Theory Behind Bass notes (Piano)?

[DesmondA]

I've been practicing my piano more and have noticed that the bass notes I play sound really good when its not in conjunction with the root (i.e. A minor, A octave bass)....when I switch it to A minor, D octave Bass it sounds totally different!....A really dope one I found was F# Maj chord with an Octave B bass......Is there some kind of theory for this? Id love to find other basses for chords I like....try to keep the explanation simple if possible

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by DesmondA

I've been practicing my piano more and have noticed that the bass notes I play sound really good when its not in conjunction with the root (i.e. A minor, A octave bass)....when I switch it to A minor, D octave Bass it sounds totally different!....A really dope one I found was F# Maj chord with an Octave B bass......Is there some kind of theory for this? Id love to find other basses for chords I like....try to keep the explanation simple if possible

Well, let's call it Gflat Major with a C flat bass note. Your stack for a Gflat major chord is Gflat, Bflat, and Dflat. What you are adding is Cflat. Cflat is a strongly dissonant note in this chord as it forms a minor second with Bflat and a major second with Dflat. But because you are an octave away, the tone doesn't sound cluttered - what would be dissonance now become excitement. There's argument within the chord. I sound like a major root, but maybe I'm just a 4 chord waiting to happen - there's no interior resolution. You could construct a progression, the Gflat major, then the Gflat major with the dangling Cflat in the bass, over to a Dflat maj chord with the Cflat in the bass, and you could resolve at a Cflat and Eflat played in the low octave and a Cflat and Eflat up in the higher octave - but hold off on that Gflat that would make the 4 chord triad, and then, play just a Gflat note by itself at the very end resolving both the 4 chord as complete and coming back to the tonic in one smooth simple move.

[jmik]

Storyville pretty much nailed it. Some chords can be kind of ambiguous, unlike a tonic which sounds absolute (not Absolut and tonic ), or a dominant which wants to go somewhere else.

At the risk of sounding redundant, my advice is to experiment beyond triads and check out the other scale degrees and extensions in the bass. For example, take a Cm7, and play an Ab with the bass; now you have an Abmaj9. A favorite of mine playing a major triad, and using the second scale degree as the bass, e.g. F/G. You can create some cool passing tones/chords by moving the bass outside of normal inversions.

[bgrotto]

In both examples you're simply playing the 4th of the chord in the bass.

In both cases, you're sort of creating a 9th chord, with the root of the chord in the bass. However, you're leaving the 3rd out, which makes for an ambiguous sound in terms of major vs. minor.

So, A-/D = D-9 or D9 (depending on whether the 3rd -- which you aren't playing in the voicing you've described -- is major [F#] or minor [F natural])

And F#/B = B-9 or B9 (again, depending on how the 3rd fits into the key and chord)

[DesmondA]

YES!!! they sound awesome....thanks guys

[manosar]

It is truly refreshing to see that music theory lives on, even on a gear-oriented site. Even amongst hip-hop heads who might sample all day long, understanding melody, harmony and voicing is important.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by manosar

It is truly refreshing to see that music theory lives on, even on a gear-oriented site. Even amongst hip-hop heads who might sample all day long, understanding melody, harmony and voicing is important.

Hey Manosar, are you a fellow Somerville, MA local?

[Mad4Brad]

Originally Posted by Storyville

Well, let's call it Gflat Major with a C flat bass note. Your stack for a Gflat major chord is Gflat, Bflat, and Dflat. What you are adding is Cflat. Cflat is a strongly dissonant note in this chord as it forms a minor second with Bflat and a major second with Dflat. But because you are an octave away, the tone doesn't sound cluttered - what would be dissonance now become excitement. There's argument within the chord. I sound like a major root, but maybe I'm just a 4 chord waiting to happen - there's no interior resolution. You could construct a progression, the Gflat major, then the Gflat major with the dangling Cflat in the bass, over to a Dflat maj chord with the Cflat in the bass, and you could resolve at a Cflat and Eflat played in the low octave and a Cflat and Eflat up in the higher octave - but hold off on that Gflat that would make the 4 chord triad, and then, play just a Gflat note by itself at the very end resolving both the 4 chord as complete and coming back to the tonic in one smooth simple move.

