I travelled from Manchester to meet a friend in London. He travelled from Paris to a destination he insisted on calling Londres. “That’s OK”, I said. “Two different names for the same city.” He shook his head sadly. “No. We started in different places and will return to different places. Therefore we are not now in the same city” In the confusion thus created he left and I picked up the tab.
I think the most important question here would be whether people actually use these terms this way. Because I have never heard of anyone making this distinction, and I haven't seen people using the m7b5 and half-diminished symbols in different ways - often people choose one or the other and use it for all chords of the same type, a bit like people either choose "maj7" or the triangle symbol. In the end, both "half-diminished" and "m7b5" are just two easier ways of referring to the chord that is actually called "diminished-minor 7th", similarly as full-diminished would be "diminished-diminished 7th" and dominant 7th would be "major-minor 7th". These are simply terms that people have come up with to make the 7th chord naming a bit simpler. It's easier to say (and distinguish between) "dominant", "major 7th" and "minor 7th" than "major-minor 7th", "major-major 7th" and "minor-minor 7th". My point here is that these are just "spoken language" terms that have become somewhat standardized. They aren't really formal terms. I know that a counter argument to my post could be that "but those people are using the terms incorrectly", but I disagree - these labels aren't "formal" and they aren't 100% standardized either. We are basically talking about the "spoken language" of musicians. Both of these chords - the vii in major key and the ii in minor key - are derived from the same degrees of the diatonic scale. These are the scale degrees 7 2 4 6 of the major scale and the scale degrees 2 4 (b)6 1 of the minor scale (for example notes B D F A in C major and A minor). It is exactly the same chord and has the same origin. Also, the use of half-diminished chords predates dominant 9th chords - they can't be derived from dominant 9th chords, because half-diminished chords were used before dominant 9th chords were a thing. It's simply the diatonic VII chord in the major key. Similarly, the IIm7b5 isn't actually derived by lowering the 5th of a normal IIm7 chord. It's simply the diatonic II chord in the minor key. I think all of this stems from the common misunderstanding that "diminished" always means "substitute for dominant". That's not the only use for diminished chords. Classical musicians have been using the diminished triad as the ii chord in a minor key for ages (and in classical music, this is pretty much as common as using the diminished chord as the vii chord). And if you look at full-diminished chords, their only function isn't a "rootless substitute for 7b9" - you have common-tone diminished chords and chromatic passing diminished chords, and they are all full-diminished chords, even though they are functioning in completely different ways. Actually, if you look at classical music, the half-diminished chord is much more likely to be used as a ii chord than as a vii chord. Going vii half-diminished I is fairly rare. Going ii half-diminished V is done all the time. The ii chord is often simply inverted (1st inversion is most common, 2nd inversion is fairly common). The third inversion is used over tonic pedal points where you usually alternate between the i and ii chords over 1st scale degree in bass. Even in major keys, the most common use of the vii half diminished chord is to continue to the chord a fifth below. It's mostly used in sequences - IV vii iii vi ii V I (and yes, even in classical music all of these chords may be 7th chords, except maybe for the I in the end). The full sequence is rarer in major keys, though - it's much more common in minor keys. I do understand where the name of m7b5 comes from, though - jazz musicians probably started using the term because IIm7b5 V7 I and IIm7 V7 I are so similar. But just because the chord has two (or more) different uses doesn't mean we should name it in a different way based on that use. Chord symbols aren't functional symbols. They simply tell you what notes to play. We don't do this with any other chord. We don't use a different symbol for tritone subs or backdoor dominants, or non-functional dominants, even though those chords are used way differently than regular dominant 7th chords (and we need to remember that the term "dominant" comes from the fact that it's built on the dominant - the 5th degree of the scale). And similarly, diminished 7th chords that have different functions don't have different names either. If we don't do it with any other chord, why should we do it with half-diminished chords? Actually, jazz chord symbols often have incorrect enharmonics any way (which BTW I don't have a problem with - often these "incorrect enharmonics" are used to make the chord symbols easier to read), so I really don't see why there would need to be a distinction between the same chord that functions in a different way. Functional analysis is better done with roman numerals than chord symbols. Chord symbols are simply a shorthand that makes communicating collections of notes much faster than having to write all of the notes out on sheet music.
I agree 100% with you on this. Maybe even the guy who made the video would agree after reading your comment, but well, all the issue itself is just a matter of definition, and it honestly don’t matter that much.
@Beni Flores Care to elaborate? Because some things I said are simply facts. Some other things (like whether musicians actually make some kind of a distinction between m7b5 and half-diminished) are more about opinions. But I have never heard of anyone making a distinction between the two chords before. And also, since both chords (the ii and vii half-diminished) use the same diatonic degrees (which would be Ti Re Fa La in Do-based major/La-based minor), I don't see why they should be called different chords.
I thought the same thing. In Classical music, it looks like the main use of the half-diminished chord is used with a root of the seventh step of the Ionian or major scale. In jazz, key is very relative and chords, a lot of the time, resolve up a fourth.
@@lordofthemound3890 in jazz you will also commonly see dominant 7 chords being substituted for m7b5 chords starting on the 3rd note of the dominant chord (ex. Bm7b5 substituted for G7 giving a G9 sound and also resolving up a half step to C) So the half diminished idea is quite common in jazz as well
It's a bit like some words are spelled exactly the same but have completly different meaning and are used in completly different contexts and someone says "But it's the same word!"... no it's not.
1. Classical music also usually uses diminished chords in first inversion in order to avoid the tritone they put above the bass in “root” position so VII° looks like it is supposed to be a substitution for IIm, which is another premise for resolving it by step. 2. So you can ostensibly resolve IIm7b5 down a minor third to avoid playing a major third above the bass in a minor key, e. g. Dm7b5 Bø~B°7 Cm? Or resolve bVII9 down a minor third to avoid playing a minor third above the bass in a major key, e. g. Bb9 G7 C?
As a classical musician i tend to treat them as different functions of the same half-diminished chord, because the first example C minor is the relative minor of the second example Eb major, and they share the chord of Dø7 (or Dm7b5)
Finally learning this -- wonderful explanation. I'm having more trouble getting to the min7(b5) than resolving from it, particularly coming from the IV when I'm substituting min7(b5) for the ii. Thanks for the great education!
I get your point but both names are used interchanged all the time... If you look at Berklee books they teach the seventh grade of the major scale as a -7b5 and this one resolves up by a semitone, I don't think those guys are wrong, it's just two ways of calling the same thing, I think the title of this vídeo could have been "The two functions and names of the same chord"... In fact I believe that actually speaking the name -7b5 is nonsense because if a minor chord has a flat 5 then it's no longer a minor chord, since a minor chord is Root, b3, P5, if You don't have a perfect fifth then it's no longer a minor chord strictly speaking but it's just one of those things people Say to communicate and I believe that in the jazz context they came with that name as an easy way to explain someone how to play a half-diminished chord easily, like they said to a pianist "Play a minor 7 chord, now lower the 5th a semitone" and that was easier than saying "Play a half-diminished chord" or explaining to that person the intervalic structure of the chord 🤣🤣😅🤷🏻♂️🤭
Yes, I totally agree. No classically trained musician would say that the m7b5 chord is actually a minor chord (not saying that being classically trained makes you superior or anything like that, but traditional jazz harmony has its origins in classical harmony, and that's also where the use of the half-diminished chord as the ii chord comes from - in a minor key, the ii chord is diminished, and in classical, it is used all the time as a pre-dominant chord). People would call it a diminished chord with a minor 7th. I'm pretty sure people came up with the m7b5 label because they didn't have a formal training in music (and didn't know what it was "officially" called), so they simply called it "m7b5" because it's mostly used in the same way as regular m7 chords. That's how they were thinking about the chord. But yes, it is definitely a diminished chord with a minor 7th, not a "minor chord with a lowered 5th". It is based on the diminished triad and has an added 7th. It's not an "altered minor chord". And I think the important question here is whether this is actually a distinction that anyone makes in real life (I mean, neither of the terms are formal labels for the chord - the formal way of referring to the chord would be "diminished-minor 7th", and both half-dim and m7b5 are just "spoken language" terms, although they are fairly standardized). I haven't really seen people use both m7b5 and half-diminished symbols in the same piece - people choose one or the other, a bit like they choose "maj7" or the triangle symbol for major 7th chords. We really don't label chords based on their function. For example any major-minor 7th chord is called "dominant 7th", even if it doesn't actually have a dominant function. Chord symbols are just a shorthand (and are in a way comparable with tabs). Roman numerals and sheet music are better for functional analysis.
