• Forum Index
• New Message
• Search FretBuzz
• List of Forums
|
|
|
FretBuzz: Theory Forum Message |
My generic chord naming system
Fred Pool
(209)
Theory Forum
11/5/2009 1:34:02 AM · 80 Views
[Respond to this Message]
Dear wholenote community,
I was having a discussion in another forum, on a planet far, far away about my generic chord naming system and I felt I did such a good job explaining it, and it was so much work to type it all up, that I should also post it here so I can get your
feedback as well.
If nothing else I can at least get all beat up by some of the members over here who like to make all their contributions negative. Sometimes we all just need a good verbal flogging, right? No, if you're only going to be negative for the sake of being a jerk, maybe you can just stay out of it...like...whoever that Andy Fake guy is, right? That poser can just take a hike if he's still around.
Anyway, to better understand this quote I'm about to paste below, it would probably benefit you to visit my site and watch the Major Scale module found here:
www.rsoguitar.com
Take a good look at the family member names and then help me out with some feedback. Has it ever been done before? Are there any chord naming systems out there that serve this exactly same purpose? As far as I've ever found, in all my years of searching, there hasn't. Maybe someone can straighten me out if it has.
So, here is the quote, which does a pretty good job of describing the value of naming chords the way I do, generically:
"You were talking about the difference between using Mama, Papa, etc. vs using the...what is it called...the "International Numbering System"...is that what it's called when you use ii-V-I to describe a set of chords? Well, I had someone approach me once and try to casually let me know that I had wasted my time coming up with my little system of Mama, Papa, etc. because, in his words, "It has already been done...with that roman numeral system." Well, I had to laugh because I've known about the little roman numeral system (somebody please tell me that name of that system...I just spend 10 minutes digging through wikipedia.org trying to figure it out and gave up) I had known about that system a long time and I wouldn't just go ahead and do all the work to make up a new system if there was already one in place that served the purpose I sought. So, let me explain the difference and the purpose.
The difference between my naming system and the one with the roman numerals is that the "one chord" in roman numerals isn't always the same family member chord. The I chord isn't always Ma (Mama). If it were, then it would have satisfied my needs. The closest thing I could come up with from the preexisting world of material was to simply call a chord "Lydian" or "Ionian". And that's what I did for a long time. However, I found that my student's had a hard time remembering those names. So, I started trying to come up with some kind of set of names that would attach the information into their brains a little better...kind of like a science student would use "My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" to memorize the 9 planets (At least they would long ago before the debate concerning the 9th planet got all fired up). So, I eventually came up with Ma, Yb, Ob, Ys, Os, Pa, Ab. But the power behind it doesn't stop there or it would only be a tiny bit better than just calling chords by their greek names (Ionian, Dorian, etc.). But before I shed light on the hidden power, let me add that calling them by these more generic names is very much like what we do in real life. I have a Papa/Dad but he actually has a real name, Chris. So, in terms of these chords, they all have relationship names, but they also have their real greek names.
Now, let's talk about why calling them Ma, Pa, etc. has power. I'll give you two or three little tips I give my students when I try to get them to learn their positions with respect to one another on the fretboard. First, I tell them to imagine that the family was once a plain, simple/ordinary family that didn't include the Adopted Boy. So, imagine them all posing for a photograph from left to right. We have Ma, Yb, Ob, Ys, Os, Pa. Notice that we have the two parents on the outside, sort of posing as end-caps to the family? That should be easy enough to remember. Now as far as how far apart each of them are from one another, I often tell them to just remember that they are each two frets apart except for one pair: Ob and Ys. Their roots are only one fret apart. How I explain this is by telling the make-believe story about the order in which they were born. First Os was born and, for whatever reason she's close to Pa...she's a "daddy's girl". (That's how I get them to remember that the girl sister pair are over on the Pa side of things) Two years later, Ys was born. Then, just a year later Ob, was born and two years after that Yb, who is the youngest and gets all of Ma's attention...he's a "Mama's boy". Now, if you consider what we call the "middle-child-syndrome" you can find reason for the two middle children Ob and Ys to be very close (only one fret apart). The reason is Daddy's girl gets plenty of attention from Pa...Mama's boy gets it from Ma...so the two middle children are very close to each other...they've got to stick together and give each other attention. Are you with me so far?
