Gmaj13 to Em13 in Drop D

[john57classic]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

That would be better called a D major 6/9. You are moving to it from its dominant (A7).

She's in drop D tuning Howard.

[john57classic]

Originally Posted by amyFB

i thought the b13 is the same note as the b5 but with the note as an octave interval on top of the chord stack. and the note is Eb.

where as i think the #5 is a different note altogether - F


Do I think this correctly?

No not really a #5 and a b13 are the "same" pitch. e.g. In the key of C the 5 is a "g" note and the 13(6) is an "a" note. G# = Ab.
Likewise the flat 5, Gb and the #11 F# are enharmonic.
Whether/why you call something a #5 or a b13 in a specific instance is a little more complicated.

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by john57classic

She's in drop D tuning Howard.

As was pointed out in post #22.

Originally Posted by john57classic

No not really a #5 and a b13 are the "same" pitch. e.g. In the key of C the 5 is a "g" note and the 13(6) is an "a" note. G# = Ab.
Likewise the flat 5, Gb and the #11 F# are enharmonic.
Whether/why you call something a #5 or a b13 in a specific instance is a little more complicated.

A link to chord naming protocol was posted earlier. See post #25.

[amyFB]

Originally Posted by john57classic

No not really a #5 and a b13 are the "same" pitch. e.g. In the key of C the 5 is a "g" note and the 13(6) is an "a" note. G# = Ab.
Likewise the flat 5, Gb and the #11 F# are enharmonic.
Whether/why you call something a #5 or a b13 in a specific instance is a little more complicated.

Dang! I thought I had the counting figured out. And I sort of do, but, I am still adjusting to a correction to my earlier misunderstanding of how to count.

Fr the longest time, I'm red faced to say that I was numbering the octave root note as 9, and that just gummed up all the works! Gotta slow down until I have the correct info internalized better.

thanks!

[TBman]

Originally Posted by amyFB

.....
Em13
C#dim7
Cdim7
G/B
Bbdim7
Gmaj13

....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like an algebra test,

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Yes. Thx. And I'm calling your Em13 an A7.

See posts #11 and #12.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by amyFB

Dang! I thought I had the counting figured out. And I sort of do, but, I am still adjusting to a correction to my earlier misunderstanding of how to count.

Fr the longest time, I'm red faced to say that I was numbering the octave root note as 9, and that just gummed up all the works! Gotta slow down until I have the correct info internalized better.

thanks!

There are refined theoretical debates about whether to call an alteration #5 or b13!

Wyllys has one view, which is that if the chord has no perfect 5th - such as your voicing of A-G-C#-F - then the alteration acts as a #5. So that "F" note should be called "E#" (like it or not).
That would be correct in theory terms if the next chord had an F#, because "E#" represents an alteration of the E in order to lead up to F#. When notatiing this (in A or D major), you would only need one accidental (# on E), not two (natural on F, # on next F).

The other view is that, if this chord is occuring in D minor (which it might), or is not resolving to a chord containing F# - then "F" really is "F". If the key is D minor, than F is diatonic, and it seems silly to call that pitch E#. So "A-G-C#-F" would be the best way to notate the chord, and "A7b13" would be the best name. Doesn't matter if the chord has no E. (It probably wouldn't anyway, as F above E creates a nasty "avoid note" dissonance.)

I can see both arguments myself. A b13 (or b6) on a chord with no 5th is going to sound like a #5, so why not call it that? OTOH, "b13" can be more sensible in some contexts.

Meanwhile - in case you're interested in all these rarefied details ... rick-slo's notation had some incorrect enharmonics in the notation. Probably because it was just translated automatically from the tab...

E.g. his "A7b13" is a correct symbol given that the notation shows F, not E#. But the notation should show it as E# (see above for why), and so it should be A7#5.

"Bb13", however, requires an Ab, not the G# in the notation. That's despite the fact that G# is in the key signature.
G# would be correct in classical notation, but would mean the chord is an "augmented 6th" chord (not a dominant 7th). Bb-G# is an "augmented 6th" interval, which would (in classical theory) resolve to an A-A octave. rick-slo's doesn't - the top G# stays on - although I don't think that's actually breaking any classical rules (there seems to be good voice-leading otherwise). Not that I know or care too much about that...
However, "aug 6th" chords are not recognized in jazz, and a jazz player would call this chord "Bb13" without hesitation - identifying it as the "tritone sub" for E7, in which the dual identity of the G#/Ab note is part of why it works.

Later, his Fm7 should have Eb, not D#. As with the Bb13, you could say F-D# is a classical augmented 6th, but aug6 chords don't have minor 3rds. Notationally, it would be more economical to notate the Ab as G#, but that makes the chord harder to identify. Better to show it as Fm7, with Eb and Ab (and C natural). The alternative would be E#m7 - and nobody really wants that.. - especially as it's working as a chromatic passing chord from F#m7 to E7.