-7b5 tend to be viewed as minor because of the first interval, just as augmented chords are altered dominants and are viewed as major chords, despite having a sharp fifth.
@@YnnonTal and augmented chord with maj7 is viewed as a dominant? Sure I've heard of maj7 substituting a dom but never assumed this was the standard way to look at that
@@clustercrash2995 things get more complicated there, Aug7 chords are technically non-dominant because they don't usually resolve to the I. I only know this superficially, but I do know, and usually play, augmented chords as major triads with a sharp 5th, which can at times be used as a dominant chord in a progression. That's about the extent of my knowledge on this subject though.
Classical theorist here. There is no truth to the claim (around 06:50) that this chord is more often used as a dominant (called "half diminished" here) than as a subdominant ("m7b5") in classical music. In classical music, just like in jazz, this chord is far more common on the IInd degree than it is on the VIIth. Just pick up any classical piece written in a minor key and you will see the chord all over the place on II. If, on the other hand, you pick up a classical piece in a major key, you are going to be hard pressed finding the chord used on VII anywhere at all.
Ciao Tommaso! I think we can see the main difference between these two chords when we expand them. While the m7b5 should maintain regular intervals as second grade of the major scale(except for the 5th, which of course we altered), the half-diminished should maintain the classic "locrian-sounding" intervals. Therefore I would expect the m7b5 to have a major 2 as an expansion, while I think the half-diminished should have a minor 2, following the intervals of a locrian scale. (I took the 2nd as an example, but it's also the case with the 4th and 6th) m7b5: R-2-b3-4-b5-6-b7 h.dim.:R-b2-b3-b4-b5-b6-b7 Did I explain myself well?🤣
@@MyRackley you know, I was trying to formulate a hypothesis, I think the concept of expanding the chord is pretty good if we want to find any difference between one notation and the other.... Anyway if you want me to better understand your point of view, I'm here👍🏻😉
Thank you for providing a very good explanation of context. The voice leading is important if you have a tonal center. Your mastery of harmony continues to amaze me! Thanks for putting up all these useful videos!
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar And likewise, f-a-c the so called "F major triad", has subdominant function in the key of C-major, while it has dominant function in the key of Bb-major, and it has tonic fuction in the key of F-major. Yet i do not expect anyone to "explain" why there should be three different names for one and the same chord.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar Cause: multiple functions for the same set of notes. Effect: multiple names i.e. "chords" reflecting the function of a given set of notes within a certain key. Hope that helps.
Multiple functions is a consequence of these chords being different. Not a cause. Of course it is possible for a chord to have different functions. But here you have two different chords. Hope this helps.
I have a feeling that naming the chord isn't important. The name really doesn't tell me if it is ii chord in minor key with subdominant function or vii chord in major key with dominant function. That's clearly the problem of context, but that's not the reason why I should name the chord differently. I'd rather use m7/b5 symbol in any context simply because it instantly says which tones there are.
Jazz musicians refer to musical “vocabulary”, and just as you describe this chord, there are many spoken words spelled and pronounced the same but have completely different meanings which depend on their placement in a sentence and/or the other words nearby. But the word is spelled the same no matter how it is used. Likewise, same chord different “meaning”.
I think nomenclature can be important to clarify certain distinctions. That's why we have double sharps or flats in certain contexts. I still don't agree with calling a Dm7b5 on a Cm context because the Ab is a diatonic degree, so it's a diminished chord on its nature and not a b5. If it appears on a C context it's obviously a m7b5 chord. By the way, does anyone know what the half refers to on a half-diminished chord? If anything we could call it diminished minor 7. And a °7 would be a diminished major 6 by enharmony (or a diminished diminished 7, if wanted to be more accurate).
Dm7b5 is from jazz notation - take a Dm7 chord, and alter it by flattening the fifth. This is different from roman numeral analysis rules where it would just be ii7 or iio/7. BTW: I'm guess it's half-diminished because fully diminished has d5 and d7, and half-diminished only has d5.
Sorry, but only in this situation you are putting different names for different functions. It doesn’t make sense. They are the same chord. Dm7(b5) can have 2 functions. Simple like that. And the name half diminished comes from the laziness to correctly name the chord from VII.
I disagree. Context matters, and technically speaking you could avoid a confusion by saying the right words. It's a little difference but it is true. For me it feels the same issue as when people use "C" instead of "B#" (in a C# key for example).
Antoine Senecal One thing is when we talk about notes. Of course that, for example, in C sharp, the correct name of the major seven is B#. But once we talk about chords, it’s not possible only in this case we change the name. Another example, C7M when is I of its tune, and the function is tonic, cant be wrote differently of when is IV of G major. It doesn’t make sense
That's what I'm thinkin'. If a C major triad can be the tonic of C, the subdominant of F and the dominant of Bflat, is that same C triad three different chords? Oh, wait, it could also be a flat seven chord in a mixolydian composition. How many possible contexts could any chord have?
I’ve recently noticed that those chords are functioning differently but I couldn’t completely organise my thoughts about it. And now this video shows up just like a miracle. Thank you !
my friend, I love your humour, your channel, and your ethic-minded approach to brilliant clear descriptive renderings of questions ive always wane answers to and even ones i didn't know I didn't understand..... keep going brother loooooove your channel!!!!
Ok. I might sound simplistic, but I do not see any use in this distinction. Sure, it's like saying that in a progression that's only C and Am7 is actually C and C/A. To me I prefer the idea of they being the same chord (since sound-wise they are) and having more than one function (like a lot of chords also do). It seems like a distinction just for the sake of a distinction.
Like the keys of CM and Am they are _enharmonic._ You can take any chord and move the root to any other note in that chord and rename it (the same with scales, this is how we get modes). An Am7 chord can become a CM6 chord, even though they are the same exact notes: Am7 is A, C, E, and G and CM6 is C, E, G, and A. The difference is CM6 is not used in the same way an Am7 is used. As Tommaso demonstrates, it depends on the context what the function of the chord is in a given situation.
Different voicings sound different though e.g. your example Am7 and CM6. But the chords in this video sound exactly the same because they literally are exactly the same, if they are in the same octave of course. A chord is a group of notes, half-diminshed and m7b5 are the same chords.
4 роки тому+2
Not true. Am7 has root note A, Cm6 has C. They are different.
Interesting but the "two" chords are still related diatonically. VII degree (acting as a dominant) in a major key, and than becomes II of the relative minor. Furthermore, there're a lot of examples in classical music where the chord is used as a second degree in a minor key (Mozart's Symphony n°40 or Bach's prelude n°10 from The well tempered clavier). So your distinction between its use in jazz and in classical music at the end doesn't seem accurate to me.
