# Seventh chord with a lowered lowered fifth



## camus

Hi I am a newbie to music theory. I recently came cross a chord D7b5, which stands for, if I am not mistaken, D F# Ab C, a seventh chord with a flat fifth. 
I wonder what is the function or purpose of a chord like this? How is it used compared to a diminished/half diminished 7? Thanks!


----------



## Woodduck

The two most common uses of it would be to move the Ab to A natural, resulting in a D7 (D F# A C) or move the two outer voices by half step to Db (Db F Ab Db) making your chord function as an augmented sixth.


----------



## camus

Woodduck said:


> The two most common uses of it would be to move the Ab to A natural, resulting in a D7 (D F# A C) or move the two outer voices by half step to Db (Db F Ab Db) making your chord function as an augmented sixth.


Thanks @Woodduck. So it's like a pivot


----------



## SONNET CLV

camus said:


> … I recently came cross a chord D7b5, which stands for, if I am not mistaken, D F# Ab C, a seventh chord with a flat fifth.
> I wonder what is the function or purpose of a chord like this?...


That's the chord for ahhh's and oohh's.

I don't know much about music theory or even music fact for that matter, but I do find the D7b5 useful in getting me and my ol' guitar from verse one to verse two of the Antonio Carlos Jobim classic "Girl From Ipanema".

Tall and tanned and young and lovely
The girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes - ahhh!

The chord works perfectly for that "ahhh!"

When she walks she's like a samba
That swings so cool and sways so gentle
That when she passes, each one she passes goes - oohh!.

And for that "oohh!", too.

Now, if I could only get to verse 3.

Got any other chords up your sleeve?


----------



## EdwardBast

In what context did you encounter this chord? Does the designation D7b5 come from your analysis of a piece of notated music? Or was it a chord symbol in a fake book or lead sheet? In either case you need to show us what comes before and after if you want to know its function or purpose. Until you answer these questions and provide this information, nothing beyond vague speculation is possible.


----------



## camus

EdwardBast said:


> In what context did you encounter this chord? Does the designation D7b5 come from your analysis of a piece of notated music? Or was it a chord symbol in a fake book or lead sheet? In either case you need to show us what comes before and after if you want to know its function or purpose. Until you answer these questions and provide this information, nothing beyond vague speculation is possible.


It is from an example in a text book. The song is in F. The melody line has a A -> Ab -> G, and the bass line goes F6 -> D7b5/F# -> C/G. I think it sorta makes sense for the A -> Ab transition


----------



## EdwardBast

You seem to be describing something like this:









If so, and without any further context, the chord sounds like a pre-dominant in the key of C major, or just a couple of chromatic passing tones between the ii6/5 and I6/4 chords in C major, depending on how one looks at it. There is nothing about what you described that suggests the key of F major.

What text book is this in? Can you scan or notate the music so we know what you are actually talking about?

Edit: I also wonder where the nomenclature "D7b5" comes from. Is that your analysis? Or is it from the book? The reason I ask is that if my example above reflects the basic progression, then the chord isn't a 7th chord on D, but a chord of the diminished 3rd (F#-Ab), which is the ungainly inversion of an Augmented 6th chord, in this case, an inversion of the French variety.

All of the above is predicated on us talking about classical style harmony. If this is jazz theory, then different conventions apply - which is why I asked about the book.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> What text book is this in? Can you scan or notate the music so we know what you are actually talking about?


No, that would take too much work, to cut and paste something like that. Besides, it doesn't _really_ matter what he thinks, or what we think; otherwise, some work would be put in to make it clear. Apparently, it doesn't. Stuff like that used to matter, to some people, but now we all have computers and the internet.


