Anomolies, misnomers and confusion

[Major-Minor]

You may have seen the debate that some of us have started on the "Walking Bass" thread.
As this is getting a little off topic I thought maybe we should start a new thread.

The discussion so far has really got my brain into gear, and I've consulted with some of my pro orchestral colleagues, and the more we talked the more we realised that there are many anomalies and misnomers in the world of music theory which can make the study of this subject rather tedious and misleading. I'm sure you will all have a few of your own examples to share with us but here are my first few:

The words MAJOR and MINOR (apt considering my nome de plume)

We all know what we mean when we talk about a major triad or a minor triad. But confusion arises for the newbie when we talk of the interval of a MINOR 2nd (C-Db) or MINOR ninth. What's MINOR about these intervals (if youv'e just had Major and Minor triads explained and demonstrated). They are simply dissonant surely ?
A MAJOR second (C-D) is clear enough, because it is the second note of the tonic major scale - the supertonic in old parlance.
However in a minor scale the supertonic is the same note (D) and not Db. So this still doesn't explain the problem.

The truth is in the origins of the meaning of these words:
Minor means less (flattened)
Major means more (sharpened)
So both words can be used to mean something slightly different depending on context.

This needs to be made clear to the student from the start.

Another example:
Cm6 We all know that is C Eb G A
But C minor has 3 flats in the key signature - so why isn't it an Ab ?
That of course would give us Ab major 7 (second inversion)
Oh you might say - the A natural is because of the melodic minor scale - that has an A natural in it. But this opens another can of worms (and maybe a debate for another thread) about natural, harmonic and melodic minor scales.

But to the newbie, Cm6 can be a misleading chord name.

I think the way jazz language has developed over the last 60 or 70 years has a lot to do with these confusions.
"Classical" theory has always been fairly clear (but long-winded in its nomenclature).
Chromatic supertonic 7th / Dominant 7th with a Neapolitan 6th / Tonic suspension / Tonic (in key of C)
If we write this in jazz abbreviations we get D7 G13 Csus C. Much easier to read but THIS system has many misnomers:

The 11th chord
When I was first a young musician many moons ago, we never (or rarely) saw the 11th chord written on parts. It was always written:
Gm7/C (G minor 7 with a C root) and I still always write it this way for clarity.

Essentially the 11th chord is a miss-abbreviation (brought in I believe by the Americans - they have a lot to answer for, and not just in MUSICAL language)

Viz:
If you build up a C dominant chord in 3rds you get C E G Bb D F (A) - 1/3/5/7/9/11/13
This is quite a dissonant sound - very usable in the right context but nevertheless quite strident. So it is not so useful as a basic chord in a jazz sequence. But if you drop the "E" you get a lovely sound, and one which is easy to solo over (the scale of F major fitting nicely).

Hence really it should be called Gm7((9)/C but that takes up a fair bit of space on the page so it has been reduced to C11.
Not really theoretically correct, but we all know what is meant - unless you are a beginner who hasn't had this properly explained.
Similarly for a dominant 13th chord - same as before C E G Bb D F A is the "correct" notage - building in 3rds (major and minor).
But we all know that a 13th as written on a chart means no F and an optional D. (Of course we can sharpen the F giving us a "13 sharp 11" chord - but that's a whole different story).
That lovely sound of the tritone (Bb-E) with a perfect 4th above(A) is really one of the most distinctive sounds in the jazz cannon. And of course if you change the root from C to Gb (so Gb Bb Fb Bbb or Gb Bb E A) you get another such jazzy timbre, the sharp 9 chord (or, as I was taught, the flat 10)

So to summarize the point I'm trying to make:

When we talk on this forum about the modern way of writing chord sequences, we should be aware that for the newbie, some of the terms used are confusing (indeed they ARE confused), and to the young enquiring mind, this can be most disheartening.

Thats it for now. Looking forward to hearing your own thoughts and examples on this subject.

The Major

[Eight]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='520016' date='Jun 21 2009, 04:07 PM']When we talk on this forum about the modern way of writing chord sequences, we should be aware that for the newbie, some of the terms used are confusing (indeed they ARE confused), and to the young enquiring mind, this can be most disheartening.[/quote]
Granted.

But learning music theory is much easier if you start at chapter one and work your way from there. Not by jumping around topics and trying to pick up concepts you haven't done the ground work for.

