Is this part of any scale?

[Leedogg]

What's up guys? I've been working on a little jam and I was wondering if these notes belonged to any scale cause I need to elaborate more on the song. [A - C# - G# - B] played in that order. And for future reference how do I figure out what scale I'm in?

[noticingthemistake]

looks like A major, but it could be a crap lot of scales. I dunno, to find what scale certain notes belong to. I guess you just got to understand how scales are made and if those notes are in that scale. that's your scale.

[chris mood]

I would say definitely A maj, you have the 3rd and 7th listed. Here's the scale; A B C# D E F# G#

[u10ajf]

You could try an E Harmonic major scale:
EFG#ABC#DE, I think you'll like it.

[griphon2]

It's also a chord and/or arpeggio. Ama7/9

[Leedogg]

Originally posted by u10ajf
You could try an E Harmonic major scale:
EFG#ABC#DE, I think you'll like it.

Thanks for the suggestion. E Harmonic major is definately a better fit for how I was playing those notes. Is there any way that you can tell what chords would fit within a given scale. In this case E Harmonic Major?

[u10ajf]

You can do it by hand: get a peice of lined paper and use the lines to mark out its intervals over the length of 2 octaves or so. Then make a similar strip with only the notes of the chord (don't bother with octaves of the same note, it doesn't matter). Then move the strip along the scale and see if you get perfect fit.
As a rule of thumb if a chord calls itself major (e.g. harmonic major) it has at least one major triad.

[griphon2]

I don't understand this. Harmonic major is a Major scale with a b6. Double Harmonic major is a Major scale with a b2 and b6. What is this E F G# A B C# D E? This is 1, b2, 3, 4, 5, 6, b7. A new one for me.

[griphon2]

I got it. A mode of harmonic maj. Sorry.

[chris mood]

so the actual scale then is A HARMONIC MAJOR.
yeah, that was throwing me too.

[griphon2]

Yea, it threw me too. Right scale wrong function as presented.

[u10ajf]

sorry for the confusion guys. It would be very nice if only one mode of a scale was named and the rest were "2nd mode of X" or whatever. it's a pain when you think you've got a new scale only to find that it;s really only a mode of an existing one. there are so many bloody names and intervals to remember.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by Leedogg
[A - C# - G# - B] played in that order.

What's funny is that the dewd never said anything about playing an F or D. So it wouldn't even be the mode you guys were considering (E F G# A B C# D E). Take the chord progression and add a 5th to it and you'll see. A5 (A-E), C#5 (C# - G#), here's where it probably wouldn't work... G#5 (G#-D#), B5 (B-F#). So unless the G#5 is G#dim and the B5 is a B7b5, it wouldn't work (A harmonic major included). With just the root notes it looks like A major (or any number of scales), but with what I added it now looks more like E major (A lydian, E harmonic major, ...). Really depends on what the chords were with the root, cause there's quite a few that could fit.

Originally posted by Leedogg
Is there any way that you can tell what chords would fit within a given scale. In this case E Harmonic Major?

u10ajf. Had a cool idea, and here's another one. First you take the E harmonic major, and you write out all the notes that are in the scale like this.

E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D#

Start with the E, then skip the next note, then G#, skip the next note, then B. Write that down.

E, G#, B - Thats a major chord.

Then do the same starting with the next note, F#.

F# A C# - minor chord.

Do them all and you should have.

E, G#, B - major
F#, A, C# - minor
G#, B, D# - minor
A, C#, E - major
B, D#, F# - major
C#, E, G# - minor
D#, F#, A - diminished

This will tell you the simple triads of the chords that exist. Major, minor, diminished, and augmented. Everything else is an extension of that chord. Say if you added D# to the Emajor chord, you now have a EM7 chord.

Here's how you can tell if there major, minor, diminished or augmented.

E:---------:----------:---------:----------|
B:---------:----------:---------:----------|
G:--4------:---4------:--3------:--5-------|
D:--6-(9)--:---5-(9)--:--5-(8)--:--6-(10)--|
A:--7-(11)-:---7-(10)-:--7-(10)-:--7-(11)--|
E:---------:----------:---------:----------|
----Major--:---Minor--:--Dim.---:--Aug.

Here are the chord patterns of each type. The numbers in (*) are the same note as the played fret above, if you didn't realize. Hope this helps.

[Leedogg]

So if I wanted to play those notes as part of a Harmonic Scale, the Scale is called A Harmonic, but I gotta play a mode of that scale known as E Harmonic? And just so I'm clear, a mode is just a regular scale started off on one of the notes, right?

[noticingthemistake]

No, A harmonic major and E harmonic major are too different scales. E harmonic major is not a mode of A harmonic major. See here are the notes that consist in those 2.

A harmonic major: A, B, C#, D, E, F, G#
E harmonic major: E, F#, G#, A, B, C, D#

See how they are different. Now you can play the A harmonic major scale, starting with E. That's playing the 5th mode of the A harmonic major.

The notes would be: E, F, G#, A, B, C#, D.

As you can see the same notes as the A harmonic major, just starting with E. So yeah, that's how a mode is constructed, but it's function is different from the Root scale. The 5th mode (E) of the A harmonic minor would work well over a E7b9 chord, when the A harmonic major would NOT work over a A7b9. As you can see the root is the key. The reason is the clashing of 9th's between scale and chord. The 9th of a A harmonic major is B, when the chord A7b9, the 9th is Bb. Also, the 7th's are clashing too. When you look at the 5th mode (E) of the A harmonic minor, it works because the notes of the chord and scale are the same. A E7b9 chord is made up of E, G#, B, D, and F. All are found in the mode, so it works. Each scale/mode works with one or more chords, modes are very useful for these reasons.

[Leedogg]

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
That's playing the 5th mode of the A harmonic major.

The notes would be: E, F, G#, A, B, C#, D.

As you can see the same notes as the A harmonic major, just starting with E.

Does this mode have any special name? Like dorian or phrygian? I guess what I'm asking is what is the "official" name of starting on the 5th note of a scale. Is it determined by the scale or the note that is started on?

[griphon2]

Harmonic major, harmonically, is weak or deficient. You will inevitalby modify the scale somehow. It is a tonal center scale. It would be difficult to write a tune with this scale without altering something.

[noticingthemistake]

Yeah. Here they are.

I - A - harmonic major
ii - B - dorian b5
iii - C# - phrygian b4
IV - D - lydian b3
V - E - mixolydian b2
vi - F - lydian augmented #2
viio - G# - locrian bb7

As you can see, they pretty much follow the basic modal system of the major scale. ii is dorian, iii is phrygian, and so on. The exception is the lydian augmented, the other name would be aeolian with a #2#4#5#6#7. As you can see that's harder to comprehend, an easier name is lydian augmented #2.

All major modal names follow this. All modes from the ii chord of a major scale are called dorian. So if your using the A harmonic major scale but starting on E, the modal way of saying it is, "Your playing the mixolydian of the A harmonic major".

As you notice in that particular scale, all the modal names are altered (b5, b6, whatever). This is because the Harmonic major scale is just an altered major scale. Matter of fact, so is the harmonic minor (altered minor scale). All it's modes are the same way, but with a twist. It will follow the minor circle of modes. Which is:

i - harmonic minor
II - locrian natural 6
III+ - Ionian #5
IV - dorian #4
V - phrygian major (or spanish phrygian)
VII - lydian #2
viio - altered scale bb7

As you can see it still follows the same pattern. Just rearranged in order opposed to the major. If you know the modes of the major scale, you would know that the major scale is also called ionian, and the minor is aeolian. And there's the order of modes.

From major: ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian, and locrian.

From minor: aeolian, locrian, ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, locrian.

You were probably thinking it was extremely confusing. Hopefully you see now that it's not THAT confusing. ;)

The other Diatonic, melodic minor follows the same thing but it's modes are altered twice so most are given a different name. Here they are:

i - melodic minor
ii - dorian b2
III+ - lydian augmented
IV - lydian dominant
V - mixolydian b6 (or Hindu)
vio - locrian #2
viio - altered scale (also diminished whole tone)

There are other 7 tones scale, they will follow the same rule but are often referred to as other names, if you need those let me know. Other scale's like pentatonics, and exotic scales, they are just reffered to as "the 4th mode 'of whatever scale'". Hope that helps.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-11-2003 at 10:18 PM]

[griphon2]

It's a dominant 7b9 scale in this context. That's another can of worms in this context. I don't know of any modal names, just it's relationship.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
Harmonic major, harmonically, is weak or deficient. You will inevitalby modify the scale somehow. It is a tonal center scale. It would be difficult to write a tune with this scale without altering something.

Yeah, I think the same thing. Probably the reason you don't hear much about it. The sixth is altered which to me is a big part of any major chord progression. The harmonic scale itself isn't particularly used for chordal composition, just like the harmonic minor. I don't rule against using it, but I find it is a hard scale to work with. Even for harmonizing over a major chord, it is almost useless. The b6 automatically conflicts with the 5th of the root chord. There's not even a major chord with a b6 in it. Alot of things in my mind go against this scale.

The only use I see with the scale is for a bass player, who would want to play a major 3rd below the root. Here a tab example.

C major
(guitar)
E:--0--
B:--1--
G:--0--
D:--2--
A:--3--
E:-----

(bass)
G:-----
D:-----
A:-----
E:--4--

That's about it, so I see very little use of this scale for a guitarist. Even for the bass it is very uncommon.

