Easy question (I think) about "alt" chords

[Aquatist]

I just wanted to throw in my two cents, but remember there are different practicing approaches when it comes to practicing a specific lick, voicing, or pattern. In short, It is also nice to take a visual and tactile approach when memorizing.

And usually, there are four different approaches:

- An Aural approach (How the music sounds) "G7 alt sounds like this."

- A Theoretical approach (How you think about the music) "G7 altered is the 7th mode of the melodic minor scale."

- A Tactile approach (how the music feels) "G7 altered feels like this." (can go into chord shapes)

- And a visual approach (how the music looks) "G7 altered looks like this."

Just some things to take into consideration when practicing. This has really helped me out a lot.

Source: The Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine.

[michaelsorg]

Originally Posted by kingfisher

OK, so now another newbie observation about "alt" chords. Last night I tried using the combination of a flat 5 and a sharp 9 where it called for "G7alt."

Of course, you guys know what I ended up with, which was nothing more nor less than a G half-diminished chord.

So here's my next question: Is that considered an "alt" chord? It uses a combination of a flat or sharp 5 and a flat or sharp 9, but it's a regular chord that is used in many, many songs and never labelled "alt" in that context.

The corrollary question is this: Is the flat 5 sharp 9 "not permissible" (or at least not what the composer intended) when he/she asked for an "alt" chord? In other words, should a half-diminished chord essentially never be used when an "alt" chord is called for?

Thanks.

I really think this chord is better notated as G7 (#11#9). between 9 and 5 is a 4th relationship. an augmented fourth is no problem, but a doubly diminished fourth? Who wrote that s---?!?

Along those lines and in reference to Jon's half steps, I also find it much easier to read an altered chord when sharps and flats line up:

G7 (#9#5)
G7 (b9b5)
G7 (b13b9)
G13 (#11#9)
G13 (#11b9) would be one exception, because the third between #11 and 13 is more prevalent, I think. Maybe.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by michaelsorg

Along those lines and in reference to Jon's half steps, I also find it much easier to read an altered chord when sharps and flats line up:

G7 (#9#5)
G7 (b9b5)
G7 (b13b9)
G13 (#11#9)
G13 (#11b9) would be one exception, because the third between #11 and 13 is more prevalent, I think. Maybe.

I like the theory, but in practice I sometimes find this a little muddy because of the scales that are implied.

I know chords should not dictate scales, but for example when I see #9#5 I relexively tend to avoid natural 5 in the melody and for consonance usually play b9 and #11 as well — thus I'd notate the chord as 7alt.

So instead of #9#5 I would use #9b13, which still allows for a natural 5 and doesn't imply any other alterations.

[michaelsorg]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I like the theory, but in practice I sometimes find this a little muddy because of the scales that are implied.

I know chords should not dictate scales, but for example when I see #9#5 I relexively tend to avoid natural 5 in the melody and for consonance usually play b9 and #11 as well — thus I'd notate the chord as 7alt.

So instead of #9#5 I would use #9b13, which still allows for a natural 5 and doesn't imply any other alterations.

Jerry, you've got a good point that the natural 5 should always be an option - very important for some melodic connections. But I don't think many arrangers write that chord that way. But a very worthwhile point: that on a dominant chord, 9 out of ten times the b5 is really a sharp 11 and the so called #5 is really b6 or b13. But the fact that an augmented triad is formed firmly entrenched us in the sharp 5 idea. And the b5 should'nt crowd out the natural 5. Though melodically the b5 in a V7 resolves neatly to i or I, I usually resolve that harmonically upward to the 9th of the I chord, or even resolve it to the 5th of the V7 before moving to I.

Well, we'll never make all the accidentals and enharmonics line up consistently in all keys and situations, but I think the ability to see intervals in a natural, intuitive form (especially 4ths/5ths) is usually important, and it's nice to see polychords spelled according to the triad, if possible and practical.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by michaelsorg

Jerry, you've got a good point that the natural 5 should always be an option - very important for some melodic connections. But I don't think many arrangers write that chord that way. But a very worthwhile point: that on a dominant chord, 9 out of ten times the b5 is really a sharp 11 and the so called #5 is really b6 or b13. But the fact that an augmented triad is formed firmly entrenched us in the sharp 5 idea. And the b5 should'nt crowd out the natural 5. Though melodically the b5 in a V7 resolves neatly to i or I, I usually resolve that harmonically upward to the 9th of the I chord, or even resolve it to the 5th of the V7 before moving to I.

Well, we'll never make all the accidentals and enharmonics line up consistently in all keys and situations, but I think the ability to see intervals in a natural, intuitive form (especially 4ths/5ths) is usually important, and it's nice to see polychords spelled according to the triad, if possible and practical.

Yes, we learn to accommodate to an imperfect system.

Although I said that I reflexively think to avoid natural 5 when I see #5, that's really only in voicing the chord on the head. Soloing is never dictated by the spelling of the chords.

I've actually argued your point in the past, most notably on the progression m-m#5-m6-m7 or m-m#5-m6-m#5 — the James Bond theme — in which others have maintained that m#5 is really mb6 or even mb13, which I found to be counter-intuitive in reading the progression in terms of the direction in which the top voice is moving.

[jazz oud]

Huh, interesting idea. Personally, I don't want the sharps/flats to line up, I prefer it to just be written in terms of 5 and 9 consistently.
#5#9
b5#9
b5b9
#5b9

#11#9 or #11b9 would lead me to think of diminished harmony at first glance. Not sure why. I think a lot of this is what one is used to, so of course we should just be ready for anything as readers.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by jazz oud

Huh, interesting idea. Personally, I don't want the sharps/flats to line up, I prefer it to just be written in terms of 5 and 9 consistently.
#5#9
b5#9
b5b9
#5b9

I agree

Originally Posted by jazz oud

#11#9 or #11b9 would lead me to think of diminished harmony at first glance. Not sure why.

Maybe because "#11" suggests a perfect 5th? Diminished (HW) would then be the only scale that would fit.

[michaelsorg]

Originally Posted by JonR

I agreeMaybe because "#11" suggests a perfect 5th? Diminished (HW) would then be the only scale that would fit.

The main reason, I believe that we might not think altered scale when #11 is given is that it implies that a b13 can't be stacked on top of it; there's no possible 3rd relationship any more. We were talking about a chord without sharp 5 or b13. So that works fine with the diminished as well as with the altered scale. If we're including b13, then I prefer G7 (b13#9b9b5). The fourths line up just great, just in inverse order. The only oddball is the #9, but we'll never get that changed to b10, so no use trying! The other chords I mentioned were with natural 13, and obviously go with the diminished scale.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by michaelsorg

The main reason, I believe that we might not think altered scale when #11 is given is that it implies that a b13 can't be stacked on top of it; there's no possible 3rd relationship any more. We were talking about a chord without sharp 5 or b13. So that works fine with the diminished as well as with the altered scale. If we're including b13, then I prefer G7 (b13#9b9b5). The fourths line up just great, just in inverse order. The only oddball is the #9, but we'll never get that changed to b10, so no use trying! The other chords I mentioned were with natural 13, and obviously go with the diminished scale.

I use b10 often, when I have a chord that contains both b9 and #9.

[michaelsorg]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I use b10 often, when I have a chord that contains both b9 and #9.

Well, b10 (or b3) sure lines up better with the accidentals that we usually use, and with the way we use it melodically.

[jazz oud]

Originally Posted by michaelsorg

Well, b10 (or b3) sure lines up better with the accidentals that we usually use, and with the way we use it melodically.

I concur.