PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Woodshedding - Learning to Play! Chords don't tell you what you need to know

Ok some might see this as a rant (and they would not be wholly wrong)...

The more I learn about standard notation the more I realise that it is unnecessarily obscure and makes learning so much harder. For example doesn't the whole idea of Myxolydian augmented 5th sound so complex and confusing, frightening even, it must put off so many learners.

I am sitting here looking at the chord symbol A7b9. How many altered notes are there? My first reaction would be to say one a b9? Well, what I have not said, is that this chord appears as the second chord in a 1,6,2,5.

The key thought is that the 6th mode in a 1,6,2,5. is an A minor not A Major, so the 3rd of the chord is altered - not just the 9th as indicated.
Converting to Roman numerals does no good, the chord simply becomes VI7b9, Nashville is no better.

I sort of knew this before, but I have been trying to sight read chords on the piano, and it is plain that one must discern the structure, before one reads - making the whole process harder.

There is so much like this in music making our life harder for no good reason - do re mi fa sol .... but what of a minor third in this system? No word at all, much less for a #4.

Why not a notation system that actually tells us what we need, in an obvious way!



Z

A7b9 tells you exactly what you need to know. A C# E G Bb. You're thinking in an abstract way. No one thinks of the chords that way. Experienced players have no problems with standard chord notation. The only chord open to different interpretations would be a chord like C7alt. You just need more basic chord study. Ray

Ray, you could be right, (and I guess your more of a pianist than me) I come from a melodic instrument background and think in scales. I see things like the scale syllabus and find sometimes they call for unusual scales. When I see a chord I also need to know about the inbetween notes. Some people say the flat 9 calls for a diminished starting on the semitone.
But what does Am tell you about a sixth? Would it be a flat 6 or a natural one?

Z

Generally speaking, the in between notes would be in the key of the song. There are always exceptions though. Ray

Z
If the 7b9 appears as a VI chord in a I VI II V progression then it's being used as a secondary dominant of IIm7. Jazz is fundamentally a chromatic music and secondary dominants are one of the oldest chromatic devices in music.

Secondary dominants, usually chromatic types as you know are used all the time to lead into diatonic scale degree chords. So the major third leads into the bVII tone of IIm7 by a half step resolution and the root of IIm7 by the same half step in the opposite direction.

They can have the effect of turning the chord they resolve into a temporary tonic; a kind of transient modulation.
You can choose to relate to that temporary tonic or treat the whole 1 6 2 5 sequence as a passage in the key to which the 5 chord resolves.

Jazz works this way melodically as well, with chromatic embellishments or enclosures leading up to or placed around a target chord tone. In each case its a matter of tension and resolution occurring at a high rate in the accompaniment and the improvised line.

HTH

Alan

thank you Ray..

That was my point Ray, the chord symbol does not tell you this, it only tells you some of the notes you need. The other notes need to be derived by looking at the key and working them out. This mental calculation has to take place, where as if we had a symbol that showed the complete preferred scale options, inc 6ths 9ths, fourths...


Z

Yes, Alan, understood, but this does not explain the presence of a flat 9, is this simply a chromatic passing tone? As a function of the IIm functioning as the one its a flat 6th, though this position (IIm) would indicate a dorian minor


Just musing...

You have to learn what the "avoid" notes are. For instance, a G# in an A7b9 would be played, (generally speaking), as a grace note. Ray

Is there any way to study the "avoid notes" - I seem to find them all the time lol. What I need is a book with some exercises that then asks me "Find the avoid note" - and of course doing this with 'academic studying' will be a far cry from doing so in real time during improvisation.

http://tamingthesaxophone.com/jazz-scales Here's one site for avoid notes. Google is full of them. Ray

Z

Yes it has no reference to the dorian II other than to provide chromatic voice leading to the II chord. That's my understanding anyway.

Ray and Joe

I prefer the 'grace note' as opposed to the 'avoid note' explanation and sometimes even that doesn't apply nowadays when there's so many post-bop or neo-bop players playing freely with the chords using interval sequences rather than chords/scales and even stressing tensions on the strong beat(in Dolphy or Brecker style) rather than resolving into consonance.
It's certainly still think it's a valid approach for older swing and bop styles though where overt use of stressed or prolonged dissonance is still avoided like the plague.


