Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical Fb9 chord

I'll get right on that .

Ah, you are assuming that students just know these things. Believe me, they don't. MY students do, sooner or later, because they are very important to me, and the flat 9 concept is terribly important in my teaching. I teach that a flat 9 chord is both a dominant 7 chord AND a fully diminished chord, all connected. We get to use the advantages of both. And I teach the the flat 9 chord, with the root removed, as a fully diminished, a "rootless flat 9" and a "dominant with a raised root".

So G B D F Ab is V7 plus an extra note (b9). Thus G7(b9) or G7-9

B D F Ab is a rootless G7-9. I have my students write "G7-9", in quotes. We agree that "" means that there is no root, but there COULD be.

Ab B D F = G7 with root raised (really (b2 which = b9). I have students write:

Ab B D F = G7 RR (raised root)= Ab dim7. This is to hammer on the function.

This all assumes the next chord will be C or Cm.

This happens EVERYWHERE. It is very common in Bach, but it's all over the place in 20th and 21st century non-classical music.

No, not at all! It was just that after all the deep theoretical argument, such a basic question seemed almost humorous! No insult intended.

Thank you for the replies! Although I have misplaced my bass and drummer, I am happy to know about rootless chords, raised roots, augmented fifths, rotating diminished chords, and (rootless) minor II V I progressions, because they open a window on the very wide vistas of what harmony can do. And yet all of these link up with the single idea of dominant chord progression, which is pretty amazing to me amidst what to me is still a great deal of complexity.

Homer Simpson has the right idea. It's all about "D'oh!" and the ways we get back there.

A bass and drummer is readily avaiable on an IPhone using the Real Books app! (I kid because I can seen from PianoStudent88's list of pieces that he's working on classical pieces.) If some day you want to try jazz, for better or worse, machines do a lot these days!

Oh dear, I've been rumbled by my .sig as an interloper here in the non-classical domains. Here to steal your chord analysis and apply it to my classical music. .

Ok, Gang,

On the Forum, I have been reading for a few months now about the "rootless" chords, particularly "rootless" dominants. They are everywhere I look, and they seem to be in vogue, as if they were a new discovery. I recognize that I am opening up the flood gates here, but I am not certain I buy the idea.

Before all you experts jump on this, kindly read, and digest my reasoning.
Scenario A: I know from experience it is usually not necessary to play chord roots in a combo, where that function is typically covered by the double bass. In fact, attempting to do so often gets "muddy and messy". But to me, this implies that usually the root (or 5th) of each chord WILL be there, it is just that the piano does not need to play it.

Scenario B: As more extensions, or “color tones” are added to chords, the five-digit pianist runs out of fingers. So it is only logical that a thinking pianist will attempt to play the “most important” notes in any given chord, logically abandoning the ones of lesser importance. Frequently, with or without a double bass, the roots are the first to go. My ears are not convinced that those roots are as dispensable as many here seem to think.

Scenario C: I fully recognize the versatility of the diminished triad or diminished seventh. Just like an augmented triad, it can act as a pivot point between tonal centers. In this sense, applying or assigning a actual root removes much of its versatility.

Scenario D: While I would never argue that a diminished triad built, say, on the leading tone, can SERVE in place of a dominant seventh chord, it is not, in any theoretical sense equivalent to that chord built on the dominant NOTE. In a sense, it is a SUBSTITUTE for the dominant, not a dominant with it’s defining root missing. In the self-same manner that a ii7 can substitute as a IV in the major keys, the chords sound somewhat similar, but have important differences.

Finally, to the REAL STUFF - what we hear. With all the foregoing in mind, I submit that THE SOUND of F(b9) is not the same as A°7 , or any other inversion of the diminished seventh. The chord, by itself, sounds with a certain color that is lacking in the “rootless” version. And if it progresses to a chord built upon Bb, that root movement is a very powerful force that cannot be duplicated without that F.

OK - flood gates are wide open . . .
Ed

Is there anything to argue about? No-one's disagreeing that the dim7 can act as a dominant toward 4 different key centres. It can be useful to imagine (or add) one of 4 different bass notes completing a dom7(b9) chord. Obviously the chord has a different flavour if this "root" is added.

