eb, Gb, Bbb [or A, or whatever the hell you want to call it!])?
-------------------- Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.
|
DavidW
Joined: 30/09/04
Posts: 1839
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: EmGee]
#206572 - 04/11/05 10:13 PM
|
|
|
Although, F# is more closely related to the key of C than Gb, that was my justification,
and that more people would probably know what F# was than Gb. (Yes, I know its not
strictly a minor 3rd) Yours enharmonically, David
|
David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Mike Senior]
#206684 - 05/11/05 09:00 AM
|
|
|
Quote Mike Senior:
Quote EmGee:
I think that's a
Gb, not an F# in the C dim chord.
On a slightly less humorous note, is there a way in this simpler system of
distinguishing between the diminished triad on C (C, Eb, Gb) and the diminished-seventh
chord on C (C, Eb, Gb, Bbb [or A, or whatever the hell you want to call it!])?
Hi MG,
actually when notating
dim chords, I've found it common practice in printed charts for Eb and F# to be in there
together. A thought has just struck me that this form of notation may be related to key
signatures, as the #F is the first sharp in a key signature, while Gb occurs a few flats
in, if you get my drift!
Of
course may be wrong but it's
as good an excuse as any!
Mike, as far as I know, the only way to distinguish
between the triad and the chord is in the number of notes written down? I'm
guessing that the triad will have an inherent quality that's subtly different from a full
blown four note chord. At least that's the way it seems to me.
In fact I find
that all chords even up to 13 and #11s have their own 'flavour' (if that's the word). When
composing my '800 chords in a piece' music I find I get a physical 'churn' in the solar
plexus whwn I've found the right one, however arcane a chord irt might be!
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.....
|
David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: DavidW]
#206685 - 05/11/05 09:02 AM
|
|
|
Quote DavidW:
I've
copied Dave's chart and added notation. Hope it helps and is right!
Hi Dave W,
yes, it is right, but in
Dave Stewart's book he omitted the top C in each case, presumbaly to show how each extra
degree of the chord relates to the previous ones.
Thus C9 is C-E-G-Bb-D, etc.
I hope that's clear.
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.....
|
DavidW
Joined: 30/09/04
Posts: 1839
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#206743 - 05/11/05 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi Dave,
I thought that was probably the case, so I parenthesised the octave
C.
Thanks for your help, David
|
Gethin Webster
Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 191
Loc: London
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Mike Senior]
#206807 - 05/11/05 01:40 PM
|
|
|
Quote Mike Senior:
Quote EmGee:
I think that's a
Gb, not an F# in the C dim chord.
On a slightly less humorous note, is there a way in this simpler system of
distinguishing between the diminished triad on C (C, Eb, Gb) and the diminished-seventh
chord on C (C, Eb, Gb, Bbb [or A, or whatever the hell you want to call it!])?
I generally use: C Eb Gb =
Cdim C Eb Gb A = Cdim7 (and C Eb Gb Bb = Cm7b5 to distinguish between diminished
and half-diminished 7ths)
-------------------- Myspace | All Things Considered - album out now!
|
Kayvon
Joined: 06/09/04
Posts: 668
Loc: London
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: DavidW]
#207130 - 06/11/05 01:44 PM
|
|
|
Quote DavidW:
Simple Roman
Numerals (all examples are in C major)
I - Tonic. (C Major) II -
Supertonic (D Minor) III - Mediant (E Minor) IV - Sub Dominant (F
Major) V - Dominant (G Major) VI - Sub-mediant (A Minor) VII -
Sub-tonic (B-Diminished)
I think it is good practice to notate the minors with small case numerals eg,
ii - Supertonic iii - Mediant vi - Sub mediant
And also call the
seventh interval the leading note and notate it vii with a small circle on the top
right.
At least that seems to be the way the ABRSM prefer it currently.
|
DavidW
Joined: 30/09/04
Posts: 1839
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Kayvon]
#207163 - 06/11/05 03:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that Kayvon. I'd forgotten about the practice of notating minors. Its been a
while since I did A'level, Grade 5 and all the rest of it. I'll think I'll look at the
ABRSM stuff when I next go home. Didn't know about the 7th/leading note though.
Cheers,
-------------------- David
|
EmGee
member
Joined: 13/06/03
Posts: 70
Loc: Birmingham, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#207494 - 07/11/05 11:28 AM
|
|
|
Quote David Etheridge:
Quote Mike Senior:
Quote EmGee:
I think that's a
Gb, not an F# in the C dim chord.