"Statistically speaking" 6:57. Both chords are used in both styles of music, but m7b5 are more common in Jazz and half-dim are more common in classical. "More common" =/= "exclusive". I say as much in the video.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar I missed the "statistically speaking" :) I don't know the stats, but the half-diminished is pretty common in jazz as a dominant function as well.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar YOU are 100% correct- I heard that the 1st time... people have a hard time leaving the terra forma they have held onto from their birth as a musician... and yet we all must leave the womb to LIVE and we all must DIE to truly be born again... so you are 100% correct- the tendency of the THING = the thing... and the exceptions serve to PROVE the rule... besides the ingeniousness of Mozart was TOTALLY his ambiguity making sad have a joyous thread & the joyous touched by pathos... so using him as an example is just totally disingenuous as far as Papa Bach goes well just ask Handle Mozart & Beethoven where THEY LEARNED THEIR MUSIC THEORY... so totally agree with you on this & consider that comment by Modern guitar to be at best- being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse & at worst...well: TROLLLLLLLLL ALERT! But I guess since those are the SAME thing only with different motives intents & manifestations we should not distinguish them- huh- I am sure on that we will ALL agree!!! One final thought is an argument from analogy: In the Law: You walk into a room a dude is standing over the dead body of your GF & he has a knife in his hand... Scenario 1: The dude had walked into the room just before you & discovered a knife in your GF & bent down to see if he could render assistance & when you walked in the room he was startled and stood up thus removing the knife from your GF body- he tells you what happened & tells you to call an ambulance & the police immediately while he continues to try & stop the bleeding... Scenario 2: The dude was in an argument with your GF she had a knife in her hand because she was going to the front foyer to carve a pumpkin for halloween in her anger & frustration she turned away quickly & slipped, fell with the knife penetrating her body... dude was again rendering assistance & being terrified when you walked in as how it looked pulled the knife out of the body & ran out the back door worried you wouldn't understand & believe him & he would get convicted of murdering your GF even though it was totally an accident... Scenario 3: The dude didn't like how your GF was breaking up with him as she was 2 timing behind your back & so he killed your GF in a rage & when you walked in he came at you with the knife to get rid of the witness- you were able to overcome him & call the police to have him arrested... In Scenario 1: 75% of the time the dude will be found innocent & the police will search for the real killer... In Scenario 2: more than 50% of the time dude will get the Death Penalty even though he is totally innocent like the guy above who only gets the Death Penalty despite being totally innocent 25% of the time... In Scenario 3: 99% of the time dude gets the Death Penalty but in 1% of cases he says you killed her & hence YOU get the Death Penalty instead of him because his lawyer is real good & all the evidence of her infidelity is used to paint you as the angry cucked lover who killed her in a rage maybe you have been arrested for domestic violence before [maybe even innocent then too!] & that you overcame him when HE walked in the room & YOU called the police & LIED... So in all 3 scenario's the SAME THING: You walk into a room a dude is standing over the dead body of your GF & he has a knife in his hand... But in all 3 cases what happened BEFORE & AFTER provides you with the TRUTH- a canonical whole... and yet in what scenario is the outcome ABSOLUTE & PRE Determined = NONE AND that IS where the creativity & the real distinction comes in for Classical is performed from an arrangement that is PRE set in advance for the whole orchestra, chamber players, chorus, soloists etc who perform FAITHFULLY whereas Jazz is a free floating form full of improvisation that still requires some set rules type framework to work within yet even so those rules are sometimes broken if a master player can make it all add up... and LIVE the same song is almost never exactly the SAME! This should PROVE to ba an argument from analogy that has 100% fidelity with the concept being taught in the above video... IF anyone still doesn't understand the video & it's 100% ALL CORRECTNESS now... then maybe music mathematics law & anything else that requires a capacity for the sublime, logic & creativity is not for you & you should sell your instrument & become a porn star... anyone- even YOU can master THAT- Modern [aka moronic] Guitar! My NAME is Liam Modern Guitar: YOU can call me SIR! you are welcome! EDIT- PS I am 100% certain that if anyone in this comment section was the dude in the above scenario's or even the guy with the GF in the 1% Scenario #3... all of a sudden like a bolt of lightning striking Paul on the road to Damascus SHAZAM... they understand- like INSTANT SOUP!
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar What is the source for these statistics? In common practice (classical) writing, this chord when built on the 2nd scale degree most often moves to a V chord (i.e. take the m7/b5 function).
Simply a technicality, the half-diminished chord can have different functions according to the key we’re in. Just like any other chord. No need for 2 different names.
MusicTheoryForGuitar of course not, as many concepts in music theory, there are often several ways of analysing, which is the beauty of it! :) Nonetheless, thank you for a nice and clear explanation, as always!
An alteration in chromatic armony where should go?i suppose it resolves a half tone up or down so if its a flat or a sharp give melody a chance to lead chords. Pre built cadence are just like cages
Thank you. I'm wondering, What did you base on the assumption that the half diminished chord derives from the Bb9 and that the diminished 7th chord derives from Bb7b9? Can you add a link to an article or something? Thanks!
Thx for bring this out. In my opinion, one should concern the voice leading not from the name of chord nor classical nor jazz, but it’s functional use in the key. A Dm7b5 can thus be used for modulation.
Man, this is just enlightening. I am an amateur pop songwriter, and in some songs I use the Bm7b5 G7 Cmaj7 progression. It always felt quite not right labelling that chord Bm7b5 since it clearly doesnt have the same feel as usual (say in Bm7b5 E7 Am). I can see it all so clearly now, it was a B half diminished all along !
at first , i was surprised , then after watching the video , it makes sense... furthermore now it is clear to me where the name half-diminished comes from... thank you
I see the the half-diminished seventh chord as having what I call "Dominant Seventh Below" function. For example, in the key of C minor the Fm chord (iv) is the dominant below (subdominant), and being minor, is built from the top down as C-Ab-F. Fm's seventh below is D, and this forms the chord C-Ab-F-D, the half-diminished seventh. This is contrasted with the "Dominant Seventh Above", which would be plain old G7 (V7) in C minor. In any key iv and V are reciprocals about the determinant so the half-diminished seventh chord is the reciprocal, or so-called negative harmony, of the dominant seventh chord. The correct fundamental roots of 4 and 5 are also symmetrical about the generating tone. It's used this way in a lot of cases too, where it may be called the "Money Chord", so what I am talking it's not just a purely theoretical construct. I use the functions a lot in my own music. Thinking this way also opens the door for subdominant leaning major and minor tonality, think "Harmonic Major", rather than the historically dominant leaning modes of western classical music.
You say it's shorthand without demonstrating why. I feel that the video is rightly pointing out that our chord grammar, our musical nomenclature, does have rules and can be accurate or inaccurate (or ambiguous). How we talk to each other about chords is not automatically correct. Musical rules change according to musical context, how the chord is used. Minor chords and diminished chords do not perform the same functions. Therefore they cannot be the same. Its more important to point out that these are not his own private distinctions, but crucially his position is justifiable. Can you justify the position that 7b5 chords are the same as half diminished chords?
@@chinuaford1467 Music rules don't change, we bend them ourselves once we learn the actual rules of the music. But you have to remember music is only a theory so far, with so many that are the same but with different labels for different reasons, for various functions is probably why music will always remain a theory.