----------



## camus

EdwardBast said:


> You seem to be describing something like this:
> 
> View attachment 133131
> 
> 
> If so, and without any further context, the chord sounds like a pre-dominant in the key of C major, or just a couple of chromatic passing tones between the ii6/5 and I6/4 chords in C major, depending on how one looks at it. There is nothing about what you described that suggests the key of F major.
> 
> What text book is this in? Can you scan or notate the music so we know what you are actually talking about?
> 
> Edit: I also wonder where the nomenclature "D7b5" comes from. Is that your analysis? Or is it from the book? The reason I ask is that if my example above reflects the basic progression, then the chord isn't a 7th chord on D, but a chord of the diminished 3rd (F#-Ab), which is the ungainly inversion of an Augmented 6th chord, in this case, an inversion of the French variety.
> 
> All of the above is predicated on us talking about classical style harmony. If this is jazz theory, then different conventions apply - which is why I asked about the book.











Here it is. It's from a book called Tonal Harmony. I typed the score with an online sheet music editor since the book has top and bottom lines separated.

And there's supposed to be no rests in the first and last measure. I haven't figured out how to remove them since the online editor seemed to always want a full 4/4


----------



## EdwardBast

In this context the chord you called D7b5 doesn't really have an independent function. It's just the result of chromatic passing motions between members of the VI6/5 and V6/4 chords. The way you can tell it has no independent function is that if it were left out and the VI6/5 chord played as half notes, the progression still works perfectly well. The same is true of the chord on the last beat of m. 4, which connects the III6 chord and the VI chord on the first beat of m. 5. Here the C# and G are the passing tones and, once again, if the chord were left out, the progression would still work smoothly.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> In this context the chord you called D7b5 doesn't really have an independent function. It's just the result of chromatic passing motions between members of the VI6/5 and V6/4 chords. The way you can tell it has no independent function is that if it were left out and the VI6/5 chord played as half notes, the progression still works perfectly well. The same is true of the chord on the last beat of m. 4, which connects the III6 chord and the VI chord on the first beat of m. 5. Here the C# and G are the passing tones and, once again, if the chord were left out, the progression would still work smoothly.


...and that's the difference between CP theory and jazz theory. In CP, any unexplainable "harmonic remnants" are tossed into the pile of "passing tones."

If you really want to know about D7b5 chords, study jazz theory, because you have just been told by EdwardBast that D7b5 "doesn't exist."


----------



## camus

millionrainbows said:


> ...and that's the difference between CP theory and jazz theory. In CP, any unexplainable "harmonic remnants" are tossed into the pile of "passing tones."
> 
> If you really want to know about D7b5 chords, study jazz theory, because you have just been told by EdwardBast that D7b5 "doesn't exist."


@millionrainbows That example is indeed from a jazz piece. I am very interested in jazz and do plan on studying it. But I am focusing on classical for now. I feel jazz is more complex and I want to tackle that with some knowledge under my belt otherwise I think I'd be totally lost. Admittedly I know very little about jazz theory, history and repertoire, and don't even know where to start at the moment.


----------



## millionrainbows

camus said:


> @millionrainbows That example is indeed from a jazz piece. I am very interested in jazz and do plan on studying it. But I am focusing on classical for now. I feel jazz is more complex and I want to tackle that with some knowledge under my belt otherwise I think I'd be totally lost. Admittedly I know very little about jazz theory, history and repertoire, and don't even know where to start at the moment.


No, jazz is not "more complex" if you have a good ear. Cp is more complex because it is a mixture of melodic procedures and harmonic. These can really trip you up. Get a good DVD like Scott Henderson.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> ...and that's the difference between CP theory and jazz theory. In CP, any unexplainable "harmonic remnants" are tossed into the pile of "passing tones."


In CP theory, which is what's under discussion here, one should be able to distinguish harmonic phenomena from linear ones. You have difficulty telling the difference. If you're going to insist on interjecting your commentary into every thread on CP theory, it might be nice if you made an effort to attain more competence in the field.



millionrainbows said:


> If you really want to know about D7b5 chords, study jazz theory, because you have just been told by EdwardBast that D7b5 "doesn't exist."


I said no such thing. That you made this error in comprehension just proves my point: You habitually comment on content you've failed to grasp. Has it not occurred to you that the time might be better spent actually learning theory?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> In CP theory, which is what's under discussion here, one should be able to distinguish harmonic phenomena from linear ones. You have difficulty telling the difference. If you're going to insist on interjecting your commentary into every thread on CP theory, it might be nice if you made an effort to attain more competence in the field.