On a slightly less humorous note, is there a way in this simpler system of
distinguishing between the diminished triad on C (C, Eb, Gb) and the diminished-seventh
chord on C (C, Eb, Gb, Bbb [or A, or whatever the hell you want to call it!])?
Hi MG, actually when notating
dim chords, I've found it common practice in printed charts for Eb and F# to be in there
together. A thought has just struck me that this form of notation may be related to key
signatures, as the #F is the first sharp in a key signature, while Gb occurs a few flats
in, if you get my drift!  Of
course may be wrong but it's
as good an excuse as any!
I believe that as the diminished chord is a dischordant flattening of a triad,
(that is a minor triad with a flattened fifth) it should be referred to as such - hence
the Gb rather than F#. The other poster is incorrect, that the A is not technically a Bbb,
even though it appears to be a 7th it is not.
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
-------------------- EmGee
MBP, Focusrite Pro24DSP, Logic9, Yamaha Motif, Kontakt
|
Mike Senior
SOS Mix Specialist
Joined: 08/08/03
Posts: 1188
Loc: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: EmGee]
#207533 - 07/11/05 12:57 PM
|
|
|
Quote EmGee:
The other poster is
incorrect, that the A is not technically a Bbb, even though it appears to be a 7th it is
not.
Ouch! That's me put
in my place...
And Walter Piston in his book 'Harmony'. And
Schoenberg in his Harmonielehre. And R.O. Morris in 'The Oxford Harmony Volume One'.
Or, to put it another way: what's the seventh chord on the leading note in G
minor? It has both sharps and flats in it, by my count.
Perhaps you
were referring to a diminished seventh chord on Fsharp? It would be A in that one...
-------------------- Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.
|
EmGee
member
Joined: 13/06/03
Posts: 70
Loc: Birmingham, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#207551 - 07/11/05 01:36 PM
|
|
|
Far be it for little ol' me to argue with Mr. Schoenberg!! I'm yet to see J.C.
Bach mix and match his bs and #s, although quite how he would contend with a diminished
7th augmented 9 chord is anyone's guess! I suppose there must be situations where it is
necessary, however undesirable. The question is, though, and I don't profess to
have an answer to this one, is the diminished seventh chord simply a dischordant version
of the 7b5, in which case a Cdim would indeed contain a Bbb, or should it be viewed as a
chord in it's own right, in which case the A is not a double-diminished seventh, but a
minor sixth above the root. Hmm, wish I'd just shut up now. I'll get my
coat. EmGee
-------------------- EmGee
MBP, Focusrite Pro24DSP, Logic9, Yamaha Motif, Kontakt
|
EmGee
member
Joined: 13/06/03
Posts: 70
Loc: Birmingham, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Mike Senior]
#207555 - 07/11/05 01:47 PM
|
|
|
Quote Mike Senior:
Or, to
put it another way: what's the seventh chord on the leading note in G minor? It has both
sharps and flats in it, by my count.
Perhaps you were referring to a
diminished seventh chord on Fsharp? It would be A in that one...
Sorry, I've just re-read my message and I
was unclear as to what I meant. In Gminor, the leading not diminised chord is indeed F#,
which contains F# A C and Eb. What I MEANT to say is that if notating on a score, as
you're in Gminor (two flats) there's only need to write a sharp by the F, hence it would
read F# A C E.
How did I get involved in this? Mike - you're the man, I'll go
away...
-------------------- EmGee
MBP, Focusrite Pro24DSP, Logic9, Yamaha Motif, Kontakt
|
David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: EmGee]
#207579 - 07/11/05 02:39 PM
|
|
|
Quote EmGee:
I
believe that as the diminished chord is a dischordant flattening of a triad, (that is a
minor triad with a flattened fifth) it should be referred to as such - hence the Gb rather
than F#. The other poster is incorrect, that the A is not technically a Bbb, even though
it appears to be a 7th it is not.
Yours, pretensiously,
EmGee
Hi MG, not quite. If you
count up in a dimished scale you get a 7th from C to A. Remember the minor 3rd
interval between each note of the chord, so: C=1 d=2 Eb=3. F=4 Gb/F#=5. Ab/G#=6. A=7 (Bbb?)  So
even though C to A is a 6th, when you use a dimished scale it becomes a 7th! 
I know, don't ask me, that's what I was told at Music College!
