Originally posted by chris mood
[B]Suspensions...thanx, I see, b2 to 1 (isn't that like a Phrygian cadance or something?), b7 to 1:used in Gospel a lot, very hip sounding, minor suspensions (created from diminished chords that exist inside the Dom7b9 chord).

The best way to actual look at those suspension chord is not to obsessively think of the roman numerals but the movement and sound. I know that wasn’t what we were discussing, but it came to me when you pointed out the bII being phrygian, that’s right but it’s also a harmonic minor progression V-VI. As you can see the same suspension occurs in both phrygian and harmonic minor. A good thing about the bII suspension is that you can experiment with different 7th’s and it still sounds pretty good.

1)The "art vrs. theory' seems to be like a wild card on this forum that people always throw into discussions to validate their opinions.....yeah we all know you don't have to be a brain scientist to write a song, paint a picture, write a novel, etc...but sometimes you have to learn things intellectually 1st before you can hear them. I believe a 4yr old child can hear and sing a major scale, penta, etc......but I believe most kids or adults would have a hard time singing a diminished, whole tone, altered dominate, etc, without ist some kind of intellectual training.

I’m not trying to validate any opinion. I’m not trying to say screw theory all you will ever need it your ear. But it should be the foremost tool you use. Theory only makes sense of something, so I have to disagree when you say you can’t hear something until you understand it. I’m lost to why you would even say that and if you believe it. A evenly logical counterpoint to what your saying is can someone sing a scale and just not know what scale it is? A whole tone scales isn’t hard to sing, it’s the same intervallic pattern all the way up. Heck most Gregorian chants were in this manner. It wasn’t until they understood what they did until they it was a whole tone scale. Of course if you went up to someone and said sing the whole tone scale, and if they didn’t have any theory knowledge they would look at you strange. But they are still capable of singing it just not understanding it. An example of this would be someone singing along with a tune on the radio, and say that person has no musical knowledge they can still sing it even if it is in a odd scale. I'm just saying theory is there for us to make sense of music, and yes to introduce us to new ideas. But I don’t recommend it being the creative tool, look into the sound of music first.

2)Inversions...who is to say that the root is going to be doubled? It is not uncommon to double the bass note. Most guitar voicings for inverted 7th & 9th chords do not have the root doubled.

Well if the root isn’t doubled in the chord you think it is then maybe that isn’t the chord you think it is. If you play a Gm7 and the Bb is doubled, the chord is a Bb6/G. Another note doubled and it’s another chord name. This works out fine because for every note in a chord there is a chord name. The note that is doubled is usually the dominant note in that chord, and the fact that the note is doubled makes it the dominant note in the chord. So the chord is written to reflect that. Then whether it’s major or minor, and if it has an extension. The only option is if no note in a chord is doubled, then the chord is ambiguous and you can call it whatever you want. This is hardly the case.

3) A Cmaj13th chord sounds like a A-11/c , it's much to dark sounding for a major chord. Major chord extensions should not go above a 9th, becuase the chord takes on the sound of the relative minor, just like minor chord extensions should not go above an 11th, because it starts to take on the brightness of the relative major.

I agree with the C13 sounding more minor than it does major. But following what I said above ensures that it is still a chord name.

4) Having an understanding of triads within chords is a crucial for understanding the musical genius of such improvisational giants as Coltrane and Parker.... For years I studied the Omini book and wondered how/why Parker broke every theoretical rule ever written and made it sound correct (maj 3rds over minor triads,-7ths over Maj7th chords,etc). I could have just aurally copied what he did, but having the knowledge and understanding of how to achieve this sound makes you a more convincing player. Guitarists Larry Carlton and Scott Henderson are big into triadic improvisation, guitarists who think this way have a tendency to be much more colorful in there improvisations.

Kool. The key word in that whole paragraph is understanding. You theory knowledge allowed you to understand the music. The key to being a improve genius is the understanding of what a scale will do harmonically to a chord. That and having an excellent ear, because sound is still the key to improvising. When I improvise over a C13 chord, I know how each chromatic tone will sound and effect that chord. And I think of that chord as being a C13 chord, because that’s what it sounds like. I never try to take the scenic route of understanding what chords may exist within it. It’s sounds like a C13 chord, bottom line. True that the more you understand the higher tendency you will have to be a better musician. But the level you will be able to reach as a musician is all based on how good you hear, a good ear will take you farther than any theory in the world.

All player needs to be a convincing player is convincing continuality. If a players changes don’t sound natural, then he is not a convincing players. As a composer this is the foremost ability he/she must have. This can be accomplished with theory knowledge and/or with a good ear.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 07-06-2003 at 07:21 PM]