Jump to content
HAPPY NEW YEAR, TO ALL OUR HARMONY CENTRAL FORUMITES AND GUESTS!! ×

Dm6


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

My question is about the 6th degree in a minor scale (for instance Dm). If the scale were D major then the sixth degree would be B, so why, if I switch back to D minor doesn't the sixth degree change to Bb? What would a chord made of D, A, F, and Bb be called? Dm6b? Dm5#? Or should the scale be treated as F major, making the chord Dm4?.. Thanks

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Herr Masel

My question is about the 6th degree in a minor scale (for instance Dm). If the scale were D major then the sixth degree would be B, so why, if I switch back to D minor doesn't the sixth degree change to Bb? What would a chord made of D, A, F, and Bb be called? Dm6b? Dm5#? Or should the scale be treated as F major, making the chord Dm4?.. Thanks

 

 

Dm(b6) is what it would be called because the notes get their names relative to the major scale.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Cackalacky

A chord with D A F Bb would be called Dmb13

 

First, it can't be a 13 if there's no 7. Second, D is not the root of that chord. Third, Dmb looks conspicuously like 'Dumb'. :D

 

Anyway, as was already pointed out, those notes are a Bbmaj7 chord (Bbmaj7/D if we take the D as the lowest note).

Posted

 

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie

Second, D is not the root of that chord.

 

 

 

While Dm(b6) does have the same notes as Bbmaj7, it is possible to hear it with D as the root in the right setting.

 

Afterall, Bbmaj13 contains all 7 notes of the scale, so what's keeping it from being a first inversion Gm11(b13) or a third inversion Cm13?

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Poparad



Afterall, Bbmaj13 contains all 7 notes of the scale, so what's keeping it from being a first inversion Gm11(b13) or a third inversion Cm13?

 

Missing notes. ;) We don't have Bbmaj13 here...just Bbmaj7. You added two notes that weren't there a moment ago. :p Likewise, D F A Bb as 1 b3 5 b6...there's no 7 to justify calling the Bb a '13'. Without a 7th, all upper extensions are nonharmonic tones.

 

Remember, the original post in this thread is questioning why the 6 in a _m6 chord is major, not minor. ANY time a "_6" chord appears, its name is inherently flawed, since 6th chords are all inversions anyway. :p

  • Members
Posted

I understand that there are differing opinions of nomenclature. But its incorrect to say you can't have a 13 without a 7, that only universally applies to dominant chords, not minor. And of course it could be Bbmaj7, or Dmb13, or Fmaj11/13, or Asus4b9/b13. And by the way Mr. Doggie, you sound like a hack. :D

Posted

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie



Missing notes.
;)
We don't have Bbmaj13 here...just Bbmaj7. You added two notes that weren't there a moment ago.

 

I was making a seperate example, I wasn't referring to the original chord.

 

 

Remember, the original post in this thread is questioning why the 6 in a _m6 chord is major, not minor. ANY time a "_6" chord appears, its name is inherently flawed, since 6th chords are all inversions anyway.
:p

 

 

I disagree with that. 6th chords can sound very stable with the root as the root and not part of an inversion. It's merely a traid with an added tone. While yes, C6 does share the same notes as Am7, it can be used and played in a way such that the C sounds definitively as the root. 6th chords are used very frequently in jazz as traids with an added sixth and the result is very successful.

 

To me, a 6th chord is no different than an add9 chord: it's merely a traid with an added tone.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Cackalacky

I understand that there are differing opinions of nomenclature. But its incorrect to say you can't have a 13 without a 7, that only universally applies to dominant chords, not minor. And of course it could be Bbmaj7, or Dmb13, or Fmaj11/13, or Asus4b9/b13. And by the way Mr. Doggie, you sound like a hack.
:D

 

If there's no 7, there's no 9's, 11's, or 13's. I don't care if it's a dominant chord or not. Without a 7, they're 2's, 4's, and 6's (all nonharmonic tones).

 

Chord names exist to label chord tones; adding in harmonically irrelevant notes to a chord does not make those notes 'chord tones'. If you have a Dm triad sounding, and a Bb note sounding at the same time, the Bb is not a chord tone.