[griphon2]

Notice, that's pretty cool. To me, it's a modified major scale and it's harmony. It takes a ton of experience to think on a dime in a jam. It's (harmonic major) a basically useless scale for jamming and writing. I use major scales and pents in a very unique way. The logic covers nearly all situations on guitar, a player can encounter in a lifetime. Major, pents, whole tone, diminished, quartal and tertiary harmony is about it, to know. Without becoming to verbose or erudite.
You are correct in G = F maj scale concerning the modal ditty. I don't think it's real important with a good and logicial bass player. I just don't think it's nice to make this more complicated. An example: dim7 and dominants and so forth. Classically, this can be excrutiatingly complicated. (Aug6) Ultimately, you may be right. A lot of people fall in the cracks with one point of view. Terms need to be more uniform. Haphazard learning can create chaos. I'm not sure that's a wrong thing. It gives us something to do. I wish there were more than 7 POVs. There's a reason why any decent college in the nation has a jazz studies curriculum. The irony is that it all winds up to the same thing. That's mean, to me.

[noticingthemistake]

Actually every scale you will every come accrosst is a modified major scale at some end or another. The major scale is just the fundamental of music, period. I think the harmonic major scale is useless for a guitarist, the bass player can get use from it. But it's is better left untouched, unless absolutely wanted. Everything you need to harmonize over a major chord is in the major scale, the b6 is an extreme option. Actually quite dissonant on the bass end, as a bass player myself. I know.

If I made that last post difficult to understand, I apologize. I try to make it as simple as possible because I know the person who would get something out of it is new at it. Most of the more experienced players on here, already know it so theirs no need for a advanced discussion about the topic in question. Unless I'm B.S with that person. :) I do try to make my explainations in depth enough so it is completely understood, though.

I too would like other point of views, music is a point of view subject. Everybody has their own way of doing things, and maybe someone on here finds the harmonic major scale beneficial. That's kool, I would love to hear about it.

Yeah sometimes the first thing I will do with a post I don't necessarily agree with, is challenge the idea. But that's what your supposed to do as a theorist. A theorist job when discovering a new theory is to try to discount it (even one's in books), and maybe second because some are afraid to try to discount it themselves. I'm not trying to be a d**k about it, but that's a part of learning. I do respect everyone on this forum, and I hate when it becomes an arguement.

Jazz theory is great to learn and understand, but the ultimate thing about music is playing what you want to hear. Music is a hearing art, not a science. You could be albert einstein and completely suck at music, intelligence is low on the list when it comes to being a musician. Not saying musicians are of low intelligence, but it's more of a feeling art. Mozart's music is qouted to make people feel like their flying, and blues music is meant to make you feel sad or maybe remember something along that line. Music is the power to carry the listener into the mental state of the composer. Make them feel your music, worry less about the intellectual side of it.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-12-2003 at 12:14 AM]

[chris mood]

"Intelligence is low on the list when it comes to music"!?!?

I think Intelligence should be high on the list no matter what your doing, except maybe sex.

Some composers wrote music in very scientific factions, take bach for example, his music is Very mathematical.

Music is art, and art knows no boundaries, so if someone creates a melody using a tone row is that melody not valid?

[chris mood]

BTW, saying Blues music is meant to make you feel sad is a stereotype. I've heard plenty of funky blues tunes that we're not meant too make you feel sad. I've also heard plenty of blues tunes that we're quite funny and made me laugh. When I listen to SRV or Buddy Guy I don't feel sad.

Saying Mozarts music makes you feel like flying is quite a generalization, Mozart wrote a lot of music and not all of it makes you feel like flying, not even 50%, hell, not even 10%. When I listen too Mozarts Requim I don't feel like flying, I feel like dying.

Sorry about the lay in, you usually write quite intelligent posts. I just have a thing with generalizations and stereotypes, they can lead too misinterpretations. you should say something like this: Blues music was originated by the slaves as a way of relieving emotional tension. Hopefully we have come a long way since that time and the blues form can be used for more then expressing grief.

[noticingthemistake]

Exactly, the feeling you get is what I'm talking about. I didn't mean to make specifics and generalization, any feeling from music. If it makes you laugh, cry, and any type of emotion or feeling from the music. That's what I'm saying. Music, I think should follow that instead of the intellectual side.

Maybe I should rephrase that, intelligence is not the most important attribute when it comes to music. Of course it is required, and you need it to anything inculding music. What I'm saying is you should follow the sound, not whether it's a scientifically correct.

[noticingthemistake]

What I'm trying to express is follow your heart when you play. I know that sounds kinda of corny, but it's the most powerful tool you have. Don't worry if your staying in the original key, if that's what you want to hear. Do it, don't hesitate. Follow the music, use the science later. If your going to write a sad song, play notes that sound sad to you. Express the emotion you want to convay. When people listen to music they feel the music, most don't look at it as wow that guy/gurl is playing a perfect mathematical symetrical sound. Mozart's requiem is sad because it's meant to express the mood of dying, hence the meaning of requiem. Listen to all the notes, they're sad sounding. Make the music based on the emotion or feeling you want to convay. Then use the science to understand it. This is why when to take music theory and they make you analyze music; for you to be able to analyze your own music and understand it, not so much how to write music scientifically. Your right music has no boundaries, starting a song with any idea before hand is setting boundaries. Just follow the music.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-12-2003 at 11:00 AM]

[noticingthemistake]

Bach isn't actually known much for a composer, which I don't gives him justice, but it's partially true. Most of Bach's work is theory study because he was showing the world how to understand music. I would say he's like Bruce Lee teaching the world martial arts, but bach introduced music understanding to the world. Before him it was strictly church study, I'm not a historian but I know that. He had some compositions Fugue in D minor and the brandenburg concertos (sc), but most of his compositions are theoritical. Still the godfather of modern music.

[noticingthemistake]

Music is basically the power to influence. As a musician you have the power to make people sad, make them happy, make them angry. It's actually god-like, or control by hypnotism. Everybody is influenced by music, when you hear a heavy song when your driving down the road you get pumped. Then a slower tune comes on and you lay back and enjoy. Music does this whether you notice it or not. Here's another way of looking at. Chris, I think of you more into the blues/jazz side of music. Well why do you like that music?? Yeah maybe there's a great guitarist you admire or a band, but there's alot in other types of music. Why that kind of music?? It's the fact that you like the sound, influence, or feeling you get from that music. Not the genre in particular but maybe a band. It's still the samething, you enjoy how the music makes you feel. And now even the way you carry yourself is influenced by it. No stereotypes, I'm not taking about that. Your surely different from the next guy who may like the samething you do, and not everything is influenced by music. I know you know what I'm talking about.

You probably like other types of music, matter of fact I hope so. What makes you like those kind of tunes. You like there sound, and the feeling. That's all music is, feeling. That's why intelligence isn't the most important thing. To be an great musician, above all you need to know how to convay feeling with music. Intellect can't give you this. You just have to listen to what you play and pour your heart into it. If your going to write a sad song, write it to where it almost brings tears to your eyes. That way you know your audience will feel that too, and you will blow them away. And don't be afraid to do it, it's a big leap to put yourself on the line with your music. Most don't make that leap cause there afraid, but trust me you'll be the musician you always wanted to be with that leap. You'll enjoy your music probably more than you enjoy the music you wish you could do now. I barely listen to music anymore, I'm not egotistical but I like my music better. I'm not pointing this to anyone in particular, but to anyone who hasn't leaped should trust themselves.

A blues songs may be sad because it's about your girlfriend cheating on you, then the next song may be happy sounding cause you shot the bi--- "gurl".

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-12-2003 at 12:02 PM]

[chris mood]

I find my favorite musicians are ones that use both science and emotion in there playing/compositions. The emotional aspect is what you notice within the 1st listen, but it is the scientifical aspect that keeps it from getting boring and requires additional listening too fully comprehend.
Guitarists that rely on too much of the emotionally aspect; Santana, great tone and he can really make the guitar weep, but can get quite predictable and sappy.
Too technical: Vai, Yngvie, its cool from a technical point, but again can get quite boring fast for the lack of emotion.
You really can't denounce one or the other (emotion/science)for I think you need an equal amount of both to be a good musician/composer/arranger or whatever.

[noticingthemistake]

I agree. I don't discount the science of music or what it brings to the overall musicianship. It's actually balanced as you said, with each having it's only part in the complete composition. Emotion bring the sense of the song to life, and science makes that sense into a grand picture. Science also bring the understanding of what the music is made of, so natural you, as a musician, are going to dig into it and want to understand it. One can not exist without the other. If you just used emotion, your songs would be very plain. If you just used science your songs will probably have any random sense or worse no sense of itself at all. What I see alot of is, these equations like if you want to play something in a scale, you take all the notes and divide them by this, and you will get your chord progression. If it works for people that great, but I'm sorry. What art is in that? I could go roll a 12-sided dice and use that, and make it work. Or just spat out random numbers and make it work. Or any number of things that don't take true creativity.

The thing will Santana is that he's plays the same style over and over. The spanish romance type thing, which leads me to believe he is more of a scientific guitarist. He found something that works and he uses it. Of course he does have emotion in his music, but only one. There are many others, yet he chooses not to utilize them. A talented guitarist but too predictable, I also believe.

