6 ms·

[deleted] Sorry, I think what I said was misunderstood and was not very accurate, so I made the decision to delete it.

epiccoleman 3y ago
In the context of the example I'll grant that it's a bit silly to think of it as an E7. In the context of a band scenario, it might make perfect sense. If you're playing a jazz tune from a lead sheet, it might be very reasonable to mark that chord as an E7, and the bass might be playing the root, in which case thinking about it as a viio7 would miss some context. The problem with music theory is that it's _extremely_ contextual, and I think you have to at least get a sense for some of the "rules" of chord construction to be able to make sense of the notation. Music theory is just a language for talking about sounds and harmonies, and while there are cases where "just focus on the intervals" would make sense, there are just as many times that it's useful to say "it's a ii-V-I in Ab major." Having the language be based on the diatonic chords of the key you're in can make it easier to express a lot of different concepts in a shorthand, instead of having to spell out the intervals of every chord you come across. My advice to folks learning music theory would be to check out the Signals Music Studio channel - that dude has helped me make sense of theory concepts that I never grokked in years of playing music. I think it's really one of those cases where you have to get a good sense for the language before you start to get frustrated by the limitations and blemishes of the whole system.
blurbleblurble 3y ago
In my mind the point of calling it a "rootless voicing" is that even if the bass player does play the root, not everyone has to. Playing a rootless voicing is a choice to be made on the fly given the knowledge of the root, melody and key, rather than something you'd typically want to prescribe. It's a matter of interpretation. The listener will often have the root in their ear (the mode really) even if nobody is currently playing it explicitly. Or maybe someone just played the root and nobody is now but the rootless voicing still rings. Or maybe the last chord had the same root and the sense of it is lingering. Or maybe the root is in the melody. If I couldn't have any information about the key, I'd still want the root and the melody.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
anon291 3y ago
Honestly, I have to say I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory. Music theory is interesting, but as an amateur jazz/blues/rock pianist for the past twenty years or something, it's not going to make you a better player. The best thing to do to learn these styles is to simply play. I do agree you need to know some things (like if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E), but really there's not that much complexity to it. Music is a language, someone shows you how to play some licks and you take and expand on that by practice practice practice. I honestly couldn't tell you any of the theory behind half the stuff I play. Thus, when I hear things like "Of course, a rootless 3-7-9-5 so-called I7 (E7) chord is actually a diminished seventh chord (minor third, diminished fifth, diminished seventh (major sixth)) viio7 (D diminished 7th chord)" it makes sense in my mind what you're saying, but I'm also thinking... if someone showed you how to play it, rather than attempted to 'teach' you by showering you in theory, there wouldn't be a whole lot of confusion. At the end of the day, the American styles of music are ultimately all aural traditions, whereas 'classical' has -- unfortunately, in my opinion -- become transformed into a written one. But going back to the E7. Only the piano pays Gsharp, B, D, F#/F. The Bass player will play E, so while it's rootless on piano, it's not rootless in a band. Which is probably another reason you're confused. Jazz comping should not be played without a band. If you're just playing jazz piano then you should certainly play the root at some point (unless you want to sound cerebral, in which case don't do that). > My advise to people who are learning music theory is to ignore terminology as much as they can and focus on intervals. Intervals are the true source of truth of harmony and everything else is someone's opinion as to how a particular structure should be named, perceived or modeled. I always tell people attempting to learn improv and piano to 'play what sounds good and don't play what doesn't.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wizofaus 3y ago
  > if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E "Shouldn't" seems a strange way of putting it - if you're fortunate enough to be playing in an ensemble with a dedicated bassist then sure, it's their job to provide the root (for any chord!) but I've never heard it suggested as a pianist that you should avoid doubling it...
spankalee 3y ago
As a jazz player, I have to say it's not imprecise at all. It's more precise in fact. The root is important, and it is (often) played, just not by those voices.
- spankalee 3y ago
  To expand on this a bit, you very rarely see specific voicings written out in charts, at least outside of big band arrangements and such. The player chooses what voicings to use, often on the fly. Voicings like 7-9-3-5 for a ii chord are only the most basic one-hand voicings that can give some minimal voice leading in common progressions. Once a player learns a lot of different voicings, and more voicing concepts, they will add other notes like the 11, 13, and yes the root. Two-handed spread voicings on piano might often have a root on top, or pass through a root via voice leading in a progression. The simpler voicings are there for beginners to teach the theory, enough practice to play a bit, and to emphasize getting the root out of the low register where it muddies things with the bass. So the important piece of information is the key and chord quality. For an E7 as a V7 chord, it really matters that the root is E (and that you're in the key of, and maybe resolving to D) even if you don't, right at some particular moment, play the E.
wizofaus 3y ago
> We have a "rootless" chord that's named after the unsounded root From my reading of the article there wasn't a suggestion the root was unsounded, just that it wasn't provided by the piano or guitar voicings, i.e. left to the bassist (or potentially even the soloist). Having said that I'd say there clearly are times even playing solo it makes sense to think of a particular chord as rootless, given what it's leading to or what it's substituting for, or what you might reasonably expect a bass player to do if they were present.
megmogandog 3y ago
Where are you getting diminished 7th from? If you play the 3, the 5, the 7, and the 9 of E7 it's G# B D F#. At least in jazz we call that shape a "half-diminished" chord or "minor 7 flat 5", and it will stay that way no matter how you invert it or move the voices around between the hands. You'd only get a diminished seven if you flat the 9th to F natural (which actually often happens in jazz though not in the context presented). The point I think you're missing is that the blog post isn't a music-theoretical presentation of what E7 is 'ontologically', it's a guide for what jazz pianists should play on that chord in an ensemble context. And in that context what's written here is very standard advice, since it's assumed the bassist will be playing the E. If there was no bassist, say if they were playing solo piano, a pianist will often play the E in the bass. It's also clear from the way the article is written that they're already assuming some basic theoretical knowledge. It's never explained what notes are in an E7. If you don't know that, yes it will be confusing, but only because the article is not for you. Overall I think the post would be very helpful for someone who knows the basics and is just getting starting playing with others.

