What Chord Am I Playing?

[AtlJohn]

...am i the only one who thinks that fakebook-style chord pictures, or at the very least tab-style "320033" mentions, should always be provided, given the inherent greyness and differences of opinion demonstrated throughout this very informative thread?

Sorry to be such a moron, but cliche or not, sometimes thickheads like me actually do need to have a map drawn out for them. To my way of thinking, if the author of a particular piece of music intended for it to be played/voiced in a specific manner, why not actually spell it out?

Thanks/sheepish apologies,
-js

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Ryler

Jon,
I hope you teach for a living. You are incredibly good at it.

Thanks, I do.
However, most of my students tend to go glassy eyed if I get anywhere near that kind of detail...

I guess it depends how primed one is for that level of answer.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Wadcutter

...I would like to know what chord I was playing there. Anybody?

Hi Wc…

If I were you, I'd call it the ''pinky C''. Hope we have not destroyed the simple joy of discovering a great little chord for you.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Wc…

If I were you, I'd call it the ''pinky C''. Hope we have not destroyed the simple joy of discovering a great little chord for you.

Hey, destroying people's simple pleasures is how we theorists get our kicks! There's no musical butterfly we're not gonna pin on a board and file away under some fancy name we invented...

Just because we're cursed with knowing the name of every **** chord we play doesn't mean we're going to let anyone else get away with blissful ignorance.

Mwahahahaha.......

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Hey, destroying people's simple pleasures is how we theorists get our kicks! There's no musical butterfly we're not gonna pin on a board and file away under some fancy name we invented...

Just because we're cursed with knowing the name of every **** chord we play doesn't mean we're going to let anyone else get away with blissful ignorance.

Mwahahahaha.......

He speaks truth…

[RogerC]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Yes, I guess so.

The convention is that chords are stacked in 3rds, and the symbol only shows the last note added. So "C9" means 1-3-5-b7-9 from C: C E G Bb D.
A b7 is assumed, just as a major 3rd and perfect 5th are assumed.
So when we need to leave out the 7th, we need a special symbol: "add9".

There are exceptions to this "last note of stack" principle". Eg, when an extension is altered, the 7 is included.
So we have "C7#9", because "C#9" would be confusing (that's a C#7 chord with a 9th added).
Likewise "C7b9", "C7#11", etc. In each case, the "7" serves to separate the "#" or "b" from the root note, so it's clear it's referring to the altered extension.

BTW, when you see "maj" in a chord name, it refers to the 7th (even if the 7th is not mentioned), not the triad. It refers to a raised 7th: the normal "7" in a chord symbol is the more common minor 7th, or b7.

"Cmaj9" = C E G B D. C (major) triad - with major 7th extension, plus a 9th.
"Cm(maj9) = C Eb G B D. C minor triad - ditto.

Notice that we use "m" (or "min") to refer to the 3rd of the chord. If that's not there we assume the 3rd is major.
Likewise, a normal 7th is minor (10 half-steps) whether it's on a major or minor triad.

"C7" = C major triad with minor 7th (Bb) = C E G Bb (called a "dominant 7th" chord type, because it's built on the dominant degree (5th, V) of a scale)
"Cm7" = C minor triad with minor 7th = C Eb G Bb
"Cmaj7" = C major triad with major 7th (B) = C E G B
"Cm(maj7)" = C minor triad with major 7th = C Eb G B

Using "maj" for the raised 7th and "m" for the lowered 3rd means we can have a set of economical symbols, with the most common being the shortest.


The "last note of stack" principle is also affected in practice by "avoid notes".
Eg, in theory, a "13" chord contains the whole scale, stacked in 3rds: 1-3-5-b7-9-11-13. But in practice the 11th sounds bad against the 3rd, so is left out. The 9th is optional - doesn't really add much to the chord, so can be left out. And in jazz, bassists usually play roots and 5ths, so chord players might even leave those out. Which leaves you with 3-b7-13 to define a "13" chord (assuming someone else does play the root).

The 11th problem (the "avoid note") means there's no such thing in practice as "11" or "maj11" chords. If you ever see an "11" chord symbol, assume it's shorthand for a "9sus4", which is an 11th chord with the 3rd omitted: 1-5-b7-9-11, or 1-4-5-b7-9.
11ths are OK on minor chords, so "m11" may well be a complete 1-b3-5-b7-9-11 stack.
It's also OK to raise the 11th on a major or dom7 chord, so you will see "maj7#11", "9#11", etc.
"Cmaj7#11" = C E G B F# (C lydian chord)
"Cmaj9#11" = C E G B D F# (C lydian chord)
"C7#11 = C E G Bb F# (C lydian dominant chord)
"C9#11 = C E G Bb D F# (ditto)
Notice the use of "7" or "9", for reasons explained above.