No, I'm here to stay. This is my life's mission, to expose CP theory.



> I said no such thing. That you made this error in comprehension just proves my point: You habitually comment on content you've failed to grasp. Has it not occurred to you that the time might be better spent actually learning theory?


Edward, that's the_ net result_ of what you said. I just summed it up and told it simply.


----------



## Woodduck

Saying that a chord doesn't have an independent function is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Saying that a chord doesn't have an independent function is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist.


Then watch out for "net results" of what you say.


----------



## camus

millionrainbows said:


> No, I'm here to stay. This is my life's mission, to expose CP theory.
> 
> Edward, that's the_ net result_ of what you said. I just summed it up and told it simply.


@millionrainbow this example, although being a jazz piece, is from a classical textbook. So I think it's ok to confine the conversation to a classical context. I am sure I will see D7b5 and other chords discussed to more details in jazz books


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> No, I'm here to stay. This is my life's mission, to expose CP theory.


Easier than understanding it I suppose, although one would think understanding should be a prerequisite for an exposé.



millionrainbows said:


> Edward, that's the_ net result_ of what you said. I just summed it up and told it simply.


You used quotation marks in a deceptive way, around something I didn't write. It's a form of lying.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Easier than understanding it I suppose, although one would think understanding should be a prerequisite for an exposé.
> 
> You used quotation marks in a deceptive way, around something I didn't write. It's a form of lying.


Then your reply to camus, that D7b5 is only passing tones and "does not exist as a chord" is also a form of deception.


----------



## EdwardBast

camus said:


> @millionrainbow this example, although being a jazz piece, is from a classical textbook. So I think it's ok to confine the conversation to a classical context. I am sure I will see D7b5 and other chords discussed to more details in jazz books


What rainbows doesn't seem to understand is that chord nomenclature in jazz isn't about function, theory, or analysis. It's just notation. It's about getting the right notes under a player's fingers in the most economical way. A case in point is the chord you called an F6 chord. In classical theory, one wouldn't analyze the chord that way. Functionally speaking, it's a minor 7th chord with the third in the bass. If one wished to accurately reflect its root and function in jazz nomenclature, one would write Dm7/F, but that's not what jazz nomenclature is about. F6 is more concise and gets the job done, which is all that matters.

Another case in point is "tritone substitutions," for example, using a Db7 chord as a substitute for G7 before C major. Db7 gets the job done, but in classical theory, that supposed Db7 chord isn't a 7th chord at all. It's spelled Db-F-Ab-B, the active interval being an augmented 6th. The augmented 6th expands to an octave, with the B moving up and the Db down. If it functioned like a 7th chord, one would see Cb descending to Bb, not B ascending to C. Also, the C major chord would usually be a secondary dominant chord, V/IV functionally.

The bottom line is: If one is starting with a background in jazz nomenclature and learning classical functional theory, it is necessary to translate from a purely utilitarian system of notation to one in which function is what counts.



millionrainbows said:


> Then your reply to camus, that D7b5 is only passing tones and "does not exist as a chord" is also a form of deception.


No, although I'm sure it might look like deception to the uneducated or to a theoretical semi-literate.


----------



## millionrainbows

camus said:


> @millionrainbow this example, although being a jazz piece, is from a classical textbook.


Ah, yes, "context is everything".:lol:



> So I think it's ok to confine the conversation to a classical context. I am sure I will see D7b5 and other chords discussed to more details in jazz books


Is that why you chose the thread title "Seventh *chord *with a lowered fifth"? It sounds like you are confused to me.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Then watch out for "net results" of what you say.