[velvetkevorkian]

I've always felt that music is something that's constantly in development, and the theory of it tends to lag somewhat behind its usage. No one (at least, not many!) writes the theory before the music- they write the theory later to try and describe the music. We have a tendency to think of musical theory as something static and unchanging, when in fact its completely the opposite. The development of music can more or less be defined IMO as the breaking of the last generation's set of rules, and this accounts for a lot of the anomalies etc.

That said, my favourite (or least favourite, I suppose) is the idea of transposing instruments (horns in F, E flat trumpets etc) when we now have a prefectly good trumpet (or horn, or whatever) capable of playing all 12 notes equally well. It just seems totally redundant.

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='520064' date='Jun 21 2009, 05:06 PM']I've always felt that music is something that's constantly in development, and the theory of it tends to lag somewhat behind its usage. No one (at least, not many!) writes the theory before the music- they write the theory later to try and describe the music. We have a tendency to think of musical theory as something static and unchanging, when in fact its completely the opposite. The development of music can more or less be defined IMO as the breaking of the last generation's set of rules, and this accounts for a lot of the anomalies etc.

That said, my favourite (or least favourite, I suppose) is the idea of transposing instruments (horns in F, E flat trumpets etc) when we now have a prefectly good trumpet (or horn, or whatever) capable of playing all 12 notes equally well. It just seems totally redundant.[/quote]
Absolutely right. Just as language constantly changes, our approach to musical understanding changes. And believe me, my own approach to everything musical, be it playing composing or arranging is always under review. Without that desire to learn you might as well give up.

I must just comment on the point re transposing instruments. Not that i am a brass/wind player, though I've written often enough for them, but as i understand it, it is to do with the fundamental notes (the roots of the harmonic series) on say a Bb trumpet or an Eb euphonium. And on a Bb or A clarinet, its the fingering which is the same but a semitone away.
So a C trumpet or a C clarinet is easy to write for.
Mind you with computer technology, you don't ever have to worry about transposing any more - its all done at the push of a button.

The Major

[dlloyd]

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='520064' date='Jun 21 2009, 05:06 PM']That said, my favourite (or least favourite, I suppose) is the idea of transposing instruments (horns in F, E flat trumpets etc) when we now have a prefectly good trumpet (or horn, or whatever) capable of playing all 12 notes equally well. It just seems totally redundant.[/quote]

They don't play all notes equally well. Nor does a Bb clarinet (for example) sound the same as an A clarinet or (God forbid) a C clarinet.

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='520170' date='Jun 21 2009, 07:03 PM']They don't play all notes equally well. Nor does a Bb clarinet (for example) sound the same as an A clarinet or (God forbid) a C clarinet.[/quote]
You must have incredible ears if you can distinguish between A and Bb clarinets !

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='Eight' post='520037' date='Jun 21 2009, 04:30 PM']Granted.

But learning music theory is much easier if you start at chapter one and work your way from there. Not by jumping around topics and trying to pick up concepts you haven't done the ground work for.[/quote]
I'm intrigued by your comments and wonder whether you would give us a more detailed viewpoint.
Your first sentence is stating the obvious - the second leaves me wondering what you are trying to say !

The Major

[dlloyd]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='520934' date='Jun 22 2009, 05:43 PM']You must have incredible ears if you can distinguish between A and Bb clarinets ![/quote]

I certainly can when I'm playing them.

And you'd certainly be able to tell the difference if you heard me playing flat keys on an A. I'd much rather play concert Eb major on a Bb clarinet (key of F major to me... kid's stuff) than on an A (Gb major... ouch).

There's also a tonal difference between them, the A sounding darker than the Bb (all other things being equal, of course).

Edit: Although if you were to ask me on listening to an unfamiliar piece whether it had been played on an A or a Bb, I probably couldn't

Edited June 22, 2009 by dlloyd

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='521018' date='Jun 22 2009, 06:57 PM']I certainly can when I'm playing them.

And you'd certainly be able to tell the difference if you heard me playing flat keys on an A. I'd much rather play concert Eb major on a Bb clarinet (key of F major to me... kid's stuff) than on an A (Gb major... ouch).

There's also a tonal difference between them, the A sounding darker than the Bb (all other things being equal, of course).

