PLEASE REGISTER TO POST. Also, be sure to visit the main website www.tedgreene.com

**************************************************************************************
Buy NOW on Amazon
My Life with The Chord Chemist
A Memoir of Ted Greene, Apotheosis of Solo Guitar
Available at amazon.com

*Check it out!!!

VISIT OUR NEW SUPPORT PORTAL
Your contributions keep the site healthy and growing


More information HERE

Official Ted Greene Archives Blog

Ted Greene Archives on YouTube

Join Ted on FACEBOOK

NEW! Follow on TWITTER

..:: The Ted Greene Forums ::..
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
PaulV

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,711
Reply with quote  #1 
Hi guys,
I needs some help again. Attached is an extract from Ted’s page on Systematic Inversion Families, based on a 4-note dominant 7th chord (1,3,5,b7).  As homework, Ted asked the student to do the following:

“Learn in all keys and convert all of these chords into the following types:”

Please refer to the attached file to see how Ted wrote out the formulas. Here is how I interpret his formulas:

1)    minor 7
2)    major 7
3)    major 6
4)    minor 6
5)    minor 7 (b5)
6)    major 9 (no root)
7)    dominant 9 (no root)
8)    minor 9 (no root)
9)    dominant 7 (b9) (no root)
10)  dominant 7 (b9, #5) (no root)
11)
12)
13)  diminished 7

My question is about #11 and #12:  What do you think he means here?  These two formulas seem to have the same notes, just listed differently.

For converting from a 1,3,5,b7 chord, I’m assuming that Ted expected the following switches:

    * Replace root with 9th
    * Replace 7th with 6th
    * And of course, replace 3rd with b3rd for minors
    * Alter the 5th accordingly (replace the natural 5th with either #5 or b5)

For #11 and #12, I’m assuming that he used + to indicate a #5, but that seems odd in a chord that already has a b5, and especially odd for these 4-note chords that are derived from a regular dominant 7 chord.  If there are two 5ths (both # and the b), what do they each replace?  What about the 3rd?  Does he expect that one of the 5ths would replace the 3rd?

I notice that he didn’t include any dominant 7 (#9) chords, so perhaps he meant the + in formula #11 to be for a (#9)?

(Please note that Ted's original page is from the early 70’s, so the way he wrote chord names may have changed slightly since then.)  
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, please.  
Thanks!

Attached Images
jpeg Inversions_convert_to_list,_extract.jpg (37.21 KB, 121 views)


__________________
--Paul

tedstafford

Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #2 
Hey Paul,
I think #11-12 both refer to 2 4-note chords that are spelled the same way but have different functions. So, #11 is both a 7b5 - C-E-Gb-Bb and a 9+(no root) with an absent root on Ab (C-E-Gb-Bb become the 3rd-#5-b7-9 of an Ab 9+ chord). Similarly, #12 is both a 7+ chord with a root on C spelled C-E-G#-Bb and a 9b5 (no root) with the absent root of F# (C-E-G#-Bb becomes the b5-b7-9-3(A#) of an F#9b5 chord).

TG calls them synonyms and, now that I look it up, has these exact examples on page 16 in my copy of "Chord Chemistry" (Section 7). He uses different keys than my examples below. Honest folks, I came up with my explanation before I looked it up in CC.

"Notice that a D(molished) = E(gads)"

now I think I'll try and get these babies in my fingers.

thanks,
ted


__________________
music is the best
PaulV

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,711
Reply with quote  #3 
Hey Ted,
Excellent!  I wouldn't have guessed that he was giving an optional synonym in that "formula" list.  Great insight (even before you picked up CC).
Thanks a million....

__________________
--Paul
stevie82

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #4 
"Notice that a D(molished) = E(gads)"

I still dont understand what Ted meant here. What am i missing?
PaulV

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,711
Reply with quote  #5 
Stevie,
Ted's own brand of humor.


__________________
--Paul
stevie82

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #6 

Coming from the UK, Ive never heard the term "egads!" before but am i right in saying its some sort of exclamation?

PaulV

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,711
Reply with quote  #7 
From on-line dictionaries:
Egad; Egads:  Archaica mild oath or expression of surprise
[probably variant of Ah God!]
* * *
A common exclamation, abbreviated from phrases such as "Ye gods!"
Example:  "Egads, man! Put some trousers on!"
* * *
It is used to express mild dismay or frustration.
It is the same as saying "Holy Cow!"