Naming/labeling things is the heart of music theory. It helps us to recognize structures and communicate ideas more clearly. I have no problem giving a new name to any structure that functions in an independent way. Common practice music theory is full of renamed structures, including minor/major keys and triad inversions. The precedent is in place to name functions rather than to give only one name to a group of notes. So, if one disagrees with the concept of gregarious naming, they would be in opposition to the approach long since established in western music theory. Also, one of the best parts of being a music theorist is that we get to name things. This often happens years or decades after the music is originally written. Example...Scriabin did not label any Mystic Chords. Music historian A. Hull coined that term 6 years after "Prometheus: the Poem of Fire" debuted. Thank you for the thought provoking content.
I came here a little skeptic but maaaan, this makes so much sense. In school some teachers used to say "Bb7 (or Bb9) with omited generator" and I always thought "Come on, just say m7b5", but now it makes sense. It was just to demonstrate where it came from without actually saying it. Don't know if that makes sense to anyone but it does to me :)
No they weren't. I understadn that there is a simple formula fot this and he made it more complicated than Chinese arithmetic in Norwegian witha thick stutter. I am more confused now than ever.
This is all very fascinating!! However, at the end it is in the application! ! No wonder there is so much confusion between jazz and classical!! 2 different worlds but same results!! Thanks for sharing!! 👍 👍
Hey man, not trying to dispute you or argue, rather I was hoping maybe you could reconcile how it was taught/described to me. I like your explanation with the 9ths being the origin, but that doesn't explain diminished *triads.* How does your take account for them? I was always taught that dim and aug were sort of opposites of each other: an aug was major chord with an augmented fifth and a dim chord was a minor chord with a diminished fifth (hence the names). This made sense to me carrying over to the 7ths as well: the "half dim" reflecting the diminished fifth + dom/minor 7th, and full diminished 7th referring to both a diminished 5th and a diminished 7th. I like what you said, but the way I learned it makes a lot of sense too. I guess the fundamental difference here is that your diminished/ half-dim 7ths are incomplete 9ths whereas my dim / half-dim 7ths are minor chords at the core with added diminished intervals.
Ironic I always recognized half diminished as rising by half step to tonic by means of dominant harmony, and recognized the m7b5 as a chromatic alteration of a minor chord that would resolve as an imperfect cadence in any harmonic resolution whether by 5th or other chordal movement, I never recommended my students to have a distinction. Yes it is enharmonic but only one exists naturally in a key center. Sensible and effective. Whether someone wants to argue about modal substitution or chromatic alteration, the fewer steps to identify harmonic movement and note choices the better, this really is a more clear path. Even if there are examples of a ii minor being altered in baroque harmony it is more common to be used as a half diminished modulation to a new key a half step above in classical harmony, and less likely to be a chromatic substitution in a more static chord movement in jazz standards. People will still argue and dislike the channel, but this should be easier to understand and recognize while reading notation or tab. So give the man his due!
harmonization of major scale : m7b5 is on step VII leading to I , harmonization of minor m7b5 is on II leading to I through a Dom V chord . Both resolve different . in major as true dominant substitute, in minor it resolves to secondary dominant leading to I. Did I get it? don´t know.
I have studied in 2 different jazz schools, in both teachers used to call that chord "half diminished" (for any context). The explanation of the two mains contexts of this chord is great ! To me that chord has two names, and two mains tonal contexts (among others), but those names are not specifically related to those context, and the "jazz vs classical" spelling don't stand (in my own experience of course).
Great video! I really appreciate your more in-depth explanation of issues like these. At 5:14 you said “B7 with a b9”. I think you meant Bb7 with a b9. Could the small circle symbol, (o), used to designate diminished, also possibly originate from being a figured bass number, with (o) referring to the root and therefore (o) with the line crossed through it meaning no root?
the little circle is a zero (yes, it's figured bass), and it's meant to indicate "no root". The diminished chord was conceptualized as "dominant b9 with no root". The circle with the line is a later notation (20th century as far as I know) to indicate 'half diminished' (the line meant to 'divide in two' the symbol)
Thanks for your response! I enjoy investigating these mostly overlooked issues. The min7 is halfway between the maj7 and bb7. I’ve also noticed that the forward slash through numerals in figured bass means to lower the pitch by a semi-tone. I’m fascinated with how in depth figured bass actually is as it shows up in sheet music from the Baroque period .
Mmmh, the slash (IIRC) indicates when a note is raised, not lowered. Or at least that's the way I remember it being used in Bach's book (CPE, not JS). I may be wrong though.
I like the approach... The only thing is that the vii degree of the major (or ii degree of minor) where the m7b5 stems from is a diminished triad so to say it doesn't come from a diminished chord doesn't sit. As mentioned by someone else the the m7b5 has a sub Dom function whereas half dim has a Dom function. That would mean (generally) in a minor setting you're using a m7b5 whereas in a major key you're using a half diminished?
You could say that the words minute and minute are the same because they have the same letters, but one means 60 seconds and the other means very small. It's all in the context of the sentence in which they are used for the meaning to come out.
A very interesting distinction, which I had never considered. There is one other way of naming that chord: m6. An Fm6 is exactly the same notes. Do you treat it differently? For many years, I worked as an arranger for church musicians, including guitarists. I found that when they encountered a chord symbol they didn’t understand, they simply ignored the confusing part of it. If they saw a D dim, they would play a D dim7, which of course would clash. Or if they saw Dm7b5, they would play a Dm, which would also clash. But if they saw Fm6, they would play Fm, which, although not the complete chord, would not clash. Therefore, the minor 6 became my naming choice in that circumstance. And these musicians, being opposed to reading music in the first place, most certainly were not open to theoretical explanations.
Yes it's a different chord in principle. What you report about readers is common - and also part of the reason why a lot of people (especially in jazz) do not know about this distinction. If I were to chart music for other guitar players, I would do the same.
I'm not sure I will ever get to a level of playing where I will actually use any of this stuff but I love watching your videos for the sheer beauty of the theory. Great work, man. Thank you so much.
Don't sell yourself short - once you strip out all the funny names, music theory is not so hard. Have a look at this so you can start to use a few of these chords: ua-cam.com/video/zetUCdduqQY/v-deo.html
@fivetimesyo : It's easy to become overwhelmed if you try to digest too much all at once. Take your time and find something that you feel you are close to grasping, then focus on fully grasping that concept before moving on. The fun is in the journey of learning new things. No need to get bogged down in what you don't know yet. We all go at a different pace, and learn things better in slightly different ways. It's an adventure, have fun with it. ^-^
@MusicTheoryForGuitar : The very first thing I learned in music theory class were tetra chords. Then I was taught that 2 tetra chords = one scale. So I immediately stripped out the funny name "tetra chord". But it's still there in my memory and has even served a function once or twice. I also learned all 7 positions of the Major scale, and played them so much by themselves, using the root note that happened to be on the low E string, that I learned the sound of the modes before learning that they were actually modes. Basically stripping out the modes funny names unintentionally.
Context is key. With the guitar being a "shape-based" instrument, it is easy to simply associate a chord shape with its common name and just run with it. I experienced this a couple years ago when I had to play a particular voicing of an add 2 chord where the 2nd was in the bass. At first I thought ot was just a dominant 9th sus 4; but given the particular context, that shape did not function as a suspended dominant chord.
So you say in the beginning Dm7b5 is not DØ- and then you put other root notes to it. So it can be Bb7, Fm6, E7#5b9. But to say it´s not the same Chord- isn´it that a little bit as if i would say C major isn´t C major? because if i put an A in the root, it´s Am6, or if i put an D in the root it´s D7/9sus and so on? A little like "Bread ist not Bread! - because if i put cheese on the bread, then its a sandwich.