 

As for me sounding like a hack, I can only hope you jest. Otherwise, you're embarrassing yourself. Badly.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Poparad



I disagree with that. 6th chords can sound very stable with the root as the root and not part of an inversion. It's merely a traid with an
added tone
.

 

Yes; it's an added tone...but it's not a chord tone. :p It's not a dissonance, which is why it can be stable.

 

'Sixth chords' refer to first inversion chords. That's what the name actually means. It goes all the way back to figured bass and the earliest foundations of harmony as a field of study. Use of the numeral 6 in chord names is fundamentally incorrect, since a 6 is not, by definition, a chord tone.

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Cackalacky

.....hmm you like calling things 2's ,and 4's do ya?

 

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

2, 4, and 6 are nonharmonic tones. They ARE NOT CHORD TONES. If they were chord tones, they would have ODD numbers for names (9, 11, and 13), which only come into play when a 7 is present.

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Cackalacky

Actually you just proved my point, if you have a Dm triad a Bb is labeled as a b13.

 

 

No, a b13 would be a chord tone...IF there's a 7 present.

 

A Dm triad with a Bb doesn't have a 7. Ergo, the Bb is not a 13, it's a 6. A 6 is nonharmonic.

  • Members
Posted

All playful prodding aside, I am well aware that different schools purport their particular nomenclature, but how would YOU label a triad with tensions, saying they don't exist because there's no 7 will just make me laugh. :)

Posted

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie



Yes; it's an added tone...but it's not a chord tone.
:p
It's not a dissonance, which is why it can be stable.

 

I suppose if you are using the strictist of classical theory, it's not a chord tone, but in the evolution of music, new sounds are always being accepted whereas before they were considered 'incorrect.' To my ears, a C6 chord is a distinctive sound different from a C major or Cmaj7 chord, and for me it's a legitimate chord.

 

'Sixth chords' refer to first inversion chords. That's what the name actually means. It goes all the way back to figured bass and the earliest foundations of harmony as a field of study. Use of the numeral 6 in chord names is fundamentally incorrect, since a 6 is not, by definition, a chord tone.

 

 

I have a problem with equating figured bass directly to extended tertian nomenclature. While the basis of the later did grow out of the former, there is a lot of notation involved in the later which isn't directly tied to the former (i.e., the use of 'maj' and 'min,' or #'s and b's for alterations to scale degrees).

 

To me, C6 implies a C traid with a sixth scale degree added. If it were truly coming from figured bass, it would have be an A6, implying first inversion.

 

Granted a vii6 in the key of C and a C6 chord are the same group of notes, I don't believe the nomenclature of the two systems are the same. Yes, they do both use the number six, but for different purposes and from different perspectives.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Poparad



I suppose if you are using the strictist of classical theory, it's not a chord tone, but in the evolution of music, new sounds are always being accepted whereas before they were considered 'incorrect.' To my ears, a C6 chord is a distinctive sound different from a C major or Cmaj7 chord, and for me it's a legitimate chord.


It has an illegitmate name. It's one of several bastards.
:D
It should follow the naming patterns already in use: Cadd6 retains the C major triad while showing an added nonharmonic note in the name...and avoids the conflict with 'sixth chords'. Or just call it the simplest functional name of Am7/C--same notes and the bass note indicated. But "C6" looks like "C5"...another non-chord whose name indicates intervals.


I have a problem with equating figured bass directly to extended tertian nomenclature. While the basis of the later did grow out of the former, there is a lot of notation involved in the later which isn't directly tied to the former (i.e., the use of 'maj' and 'min,' or #'s and b's for alterations to scale degrees).


To me, C6 implies a C traid with a sixth scale degree added. If it were truly coming from figured bass, it would have be an A6, implying first inversion.


Figured bass would have a 'C' written on the staff, with the 6/5/3 (or 6/5) notated...but there would not have been any other name involved. Using the intervals avoids the problem of nomenclature entirely. In context, Am7/C sounds like 'C6'...and has an actual chord name.
:p

Granted a vi6 in the key of C and a C6 chord are the same group of notes, I don't believe the nomenclature of the two systems are the same. Yes, they do both use the number six, but for different purposes and from different perspectives.

 

The two cross paths from time to time, and the treatment in those situations has been inconsistent. Hell, even "_7"s are named according to the older practice.