The "net result" of my statement, for anyone with a basic knowledge of harmony, will be immediate comprehension and simple assent, not the need to tell me to "watch out" for something.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> What rainbows doesn't seem to understand is that chord nomenclature in jazz isn't about function, theory, or analysis. It's just notation. It's about getting the right notes under a player's fingers in the most economical way. A case in point is the chord you called an F6 chord. In classical theory, one wouldn't analyze the chord that way. Functionally speaking, it's a minor 7th chord with the third in the bass. If one wished to accurately reflect its root and function in jazz nomenclature, one would write Dm7/F, but that's not what jazz nomenclature is about. F6 is more concise and gets the job done, which is all that matters.
> 
> Another case in point is "tritone substitutions," for example, using a Db7 chord as a substitute for G7 before C major. Db7 gets the job done, but in classical theory, that supposed Db7 chord isn't a 7th chord at all. It's spelled Db-F-Ab-B, the active interval being an augmented 6th. The augmented 6th expands to an octave, with the B moving up and the Db down. If it functioned like a 7th chord, one would see Cb descending to Bb, not B ascending to C. Also, the C major chord would usually be a secondary dominant chord, V/IV functionally.
> 
> The bottom line is: If one is starting with a background in jazz nomenclature and learning classical functional theory, it is necessary to translate from a purely utilitarian system of notation to one in which function is what counts.
> 
> *No, although I'm sure it might look like deception to the uneducated or to a theoretical semi-literate.*


No, I disagree; harmonic function is much simpler and freer.
_
Any_ scale has relations to the tonic which gives it "harmonic function," because "function" is based on a consonance/dissonance gradation from 1 to 7 on each scale degree. CP did not invent "function" in this truest sense. Your CP "function" is much more codified and inflexible.

If you think "function" is a rigid, concrete thing, I of course disagree...and you'd better watch out for the net results of what you say.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^What is your definition of harmonic function?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ^^^What is your definition of harmonic function?


It's not a definition, so if you don't recognize it because it doesn't fit into your CP definition, that doesn't mean it's not valid. I think you are capable of recognizing both, Woodduck, just as you recognize a general definition of tonality. I gave the information in the post above.

You really want me to go dig up the information, or will you simply invalidate it?

Perhaps I should ask you: is there any unifying, underlying principle in your definition of function, or is it "simply what has been prescribed as "function"?

My definition can "encompass" your definition.

Why do you even question this? Have you never thought about it?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's not a definition, so if you don't recognize it because it doesn't fit into your CP definition, that doesn't mean it's not valid. I think you are capable of recognizing both, Woodduck, just as you recognize a general definition of tonality. I gave the information in the post above.
> 
> You really want me to go dig up the information, or will you simply invalidate it?
> 
> Perhaps I should ask you: is there any unifying, underlying principle in your definition of function, or is it "simply what has been prescribed as "function"?
> 
> My definition can "encompass" your definition.
> 
> Why do you even question this? Have you never thought about it?


It was an elementary question.

Given your response, I'm inclined to doubt that you have the clarity of mind to offer a definition of "function" without looking one up on Wikipedia. But if you did resort to that, it would still be preferable to the pointless and distracting bickering that prevails in these theory discussions. Apparently you prefer the bickering.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It was an elementary question.
> 
> Given your response, *I'm inclined to doubt that you have the clarity of mind to offer a definition of "function" without looking one up on Wikipedia. *But if you did resort to that, it would still be preferable to the pointless and distracting bickering that prevails in these theory discussions. Apparently you prefer the bickering.


That's bull. I've already posted this information numerous times in discussions, and it's there in my blogs, and has been for several years. What else is new in your "invalidation" agenda?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's bull. I've already posted this information numerous times in discussions, and it's there in my blogs, and has been for several years. What else is new in your "invalidation" agenda?


I'll spell this out.

I find your post #24 confusing. The statement "harmonic function is much simpler and freer" doesn't make sense to me. "Any scale has relations to the tonic which gives it 'harmonic function,'" doesn't either, since not all music based on scales is harmonic. "'Function" is based on a consonance/dissonance gradation from 1 to 7 on each scale degree" needs an explanation. "CP did not invent 'function'" seems plausible, if "function" is defined in a certain way, but as far as I'm aware, "functional harmony" is a concept that arose only in the CP era.