In the context of the example I'll grant that it's a bit silly to think of it as an E7. In the context of a band scenario, it might make perfect sense. If you're playing a jazz tune from a lead sheet, it might be very reasonable to mark that chord as an E7, and the bass might be playing the root, in which case thinking about it as a viio7 would miss some context. The problem with music theory is that it's _extremely_ contextual, and I think you have to at least get a sense for some of the "rules" of chord construction to be able to make sense of the notation. Music theory is just a language for talking about sounds and harmonies, and while there are cases where "just focus on the intervals" would make sense, there are just as many times that it's useful to say "it's a ii-V-I in Ab major." Having the language be based on the diatonic chords of the key you're in can make it easier to express a lot of different concepts in a shorthand, instead of having to spell out the intervals of every chord you come across. My advice to folks learning music theory would be to check out the Signals Music Studio channel - that dude has helped me make sense of theory concepts that I never grokked in years of playing music. I think it's really one of those cases where you have to get a good sense for the language before you start to get frustrated by the limitations and blemishes of the whole system.

blurbleblurble 3y ago

In my mind the point of calling it a "rootless voicing" is that even if the bass player does play the root, not everyone has to. Playing a rootless voicing is a choice to be made on the fly given the knowledge of the root, melody and key, rather than something you'd typically want to prescribe. It's a matter of interpretation. The listener will often have the root in their ear (the mode really) even if nobody is currently playing it explicitly. Or maybe someone just played the root and nobody is now but the rootless voicing still rings. Or maybe the last chord had the same root and the sense of it is lingering. Or maybe the root is in the melody. If I couldn't have any information about the key, I'd still want the root and the melody.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