A raised 11th means you can, in theory, have a 7-note chord from those two scales:
Cmaj13#11 = C E G B D F# A = entire C lydian scale
C13#11 = C E G Bb D F# A = entire C lydian dominant scale (G melodic minor with C root)
- but it would still be likely for a player to leave a few notes out, such as the 9th and/or 5th (the two that have least impact on the sound of the chord).

This has got to be one of the best posts I've ever seen on theory. Too bad I don't understand a single word

A good friend of mine is a stellar guitar player (played professionally for a long time, has a degree in music, and is a big jazz buff). We usually get together at least once a month for him to tudor me a little. I made the mistake last Friday of asking him about diminished chords. I'll never do that again

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Hey, destroying people's simple pleasures is how we theorists get our kicks! There's no musical butterfly we're not gonna pin on a board and file away under some fancy name we invented...

Just because we're cursed with knowing the name of every **** chord we play doesn't mean we're going to let anyone else get away with blissful ignorance.

Mwahahahaha.......

Well, to be fair, ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant...I mean, ever try to learn a song from someone who has no grasp on chord naming?

"yeah, so then, it's like a fifth fret bar...but I put my pinky here. No, here. Yeah, well it goes from that to the "hendrix chord" and it ends on a..."

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Well, to be fair, ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant...I mean, ever try to learn a song from someone who has no grasp on chord naming?

"yeah, so then, it's like a fifth fret bar...but I put my pinky here. No, here. Yeah, well it goes from that to the "hendrix chord" and it ends on a..."

Quite. The first purpose of theoretical jargon is communication between musicians.
It's not about improving our personal understanding of what we're doing; it's about having labels for the sounds so we can talk (and write) about them.
Eg, we don't need to know what "Cmaj7" means (why the chord is called that); we only need to know what it is.

Music theory really doesn't explain anything, that's the point. It's not supposed to. (I used to think it would, before I began studying it; I was soon put right.)
It just identifies and describes. It's about the "what", and maybe the "when"; but not the "how", and certainly not the "why".

The rest is curiosity, plain and simple. (Eg, I personally AM fascinated about why "Cmaj7" is called that; I don't need to know, I just like to.)
Everything has a name, and I guess some of us are more obsessed with naming stuff (and naming it correctly...) than others.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Well, to be fair, ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant...I mean, ever try to learn a song from someone who has no grasp on chord naming?

Hi mr b…
Well actually yes and it's really pretty easy.

I can read notes, TAB, Roman Numeral (both classical and Nashville), read hands, verbal coaching, ''show me'' monkey-see-monkey-do style, Jazz charts, and not put others down for whichever music language they speak. I seem to be able to pickup things from about anyone without insulting them or trying to impress them with everything I know.

I take it as my responsibility to communicate in the music language that others speak already, and if I'm in a place to teach add to what they know and increase their library. I like to make music with others, not educate them or impress them (even if they are paying me for lessons).

It doesn't seem helpful to infer that ignorance is only blissful for the ignortant. I don't even know what that means other than someone thinks that the little bit more he/she knows makes him/her better than one who knows less, unless the other person learns as much as them.

I know some players who are very ignorant of notation, number systems, chord systems, scales etc, and they are amazing musicians. I doubt knowing their 'pinky C' they play is probably a Cadd9 is going to improve their understanding or use of it, or make them a better person.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="2"]Hi mr b…
Well actually yes and it's really pretty easy.

I can read notes, TAB, Roman Numeral (both classical and Nashville), read hands, verbal coaching, ''show me'' monkey-see-monkey-do style, Jazz charts, and not put others down for whichever music language they speak. I seem to be able to pickup things from about anyone without insulting them or trying to impress them with everything I know.

Yes, but it's a lot easier and quicker if you share the basic descriptive language.
Eg, if you say "play a D7" chord, instead of "put your fingers here, like this... no, like this..."
As I said above, we don't need to know where the term "D7" comes from; that's for the curious among us. It's just a label. There's no advantage in not knowing the labels for what we're doing. And a tremendous advantage, of course, in communication between musicians.
If you're trying to describe a D7 chord to a pianist, it does no good to show him/her where your fingers are. OK, the pianist may be able to pick it up by ear. But how much easier is it to just say "D7"?
This is the kind of "non-blissful ignorance" mr beaumont was talking about.