 

The overemphasis on the harmonic approach has reduced things to a painfully grammatical level, and that one-dimensional perspective has done far more harm than good. Trying to label every group of sounds as a 'chord' based on a preferred root is an example of that. The chord-naming system is based on tertian harmony...when a group of notes is tertian, so shall be its name. If it's NOT tertian, why force a tertian name on it?

Posted

 

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie

It has an illegitmate name. It's one of several bastards. It should follow the naming patterns already in use: Cadd6 retains the C major triad while showing an added nonharmonic note in the name...and avoids the conflict with 'sixth chords'. Or just call it the simplest functional name of Am7/C--same notes and the bass note indicated. But "C6" looks like "C5"...another non-chord whose name indicates intervals.

 

 

Again, new sounds are graudually introduced into the system of things be people using them over and over again.

 

C5 by 1800's theory is not a chord, but today it is because it has been used so frequently in music of the past 50 years that it needs its own name.

 

In strickly tertian music, such as that of the 1600's, the sixth of C6 is not part of the chord, but today, it has changed through its common use in different musical situations than existed in previous centuries.

 

As music evolves, theory and nomenclature must adapt to include these changes in a system that allows musicians to clearly convey information.

 

 

The two cross paths from time to time, and the treatment in those situations has been inconsistent. Hell, even "_7"s are named according to the older practice.


The overemphasis on the harmonic approach has reduced things to a painfully grammatical level, and that one-dimensional perspective has done far more harm than good. Trying to label every group of sounds as a 'chord' based on a preferred root is an example of that. The chord-naming system is based on tertian harmony...when a group of notes is tertian, so shall be its name. If it's NOT tertian, why force a tertian name on it?

 

 

 

I could argue the same that you're trying to force a theoretical perspective of an older time on music that doesn't operate by those exact principles.

 

In the world of jazz, everything is heard in terms of a chord and how things relate to it. That is why extended tertian harmony is commonly used on every single chord in a tune, and why there are rarely simple traids in the music. Jazz is a music based around the sounds of groupings of notes (is that not the simplest definition of a chord?) and as it progressed, abandoned the sense of key more and more.

 

For older music, chords were chosen from a given key and always seen in perspective of a given key. In order to maintain harmonic contrast in the music, the chords were kept down to simple triads. As I mentioned before, a 13th chord contains all the notes in a key, so if every chord was a 13th chord, there would be no harmonic contrast. As such, whenever an extra note was sounded against the triad, it had to be labelled as a non chord tone in the context of traid based music.

 

With jazz, and I'm only using jazz as an example because I am familiar with it and it is a good example for contrast, the harmony became denser, and thus, staying within a single key for an entire piece or even large parts of a piece because not only unecessary, but boring as the harmonic contrast paled. As such, chords became heard and also, more importantly, functioned as any collection of notes (limited not to merely triads). Therefore, a nomenclature system needed to be devised in which any collection of notes could be simply named.

 

The current system of chord nomenclature for jazz, which is also used for other styles of music now, can adequetely name any collection of notes. Even if a specific chord voicing does not include every note of the label, the label implies the overall harmony occuring, so harmonic embellishment becomes much easier when the possiblities are clearly conveyed by the nomenclature.

 

When I improvise and I see a chord symbol, I don't want to be limited to only chord tones, but at the same time, I want to know which 'non chord tones' I can use that won't clash with the harmony. A system that can notate any collection of notes can clearly convey the full harmonic context, which is essential in improvisationally based music.

 

 

My overall point is that music in the 20th and 21st century does not function or sound exactly like that of music in the 17th, 18th, and somewhat the 19th century. Therefore, attempting to rigidly define all music with a theory that doesn't reflect musical innovation is futile. Afterall, theory comes after the music to explain it. I'm not saying that understanding and studying classical theory is unimportant, which is absolutely not the case, but classical theory is perfect for explaining classical music. For a music that doesn't perscribe to the exact rules of function of classical music, some ammendments need to be made to the theory to explain the function of the music, which is the entire point of theory: explaining the function and purpose of elements of music.

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie


If they were chord tones, they would have ODD numbers for names (9, 11, and 13), which only come into play when a 7 is present.

 

 

or if they are more than an octave above the root.

it's also a matter of hearing as well as math, imo.

