45:21 You just invented figured bass! I think a lot of people trained in university jazz education (i.e. Berklee-influenced chord-theory) can benefit from investigating figured bass, and particularly from sources from the 1700s-1800s. "Stacked thirds" is a pedagogical shorthand that breaks down after a while, and becomes a straight-jacket. In 1705, people had no trouble writing '3 #5 7 9' and calling it a day. The nice thing is that figured bass allows you to notate and categorize harmonies without necessarily be forced to make shaky claims about function or even roots. The most "theory" that they used was that certain harmonies were appropriate or usual for certain scale degrees. And that certain harmonies were usually followed by certain other harmonies. The problem with traditional jazz symbols as analytical tools is that they "hallucinate" chromaticisms where there aren't any. "Em13" appears more diatonic than "Em7(b9,b13)", but in fact the second version is the diatonic one if we are in C major. You've probably seen Barry Harris's lecture about the Cm7 in ATTYA, but he addresses precisely this point: ruclips.net/video/3V2eNh8qWVo/видео.html In 1705, the Em7b13 would be E in the bass, with 3 5 6 7. In shorthand, just 65. And 65 chords have a general tendency, whatever the actual quality, to be followed by the bass rising a step, with a root position chord over the bass. That jibes with your observation that these iii chords often lead to IV.
I haven’t thought about figured bass since high school! Haha 🙂 that’s pretty cool. My understanding of harmony 100% comes from a jazz-education perspective. I’m not well studied in harmonic theory from a Classical perspective except what I learned about Bach chorales at the time. I’ve definitely wondered what the theories are when talking about taller/more dissonant structures. Would be curious to learn more!
To your point about chromaticism, very interesting. I know this has come up at various points in my life. There was a Berklee harmony professor who talked about the true diatonic versions of different dominant chords (ex: E7 in C Major is really E7(b9,#9,b13), same point you’re making with the Emin13). The Barry Harris thing is cool, hadn’t seen it until now! I know I had a realization at some point that modern/jazz chord symbols in a vertical sense operate under the idea that a Maj13 chord is the “default” chord. Any other flavor of chord quality is named by altering that as needed. The natural 13 (A) on a minor chord is what is assumed when we say Cmin13, which comes from assuming the default position of 13 is the A, not the Ab, even though I think most people associate the Aeolian mode as true minor, rather than Dorian. My idea about the b7 being the real neutral 7 is also along the same lines. I think the Ionian mode was chosen to be the default mode of vertical harmony…when maybe it should have been Mixolydian? We would then call C E G Bb a Cmaj7, and C E G B a Cmaj(#7). Anyway, in a general sense, I’m not too bothered by things being diatonic or not. I think a truly perfect system of vertical harmony should be based on all chromatic possibilities, rather than working the best in a diatonic situation. I can see the point Barry Harris makes in that video and it’s totally valid, but that piano player playing the Cmin7 with the natural 9 is also a valid option in my opinion. What’s so wrong about being in the mode of C Dorian for that chord only? I think it sounds pretty good either way haha.
am I crazy or is G 2 5 7 in pretty much any song so heavily implied to be major 7, like when is G 257 not just a major 7 where we have an imaginary major 3rd.
This is amazing, Alan! I agree with your points and the limitations of your system. I think it's also crucial to consider the function of the chord horizontally, within the progression. The debate between min7(b13) and maj7/3 often hinges on the context of the surrounding chords. For example, I find Emin7(b13) to A7 more suitable than Cmaj7/E. However, Cmaj7/E to Amin7 makes more sense to me than Emin7(b13). I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this! Thanks for creating this amazing video.