Edit: Although if you were to ask me on listening to an unfamiliar piece whether it had been played on an A or a Bb, I probably couldn't [/quote]
I hear clarinets every day of my working life and I've never been able to hear any difference between A and Bb although i think i could distinguish an Eb clari but maybe thats because usually the parts he plays are in quite a distinctive high shrill register.
When I orchestrate I always use Bb clars mainly due to laziness - can't be bothered to think which is best ! I have had clari players ticking me off about this !

[Eight]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='520939' date='Jun 22 2009, 05:47 PM']I'm intrigued by your comments and wonder whether you would give us a more detailed viewpoint.
Your first sentence is stating the obvious - the second leaves me wondering what you are trying to say ![/quote]
Well... you were suggesting that some of the terminology and concepts relating to music theory (I think chord construction was your example) was maybe a little confusing or inaccessible to newbies?

Finding an isolated internet forum post about a concept that is far more advanced than what you've managed to learn so far is always going to be confusing. It'd be like me talking about programming with recursive functions before you've even learned what a function is. To an extent I can try and explain but then instead of a post about recursive functions I have to explain a much wider concept and you'd have to take in a lot more information in one go.

Chord names aren't always self-explanatory, but they're not too bad if you've previously covered the material you need to make sense of them.

I don't mean this in any kind of way to exclude newbs (hell, I still have lots to catch up on myself) - just that if a concept isn't clear then at times it would be better to recommend they go back to more fundamental information first.

Oh and of course the 'you' in most of this message is referring to a general you - not you specifically. Since at a guess I'd say you know a lot more about theory than I do anyway.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='521048' date='Jun 22 2009, 07:28 PM']I hear clarinets every day of my working life and I've never been able to hear any difference between A and Bb although i think i could distinguish an Eb clari but maybe thats because usually the parts he plays are in quite a distinctive high shrill register.
When I orchestrate I always use Bb clars mainly due to laziness - can't be bothered to think which is best ! I have had clari players ticking me off about this ![/quote]

I find that surprising, but maybe my perception of the difference is more down to my (lack of) skill level than anything else.

Edited June 22, 2009 by dlloyd

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='Eight' post='521070' date='Jun 22 2009, 07:49 PM']Well... you were suggesting that some of the terminology and concepts relating to music theory (I think chord construction was your example) was maybe a little confusing or inaccessible to newbies?

Finding an isolated internet forum post about a concept that is far more advanced than what you've managed to learn so far is always going to be confusing. It'd be like me talking about programming with recursive functions before you've even learned what a function is. To an extent I can try and explain but then instead of a post about recursive functions I have to explain a much wider concept and you'd have to take in a lot more information in one go.

Chord names aren't always self-explanatory, but they're not too bad if you've previously covered the material you need to make sense of them.

I don't mean this in any kind of way to exclude newbs (hell, I still have lots to catch up on myself) - just that if a concept isn't clear then at times it would be better to recommend they go back to more fundamental information first.

Oh and of course the 'you' in most of this message is referring to a general you - not you specifically. Since at a guess I'd say you know a lot more about theory than I do anyway.[/quote]
Perhaps I didn't put things very well (as usual some might say).
What I;m actually trying to say is this:
Music theory/notation is not a science. It has developed over several hundred years, and particularly with the introduction of "jazz" type chord symbols, a few misnomers and anomolies (what IS the correct spelling ?) have appeared which are confusing enough for the experienced muso - never mind for the newbie. I can remember fretting over the meaning of
the diminished 7 chord when I first saw it. Is it a diminished triad with a normal dominant 7 as you might imagine ? No its actually a dim triad with a major 6th from the root !! How confusing is that ? Have a look at the entry for diminshed 7ths on Wikipedia and you will see what I mean.

Now I don't do much teaching these days (I must tell you all my teaching anecdotes sometime - all 2 of them) but when I do, I try to make sure my students don't go away with misunderstandings re the more complex chord symbols.

To be fair, i did aim this thread at the more advanced musos who inhabit this chat room - and I'm beginning to realise that there are a lot of them. And they are very knowledgeable and we can all learn from each other - never stop the quest for better understanding in music I say.
We all think in different ways and its great to get other peoples views.

So I'll keep droning on and hopefully get people to reply, even if these discussions aren't for everyone.