Yngwie actually comes up with some good solid music. Of course, when he's not ripping off bach or soloing. He has some songs that do hit the heart. I have the cd of his "facing the animal", he does have some nice tunes in that.

Vai is the same way. I don't think there is that many respected musicians who lack in either. Of course some choose to favor, but they both have to be there for someone to what to listen to them. Reemeber there are more than a couple of feeling you can get from a song. Some are more powerful, and those are classics.

Alot of people take the idea of I should only play what sounds natural. Like you said the dim chord always wants to resolve a 1/2 step. Of course thats right and it sounds natural, by why not resolve it to something other than that. Science used as a barrier! Sometimes you don't want a natural movement. Especially if you follow yourself, you find alot of unnaturalness. You want that dramatic change, take a live band coming out to a soft tune, then bang they start rocking. The crowd goes crazy, there's emotion there and evokes this. EVen if it's something you can't put into words. A dramatic side which is exciting, then there the Santana side who desires the move natural emotion. Even if you look at a picasso painting which is very dramatic in the artistic sense, it's not natural it's art and it's leaving an impression. Like a good song leaves an impression.

Everyone has there own way to approach music, especially the writting process. Music itself is a hearing art, so science itself is a limiting factor. When I say science I mean music theory, and music theory has rules. If art is freedom, then music theory is the secret police. You can't do this, you can't do that. What freedom is that? This is even noticed after a guitarist has been playing by those rules for a couple of years, they start altering scales. HAHA. Now they finally reach the point where they pay attention to their ear, and not rules. I just say bridge that and start with following your ear. The ear is the translator from heart to guitar. When you hear a melody in your head, are you thinking scientifically or by the way it sounds??

And you know once you get that idea down, you go ahead and your use what you know about music theory and apply it. Like if you have a melody, you use some science to put together a chord progression behind that melody. Still ultimately judged by your ear, and the understanding helps alot.

If you choose to use science first, you follow it's rules like a jazz progression follows this. So in the end you just wrote another jazz song that sounds like every other jazz song. Where's the art, creativity, or uniqueness in that?

[chris mood]

I agree with what your saying, that there comes a time when you forget about the rules and just make music, and it is a pure sense of nirvanna once you reach this platue. But I see 2 flawls in what you are saying;

1) How can you learn to hear something that you don't know exists? One must 1st learn about the scale and it's make up before they can start to hear it. I think this especially true with man-made scales such as diminished and whole tone. The major scale emulates the sound of nature, so our ears are used to hearing this, but other exotic scales have to be heard before are ear can start to write melodically w/them. So it comes to the point what came 1st the chicken are the egg (science/emotion)

2) I feel it is a major misconception that learning theory will inhibit your creativity, you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are. I think the ear naturally hears the diminished chord resolving by half step, so one must teach oneself not to resolve this chord by half step and "learn" the sound this will emulate. I think if you don't learn theory chances are your jazz songs will sound a lot like everybody else's vrs. if you do.

[noticingthemistake]

Actually, you backed up what I saying with what you thought we're flaws. I may have not been clear enough on it. I'll try to explain, and most I agree with. The bottom line is that when you talk about hearing something or associated with sound, that what I'm supporting. Science of music is a different matter, it is made to make sense of organized music.

Originally posted by chris mood

1) How can you learn to hear something that you don't know exists? One must 1st learn about the scale and it's make up before they can start to hear it. I think this especially true with man-made scales such as diminished and whole tone.

I've had a discussion with griphon about this, I think it was him. The inner ear (mental ear that hears melodies in your head) can only produce accurately what it knows and has heard. This is mostly true, well to get valueable use of it. Someone who has never heard a particular scale can (I'd say accidently) come up with something in a scale he's never heard. But it's always hazy to them, and the understanding won't be there.

Originally posted by chris mood

The major scale emulates the sound of nature, so our ears are used to hearing this, but other exotic scales have to be heard before are ear can start to write melodically w/them.

I also agree that sound is based on nature. Actually sound (pitches/notes) and everything we hear as music comes from nature, not just the major scale. The major scale is based on the western organized group of pitches. Like the hungarian major and minor are based on the hungarian group of pitches. It's more of a cultural thing. Like when you hear a brazilian tribal tune, they know nothing of the major scale or even scales yet they can produce music. However strange it is to our ears, but our music would probably be strange to them. Watch the nature channel.

Originally posted by chris mood

So it comes to the point what came 1st the chicken are the egg (science/emotion)

Definitely emotion. Emotion comes from sound or pitch. A certain pitch has a different impression (emotion) to it, than a another pitch. Like the difference between F# and Eb, and not just in the aspect of singular pitch but there relationship as well. When you go up in pitch, I guess you feel lifted in sense, when it goes down, you feel depressed. Since sound itself is as old as time, it definitely came first. Even primal animals communicated with pitch, especially whales and dolphins. They were around long before us. Even a dog, when he growls (which is low register) means "get lost", and a yipe (high register) means something else. Birds also communicate in pitch, along with most animals. Any movement of particles produces sound, even air. Just wave your hand by your ear and you can hear the wind. Also, science needs something to study before there can be a science about it. Music theory is a part of the science of sound.

Originally posted by chris mood

2) I feel it is a major misconception that learning theory will inhibit your creativity, you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are.

I agree. Theory will not inhibit your creativity the way you put it. It actually can do nothing but help, knowledge is power. A misuse of theory can hinder you, if you know the rules and strictly follow them. Especially when you only use them, and not your own creativitiness. I know quite a few people who do this.

Originally posted by chris mood

I think the ear naturally hears the diminished chord resolving by half step, so one must teach oneself not to resolve this chord by half step and "learn" the sound this will emulate.

I agree. But take someone who only follows the rules, like diminished chords have to resolve 1/2 step. Since music is organized sound, that would only be one sound and you would be missing out on alot. A diminished chord can actually go to a V chord (inverted or not) in a major scale. It's not as natural as the first one but it can work, but any resolution can work if thats want you want. See you don't always want a natural flow to music, there needs to be dynamics in it to make it somewhat interesting. Music that is natural flowing all the time is usually rather weak and/or boring. Same thing with the V chord naturally going to a ii chord. This is hindering you, if you strictly follow these rules. So yeah I believe you should learn and experiment. As a musician, or should I say artist, we need to experiment to evolve.

Originally posted by chris mood

I think if you don't learn theory chances are your jazz songs will sound a lot like everybody else's vrs. if you do.

Really in depends on the person writting the song. But if you know that one chord progression works great for jazz, and you continously use it. Well, you going to write a song that sounds like the norm. Just like writting a rock song with the chord progression C, G, F. Done billions of times. On the other hand, if you use the theory you were taught to understand and build on your creativeness, it will definitely help set your song apart. Like if you took the rock prog. C, G, F and made it C Gb F. Theory will help you understand what you did, and maybe make it more paladiable to the ear. Someone without an theory knowledge may be oblivious to it cause they don't understand how it could work.

Music theory opens up alot of possibilites and maybe a path to start from. I still say follow your ear, because it's knows right (for you). Theory is still theory, it should be studied but more on the side of achieving understanding rather than what the strict rules are.

[griphon2]

Dang, I didn't mean to do this. Without mechanics all this is moot. Arguable, but nonetheless moot. I know somewhere on this site, that it's called guitar tricks. The idea of the site seems to me is to be taking some of the complication out of theory, excercises, licks, music, etc.
Philosophy don't make a hill of beans if you have no hands or a brain.

I believe there are 8 ways to resolve a dominant chord. And 16 ways to resolve a diminished chord. This can be a very tedious study. It requires major standard notation reading and reasonably advanced theory background. I would venture to guess, most that come to this site lack this ability.
Advance jazz or players understand the difference between the two chords implicitly. We understand the resolution of the tritone in both chords. The tedium is explaining German, French, and Italian Augmented 6 chords. PRAGMATICALLY, most of my ilk call them dominant or V7 chords. It's just easier.
Most of us just want to be helpful. I'm certainly not rich,
but can play when I feel like it. The biggest problem is keeping the goverment from stealing MY money. Let's be helpful.

[noticingthemistake]

Griphon, sorry you feel that way man. To me the forum is for discussion and well that's for discussing things. Since it's music theory, well we're discussing music theory. All I said was that you should play what you feel, and chris and me got into a discussion about that. You probably right man, most people who read this are beginners, but that doesn't mean no one can get into a discussion about stuff that isn't particularly for them. Which I don't even think this is that type of discussion, just chris and my opinions on the differences between science(music theory) and sound (playing what you wanna hear).

If your so against talking about more advanced stuff, why bring up the topic of an Augmented 6 chord??? Don't you think thats alittle advanced. Is there a difference between the english chordal system and the french, german, and italian?? Do you think an american who just starting playing is going to know about that? I don't even know about it. And who said they were rich?? I'm unemployed at the moment.

I'm trying to help too, I think everyone is dewd. Chill man, it's just B.S'in.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
The tedium is explaining German, French, and Italian Augmented 6 chords. PRAGMATICALLY, most of my ilk call them dominant or V7 chords. It's just easier.