__________________
--Paul
kontiki

Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #8 
Paul, getting back to the original topic, (yes i realize it's a little late), but In my opinion  numbers 11 and 12 are not similar. The way i see it is:

#11     
     7b5 (9+-  no root)    =   3 b5  b7  #9 (replacing the root)

#12
   7+ (9b5 - no root)  =      b5(replacing the third)  #5  b7   9 (replacing the root)

as you surmised, I agree that + must be the same as #

Mike

__________________
Dmolished = Egads
PaulV

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,711
Reply with quote  #9 
Mike,
I appreciate your insights.
So you're saying that #12 is a dominant 9(b5,#5) with no root and no third?

In this case, it's probably a chord cluster that could be defined other ways. 
If we're talking about C9(b5#5) = D, Gb, G#, Bb.

Maybe these notes could also be interpreted as a Bb7(#5) =  Bb, D, F#, Ab. 
Same notes. 

See Ted Stafford's comments in Post #2 above.
Hmmm....
--Paul


__________________
--Paul
kontiki

Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #10 
Paul,
  I agree that the "synonym" is there. but then again, as you know,  most (if not all) 9th, 11th and 13th chords without a root could be synonyms for other chords:  9 = m7b5,  7b9  =  °7,   7#9#5  = Maj7b5,   Maj9 = m7   etc. etc.  In fact synonyms abound.
   The problem, I think, is not to let the brain get cluttered with too many synonyms which can often be a hindrance when looking for a chord. Ted mentions something like this in one of the Mark Levy lessons. He says something to the effect that he now tries to see only the chord he's looking for, in most cases. If he's gonna play a Cmaj9  he won't be thinking, and more importantly SEEING, an Em7, but will be seeing the implied root and therefore truly seeing the Cmaj9, not the Em7. It's much easier that way than having to remember and transpose synonyms all the time. I think this is a very important aspect of  Ted's teachings, and something that seems to differentiate him from many other well known teachers. I know it's been a great help to me trying to see the whole chord with the implied root instead of thinking of synonyms everywhere. It has helped me clean up alot of the cluttered mess in my head when I'm comping and soloing. 
  Anyway, I'm sure you know all of this, sorry for the rant.

Mike

__________________
Dmolished = Egads
PaulV

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,711
Reply with quote  #11 
Mike,
Glad to read your "rants" - good stuff always.
I agree with you about synonyms - best to think of the chord you want.  If I'm thinking C major 9 and play an Em7 I still "think" C, not E.

However, my question really revolves around naming a group of notes as a dominant for which there is no 3rd.  To me the 3rd and b7 must be there to "qualify" as a dominant (unless it's a sus4, the 4 replacing the 3).
In the case of the tone cluster that is created by the formula #12, it seems pretty ambiguous, and I wonder what Ted was thinking for this to be one of the basic formulas.  Seems a stretch.

__________________
--Paul
kontiki

Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #12 
I hate to always be quoting the Mark Levy lessons, but there's an example where Ted is talking about 4-note voicings for a Maj7#11 chord and he suggests as one of the possibilities of moving the 3rd up to the #11. I have to try and find it again to see if he suggests the same thing for a dominant 7#11.  
   I don't think he was hindered by theory, I'm sure a well voiced Dominant chord without a third wouldn't have bothered him .Plus, as we well know,  if you want that chord in a four note voicing, either the b7 or the 3rd have to go. 
  I do agree that it's not necessarily a chord one would put in a basic list. And it's also possible that I'm mis-interpreting the chord he wanted. It's curious that there are no "#"s.    The "+"s are confusing in this case.

__________________
Dmolished = Egads
bishopdm

Registered:
Posts: 244
Reply with quote  #13 
I've never had a problem with a dominant seventh chord without a third.  Context, of course, is all important.  And I know I've run across them occasionally in classical music, but can't really tell you where (Scarlatti and Mozart keyboard works, perhaps).
__________________
David Bishop
Tucson, AZ
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

YOUR SUPPORT MAKES A DIFFERENCE :: DONATE