Alan

The b9 is there because the composer wanted it there at that particular time and to make sure the improviser plays a b9 instead of a natural 9. Ray

Well, yes that's true, but it does not constitute an explanation of the sound's place in the harmony - maybe there isn't one of course.

In early Jazz - Dixie and similar, the fourth was treated like an avoid note, the seventh was also treated with caution, so you get a pentatonic sound.

Personally, I like to think of all 12 tones in a chromatic heirarchy in a chord from sonority to dissonance - the more dissonant being treated like passing tones. 'Avoid' notes and even avoid chords can sound great - if - resolved, tension and release

Just my opinion.

Z

Zero Zero,

As a lifelong music student, I've paid much, much, money for lessons - and unfortunately, I don't have a natural musical ear for harmony - melody and rhythm yes, but not harmony.

As I approach 50, I have had one music teacher (the gentleman that publishes the VGEdiciones.com series - Enrique Vargas) who is an absolutely amazing musical analyst (as you can see if you take a look at his books and transcriptions) open my eyes to the level of analysis you describe. Though a flamenco specialist, he has an extensive background in jazz also, and has played with some of the greats.

For years, I thought that 'learning songs' was the thing to do - and I did not progress in learning and applying theory in the context of those songs.


Now, everybody learns differently - but I will say that studying with this great teacher has brought me EXACTLY to the place you are in your thinking and the 'complication' of soloing and understanding the harmony WITH RESPECT TO THE MELODY AND TONAL CENTER.

I'm not sure if this has been so hard for me (and maybe you too) because:

a.) I studied only guitar - and as a positional instrument makes it too easy to play songs without understanding these concepts

b.) I did NOT major or minor in music

c.) I had guitar teachers that were unaware of the importance of this view of harmony/melody

...probably a combination of the above.

But I will say that the point you're making is definitely NOT clearly and directly taught in any of the music theory books I've studied...and I've collected many, many of these books.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with your analysis, but I'm not sure they may not think this level of analysis is even necessary.

How about you Ray and Alan - is this level of analysis even important to you ?

Would also love to hear feedback on this one from some of our great musicians and players out there.

In a word Joe Yes.

I too began by playing things I did not understand- they often sounded fine but I could not transpose them, or use them in different settings.

One of the things I am trying to achieve at present is the ability to sight read any chord in any key.
In order to do this I ONLY play notes I understand. By understand, I mean something different to the ordinary use of the word, I mean understand musically.

An example:

To 'understand' the concept of a triad

1] Know the intervals involved in terms of names, steps, know the minor, major, diminished and augmented forms.
2] Know how to play these notes in their inversions instantly in any key, in any pattern. This involves muscle memory and the use of different fingers (according to where you come from and where you are going finger placement wise). It involves many different ways of the fingers transversing the keyboard - all this muscle memory must be automatic
3] To know aurally - that is to play a note because one can hear it.

Knowing in this sense is both intellectual and muscle memory. It is a great deal of work (!)
When this is achieved then there is freedom - emotional freedom.

Of course it is possible to achieve all this without learning to read music, but it's the long way to go. It's about mental categorisation and planning.

My first piano piece was a Minuet by Bach. I learnt this piece 'off by heart'. What I noticed was that even though this piece exposed me to muscle memory runs, these runs were not appearing in my improvisation. I figured out there were two reasons. Firstly, I did not know the relationship between the run and the chord, and secondly I was not thinking of this relationship quickly enough to implement it.


Z

Joe: Have you ever downloaded Earmaster Pro? It really helped me to develop my ear. Be prepared to fall flat on your face for a month or two, but it does grow...the ear that is, just like the callouses on your fingers. You can develop a great ear using this app.

I also think that the whole concept of ear training being confined to interval recognition and chord recognition is too limited. Counting beats, feel of styles, the ability to discern an instrument in a mix, all have to be learnt too. I class this as ear training too


IMO

Z

Yes - downloaded Earmaster Pro over a year ago, and it is sitting there laughing at me. I will try to wipe the smile off its little face by allowing your reminder and encouragement to open it up and start using it. My problem is I 'buy' the things I want to eventually use, while taking years to use them. It should really be the other way around, but I've got this American disease of wanting 'things' I like regardless of if I have an immediate need for them - or maybe there is a better way to describe the condition. (don't be disrespectful on opening I've provided - you know who you are).