 

peace

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Poparad


C5 by 1800's theory is not a chord, but today it is because it has been used so frequently in music of the past 50 years that it needs its own name.


It's an interval, not a chord.
:p
It has a label that looks similar to that of a chord, but it is not a chord.


In strickly tertian music, such as that of the 1600's, the sixth of C6 is not part of the chord, but today, it has changed through its common use in different musical situations than existed in previous centuries.


In the 1600's, there was no such thing as a 'C6'...or its tertian counterpart 'Am7/C'. Chords as we know them today did not exist. They didn't get labels at all beyond thorough-bass, and that was merely an intervallic framework (understood in context), not chords, per se.


As music evolves, theory and nomenclature must adapt to include these changes in a system that allows musicians to clearly convey information.


Adaptation and evolution are one thing; starting over from a completely different foundation is another. If someone wants to alter the definition of a chord to be any 2 or more notes sounded together (and thus no longer tertian), then the entire nomenclature (which is tertian) is meaningless.


C5 is 2 notes...C6 is 4. Similiar notation, but with completely different meanings. That's pretty inconsistent. Cm7b5 has more symbols in its name than it has notes!


The initial post in this thread expressed confusion over the naming scheme of the so-called Dm6 chord. There is good reason for that confusion, just as there is with ALL sixth chords. There is a hierarchy of tones and intervals that can't be overcome...certain combinations point to a certain root, origin, or generator. Occam's Razor, when applied to the perception of harmony, tells us that our ears seek out stacked 3rds first. The overtone series tells us why via constructive reinforcement of sound waves. The notes C E G A (bottom to top) align themselves (psychoacoustically) around that 'A' note, not the 'C'. If the orchestration is such to destroy that relationship and tries to force 'C' as the root, the 'A' is ungrounded from a harmonic/overtone perspective--while far from being harsh, it is still a nonharmonic tone.




I could argue the same that you're trying to force a theoretical perspective of an older time on music that doesn't operate by those exact principles.


I brought up 7th chords as an example of a very OLD label that has been kept even though it's flawed.


Jazz is a music based around the sounds of groupings of notes (is that not the simplest definition of a chord?) and as it progressed, abandoned the sense of key more and more.


The simplest definition of a chord is 3 or more notes separated by intervals of a third. The entire concept of harmony is based upon that definition. If you wish to change that definition, then you have to change the entirety of harmonic theory as a result.


Groupings of notes may or may not be chords. It may make for easier reading for a guitarist, pianist, etc, to stamp a certain label on it, but that doesn't make it theoretically correct; it's merely a shorthand system that leaves a lot to be desired. Having taught many a student with a background in jazz chords & improv but with zero concept of harmony, all that became very obvious. If those things were notated in a consistent fashion in the first place, a lot of problems would be avoided.



For older music, chords were chosen from a given key and always seen in perspective of a given key. In order to maintain harmonic contrast in the music, the chords were kept down to simple triads. As I mentioned before, a 13th chord contains all the notes in a key, so if every chord was a 13th chord, there would be no harmonic contrast. As such, whenever an extra note was sounded against the triad, it had to be labelled as a non chord tone in the context of traid based music.


When tones that were not part of the current harmony appeared, they could be any one of a number of things (appoggiatura, passing tone, etc). They served a purpose...and how to identify them is a part of the study of melody. Which brings me back to my earlier point that any attempt to take the one-dimensional perspective of 'harmony' leaves out many things...melody being one of them (which would explain why so many guitarists are so melodically-challenged---they've never bothered to study melody!). Maintaining the designations of chord tones vs non chord tones in the labels is no huge task, and it helps to carry along some information that would otherwise be lost. It may make no difference to someone playing a chart, but for someone truly studying music, it makes everything much more consistent (and as a result, simpler and more logical).


With jazz, and I'm only using jazz as an example because I am familiar with it and it is a good example for contrast, the harmony became denser, and thus, staying within a single key for an entire piece or even large parts of a piece because not only unecessary, but boring as the harmonic contrast paled. As such, chords became heard and also, more importantly, functioned as any collection of notes (limited not to merely triads). Therefore, a nomenclature system needed to be devised in which any collection of notes could be simply named.


