Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why 13th Chords

jtauber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Why 13th Chords

#51

Post by scrozier »

chrisguitarguy wrote: post #49
scrozier wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, dextorious. Something of a semantic issue. Maybe we should say, "serious" music or "concert music" or some such. I really don't like any of the terms. In any case, your point is well taken. It would be interesting to trace the parallel development of harmony in "serious" music and jazz. (Which, of course, someone has done.)

I always liked the term "art music" to refer to the entire classical music genre. "Classical" implies a certain period to me.

Yes, not bad. Perhaps as opposed to "entertainment music"?

Re: Why 13th Chords

#52

Post by WildUtah »

agumonkey wrote: post #34
kabdib wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I always had with math (when it came to integrals, anyway) was the whole 'dx' notation, where you apparently just had to "go with the flow" and understand what was being expressed. It ain't "d times x", it's this other thing that's syntactically similar to saying "ab" which means "a times b". Someone on HN is going to hammer me. I just muddled through the ambiguity. Then again, what I used to think was th…

About that, one author of SICP build a new physics class based around functions for every physical operator, no more syntactic craze, just functions ( higher order though ). Check SICM on google.

This is exactly what I was going to reply when I saw the GP. SICM is a brilliant book I've only started that revolves around putting concrete understanding ahead of notation. Unlike most books of that type, this one is a seriously advanced math/physics work. At world class universities, upper division undergrads in Physics can study Lagrangian Mechanics in their third year if their calculus is good enough.

One note from the excellent introduction focused how to learn math (q.v.): "In his book on mathematical pedagogy [15], Hans Freudenthal argues that the reliance on ambiguous, unstated notational conventions in such expressions as f(x) and df(x)/dx makes mathematics, and especially introductory calcu- lus, extremely confusing for beginning students; and he enjoins mathematics educators to use more formal modern notation."

Plus, Lisp!

Re: Why 13th Chords

#53

Post by scrozier »

jaylevitt wrote: post #48
gruseom wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was puzzling over the same question. Some of these words are semantically overloaded, and as far as I can tell there's no single interpretation that makes it all "work out" the way you would require if this were math. There are two meanings to "adding 7": 1. adding 7 arithmetically to obtain the same note an octave higher; 2. adding in a 7th note to whatever chord you are playing. But the way the chords are named i…

Been out of Berklee a few years, but a few nuggets that might shed light: In Jazz theory, the 7th scale degree is part of the chord. C7 isn't C (C+E+G) plus a B♭; C7 is its own flavor of C chord, C + E + G + B♭. More generally, the ^3 and the ^7 are the two most important notes in the chord. The ^3 tells you its quality (minor, major) and the ^7 tells you its, uh, seventhness (dominant, diminished, maj7). It's common…

Fascinating stuff, isn't it? No wonder computer geeks and music geeks are so similar.

Re: Why 13th Chords

#54

Post by nandemo »

diN0bot wrote: post #5
mml wrote: post #2

Well, that pretty much explains why people have a hard time "getting" music theory. Gibberish+Goobeltygooksus7

Ironically, the situation is very similar to math. It's relatively easy to read music theory notation, so that the Gibberish and Goobeltygookus make sense, similar to learning mathematical notation. (I personally believe this is easier than learning the alphabet, but that's a different story) However, understanding what the abstractions mean is difficult. The difference between memorizing formulas and intuiting patte…

I disagree. Mathematicians care much more about notation than do musicians. Mathematical notation should be precise, concise and consistent. The hard parts of maths are the abstraction and the formalization of stuff we take for granted.

In contrast, the essence of music theory is fairly easy (if you have a math background, you could learn it in a few hours!). But music notation a strange mix of time-tested, concise notations with cruft that remains due to backwards compatibility.

So we write "𝆮" to mean pedal down, but "𝆯" to mean pedal up. We write C7, Cmaj7 and Cmin7 but the modifiers "maj" and "min" modify different parts of the chord. And so on.

And sometimes the notation is there, but people simply don't use it consistently. For instance, the usage of 6th and 13th interchangeably without proper justification (e.g. the post in question).

Re: Why 13th Chords

#55

Post by bryanh »

mirkules wrote: post #22

"gives the chord a very different direction it wants to go" I struggle with this every time I write songs. How exactly do you know which direction you should go, and how to transition from verse to chorus (i.e. how to pick good transition chords/notes). Currently, I do this by ear, whatever sounds good, but I know there is a better way.

Let's be honest, a large majority of charts follow convention, if not transparently in the case of a straight "I Got Rhythm" changes or blues, but more opaquely with substitutions or variations of predefined changes. This is true with jazz and even more so in pop music.

A trick I always use it to transpose into a common key and watch the overlap develop. It may surprise you to find most tunes are the same I IV V or II V I progression in various keys...