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.....
|
EmGee
member
Joined: 13/06/03
Posts: 70
Loc: Birmingham, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#207588 - 07/11/05 02:54 PM
|
|
|
Haha! I stand (ahem, sit) corrected. Back to writing songs... G Em C D (repeat) EmGee
-------------------- EmGee
MBP, Focusrite Pro24DSP, Logic9, Yamaha Motif, Kontakt
|
Mike Senior
SOS Mix Specialist
Joined: 08/08/03
Posts: 1188
Loc: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: EmGee]
#207591 - 07/11/05 03:04 PM
|
|
|
Quote EmGee:
What I MEANT to say
is that if notating on a score, as you're in Gminor (two flats) there's only need to write
a sharp by the F, hence it would read F# A C E.
I see what you mean -- it is a bit unusual to see opposite
accidentals in the score.
Quote
EmGee:
I'll go away...
Not at all! Sorry, got carried away in front of my bookshelf
there -- some kind of allergic reaction to the word 'incorrect'... As far as
I'm concerned, the more Bach nuts on this forum the better!
-------------------- Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.
|
David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Mike Senior]
#207601 - 07/11/05 03:25 PM
|
|
|
No Mr. Senior sir!!
Not more Bach!! Please!!
Let's have a few more Delius nuts on this forum; now there was a dude who really
knew his norwegians
Olivier Messaien too!!!
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.....
|
EmGee
member
Joined: 13/06/03
Posts: 70
Loc: Birmingham, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#207622 - 07/11/05 03:56 PM
|
|
|
So, my 'Penguin's first book of music theory' probably shouldn't be viewed as an
authoritative resource then? Bach, definately. Delius perhaps. Olivier
Messaien, who are you kidding? EmGee
-------------------- EmGee
MBP, Focusrite Pro24DSP, Logic9, Yamaha Motif, Kontakt
|
David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: EmGee]
#207825 - 07/11/05 10:11 PM
|
|
|
Quote EmGee:
Olivier Messaien,
who are you kidding?
EmGee
"Apparition de L'eglise Eternelle" (my
first intro to Messaien): fabbo! 
Some bits of the Turangalila symphony are brill, plus you get the Ondes Martenot
as well (but other bits are a bit wearing )
Okay then: Arnold Bax, Vaughan Williams, Ravel, Richard Strauss (cont.p.94.........)
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.....
|
DavidW
Joined: 30/09/04
Posts: 1839
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#207828 - 07/11/05 10:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Richard Strauss..... wahey! My favourite piece of music is his Four Last Songs. Absolutely
sublime.
I wish I hadn't chosen C major for dim chords. G-Bb-Db would have been
easier!
|
EmGee
member
Joined: 13/06/03
Posts: 70
Loc: Birmingham, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#207956 - 08/11/05 09:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Vaughan Williams never did it for me, although I heard one of his at the Proms this year
and realised my prejudice was unfounded.
Ravel, oh yeah, and Strauss? what can
I say - genius. But then he was influenced by the master, Wagner.
On a side
note - went to hear LSO and Wynton Marsalis the other day. Incredible.
EmGee
-------------------- EmGee
MBP, Focusrite Pro24DSP, Logic9, Yamaha Motif, Kontakt
|
Ian Stewart
Joined: 24/10/05
Posts: 3638
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#227979 - 22/12/05 10:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately some note combinations are difficult to notate in chord symbols such as
C-D-G which comes out as C omit 3 add 2
|
feline1
active member
Joined: 23/06/03
Posts: 3651
Loc: Brighton, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#255480 - 17/02/06 04:48 PM
|
|
|
Auch you know most of this thread is pointless pedantic luncacy, you know  This is because all this stuff is getting played in equal temperament, so all those
"enharmonic equivalents" are the same note (eg F# and Gb) I'd dry your eyes
until you're actually using an instrument which lets you escape equal temperament, in
which case you can try both F# and Gb in your chord, they'll sound different, and you can
choose which one SOUNDS BETTER.