The current system of chord nomenclature for jazz, which is also used for other styles of music now, can adequetely name any collection of notes. Even if a specific chord voicing does not include every note of the label, the label implies the overall harmony occuring, so harmonic embellishment becomes much easier when the possiblities are clearly conveyed by the nomenclature.


If I simultaneously sound all 12 chromatic notes, what would you call it--what chord is that?


That's a rhetorical question---the only acceptable answer is 'noise'
:p
. It's certainly not a chord...and even if it was, you couldn't possibly find any adequate name for it. You could try and label it as one nasty polychord, but there would be many possible names even for that.


It's an illustration that even in music borne out of harmony, harmony is not the be-all/end-all principle in music. It's just ONE element of many...to focus on it to the exclusion of the others is not wise. Giving everything a chord name for a guitarist or pianist is a performance shortcut...and it's still loaded with baggage going back centuries (7's....suspensions...etc).




My overall point is that music in the 20th and 21st century does not function or sound exactly like that of music in the 17th, 18th, and somewhat the 19th century. Therefore, attempting to rigidly define all music with a theory that doesn't reflect musical innovation is futile. Afterall, theory comes after the music to explain it. I'm not saying that understanding and studying classical theory is unimportant, which is absolutely not the case, but classical theory is perfect for explaining classical music. For a music that doesn't perscribe to the exact rules of function of classical music, some ammendments need to be made to the theory to explain the function of the music, which is the entire point of theory:
explaining the function and purpose of elements
of music.

 

Chord nomenclature was never, ever a part of classical music. It wasn't until the 20th century when chord naming became fashionable. The increased use of harmonic analysis is the first time that chord names were ever affixed to classical music; chord names are a very recent and modern convention. In other words, they have nothing to do with 'classical theory', even though the rules that govern chord naming derive from the common practice of classical music (once analyzed). Chord naming is modern all the way!

 

Even when extended chords appear in classical music (obviously more common in the 19th century), analysis reveals that those extensions have one function, while the underlying triad or 7th chord often has another---harmony simultaneously occurs on more than musical plane. But, because of the influence of the overtone series on harmony, the further a note gets away from the root, the more harmonically unrelated it becomes. And, there are chords (all the augmented 6ths, for example) that can't be named by any reasonably logical means, so we name them after countries! :D

 

A purely harmonic perspective leaves out the contrapuntal and reduces music to pure homophony. By omitting other elements, it fails to meet your own criteria. Harmony grew out of counterpoint; much of the labelling in the field of harmony reflects that origin. By giving every set of simultaneous sounds a single name (when some of those sounds are operating somewhat separately), it reduces all of music theory back down to the grammatical level...a massive regression and de-evolution. It might work as a handy shortcut for someone reading a chart, but beyond that, it leaves a lot to be desired. If someone wants to take up a serious study of harmony, they're going to have a lot of unlearning to do.

 

 

 

Anyway, it is illogical to use "Dm(b6)", which is why you'll be hard pressed to find many (if any) examples in music OR in chord finders. While such a name may be chart-friendly, it defies tertian harmony, the inversion principle, the overtone series, and several hundred years of human listening experience.

Posted

 

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie

It's an interval, not a chord. It has a label that looks similar to that of a chord, but it is not a chord.

 

 

Again, if you're looking at things from a purely triad based perspective, no it's not. But listen to music from the past 50 years. That 'chord' is so pervasive, and always occurs voiced the same way that it needs a label when referred to. Ignoring changes in music that go against theory designed for a different style of music is the problem at the very core of intelluctual snobbery so prevailent in acadamia.

 

In the 1600's, there was no such thing as a 'C6'...or its tertian counterpart 'Am7/C'. Chords as we know them today did not exist. They didn't get labels at all beyond thorough-bass, and that was merely an intervallic framework (understood in context), not chords, per se.

 

 

That is my exact point. The harmony commonly found today is not the harmony commonly used in centuries prior, therefore, it has to be approached from a slightly different standpoint.

 

 

Adaptation and evolution are one thing; starting over from a completely different foundation is another. If someone wants to alter the definition of a chord to be any 2 or more notes sounded together (and thus no longer tertian), then the entire nomenclature (which is tertian) is meaningless.