And, rather more flexibly, on a real computer running the venerable Band in a Box.

Do you separate the two? How sad!

There's a strong history of improvisation in "classical" music. And a lot of commercial material is fully notated and intended to be played "as is".

(And performers take liberties with both :-)

Well, of COURSE not. That's the whole point. With a V7 chord, there is a very strong feeling of what is coming next, although "next" is not always where we anticipate it. But if you have an F7 chord, you are at least aware of it possibly going to Bb (or Bbm), and if Bb is the key and you are close to the end, there is nothing more. F7-9 is just an extension of that principle, and it is still driving towards Bb something.

With the diminished chord, it's about understanding why the composer or arranger or improviser chose it go where he went, and the function defines the spelling. It is, at first, a kind of reverse thinking. "We are here. How did we get there? How did s/he get there?

So there are very practical and useful reasons for associating the flat 9 chord with the diminshed chord that is the RESULT of leaving out the root. If I go to Cm using an Ab dim7 chord, it will not inform a student about why it was picked. But if I say, think this: Ab dim7 to G7 to C, then the logic becomes clear. Then, I can go backwards. What might come before C? G7. Okay. What chord might come before that, moving as little as possible? Ab dim7 is a logical answer, and the spelling will based on the flat 9 spelling. That's not the only way to get to the spelling, but it is the easiest way.

In other words, what is a classically trained musician going to write here: dim7 to Ab? There are many spellings. But if you think Eb7, then raise the root, you get Fb G Bb Db, thus G Bb Db Fb, thus Eb G Bb Db Fb. Once you absorb that, two things result.

1) You can choose NOT to use that spelling, for any of a million practical reasons.
2) If some geek comes along and tells you your enharmonic choice is WRONG, you can tie that geek up in his own geek-rules, explaining the logic behind the traditional rules, better than he understands them, then making a point that his blind adherence to said rules is not knowledge but ignorance. Is this necessary? In my world it is, because every time I give a student a practical solution to something, some wise-*** comes along and infers that I don't know my craft, when I do!

So I also teach that if we start with an F7-9 and understand the V to I principle, then realizing that the other, now traditionally labeled as a vii°7, still has a tendency to FUNCTION the same as a V7 chord. And this goes back to a link between the V and vii chord.

We don't need to talk about this at all if we are talking among ourselves. We are already there. But God help the poor students who read the explanations normally given in theory books.

When I teach the "rootless" concept, it is not mental masturbation. It is the result of years of attempting to break down something very complicated and difficult, for students, to the point that they can absorb it and use it. After that I don't care what they call these things!

Here is a rootless voicing for a II-V-I to C minor, for left handed rootless chords that would accompnay your right handed improvisation.

I looked at what you wrote and said, "What?" Then I jumped, and it was clear.

For those who are not used to this thinking, here are some steps to get to where you went to:

II: D F Ab C D becomes (D) F Ab C D. You are thinking Dm7-5, you invert, leave the D for the bass player.

V: G B D F Ab becomes F ( G ) Ab B D becomes F ( G ) Ab B D#. Start with G7-9, then "color" the chord to G aug7-9. But for voicing, I would explain this chord as F7-5/G, and I would spell your D# as Eb.

I: C Eb G A D becomes ( C ) Eb G A D

For me that is a Cm6 add9.

So although I understand what you are getting at, I would do explain your progession this way:

Dm7 to Fm7-5/G to Cm6 add9. Then I would simply explain that you can leave out the roots, either for a spare sound (if you don't want them), or leave them for the bass player.

I would do this first, in a descriptive way, then get to the II V I function later.:)

Not wanting to put words in anyone’s month (or, more properly, put letters coming out of their keyboards), it appears that we generally agree that a true dominant seventh (or ninth), with its root in place, is different from what we are calling a “rootless” dominant seventh (or ninth). While the true dominant and the “rootless” dominant could function in the same capacity under certain circumstances, they sound different, and they are different on a theoretical level.