Really interesting. So many times I have encountered people insisting that inversions of different chords with the same notes(but different root notes), are the same chord. Like the example given by @Aylbdr Madison in the comments about Cmaj6 and Amin7, they function differently, despite having the same notes. You have expanded that idea to show how chords with the same notes AND the same root note function differently. Keeping this in mind, how would you go about naming the chord with notes C Eb G#? While people do mention that it is simply an inversion of Ab major, and I agree that C Augmented Minor is wrong, as it implies a major third, I am not sold on it simply being called Ab Major. If I play it as a chromatic alteration to Cminor, when it is the I chord (Gm -> Cm -> Cm#5 -> Cm). I think it should have a name with C at the root right?
Ok so if I got this right, then the Ab tone in the half-diminished D chord is diatonic to the scale (of, e.g., Eb major in your example), whereas the Ab tone in the Dm7/b5 chord is not (as in your example we would be in C major). Correct?
@@musicmuncher6689 yeah of course. I think we can see the main difference between these two chords when we expand them. While the m7b5 should maintain regular intervals as second grade of the major scale(except for the 5th, which of course we altered), the half-diminished should maintain the classic "locrian-sounding" intervals. Therefore I would expect the m7b5 to have a major 2 as an expansion, while I think the half-diminished should have a minor 2, following the intervals of a locrian scale. (I took the second as an example, but it is also the case with the 4th and 6th) m7b5: R-2-b3-4-b5-6-b7 h.dim.:R-b2-b3-b4-b5-b6-b7 Did I explain myself well?🤣
Actually I tend to use the diminished chord in jazz a bit as tritone substitution, so a 251 that isn’t Dm7, G7 C but Dm7, Db0,C . I’ve seen that quite a bit in John Mehegans books from the 60s. It voice leads a bit easier.
It also makes a great substitution chord for a F minor: C, F, F-, C can become C, F, D-7b5, C. Here again the D-7b5, in really, is a G7b9 (the Dom 7th in the key of C)
Well, if you meant the 3rd inversion of Dm6... it's still a different chord. Dm6 is a stable chord with an added dissonance. The m6 chord also tend to function as a tonic chord (in context).
I love your videos and always either learn something or have parts of my own knowledge reaffirmed. I view you as a master of the material that you present. So please understand I don't disagree with you on the theory or your presentation of it. However, sometimes in practical application, whether performing these chords in someone else's charts or writing with them in my own, I have had to learn to think of these chord names as synonyms to either play the correct chord pitches expected of me or to have others play the correct chord pitches I have written, even if the naming convention is incorrect. I long ago found this necessary because there are so many chord types and naming conventions, along with multiple ways to write symbols for those chords that my brain just needed simplification to be able to ”grab” the correct group of pitches at the right time during performance. That was the only way I was able to carry out my job playing guitar on big band jazz charts, with the thousands of chord and voicing choices. My brain just seems to remember certain types of naming convention over others. Even if, theoretically, the naming I sometimes use is incorrect, my ears are just as happy to hear the correct pitches. Thanks for your knowledge and hard work!
Good information, thanks. Although I personally I do prefer the Barry Harris/ Pat Martino perspectives that the Dominant chords come from the Diminished chord and not the other way around.
I see an analogy to something simpler than chords, namely that of enharmonic notes. C♯ and D♭are the same pitch (in the equal-tempered system), but they are derived in two different ways (from the notes C and D).
Dm7b5 moves to G7b9 then to Cmaj7 or Cm. The indicator notes being the movement of the 7th in the first to the 3rd in the second, remaining static for the final Cmaj7. You can explore the harmonic characteristics of the Cm as follows: C, D, Eb, F, G, A, B and C again. This is interesting in that it is a combination of the minor and whole tone scale!
In classical music, the half diminished chord was hardly ever used after the end of the baroque era....I think. What you do see a lot, in XVth to XVIIth century music, is the diminished triad, most often in the first inversion (D F B, in C major or minor). Conversely, the m7b5 (II degree in minor), is pretty typical of romantic music, as it is in jazz. As you're suggesting, context makes it all.To my ears, in context, those 2 chords sound very different. Which goes to show that, as often, theory is not purely intellectual: it reflects what the listener feels at the psycho-sensorial level.
Never thought about that so a cool perspective and it probably checks out. There wasn't much specific mention in my uni degree between the classical department which taught us theory, sightsinging and SATB voice leading rules etc and the contemporary Dept that taught jazz amongst other things about this nomenclature. I do remember being taught by the classical Dept iiø as a nat and harm minor not iim7b5, for what it's worth. Music (like all) language is an evolving index to aural ideas and the language may have been modernised so I'm not suggesting they were or weren't correct, just saying that's how we were taught in uni. Just offering a take on the discussion and probably won't read any replies - I'm lazy like that. This reminds me of the argument of IV7b5 from the Lydian dominant (Mel min). The argument that is should be spelt as a #4 not a b5 which implies the Alt scale VII7b5 from Mel min. If the alt scale degrees 1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 why do we call the chord built from it a VII7#5 or 7#9 should be VII7(b3) and the like..? I'm not actually disagreeing with half diminished implying the harmonic function of viiø to I resolution. But I think of the in my playing m7b5 is the quality of the chord spelt out in chord symbols and half dim implies the harmonic function. So combining the ideas, a m7b5 is just the spelling of the chord and context can be derived from the surrounding chords/cadence and ø implies the m7b5 has the specific vii - I harmonic function. So m7b5 might or might not be a ø depending on context and can be used all the time with or without harmonic implications as it is just a chord spelling but ø is a m7b5 spelling with a specific harmonic function implied. It explains why a lot of my teachers in jazz prefered the m7b5 spelling to ø because it is more ambiguous.. maybe.
I’ve got a claw hammer, most people just call it a hammer, it can pull out nails or bash them in depending on which way you hold it. It really doesn’t matter which term you use when asking me to pass it, I’ll pick up the same object and pass it to you. You will then be able to use it to bang in a nail or claw one out.
If you have only 12 notes, the situation is the same as equal temperament. If you have enough more notes available, then the notes in these chords are actually different in pitch.
Great video! When I started learning music theory, I looked up on google for instructions on how harmonize the C scale, but the vii chord was always shown as a diminished chord instead of a half diminished. Do you know the reason why? And also when they add the 7th note, they name the chord not as half dim but as b57
If it was harmonic minor, the 7th would be full diminished. So it's likely they skipped a step in the process without explaining that they raise the 7th in the minor scale in order to facilitate harmonic transition (chord changes; it turns the 5th into a dominant that resolves to the i). If that was a C scale, however, rather than Cm, then ... wrong. The 7th in a major key is half-dim, which is why I disagree, tentatively, with the ii in a minor key being a m7b5. Same with the origin of half-dim being dom 9th. Its origin is the 7th of a major scale, which came many years before people were playing 9ths, at least so far as I understand the history.
Isn't this just like saying C major is a IV in G and a V in F ? I mean at this point the naming thing is just part of the jumbled up history of theory .
Monk was thinking about this chord as a Fm6 as all the swing era before him. Jazz started to call it D half-diminished under the influence of be-bop guys studying classical music.