 

 

 

I always had a problem with that strick limitation on things being 3 or more notes sounding together, because it ignores the whole concept of implied harmony. Take some common power chord riffs. Not a single one of the 'chords' are chords by that definition, but due to their relationship to each other, their thirds are very implicit, and if you were to suddenly add the wrong thirds to each chord, it would sound very wrong, even though each 'chord' didn't have one specified in the first place.

 

Another, more classical example are diads commonly used in solo string works. For example, playing the diads BF to CE, or inverted as FB to EC, creates a clear as daylight V7 to I in C, even though neither chord is fully spelled. This is implied harmony in action. Rules of counterpoint and voice leading even allow you to drop the fifth and triple the root on certain chords in 4-part harmony because of implied harmony.

 

 

The notes C E G A (bottom to top) align themselves (psychoacoustically) around that 'A' note, not the 'C'. If the orchestration is such to destroy that relationship and tries to force 'C' as the root, the 'A' is ungrounded from a harmonic/overtone perspective--while far from being harsh, it is still a nonharmonic tone.

 

 

 

You can intellectulize its structure all you want, but that voicing to me sounds without a doubt like C is the root, when heard in isolation. This is part of the reason why first inversion minor chords and especially all third inversion seventh chords are almost always found in context of a moving bassline, because isolated their 'roots' don't sound like the root anymore because they're too far removed from the bottom of the voicing.

 

The simplest definition of a chord is 3 or more notes separated by intervals of a third. The entire concept of harmony is based upon that definition. If you wish to change that definition, then you have to change the entirety of harmonic theory as a result.

 

 

For music that is based around chords fitting that description, it is perfect. But what about quartal harmony? What about quintal harmony? Structures than when played together sound consonant, have an implied tonality, and are voice lead from one structure to another fuction just like tertian chords, but defy those labels. Strickly tertian based labels for these kinds of sounds just aren't adequate. The definition has to be looser to include these sounds. Theory attempts to label the music, and to leave a legitimate sound unlabeled is to leave the theory incomplete or blind to an evolution of usage in modern music.

 

If I simultaneously sound all 12 chromatic notes, what would you call it--what chord is that?


That's a rhetorical question---the only acceptable answer is 'noise' . It's certainly not a chord...and even if it was, you couldn't possibly find any adequate name for it. You could try and label it as one nasty polychord, but there would be many possible names even for that

 

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific:

 

Therefore, a nomenclature system needed to be devised in which any collection of notes from a single key could be simply named.

 

 

Chord nomenclature was never, ever a part of classical music. It wasn't until the 20th century when chord naming became fashionable. The increased use of harmonic analysis is the first time that chord names were ever affixed to classical music; chord names are a very recent and modern convention. In other words, they have nothing to do with 'classical theory', even though the rules that govern chord naming derive from the common practice of classical music (once analyzed). Chord naming is modern all the way!

 

 

Then why did you say that the C6 label has its roots in the 3/6 figured bass label?

 

A purely harmonic perspective leaves out the contrapuntal and reduces music to pure homophony. By omitting other elements, it fails to meet your own criteria. Harmony grew out of counterpoint; much of the labelling in the field of harmony reflects that origin. By giving every set of simultaneous sounds a single name (when some of those sounds are operating somewhat separately), it reduces all of music theory back down to the grammatical level...a massive regression and de-evolution. It might work as a handy shortcut for someone reading a chart, but beyond that, it leaves a lot to be desired. If someone wants to take up a serious study of harmony, they're going to have a lot of unlearning to do.

 

 

Of course when considering conterpoint, not all notes are chord notes. But what about notes that are sustained for a longer period of time, just like a chord. Take this example:

 

| C,D,G | A,B,E | G,A,D |

 

Each are a three note structure, non-tertian, but (to put it simply) I vi V is cearly spelled out as the underlying harmony when heard in context. There is no counterpoint in this example, and each 'chord' defies the defition of a chord, yet to our tertian trained ears, we hear an implied harmony occuring. This is where, to me, labels are valuable in conveying information about the tonality, because it does exist even though it is not clearly spelled out.

 

Anyway, it is illogical to use "Dm(b6)", which is why you'll be hard pressed to find many (if any) examples in music OR in chord finders.