The next step in learning to appreciate the metaphor of the family names is to imagine that after many years of raising these kids, Ma gets the wild notion that they should enrich their family situation by adopting a boy. Now, before I bring him into the picture, I want you to fully appreciate the shape of the chords in the family without him. Notice that (as long as you just play the basic 1-3-5 chord forms) all the girl chords have the same shape as Ma, while all the boys look exactly like Pa. That would conspire with the notion that they are all from the same genetics, right? Well, now you bring in Adopted Boy and, while he is surely a boy, with his minor 3rd, he has that flatted 5th and therefore looks nothing like the rest of the family...he comes from different genetics. Also, notice his relative position with respect to the rest of the family. Where does his root sit? He sits right between Pa and Ma, as if they are posing for a picture with him all on their own, without the kids, if you can see that. Notice that he is only one fret from Ma, the nurturer (whose idea it was to adopt him), while he is two frets from Pa, this disciplinarian (who might still be having second thoughts as to whether this was a good idea or not).
Now, before I go on, let me clarify, as I have plenty of times before, that this is not an opportunity to bash adopted kids or to try to magnify the stereotypes that I have obviously been exposed to concerning them. I once had a lady who explained to me that it would have been more accurate to have named him a "step-child". She said most kids who actually get adopted end up in very good homes where they are loved and wanted, after all, their parents willingly chose to take them on...whereas step children often end up with a step parent who might not necessarily care for them as they are only there because of their feelings toward the other parent. Point taken...I agree...and it would further strengthen the idea that he is clinging to Ma, because maybe the Pa is a real jerk. I know I didn't care for my step dad at all and the feeling between us was clearly mutual. But, as I explained to her, I have already registered my little book with the Library of Congress with Ab as the character name...I have built tons of material referring to him as such, so I'm sort of stuck with Ab.
Okay, that was a lot of typing. I'm starting to feel a bit frazzled with all of it...but I think I pretty well covered the "intro" level lesson on the powerful value of referring to the family names. If you're ready to move on to the next step, I'll have to spend some time talking about Ab as the "gateway to Harmonic Minor" which is where the power (in my opinion) really gets hot. I need to get to bed now, so I'll save that for another night."
|
|
Responses
[ Pages:
1 · 2 ] |
|
Re: My generic chord naming system
11/5/2009 1:35:46 AM
Fred Pool
(209) wrote:
By the way, sorry that got posted 3 times..."my bad"... |
|
| |
Re: My generic chord naming system
11/5/2009 2:11:10 AM
Chris Bond II
(1808) wrote:
Okay, to be truthful I didn't read your whole post. Not that I don’t want to it was more a matter of time.
I will say this about what I got from my perusal.
I think your perspective is yours alone and if your system helps you, then well for you.
There are other systems than standard functional harmony approach, but they differ from yours a bit. You mention and/or allude to numbering or positioning of chords, which in my opinion a bit convoluted, or at the very least misleading.
For example, a system exists where 6 chord qualities are used. Any of these chords can be called upon when the progression calls for a certain type. For example (and I'm only going into a few) any of these chord shapes could be considered a I chord in the key of C
And the list goes on and on. Notice i didn't "name" a single chord? It's because you dont have to because your ear with tell you which one to use.
If you doubt this, here is a ii-V which you can hit first then resolute with any form above. If you like, i can send you about fifty such forms for each quality.
Good luck in your playing. |
|
Re: My generic chord naming system
11/5/2009 4:11:32 PM
Nick Scratch
(413) wrote:
I'd have to agree that your system is unique. |
|
| |
Re: My generic chord naming system
11/10/2009 9:40:17 AM
Jon Riley
(9692) wrote:
"The difference between my naming system and the one with the roman numerals is that the "one chord" in roman numerals isn't always the same family member chord. The I chord isn't always Ma (Mama)."
Well, the "I" chord is always the tonic, that's the point. The key chord (tonic) is always "I" (or "i" if you prefer lower case for minor chords.)
Of course, "I" may sometimes be major, sometimes minor. But this isn't confusing, if you understand the system. It always refers to the tonic, the "home" chord, not to the type of chord. As there are only two types of key in our system, this is not too difficult to grasp.
And we can always add "m" to our system to distinguish minor chords (if upper/lower case differences are potentially confusing, and they are when handwriting at least).
So, a major key is
I - IIm - IIIm - IV - V - VIm - VIIdim.
(or I - ii - iii - IV - V - vi - viidim, if we trust u/l case.)
And a minor key is Im - IIdim - III - IVm - V - VI - VIIdim.
Or: i - iidim - III - ivm - V - VI - viidim
(V and VII are derived from harmonic minor.)
There is - it's true - some inconsistencies here. Some people feel it helps to compare a minor scale with a major. So they will write a minor key as follows:
Im - IIdim - bIII - IVm - V - bVI - VIIdim.
(i - iidim - bIII - iv - V - bVI - vii dim)
This does indeed clarify things somewhat, because a bVII chord might well occur (G in key of A minor) alongside (or instead of) VIIdim (G#dim in A minor).