-------------------- ~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~
|
David Etheridge
Joined: 10/04/02
Posts: 1014
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: feline1]
#255883 - 18/02/06 01:49 PM
|
|
|
Hi Feline1, now that's naughty; do you know of an instrument that can change tunings
as you go? Actually, if memory serves, someone made a revved up piano many years ago with
seperate half black keys for differing sharps and flats. Needless to say, it didn't catch
on, so references to it now reside in the hallowed portals of Grove's dictionary. So
I'm guessing that if you dial up an alternate tuning on your synth (my Kurzweil modules
have a few) you'll only be presented with F#s and not Gbs at the same time. For the
biz on alternate tunings, listen to Wendy Carlos, who's probably taken things as far as
possible. Switched on Bach 2000 is the definitive classical version of this, and there's
another album who's title currently escapes me where she took things even further. http://www.wendycarlos.com gives all
the info. Alternate tunings are fab, but for chord notation we're trying here to get
a mostly coherent method of labelling for yer everyday muso, rather than your alternate
tuning geek. Dave (pointless pedantic lunatic and proud of it)
-------------------- 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.....
|
feline1
active member
Joined: 23/06/03
Posts: 3651
Loc: Brighton, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#256021 - 18/02/06 06:06 PM
|
|
|
Well, if you are conducting or scoring for (say) a string section, they of course could be
ordered not to play in equal temperament (although probably most of them would start
crying). Historically, a few nut-bags out there did build instruments with
loads of extra keys on their keyboards (wasn't the Motorala Scalotron one such more recent
attempt, back in the 70s?) But in more practical terms, yeah, I was thinking
about digitally controlled synths where you can set up alternate temparaments, then switch
them at the press of a button to hear the difference. But let's be clear: if
you are using an instrument that's stuck in equal temperament, it really is meaningless to
worry about which enharmonic equivalent note-name to use. In reality, you cannot have
either of them!
-------------------- ~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~
|
Wurlitzer
Active member
Joined: 11/12/02
Posts: 3341
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: feline1]
#349673 - 05/09/06 10:32 PM
|
|
|
Quote feline1:
But let's be
clear: if you are using an instrument that's stuck in equal temperament, it really is
meaningless to worry about which enharmonic equivalent note-name to use. In reality, you
cannot have either of them!
I disagree.
The point about using the correct note-names for a chord rather
than their enharmonic equivalents is not just that they sound different (in which respect
you're right - on equal tempered instruments they don't). It's that they make more sense,
making the tonal and harmonic structure of the music clear to the person reading it.
This operates firstly in respect of individual chords. In most kinds of harmony in
western music these are built up in 3rds. If you're using that kind of harmony, and you
keep returning to say a dominant 7th chord G-B-D-F, then on one occasion you want to alter
it by flattening the fifth, it makes sense to write it G-B-Db-F. The eye immediately sees
that it is the same chord, but with a flat in front of it - the immediate visual
impression matches the aural impression. If on the other hand you were to write G-B-C#-F,
then the eye would be immediately thrown by the second from B-C# and the fourth from C#-F,
and think it's some kind of inversion of something else.
Secondly, the correct
spelling of accidentals gives a clearer impression of the sense of voice leading and
progession from one chord to the next. Say in the example above, one wanted to resolve the
chromatic note onto the diatonic one, rather than sustaining it for the full duration of
the chord, then it WOULD make sense to use the C#, thus:
F......... C#...D.... B......... G.........
A musician's eye tend to read in
"chunks", so would still see the overall sense of a G7 chord, and the visual upward
movement from the C# to the D would, again, reflect what the ear hears. It's also
important that in this case the D belongs to the chord whereas the C# is foreign to it -
so it makes sense that the "look" of the chord is made to add up only at the
resolution.
You may think this is pedantry, but I can tell you that these
things make a difference for example to a pianist or keyboard player sight reading a piece
in a session or trying to learn and understand a piece in depth (or even to players of
purely melodic instruments, in some cases). For an orchestral score, they are absolutely
essential to allow the conductor to follow and internally hear the harmony easily.
One can always say that technically it doesn't make any difference, but music is
not an abstract technical science. It's something that interacts with human psychology, in
real time. In this respect it certainly does make a difference.
Finally, if
someone is composing music in the classical way, actually writing it down and giving it to
musicians to play, then I'd say there's a real problem from the composer's OWN pont of
view if they don't see any difference in writing a C# or a Db. It means they don't have
sufficient awareness of what that note is doing in relation to the other notes of the
composition - what function it serves within its chord, and where it is going in the voice
leading. Answering those questions and answering how to spell the note go hand in hand.
|
windbag
new member
Joined: 21/11/01
Posts: 17
Loc: Northants, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#350405 - 07/09/06 09:14 AM
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Daniel Davis
Joined: 10/03/06
Posts: 728
Loc: Edinburgh
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#513911 - 05/09/07 11:30 AM
|
|
|
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.