I forgot to meantion this. An augmented 6 chord is NOT the same as a dominant 7 chord. There is a difference, I'll explain. Anytime you see augmented. This is telling you the triad structure of the chord. Whether it's major, minor, diminished, or augmented. Everything else is an extension of that triad, even 7th's. So when you say E augmented 6, what your saying is your playing an E augmented triad with a 6 added to it. So an E augmented 6 chord would be E, G#, B#, C#. The E dominant 7 chord which has a major triad structure would be E, G#, B, D. See what I mean, "augmented" is not a substitute for saying "sharp that note". I may be wrong if the germans, french, and italians have a different chordal system. That I am unaware of since everything we know as chordal structure came from germany and/or italy. Yeah contemporary is more american but this is not that issue. Either way if your books or teacher said this is so, they're wrong. Alot of misguided information out there.

[griphon2]

I'm flabbergasted, nearly speechless. I can't believe this.

[noticingthemistake]

Believe what?

[griphon2]

Assuming what one says is far different than making an attempt to understand what one says. Secondly, assuming that all teachers except you are misinformed or even blatantly wrong is a disservice to and for us all.

[noticingthemistake]

I knew what you were talking about dewd, but you can clearly see how that is misunderstood. Your right in the fact that augmented by simple definition mean, "to raise...", but by musically definition, it directly points to a chord. Like I said. I pretty much corrected your misinterpetation of the use of that word. I've seen alot of misinformation out there on this alone, and augmented 6 is not a the same as saying a raised 6. It is definitely not the same as a dominant 7 chord. You can clearly see that.

Secondly, I never said that ALL teachers and books were wrong on this subject. Read what I said again, I said if your teacher or a book told you this, it's wrong. You always talk about getting your information out of a book, the lydian chromatic concept I believe. I believe that is a creditable book, but there are alot of misinformation out there. I'm thinking I'm doing a far better justice by correcting this mistake. If you wish to ignore this fact, go for it. I'd bet my life on it that any respectable musician who know about this would tell you the same.

[griphon2]

A raised 6 or augmented 6 or #6, IS a b7. French, Italian and German Augmented 6s are the classical equivalents to dominant 7th chords. (neapolitan 6s are bII chords).
As I said in a post, that's a PRAGMATIC view.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
A raised 6 or augmented 6 or #6, IS a b7.

Yeah, enharmonically speaking they are the same note(sound). We have been though this before, the reason one is #6 and other is b7 is because of their function within the key and/or chord. It actually saves alot of confusion when you are aware of this. It's just like counting, and it makes the whole chordal structure into 32 total chords. Mixing them up will multiply that number. Plus the fact of using them within a key, would multiply that again a couple of times. But go with what is easier for you.

Originally posted by griphon2
French, Italian and German Augmented 6s are the classical equivalents to dominant 7th chords. (neapolitan 6s are bII chords).
As I said in a post, that's a PRAGMATIC view.

Well, as an american I not aware of and not concerned with the french, italian, and german ways. To me they couldn't have made it anymore confusing by doing that, I thought music was one language. If I'm clear on what your saying. A #6 doesn't exist in the Neopolitan scale, it's a b6. There is a b7, again saying that is a #6 only makes things more confusing. If thats the way the french, italian, and germans see it. Kool, but they probably see other things differently too. Which would probably rival everything that the american system stands for and works for me (cause I'm american). To me, it is a waste to even pursue any interest in that. As I clearly explained before, they (aug6 and dom7) are not the same chord. Not even enharmonically. In the end, since we're both american it's a waste to even bring it up in the first place. No offense.

P.s The Augmented sixth chord is also called and can be found more traditionally as a Augmented 4th (second inversion) and a m/maj7 (4th inversion).

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-13-2003 at 02:41 PM]

[griphon2]

Now that this ego crap is not out of the way, let's be honest. It surprises me the proctor or prompter of this forum is not saying anything. This plain misinformation is horrifying.

[Edited by griphon2 on 02-13-2003 at 08:23 PM]

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
Now that this ego crap is not out of the way, let's be honest. It surprises me the proctor or prompter of this forum is not saying anything. This plain misinformation is horrifying.

Griphon, seriously man. The only person here that is on a ego trip is you. You contiously say that I'm giving misinformation but yet you never explain yourself and/or why you disagree. If I'm misinformed why don't you speak up with a good solid explaination. I'm waiting and listening...

Either give your side of the story or admit your wrong. Or do you choose Pride over truth?? You were clearly talking about chords when this disagreement began. Here's you quote:

Originally posted by griphon2
Advance jazz or players understand the difference between the two chords implicitly. We understand the resolution of the tritone in both chords. The tedium is explaining German, French, and Italian Augmented 6 chords. PRAGMATICALLY, most of my ilk call them dominant or V7 chords. It's just easier.

I think you said chords 4 times. Clearly you are talking about chords, and that the dominant 7 and augmented 6 are the same chord. I clearly said that an Augmented 6 chord is NOT a dominant 7th chord. In your reply, you changed it to seem like you were talking about enharmonically spelling. As you can see here:

Originally posted by griphon2
A raised 6 or augmented 6 or #6, IS a b7.

You clearly changed your statement to try to avoid the fact that you were wrong. I would call that pride. If I am mistaken then prove me wrong.

Here's the difference, as plain as day, between an Augmented 6 chord and a Dominant 7 chord. I'll use C as the root.

Caug: C, E, G#
Caug6: C, E, G#, A
Cmaj: C, E, G
Cdom7: C, E, G, Bb

You can clearly see they are not the same, enharmonically or rearranged in any way. Explain to me how this is wrong, instead of trying to make me look like the bad guy. Please.

[griphon2]

I was hoping for support. Since I have none, I'll take you on. You CAN NOT PROVE what I'm saying is wrong. I can prove what you're saying IS wrong. Even if you believe the internet is half honest or correct, I can prove you WRONG. I have hopelessly, tried to be kind. Your information is at times, incorrect! To think that French, Italian, or German 6s is a new musical system, or your logic of Bach and Santana, insults, my and every decent musician's, that has spent much time in the realm, intelligence. I extremely dislike this argument and wish to partake no longer. What YOU are spreading is a POV. It is not always correct, and not always HONEST. I've probably been in this business longer than you've been alive. Don't ever condescend, especially to me. If the forum wishes me to leave, I will do it quickly and without remorse or ill feeling. This stuff is NOT difficult, contrary to popular belief. I just hope it's still guitar TRICKS.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
You CAN NOT PROVE what I'm saying is wrong. I can prove what you're saying IS wrong. Even if you believe the internet is half honest or correct, I can prove you WRONG.

So where is it????? Where's your proof???

Originally posted by griphon2
I have hopelessly, tried to be kind. Your information is at times, incorrect!

With all due respect, you have not yet proven me wrong, so I must not be wrong all the time. I also aware that I am not always right, and I am willing to accept that. Are you??

Originally posted by griphon2
To think that French, Italian, or German 6s is a new musical system, or your logic of Bach and Santana, insults, my and every decent musician's, that has spent much time in the realm, intelligence.

I never said it was a new system, I actually said that pretty much everything in music theory came from Italy and germany. Far from saying it is a new system I would say.

I'm sorry it insults you but I have every right to my opinion. I will say this again, I respect all musicians who came before me and that will come. But I still have my opinion about it and I have tried to keep it without disrespect. If not, I apology, I do not mean it that way.

Originally posted by griphon2

What YOU are spreading is a POV. It is not always correct, and not always HONEST.

Yet, you still are unable to deliver facts that discount "my POV"! Most my facts come from a very creditable source. I don't express my point of view when facts are needed.

Originally posted by griphon2
I've probably been in this business longer than you've been alive.

That's fine. Age is only but a number, knowledge carries with it no number.

Originally posted by griphon2
Don't ever condescend, especially to me. If the forum wishes me to leave, I will do it quickly and without remorse or ill feeling. This stuff is NOT difficult, contrary to popular belief. I just hope it's still guitar TRICKS.

I do not wish you to leave, I never meant you any disrespect, and I never even meant for this to be an arguement. But you continously call me a frankly, a liar. Yet you choose not to speak what the truth is yourself.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-13-2003 at 09:44 PM]

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
I was hoping for support. Since I have none, I'll take you on.

Why do you need support?? If your a man and you truely believe what your saying, you should be able to stand on your own 2 feet. You shouldn't need someone to help you.

The fact that you want to take me on, I thinks that's quite immature of you. Im only 22 and I don't think of this as a war.

[chris mood]

"Good music theory should always describe the way music sounds. One exception in traditional music theory is the augmented 6th chord. It sounds like a dominant 7th but is labeled a 6th chord because its spelling includes the interval of an augmented 6th. Adding to the confusion is that 3 geographical labels are often attached to these chords. The augmented 6th chord is usually found in 1st inversion."
Jazz theory resources by Bert Ligon

[noticingthemistake]

Ok, I now see where the confusion lies. I agree with the whole statement except that the augmented 6 chord sounds anything like the dominant 7 chord. The texture is the same in the chord, because of the clashing notes. 1 and b7 in the dominant, and #5 and 6 in the augmented. Both containing the same root and 3rd, but the augmented sound (#5) is still easy to catch. Maybe just for me, but it is. I can see where it can be confused with a untrained ear.