The musical example under discussion here is clearly CP, so how was your post a useful response to EdwardBast's analysis of the chord in question? I thought that asking for a clear definition of function might clarify the matter.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I'll spell this out.
> 
> I find your post #24 confusing. The statement *"harmonic function is much simpler and freer"* doesn't make sense to me. "Any scale has relations to the tonic which gives it 'harmonic function,'" doesn't either, since not all music based on scales is harmonic. "'Function" is based on a consonance/dissonance gradation from 1 to 7 on each scale degree" needs an explanation. "CP did not invent 'function'" seems plausible, if "function" is defined in a certain way, but as far as I'm aware, "functional harmony" is a concept that arose only in the CP era.
> 
> The musical example under discussion here is clearly CP, so how was your post a useful response to EdwardBast's analysis of the chord in question? I thought that asking for a clear definition of function might clarify the matter.


_



The bottom line is: If one is starting with a background in jazz nomenclature and learning classical functional theory, it is necessary to translate from a purely utilitarian system of notation to one in which function is what counts.

Click to expand...

_


> *No, although I'm sure it might look like deception to the uneducated or to a theoretical semi-literate.*


In the first place, I started out with CP theory, in college, and only later preferred the _free_r jazz approach.
_

"Not all music based on scales is harmonic" _is irrelevant, since I'm giving a meaning of "function" related to scales.
_

"Function" is based on a consonance/dissonance gradation from 1 to 7 on each scale degree"_ needs an explanation. It's been in my blogs for years, I'm not going to feed your invalidation machine.

_"...as far as I'm aware, "functional harmony" is a concept that arose only in the CP era."_ Let's just say they gave a name to an already-existing natural phenomena.


----------



## Knorf

V7 with a flattened fifth is a pretty common dominant alteration in the late Romantic period and beyond. 

A famous example comes from Brahms, Symphony 4. The chaconne progression in the opening measures ends with V4/3 -> I (Picardy third) in E Minor. However, the fifth of the chord, in the bass, is altered from F-sharp to F-natural. The V7flat5 harmony is identical in pitch-class terms to a French augmented 6th chord, so in this example it sometimes is labeled "Fr V4/3." In this example, it maintains its dominant function despite the alteration, as opposed to a garden-variety Fr+6 chord which functions as a pre-dominant.


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> V7 with a flattened fifth is a pretty common dominant alteration in the late Romantic period and beyond.
> 
> A famous example comes from Brahms, Symphony 4. The chaconne progression in the opening measures ends with V4/3 -> I (Picardy third) in E Minor. However, the fifth of the chord, in the bass, is altered from F-sharp to F-natural. The V7flat5 harmony is identical in pitch-class terms to a French augmented 6th chord, so in this example it sometimes is labeled "Fr V4/3." In this example, it maintains its dominant function despite the alteration, as opposed to a garden-variety Fr+6 chord which functions as a pre-dominant.


That's reassuring to an "uneducated theoretical semi-literate" like me.


----------



## Jerry Gerber

*Reply to millionrainbows*



millionrainbows said:


> No, I'm here to stay. This is my life's mission, to expose CP theory.
> 
> Edward, that's the_ net result_ of what you said. I just summed it up and told it simply.


Expose Common Practice theory? What in the world is that supposed to accomplish? That's what I suspected as soon as I read your post to my attempt to answer a sincere question, although I gave you the benefit of the doubt just in case you're sincere and I am wrong, which is always possible. I am brand new to this forum, and every forum has at least one of you, and they're always, without exception, of the male sex. The manner in which you responded to my first and only post in this Music Theory section told me two things:

1. You like to create disagreement and argument for its own sake, rather than for its true purpose, which is to expand knowledge and deepen understanding.

2. You get some kind of pleasure in doing #1. That's why I wrote either you didn't understand what I wrote, or I don't understand what you wrote, or both. I now realize that's exactly your intention. Surely you must have something productive to do with your time, yes?


----------



## millionrainbows

Jerry Gerber said:


> Expose Common Practice theory? What in the world is that supposed to accomplish?