Double-Zero, my music teacher and I just had an incredibly passionate discussion about just how much one needs to memorize the things you mention in order to be a good player - and his point was that I'm over-memorizing some things (included in your list) that are overkill and actually counterproductive to your goal, given other things you could be practicing instead. Yours are great goals, but if every player put themselves through such rigor - they may not have become the good players they are. The hard part of getting good at something is learning from the 'greats' at what point you are spinning your wheels with respect to your goal - and this is usually something you don't know you "dont' know". Many of the people that insist you must know these things inside out and consciously are not themselves half the players that actually CAN'T do the things you mention.

Just my two dollars and two cents for the point I'm at in my music learning - yet I still idealize being able to do the things you've mentioned.

Good luck with Earmaster, ten minutes a day with no results for at least a month, was my start.

My aim is different to many, I consciously intend to make all 12 notes available, in all keys, at all times. I am currently about two thirds there IMO. I am not really interested in playing like the 'greats', not that these studies are not absolutely legit. I do have a teacher, do learn some jazz standards, though. At present I am focussing whole on technique, but that's ok for now, for me.

Just curious Zero, my ultimate aim is to actually be able to more easily play with others, learn new tunes, and accelerate the rate at which it takes me to learn new tunes and improvise.

I've thought that doing exactly what you stated would get me there - but for me this became an end in itself to the neglect of enjoying music and playing songs - sort of like losing the forest...

Is yours and end goal in itself, simply for the matter of the pure pleasure of saying "I can do this"...or is it a means to an end more similar to those I've created ?

Just curious at what motivates different people to spend long hours practicing monotonous music studies.

My aim is similar to yours. I took up piano late after playing saxand other instruments.

I once asked my sax teacher what chords to learn first, he just said 'them all, your going to need them all'.

When you think about it, if yo were teaching a math student multiplication tables and they asked the same question, the answer would be the same.

I had a bass player visit my studio the other day, a pro. He got out the Real Book sight read a few songs, first recording a bass part, then recorded a harmony track (all on the bass!) then a melody track - using bass again (upper register). He did this without even thinking about it, without making errors and without breaking a sweat.
Playing with bands (on sax) I remember being laughed at for asking the key (with good players) I was expected to hear it and jump in. Baptism by fire, I know, and there are other bands that would not do this.

The key to all this is to keep it simple, learn something within your grasp, but something you can use as a building block in a methodical way. Always play with feel and accuracy - this is where BIAB is so useful. I use it three to eight hours a day, I want to achieve freedom on the piano, I am in my seventh year. I do play tunes, I memorise them all. This hampers my sight reading for the piano, but I dont really need this except for Real Book level. I find that it also pays to work on a tune down to its very core, not only the straight melody as played, but also lots of variations based on theory. I learn a lot this way.

When I was young I played trumpet and cornet. I used to sight read everything and I got really fast at it. I remember doing all of the Beethoven Symphonies and lots of the competition pieces for Brass bands, however I could not play a note without a sheet of paper. I always wanted to play freely, from the heart, without barriers. None of my Band members (well respected players - some of them world cornet champions brass band style) could improvise. Its a different culture, the classical training, I believe it robs the player of creativity.
On sax, my reading is mediocre (and jazz is harder to read than classical because of syncopation) but my impro skills are fine now. I play hundreds of standards.

Z

I will wade in here at suggest that you take the freebie Introduction to Jazz Improvisation from Berklee, taught by none other than Gary Burton.

It's free. It's Gary Burton. It's also hard for someone who hasn't studied jazz before.

But then again, it's free and it's Gary Burton teaching the class. Yes, that Gary Burton.

https://www.coursera.org/course/improvisation

Session starts February 2, 2015. No excuse not to join in, no spam, and Gary Burton teaches you jazz improvisation and deals with exactly the topic of this thread. Eventually.

IMHO you need to get to the point where you just play and not have to think whether you have to play an F or F# in a certain spot. IMO you tend to over-think some things and that will get in the way of your actual playing. Ray

Thank you for your advice Ray. I am sure you mean well. See though, I have always analysed everything, its in my DNA, this is not to say your approach is not valid of course.