Owen, thanks for the kind words :) Love the questions too My general approach is to be able to look at harmony from either a purely vertical or a purely horizontal lens. This doesn’t mean they don’t overlap and work in conjunction of course, but I mean I want them to work together, not hold each other back. The times where I don’t feel confident in saying min7(b13) I think I’m finding have more to do with octave placement of the root than anything else. But in terms of desiring to communicate horizontal function in the name, I don’t think inversions are going to help. When it comes to function and naming, I think the desire to use an inversion comes from conditioning to be honest. The most common example I see is: IIImin7(b13), or Imaj9/3rd -> IVmaj Emin7(b13) or Cmaj9/E -> Fmaj I think people would argue to use the inversion naming in order to communicate it’s function as a Imaj chord…I think? I would argue it’s not that we need to hold onto the function of Imaj and convey it, but what we need is to expand our understanding of the function of IIImin7(b13). We ought to get more used to the idea that IIImin7(b13) functionally can have a pull towards IV. Your example of Emin7(b13) going to A7 or Amin7 actually, I’m curious haha. To me I would want to call it Emin7(b13) in both cases. If it’s about function, what are you considering the analysis of the A targets? 1. A7 = V7 of Dmaj? and 2. Amin7 = Imin of Amin? Or you tell me, haha. If I’m assuming correct here: 1- Calling it Emin7(b13) makes it IImin7(b13). I think calling the progression a II->V7 to then possibly a I (or whatever) is very intuitive. I think we’re all quite comfortable with the II-V function 2- Calling it Cmaj9/E means it’s functionally IIImaj9/3rd->Imin7. Now, I can only speak for myself but I do think on a functional level, I still hear it as a Vmin->Imin, rather than a IIImaj->Imin. I’m curious, what functional benefit do you get by viewing it as a IIImaj? First and foremost of course is always how does it sound and feel. I do think with Emin7(b13)->Amin7, I still hear and feel it as a minor chord. I’d be curious, do you feel it as major? This part I definitely can’t argue further haha, it really is subjective.
One other thought haha, further in my discussion with Mike Stapleton, he brought up some points about function too which I enjoyed. I think there can be a further messy idea about low bass melody. Let's say that same Emin7(b13) -> Fmaj: if the chord was that Cmaj9 structure for the whole bar, than the bass player leading into the F played an E...is there a case to be made about low bass melody being better analyzed as an inversion? Not settled on the answer to this, but it's an interesting point
Thanks for your reply! Your assumptions are absolutely correct! After revisiting the idea and experimenting with different voicings, I can actually hear it as both a major and minor chord, and also with both functions! You mentioned in the video how voicings significantly influence our perception of chord colors. I think of it as a classic case of ambiguous perception, similar to the black and blue, white and gold dress phenomenon.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Amazing video. Finally a deep walk through of complex chords with plentiful examples and rich concepts. Thank you!!
Thank you! 🙂Glad it was helpful!
45:21 You just invented figured bass! I think a lot of people trained in university jazz education (i.e. Berklee-influenced chord-theory) can benefit from investigating figured bass, and particularly from sources from the 1700s-1800s. "Stacked thirds" is a pedagogical shorthand that breaks down after a while, and becomes a straight-jacket.
In 1705, people had no trouble writing '3 #5 7 9' and calling it a day. The nice thing is that figured bass allows you to notate and categorize harmonies without necessarily be forced to make shaky claims about function or even roots. The most "theory" that they used was that certain harmonies were appropriate or usual for certain scale degrees. And that certain harmonies were usually followed by certain other harmonies.
The problem with traditional jazz symbols as analytical tools is that they "hallucinate" chromaticisms where there aren't any. "Em13" appears more diatonic than "Em7(b9,b13)", but in fact the second version is the diatonic one if we are in C major. You've probably seen Barry Harris's lecture about the Cm7 in ATTYA, but he addresses precisely this point: ruclips.net/video/3V2eNh8qWVo/видео.html
In 1705, the Em7b13 would be E in the bass, with 3 5 6 7. In shorthand, just 65. And 65 chords have a general tendency, whatever the actual quality, to be followed by the bass rising a step, with a root position chord over the bass. That jibes with your observation that these iii chords often lead to IV.
I haven’t thought about figured bass since high school! Haha 🙂 that’s pretty cool. My understanding of harmony 100% comes from a jazz-education perspective. I’m not well studied in harmonic theory from a Classical perspective except what I learned about Bach chorales at the time. I’ve definitely wondered what the theories are when talking about taller/more dissonant structures. Would be curious to learn more!
To your point about chromaticism, very interesting. I know this has come up at various points in my life. There was a Berklee harmony professor who talked about the true diatonic versions of different dominant chords (ex: E7 in C Major is really E7(b9,#9,b13), same point you’re making with the Emin13). The Barry Harris thing is cool, hadn’t seen it until now!
I know I had a realization at some point that modern/jazz chord symbols in a vertical sense operate under the idea that a Maj13 chord is the “default” chord. Any other flavor of chord quality is named by altering that as needed. The natural 13 (A) on a minor chord is what is assumed when we say Cmin13, which comes from assuming the default position of 13 is the A, not the Ab, even though I think most people associate the Aeolian mode as true minor, rather than Dorian.
