• Forum Index
• New Message
• Search FretBuzz
• List of Forums
|
|
|
FretBuzz: Theory Forum Message |
My generic chord naming system
Fred Pool
(184)
Theory Forum
11/5/2009 1:34:02 AM · 26 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."
|
Re: My generic chord naming system
11/5/2009 1:35:46 AM
Fred Pool
(184) 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
(1707) 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
(354) 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
(9655) 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. |
|
|