THe opening to jump.

Basically a B F#/B , dominant over the root which easily resolves to B major. move the A# to B, the C# to D. Sorry to change it to F# but Gb just doesn't look as pretty.

You could also resolve the same chord by adjusting the bass note which is the 4rth degre of the chord down to the 3rd or up to the 5th giving you either G# in second position or 6/4.

I mean you can take it as far as you want. Basically if the target is B, then that can be any major chord so it could be I , IV , V , bVII in minor VI in minor V in melodic minor.

Now for your example with Am/D , this could be an A minor 7 with added major 9. Or you could the E to D, keep the C which will now form the 7 and move the A to F# and you have a dominant D7


or you could just move the d to C and you get your self a half dminished B7 with a suspended 4 which can be resolved from E to D for the minor 3rd.

There are countless ways you could work with these chords but I think the ones above are probably more pop friendly. Also . i am not near a piano so I might of made a few typos but the jist is accurate.


As far as what theory ? I rather hate this question as theory other than set a few guidelines which in themself are quite arbitrary ie tonic to predominant to dominant to tonic , but really when it comes down to it, they are merely systems of presentation. ( schoenberg ) Chord succession is not governed by any rules. Certain conventions will give a certain colour ie why the classical period of classical music has alot more dominant resolutions than lets say late romantics which actually is a bad example in that they pretty much follow most of the standards. I think jazz is a style that at the root follows traditional tonal harmony well but then you get certain chord successions that just don't fall within the frame work that sound great. You also have alot of roaming harmony that can only really be explained via voice leading.

My thesis in University was pretty much a flat out attack on all those naturalists ie Riemann , Schenker and Piston who thought music followed some natural order. The sad part is that people still buy that crap. I honestly think the word theory should be dropped. It isn't a theory. If anything, it a framework derived by some statistical interpolation that might define a certain type of music at a given time.

Having said that, knowing "thoery" is a worthwhile pursuit despite the sort of mystery killing result it tends to have. I can honestly say there is not one chord progression in any piece of music in the last 200 years in tonal music that I couldn't tell you without the aid of a piano in about 10 seconds. I think this is why i've stopped caring about harmony in music and generally enjoy other aspects like production.

[yosemitesam]

I was going to bring up jazz actually, because 95% of the time in jazz the way you interpret chords is that the lowest note if the root of the cord, period, and whatever is on top fits into that chord somehow. So in your f major 7 with a b in the bass, that would be an unusually voiced b major 9 chord (with the third, d#, missing). Calling a that chord f# major with a b in the bass is a pop thing.

A more conventional (but still very simple) way to voice that same chord on piano would be to have the left hand play a# and d# and have the right hand play f# and c# (and the bass would play b. In jazz from about the 40s on, the piano player wouldn't be responsible for playing the bass note.)

Anyway the point is theory is just a way of looking at music, a perspective (the way pop and jazz musicians would interpret that chord differently). If a genre agrees on a theory (probably informally), those constraints we choose can enhance creativity. When we have limitations to work against, problems to solve, it's easier to be creative than it is when you're just staring at a piano with infinite possibilities.

Sent from my DROIDX using Gearslutz.com App

[Mad4Brad]

the issue with jazz theory is that it is more conducive for performing in that hash chords are just easier to interpret when playing a lead chart. I find the classical approach, despite being a little arbitrary in its approach to functionality does explain and predict a good proportion of modern pop/rock .. basically anything that is tonal. It even does a pretty good job explaining early jazz but it completely falls apart when looking at Bebop as there just are no rules or guidelines for chord succession.

I've done both and have served as a proof reader and reviwer for a few theory books in both realms jazz and classical and I find that jazz theory tends to favour performing rather than understanding what is actually going on in the music which is why I think it is a good idea to first study the traditional theory for classical music then move on to the jazz stuff. Even the classic Levine book breaks down at a certain point just citing examples of chord succession not really developing a framework but just showing that , look, Mr Monk did this and it has a nice colour.

