Members SteinbergerHack Posted October 21, 2009 Members Share Posted October 21, 2009 One more inane thing, /9 could imply 9th in the bass? That's they way I would read it (Post 20, above). Nothing else would make very much sense....which is why this has dragged on for three pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poparad Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The only exception being 6/9 chords, of course (which is probably where the original confusion of 7/9 came from). Although 6/9 is not a "slash chord", like E/G# would be. But yes, that's probably where the mislabelled 7/9 originated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted October 21, 2009 Members Share Posted October 21, 2009 Pointless semantics and useless theory. That's jazz. Ah, so to become a better jazz player I need to learn more pointless semantics and useless theory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeremy_green Posted October 21, 2009 Members Share Posted October 21, 2009 Ah, so to become a better jazz player I need to learn more pointless semantics and useless theory! AND get a beret :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MetalJon Posted October 22, 2009 Members Share Posted October 22, 2009 Although 6/9 is not a "slash chord", like E/G# would be. But yes, that's probably where the mislabelled 7/9 originated. Yeah, I meant chords that "contain a slash," as opposed to "slash chords" where the slashed note is in the bass. Sheesh, no wonder people get confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MetalJon Posted October 22, 2009 Members Share Posted October 22, 2009 Ah, so to become a better jazz player I need to learn more pointless semantics and useless theory! Nah, you only need to know theory if you want to pretend like you are a better jazz player. I long ago discovered that playing guitar well is hard, so I just decided to fake it by learning music theory instead. As it turns out I can't do either very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted October 22, 2009 Members Share Posted October 22, 2009 Whoa! Me too! If you can't play, then hang out at TLL and talk theory GaJ Edit: absolutely no slight intended on the wonderful players who answer my questions here, I'm sure you knew that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bigboy_78 Posted October 22, 2009 Members Share Posted October 22, 2009 Nah, you only need to know theory if you want to pretend like you are a better jazz player. 57 posts on a thread that was pretty well summed in up in two posts proves it. Fun to read though......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1001gear Posted October 22, 2009 Members Share Posted October 22, 2009 That's they way I would read it (Post 20, above). Nothing else would make very much sense....which is why this has dragged on for three pages. Missed it. That's theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted October 22, 2009 Members Share Posted October 22, 2009 Nah, you only need to know theory if you want to pretend like you are a better jazz player. I long ago discovered that playing guitar well is hard, so I just decided to fake it by learning music theory instead. As it turns out I can't do either very well. So it's the pointless semantics that I REALLY need to become a better jazz player, not so much the theory. I used to think I needed to learn all possible theory before starting to learn jazz. Then I realized I had it backwards. Now I only look up a theoretical thing if I come across something in a lead sheet I don't understand, like Gb+7, or FMajMin7 (I know what they are now, btw). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.