-------------------- Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound
|
Daniel Davis
Joined: 10/03/06
Posts: 728
Loc: Edinburgh
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: David Etheridge]
#513929 - 05/09/07 11:47 AM
|
|
|
Quote David Etheridge:
Hi folks,
here's a standard system of chord notation taken from Sammy Nestico's book 'The
Complete Arranger'. Having a standardised version of chord shorthand means less chance of
confusion on sessions and gigs. I beleive that this version is the standard form used by
all the top arrangers (Mr. Nestico is currently one of the major guys), so it's useful to
know this. He got it from 'Standardised Chord Symbol Notation' by Cark Brandt and Clinton
Roemer (pub. Roerick Music co, USA)
Here we go: Major chords will be
indicated thus: C (and not Cmaj or ma). Sixth chords: C6 (not C (A) (addA) or
similar). Seventh chords with the flattened seventh: C7 (not C add Bb). Minor
chords: Cm (rather than Cmin, C- or similar). Minor 7ths: Cm7 (not C-7, min7th or
similar) Major 7ths: Cmaj7 or Cma7 (not CM7, or C with a triangle, although some
people use the latter). 9ths work in the same way as 7ths (not Cmaj7+9, add D or
other confusing stuff). Aug 7ths with a #5: C+7 (not C7+, C7 (#5) or C7+5). Aug
9ths : C+9 as for aug 7ths. Thirteenths: C13 (and not C7 (13), C7+6, C9 add A,
etc). 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! (not C-, Cdim, C7o, etc). Six nine
chords: C6/9 (not C2/6, C13 (no7) or C6 add D). Seventh with a flat 5 chord: C7(b5)
(not C7-5, C7#4, C7(5b)). Half diminished chords-a minor 7ths with a flat 5:
Cmi7(b5), although you'll find some folks use a o with a line through it, like the phase
reverse sign on your mixing desk (but avoid things like Cmi7-5 and Cmi7 5b). Seventh
with a flat ninth: C7(b9). (Avoid C9b, Cb9, C9-, C(add Db)). Minor with a major 7th:
Cmi(ma7). (Not Cmi add B, Cmi+B, C-7. Raised ninths: C7(#9) (rather than C7(+9), C+9,
C7(b3) or C9+). Sus chords: C7sus (not C7(sus4), C7 (add F), C7 (alt 4th), C7 (+4) or
C7 #3)). Augmented 11th chords can be C9(#11), (not C+11, C11+, C11#, C9+11, or C9
(b12)). Note that the + sign is used to indicate augmented, rather than a substitute
for a #. Some musos use the dash (-) to mean minor, dim, or even a flat. No wonder you can
get confused  Try not to use lower case letters on your parts for other players: a
badly written 'mi' could be read as 'mj': is it major or minor? Is it real or is it
Memorex (hands up all those who remember that advert ) MA is
never used by itself, only in Ma7 or Ma9. Just write the chord name alone for the major
chord (eg: Cm/ C). I once had a fine time on a gig with a rhythm guitarist who couldn't
work out major and minor chords, to chaotic effect on some tunes! 
So that's it for the present. Even with this shorthand, sometimes you've got no option
than to write C13 #11 b9 b5! 
Best wishes, Dave
Well a funny thing happens when you move beyond triads - the same set of notes can be
interpreted in more ways. e.g. take the notes CEGA you have either a C6 or an Am7
chord. From an ensemble player's point of view this means you can choose other
possibilities to play (often simplifying your parts or adding variety). As you add
more notes the possibilities increase, until with 7 note chords they can be anything -
so-called pan diatonic harmony. Holst uses this in the Planets suite - but never wrote
another decent piece. perhaps because... From a harmonic point of view the strength
of chords with more than 3 notes is that they gain flexibility and can perform more than
one harmonic role. This is particulary good when you repeat a section using the same chord
to take you in a different harmonic direction. On the down side as you add roles each is
weakened , predictability dissappears, and functional harmony distroyed.
-------------------- Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound
|
Knut Skaarberg
Joined: 04/06/08
Posts: 31
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Daniel Davis]
#649347 - 22/08/08 02:14 PM
|
|
|
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!
-------------------- All the best,
Knut Skaarberg
|
onesecondglance
Joined: 02/01/08
Posts: 2138
Loc: Reading, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Knut Skaarberg]
#649350 - 22/08/08 02:25 PM
|
|
|
wouldn't C-D-G be Csus2? and similarly C-D-F-G Csus2/4? i'm sure i've seen these written
this way in guitar scores.