Interesting. Jazz great Johnny Smith raises this exact point on page 7 in his book "Johnny Smith's Approach to Guitar" (first published in 1980)... practically the first thing in the book! Johnny thought it was so important to make this distinction that he starts his whole method with it. Of course, Smith also insisted that guitar notation should be written in standard pitch and use treble and bass staves like the piano. Neither idea is likely to really become the norm. I think it's an excellent idea to be aware of these distinctions, but still ... using different names for the same set of notes in the same voicing will remain an academic matter and not a practical one. On the same hand, we don't find it practical to use different names for a ii-7 or a iii-7 in every day practice. In the key of C major we just say "D minor7" ... "E minor7" ... should we call the D-7 a "Supertonic minor7" and the E-7 a "Mediant minor7" ? ... Should we then change their names if we play them in a minor key? But certainly ... thank you for examining this issue and providing such a detailed and well thought out thesis.
Hi, I know your course is not a book but do you have a book that has the type of information you give in your videos? I really like your presentation and content. I'm a bass player/composer and use a six string bass. Thanks
Sorry, I don't. There is a reason why I decided on a video course - it's because I can teach and explain in a better way on video than through a book. BTW, I have a few 6-string bass players among my students, and once I taught a person with a monster 8-string bass - that was fun!
A minor chord can function as the I, II, III, IV, V, or VI in a chord progression. So with this way of thinking, shouldn't the minor chord have like 6 different names, one for each function?
Connecting this difference with the subdominant and dominant function of the chords it is completely wrong. Dominant chord can have also a subdominant function, and a full diminished chord also can have subdominant funcion. It dosent goes this way.
I understand why I’d use the altered minor (dm7b5) to do a ii-V type motion. But why would I use an incomplete dominant (d half-diminished) instead of just saying Bb9-Eb? Looks to me in this situation like basically d half diminished-Eb is to paint a c minor tonality by saying ii-III instead of choosing to tonicize Eb by saying V-I? Does anybody understand what I’m saying? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills over here!
Or is it simpler to say that when it’s in the ii position it’s an altered minor (m7b5) and when it’s in the vii position it’s an incomplete dominant (half-dim7)? Is that the same thing I just said and is it a reasonable way to comprehend this?
Can a m7b5 resolve up a half step? For that matter, do we name any other chords based on the direction they resolve? I've barely touched diminished chords so I admit my knowledge is a bit lacking here.
Yes, we name other chords differently. For instance German Augmented 6th chords are enharmonic to a dominant 7, but we call them differently because they resolve differently. And we decide what is the root of a diminished 7th chord based on what chord they resolve to.
New subscriber here, and i must say I love the channel! Now, isn't this the situation with the multiple possible names for altered chords in general, and isn't the best possible name the one that expresses the correct musical context of the chord?
LOL, so in one chord progression it's half-diminished and in a different one it is m7b5. I wonder how many chords can dance on the head of that pin? If I'm playing a jazz tune like Blue Bossa, do I use the m7b5 or the half-diminished? Don't want to use the wrong one...
I've always thought of m7b5 as ii of the minor key and half diminished as the chord built on the seventh degree of major. It may have been worth noting that the half diminished is the 7th chord found in the major key.
5:21 “Cb if you want enharmonic…” If you WANT?! But what if I WANT to call the whole chord… I’m sorry… I really do get the point of this video. I just found this little detail amusing.
![How To Write Chord Progressions With NEGATIVE HARMONY [Simple Explanation]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qHH8siNm3ts/mqdefault.jpg)
![Changing KEY With Diminished Chords Made Easy [Music Theory]](/img/n.gif)
I travelled from Manchester to meet a friend in London.
He travelled from Paris to a destination he insisted on calling Londres.
“That’s OK”, I said. “Two different names for the same city.”
He shook his head sadly. “No. We started in different places and will return to different places. Therefore we are not now in the same city”
In the confusion thus created he left and I picked up the tab.
Johnny Cameo ....this is the most elegant , literary and erudite UA-cam comment ever....I'm sure you've read Italo Calvinos Invisible Cities. Kudos !
...who in the world are you? ....I think I can take an intelligent guess....
you say tomato, i say tomato, and the guy with a gun says tomato
One, no one & 100,000
People can be difficult!
I think the most important question here would be whether people actually use these terms this way. Because I have never heard of anyone making this distinction, and I haven't seen people using the m7b5 and half-diminished symbols in different ways - often people choose one or the other and use it for all chords of the same type, a bit like people either choose "maj7" or the triangle symbol. In the end, both "half-diminished" and "m7b5" are just two easier ways of referring to the chord that is actually called "diminished-minor 7th", similarly as full-diminished would be "diminished-diminished 7th" and dominant 7th would be "major-minor 7th". These are simply terms that people have come up with to make the 7th chord naming a bit simpler. It's easier to say (and distinguish between) "dominant", "major 7th" and "minor 7th" than "major-minor 7th", "major-major 7th" and "minor-minor 7th".
My point here is that these are just "spoken language" terms that have become somewhat standardized. They aren't really formal terms. I know that a counter argument to my post could be that "but those people are using the terms incorrectly", but I disagree - these labels aren't "formal" and they aren't 100% standardized either. We are basically talking about the "spoken language" of musicians.
Both of these chords - the vii in major key and the ii in minor key - are derived from the same degrees of the diatonic scale. These are the scale degrees 7 2 4 6 of the major scale and the scale degrees 2 4 (b)6 1 of the minor scale (for example notes B D F A in C major and A minor). It is exactly the same chord and has the same origin.
Also, the use of half-diminished chords predates dominant 9th chords - they can't be derived from dominant 9th chords, because half-diminished chords were used before dominant 9th chords were a thing. It's simply the diatonic VII chord in the major key. Similarly, the IIm7b5 isn't actually derived by lowering the 5th of a normal IIm7 chord. It's simply the diatonic II chord in the minor key.
I think all of this stems from the common misunderstanding that "diminished" always means "substitute for dominant". That's not the only use for diminished chords. Classical musicians have been using the diminished triad as the ii chord in a minor key for ages (and in classical music, this is pretty much as common as using the diminished chord as the vii chord). And if you look at full-diminished chords, their only function isn't a "rootless substitute for 7b9" - you have common-tone diminished chords and chromatic passing diminished chords, and they are all full-diminished chords, even though they are functioning in completely different ways.
Actually, if you look at classical music, the half-diminished chord is much more likely to be used as a ii chord than as a vii chord. Going vii half-diminished I is fairly rare. Going ii half-diminished V is done all the time. The ii chord is often simply inverted (1st inversion is most common, 2nd inversion is fairly common). The third inversion is used over tonic pedal points where you usually alternate between the i and ii chords over 1st scale degree in bass.
Even in major keys, the most common use of the vii half diminished chord is to continue to the chord a fifth below. It's mostly used in sequences - IV vii iii vi ii V I (and yes, even in classical music all of these chords may be 7th chords, except maybe for the I in the end). The full sequence is rarer in major keys, though - it's much more common in minor keys.
I do understand where the name of m7b5 comes from, though - jazz musicians probably started using the term because IIm7b5 V7 I and IIm7 V7 I are so similar.
But just because the chord has two (or more) different uses doesn't mean we should name it in a different way based on that use. Chord symbols aren't functional symbols. They simply tell you what notes to play. We don't do this with any other chord. We don't use a different symbol for tritone subs or backdoor dominants, or non-functional dominants, even though those chords are used way differently than regular dominant 7th chords (and we need to remember that the term "dominant" comes from the fact that it's built on the dominant - the 5th degree of the scale). And similarly, diminished 7th chords that have different functions don't have different names either. If we don't do it with any other chord, why should we do it with half-diminished chords?