I have repeatedly pointed out, with plenty of examples, the way that our CP Western system of theory, notation, and concepts is unmistakably derived from, and biased toward, diatonic concepts. 
Pat Martino has spoken about the unspoken dominance of diatonic thinking and the tyranny of the keyboard: all the note names, notational system, and the very language of music itself, are derived from this diatonic key-system-based way of thinking. Chromatic thinking (in the truest sense) is an approach which clears the playing field.

"… the communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano."-Pat Martino

By necessity, we all use this language to communicate our musical ideas to other musicians; but there is no need to "pay homage" to it or its ideologues.



Jerry Gerber said:


> That's what I suspected as soon as I read your post to my attempt to answer a sincere question, although I gave you the benefit of the doubt just in case you're sincere and I am wrong, which is always possible. I am brand new to this forum, and every forum has at least one of you, and they're always, without exception, of the male sex. The manner in which you responded to my first and only post in this Music Theory section told me two things:
> 
> 1. You like to create disagreement and argument for its own sake, rather than for its true purpose, which is to expand knowledge and deepen understanding.
> 
> 2. You get some kind of pleasure in doing #1. That's why I wrote either you didn't understand what I wrote, or I don't understand what you wrote, or both. I now realize that's exactly your intention. Surely you must have something productive to do with your time, yes?


I think you're mistaken. I like to question the given assumptions, that's all.
Your reaction seems bold for a newcomer, making me think you might have been _briefed _by another member (colleague) who is recruiting your help in the reaching the _final solution_ in the _millionrainbows problem.
_


----------



## mikeh375

^^^^^^ _……"Your reaction seems bold for a newcomer, making me think you might have been briefed by another member (colleague) who is recruiting your help in the reaching the final solution in the millionrainbows problem".
_
Well, I am a said colleague and I find it hard to believe you mean someone else so please clarify who you do mean...it better hadn't be me, because I've done no such thing and you would be utterly out of order for implying it. Jerry can look after himself.
Get over yourself because I don't care about, nor see you as, a "problem" - you're not. I will say this though, you are a piece of work. I help you earlier today on another thread and then this....jeeez


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I have repeatedly pointed out, with plenty of examples, the way that our CP Western system of theory, notation, and concepts is unmistakably derived from, and biased toward, diatonic concepts.
> Pat Martino has spoken about the unspoken dominance of diatonic thinking and the tyranny of the keyboard: all the note names, notational system, and the very language of music itself, are derived from this diatonic key-system-based way of thinking. Chromatic thinking (in the truest sense) is an approach which clears the playing field.
> 
> "… the communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano."-Pat Martino


Think this is backwards - the keyboard is arranged the way it is because of the importance of diatonic scales in music, which precedes the keyboard.


----------



## Jerry Gerber

millionrainbows said:


> I have repeatedly pointed out, with plenty of examples, the way that our CP Western system of theory, notation, and concepts is unmistakably derived from, and biased toward, diatonic concepts.
> 
> I think you're mistaken. I like to question the given assumptions, that's all.
> Your reaction seems bold for a newcomer, making me think you might have been _briefed _by another member (colleague) who is recruiting your help in the reaching the _final solution_ in the _millionrainbows problem.
> _


We're all biased, in one way or another, particularly when speaking about art, politics and religion. We're biased because we don't like to examine objectively our own subjectivity, nor question our own assumptions and conclusions. It's good to question assumptions, but just because we do that it doesn't mean that the conclusions we arrive at our necessarily superior or better or more truthful or more real. Final solution? What a terrible choice of words! When it comes to music there is no final solution.

Beethoven, when close to death: "I feel as though I've written very little music".

Haydn, when writing a letter in his 80s: "I've just learned how to write for the woodwinds".

Debussy, when close to death due to cancer: "I'm just beginning to understand harmony".