Originally Posted by ljguitar

I take it as my responsibility to communicate in the music language that others speak already, and if I'm in a place to teach add to what they know and increase their library. I like to make music with others, not educate them or impress them (even if they are paying me for lessons).

You don't like to educate people, even if they're paying you for lessons?
I kind of know what you mean, but you might want to rephrase that sentence.

"Making music with people" is an ideal of course - that's what it's all about - but is a lot easier if we share some verbal language with them. And the conventional terminology of western theory is the most useful body of jargon, because we can all share it and know what we are talking about.
It's not about impressing people with what we know. It's about being able to communicate effectively.

"Ignorant" is not an insult. It just means lacking knowledge of some kind. The teacher's job (at least) is disposing of ignorance - not ignorance in general, but only any specific ignorance that inhibits musical performance. That might be to do with a physical technique on the instrument, it might be to do with the labelling of the sounds we're making.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by RogerC

This has got to be one of the best posts I've ever seen on theory. Too bad I don't understand a single word

That's OK, you don't have to.

I'm a firm believer in the principle that while theory helps you talk about music, it doesn't help you play it. I happen to like talking (or writing) about it as well as playing it, but I try not to confuse the two...

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi mr b…
Well actually yes and it's really pretty easy.

I can read notes, TAB, Roman Numeral (both classical and Nashville), read hands, verbal coaching, ''show me'' monkey-see-monkey-do style, Jazz charts, and not put others down for whichever music language they speak. I seem to be able to pickup things from about anyone without insulting them or trying to impress them with everything I know.

I take it as my responsibility to communicate in the music language that others speak already, and if I'm in a place to teach add to what they know and increase their library. I like to make music with others, not educate them or impress them (even if they are paying me for lessons).

It doesn't seem helpful to infer that ignorance is only blissful for the ignortant. I don't even know what that means other than someone thinks that the little bit more he/she knows makes him/her better than one who knows less, unless the other person learns as much as them.

I know some players who are very ignorant of notation, number systems, chord systems, scales etc, and they are amazing musicians. I doubt knowing their 'pinky C' they play is probably a Cadd9 is going to improve their understanding or use of it, or make them a better person.

Gee, I'm scanning my post and looking for where I say that people who don't have chord naming knowledge are somehow inferior as human beings, and where I attempt to embarrass and coddle them with my musical knowledge. Gimmie a break, I'm a bad person because I want to teach people how to properly name a chord?

Chord naming isn't rocket surgery. And once you can do it, you can communicate with all kinds of other instruments, not just guitars.

Does it make a person a better guitarist? No. Does it "make them a better person?" Of course not. But it does make them a better communicator.

Ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant means exactly what it sounds like. Sure, the person who doesn't know something might be perfectly happy and completely unaware (or simply not care ) how knowing could benefit them. But this is only really "good" for them, it might also mean that the people they work with experience frustrations and need to work harder because of their ignorance.

[Think293]

I'll defer on the more theoretical aspects to those that know more than me, but I use that shape (with a different fingering) a lot. This set of chords works well in the key of G with very little moving about:

I: G: 320033
IV: Cadd9: x32030 (play like a squished G chord)
V: Dsus4: x00233
vi: Em7: 022030

Play all of these with your ring finger on the D (second string, third fret) and move you other fingers around that.

[mchalebk]

Originally Posted by Think293

I'll defer on the more theoretical aspects to those that know more than me, but I use that shape (with a different fingering) a lot. This set of chords works well in the key of G with very little moving about:

I: G: 320033
IV: Cadd9: x32030 (play like a squished G chord)
V: Dsus4: x00233
vi: Em7: 022030

Play all of these with your ring finger on the D (second string, third fret) and move you other fingers around that.

I'd probably keep the G on the high E string constant for these chords, if used in a progression together, like this:

I: G: 320033
IV: Cadd9: x32033
V: Dsus4: x00233
vi: Em7: 022033

[daza152]

Originally Posted by kerbie

You're adding the D, so I essentially agree with stanron, although I think C add9 is technically more correct. But, both add a D to a C major chord.

Definately not a Cadd9 not even close sorry...a Cadd9 is when you make the 4 finger G chord then scoot your index finger and middle finger both down the string...so simple that is a Cadd9!! anyway I think it is a C7 the chord you are talking about sounds cool for sure..