The Augmented 6 chords is found natural in both the harmonic and melodic minor keys.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-13-2003 at 11:37 PM]

[chris mood]

The augmented 6th chords came about (theoretically)before the Dominant 7th was recognized as being a chord. So basically the Itaian, German,& French chords are nothing but dominant 7th chords inverted. Here's an example of the Italian 6th (the voice leading here is very important)

Key of C

IV Chord(1st inv) Italian 6 V
F F# G
C C B
A Ab G

the Italian 6th is nothing more than a Ab7 minus the 5th. It was given the name augmented 6th becuase of the interval between Ab & F#

[chris mood]

Iknow that example didn't use the dominant inverted, but the 4 chord was. There is usually one inverted chord within the progression to achieve the chromatic voice leading. I'll try to give you another example.

[chris mood]

Key of Eb


..ii(1st inv)..German 6th......I6
...C............C.............C
...F............F#............G
...Eb...........Eb............Eb
...Ab...........Ab............G

The German 6th is nothing more then a Ab7 with an enharmoic spelling (F#/Gb)Again it is named for the interval between Ab & F#

[noticingthemistake]

Thank you for explaining this, rather than "just saying I'm wrong". :) I was kind of getting that idea, but it still doesn't hold water with what I was saying that an Augmented 6 chord is not a dominant 7th chord. With what you wrote a Italian 6 chord is just a Ab7 (A#6). Without a 5th?? That's pretty much the interval that tells you if your playing an augmented chord or not. If you look at this, it actually all folds down into being just a simple major chord with a #6. I'll take the german 6th (which isn't how you described it, no 5th?? ;)) without the inversion.

Ab, C, Eb, F# - Ab#6 (yes..enharmonically (Gb) dominant 7th)

If you took out the 5th.

F#, Ab, C - F#dim(add2)

But my point is...

The Augmented 6 chord is an augmented triad with a 6th added to it.

Ab, C, E, F - Abaug6

The augmented triad is the key to understanding what I am saying. It's 100% accurate and is the modern way.

Ab, C, Eb - major
Ab, C, E - augmented

Maybe back before they had dominant 7th's, they used this way of describing the sound as a augmented sixth. But now the structure of chords is based on simple triads, then what comes after that is an extension. It looks to me that the french, german, and italian used the interval #6 as being augmented. How would they discribe a minor, or diminished chord? Let alone a augmented chord. Would it be an Ab augmented augmented 6 chord???? HAHAHA Simply, breaking the modern structure into a more primative state. The modern way is much much simpler.

First you take the root..Say its C.

Then figure out if it's major, minor, diminished, or augmented.

Say it's C augmented. Which would be the notes C, E, G#.

Say you wanted to add A to that for harmony purpose.

Now you have a Caug6 chord. C, E, G#, A.

The other way leaves you with no answer to whether it's a major, minor, augmented, or diminished chord. Which makes it more of an interval than a chord. Do they still use this chordal structure???

Maybe, I'm misunderstanding the use for this idea but to me it only complicates things and really causes alot of problems. Like I said before, I have no use for it.

[chris mood]

Your right, an augmented 6th chord is an augmented triad with an added 6th to it, I don't think anybody is disputing that. These classical European chords were given there name for the interval that was constructed within the chromatic voice leading. In modern music the "classical augmented 6th chords" are nothing more then dominant 7ths constructed off the b6 interval of the scale resolving to the V chord ( F Ab7 G7) although this is more common in minor (F- Ab7 G7#5).

This is one of those things they like to drill into you in theory class in college, just like counter point and all the rules for it (no parallel 5th's or 4th's)There really is no relevance for this stuff in Modern music (regardless of style).

Now that we're all clear on this subject (hopefully), I think you and Griphon should apologize to each other -LOL-
*what happened to Griph? Did he get kicked off?

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by chris mood
The augmented 6th chords came about (theoretically)before the Dominant 7th was recognized as being a chord.

Obviously before, because they are not the same chord as I have been saying for the last couple of posts. I knew exactly what griphon was saying, or should I say the french, italian, and german. Now the modern chordal structure does have a Dominant 7th chord, there is no need for this idea for it rips the modern chordal structure apart. The dominant 7 chord is probably the most known chord in music, but let's just starting calling it an augmented 6 for now on...

Here's my quote shortly after he addressed the fact that it's strictly an F,G,I matter:

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
Well, as an american I not aware of and not concerned with the french, italian, and german ways. To me they couldn't have made it anymore confusing by doing that, I thought music was one language. If thats the way the french, italian, and germans see it. Kool, but they probably see other things differently too. Which would probably rival everything that the american system stands for and works for me (cause I'm american). To me, it is a waste to even pursue any interest in that. In the end, since we're both american it's a waste to even bring it up in the first place. No offense.

As you can see I never disagreed that the F, G, I had a different way and that the chord augmented 6 was not the dominant 7th to them. I simply stated there is no need for it, since the modern system is much more clear that the augmented 6 is NOT the dominant 7.

Originally posted by chris mood
So basically the Itaian, German,& French chords are nothing but dominant 7th chords inverted.

Yeah, and how does this help anyone. Telling them that there is no such thing as a minor, diminished, or augmented chord. With this idea, how would you ever know the difference if I said play a C augmented 6. Is it C, E, G, A#, or C, Eb, G, A#, or C, Eb, Gb, A#, or C, E, G#, A#??? Would this go for all chords?? How bout a C diminished 7 chord. Is it C, E, G, Bb, or C, Eb, G, Bb, or C, E, G#, Bb, or C, Eb, Gb, Bb?? Now how is this simple????? Obviously the F, G, I saw the error in their understanding of chords as this shows, that's why we have the chordal structure we have now. But now let's introduce this again because it is SOO SIMPLE! HAHAHA. :D

Yeah maybe if you first figured out a dominant 7th, then inverted it, then figured it out. This idea would work to some degree. :rolleyes: Again, how is this simple??? Why would you want to make it that much harder. An augmented 6 chord is a simple augmented chord (triad) with the 6th note as an extension.

Originally posted by chris mood
the Italian 6th is nothing more than a Ab7 minus the 5th. It was given the name augmented 6th becuase of the interval between Ab & F#

Looks to me like it's more of an interval based idea. They were clearly not talking about chords in the function when they say augmented. So any chord with a raised interval is augmented?? Honestly, and with all due respect to the F, G, and I. This is idea is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. The 'modern' chordal structure is much stronger for it directly tells you what you playing. There is no opening for guessing if the augmented 6 chord is major, minor, diminished, or augmented structurally.

A C augmented 6 as it stands in modern chordal structure. There is no other way to write it!!!

C, E, G# - simple augmented triad

add the 6 note from C ; count C, D, E, F, G, "A". So it's

C, E, G#, A - C augmented 6

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by chris mood
This is one of those things they like to drill into you in theory class in college, just like counter point and all the rules for it (no parallel 5th's or 4th's)There really is no relevance for this stuff in Modern music (regardless of style).

Something I do not agree with. I know in theory they will want you to completely understand it's points and counterpoints. But as you said yourself, there is no use of it in modern music. So why confuse people. I never went to college to learn any of this, yet I was still able to identify the problem in the first post. I said augmented by music definition directly points to the chord, not the raising of a note. Some may get enlightened by this, but I feel most will only be confused and music itself is a rather simple subject when you don't try to bunch the complete history of ideas into it.

Originally posted by chris mood
Now that we're all clear on this subject (hopefully), I think you and Griphon should apologize to each other -LOL-
*what happened to Griph? Did he get kicked off?

I was clear from the beginning, and I don't think I said anything disrespectful to griphon. If he feels that I have, I do apologize. I do not wish for him to leave this site for good, he was intelligent when it came to this stuff. I just wish he would pay attention to what I say, instead of calling me a liar. :mad: I only tried to make this a reasonable discussion rather than what it had became. I believe the only way to learn is to attack ideas, and not just say, "oh ok that must be right". And to learn to know when your wrong. I was clearly wrong about the F, G, and I idea, but I know it is obsolete, so I will not persue into it's understanding.

[chris mood]

Let's start w/the names: Italian, German, & French. These names have nothing to do with where these chords came from, there is no heritage attached to these chords, there just names. Italian composers used German 6th chords, as well as polish composers and Russian composers, so stop trying to blame the French, Italians, and Germans for creating some stupid form of theory, Musicians of the Eoropean nations created these chords and the theory behind them.
Secondly, these chords are for compositional purposes. The rules for the usage,Identification, and resolution are very explicit and would be hard to explain in a single paragraph, you really should research this topic on your own, just for your own peice of mind. Like I said before, these chords are named "augmented 6th " for the chromatic interval that is created from the voice leading. That is where the misconception lies, becuase they are essentially Dominant 7th chords when anylized in a vertical fashion. But since the Dominant 7th chord was not yet recognized yet as a individual sound form they named them for the voice leading technique, because thats what they where utilizing these chords for anyway
Ex: Write out a iv-7 chord in the key of A- in 1st inversion, use this voicing (Bottom up) F C D A. Now write out a A- in 2nd inversion using this voicing; E C E A, now if you inserted a chord in between these two chords to connect them chromatically you would have; F C D# A. That is how the classical augment 6th chords came into existence. They were named after the interval created between the bass note F and the 3rd voice D# when chromatic voice leading was implied.