I am not reacting to what others have said about your posts, that would be unfair. I am reacting to your replies to my posts.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^^^^ _……"Your reaction seems bold for a newcomer, making me think you might have been briefed by another member (colleague) who is recruiting your help in the reaching the final solution in the millionrainbows problem".
> _
> Well, I am a said colleague and I find it hard to believe you mean someone else so please clarify who you do mean...*it better hadn't be me,* because I've done no such thing and *you would be utterly out of order for implying it.* Jerry can look after himself.
> *Get over yourself *because I don't care about, nor see you as, a "problem" - you're not. I will say this though, *you are a piece of work.* I help you earlier today on another thread and then this....*jeeez*


For my part, I'm disappointed in the ease with which hostilities are aroused around here; I try to remain calm and objective, avoiding personal references. If you have anything relevant to post, please do so; otherwise, I see your replies as simply taking advantage of the personal atmosphere being created. It's like a virus.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Think this is backwards - the keyboard is arranged the way it is because of the importance of diatonic scales in music, which precedes the keyboard.


I've always maintained through my many posts that the design of the keyboard merely reflects diatonicism.
If you misunderstood this, it's not my mistake, it's yours.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> For my part, I'm disappointed in the ease with which hostilities are aroused around here; I try to remain calm and objective, avoiding personal references. If you have anything relevant to post, please do so; otherwise, I see your replies as simply taking advantage of the personal atmosphere being created. It's like a virus.


But MR you clearly implied that I had briefed someone to have a go at you. What sort of deluded attitude is that? What do you have to say for yourself, why did you suggest I had anything to do with Jerry's reply? For the record once again, I didn't so retract your implication please.

I was simply minding my own business until you posted above.....and you say _your_ disappointed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jerry Gerber said:


> We're all biased, in one way or another, particularly when speaking about art, politics and religion. We're biased because we don't like to examine objectively our own subjectivity, nor question our own assumptions and conclusions. It's good to question assumptions, but just because we do that it doesn't mean that the conclusions we arrive at our necessarily superior or better or more truthful or more real. Final solution? What a terrible choice of words! When it comes to music there is no final solution.


The observations I have made about the diatonic CP system are all factual, not based on opinion. The 7 letter names for notes, the half steps between E-F and B-C letter names, the key signature system: all facts, and all designed to accommodate diatonic, not chromatic, thinking. The biases you speak of are not really based on fact, but opinion.

Final solution? I think it's very appropriate, in light of the way I have been maligned and invalidated by some members here.



> I am not reacting to what others have said about your posts, that would be unfair. I am reacting to your replies to my posts.


That's good to know. You should know that when I question basic assumptions about music theory, I am doing so in good faith, not out of some stereotype of 'forum trolling' or male testosterone-driven aggression. These are questions I have always posed, as far back as 1971 and my first encounters with music pedagogues.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> But MR you clearly implied that I had briefed someone to have a go at you. *What sort of deluded attitude is that?* What do you have to say for yourself, why did you suggest I had anything to do with Jerry's reply? For the record once again, I didn't so retract your implication.
> 
> I was simply minding my own business until you posted above.....and you say _your_ disappointed.


If you are referring to my post #34, please note that this reply was not addressed to you. This should be very clear. Are you reading these posts, or just skimming over them?

I think you're being insincere as well. If it makes any difference, I was not referring to you, but to another member who greeted JG after his first post.

Besides that, you don't strike me as a teacher or 'colleague' in an academic context. You seem more like a layman or at best, perhaps a music student.


----------



## Flamme

https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/legendary-powers-seventh-son-seventh-son-002794


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> If you are referring to my post #34, please note that this reply was not addressed to you. This should be very clear. Are you reading these posts, or just skimming over them?


Don't mess around, you knew what you were doing by mentioning the word 'colleague'. You put 2+2 together and came up with the wrong answer but unfortunately are not big enough to apologise.
You just stirred the pot a little at my expense...nice, well done.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Don't mess around, you knew what you were doing by mentioning the word 'colleague'. You put 2+2 together and came up with the wrong answer but unfortunately *are not big enough to apologise.*


I don't owe you an apology. Your hubris is beginning to swell to uncomfortable proportions.

As I said, you don't strike me as a teacher or 'colleague' in an academic context. You seem more like a layman or, at best, perhaps a music student.