[Eli Resnick]

Figured bass or slash chords are both ways of writing out that you aren't playing the root in the bass. I don't think there's any type of music theory that shouldn't help people play music.

OP, if you're enjoying putting the perfect 4th (or 11th, if you will) of a chord in the bass, that's great. I second the ancient notion that, rather than trying to think of this as a major chord in 5th inversion, you are playing 9th chords without thirds, and I think if you filled in the 3rd (major or minor), you might get an even more consonant and beautiful harmony.

Yosemitesam, I play jazz bass. When I walk, I only play the root note about 30% of the time, but the chord doesn't change every beat just because the bass line moves. So I disagree with your offhand, possibly inadvertent 95% estimate of the amount of time that the root is in the bass in jazz. I find I play more root notes in symphonic and rock playing, actually. A lot of rock basslines are 95% root notes. But maybe there's something you could clarify?

You might say that a bassist tries to play the root note on the first beat of a new chord 95% of the time, in order to make the chord progression really clear and unambiguous, but if he just stays on the root note for the whole chord, well, suddenly you might be playing country music.

To put this conversation back in terms the Original Poster might find helpful, a G chord with a C in the bass is written G/C. You can read it almost like a fraction: "G major over C." It could also be called a C9 in root position or a G11 in 5th inversion (with the 11th in the bass). But nobody really talks about 11ths in the bass or 5th inversions. C9 and G/C (no 3rd) are the more common names for the chord you're playing. If you wrote to us to ask whether what you are doing is allowed under the "rules" of music theory, the answer is a definite yes!

It's been allowed for hundreds and maybe thousands of years. The only note you haven't always been allowed to play with a G chord was a C#. Obviously, at certain times, G/C# would have gotten you excommunicated, exorcised and/or burned at the stake; .

[yosemitesam]

Originally Posted by Mad4Brad

the issue with jazz theory is that it is more conducive for performing in that hash chords are just easier to interpret when playing a lead chart. I find the classical approach, despite being a little arbitrary in its approach to functionality does explain and predict a good proportion of modern pop/rock .. basically anything that is tonal. It even does a pretty good job explaining early jazz but it completely falls apart when looking at Bebop as there just are no rules or guidelines for chord succession.

I've done both and have served as a proof reader and reviwer for a few theory books in both realms jazz and classical and I find that jazz theory tends to favour performing rather than understanding what is actually going on in the music which is why I think it is a good idea to first study the traditional theory for classical music thein move on to the jazz stuff. Even the classic Levine book breaks down at a certain point just citing examples of chord succession not really developing a framework but just showing that , look, Mr Monk did this and it has a nice colour.

I agree, modern pop is generally tonal. I think most jazz before the late sixties is too, although jazz is more likely than classical to throw stuff in that isn't justifiable in a tonal system. Bebop that I've looked at tends to be basically circle of fifths with secondary dominants, plus tritone substitutions. I learned jazz from a professor who was very well versed in classical as well, and I have two semesters of classical theory, so I tend to see jazz as an extension of the tonal system, even if it is more relaxed and has a different mentality.

Sent from my DROIDX using Gearslutz.com App

[yosemitesam]

You might say that a bassist tries to play the root note on the first beat of a new chord 95% of the time, in order to make the chord progression really clear and unambiguous, but if he just stays on the root note for the whole chord, well, suddenly you might be playing country music.

Yes, thank you for clarifying. This is what I meant to say.

Sent from my DROIDX using Gearslutz.com App

[Eli Resnick]

Originally Posted by Mad4Brad

the issue with jazz theory is that it is more conducive for performing in that hash chords are just easier to interpret when playing a lead chart. I find the classical approach, despite being a little arbitrary in its approach to functionality does explain and predict a good proportion of modern pop/rock .. basically anything that is tonal. It even does a pretty good job explaining early jazz but it completely falls apart when looking at Bebop as there just are no rules or guidelines for chord succession.