And it's also common for borrowed chords to occur in major keys, so that "bIII" or whatever is a useful form of symbol (Eg Eb in key of C major).
It seems this notion of borrowed chords wouldn't sit well with your system. (A bIII chord in your system, if I understand it right, would be "bOb". Which is amusing, but I'm not how helpful it is... :-) )
I do quite like the idea of characterising the chord functions, so I don't think your notion is ridiculous.
(I once came up with a metaphor of a factory, in which I is the "boss", which helped explain how modes work when a chord takes off its major key "uniform" and goes home. :-).)
I imagine personifying the chords might work especially well with kids.
But it seems to me that a major key tonic should be Pa, not Ma. Ionian mode has a definite masculine feel to me, while the more mysterious (and moody! ;-) ) minor key suits a feminine identity: "Ma" for VI, IOW.
In most traditional families, after all (for better or worse!) Pa is in charge, or is at least supposed to be.
The other major chords would then be male, and the minors female.
The V (dominant) would need to be eldest son.
You don't have to agree with this, but the point is that your characterisation - while a possibly neat idea if teaching kids - is not one that would make sense to everyone.
And it might lead to all kinds of other irrelevant tangential thoughts. (I mean what happens when a chord is altered: does that become a "mutant" kid?)
I also think that kids would appreciate actual names more, instead of "Os", "Yb" etc, which are as baffling and cryptic to look at as "ii" or "III" etc. |
|
| |
Re: My generic chord naming system
12/27/2009 1:57:55 AM
Fred Pool
(209) wrote:
Jon,
Those are some interesting remarks. I especially enjoyed how you turned it around about the majors being males. I can appreciate that point, but it's too late for my system as I have already created so much material involving the males as minors, that I simply couldn't go back, no matter how much I liked it. I might as well throw my hands up at the whole deal. I'm happy with the minors as males and I'm quite used to it.
I respectfully disagree about my system only appealing to kids. I suppose you believe that simply because the names sound "cute", kind of silly or something. But I have students who are over 50 years old and they swear by these terms because it finally broke through the wall of fog that kept them from understanding music theory for so many years.
Some people just can't get it the way other do. I tried to learn by the traditional route and I came up short and disinterested many times. I can remember trying so hard to stay the course, but I think my biggest problem was wondering what the grand point was. I had to find a way to see the big picture without boring my audience before they got to see the gold. My original text, where I lay the groundwork for my system is only about 25 pages long. It's not short because I ran out of things to talk about. It's that short because I carefully crafted it to be. You see, once I get my students to see the power of the gold behind door #1, they can actually muster the kind of patience it takes to listen to traditional teaching. The basic concepts that tradition has passed down to us through the ages are quite simple but, as with many things that are also simple, it's the explaining that makes most people dizzy.
I'm a professional math teacher, so I see it every day. From the board, I cringe at how many words it takes me to get the lights to come on for a single concept.
Sometimes I get the question from other, "Why invent a new system? Doesn't the one we have do the job quite well?" The answer is, yes, it does the job quite well for most people, but what do you do when you get a handful of people who can't understand it that way? Now, I know the centuries are full of teachers who just took the easy way out with the claim that some people are just meant to be musicians and other are just not. I work to diminish that claim as much as I can. I'm of the mind that anyone can learn any concept provided the proper steps and methods are implemented. I think the greater force working against all students is the desire to want to learn, not the ability to understand. The world is full of real guitarists and so-called guitarists who may or may not know the first thing about the power of music theory...may not even know when they are or aren't using it because they tend to take the path of least resistance.
I'm almost tired of entertaining the idea that I've invented some new phenomenal system. The system is music theory itself, I've just tried to come up with a way to show my students a taste of the power it can bring to the table before they get cold feet and slam the book shut. It's like taking a kid on a ride up into orbit and showing him what it's like to see the earth from way up there. When he comes back down to earth and sits through the boring lecture, so much will actually make sense because of that experience. |
|
| | |
Re: My generic chord naming system
12/27/2009 5:51:21 AM
Jon Riley
(9692) wrote:
If it works, it works. There's no arguing with that! I would be embarrassed to try such a system with my adult students, but I guess that's my problem!
My own view of theory is that if a student doesn't get it, it doesn't much matter. I don't see theory as "opening doors", until a student is some way down the road, and gets itchy to explore. (I never studied it myself until I'd been playing some 15 years. And then only out of curiosity, not because I felt I needed it. Obviously I'd picked up stuff en route, but in a purely practical way, only what I needed to help me play - which was very little.)