 

 

It's not illogical at all:

 

Additions to basic triads or seventh chords are named according to their degree over the root in the major scale. A 'B' added to a D major triad is a Dmaj6, since B is a 6th above D. Adding a Bb would become a b6, since it is altered in relation to the major scale degree. Added to a Dm triad, it becomes Dm(b6).

 

There's a clear logic to it, and it's not hard to grasp and understand. Therefore, it is logical to use the label Dm(b6)

 

 

As for finding in music, I have frequently seen it, especially in more modern music. Older jazz tended to use only dorian for m7 chords, but in newer jazz the other two minor modes are exploited as well. In Ben Monder's music, he frequently uses the label "m(b6)" for some of his chords, and he's no theoretical slouch. If you're not familiar with his music, it's like an amalgam of all 20th century jazz and classical, with some rock and metal elements thrown in. There's often more Bartok in his music than Basie, and just as much Shoenberg as Shorter. Kurt Rosenwinkel is another great writter who uses this sound effectively, and labels it as such.

 

While such a name may be chart-friendly, it defies tertian harmony, the inversion principle, the overtone series, and several hundred years of human listening experience.

 

 

I entirely disagree. Well, except that yes, it is chart friendly.

 

It does not defy tertian harmony (well, not like quartal harmony does). It does not defy inversions or overtones because I clearly hear those notes labelled as the roots being the roots (in fact, if sometimes have trouble hearing Am7/C as such in isolation because C6 is so frequently used in situations where C is clearly the root).

 

It also does not defy years of listening experience; in fact, it does the opposite. To 1700's ears, yes it does defy convention, but to ears of the 20th or 21st century, we are so conditioned to dissonance and varrying levels of consonance, that we accept it as a legitimate point of musical rest.

 

 

 

Bottom line, I just think you're being way too anal about a simple chord name. We have a system in place that can adequately name chords, and is logical when studied a bit (as with any theory), and is generally accepted the music community over as a usuable system. It took a number of years for the variations of the system to settle into one acceptable standard (try taking a look at some jazz charts from various composers or arrangers in the 1950's... yikes!).

 

It's just a chord label, it conveys a voicing, which is its purpose, so why raise so much hell over it? Let's just enjoy making music.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Poparad


Again, if you're looking at things from a purely triad based perspective, no it's not. But listen to music from the past 50 years. That 'chord' is so pervasive, and always occurs voiced the same way that it needs a label when referred to. Ignoring changes in music that go against theory designed for a different style of music is the problem at the very core of intelluctual snobbery so prevailent in acadamia.


5ths existed over a thousand years ago. They predate chords by a very long time, and are nothing new. What was once 'organum' has been nicknamed the 'power chord'. That the current practice of 5ths is in parallel results in the upper note acting as mere support for the lower; by the way the interval is used, it might as well just be ONE note, or a note and its octave.


You can label it for convenience however you'd like; it is still not a chord. It's an interval. I don't know why its non-chord identity is so troublesome to you, nor why you're accusing me of ignoring anything in an act of snobbery. I know what 5ths are, and what they aren't...what they aren't are chords, and the more people keep trying to define them as chords, the more confusion it will cause for those who study harmony seriously in the future.


I always had a problem with that strick limitation on things being 3 or more notes sounding together, because it ignores the whole concept of implied harmony. Another, more classical example are diads commonly used in solo string works. For example, playing the diads BF to CE, or inverted as FB to EC, creates a clear as daylight V7 to I in C, even though neither chord is fully spelled. This is implied harmony in action. Rules of counterpoint and voice leading even allow you to drop the fifth and triple the root on certain chords in 4-part harmony because of implied harmony.


Implicit and explicit harmony are two different things. The former, however, end up being analyzed in terms of the simplest tertian harmony; you don't hear just a B-F together and think of them as implying an Fmaj7(#11)! But it's a nonissue when you're labelling everything as 'chords' on a chart. Again, it works as shorthand, but is misleading when it comes to the study of music.


For music that is based around chords fitting that description, it is perfect. But what about quartal harmony? What about quintal harmony?


Quartal and quintal harmony are the same thing.
:p

Structures than when played together sound consonant, have an implied tonality, and are voice lead from one structure to another fuction just like tertian chords, but defy those labels. Strickly tertian based labels for these kinds of sounds just aren't adequate. The definition has to be looser to include these sounds. Theory attempts to label the music, and to leave a legitimate sound unlabeled is to leave the theory incomplete or blind to an evolution of usage in modern music.


