Re: Quicky about naming a chord

On Mar 16, 7:42 pm, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:f5c5acc5-6b45-4da3-88c0-d23ea3a8b954@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > Notes; C#/Db D#/Eb G B
>
> >> Eb7+
>
> > Sorry in my haste, I was thinking of the post with this chord in All
> > The Things You Are. But as Steve might say, Do you notice the close
> > resemblance to the Fr6. Just change the + to a - .
>
> Now you're confusing me even more.    I just answered the question
without
> reading any more posts.   Those notes form an Eb7+   or D#7+ if  more
> convenient.   (The sort of music in which it would occur probably
doesn't
> worry about enharmonics too much.)
>
> As for G+/Db - well I suppose in sequence that does make it look like a
> decorative form of II-V-I,  so fine.  But on the whole I don't tend to
worry
> too much about the difference when I see a G+ B+ or D#+    In the most
> interesting cir***stances will make the choice of name ambiguous anyway
:-)
>
> Dave
> --
> David Webber
> Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
> For discussion/sup****t
seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm

Sorry David. I have just been reading this new internet quiz show
called "Name the Grip" and got it confused with another show that
featured chords that resembled other chords. Then I typo-ed the V7b5
and while I was (not) thinking about another post where someone
mentioned the C7+5 in All the Things...

I was only commenting on how long it took someone to take the sensible
approach and just call it what the notes spelled out! and that was
your sensible post saying that it looked like a m7+5 chord. I didn't
mean anything by it at all except that you had the most obvious
answer. It happens when I get bored with these kinds of threads. It
makes me wonder why this matters.

I played sever voicings of the progression that he posted and they
were all over a Db pedal IIRC. I had a hard time getting any sense of
function or inherent lines. I am sure that he has a very nice sounding
progression there that works as a turnaround in some tune or in many
tunes. But I don't understand the purpose of the question.

By that I mean, looking at the other names of the chords, there are so
many combinations that sound, well, just bad. The chances of another
guitar player coming up with the one voicing that works is very
unlikely and the chances of a piano player coming up with a working
voicing of this is even less than that! Why not just write out the
'grips' or the Tablature or the actual notes? Or do like Bill Evans
says and just make them up on the job! I certainly hope that no one
would work out a progression like this (if naming it is any
indication, the poster must have spent hours just figuring out how to
get it to sound like he wanted) Then does he play it the same way
every time in the same way when he plays the tune? It seems to me that
this has nothing to do with improvisation or "Jazz".

I am not talking about the musical value of good voicing. It may be a
great progression. It most likely will not be the same if it is
interpreted by someone else by using any choices of chord symbols. If
it is for use by himself, who cares what they are called. If it is for
a classical style of guitar solo, then the exact notes should be
written out in some manner anyway.

I was only trying convey a bit of relief that I felt by your post that
simply stated what it was in its most simple terms. An Eb7+5 in 3rd
inversion or even a Eb+/Db. That was the notes as he voiced them. What
more is there to be said!
LJS