There is no need (IMO) to learn theory at all, until one has questions about music that involve theoretical answers.
Naturally this begins quite early, with names for notes and chords. (Those letters ABCDEFG are the beginning of theory.) But they're just labels, and labels are really all we need, for some time.
Only when a student asks "why"-type questions, or asks if there are underlying formulas for the kinds of sequences or tunes they're studying, do I think it necessary to address theory (beyond note-name labels).
I would still try to attach it to sound, of course. The first thing is to be able to hear the concept of "tonal centre" or "keynote" - if they can't hear that, no kind of theoretical explanation will do any good.
The concepts of expectation and "tendency" are fundamental, therefore. Magnetism and gravity both make useful metaphors, which I think most people can understand - because there is a similar feeling of being drawn in a certain direction.
And once they grasp that, the hierarchical relationships of diatonic chords can begin to make sense. And I often use a concept of "family" myself to refer to the notes and chords in a key.
I haven't yet found a need to go beyond that, and define "family members" - I think partly because there is no direct relationship, and partly because real families are so variable. (The comedy that would arise from it would be fun of course, but I can imagine most of it being tangential and distracting.)
I would prefer the workplace metaphor I mentioned above, because I prefer that idea of an imposed hierarchy designed to achieve a particular goal. I.e., the major key (despite the apparently natural feeling of tonal gravity) is a cultural construct designed for a particular purpose.
There's still the issue of the minor key, as a contrasting sound to the major. IMO, your Ma/Pa relationship is not a good metaphor there. Obviously there is the "relative" major minor relationship (C/Am), which is tempting, and works quite well, but the Ma/Pa idea doesn't deal with the parallel major/minor concept (A/Am); which is musically at least as important. (Is this "Ma" having an extramarital affair with another "Pa"?? ;-) If not, what is your family relationship between A minor and A major?)
Of course, my factory/workplace concept doesn't (at present) deal with that any better.
Any useful metaphor would have to "explain" the way chords from parallel keys can be shared (chords from A minor often used in A major and vice versa, at least the E7 chord.) |
|
| | | |
Re: My generic chord naming system
1/3/2010 6:31:46 PM
Fred Pool
(209) wrote:
I beg to differ, respectfully, with what you said about theory not being important until later on down the road. Once I discovered what I eventually learned about things like staying in key all the way across the fretboard, and knowing all the naturally occurring chords in a given key, I felt like I was sort of ripped off by not being told sooner. I mean, I spent many years just trying to learn cool little riffs here and there, by learning my favorite songs, but I had very little idea where these riffs actually came from, I couldn't see the entire scale sitting on the frets and strings. Once I finally saw, I was able to start making up my own riffs more efficiently.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I came up with some decent licks just working by ear, but also knowing the scale opens up so many more possibilities and the ability to actually make up new riffs on the fly, without so much risk of hitting "bad notes".
For example, knowing all the naturally occurring chords and knowing that if you choose to hit them you won't interrupt a good solo with some kind of chord that's outside the scale and doesn't work is a great way to improve chord progressions with confidence. That's what my family of chords is about: knowing the character of the triads of a given key. Not just knowing that this chord is a major and this one is a minor, but really knowing that this major Ys (Lydian chord) has a raised fourth and this minor Ob (Phrygian chord) has a minor 2nd.
Chords are like characters in a play. You can get to know them as personalities. And no matter what mode you're playing in, if you know who the character is, you should know where the rest of the family members are by their relative position with respect to one another.
Further, as you get to know their personalities, and the way they change when you invoke other scales, you can learn what each of them is capable of when changing scales. For example, if you create a progression like:
| Ma | Ys | Ma | Ys |
You can invoke harmonic minor if you split the measure where Ys is with Ys as a min.
| Ma | Ys Ys(minor) | Ma | Ys Ys(minor) |
You could discover this by ear, or by knowing some theory. I usually notate harmonic minor with (#Os), because Os is the 5th degree of the major scale, which, if raised creates the harmonic minor scale. So, I would usually write it like this:
| Ma | Ys Ys(#Os) | Ma | Ys Ys(#Os) |
I don't care how uninterested any of you are, if it wasn't for my system it would have taken me another 10 years to discover this kind of alteration. I absolutely love the kind of tension this sort of move adds to a progression. I use it all the time to create more drama in my music. There are so many applications and we've all heard them in so many songs. I usually play a cycle without the alterations for a while to sort of save it for a special moment. I liken it to serving cafeteria food Monday through Thursday, then throwing in some gourmet on Friday. Like, you keep the cycle plain until the measure just before the chorus or a similarly important moment.