Therefore, a nomenclature system needed to be devised in which any collection of notes
from a single key
could be simply named.


Why do you feel that theory must label every sound? You of all people should be aware of the danger in that (usually exemplified when modes are discussed!). Theory will always be incomplete;
Caetera docebit usus
. It should also maintain its universality; just because the musicians in one genre have made something stylistic convention does not necessitate anything more than a footnote mentioning that it's the exception rather than the rule.


It seems to me that if you want to simultaneously account for tertian, quartal, secundal, etc, harmony, then why maintain any part of the tonal/tertian naming system? Why not go for an unambiguous figured-bass type of system---then there would be no more questions about _m6's and the like?? Your quartal structures have names in the tertian system---namely suspensions---which indicate that they are not, by ordinary definition, 'chords'; if they aren't used as suspensions (in your example, they were not), then they AREN'T suspensions, and the name is misleading. Why still call them suspensions then?


Bottom line, I just think you're being way too anal about a simple chord name. We have a system in place that can adequately name chords, and is logical when studied a bit (as with any theory), and is generally accepted the music community over as a usuable system. It took a number of years for the variations of the system to settle into one acceptable standard (try taking a look at some jazz charts from various composers or arrangers in the 1950's... yikes!).


It's just a chord label, it conveys a voicing, which is its purpose, so why raise so much hell over it? Let's just enjoy making music.

 

I didn't raise hell over it. :p Someone was confused by the interval structure of a Dm6. This question is not an uncommon one--it's a recurring source of confusion for people. I pointed out that ANYTHING marked as a '_6' is improperly named due to confusion between two semi-different systems. 'Sixth' chords in the original sense of the term happen to coincide with '6' chords in the later sense of the term. This wouldn't be a problem if people weren't running around trying to reduce everything to a 'chord' in the first place. (Schenker is rolling over in his grave) :D

 

These '6' chords are handled differently than their littermates. When you add a 2 or 4 to a triad, you use 'add' and the harmonic tone degrees of 9 or 11. When adding a 6, no 'add' is being used, and the harmonic degree of 13 is not used. How did that happen?? Structurally, it's a triad plus a nonharmonic tone, and thus no different from add9 and add11 voicings, so why the difference in naming schemes, especially when 6ths share not only a name, but the notes of 1st inversion chords as well?

 

So you see, the system you're using is inconsistent. It would seem very unlikely that those who devised said system worked so hard at it, only to get lazy when they reached added 6ths...is that an uncanny coincidence, or does it reflect their awareness that said 6th lies a 3rd below the 'root', and thus already exists as another chord?

 

To you, it may be 'just a name'. On the chart-reading level, I would agree with you. However, when it comes to pedagogy and actual theory, there is a problem; the existence of this thread is indicative of that problem. Questions about '6' chords are nothing new. In fact, they're plentiful, and rightfully so. The modern nomenclature system treats a 'triad plus a 6' differently than 'triad plus a 2' or 'triad plus a 4'. I've already researched that and found the answer, time and time again, in a wide variety of sources spanning nearly 300 years. Even if you personally disagree with that answer, how do you account for the difference in nomenclature between those voicings? :p

Posted

I just don't see the point in nitpicking a fairly insubstaintial detail about a notation system that works. So what if 6 chords don't have an 'add' in front of them? The system is still very simple and easy to undstand, and conveys the information it's meant to. I never had any hangup or confusion when learning about 6 chords. Its a system that makes sense, so why raise such an issue with something so trivial?

 

Figured bass isn't a perfect system either (and much more of a headache to learn and use in performance). For example, it is a system so tied to diatonic harmony that using anything outside of the key becomes a mess to notate and an even bigger mess to comprehend on the fly while performing.

 

On the other hand, C6 or Dm6 is very simple, very straightforward, and conveys a particular voicing for a chord. Argue as much as you want about whether or not the root is the root or whether or not the 6th is a legitimate chord tone, but the simple fact is that when I see C6 on a page, I have no trouble coming up with an appropriate voicing, and likewise for Dm6. It performs its purpose well and efficiently, and I've never been confused by those labels.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...