I've done both and have served as a proof reader and reviewer for a few theory books in both realms jazz and classical and I find that jazz theory tends to favour performing rather than understanding what is actually going on in the music which is why I think it is a good idea to first study the traditional theory for classical music then move on to the jazz stuff. Even the classic Levine book breaks down at a certain point just citing examples of chord succession not really developing a framework but just showing that , look, Mr Monk did this and it has a nice colour.

I think Mark Levine makes clear in his introduction to "Jazz Theory" that he is not writing for beginners, and that he expects people to understand some classical theory. If the books you edited view him as a "classic," then it makes sense that they followed his approach of writing for an audience of intermediate improvisers who understand how to spell the basic words and sentences of music, but need help building their vocabulary with real-life examples and quotes from the classics. What audience do classical theory books address? Students who need to be asked a bunch of trick questions in order to figure out who gets an A and who gets a C?

If someone isn't trying to write music, why do they want to know how it is written? I don't think that bebop has no rules. It tends to have a lot of complex series of secondary dominants and a lot of rich, dissonant harmonies, but I don't think it's a failure of jazz theory in general for Mark Levine, a knowledgeable and articulate pianist, to say that Monk tends to play minor 6th chords with the 6th in the bass than it is a failure of theory to say that Bach likes every other root movement to ascend a fourth or descend a fifth. There is no numerical reason that "proves" either pianist/composer's choice of root movements. They are just classics that people imitate. Bobby Fisher never felt the need to mathematically prove why he liked to start with the king's pawn two spaces forward. Computer programmers have tried, since, but Fisher was happy enough to know that it worked. Nobody questioned his theory.

Moreover, I don't think I completely understand what you're trying to say. You start out, "the issue with jazz theory," and then say, correctly, that slash chords are much easier to read than figured bass. That doesn't strike me as an issue with jazz theory, but an issue with classical theory. I wonder if the invention of slash chords and improvisational walking bass lines is the main innovation that allows the high bpm improvisations that make bebop possible. I know I'd sure hate to try to keep up with Bird while thinking "6-4....5th!.....6-4-2....7th!...hmmm.... 6...mm...right...3rd."

When you use classical theory to "predict" rock and roll, I wonder whether you're not just observing that that's the only theory most rock and roll composers are exposed to. I can use the alphabet to predict most English books before the 1990s, because the alphabet was the main thing English speakers typed back then, but lately I find that &(*# %*& ^ @( )_)@(( *&%$@# %^&*@(_)*& %^&*(.... fuuck

[Eli Resnick]

Originally Posted by yosemitesam

I agree, modern pop is generally tonal. I think most jazz before the late sixties is too, although jazz is more likely than classical to throw stuff in that isn't justifiable in a tonal system. Bebop that I've looked at tends to be basically circle of fifths with secondary dominants, plus tritone substitutions. I learned jazz from a professor who was very well versed in classical as well, and I have two semesters of classical theory, so I tend to see jazz as an extension of the tonal system, even if it is more relaxed and has a different mentality.

Sent from my DROIDX using Gearslutz.com App

I think you answered this one better than I did.

If I hadn't already said so much, I'd add that this is because the tonal system doesn't exist to tell us what we're allowed to play, but rather to help us keep track of what Bach played, or what Roman Catholic choirs sang. These melodies and harmonies all have their roots in Indo-European linguistic sounds, whereas jazz takes a lot of its roots from the tonalities and rhythms of African languages.

Were I to leave tomorrow for Spain, everybody would tell me to take a dictionary, but the idea that all jazz should fit "the tonal system" is a little bit like putting a friend on a plane to Mali and saying, "it's okay. They should all speak English over there. English is the classic linguistic system."

Rock and roll is allegedly a mixture of classical music (European tonalities) and the blues (African tonalities), so if anyone reading this is trying to create rock and roll, they would do well to learn about both. I have played rock and roll, country, jazz and classical music and I find that the more I learn about each, the better prepared I am for all of them.

[yosemitesam]

Fa sho

Sent from my DROIDX using Gearslutz.com App

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by Mad4Brad

THe opening to jump.