Mind you I can play off the cuff

This is me, completely off the cuff, new song new band, no time to think of chords or key,first take...

(Sax)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2nahzybzmr3q3uh/Red%20House.WAV?dl=0

Thanks for the tip on the Gary Burton Berklee course. Excellent!

Ron...

I generally avoid discussion of theory since it's not critical to my everyday functioning in music.

However....

When you look at the written sheet music, you are given everything you need to know. Assuming you can read the music. You have the key signature which tells you the key and indicates the sharps or flats that are in the music. Knowing that, you play the correct notes.

If a note is intended to be one of the "avoid notes" but the composer intends you to play it, that too is indicated by use of an accidental.... a sharp or flat symbol placed immediately in front of that note.

Chord symbols are there in sheet music for other folks, mainly guitar players who can not read the notes on the staff. If you're using them to play the song, your accuracy is going to be diminished from someone who can read the music.

I took piano lessons for a number of years and had a piano teacher who could look at a piece of music she had never seen before and tell you all about that particular piece of music..... key, chords, inversions of the chords, whether it was a major or a minor key and so on...

If you are having difficulty with something, before you make the assumption that the system is broken or incomplete, learn more about it because 99% of the time, it's not a broken or incomplete system, it's a lack of knowledge. This was brought home to me in a real way when I bought a pistol and shot it.... I thought the sights were off.... the gunsmith at the store told me to "go learn the right way to shoot before you start messing with the sights".... and he was correct. It was me lacking the knowledge.... so too with music and long established musical systems be it the Nashville system or do, re, mi, or whatever else.... all those systems were developed over time to allow people to use them to play music that someone else had composed and to do it relatively accurately.

I'm not trying to bust on you..... just saying that perhaps a bit more study with a teacher or mentor who understands them would be helpful. If you have a teacher who doesn't understand those systems, there's no way they can teach their students the proper use of those systems.

Well said Herb. +1 Ray

Hi Guitar Hacker,
With respect, you make my point.

The title of the thread is "Chords don't tell you what you need to know", I still hold this is true. I was meaning when used for improvising. If your trying to play along to a new song and you come across a chord you cant tell what notes are going to be 'in' and what notes are going to be 'out' by looking at the chord symbol. The example I used in the original post is an A7 appearing in a C progression. You have to make some calculations to realise that the C# needs to be handled with care.

Just because a system has been around for a long time it does not mean its a good system. yes its true, that as you study music sometimes it can reveal that the complexities of the notation system are there for a purpose, but not always. There are lots of things that could be a lot easier to understand.

Music is a language, similar to 'natural' languages, like English or Chinese, it has evolved from a number of diverse forms and usages. As these languages evolved in various ad hoc settings, for purposes that are now sometimes defunct they bring with them redundancy and unnecessary complexity.
We use words to spell, but there are lots of illogicalities in the English spelling system that make it hard for learners to master the art. Similarly in music there are lots of attributes that make it hard to master reading and writing music. They are simply historical anomalies.
The problem is that even if you can invent a new system that does away with the problems, it's hard for such a system to gain universality - e.g. Esperanto.

If a person simply learns English, in order to speak it - to perform the act of listening and speaking - then they might not realise that the system they are using is full of contradictions, they simply use it. Its only when its pointed out that cough and bough and bow are inconsistently spelt, that it comes to their notice. If a person points out the illogicalities in music it does not necessarily mean they simply have to understand its rules better.

When improvising, sight reading a series of chords, if you come across an Am7 chord it does not tell you that it is a Phrygian, Dorian or Aeolian minor, so you have to calculate it's context to find out what kind of ninths and sixths to use. If you use the wrong kind, they can stand out like a sore thumb. All this takes time and effort.
As an off the cuff example, If the chord symbol was simply AP(for Phrygian) or AD, or AA you would know both the scale and the chordal tones and would be able to improvise more freely and quickly.

The whole system comes from the needs of medieval monks scratching church modal needs onto parchment, gradually a uniformity of script was built, and this was extended and modified.

Imagine a learner, looking at a note on a staff. The note is on the middle ledger line. What note is it? Well that's a legitimate question in my book, but...