[chris mood]

My advice to you would be to inestigate this topic farther so you have a clear understanding of this so that when some kid asks you "hey Notice, some kids were talking about G,I,& F augmented 6th chords, what are they?" You can offer a better explanation then "don't worry about it kid, it's all Bull Sh*t".
LOL

[noticingthemistake]

LOL. :D I don't know if I'd say that, but I'd probably just call on one of you guys to explain. ;) I know I don't grasp it as much as you guys do, but I do got the basic idea. I still won't call it an Augmented 6 chord, to me it's a major#6 chord. I'll explain more later.

Here's how it all works, as you explained chris.

In Am the iv-7 is : D, F, A, C
Inverted F, C, D, A

Now write out a A- in 2nd inversion using this voicing; E C E A,

An A minor is : A, C, E,(A),(E)
Inverted E, C, E, A

Layer them.
Dm7........F...C...D...A
interval...h...p...w...p
Am.........E...C...E...A
(inversion key: h -half step, w - whole step, p - perfect)

So what you want to do is change the whole step to a half step (chromatic). To do that you flatten the second E in the Am presented. Making it D#, then put it back to together with the Am along with adding a 6th (or borrow it from the Dm7):

Altered A minor (add6): A, C, D#, F.
Invert it again: F, A, C, D#.

Now you have a F augmented 6 chord as understood by the F, G, and I chordal views. Or in modern terms, "FM#6".

Enharmonic changing the D# to Eb makes it a F dominant 7 chord. With that said, you must look at the chord again, and serperate the spelling you came up with throughout the whole process and the one thats enharmonically altered. We have had this discussion before, just because a note can be changed enharmonically doesn't mean it can switch back and forth between correct names chord. There is a explaination of why, If you need it.

F, A, C, D# is NOT a F dominant 7 chord! It is is still a FM#6. The D from F is 6 notes, even you agreed. Augmented is used to discribe the "#6".

That's how I understand it. The augmented 6 chord is actually a major chord (triad) with a #6 extension. Since major is understood in most cases, and augmented is like saying a "#6". As you can see here:

F major chord: F, A, C
F German augmented 6 chord: F, A, C, D#
Today written as FM#6.

Since the "#6" is a rather odd extension and in most cases there is a "b7" instead, it is not as common as the "dominant 7 chord". They are closely related, but not the same. Sound and the way it is played on the guitar is the same but the function they have within a key is different. Again, understanding this saves alot of headaches when it comes to writting out chord progressions and then having to analyze them. Yeah, if you just getting ideas it's easier to write what is familiar to you, but analysis can be quite difficult with this error.

Ex. There is no Ebminor chord in the key B major. It would D#minor. Doesn't look confusing for this is a rather simply example but it can cause problems. Even more difficult is the misuse of naming chords, especially when inverted and then named something else. Like calling a inverted B diminished chord an F diminshed chord in the key of C major. There is no F diminished in the key of C major. If you are playing a F diminished in C, then it is a Bdiminished (second inversion). This is even more difficult if you plan out using modulation to get to another key. The problems will stem out quite a bit if not properly understood.

Today, saying augmented in place of #6 is invertingly saying the chord is made up of a Augmented triad with an extension 6. I'm guessing this is why this chord is not called an Augmented 6 today. Today those chords are completely different, even in correct chordal analysis are they different:

F german 6: F, A, C, D#
F aug. 6: F, A, C#, D
F dom. 7: F, A, C, Eb

Clearly these chords are NOT the same. If someone asked what a German 6 chord was, I would say it's a major chord with a #6. Putting augmented in there is just plain confusing. That might be it's theorotical name, but in todays music it is a major#6. It's construction is yes to chromatically voice the 2 chords together as you said above. It's function will work in the same way I pursume, As a chromatic passage. I believe the major#6 is more direct to the point, and it clearly doesn't discount the G aug. 6.

[chris mood]

O.K.
The D# is labeled so in the German6 becuase altered notes resolve in the direction they are altered, so that's why we call it D# vrs Eb. So yes your point is valid (Maj #6). I am not going to argue this point w/you (maj#6 vrs Dom7). I did not invent this theory or coin the terms G I F augmented 6th, I am simply regurgitating classical theory. The augmented 6th chords are definetely not a high point of classiscal theory, and I think any theorytician will stand by that pt..However, they are an excepted form of reference/analyization and I would encourage you to investigate them farther before disputing there historical relevance to modern theory.
The quote I posted on this subject I think sums up quite well theoroticians view on classical augment 6th chords.

[noticingthemistake]

I am not disputing the existence or the history of the chord, Augmented 6. I think your taking what I said the wrong way, so I will clear it up. I would rather call it a Major #6 chord, if you call it an Augmented 6. That's kool, I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this fact. By it's sound, it is a Dominant 7 chord. Its use is rather different. From the beginning, it's been the only point I am trying to convey. Along with a clear view and understanding of the chord, which gets rid of all the confusion.

I believe "Augmented 6" doesn't clarify the chord enough, and it's doesn't give a decisive meaning. It's sounds like, An augmented chord with a 6 added to it. Clearly that's not the F, G, I augmented chords makeup. I hate writing this again and again but no one seems to understand my point. Which is the "Maj#6" is more direct and clearer in its chordal name. A major triad plus a #6. That spells out the chord very decisively, and doesn't change anything about the F, G, and I’s augmented chord. This is my opinion; the person who is reading this can choose which one is easier for them. I am not at all trying to force or change anyone POV.

It's easier for me because I don't have to worry about 2 completely different augmented 6 chords. I don't what to have to think of which one it actually is?

The augmented chord with a 6 extension.

-Or-

The major chord with a sharp (augmented) 6 extension.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-14-2003 at 02:39 PM]

[griphon2]

Going to try this one more time. It is in a sense a maj triad with a #6 extension. (It evolved to this idea much later, and quite frankly is never used.) Actually, in it's simplest form, a 1st inversion minor in which the upper 4th is raised 1/2 step (or the original root raised). It is not "the augmented chord with a 6 extension." This idea has nothing to do with the augmented chord. Augmented chords (#5) are completely different puppies from Aug 6 chords. Augmented 7th chords are completely different puppies from Aug 6 chords.

The easiest explanation is this: In it's first machinations, the sub dominant minor triad (iv) is turned into a dominant chord by raising the first inversion 4th by one half step. (aug 6)(sorta where the tritone sub really gets it's start) In actuality we have a dominant IV7 to I or i, (a classical slight of hand) instead of the normal V7 to I or i, or in time where needed. This IV7 was annotated to a It6 or Fr6 or Gr6 (numbers in upper case,) or Aug6/X to I or i. The early evolution of secondary dominants. More evolution or machinations later to nowadays, they're known as secondary dominants. Or just plain dominants. The real difference between dominants and Aug6 is the resolution of the tritone. As I said long ago. The real important item of this chord is Aug 6 =3rd moves down, 7th moves up.
Dom 7 = 3rd moves up, 7th moves down. This idea becomes very important in terms of modern harmony much later.
More specific and general info is at:
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/mus612b/fmain/fdocs/notes/augsixth.html

I hope this clears this matter and puts a stop to this silliness.


[Edited by griphon2 on 02-15-2003 at 02:01 AM]

[griphon2]

I have an excellent MIDI standard classical guitar repertoire website. Best heard with a Roland Sound Canvas SC-8850 or better. ALL transcriptions and sequences are done by hand. Some are very old and some are new. This stuff takes time. I don't always have a lot of it. All are readable with Cake Audio Pro 4 and above. Lately, I've spent most of my time in the Giuliani section. My point, is to make handwriten notes pretty close to what a human might play without screwing up the original written note.
To see this you must be able to read standard notation.
I've been wanting to do a jazz guitar section, with the same idea. Time, just don't have enough.
Check this out:
http://members.tripod.com/~griphon2/index-7.html

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
Going to try this one more time. It is in a sense a maj triad with a #6 extension. (It evolved to this idea much later, and quite frankly is never used.) Actually, in it's simplest form, a 1st inversion minor in which the upper 4th is raised 1/2 step (or the original root raised). It is not "the augmented chord with a 6 extension." This idea has nothing to do with the augmented chord. Augmented chords (#5) are completely different puppies from Aug 6 chords. Augmented 7th chords are completely different puppies from Aug 6 chords.

I have been saying that in every post I have written on this subject. Of course the F, G, and I’s augmented 6 chord is completely different from the augmented 6 we understand today. This is why I am strongly against calling it (F, G, and I chord) an augmented 6. It is obviously not by the chordal system we have today. Chris even said it himself, this chord was rooted to describe the Dominant 7 chord we replaced it with. Since today these terms, augmented and dominant, are different; it is nothing less than confusion. You can't have 2 different augmented 6 chords. You can not tell me this chord in this arrangement is not an A Augmented 6 chord: A, C#, E#, F#. It is in fact, an A augmented 6. So what would you call: A, C#, E, F#??? An A augmented 6?? Well I thought the first one was an Augmented 6 chord?? See how this is completely confusing and unnecessary. I would call the 2nd one, Amaj#6; it is perfectly correct and it also prevents the confusion of the two. The F, G, and I’s augmented 6 is an OLD IDEA, maybe for the traditional theorist it is important, but modernly it is a obsolete. Stop trying to bring old stuff back to explain modern stuff, IT DOESN’T WORK!!!

