The Steel Guitar Forum

I need a clarification (if I can get a concensus )

If, for example, I'm in the Key of C and there is a Bb in the song, is that a "6#" or is that a "7b"? The "B" is a "7" in the Key of C.

I need to chart out a song and not sure what to use.

Jack, it is a b7, because, as you noted, B is the 7th, so Bb is the b7. If you decided to call it an A# (and there might be circumstances in which that's warranted), then it would be a #6.

Hey Jack,

Long answer to a short question:

As a general rule, I decide whether to use a # or b based on the key signature of the song. Therefore, I generally use the lower number with the # for the keys of G, D, A, E, etc. -- and the higher number with a b for the keys of F, Bb, Eb, etc. Of course, since the key signature for C has no sharps or flats, the choice is wide open, so I use some other criterion -- like deciding which chord the guys would catch quicker if I were yelling out the actual chord names.

I've talked to a lot of guys about this very subject, and most agree with the way I do it.

Hope your jams are going well and your big show is a success. I don't think we'll be back home to Florida until after St. Louis -- at the earliest. Say "Hi" to all for us.

------------------
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR=BLACK><P ALIGN=left>Visit my Web Site at RoysFootprints.com
Browse my Photo Album and be sure to sign my Guest Book.

Jack, in that context, I have not seen a #6th. After all, if the sharp sixth were present, it would take the place of the natural sixth, an important element to reference I would imagine (in this context).

Mike

C7.
I think the convention is that the m7 is assumed to be the dominant, and doesn't need to be notated.

The augmented 6th chord sounds the same as a dominant 7th, but is notated differently and, most importantly, resolves differently.If anyone is interested,I can explain further.

I would chart it as a 7b, (or b7) but I don't want to go to a steel show and give out charts and have someone clobber me because the chart is "wrong".

For those with the ref to m7, etc, I'm not referring to a single note. It's referring to a chord in reference to the number system. e,g if the chord progression, in the Key of C, was C, Dm, Bb, G7, C do I chart that as I, IIm, VIIb, V7, I ??

Jack, yes, I would do it as you have written it. (Actually, I'd write: 1, 2m, b7, etc. rather than Roman numerals because I think they communicate faster on the fly. Also I tend to put the "b" BEFORE the chord number (e.g., b7) instead of 7b, because sometimes you want to put an extension on the chord and then it can be confusing whether the "b" refers to the basic chord, or to the extension. For example, b79 (well, the 9 would be a superscript). If you were to write: 7b9, some folks might think this was a natural 7 chord (B in the key of C), with a FLATTED NINTH, instead of a FLAT SEVEN chord with a NATURAL ninth. Of course, what is superscripted or not "should" answer the question but, again, on the fly, in the heat of the moment, mistakes can easily be made.

By the way, for steel shows, I usually have two sets of charts, side by side. One is based on numbers, and the other is in letters, for those who are more comfortable reading letters. That way, every sideman gets his/her choice of chart to use. The bottom line is whatever works with the fewest chances of error.

Just my II cents ( )<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Jim Cohen on 11 July 2005 at 10:39 AM.]</p></FONT>

Jim, thanks. I'll do it your way. Makes sense to me.

Jack,

Good thread. Jim is right. The only thing I would add is something that may be obvious: I make my chord numbers and the flat or sharp that goes with a number in 26 point font -- with the superscripted (or subscripted) characters in 16 point. I have had several backup musicians tell me they like the very large font, because they often don't have a music stand, and they can read the large font with the chart lying on the floor.

BTW Jim, I have lately been handing out both number and letter charts, as you do. I have found that a few of the guys will not tell you they don't read number charts and will go ahead and try to read them anyway. Things seem to go a lot smoother when I give them both kinds.

------------------
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR=BLACK><P ALIGN=left>Visit my Web Site at RoysFootprints.com
Browse my Photo Album and be sure to sign my Guest Book.
<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Roy Ayres on 11 July 2005 at 12:52 PM.]</p></FONT>

Roy, It is an issue that many of us can learn from.

As far as the actual chords instead of numbers, I did a show with Ray Pillow last year. He sent charts for the songs he wanted to do from his new CD (the Opry staff band was the session band - Tommy White, Jimmy Capps, Hoot Hester, etc) and it was all chords, instead of numbers. It was copies of what apparently was used in the session as they had it annotated with what instrument(s) did the intro, where the steel played, the fiddle, etc and it matched exactly with the cuts on the CD.