----------



## mikeh375

so you_ did_ know what you were doing. I say again, well done. You wrongly implied my involvement, why? Go on, I dare you to answer for a change and to be honest. I have a right to be aggrieved by your implication do I not? It's not hubris at all, just an understandable reaction to unjustified behaviour and assumption by you because of your hang-ups here. Even Jerry himself has confirmed that his posts where all his own work, or is he lying too?


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> so you_ did_ know what you were doing. I say again, well done. *You wrongly implied my involvement*, why? *Go on, I dare you to answe*r for a change and to be honest. *I have a right to be aggrieved by your implication* do I not? It's not hubris at all, just an understandable reaction to *unjustified behaviour and assumption by you because of your hang-ups here.* Even Jerry himself has confirmed that his posts where all his own work, or is he lying too?


If you are referring to my post #34, please note that this reply was not addressed to you. This should be very clear. Are you reading these posts, or just skimming over them?I think you're being insincere as well, in order to take advantage of a possible "pile-on" scenario. If it makes any difference, I was not referring to you, but to another member who greeted JG after his first post. Besides that, you don't strike me as a teacher or 'colleague' in an academic context. You seem more like a layman or at best, perhaps a music student.

Aside from that, I have every right to be mistrusting, in light of the way I have been bullied in the past, so get over it.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> If you are referring to my post #34, please note that this reply was not addressed to you. This should be very clear. Are you reading these posts, or just skimming over them? I think you're being insincere as well, in order to take advantage of a possible "pile-on" scenario. If it makes any difference, I was not referring to you, but to another member who greeted JG after his first post. Besides that, you don't strike me as a teacher or 'colleague' in an academic context. *You seem more like a layman or at best, perhaps a music student*.
> 
> Aside from that, I have every right to be mistrusting, in light of the way I have been bullied in the past, so get over it.


LOL....more goading I see. You just look foolish now. You really are a piece of work and are now calling someone you don't know "insincere". It's all a shame really, but yeah, I'll get over it...there... done.

btw, I did greet Jerry immediately after his first post....there is nowhere to hide my son.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> LOL....*more goading* I see. *You just look foolish now.* *You really are a piece of work *and are now calling someone you don't know "insincere". It's all a shame really, but yeah, I'll get over it...there... done.
> 
> btw, I did greet Jerry immediately after his first post....there is nowhere to hide my son.


More irrelevant invalidation. Yawn...


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> More irrelevant invalidation. Yawn...


LOL....caught out for being a trouble maker. Ignore what you want, it's quite sad but funny too...thanks.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> LOL....*caught out for being a trouble maker.* Ignore what you want, it's quite sad but funny too...thanks.


Yes, you have a nice day too. Meanwhile, you have wasted a whole page or more of this thread for this irrelevant stuff.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Ah, turned into another popcorn thread. Is this a study on tension and relief? 

So basically the chord in question is an altered chord. Chopin's Prelude in E minor illustrates that concept very well, whether or not the chords have other names (to make MR happy), but they do ultimately serve CP tonality.


----------



## mikeh375

my my, did you just invalidate me...

no, not you Phil....


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/legendary-powers-seventh-son-seventh-son-002794


Thanks. I think it's interesting that humans long long ago noticed that there were only seven stars that MOVED against ALL the other stars. And it was first to give us the clue that we weren't under what appeared to be a glass globe firmament. BUT very quickly humans (Aristotle) decided that the crystal spheres explanation accounted so 'logically' for the nearby falling stars and the more distant, slower moving comets, and even the Milky Way. Because it was the debris (degraded lubricant) from the grinding spheres dropping down to earth which we see as falling stars, very close, and then comets a little bit farther away. And then the buildup of all that debris eventually becoming the Milky Way (the brightest section for us is 30 thousand trillion miles away).


----------



## Flamme

There is definitely something magickal in numbers 7, 13 and 4 me personally 23...


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. I think it's interesting that humans long long ago noticed that *there were only seven stars that MOVED against ALL the other stars.* And it was first to give us the clue that we weren't under what appeared to be a glass globe firmament.


And thus was born: the diatonic system.


----------