Originally posted by griphon2
The real difference between dominants and Aug6 is the resolution of the tritone. As I said long ago. The real important item of this chord is Aug 6 =3rd moves down, 7th moves up.
Dom 7 = 3rd moves up, 7th moves down.

If this is the reason that you still call it (F, G, I chord)the augmented 6, it is still unnecessary. I strongly believe it should be left in the past. I'm also guessing that when you say the 7th in the augmented 6 chord, you are referring to the 6th. There is no 7th in the augmented 6th. The numbers after the names, well they do mean something (meaning they don't change to fit enharmonic analysis). The Aug 6, or as I'm going to put it, Maj#6. Still has the same resolution, the #6 still wants to go up. The modern Aug6, the 5th(#5) still wants to move up, usually 1/2 step. The 6th will move down, and 3rd will move up. I am mostly sure of the previous sentence for I have not used this theory in many years. I am still 100% sure of the Aug6's #5 moving up 1/2 step, when the F, G, I augmented 6 (Maj#6), the 5th will move with the root (adding to griphon's statement). Which established my point anyways. I do not disagree with your statement on the resolution of these chords, I am only showing the difference between the 2 different augmented chords. Geez, even writing about it is confusing me. LOL. I do not support this theory, I still believe you should follow your ear. Music is an art not a science, so all this is pure rubbish to a true creative mind. No Offense. If it helps some fine, do what you want. These rules clearly limit your creativity.

One last statement, I believe this difference of opinions is a good thing for I have learned something. Before I was unaware of the Augmented 6 that was used by the F, G, and I. Now I am, and although I don't agree with it being called that anymore. It has opened me up a little more. Chris, I have been looking into it, if you have any recommendations. That would be awesome. Griphon, I did try to look at this site.It didn't work. In the end, nothing has changed my mind, and I feel nothing will. My agruement is legit! The reason I rival all statements, that I don't agree with and are so traditionally valued, is the fact that all theories change. For that is what music theory is, a theory. This disagreement is an argument over those theories, and all these theories began as a Point of View (even the analytical ones). None are labeled facts, now are they??



[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-15-2003 at 04:37 PM]

[griphon2]

This is very disconcerting. I don't know what to say.
I guess to you, being right is more important. I am so, so sorry. I really hate to do this. Please forgive me.

Sorry, this theory is fact. You have not done one iota of any research or thinking. (and it's NOT what you've been saying in previous posts, and still not.) It's unfortunate it's still called theory. It's even more unfortunate that you won't listen (an extreme musical concern to me, and a lot of time being wasted), not only grammatically, at least your spelling. This is not past, it's quite generic to YOUR future. This constant misinformation, I will fight. Since you think your are smarter or more intelligent than everyone before you and denying a most PHD'd (link) information is insulting. Tunnel vision the size of an optic fiber is of great concern. If the forum wishes your misinformation; so be it.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2 This is very disconcerting. I don't know what to say. I guess to you, being right is more important. I am so, so sorry. I really hate to do this. Please forgive me.

I’m sure it is man. When everyone thought the earth was flat and someone said it was round. I bet all those people were concerned as well. Not that I am comparing this incident to that one, or that I am one to change another’s mind, or that I am ultimately correct and you are wrong. I have stated over and over that, “those who read this can take my word or not, I could care less.”

Originally posted by griphon2 Sorry, this theory is fact. You have not done one iota of any research or thinking. (and it's NOT what you've been saying in previous posts, and still not.) It's unfortunate it's still called theory

I’m sorry but it is theory. The 3rd in a dominant chord doesn’t always have to go up. This is a theory!!! If you think it’s a fact then I feel sorry for you because music can go in any direction it wants to. Since music is expression, it doesn’t always have to be natural sounding. I went through this when I was talking to Chris. If you wish to be a DIE-HARD follower of this rule, that’s your choice. I say there is more freedom than that. And this is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. Go back and read my posts again if you have too.

Originally posted by griphon2 It's unfortunate it's still called theory.

Yeah, cause it would be great to have all the answers in music and a blueprint for writing the perfect song every time. What would the fun be in that??

Originally posted by griphon2 It's even more unfortunate that you won't listen (an extreme musical concern to me, and a lot of time being wasted), not only grammatically, at least your spelling.

Dewd, I’ve listened to everything you’ve said. Everything you have said has been nothing short of insulting me or trying to turn people of this forum against me. I have apologized to you on the count of our misunderstanding, you have not. I feel you should, you were not right nor did you give a fair explanation to what you were saying. It was a misunderstanding. It wasn’t until chris came and explained to me what you were even talking about. That I could understand what you were saying, about the F, G, and I augmented 6. On this new arguement, you have still not given any exceptional piece of information to even sway me to believe you. Even your explanations are indirect, like your copying it straight from a book. You never explain anything to anyone directly. You’ve only said I’m right your wrong, then an insult. Like my spelling, I never liked spelling anyways.

Originally posted by griphon2 This is not past, it's quite generic to YOUR future.

My future?? I’m sorry dewd, but I will never need this information. Most of the knowledge I have on music theory, I barely use. I don’t need it. I can write anything I hear in my head perfectly without any reference to theory. I don’t even need an instrument, just a sheet of paper to write it down. My only use of theory now is understanding music itself. I've done a pretty good job without such information.

Originally posted by griphon2 This constant misinformation, I will fight.

Well man, I’m kind of getting tired of it. I write the same thing over and over, and you still seem to misinterpret it. Or you just take something in what I wrote and then say I’m full of it. Your whole argument is saying your right and insults toward me. I’m surprised no one has said anything to you, I have tried to be as respectful as I can without taking your crap. So either put up or shut up!

Originally posted by griphon2 Since you think your are smarter or more intelligent than everyone before you and denying a most PHD'd (link) information is insulting.

Again, your immature attempts to make me look like a dick. Also, your link did not work, for me at least. I have never said I was smarter or more intelligent than anyone. I believe it was you whose implied you were smarter, at least smarter than me. Here’s the quote:

Originally posted by griphon2 To think that French, Italian, or German 6s is a new musical system, or your logic of Bach and Santana, insults, my and every decent musician's, that has spent much time in the realm, intelligence

I guess when you said “my”, you meant “me”. Then implied the word, “intelligence”, over my logic. To me and anyone, your saying your smarter than me along with every other decent musician. Also I am not denying any PHD information, I believe it all to be very truthful and very helpful to anyone interested in music. I will not follow it, I don’t think I’m insulting anyone by this. I have proven my point why I will not, and it is logical. I have no need for it, and I just can’t see why that p*sses you off so much. I am speaking of freedom, you are speaking like a dictator.

[chris mood]

You guys are funny -LOL- I dig this sh*t. L0L

[noticingthemistake]

LOL..I know, isn't it?? It's stupid! He's ticked off because I choose to call it an Maj#6, rather than an Augmented 6. :rolleyes:

And the fact that I support writting music based on what you want to hear, rather than science. I don't care what he does.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
I’m sure it is man. When everyone thought the earth was flat and someone said it was round. I bet all those people were concerned as well. Not that I am comparing this incident to that one, or that I am one to change another’s mind, or that I am ultimately correct and you are wrong. I have stated over and over that, “those who read this can take my word or not, I could care less.”

I'd like to clarify some of the stuff I said alittle before the arguements turns to another point completely. What I mean by this, is that just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it can't be true.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
Also I am not denying any PHD information, I believe it all to be very truthful and very helpful to anyone interested in music. I will not follow it, I don’t think I’m insulting anyone by this. I have proven my point why I will not, and it is logical. I have no need for it, and I just can’t see why that p*sses you off so much. I am speaking of freedom, you are speaking like a dictator.


I am not discounting any theorist or anyone involved in music in a high degree than me. I have my views on this subject and maybe some have different views. My point of view on this subject of Maj#6 vrs. F, G, and I augmented 6's, is a legit way of getting rid of the confusion. I clearly demonstrated this numerous times and against any flaw that may have been seen. However if you choose one or the other, that's your choice. Theoritically, Mechanically, and Analytically both are legit. My opinion is that the F, G, and I augmented 6 causes much more confusion between itself and the "other augmented 6". So Maj#6 is easier and more direct based on modern chord structure.

[chris mood]

On to the next debate: Figured Bass!

[chris mood]

The link Griphon posted does work. BTW your going to have to alter your maj.#6 theory when dealing w/the French 6, you'll have to call it a Major b5#6!??!!

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by chris mood
The link Griphon posted does work.

It isn't working for me, my browser keeps freezing up. I dunno why, I would like to see it.

Originally posted by chris mood
BTW your going to have to alter your maj.#6 theory when dealing w/the French 6, you'll have to call it a Major b5#6!??!!

Just when I thought this couldn't have gotten anymore confusing. We now have THREE different augmented 6 chords. Right, the Aug.6 I propose, the French Aug.6, and the German and Italian Aug.6?? Or do the Germans and the Italians have different Augmented 6 chords also. If so, that's FOUR augmented 6 chords. It would have been nice to say this from the beginning, don't you think. So now that we're on a roll here, why don't we just start calling all chords with a #6 an Augmented 6 chord. Cause you see we're trying to take the confusion out of theory, right?? :rolleyes: LMMFAO!!!! At least that's what Griphon said, and he's the one who introduced this to the conversation stating and I quote:

Originally posted by griphon2
The idea of the site seems to me is to be taking some of the complication out of theory, excercises, licks, music, etc.