The Major

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Eight' post='521070' date='Jun 22 2009, 07:49 PM']Finding an isolated internet forum post about a concept that is far more advanced than what you've managed to learn so far is always going to be confusing. It'd be like me talking about programming with recursive functions before you've even learned what a function is. To an extent I can try and explain but then instead of a post about recursive functions I have to explain a much wider concept and you'd have to take in a lot more information in one go.[/quote]

I don't think it should be incumbent on us all to start every topic from the bottom up to include and cater for the newbies, It's entirely legitimate for specialists to hold an advanced conversation in a forum of this sort and may well serve as a spur to the less initiated to find out what on earth is being said. If things are confusing then I'm sure they'll be left alone until such a time as they are understood.

Keep it coming MM

[Eight]

I don't see a big problem with chord names - but I've never taught or really dealt with theory outside of my own interest, so my point of view might be different. It generally makes sense to me - and when it doesn't I read more theory and come back to it later.

Diminished sevenths ok to me. But if I had to explain it to someone then maybe I'd see more where you're coming from there.

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='521132' date='Jun 22 2009, 08:44 PM']but when I do, I try to make sure my students don't go away with misunderstandings re the more complex chord symbols.[/quote]
Ah I wish you'd taught me all those years ago - instead I had to unpick all the misinformation my teacher imparted.

[SteveO]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='520170' date='Jun 21 2009, 08:03 PM']They don't play all notes equally well. Nor does a Bb clarinet (for example) sound the same as an A clarinet or (God forbid) a C clarinet.[/quote]
+1. The difference is subtle, but noticable. I play trumpet and can immediately tell if someone is playing a concert pitch A note on a Bb or C trumpet. I don't play Clarinet but the feel of a piece is distinctly different depending on which you choose. (although when lost in the orchestra it matters little.) it's all down to resonances and fundamentals.

[quote name='Eight' post='520037' date='Jun 21 2009, 05:30 PM']Granted.

But learning music theory is much easier if you start at chapter one and work your way from there. Not by jumping around topics and trying to pick up concepts you haven't done the ground work for.[/quote]
+1 here too. I understood most of the OP, but I already know it The problem with music theory is it's like language grammar theory. All of that 'i before e except after c... oh and except in these cases... and these... and these... ' It gets massively confusing very very quickly. Kudos to the OP for having a go at trying to explain it all, but I'd recomend anyone to start at chapter 1 of the first AB music theory book and work through them. Very soon you'll be able to recognise which context 'minor' (and all the other multiple-meaning words) are being used just as you can tell in which context the word 'they're/their/there' is being used when someone is talking to you.

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='521132' date='Jun 22 2009, 09:44 PM']So I'll keep droning on and hopefully get people to reply, even if these discussions aren't for everyone.[/quote]
Please do. It's all good stuff, and whilst this particular example didn't open any doors for me I'm sure that It may have helped some people.



... and it beats talking about which brand of roundwound strings is superior to the others

[Eight]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='521200' date='Jun 22 2009, 09:49 PM']I don't think it should be incumbent on us all to start every topic from the bottom up to include and cater for the newbies,[/quote]
Exactly.

But I think I got a little bit of the wrong end of Major-Minor's stick when I commented along those lines.

Edit: probably should rephrase that. As in, I'm not sure he was exactly saying what I thought he was saying when I said what I said.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Eight

[rslaing]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='521200' date='Jun 22 2009, 09:49 PM']I don't think it should be incumbent on us all to start every topic from the bottom up to include and cater for the newbies, It's entirely legitimate for specialists to hold an advanced conversation in a forum of this sort and may well serve as a spur to the less initiated to find out what on earth is being said. If things are confusing then I'm sure they'll be left alone until such a time as they are understood.

Keep it coming MM[/quote]

Hear! hear!!

And if people want to learn or gain a greater understanding of musical principles because of the content of "advanced conversation in a forum" then all well and good.

But a word of warning MM, there are some really negative entities who will attempt to disturb your input. There is a considerable number of members who (believe it or not) poo poo the idea of theory and (god forbid) the ability to read music.

Don't let them put you off, because I assure you, you will meet them fairly soon

Perhaps it is time to start new thread, one that has educational and practical info that can give intermediate players advice and info that can help them advance.

After all, it can only help interested people. Anyone up for it?

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='Eight' post='521207' date='Jun 22 2009, 09:53 PM']I don't see a big problem with chord names - but I've never taught or really dealt with theory outside of my own interest, so my point of view might be different. It generally makes sense to me - and when it doesn't I read more theory and come back to it later.