Actually, jazz chord symbols often have incorrect enharmonics any way (which BTW I don't have a problem with - often these "incorrect enharmonics" are used to make the chord symbols easier to read), so I really don't see why there would need to be a distinction between the same chord that functions in a different way. Functional analysis is better done with roman numerals than chord symbols. Chord symbols are simply a shorthand that makes communicating collections of notes much faster than having to write all of the notes out on sheet music.
I agree 100% with you on this. Maybe even the guy who made the video would agree after reading your comment, but well, all the issue itself is just a matter of definition, and it honestly don’t matter that much.
100% accurate response to the video. I agree in total
@Beni Flores Care to elaborate?
Because some things I said are simply facts.
Some other things (like whether musicians actually make some kind of a distinction between m7b5 and half-diminished) are more about opinions.
But I have never heard of anyone making a distinction between the two chords before. And also, since both chords (the ii and vii half-diminished) use the same diatonic degrees (which would be Ti Re Fa La in Do-based major/La-based minor), I don't see why they should be called different chords.
Excellent reply. My fellow jazz musicians use both terms. And when we write the chord symbol, it's almost always the ø, not the longer m7b5.
You have saved my work to reply and I couldn't have done better, really. Thank you.
I love how he always talks like he was just beginner so he can interact with most of us, while it's actually a deep talk.
This all fell into place when you showed how the resolutions worked in jazz as opposed to classical. Good thinking.
I thought the same thing. In Classical music, it looks like the main use of the half-diminished chord is used with a root of the seventh step of the Ionian or major scale. In jazz, key is very relative and chords, a lot of the time, resolve up a fourth.
@@lordofthemound3890 in jazz you will also commonly see dominant 7 chords being substituted for m7b5 chords starting on the 3rd note of the dominant chord (ex. Bm7b5 substituted for G7 giving a G9 sound and also resolving up a half step to C)
So the half diminished idea is quite common in jazz as well
It's a bit like some words are spelled exactly the same but have completly different meaning and are used in completly different contexts and someone says "But it's the same word!"... no it's not.
that's a great example !
I sense that this makes sense.
1. Classical music also usually uses diminished chords in first inversion in order to avoid the tritone they put above the bass in “root” position so VII° looks like it is supposed to be a substitution for IIm, which is another premise for resolving it by step.
2. So you can ostensibly resolve IIm7b5 down a minor third to avoid playing a major third above the bass in a minor key, e. g. Dm7b5 Bø~B°7 Cm? Or resolve bVII9 down a minor third to avoid playing a minor third above the bass in a major key, e. g. Bb9 G7 C?
As a classical musician i tend to treat them as different functions of the same half-diminished chord, because the first example C minor is the relative minor of the second example Eb major, and they share the chord of Dø7 (or Dm7b5)
That is simply using a different name for the same notes in a chord.
Finally learning this -- wonderful explanation. I'm having more trouble getting to the min7(b5) than resolving from it, particularly coming from the IV when I'm substituting min7(b5) for the ii.
Thanks for the great education!
I get your point but both names are used interchanged all the time... If you look at Berklee books they teach the seventh grade of the major scale as a -7b5 and this one resolves up by a semitone, I don't think those guys are wrong, it's just two ways of calling the same thing, I think the title of this vídeo could have been "The two functions and names of the same chord"... In fact I believe that actually speaking the name -7b5 is nonsense because if a minor chord has a flat 5 then it's no longer a minor chord, since a minor chord is Root, b3, P5, if You don't have a perfect fifth then it's no longer a minor chord strictly speaking but it's just one of those things people Say to communicate and I believe that in the jazz context they came with that name as an easy way to explain someone how to play a half-diminished chord easily, like they said to a pianist "Play a minor 7 chord, now lower the 5th a semitone" and that was easier than saying "Play a half-diminished chord" or explaining to that person the intervalic structure of the chord 🤣🤣😅🤷🏻♂️🤭
Yes, I totally agree. No classically trained musician would say that the m7b5 chord is actually a minor chord (not saying that being classically trained makes you superior or anything like that, but traditional jazz harmony has its origins in classical harmony, and that's also where the use of the half-diminished chord as the ii chord comes from - in a minor key, the ii chord is diminished, and in classical, it is used all the time as a pre-dominant chord). People would call it a diminished chord with a minor 7th.
I'm pretty sure people came up with the m7b5 label because they didn't have a formal training in music (and didn't know what it was "officially" called), so they simply called it "m7b5" because it's mostly used in the same way as regular m7 chords. That's how they were thinking about the chord. But yes, it is definitely a diminished chord with a minor 7th, not a "minor chord with a lowered 5th". It is based on the diminished triad and has an added 7th. It's not an "altered minor chord".
And I think the important question here is whether this is actually a distinction that anyone makes in real life (I mean, neither of the terms are formal labels for the chord - the formal way of referring to the chord would be "diminished-minor 7th", and both half-dim and m7b5 are just "spoken language" terms, although they are fairly standardized). I haven't really seen people use both m7b5 and half-diminished symbols in the same piece - people choose one or the other, a bit like they choose "maj7" or the triangle symbol for major 7th chords. We really don't label chords based on their function. For example any major-minor 7th chord is called "dominant 7th", even if it doesn't actually have a dominant function. Chord symbols are just a shorthand (and are in a way comparable with tabs). Roman numerals and sheet music are better for functional analysis.
-7b5 tend to be viewed as minor because of the first interval, just as augmented chords are altered dominants and are viewed as major chords, despite having a sharp fifth.
@@YnnonTal and augmented chord with maj7 is viewed as a dominant? Sure I've heard of maj7 substituting a dom but never assumed this was the standard way to look at that
@@clustercrash2995 things get more complicated there, Aug7 chords are technically non-dominant because they don't usually resolve to the I. I only know this superficially, but I do know, and usually play, augmented chords as major triads with a sharp 5th, which can at times be used as a dominant chord in a progression. That's about the extent of my knowledge on this subject though.
Classical theorist here. There is no truth to the claim (around 06:50) that this chord is more often used as a dominant (called "half diminished" here) than as a subdominant ("m7b5") in classical music. In classical music, just like in jazz, this chord is far more common on the IInd degree than it is on the VIIth. Just pick up any classical piece written in a minor key and you will see the chord all over the place on II. If, on the other hand, you pick up a classical piece in a major key, you are going to be hard pressed finding the chord used on VII anywhere at all.
Ciao Tommaso! I think we can see the main difference between these two chords when we expand them. While the m7b5 should maintain regular intervals as second grade of the major scale(except for the 5th, which of course we altered), the half-diminished should maintain the classic "locrian-sounding" intervals.
Therefore I would expect the m7b5 to have a major 2 as an expansion, while I think the half-diminished should have a minor 2, following the intervals of a locrian scale.
(I took the 2nd as an example, but it's also the case with the 4th and 6th)
m7b5: R-2-b3-4-b5-6-b7
h.dim.:R-b2-b3-b4-b5-b6-b7
Did I explain myself well?🤣
@@MyRackley you know, I was trying to formulate a hypothesis, I think the concept of expanding the chord is pretty good if we want to find any difference between one notation and the other.... Anyway if you want me to better understand your point of view, I'm here👍🏻😉
Thank you for providing a very good explanation of context. The voice leading is important if you have a tonal center. Your mastery of harmony continues to amaze me! Thanks for putting up all these useful videos!
So does m7b5 have subdominant function and half diminished 7th have dominant function?
Yes.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar And likewise, f-a-c the so called "F major triad", has subdominant function in the key of C-major, while it has dominant function in the key of Bb-major, and it has tonic fuction in the key of F-major. Yet i do not expect anyone to "explain" why there should be three different names for one and the same chord.