Basically a B F#/B , dominant over the root which easily resolves to B major. move the A# to B, the C# to D. Sorry to change it to F# but Gb just doesn't look as pretty.

True, but writing double sharps doesn't look pretty either Sure, the point of such a clashing tone is that is supremely desires to resolve.

You could also resolve the same chord by adjusting the bass note which is the 4rth degre of the chord down to the 3rd or up to the 5th giving you either G# in second position or 6/4.

Totally

I mean you can take it as far as you want. Basically if the target is B, then that can be any major chord so it could be I , IV , V , bVII in minor VI in minor V in melodic minor.

Now for your example with Am/D , this could be an A minor 7 with added major 9. Or you could the E to D, keep the C which will now form the 7 and move the A to F# and you have a dominant D7

I don't believe I used any minor chords in my example progression. I used a I, I11 (something)inversion, V7 first inversion, IV, I progression. What I thought was cool and kind of kinky about that progression would be that by not including the Gflat in the IV chord, you leave the IV as unresolved. By placing in the lonely Gflat note as the resolution - you simultaneously resolve the missing note from the IV chord, AND bring the ear back to the tonic note - which could equally act as an implied I.


or you could just move the d to C and you get your self a half dminished B7 with a suspended 4 which can be resolved from E to D for the minor 3rd.

There are countless ways you could work with these chords but I think the ones above are probably more pop friendly. Also . i am not near a piano so I might of made a few typos but the jist is accurate.

The ones you listed are probably more pop friendly - mine has a lot of tension by going from the I11 to the V7 - perhaps a wee bit much for a friendly pop tune. That's more like a Gospel thing.


As far as what theory ? I rather hate this question as theory other than set a few guidelines which in themself are quite arbitrary ie tonic to predominant to dominant to tonic , but really when it comes down to it, they are merely systems of presentation. ( schoenberg ) Chord succession is not governed by any rules. Certain conventions will give a certain colour ie why the classical period of classical music has alot more dominant resolutions than lets say late romantics which actually is a bad example in that they pretty much follow most of the standards. I think jazz is a style that at the root follows traditional tonal harmony well but then you get certain chord successions that just don't fall within the frame work that sound great. You also have alot of roaming harmony that can only really be explained via voice leading.

Or a modal system. Yeah, theory is just a description of music really. It's one way of explaining what's happening - and often provides for good food for thought.

My thesis in University was pretty much a flat out attack on all those naturalists ie Riemann , Schenker and Piston who thought music followed some natural order. The sad part is that people still buy that crap. I honestly think the word theory should be dropped. It isn't a theory. If anything, it a framework derived by some statistical interpolation that might define a certain type of music at a given time.

Tell em!

Having said that, knowing "thoery" is a worthwhile pursuit despite the sort of mystery killing result it tends to have. I can honestly say there is not one chord progression in any piece of music in the last 200 years in tonal music that I couldn't tell you without the aid of a piano in about 10 seconds. I think this is why i've stopped caring about harmony in music and generally enjoy other aspects like production.

You know - you make a lot of good points - even if you don't like my 808s

yeppers

[Eli Resnick]

I like this:

Originally Posted by Mad4Brad

THe opening to jump.
My thesis in University was pretty much a flat out attack on all those naturalists ie Riemann , Schenker and Piston who thought music followed some natural order. The sad part is that people still buy that crap. I honestly think the word theory should be dropped. It isn't a theory. If anything, it a framework derived by some statistical interpolation that might define a certain type of music at a given time.

Having said that, knowing "thoery" is a worthwhile pursuit despite the sort of mystery killing result it tends to have. I can honestly say there is not one chord progression in any piece of music in the last 200 years in tonal music that I couldn't tell you without the aid of a piano in about 10 seconds. I think this is why i've stopped caring about harmony in music and generally enjoy other aspects like production.

Well said.

But at the same time, there are plenty of people who are great at production and then stop being interested by that. My favorite drummers from high school have since decided drums were boring and no longer play them.

If we all only do what challenges us, then nobody gets great at anything.