I think this conversation has done an absolutely astounding job of this <sarcasm>. Sorry guys.

Also, the Majb5#6 is more well-known as a "7b5" chord. Enharmonically speaking, but the bottom line is these F, G, and I chords don't really exist much in modern music anyways. Griphon agreed.

Originally posted by griphon2
Going to try this one more time. It is in a sense a maj triad with a #6 extension. (It evolved to this idea much later, and quite frankly is never used.)

I do not insist those who came up with the F, G, and I chords stupid. I said it is stupid to use this idea now, cause in all truth the chordal understanding of that time is different from the one used today. When those chords were used they were probably just as useful as the dominant 7th we have today. Today, the chordal structure almost forbids the use of them. They simple contradict to many things, and although they are legit they don't work anymore under those names.

[griphon2]

I'm sorry about all of this. Keep your view. I'm sorry Aug 6s ever came up. Chris, in the German 4/3 example 7 is a rewritten G#7 C/G G in Am. In the French 4/3 ex.8 is D7b5 G
and ex.9 D7b5 Cm/G G both in Cm. (forgot to mention, these b5 changes are also know as double tritones.)I've said previously, Aug 6s are very tedious. Augmented 6 chords are simply dominant chords. Thank goodness nowadays, Aug 6s are notated that way. (as dominants)

[Edited by griphon2 on 02-16-2003 at 11:49 AM]

[noticingthemistake]

Thank god that's over. :) Or their is at least an understanding. Griphon I never tried to change your ways of viewing this subject nor anyone else's. Those chords are very tedious indeed, especially nowdays. I think the F, G, and I chords would still hold up today if the dominant wasn't introduced. They were legit but ultimately confusing, and I guessing thats why they were renamed dominants. Also, this is why I was explaining them in more modern terms.

A small question. If each of the 3 F, G, and I chords were different. Would either the German or Italian chord be "7#5" or just a plain dominant?? I noticed there is one solid dominant 7 chord, and 2 altered (#5, b5). Chris stated the french 6 is the altered (b5) dominant 7 chord. Which one is the natural dominant 7, and which one is the other altered (#5) dominant 7 chord? Just wondering if this is the case.

[griphon2]

Need to apologize, I made an error. Ex 7 is in C. I made an assumption I shouldn't have. It would still work in in Am. An easier can of worms.

Ok.

I don't understand your question.

A small question. If each of the 3 F, G, and I chords were different. Would either the German or Italian chord be "7#5" or just a plain dominant??

But, I'll try to answer in this way. Just throw out all the German, French, and Italian stuff. Any chord can be approached... dang, this is complicated. German, French and Italian Aug 6s are in essence dominant chords that have the same tritone. Ab7 and D7 have the same tritone. These two chords are know as double tritones. All dominant chords have this, it's b5 sub or relative. Not only do both chords have the same 3rd and 7th, their roots are tritones. That's why they can sub for each other, b5 or dominant 7. Now throw out the fanciful German, French and Italian Aug 6s. It's not a big deal for guitar players, because we can't voice chords exactly like a piano player. Some rules apply and some don't. Mostly, this can be done effectively by ear. The problem will!!! (I learned it the hard way, long ago.) arise if you orchestrate for other instruments, especially horns and winds from the guitar, and some lousy fiddle players. There are many, many, many, pitfalls. I would advise orchestrating on paper and checking on the piano.

Most of the examples were advanced examples of direct modulation to the key of G via tritone. The first three examples were a fancy way to get to the dominant thru a tritone secondary dominant. (in C or Cm) None of the examples shown, produced a #5. The logic is the same, though. b5 and #5 are within the same whole tone scale. (a borrowed chord idea) Any chord can be approached from 1/2 step above or below, by tritone, by 4th or 5th by a plain dominant or altered dominant. (remember I look at diminished chords as diminished or altered dominants, depending on what I want or the voice leading.)

I sincerely hope this helped.

[griphon2]

The system or POV(now) is all this redundant knowledge I've acquired over a long time. Played professionally in just about all forms of music, except rap and/or hippoop.
You name it, I've probably played it at one time or the other for money. Classical guitar to pure jazz, in asundry of circumstances. Reading to non reading. Those pesky pents
and knowing how to alter them and understanding the extraneous knowledge is the key to modern day good guitar players. Pretty much all guitar players start with pents to play lead. Just moving pents can give the exact same results that all the knowledge in traditional theory provides. It's difficult to see at first, but incredibly easy to do. The theory helps with the tricks.

[noticingthemistake]

About the question I asked, I wasn't sure if you answered it or not. Haha That sounds kind of stupid so I'll clear up what I was asking. I'm going to use the formula basis this time. I know french, german doesn't mean anything but I'm going to use it as a reference to the 3 chords.

Chris said the French Augmented 6 chord was the following formula: 1, 3, b5, #6. And that the other two were different.

Now since these chords are really dominant 7 chords, enharmonically. Now to my understanding, there are 3 dominant 7 chord (2 are altered [#5, b5]). I'm kinda putting 3 and 3 together. Which ones are also called the italian, and german augmented 6 chords.

Here are the 3 dom7 chord formulas:

1) 1, 3, b5, #6 = french augmented 6.

2) 1, 3, #5, #6 = is this one of the other 2 chords(G, I)??

3) 1, 3, 5, #6 = if so, which one of the chords is this??

I am pretty much making a guess that this may be a fact. It makes sense but I don't know. That's why I am asking.

[chris mood]

Italian = my understanding of this chord is that it is a Dom7 w/the 5th omitted

German = Dom7

French = Dom7b5

I have yet too see an example w/ a #5 (personally this is one of my favorite chords, I prefer the sound much better then the b5)

Hey Griphon, I just scored a steady Fri/Sat gig playing solo guitar (nylon) at a fancy restaurant when I'm not playing w/the band. I currently do finger style arrangements of jazz, pop, flamenco, and classical. The owner is a real big admirer of classical guitar, and I must admit, out of the 4 styles classical is my weakest, I've always played it for fun but never really got real serious w/it. I need to expand my classical reportoire and wonder if you could give me some ideas.
I'm pretty familiar w/ Carcassi, and do the Bach minuet and Bourree, as well as the staple Romance and a flamenco version of Austurias. I'm looking for some songs that sound pretty and make for nice backround (as well as impressive) For difficulty I'm looking for something in the middle of the road, say like around Bourree, something I can get to performance level in a matter of weeks, not months. Any Ideas?

[noticingthemistake]

Thanx man. Now I got a little more knowledge behind those chords. I also agree with the last statement, the altered dominant (b5) doesn't appeal to me as much either. The "m7b5" is a much better b5 chord. The "b3" balances out the tones a little better.

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, and Griphon would no doubt give a better answer. But one piece that people are very intrigued by is "Beethoven's Fur Elise". Especially on classical guitar and I think it's subtle enough for the atmosphere and still recognizable enough to catch an eye or two. Because everybody knows it and not many have heard it played on guitar, and it sounds awesome. It should have been arranged for guitar to begin with. :) I play it all the time on bass and people are amazed at it's quality of tone. It's a feeble request and probably sounds like something a poseur would say, but it does really sound good. It's also simple so you could quickly start playing it in your repertoire.

[chris mood]

I know the 1st part of fur elise (the part everybody recognizes) but after that it starts to get out of range and you have to transpose stuff down and octave and so on. It's probably doable, but thats more of a project song. It's fun you use that little bit as a intro for songs in the key of Eminor, I'll use it for stuff like Song#41 by Dave Mathews and Voodoo Child. Beethovens probably rolling over in his grave about now.

[griphon2]

Check out my classic guitar site (link) on page 9 of this thread. I can never remember the address. An old and cheap
guitar transcription and midi sequence is there. Fur Elise.

[chris mood]

yeah, I've been there. Can't seem to get the transcriptions though, I just get the midi-files.

[griphon2]

I've read the very last thread before reading the previous.
I actually studied with a few masters. Met Sophlocles Papas before he died. I'll help the best way I can. My collection of scores have diminished because of a major theft about 10 years ago. I have been collecting gifs and PDFs through the last couple of years. Your French aug6 question was answered earlier. Later.

[griphon2]

If you have cakewalk, when you download the tune, you should be able to read it. Some of them I may have in gifs or pdfs.

[griphon2]

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/guitare-classique-patrick.navarro/accueil2.html

Here is one site of reasonably nice transcriptions. It's in French, though. There also are some pop-ups. Click partitions and you're there. You'll see Compositeurs alphabetically. Have at it. They are free.

Here is another. Should keep you busy for awhile.

http://perso.flamenco.free.fr/menu-uk.php

[Edited by griphon2 on 02-17-2003 at 10:30 AM]

[noticingthemistake]

Great sites griphon. :) I wish I had known about those before.

[Leedogg]

HAHAHAHAHA. I haven't visited this site in like 5 days, and I come back and this thread has ballooned to gigantic proportions. I just wanted to know how to play those 4 notes :) So here's the deal with me. I've been playing for 2 years, but I know next to no theory. I'm just really good at spitting out other people's stuff I've memorized off of tab's. To me it seems like playing guitar has two different facets, actual physical ability to manuevre your fingers into playing the right notes, and then theory. Much to my chagrin I lack the latter. Should I just start memorizing random scales?