-------------------- hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective
|
Wurlitzer
Active member
Joined: 11/12/02
Posts: 3341
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Knut Skaarberg]
#649356 - 22/08/08 02:49 PM
|
|
|
Quote Knut Skaarberg:
An Em with
C# bass would be a C#m7(b5), wouldn't it?
Well spotted!
Quote:
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?
One can't really say "standard" here, because the chords
themselves are not standard. The open fifth I've sometimes seen notated as "5". Thus C-G
alone = "C5"
C-G-Bb I'm not sure. I'd probably just write "C7(no 3rd)".
Alternatively you could write Gm/C, if you felt relaxed about the player adding a D if he
wants.
The others you describe are various combinations of 4ths/5ths and
2nds/7ths. As such, if you juggle the notes a bit you can usually reduce them to some kind
of sus4, or 7sus4 chord, and then just use a slash to indicate the bass note. Thus:
C-D-G = Gsus4/C
C-D-F-G = G7sus4/C
C-F-Bb = Fsus4/C
But if you're really thinking in 4ths, as opposed to writing within a
conventional framework of 3rds but in a "4thy" way - then you might be better off notating
the part at least in guide tones. Write a chord voicing upwards in 4ths, in semibreves,
and then just tell the player to use whatever rhythm feels right to it.
In
modal jazz, it's quite common for pianists to gravitate towards 4ths and 2nds because they
capture the harmonically "floating" sound better and don't push things in as clear a
direction as 3rds. So you might write "Cm11", and depending on the feel and style, the
player might voice it upwards: C-F-Bb-Eb, omitting the G and making 4ths out of everything
else. Some of Bill Evans's playing on "Kind Of Blue", and similar music of the period, is
a case in point.
But this is a very inexact science and it relies on people
sharing a common set of unspoken understandings, or being able to walk over to the piano,
stab a few 4ths and say "a bit more like that!" or whatever...
|
Knut Skaarberg
Joined: 04/06/08
Posts: 31
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Wurlitzer]
#649365 - 22/08/08 03:22 PM
|
|
|
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 diffent 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.
-------------------- All the best,
Knut Skaarberg
|
onesecondglance
Joined: 02/01/08
Posts: 2138
Loc: Reading, UK
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Wurlitzer]
#649381 - 22/08/08 03:58 PM
|
|
|
Quote Wurlitzer:
... if you
juggle the notes a bit you can usually reduce them to some kind of sus4, or 7sus4 chord,
and then just use a slash to indicate the bass note. Thus:
C-D-G =
Gsus4/C
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?)
-------------------- hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective
Edited by onesecondglance (22/08/08 04:14 PM)
|
Wurlitzer
Active member
Joined: 11/12/02
Posts: 3341
|
Re: Standard chord notation
[Re: Knut Skaarberg]
#649416 - 22/08/08 05:45 PM
|
|
|
Quote Knut Skaarberg:
I agree in
principle on could write C-F-Bb as Fsus4/C, but that indicate it resolves to F/C, wouldn't
it?
Not really. Sus4 chords
in jazz aren't presumed to "resolve" the way suspended 4ths are in classical harmony. The
4th is just a static entity that can go wherever it likes, usually.
That's
kind of what I meant about unspoken assumptions.
Quote:
As a piano player I would tend to play with
diffent 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.
Indeed, and that's exactly the kind
of thing I meant where it might make more sense just to write out the voicings.
Chord symbols were originally derived from tonal harmony, and were not purely a
technical description of the chords in isolation. eg Dm7 - G7 - Cmaj7 doesn't ONLY tell
you what notes to use above each root, it also tells you that it's a II - V - I in C.
As harmony becomes less and less functional in modern jazz, you can start to
approach a point where the chord symbols might accurately describe each chord, but what
they appear to be saying about the chord function is completely misleading. eg your
progression above is basically a set of parallel 4ths within the mixolydian mode on C. The
bass is C all the way through, and that bass is harmonically independent from the chords
(apart from the fact that it generates the mode they belong to). As such, calling those
chords F this or G that might be technically correct, but doesn't actually give one a very
clear idea into what is going on.
But then in this kind of style the harmony
is usually pretty freely improvised anyway (although sometimes within strict constraints
of mode). Often the chord symbol only changes when the mode does, which might only be once
every 8 bars or so. But within that period, you'll hear the piano and bass exploring the
kinds of things you describe here.
Unfortunately there is not yet a settled
and agreed language in which to describe things any more precisely than that!
|
|