Another chord progression is the one part in Crazy, if played in the Key of C, that goes C, C#, Dm, G7. Is the C# a 1# or b2?

Bruce, if you wouldn't mind...I would like to know how they resolve differently and why.

Thank you.

? Jim Cohen
You said it was a b7--doesn't that mean flat the seventh note, and woldn't the chord be designated 7b? Or am I totally screwed up?

------------------
Dino

Jack,

In the example you cite, C, C#, Dmi, G7, I think you mean for the C# to be a C#dim, no?

Anyhow, I suggest using C# as the root rather than Db because that way you are altering (by adding a sharp sign) an 'outgoing' chord-root (C) rather than altering (by adding a sharp sign) to an 'oncoming' chord-root (D) and then at the next chord having to again alter (by changing it back to a 'natural') the chord-root that you've just altered to make it a flat.

Makes for fewer steps in the thought-process which, of course, is invaluable when reading charts 'on the fly'.

Same general idea as if you were writing in musical notation, a chromatically upward sequence of single notes, for example, from C up to E:
If you wrote 'C, D flat, D natural, E flat, E natural' rather than 'C, C sharp, D, D sharp, E', you would have to think thru four accidentals ( two flat signs and two natural signs) as opposed to two accidentals (two sharp signs).

~Russ<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Russ Wever on 11 July 2005 at 04:20 PM.]</p></FONT>

We have always assumed a 7th means the dom 7 around here unless it says M7. Why would anyone want to deviate from what has already been established in chord theory?

It only makes sense for the number system to use the same rule. If it's not suppose to be that way, there are a lot of session players in these part who have been doing it wrong, and I don't think any of us are about to change now.

I mean think about it--a 1, 7, 4 progression is pretty popular, but how often do you see a 1,M7,4? A b7 notation instead of assuming a dom7 just seems confusing to me.

Russ you are correct it's a C#dim.

After all the postings it finally dawned on me that I have Band in a Box and it will notate in chords, or numbers.

Funny thing in their numbers for the Bb (in the example above). When it lists it with Roman numerals it lists it as "bVII" but when it lists it in standard numerals it lists it as "7b". And in the other example of Crazy, the C#dim is listed as a "2bdim".

If I understand correctly, from a music-theoretic view, the standard chord numbering system is strictly based on 4-stacked-thirds harmonization of the diatonic scale. I is root maj7, II is the diatonic 2nd m7, III is the diatonic 3rd m7, IV is the diatonic 4th maj7, V is the diatonic 5th dom7 (as Webb indicates, normally written as 7), VI is the diatonic 6th m7, and VII is the diatonic 7th m7b5.

So I would argue that, in principle, one doesn't really even need to write IIm7 (or 2m7 in standard numbers), since that is implicit. But if one means, for example, the dom7 chord in the second degree of the diatonic scale, one needs to write II7 or IIb7. [Aside: I prefer Roman numerals, since an example like this one could lead to this kind of confusion if one doesn't have super/sub-scripting or is doing this rapidly by hand: 27 or 2b7, which I think is much harder to understand than II7 or IIb7. But if one has good typesetting, with different font sizes or subscripting, I suppose many prefer the English numbers.]

Webb, also I can see a reason for insisting on always specifying the type of 7th, 9th, 11th, or 13th chords - if one does use English numbers for the scale degree, it avoids completely the odd notation in the example I gave above: 2b7 is much easier to comprehend, I think, than 27, since the b grammatically separates the scale degree (2) from the type of chord (b7). I'm not saying that 27 is actually ambiguous, but relies critically on the order of numbers and simply looks weird, to me at least.

I'm also with Jim that a flat or sharp should appear before the scale degree to avoid ambiguity with the chord type notation.

Further, I don't see how it hurts at all to explicitly denote, for example, IIm7 instead of just II. I'd rather be directly explicit than worry about any ambiguity. The point is to communicate without error, and some would probably interpret II as the II major.

From the point of view of reading a chord chart, I can't see how it really makes much difference whether one calls a chord with root at the 11th degree of the chromatic scale #VI or bVII. If one really knows that everyone has a particular convention of naming this, depending on chord color and resolution, and it really makes it easier to see what's coming up, fine. But I think that's a fine point lost on most people. Again, the point is to communicate, and either name communicates which chord is to be played.

In the key of C if there was a Bb chord we just called it two down.