Knowing this is a possibility for this family member can come in handy in many situations. For example, if you are playing this prog:
| Yb | Os |
which to the rest of you would more comfortably be shown as something like:
| Amin | Dmaj |
you should know that Ys (Lydian chord) is Cmaj, which can be morphed into a min to invoke harmonic minor. You would only know this if you knew the character of that chord. If you only looked at it as a major chord, who knows what you would entertain as possible in that context. You might even try to launch the major scale off its root. I would know it could go to a minor to create more tension just before returning to the main cycle, or I could convert it into a fully diminished chord for even more tension. It could look like:
| Amin | Dmaj | Amin | Dmaj | Cmaj Cmin | (repeat)
And at the moment the Cmin enters the scene, you can alter the major scale by that one note that creates harmonic minor.
This is the sort of thing I'm totally excited and addicted to these days. So many inspiring vocal lines can spring from these sorts of alterations. And what's even better is that they are the kinds of alterations you can throw into the mix on the fly. Like, I can improvise these chord progressions that include these alterations and it doesn't throw my solo player for a loop, even though I haven't rehearsed it with them (unless they are extremely timid and used to playing in a box). If the soloist catches it, they can alter that one note to invoke harmonic minor, or a diminished lick, but if they don't catch it, the major scale still sounds pretty darn good.
I've taken to sort of cataloging such chord moves. #Os is a wealth of great possibilities. Another good place to look is what I call "flat Ab". It also changes the major scale by one note. Another good one is what I call "sharp Ys". I play chords for a lot of players and I always love the way they light up when I eventually throw one of these in because the sound is so inspiring, when used at just the right moment.
Oh, and I also haven't mentioned the fact that this sort of notation is key independent. I work with a lot of musicians who capo all over the place, they will try a song in many different keys during practice and the players who try to follow the chords as written on the page keep having to transpose and erase and get all frustrated...I just write it once and then note the key it's all in up at the top of the page. If they decide to capo, I just erase once, up at the top and it's no sweat.
I really feel that I'm probably wasting my time discussing this in this forum. Especially after finding the post from that "Fake" chicken/person. I'm likely to fade out here, since no one seems to be genuinely interested in exploring these possibilities. After all, I got better things to do with my time. My family is in the other room enjoying a movie without me. I'd probably be better off ignoring this thread and joining them.
I get excited to share the things I've discovered over the years and I get even more excited when someone is kind enough to show me something new. For me, new ideas come so rarely I really treasure them when they do. So, if you've got something to gain, or something to offer...I'm all ears. Otherwise, why bother? |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: My generic chord naming system
2/19/2010 12:41:35 AM
Fred Pool
(209) wrote:
Yawl,
I just added some rough drafts of some jazzy chord progressions where you get to see the key/scale changes happen underneath the chords. I really think a lot of people don't or have a hard time seeing/imagining how might look and so, they don't understand the options available to them. I think if guitarists could actually see all the notes available to them at any given point in time, while they're playing, they would be able to do a lot more with it. It's kind of like the benefit you get when you have one of those pianos where the keys light up to show you the chords, where to put your hands. That sort of piano would be even better if it showed you the entire scale or at least one such option as the chord was played. I suppose the fact that at a given moment, while a chord is being played, there could be a number of different options would present a problem for such a piano, just as it does for my little video module, but at least this way I can try to show people ONE possible option at a time. As I develop this further, I'll probably take to showing a different option each time the chords cycle around...just to try to make it clear that there are often more than one option for a chord. Ultimately, you'd just want to know your theory really well and not have to rely on such aides...but my modules are for people who may not have a clue about such possibilities.
Anyway, they are, in the very least, some mildly jazzy chord progressions (lessons 9 and 10 in the little menu) and they basically show how I would think about the reasons behind certain chord alterations that invoke key or scale changes. It should give a better insight into why learning these generic names for chords that I use can be beneficial. Now, you have to understand, I don't really care how you or anyone arrives at such levels of understanding, or the ability to find know what chord alterations cause what key/scale change options...I just hope that people who actually want to know these things find a way. I don't care if they learn it by learning to call chords the way I do, or if they learn it straight from the traditional methods...all I care is that they learn it. I can say now, having learned it my own way, that it's very easy to see at least some of the great treasures regular music theory was trying to show me all those years I was too stubborn to listen. Learning it my way got me to see some of these treasures and also got me to understand the value of learning theory...so now I just eat it up. I don't care how it's taught...I want as much of it as I can get...and I'm starving for more.
So, check out lessons 9 and 10 and let me know if anything looks interesting.
Fred
www.rsoguitar.com |
|
|
|
More Responses
[ Pages:
1 · 2 ] |
|