I personally, decided calculus and physics were boring a long time back, and am still kicking myself when I look at how much some electrical engineering knowledge could help my studio (to say nothing of its budget).

If you can identify any given chord progression with ten seconds at a piano, you just might have an easier, more productive future in music than in something that you find challenging only because you do not yet fully understand it.

With that kind of ten-second harmonic understanding, you could be a composer. You could write music theory books. You could teach theory lessons to young pianists. Whereas if you think production is interesting because you can't tell one mic from the next, you may not be as good a producer as someone who can.

That is awesome that you've spent so much time loving music and understanding music that you can identify any complex harmony you hear in just ten seconds.

If you get it down from ten seconds to a tenth of a second, maybe you could start playing bebop.

[Mad4Brad]

Originally Posted by Eli Resnick

I like this:


If you can identify any given chord progression with ten seconds at a piano, you just might have an easier, more productive future in music than in something that you find challenging only because you do not yet fully understand it.

With that kind of ten-second harmonic understanding, you could be a composer. You could write music theory books. You could teach theory lessons to young pianists. Whereas if you think production is interesting because you can't tell one mic from the next, you may not be as good a producer as someone who can.

That is awesome that you've spent so much time loving music and understanding music that you can identify any complex harmony you hear in just ten seconds.

that is 10 seconds without a piano . And yes, composing is what I do most. I find production interesting because it is the only aspect of music that is actually changing. There are no new chords, there are no new melodies, production and the way something sounds is really the only aspect of music that is changing. I also said interesting, not challenging. Things I find challenging would include finding my glasses in the morning, washing my hands after I pee even tho i'm certain i didn't get anything on my hands but I still do it out of habit.

For example, Hans Zimmer , not really the most talented composer around and has the harmonic vocabulary of a child but what he does do lately is to stop trying to be a classical composer and get into more of the production aspect which is way more interesting and in my opinion something he is rather better at. Like how they are applying guitar amps to traditional instruments and stuff like that. That is new and that is interesting.

I don't really care about being able to tell what mic was used. Engineering is actually one aspect I really couldn't care less about. I mean the artistic side, which is more production if you ask me is what I like but just doing the technical stuff is such a boring job. I can do it, but I can also iron my clothes but who really wants to iron their clothes when there are people you can pay for this.

To be honest, I could see myself pursuing a writing career next. Now that is definitely something I find interesting and challenging. I seriously have ADD when it comes to wanting to do things. Everything interests me. I might be in a position depending on if something is syndicated to pretty much have my living expenses paid for and not have to work. I think I would start learning how to write. MY english is atrocious.

[Mad4Brad]

Originally Posted by Eli Resnick

If the books you edited view him as a "classic," then it makes sense that they followed his approach of writing for an audience of intermediate improvisers who understand how to spell the basic words and sentences of music, but need help building their vocabulary with real-life examples and quotes from the classics.



If someone isn't trying to write music, why do they want to know how it is written? I don't think that bebop has no rules. It tends to have a lot of complex series of secondary dominants and a lot of rich, dissonant harmonies, but I don't think it's a failure of jazz theory in general for Mark Levine, a knowledgeable and articulate pianist, to say that Monk tends to play minor 6th chords with the 6th in the bass than it is a failure of theory to say that Bach likes every other root movement to ascend a fourth or descend a fifth. There is no numerical reason that "proves" either pianist/composer's choice of root movements. They are just classics that people imitate. Bobby Fisher never felt the need to mathematically prove why he liked to start with the king's pawn two spaces forward. Computer programmers have tried, since, but Fisher was happy enough to know that it worked. Nobody questioned his theory.

Moreover, I don't think I completely understand what you're trying to say. You start out, "the issue with jazz theory," and then say, correctly, that slash chords are much easier to read than figured bass. That doesn't strike me as an issue with jazz theory, but an issue with classical theory. I wonder if the invention of slash chords and improvisational walking bass lines is the main innovation that allows the high bpm improvisations that make bebop possible. I know I'd sure hate to try to keep up with Bird while thinking "6-4....5th!.....6-4-2....7th!...hmmm.... 6...mm...right...3rd."