Diminished sevenths ok to me. But if I had to explain it to someone then maybe I'd see more where you're coming from there.


Ah I wish you'd taught me all those years ago - instead I had to unpick all the misinformation my teacher imparted.[/quote]
Most modern chord names are perfectly straightforward and I have always advocated that it is the best way to learn about and understand harmony, at least for the beginner. I would encourage anybody with a thirst for musical knowledge to at least dip into the old traditional way of understanding harmony and theory but the chord symbol method is a good starting point.

My point with this thread was simply to point out some of the possible areas of misunderstanding and confusion.

The Major

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='rslaing' post='521220' date='Jun 22 2009, 10:02 PM']Hear! hear!!

And if people want to learn or gain a greater understanding of musical principles because of the content of "advanced conversation in a forum" then all well and good.

But a word of warning MM, there are some really negative entities who will attempt to disturb your input. There is a considerable number of members who (believe it or not) poo poo the idea of theory and (god forbid) the ability to read music.

Don't let them put you off, because I assure you, you will meet them fairly soon

Perhaps it is time to start new thread, one that has educational and practical info that can give intermediate players advice and info that can help them advance.

After all, it can only help interested people. Anyone up for it?[/quote]
I certainly agree with this last idea. I'd be only too happy to contribute. Do you fancy starting us off ?

The Major

[rslaing]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='521425' date='Jun 23 2009, 09:00 AM']I certainly agree with this last idea. I'd be only too happy to contribute. Do you fancy starting us off ?

The Major[/quote]

OK.

I'll have a think today and kick something off. How about Key/tonal centres and modes? Any other ideas?

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='rslaing' post='521477' date='Jun 23 2009, 10:04 AM']OK.

I'll have a think today and kick something off. How about Key/tonal centres and modes? Any other ideas?[/quote]
I'd be up for contributing to this too, I have a method of trying to allow students to see major keys, their scale tones, resultant chords and likely alterations globally so that individual scales and chords end up with less defined beginnings and ends and therefore greater possibilty in expression, it has to be done carefully so as not to overface, but is very effective at allowing people to unlock the patterns they so often feel dog their playing.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='rslaing' post='521477' date='Jun 23 2009, 10:04 AM']OK.

I'll have a think today and kick something off. How about Key/tonal centres and modes? Any other ideas?[/quote]

Are you thinking about a thread that covers general theory?

A couple of years ago I posted a thread, really aimed at beginners, as a basic theory primer. It was fairly well received and I was about to start revising it when work matters got in the way.

My idea was to use the London College of Music Popular Music Theory syllabus as a basis for introducing topics.

[url="http://www.popularmusictheory.org/"]http://www.popularmusictheory.org/[/url]

[Guest subaudio]

Sounds great ! I'm all eyes

[xilddx]

[quote name='rslaing' post='521220' date='Jun 22 2009, 10:02 PM']Hear! hear!!

And if people want to learn or gain a greater understanding of musical principles because of the content of "advanced conversation in a forum" then all well and good.[/quote]

I'm learning loads by reading what I don't understand and relating it to what I do understand. The black holes are very large though!

[quote name='rslaing' post='521220' date='Jun 22 2009, 10:02 PM']But a word of warning MM, there are some really negative entities who will attempt to disturb your input. There is a considerable number of members who (believe it or not) poo poo the idea of theory and (god forbid) the ability to read music.

Don't let them put you off, because I assure you, you will meet them fairly soon [/quote]

I used to be one of those people that argued I don't need theory and reading because I have reasonable ears and the music my bands play is groove based and pretty simple. However since one lesson with Jake, I have opened up so much as a player because I'm beginning to see relationships between things. I have started a journey.

I feel it's a bit of a shame you have introduced this note of negativity, bordering on trolling, in your otherwise great post though. Try to be a bit more positive, opinions can be changed, mine has.

[rslaing]

[quote name='silddx' post='521685' date='Jun 23 2009, 01:43 PM'].
I feel it's a bit of a shame you have introduced this note of negativity, bordering on trolling, in your otherwise great post though. Try to be a bit more positive, opinions can be changed, mine has.[/quote]

It's hardly trolling, it's advice for MM so that he won't have to combat the crap I have had to deal with from certain people in this forum. (I notice that they don't seem to be around much lately.?)

I am being positive. I am trying to get people with knowledge to construct a forum thread that will help others.

Let's leave it at that eh?