Meaning it was two frets, or half steps down from the original key.

<SMALL> Funny thing in their numbers for the Bb (in the example above). When it lists it with Roman numerals it lists it as "bVII" but when it lists it in standard numerals it lists it as "7b". And in the other example of Crazy, the C#dim is listed as a "2bdim".</SMALL>

. . . which is but one reason to take BIABs 'charts', as well as notation, with the proverbial 'grain of salt'.
BIAB is great for it's primary intended function but too often it's musical notation and chart-rendering facilitys can leave a little to be desired.
~Russ

HowardR, a chord played in isolation can be nice, but sometimes sounds even better when followed by another. A keyboard is the best way to demonstrate musical ideas, such as the different resolutions for a dominant 7th chord, and an augmented 6th chord, but to try it here I have to assume that you know basic music theory. The dominant (v)chord usually resolves to the 1 chord, with the flattened 7th note falling a semitone.
With an augmented 6th chord in the root position, the root note resolves a semitone down, and the augmented 6th resolves a semitone up. Here is an example (3 note chords), omitting the fifth for simplicity. An Ab aug. 6th chord in the root position has the notes Ab, C and F#. The Ab goes down to G, the C falls to B, and the F# rises to G. The contrary motion between the outer voices makes this a very nice resolution, really beautiful on a steel, although we don't hear it all that often. One of my theory books describes the effect as being "Rather striking". 4 note versions, with the inner voices resolving in various ways, open up more opportunities for some very nice stuff.I hope you can get to a keyboard to try this.

Dave, I also use the Roman numerals. I guess it's a jazz thing. But, it has always helped to make the distinction between the chord in the progression and what type of chord that is.

Still, 7th, 9th and 13th chords, unless suffixed with other voicing descriptions, are built on the dominant 7th and I suppose that when they were sorting out the ins and outs of chord theory, it made sense to designate and M for major7th and otherwise assume the dominant 7th. That decision probably stemmed from the confusion that we are speaking of here--the use of the m for anything but minor and the use of b or # for anything other than key selection.

I know this doesn't resolve eveything. We still have the # and b 9, 11 and 13th chords, but they don't experience the confusion typically associated with the fact that we have 2 sevenths in our scale.

But, the discussion really is about how to notate a 7th chord movement in a chord progression, not about chord naming itself. It seems that the Nashville and Roman systems are not always in agreement in their terminology.

Nevertheless, I have always charted progressions making the same assumtions as one would based on chord theory, and rarely have I seen anyone deviate far from that when reading their charts.

It is amusing to discuss such issues, as it makes us realize that we are using a system that has as many loopholes as the tax laws. Some how we gitt-r-done even though we don't all agree on how to do it.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Webb Kline on 12 July 2005 at 06:38 AM.]</p></FONT>

Webb, I agree on all counts. I have been handed different charts with many, many different types of notation. Trying to get absolute uniformity here is like trying to get absolute uniformity in spoken languages, because this is a formal language. There is a formal grammar and semantics associated with each method of musical notation. Each 'school' of music seems to have its own. For me, the idea is to be clear and unambiguous, and there are obviously a lot of ways to do that. "When in Rome ..." obviously applies.

Keep it simple just play the melody.

ernie

Thank you Bruce. I did myself a favor by taking a couple of night classes in basic & intermediate theory so I do understand up to a point.

Theory is one thing and application can be another. I have access to, and will sit down to a keyboard with this.

Ernie, I agree that playing the melody is important -- but in my opinion it's the chords that make the song.

As an extreme example, years ago i wrote a song named "Empty Vows" that used only one note throughout the entire song. I worked out a chord progression that flowed reasonably well and gave the impression that the notes were changing. (We recorded it at RCA, but not until Redd Stewart reworked it so that it just went back to that same note as the first note of every measure.) If you played that one sticking with the melody and without chords you would have sounded ridiculous. (Maybe that's why I received such small royalty checks on that one.)
=============================================
Edited to say that I'm sitting here trying to figure out what to say to keep this post from being so far from the topic.
.
.
.
Oh! I know: I wrote a number chart for the song.

Good thread, Jack Stoner.

------------------
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR=BLACK><P ALIGN=left>Visit my Web Site at RoysFootprints.com
Browse my Photo Album and be sure to sign my Guest Book.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Roy Ayres on 12 July 2005 at 03:11 PM.]</p></FONT>