And Gary, if I have it correct, you are using the “rootless” concept as a tool to simplify teaching. Maybe as a way of categorizing or grouping chords that have a “leading tone tendency” (V, vii°, even ii°). As a student gains a more advanced understanding, you will then differentiate. Please feel free to correct if I am off the mark here.

Since at least a fair part of the brain trust has weighed-in on this, kindly indulge me with one further, follow-up question: If the “rootless” dominant is not, in fact, a dominant chord, then why doesn’t everyone (except students) call those things precisely what they are?
Ed

When I started harmony theory, my books started with primary and secondary chords - the primary being I, IV and V, secondary being ii, iii, vi, viio, and the characteristics of each (major, minor etc.) Each chord was a unique thing. Then there were progressions and functions. The very first ones were I IV V, the V-I and I-V cadence. Also I vii°6 I6 as a tonic prolongation came very early.

The idea that a vii° chord is embedded in a V7 chord, or that C7 also contains a diminished chord seems more sophisticated to understand, than seeing a diminished chord as one distinct thing, and a seven chord as another distinct thing. I am seeing the "advanced understanding" in the reverse order, Ed.

It's like when I learned about ii, and IV, and they tended to toggle, and then there was this ii7, and the Eureka moment of seeing that the ii7 contained both. There are these changes of colour you can make by altering one note by a semitone - that chords are constantly in motion, and that they are like shape shifters. To me this is the more sophisticated concept, rather than the starting place. I'm thinking that if we can begin with some awareness of this, rather than starting with these fixed blobs as our first concept, it might be a handy thing to have.

(Don't know if I managed to make sense).

That makes complete sense to me.

Work out what you mean by "dominant". It's about tensions. In G7 > C, B wants to resolve to C, F to E, G to C. Combine them all, we have something worthy of the name "dominant". I think we would agree the strongest tensions are the F and the B. Let them stand, add Db. Do we have G7b5, or Db7? Do we pin the chord down as one or the other by adding a bass note, or internal notes? Who cares? The F - B tritone resolves to E - C. The smoke is white. We have a dominant!

Yes, I agree, BUT:

A V7, without a 5, is different. A V7, with all notes, is different when it is inverted. It is different when it is open-voiced. It is different when the root is in the bass but different notes are on top. And so on. The point becomes how many labeling differences do we want to make? When is it useful to group things as logically connected? That will be different for each musician.

I could not disagree more strongly. "Function", to me, is about how two chords work together. It can be more than two chords. To me, these are all the same function:

F B to E C. In the key of C, this has a V to I sound to me. And if it is followed by B F to C E, that's really strong. In a duet, you only HAVE to notes. If that is not a function, I don't know what is.

In the same way, the tune "What's New" starts of with a dim7 chord. D dim7 to C, in the key of C. One person may throw in a G in the bass, so the bass line is very different then. But if you play G7/D to C, the sound is very close to D dim7 to C. I hear them as two "flavors" of the same thing. Are the different? Of course. But to my ear, raising that G to Ab is just more interesting. It gives chromatic movement.

Are we defining "function" in a very different way?

No. I'm doing the opposite. Lets say, for instance, that a talented young musician hears a G dim7 moving to Bm. G Bb Db E to F# B D#. The sound is right, the instinct is right, but how should it be spelled? If it is linked to the dominant of B minor, and it is obvious that the V7 is F# A# C# E, then it is child's play to write that dim7 as G A# C# E to F# B D F#. It's also ridiculously simple to throw in roots in the bassline, F# to B, and then you have F#7-9 moving to Bm.

To me that's not simplifying. That's just smart thinking. From there you can learn to judge where a dim7 chord is going from its spelling. If that same G dim7 chord is spelled G Bb Db E, its a good bet that it is about to resolve to C or Cm.

What else? Any flat 9 chord is a fully diminished chord over a root that is 1/2 step below one of the notes in the dim chord. Now, should someone who has been playing and writing music for a very long time know these things, without thinking about them? Good question. I think these are pretty advanced concepts.