It could be a B - if its treble clef, or it could be a D if its bass clef. Its even possible that it could be the French Violin Clef, or The C clef or the Sub bass clef - each giving different notes. Additionally, it can raise a semitone, or lower a semitone, and this can either be indicated next to the note or elsehwere. It can even be raised or lowered a tone by the presence of a double flat or sharp.

If the instrument is a transposing instrument, for any one of these clefs, it could be termed a "B", or an "A", but it actually might be another note entirely, so that when you as an Alto sax player refer to a specific note, then your tenor sax friend refers to the same pitch using a different name from the same system, your French Horn player again something different and your pianist yet again some other pitch, using the same term.

The student's question was a simple one, "what note is that?" but the answer is unnecessarily complex, in the same was as bough, bow (bend) and bow (ribbon).
It's my personal view that the system we have handed down to us, often does not tell us what we need to know, or makes it obscure so we have to derive simple essential information (like what note is this) by calculation.

IMO

Z

I'll grant your point on the "chord chart only" kind of musician. While I tend to fall into that category myself, preferring the chart to reading the notes. My sight reading skill is poor at best on piano, and non-existent on guitar. Oh I can look at the notes on the staff and figure it out if I need to, but essentially I do not read music. Not at a functional level.

Absolutely, I know and understand that the chord charts only give me a portion of what's happening but for what it does, it does it well. On guitar, mostly I am playing a chording pattern behind the other instruments anyway.

IF I, or any other chord chart user really wanted or needed to know what was going on 100% with the sheet music, I, or they, would need to learn to sight read that music on our instrument. And yes, I do freely admit that it is my lack of knowledge and skill in sight reading that is the problem in my case. However, I see no immediate or pressing advantage to spending the time to learn to sight read. For me, if and when I need to provide guitar in some circumstance where sheet music is used, I do one of two things.... I either read the chord charts for the chords I play, or I play by ear knowing from looking at the sheet music the key of the song from it's key signature.

I do believe that ALL needed information can be given through the sheet music including the feel of the music and pauses and other nuances, through the symbols that are used to indicate such things.


An interesting side note to this: I played guitar for many years in the church orchestra. There was rarely ever a part of the songs where the guitar did anything other than play chords. We had several really well classically trained piano players. Several of which who could play anything in any key you put in front of them on sight. And play it like they have known that song all their lives. However, if you asked two of them to play following a chord chart or an impromptu jam in C major and they were totally at a loss on what or how to play it.

I still believe that the time tested musical staff and notes gives the most and the best information to the players involved. Perhaps someone will develop some other better, more efficient system but for now, no.... that's the best we have.

The other systems, such as you mentioned, and in particular, the Nashville chord chart system were developed to fill a particular need and were not intended to be the cure to the music world's ills. Nashville musicians needed a charting system that allowed for ease of understanding and was translatable into any key instantly and thus developed that system for studio use. What it does, it does better than the lines and staff but yes, it lacks in other areas, however, the information it doesn't provide is generally not needed anyway in that system. It filled the need in a particular area of music and that's what mattered most.

Perhaps to be able to understand music fully, the way the composer intended it to be played using our current systems is impossible. However, I believe we can get to the 99.9% mark using the systems we have.

I happen to agree completely and understand Zero Zero's point. I am like guitar hacker in that my sight-reading is poor, and quite frankly, I'd much rather learn to solo over chords than READ solos over chords. It seems to be common for many people that they take one road or the other, and don't have enough sets of "10,000" spare hours to master BOTH.

So that said - as a person that wants to solo from chord symbols, there is nothing that has been created for that to give me a little more of the information I need regarding which scales/notes will and won't work in the context of a song.

Now - it would seem to me that explicitly indicating the particular scales or notes would be the most straightforward way to do this, but that would require and ADDITIONAL nomenclature 'line' along the music for such - I can't see how that would REPLACE the chord symbols, I can only envision a supplement to them for the purpose we mention.

I'm in the process of taking many, many lessons from a really good teacher, who's teaching me EXACTLY what ZeroZero describes as missing from chord charts. That said...there are actually MANY options that can be used, and this would require additional Nomenclature specifying the particular scales/tones to include or not include.

To really analyze a tune an know what scales / arpeggios / extenstions / substitutions will and will not work - well, I guess that's what separates the level of player you are.

I would love to see some additional lines under each measure indicating which scales/chords..etc. to use and the REASONING behind each from players that have studied this.