His E7#9 has the correct Fx (double-sharp), but there is an argument for notating it as G natural, for similar reasons to the "b13" argument.
In jazz and blues a G on an E7 chord is a "blue 3rd". The chord ought to be called "E7b10" from that perspective. Even in key of A minor, the note "G" makes more sense than "Fx".
But the opposing rule is that "a chord can't contain more then one of the same note (letter)". So it can't be called G, because there is already a G#. So it "must" be Fx, despite the protestations of practical musicians.
I guess because the key is A major key here, the note is chromatic anyway - we may as well raise the F# as lower the G#. But in terms of its melodic movement in this context - down to F - then G does make more sense!

OK, you can go back to real life now....

[Wyllys]

Jon, et al...

Joel Mabus' naming protocol I linked earlier mentions common guitar nomenclature as a factor. Purely theoretical tonal content has to be tempered with fingering/range possibilities and limitations when applied to guitar. "Expanded" techniques such as the use of both hands on the fingerboard with hammering on and picking off articulating the sounds and devices like the Chapman stick being possible exceptions.

Here's a link I find helpful when trying to connect "shapes" to chord notation/naming:

http://all-guitar-chords.com/index.p...&mm=13&get=Get

Thanks again to Amy for starting an interesting discussion.

[Hasbro]

Originally Posted by JonPR

There are refined theoretical debates about whether to call an alteration #5 or b13!

Wyllys has one view, which is that if the chord has no perfect 5th - such as your voicing of A-G-C#-F - then the alteration acts as a #5. So that "F" note should be called "E#" (like it or not).
That would be correct in theory terms if the next chord had an F#, because "E#" represents an alteration of the E in order to lead up to F#. When notatiing this (in A or D major), you would only need one accidental (# on E), not two (natural on F, # on next F).

The other view is that, if this chord is occuring in D minor (which it might), or is not resolving to a chord containing F# - then "F" really is "F". If the key is D minor, than F is diatonic, and it seems silly to call that pitch E#. So "A-G-C#-F" would be the best way to notate the chord, and "A7b13" would be the best name. Doesn't matter if the chord has no E. (It probably wouldn't anyway, as F above E creates a nasty "avoid note" dissonance.)

I can see both arguments myself. A b13 (or b6) on a chord with no 5th is going to sound like a #5, so why not call it that? OTOH, "b13" can be more sensible in some contexts.

Meanwhile - in case you're interested in all these rarefied details ... rick-slo's notation had some incorrect enharmonics in the notation. Probably because it was just translated automatically from the tab...

E.g. his "A7b13" is a correct symbol given that the notation shows F, not E#. But the notation should show it as E# (see above for why), and so it should be A7#5.

"Bb13", however, requires an Ab, not the G# in the notation. That's despite the fact that G# is in the key signature.
G# would be correct in classical notation, but would mean the chord is an "augmented 6th" chord (not a dominant 7th). Bb-G# is an "augmented 6th" interval, which would (in classical theory) resolve to an A-A octave. rick-slo's doesn't - the top G# stays on - although I don't think that's actually breaking any classical rules (there seems to be good voice-leading otherwise). Not that I know or care too much about that...
However, "aug 6th" chords are not recognized in jazz, and a jazz player would call this chord "Bb13" without hesitation - identifying it as the "tritone sub" for E7, in which the dual identity of the G#/Ab note is part of why it works.

Later, his Fm7 should have Eb, not D#. As with the Bb13, you could say F-D# is a classical augmented 6th, but aug6 chords don't have minor 3rds. Notationally, it would be more economical to notate the Ab as G#, but that makes the chord harder to identify. Better to show it as Fm7, with Eb and Ab (and C natural). The alternative would be E#m7 - and nobody really wants that.. - especially as it's working as a chromatic passing chord from F#m7 to E7.

His E7#9 has the correct Fx (double-sharp), but there is an argument for notating it as G natural, for similar reasons to the "b13" argument.
In jazz and blues a G on an E7 chord is a "blue 3rd". The chord ought to be called "E7b10" from that perspective. Even in key of A minor, the note "G" makes more sense than "Fx".
But the opposing rule is that "a chord can't contain more then one of the same note (letter)". So it can't be called G, because there is already a G#. So it "must" be Fx, despite the protestations of practical musicians.
I guess because the key is A major key here, the note is chromatic anyway - we may as well raise the F# as lower the G#. But in terms of its melodic movement in this context - down to F - then G does make more sense!

OK, you can go back to real life now....

Oh my, this blew my mind. JonPR is a theory animal

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by JonPR

There are refined theoretical debates about whether to call an alteration #5 or b13!

Wyllys has one view...

Jon...

I have no "view" regarding whether something is an F or E# other than the notational imparative for using the clearest, easiest read representation.

W