Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Help with Jazz Chords?

Because that is the way chords are defined.

A Triad (chord) is defined as the Root, Third, and Fifth of the major scale.

Then you include the 7th (major 7th) tone of the scale and you get the Major 7th chord.

You do this for all the other chords in the same manner.

Once you know that ... then you move on to chord inversions.

Then you can begin to understand the various voicings.

Then you might move on to various chord progressions ... I V ... II V .... II V I .... etc ... You might begin to see them within varous jazz standards and notice that they are all over the place.

Then you can look at the exercises in that book and figure out that the first one is a voicing for the Gm7 chord and if you are familiar with II V I progressions you already know that the next voicing is probably the C7 because you know that C7 comes after Gm7 in the II V I chord progression.

It goes on and on ....

But you need to start at the beginning or it is very difficult to see the pattern to all of this.

A definition need not be confined to root position chords and I'm not asking about triads. Bearing in mind that it's a rarity to find standards played as a sequence of root position triads (or 4 note stacked chords in root position) why not define the ma7 chord (for example) as root, major third, fifth and seventh degree of the major scale in any order which pleases the ear?

You could do that. It just has been my experience that they are initially defined in what is known as Root position.

Well, it has become evident to me that you are here to argue and unfortunately I am not so I will have to excuse myself from this "discussion" as I think I have made my position clear.

Good Day

No doubt when you were first introduced to chords you were nursed through the basic stage but my argument (yes, I will argue it!) is that it is a redundant stage.

If you look at that first chord in ex 1 which you were happy to call a Gm7 you'll see that it consists of - in this order - G (root), F (flattened seventh of the major scale) and Bb (minor 3rd). It's nothing like a triad. Not only that, it doesn't even contain the 5th! More importantly, that voicing is easy on the ear and useful, a real-world voicing, unlike the stacked Gm7 that you set so much store by.

Here's my lesson on the m7 (in general). It consists of - in any order - the root, m3, 5th (variably, but stick with it for now) and the flattened 7th of the major scale. Play with it in all its inversions and have fun. By all means, in the early stages, while 'finding' your fingers and harmonic bearings, keep the root as bass note for a while. There are six or seven other basic chords which can be summed up in a similar fashion. You don't need no stinkin' theory book, just an A4 summary page and a suitable book of exercises which I think newbert has found. The important thing is to get stuck into music which uses these chords in their natural habitat and with their typical voicings. If you're reading the stave, spend some time to pause on the notes of a chord to recognise and name the essential chord intervals. Also, pick up a lead sheet or realbook page and work through each chord at your own pace, trying various voicings. Gradually things will sink in.


I'm here to refute what I believe to be hackneyed and unhelpful advice.

Wow! The last thing I wanted was to start an argument when initiating this thread.

Just to clarify --

1) I DO know how to construct chords in root position. They don't come "automatically" to me in every key, but I know their structure and can construct them. And I do know the significance of a ii-V-I progression. What I'm NOT very good at is recognizing the chords when voiced differently. Especially with two hands. (I do know how to construct inversions.)

2) Although the book does NOT include the chord symbols, the author recommends strongly (in the introduction before the first exercise) that the reader take the time to work out the chord symbols and write them above each chord. That is what prompted my question.

3) I agree that working thru these exercises without knowing what the chords are is a waste of time. Hence my initial question. (I was stuck, and just needed an clarification to put me onto the right path.)

Because I was having a problem recognizing the chords in these voicings (non-root), I posed my question. DT's initial response has provided me the "secret sauce" to recognize what's going on with these voicings.

Thanks for all of the thoughts on how to go about this. I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly in regards to where I am in my jazz journey, and why I was posing the question.

Music theory has been taught formally for a long time (200 years or something?) and gradually a structured way of teaching it and absorbing it has evolved. It is the most efficient way to learn it and serves as a strong reference.
But that doesn't mean that arrangers/composers slavishly adhere structurally to the way theory is being taught. Music would be very boring and predictable if it was.
I think it's very important to see that distinction. In other words, musical theory does set out to demand how music should be played, it's an analysis of how the different parts work, harmony, melody, rhythm, etc.
And all the possible variations can then be compared to the original and formal structure.
Of course one can scoff at any established theory discovered and developed and take wild short-cuts all over the place, but it usually leads to a hodgepodge of 'knowledge' that always has to be patched up and verified. And talking fluently in the same language is really hampered.

What utter nonsense. Stick to what you know. Clearly that doesn't include popular forms.

That should have been "does not" .....sorry. A typo

relieved to hear it!

I was all set to agree with ya. . .music theory sets the road ahead for composers. Whatd be the point of it otherwise. . .?

But some like to travel off road. . .

I read it as "does not" the first time because it seemed in context with the other things you wrote/posts you make on the forum. I had to go back and read word for word to see what was going on. I agreed with you the first time, too

So, if I may paraphrase, you would say:-
"musical theory determines how music should be played"

From my reading of peterws' post he seems to go along more with the idea:-
"musical theory determines how music should be composed"

I hope on both counts I've misinterpreted or misread.

"musical theory determines how music should be composed"

Composers will break the rules of theory to compose what they like. Some composers have no theory training but somehow inherently still follow most or all rules of theory, likely as it just sounds right. Also, music was being composed for years before it became fashionable to analyze it, attempt to define it by attaching rules to it, via theory.

"musical theory determines how music should be played"

Not at all. A good sense of theory though is likely to lead to experimentation of other things that could work well and may open up opportunity for greater understanding.

... I think.

First there was music. Then it got analyzed and theorized. Why? The hope was that theory would be helpful to those who wanted to learn to play, arrange, and compose.... That, and some people just like to theorize in general.... Right?

peterws,
Or even no theory at all but bright new creative ideas:
https://soundcloud.com/geant-sounds/sonification-of-voyager-1
:-)

jotur,
Yes, typos are so easy to do!
And musical sounds came before any theory.

I like how you end your comment, Greener: "... I think"

Actually, while stretching the limits I would also think that: Musical theory can determine how music can be played.
I.e getting new ideas with the help of theory, like Peterws hinted at.

Do you play?

That's a fair summary.

The fate of the theory - always trail behind the practice. It is very convenient to save time, but there is always a danger that for the next generations it will insensibly substitute the music itself; and examples have more than enough!