Maybe for those interested, we could share such charts, as a way of learning and sharing together in the process of improving this aspect of the art of soloing.

And for those that think of using entirely different exotically named scales for EACH chord listed - for me at least, that is way beyond my level of processing for the purpose of an improvisation in real time - it may be an analytically structured way to do it, but there's probably few that have committed the whole, e.g. Abercrombie chart in their head and can play through a new set of changes in the real book thinking this way. I didn't say NOBODY could do it - but my guess is very few musicians can do this of the entire bunch in the world.

One of the big problems with any sort of system other than the tried and true musical staffs previously mentioned is the sheer number of variables upon variables that exist in music.

Joe alludes to this in the post above.... For any given chord.... there are numerous scales that could be played over it.... and variables of each of those.... you could practically "write a book" on each measure as to all the options available... or the layers of depth you might wish to explore.

In most cases, that isn't even close to being feasible or practical. Especially for most of the music we play. If you want that level of awareness, there are music theory and music appreciation classes that will take you there. All I need to know is that I'm in a given key, if it's major or minor and what chord I need to play or solo on. My choice of scale will be dictated by the key and how I intend to play that part because as was pointed out, I have the option to NOT stick to the major scale if that's what I'm hearing and feeling in my soul.

[The title of the thread is "Chords don't tell you what you need to know", I still hold this is true. I was meaning when used for improvising.]

Zero, the above statement of yours tells me that you need to do more studying. A7 tells me exactly what I need to know to improvise. To say that the C# in the A7 needs to be handled with care because the key you're playing in is C, is baloney. You need more study, from a good teacher. You're trying to analyze to the point of "ad absurdum". You're analyzing the wrong things. Ray

Ray - can you point to a single book or two that would explain what ZeroZero (and myself) have missed ? With the abundance of pedagogical materials out there, surely you can point us to a good reference on the topic.

I have been following this thread with great interest but I haven't commented until now.

The scale syllabus should help:
http://jazzbooks.com/mm5/download/FREE-scale-syllabus.pdf

Here is my view:
1-Learn scales, chords and modes as much or as little as you want
2-Learn what scales and modes go with chords as in the syllabus
3-do not let the above get in the way of your playing

That last statement may sound confusing to some. I suggest you play what you feel from your heart then go back and analyze what you have played, if you want too. In other words don't let theory get in the way of your leads and jams, i.e. nothing is worse than a player running scales as a solo with no melody and/or feel. If everyone had stayed within the boundaries of theory we would still be writing and playing like Bach!

On the other hand the more theory you have the more your musical horizons will expand. That is if you have the ear for it. Remember the same 88 keys were under Bach's fingers and were under Monk, Peterson, or Coreas's fingers.

Learning notes contained in chords is what I would start with first. For instance XeroZero's C# statement, a C# is in the chord A7. A C# in a C chord would be written as a Db and the chord might be C7b9 or a C add b9.

I believe that if you base chords on the major scale of the chord's tonic note then all will become quite clear. If you need help on this just let me know.

I am not an expert on theory but I do know some.

http://www.jazzbooks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=JAJAZZ&Category_Code=AEBPUB

The above is a start. The Music-Minus-One series would be good too. Just google Jazz Improvisation for lots of sources.
Accomplished players just do not think of chords the way you are trying to. A7b9 tells you all you need to know. How you play the chord is determined by what came before and what comes after. Ray

http://jazzadvice.com/two-five-progressions-made-easy/ More stuff to check out.

http://www.jazzbooks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?screen=fqbk

This free book should give you a lot of info. Ray

The A7 in the key of C in a I,VI,II,V,I converts the Am (6th chord) into a V chord of the II minor.
This briefly brings the chords out of the key signature, but because the IIm then goes to a V and a I of C we rapidly return.

Z

It's apparent that Ray knows his stuff - thanks for those sources Ray. The best places to find sources is from somebody that knows their stuff !

What you say is absolutely correct and a good analysis of the A7b9 function in the key of C. But a simpler way to approach a flat 9 chord, regardless of the key is to look at it as an alt chord. That makes available all the neat tensions (b5, #5, b9, #9, etc.).

What lk says is entirely correct. Don't think of A7 as going out of the key of C. It's just a chord to play on. Ray