Of course, blindly creating something from such patterns is a not very fulfilling, but adding your own variations and color can be. Or, deviating from convention for effect becomes viable when you deeply understand those conventions.

Re: Why 13th Chords

#56

Post by nandemo »

gruseom wrote: post #30
baddox wrote: post #23

So, why is it called a 13th chord? Am I missing something obvious, or is it just arbitrary convention that "13th" means "with the 6th and 7th added"?

I was puzzling over the same question. Some of these words are semantically overloaded, and as far as I can tell there's no single interpretation that makes it all "work out" the way you would require if this were math. There are two meanings to "adding 7": 1. adding 7 arithmetically to obtain the same note an octave higher; 2. adding in a 7th note to whatever chord you are playing. But the way the chords are named i…

> Does anyone know historically how C13 got to mean "C+E+G+B♭+D+F+A" rather than "C+E+G+B♭+A", which if you consider things only symbolically, seems more likely?

Changing the question to C11 to simplify: a possible answer (take it with a grain of salt) is that C11 got to mean "C+E+G+B♭+D+F" because in classical harmony you can't just stick a 11th there without the 7th and 9th. The 11th interval (C to upper F) is dissonant; not as much as the 4th, but still dissonant. However, it is consonant with the 7th and 9th. That is, B♭ to F is a 5th, and D to F is a 3rd, or simply: B♭-D-F is a triad.

The question now is, why do books say C11 means "C+E+G+B♭+D+F" but in practice it's often voiced as "C+E+G+B♭+F"? I think the simple answer is that in some traditions (like jazz) people are OK with that dissonance; and in some harmonical contexts (when the function of the chord is such and such; say jaylevvit's comment), we can omit such and such notes because the chord still "works". If you doubt, play several voicings. The "proof" is in the sound.

(but honestly I'm not fully convinced by that answer. In particular I dislike the notational mess).

Re: Why 13th Chords

#57

Post by mjw »

autarch wrote: post #28
mirkules wrote: post #22

"gives the chord a very different direction it wants to go" I struggle with this every time I write songs. How exactly do you know which direction you should go, and how to transition from verse to chorus (i.e. how to pick good transition chords/notes). Currently, I do this by ear, whatever sounds good, but I know there is a better way.

No, there really isn't a better way. All the rules behind music theory are based on what sounds good, not the other way around. What you can do, however, is push yourself to try out new harmonic structures. You can make your chords more complex, you can delay resolution much longer, you can shift keys. There are also other musical idioms like polytonality, alternate scales, etc. that you can use to expand you horizon…

Definitely this.

It may be counter-productive to over-analyse these things too, at least beyond a point.

I ran myself into a bit of a dead end with jazz piano trying to be ever more inventive when it comes to harmony. I probably thought about it too much. The result was that I ended up pursuing it to its conclusion as far as my abilities went and then feeling like I had nothing left to do but flog a dead horse with the same improvisational tricks. Then I got tired and rusty.

(Any tips from musician hacker types here on how to get past this kind of 'improvisor's block' ?)

I guess my advice with hindsight would be: trying to get better by being cleverer with harmony hits a dead end. Instead try to get to a point where you can feel harmony in a textural way. Theory can help with that, but a little of it goes a long way, try to get as much as you can just from playing and listening. Watch out though as it's easy to get stuck in a feedback loop doing that which converges on a local optimum that bores you. Seek input into the loop which is outside your improvisatory comfort zone. And not necessarily in the sense of technically harder -- just different.

The best stuff I've been able to play has been when I'm in a state of mind when I'm able to play texturally without thinking very much about what I'm playing, but it's quite rare these days.

Re: Why 13th Chords

#58

Post by jtauber »

robocop wrote: post #50

Sorry to be pedantic, but a 9th chord actually has a 9th and a _flat_ 7th. For example C9 has the notes C-E-G-Bb-D. 9th chords are part of the dominant group, not the major group. A chord with a 9th and a 7th is a _major_ 9th. For example, the chord C-E-G-B-D is Cmaj9 (sometimes written C triangle 9).

Well, I'm assuming by convention that the 7th is flattened, as the notation "C7" does.

Re: Why 13th Chords

#60

Post by davesims »

scrozier wrote: post #45
Jgrubb wrote: post #39

...And this is what I love about Hacker News. As a 33 year old musician who got the programming/entrepreneurial bug only more recently, it brings me great hope to see things like this on this board. It brings me hope because a lot of times I feel like such a late comer to the party, surrounded by folks younger than me with many more years of experience in the programming realm having conversations about others' techn…

Jgrubb, as a 53-year-old musician/programmer/entrepreneur (formally trained [in parallel, mostly] in the first two), may I posit that you're not a late-comer to anything yet!

A big ditto from me at 42 (programmer/musician)
Post reply on HN