Here is why: my students will accurately identify dim7 chords, but when they resolve, they are not aware of the bigger picture. They don't think, for example, that you can go G dim7 to F#7 to Bm. If those three chords are all there, they see it, but if the middle chord is missing, they don't jump. I do. So I am teaching what I see/feel/hear. And when I am notating things, I fall back on such "simplifications", in a pinch, to check enharmonics.

But Ed, I AM differentiating. Grouping logically does not mean ignoring differences. I don't like RNs because I see them as rigid and horribly limiting. By ii° I assume you mean something like D F Ab in the key of C minor. But this would be just a dim triad, if I am reading you correctly. There my mind says this: Ddim is one note away from D dim7, which is 1/2 step away from G7/D. If I use ANY of those chords and more to Cm, I hear a different flavor of dominant. Maybe you mean the same thing with "leading tone tendency", but why muddy the water with such complicated terms. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I don't think it is just a student level thing to sense that there is a feeling of just having to resolve to a major or minor chord. It is a rather advanced thing to know that you are going to end on a Cm chord, complete with as many color tones as you wish to use. Knowing that a G7 can morph to G7-5 which will restack and respell to Db7-5 and that Db F G B is only 1/2 step away from D F G B, knowing that D F Ab B is similar, knowing that D F B can be used in place of D G B, knowing that you can keep that G B D F and ADD an Ab on top, this is what I call morphing.

I literally bust my *** to teach these ideas, and I wish someone had been around to do the same thing for me when I was a student!

Because music is more complicated than that. There aren't enough names to label everything with precise names. Names are not what things are. That's why they are names. We have notation for that (and even that only gets us close), or one superb musician simply passes on certain voicings and progressions that work like magic to another. In the end, all conventions fail. RNs fail, letters fail, anything fails. Neither you nor I can possibly talk about every possible voicing of every possible chord, or any subtle variation, chormatically. As long as thing remains fairly elementary, of course you can tell me not to play a flat 9 chord, just a diminished chord, or vice versa. But there will come a time if we are playing together when the choice of which "flavor" to use at any given moment will be beyond words, beyond labels and beyond specifics. That's where the bigger picture comes in. Otherwise music turns into something much like paint by numbers. In my opinion, of course.

I am certainly not against revelation - quite the contrary! The more light-bulbs-switched-on moments we have, the better. I do not remember most of mine, but a certain one from many (MANY) years ago is still quite vivid: it was like an Epiphany - I “discovered” that an augmented seventh chord already contained most of the notes of a whole-tone scale. For weeks thereafter, I went around changing every dominant seventh to an augmented seventh, and playing a whole-tone scale over it. Now there is a prime example of a revelation gone bad!

Each of those inner relationships we see, and comprehend, makes us a more well-rounded musician, no doubt. I am simply attempting to understand how such an “insight”, like the fact that a D7 “contains” an F#° triad; then makes the theoretical LEAP to calling that F#° a “rootless” chord, spelled upon a note that is missing. Any thoughts on this?
Ed

I was actually addressing a different idea that you expressed, namely that the concept that chords are not fixed isolated entities is the less advanced thing which would *lead to* discovering that there is such a thing as a vii° chord and a V7 chord. I'm thinking that individual chords are pretty much in your face from the start. So in my mind the process would be the reverse.

About names - I dunno. I've picked up that there are two great divides: the "classical" musicians and the "non-classical" and that some aspects of music are different for the two as a generality. So some ways of naming and relating to music are different. And then even within the groups there will be some differences. So I'm also thinking that some people will have come into referring to "rootless dominants" because it reflects their reality. And I also thinking that the great divide is a mistake, but both aspects of music should exist for everyone rather than everyone huddling in his own respective corner. But I don't know what proportion of musicians use this term, and what proportion doesn't. Only that it seems to be well known in some corners (or this question wouldn't exist here).

Words are what I deal with in my work. I am forever dealing with terminology of people and what they mean by it. Words are an artificial means of trying to reflect reality and we fall short. I am thinking (hoping) that people call it "rootless" in order to reflect a reality they feel, rather than out of an inability to distinguish. When do terms clarify and when do they muddy the water? I don't know. I think maybe both. For me, the first time I heard it, it made me think and then find things. But that's a personal story.