anon291 3y ago

Honestly, I have to say I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory. Music theory is interesting, but as an amateur jazz/blues/rock pianist for the past twenty years or something, it's not going to make you a better player. The best thing to do to learn these styles is to simply play. I do agree you need to know some things (like if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E), but really there's not that much complexity to it. Music is a language, someone shows you how to play some licks and you take and expand on that by practice practice practice. I honestly couldn't tell you any of the theory behind half the stuff I play. Thus, when I hear things like "Of course, a rootless 3-7-9-5 so-called I7 (E7) chord is actually a diminished seventh chord (minor third, diminished fifth, diminished seventh (major sixth)) viio7 (D diminished 7th chord)" it makes sense in my mind what you're saying, but I'm also thinking... if someone showed you how to play it, rather than attempted to 'teach' you by showering you in theory, there wouldn't be a whole lot of confusion. At the end of the day, the American styles of music are ultimately all aural traditions, whereas 'classical' has -- unfortunately, in my opinion -- become transformed into a written one. But going back to the E7. Only the piano pays Gsharp, B, D, F#/F. The Bass player will play E, so while it's rootless on piano, it's not rootless in a band. Which is probably another reason you're confused. Jazz comping should not be played without a band. If you're just playing jazz piano then you should certainly play the root at some point (unless you want to sound cerebral, in which case don't do that). > My advise to people who are learning music theory is to ignore terminology as much as they can and focus on intervals. Intervals are the true source of truth of harmony and everything else is someone's opinion as to how a particular structure should be named, perceived or modeled. I always tell people attempting to learn improv and piano to 'play what sounds good and don't play what doesn't.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wizofaus 3y ago
> if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E "Shouldn't" seems a strange way of putting it - if you're fortunate enough to be playing in an ensemble with a dedicated bassist then sure, it's their job to provide the root (for any chord!) but I've never heard it suggested as a pianist that you should avoid doubling it...

spankalee 3y ago

As a jazz player, I have to say it's not imprecise at all. It's more precise in fact. The root is important, and it is (often) played, just not by those voices.

spankalee 3y ago
To expand on this a bit, you very rarely see specific voicings written out in charts, at least outside of big band arrangements and such. The player chooses what voicings to use, often on the fly. Voicings like 7-9-3-5 for a ii chord are only the most basic one-hand voicings that can give some minimal voice leading in common progressions. Once a player learns a lot of different voicings, and more voicing concepts, they will add other notes like the 11, 13, and yes the root. Two-handed spread voicings on piano might often have a root on top, or pass through a root via voice leading in a progression. The simpler voicings are there for beginners to teach the theory, enough practice to play a bit, and to emphasize getting the root out of the low register where it muddies things with the bass. So the important piece of information is the key and chord quality. For an E7 as a V7 chord, it really matters that the root is E (and that you're in the key of, and maybe resolving to D) even if you don't, right at some particular moment, play the E.

wizofaus 3y ago

> We have a "rootless" chord that's named after the unsounded root From my reading of the article there wasn't a suggestion the root was unsounded, just that it wasn't provided by the piano or guitar voicings, i.e. left to the bassist (or potentially even the soloist). Having said that I'd say there clearly are times even playing solo it makes sense to think of a particular chord as rootless, given what it's leading to or what it's substituting for, or what you might reasonably expect a bass player to do if they were present.

megmogandog 3y ago

Where are you getting diminished 7th from? If you play the 3, the 5, the 7, and the 9 of E7 it's G# B D F#. At least in jazz we call that shape a "half-diminished" chord or "minor 7 flat 5", and it will stay that way no matter how you invert it or move the voices around between the hands. You'd only get a diminished seven if you flat the 9th to F natural (which actually often happens in jazz though not in the context presented). The point I think you're missing is that the blog post isn't a music-theoretical presentation of what E7 is 'ontologically', it's a guide for what jazz pianists should play on that chord in an ensemble context. And in that context what's written here is very standard advice, since it's assumed the bassist will be playing the E. If there was no bassist, say if they were playing solo piano, a pianist will often play the E in the bass. It's also clear from the way the article is written that they're already assuming some basic theoretical knowledge. It's never explained what notes are in an E7. If you don't know that, yes it will be confusing, but only because the article is not for you. Overall I think the post would be very helpful for someone who knows the basics and is just getting starting playing with others.