When you use classical theory to "predict" rock and roll, I wonder whether you're not just observing that that's the only theory most rock and roll composers are exposed to. I can use the alphabet to predict most English books before the 1990s, because the alphabet was the main thing English speakers typed back then, but lately I find that &(*# %*& ^ @( )_)@(( *&%$@# %^&*@(_)*& %^&*(.... fuuck

I didn't edit the Levine book. But as you go thru it , you start to notice that it is more a survey of Jazz than an actual theory book. The problem with isolated examples is that a good framework should work in many situations. Like ockahms razor, the less rules or guidelines, the better the theory. The problem with much of Levine's work is that it just provides examples with no explanation as to where they came from which makes sense in that they didn't come from anywhere. Jazz guys started playing around with chord successions that were not typical and they liked the sound. It is hard to make a framework around an anything goes approach which is really what modern jazz is.

As far as why is it important to understand the music if you are just playing it, well I think it is extremely important as a performer to know what you are playing. Are you playing a leading tone ? Are you playing a flattened dissonance. Granted this matters more in classical music where intonation will change according to what note and its function but even jazz guys , well the good ones will adjust their intonation and tuning for certain notes. Not all notes, even if they are the same note are equal. And that is why just being able to sight read without really understand what you are reading is rather limiting and the sign of a poor performer.

Classical music never really had to devise a system like jazz because even despite the fact that improvisation did go on, the tonal regions where quite predictable. And if it was just a solo pianist improvising, well chances are that he was a composer and what would you need a chart for if you were the only one playing or since there was sheet music and the point of the music wasn't to improvise, just read the actual score which musicians could do rather well. But really , improvisation except for the few piano virtuosos wasn't really something that defined the music of the time. Well the high brow stuff we now call classical.

[manosar]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

Hey Manosar, are you a fellow Somerville, MA local?

I am indeed - sent you PM

[Boschen]

Originally Posted by Mad4Brad

...SNIP...
To be honest, I could see myself pursuing a writing career next. Now that is definitely something I find interesting and challenging. I seriously have ADD when it comes to wanting to do things. Everything interests me. I might be in a position depending on if something is syndicated to pretty much have my living expenses paid for and not have to work. I think I would start learning how to write. MY english is atrocious.

I feel your frustration. I myself have a very decent aptitude for almost anything, but no single thing seems to draw me with an overpowering urge. I often wish I could trade my general aptitude for mastery of a single skill.

I think it was Sir Richard Burton, or one of his many biographers, who described himself as;

"a waif, a stray ...a blaze of light, without a focus."

[DesmondA]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

In both examples you're simply playing the 4th of the chord in the bass.

In both cases, you're sort of creating a 9th chord, with the root of the chord in the bass. However, you're leaving the 3rd out, which makes for an ambiguous sound in terms of major vs. minor.

So, A-/D = D-9 or D9 (depending on whether the 3rd -- which you aren't playing in the voicing you've described -- is major [F#] or minor [F natural])

And F#/B = B-9 or B9 (again, depending on how the 3rd fits into the key and chord)

So when I play the 6th as the bass whats happening? (I've noticed a moodier feel when I do this)

[DesmondA]

Originally Posted by DesmondA

So when I play the 6th as the bass whats happening? (I've noticed a moodier feel when I do this)

Anyone????

[steve_sax]

Originally Posted by DesmondA

Anyone????

Major triad with 6th in bass = minor 7th chord:
A C E G

Minor triad with 6th in bass = half diminished, aka minor 7th, flat 5
A C Eb G

[DesmondA]

Originally Posted by steve_sax

Major triad with 6th in bass = minor 7th chord:
A C E G

Minor triad with 6th in bass = half diminished, aka minor 7th, flat 5
A C Eb G

What about Major 7th chord with 6th as the bass?

[steve_sax]

Originally Posted by DesmondA

What about Major 7th chord with 6th as the bass?

C maj 7 : C E G B
over A:
A C E G B = min 9th chord