My idea about the b7 being the real neutral 7 is also along the same lines. I think the Ionian mode was chosen to be the default mode of vertical harmony…when maybe it should have been Mixolydian? We would then call C E G Bb a Cmaj7, and C E G B a Cmaj(#7).
Anyway, in a general sense, I’m not too bothered by things being diatonic or not. I think a truly perfect system of vertical harmony should be based on all chromatic possibilities, rather than working the best in a diatonic situation. I can see the point Barry Harris makes in that video and it’s totally valid, but that piano player playing the Cmin7 with the natural 9 is also a valid option in my opinion. What’s so wrong about being in the mode of C Dorian for that chord only? I think it sounds pretty good either way haha.
I've been thinking about some stuff you've said 10 years ago all the time. Love you Alan!
minor7 b13 changed my life
do you think everything in the spreadsheet has a use, or is tension 12 like.... just a fifth
am I crazy or is G 2 5 7 in pretty much any song so heavily implied to be major 7, like when is G 257 not just a major 7 where we have an imaginary major 3rd.
Tav ♥️♥️♥️
min7(b13) changed my life too 🥲
This is amazing, Alan! I agree with your points and the limitations of your system.
I think it's also crucial to consider the function of the chord horizontally, within the progression. The debate between min7(b13) and maj7/3 often hinges on the context of the surrounding chords.
For example, I find Emin7(b13) to A7 more suitable than Cmaj7/E. However, Cmaj7/E to Amin7 makes more sense to me than Emin7(b13).
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this! Thanks for creating this amazing video.
Owen, thanks for the kind words :) Love the questions too
My general approach is to be able to look at harmony from either a purely vertical or a purely horizontal lens. This doesn’t mean they don’t overlap and work in conjunction of course, but I mean I want them to work together, not hold each other back.
The times where I don’t feel confident in saying min7(b13) I think I’m finding have more to do with octave placement of the root than anything else. But in terms of desiring to communicate horizontal function in the name, I don’t think inversions are going to help.
When it comes to function and naming, I think the desire to use an inversion comes from conditioning to be honest. The most common example I see is:
IIImin7(b13), or Imaj9/3rd -> IVmaj
Emin7(b13) or Cmaj9/E -> Fmaj
I think people would argue to use the inversion naming in order to communicate it’s function as a Imaj chord…I think? I would argue it’s not that we need to hold onto the function of Imaj and convey it, but what we need is to expand our understanding of the function of IIImin7(b13). We ought to get more used to the idea that IIImin7(b13) functionally can have a pull towards IV.
Your example of Emin7(b13) going to A7 or Amin7 actually, I’m curious haha. To me I would want to call it Emin7(b13) in both cases. If it’s about function, what are you considering the analysis of the A targets? 1. A7 = V7 of Dmaj? and 2. Amin7 = Imin of Amin? Or you tell me, haha. If I’m assuming correct here:
1- Calling it Emin7(b13) makes it IImin7(b13). I think calling the progression a II->V7 to then possibly a I (or whatever) is very intuitive. I think we’re all quite comfortable with the II-V function
2- Calling it Cmaj9/E means it’s functionally IIImaj9/3rd->Imin7. Now, I can only speak for myself but I do think on a functional level, I still hear it as a Vmin->Imin, rather than a IIImaj->Imin. I’m curious, what functional benefit do you get by viewing it as a IIImaj?
First and foremost of course is always how does it sound and feel. I do think with Emin7(b13)->Amin7, I still hear and feel it as a minor chord. I’d be curious, do you feel it as major? This part I definitely can’t argue further haha, it really is subjective.
One other thought haha, further in my discussion with Mike Stapleton, he brought up some points about function too which I enjoyed. I think there can be a further messy idea about low bass melody. Let's say that same Emin7(b13) -> Fmaj: if the chord was that Cmaj9 structure for the whole bar, than the bass player leading into the F played an E...is there a case to be made about low bass melody being better analyzed as an inversion? Not settled on the answer to this, but it's an interesting point
Thanks for your reply! Your assumptions are absolutely correct! After revisiting the idea and experimenting with different voicings, I can actually hear it as both a major and minor chord, and also with both functions! You mentioned in the video how voicings significantly influence our perception of chord colors. I think of it as a classic case of ambiguous perception, similar to the black and blue, white and gold dress phenomenon.
Inspiring! I can relate to the limitation so much.
Thanks so much 🙂