@@ooqbar You are confusing cause and effect here.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar Cause: multiple functions for the same set of notes. Effect: multiple names i.e. "chords" reflecting the function of a given set of notes within a certain key. Hope that helps.
Multiple functions is a consequence of these chords being different. Not a cause. Of course it is possible for a chord to have different functions. But here you have two different chords. Hope this helps.
I have a feeling that naming the chord isn't important. The name really doesn't tell me if it is ii chord in minor key with subdominant function or vii chord in major key with dominant function. That's clearly the problem of context, but that's not the reason why I should name the chord differently. I'd rather use m7/b5 symbol in any context simply because it instantly says which tones there are.
... the name tells you exactly that. It's in the video.
Jazz musicians refer to musical “vocabulary”, and just as you describe this chord, there are many spoken words spelled and pronounced the same but have completely different meanings which depend on their placement in a sentence and/or the other words nearby. But the word is spelled the same no matter how it is used. Likewise, same chord different “meaning”.
I think nomenclature can be important to clarify certain distinctions. That's why we have double sharps or flats in certain contexts. I still don't agree with calling a Dm7b5 on a Cm context because the Ab is a diatonic degree, so it's a diminished chord on its nature and not a b5. If it appears on a C context it's obviously a m7b5 chord. By the way, does anyone know what the half refers to on a half-diminished chord? If anything we could call it diminished minor 7. And a °7 would be a diminished major 6 by enharmony (or a diminished diminished 7, if wanted to be more accurate).
Dm7b5 is from jazz notation - take a Dm7 chord, and alter it by flattening the fifth. This is different from roman numeral analysis rules where it would just be ii7 or iio/7.
BTW: I'm guess it's half-diminished because fully diminished has d5 and d7, and half-diminished only has d5.
Sorry, but only in this situation you are putting different names for different functions. It doesn’t make sense. They are the same chord. Dm7(b5) can have 2 functions. Simple like that. And the name half diminished comes from the laziness to correctly name the chord from VII.
I disagree. Context matters, and technically speaking you could avoid a confusion by saying the right words. It's a little difference but it is true. For me it feels the same issue as when people use "C" instead of "B#" (in a C# key for example).
Antoine Senecal One thing is when we talk about notes. Of course that, for example, in C sharp, the correct name of the major seven is B#. But once we talk about chords, it’s not possible only in this case we change the name. Another example, C7M when is I of its tune, and the function is tonic, cant be wrote differently of when is IV of G major. It doesn’t make sense
Totally agree. I'm from Sweden, and here, there is no such thing as "half diminished". It's m7b5.
❤
That's what I'm thinkin'.
If a C major triad can be the tonic of C, the subdominant of F and the dominant of Bflat, is that same C triad three different chords?
Oh, wait, it could also be a flat seven chord in a mixolydian composition.
How many possible contexts could any chord have?
I am just learning m7b5 shapes this week and came across this question myself. What a timely video! Thanks!
I’ve recently noticed that those chords are functioning differently but I couldn’t completely organise my thoughts about it. And now this video shows up just like a miracle. Thank you !
my friend, I love your humour, your channel, and your ethic-minded approach to brilliant clear descriptive renderings of questions ive always wane answers to and even ones i didn't know I didn't understand..... keep going brother loooooove your channel!!!!
Excellent, thank you! Context & intent are everything and this proves it.
Ok. I might sound simplistic, but I do not see any use in this distinction. Sure, it's like saying that in a progression that's only C and Am7 is actually C and C/A. To me I prefer the idea of they being the same chord (since sound-wise they are) and having more than one function (like a lot of chords also do). It seems like a distinction just for the sake of a distinction.
Like the keys of CM and Am they are _enharmonic._ You can take any chord and move the root to any other note in that chord and rename it (the same with scales, this is how we get modes). An Am7 chord can become a CM6 chord, even though they are the same exact notes: Am7 is A, C, E, and G and CM6 is C, E, G, and A. The difference is CM6 is not used in the same way an Am7 is used. As Tommaso demonstrates, it depends on the context what the function of the chord is in a given situation.
Different voicings sound different though e.g. your example Am7 and CM6. But the chords in this video sound exactly the same because they literally are exactly the same, if they are in the same octave of course. A chord is a group of notes, half-diminshed and m7b5 are the same chords.
Not true. Am7 has root note A, Cm6 has C. They are different.
Interesting but the "two" chords are still related diatonically. VII degree (acting as a dominant) in a major key, and than becomes II of the relative minor. Furthermore, there're a lot of examples in classical music where the chord is used as a second degree in a minor key (Mozart's Symphony n°40 or Bach's prelude n°10 from The well tempered clavier). So your distinction between its use in jazz and in classical music at the end doesn't seem accurate to me.
"Statistically speaking" 6:57. Both chords are used in both styles of music, but m7b5 are more common in Jazz and half-dim are more common in classical. "More common" =/= "exclusive". I say as much in the video.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar I missed the "statistically speaking" :) I don't know the stats, but the half-diminished is pretty common in jazz as a dominant function as well.
i like to defeat theory by doing the opposite
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar YOU are 100% correct- I heard that the 1st time... people have a hard time leaving the terra forma they have held onto from their birth as a musician... and yet we all must leave the womb to LIVE and we all must DIE to truly be born again... so you are 100% correct- the tendency of the THING = the thing... and the exceptions serve to PROVE the rule... besides the ingeniousness of Mozart was TOTALLY his ambiguity making sad have a joyous thread & the joyous touched by pathos... so using him as an example is just totally disingenuous as far as Papa Bach goes well just ask Handle Mozart & Beethoven where THEY LEARNED THEIR MUSIC THEORY... so totally agree with you on this & consider that comment by Modern guitar to be at best- being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse & at worst...well: TROLLLLLLLLL ALERT!
But I guess since those are the SAME thing only with different motives intents & manifestations we should not distinguish them- huh- I am sure on that we will ALL agree!!! One final thought is an argument from analogy:
In the Law:
You walk into a room a dude is standing over the dead body of your GF & he has a knife in his hand...
Scenario 1: The dude had walked into the room just before you & discovered a knife in your GF & bent down to see if he could render assistance & when you walked in the room he was startled and stood up thus removing the knife from your GF body- he tells you what happened & tells you to call an ambulance & the police immediately while he continues to try & stop the bleeding...
Scenario 2: The dude was in an argument with your GF she had a knife in her hand because she was going to the front foyer to carve a pumpkin for halloween in her anger & frustration she turned away quickly & slipped, fell with the knife penetrating her body... dude was again rendering assistance & being terrified when you walked in as how it looked pulled the knife out of the body & ran out the back door worried you wouldn't understand & believe him & he would get convicted of murdering your GF even though it was totally an accident...
Scenario 3: The dude didn't like how your GF was breaking up with him as she was 2 timing behind your back & so he killed your GF in a rage & when you walked in he came at you with the knife to get rid of the witness- you were able to overcome him & call the police to have him arrested...
In Scenario 1: 75% of the time the dude will be found innocent & the police will search for the real killer...
In Scenario 2: more than 50% of the time dude will get the Death Penalty even though he is totally innocent like the guy above who only gets the Death Penalty despite being totally innocent 25% of the time...
In Scenario 3: 99% of the time dude gets the Death Penalty but in 1% of cases he says you killed her & hence YOU get the Death Penalty instead of him because his lawyer is real good & all the evidence of her infidelity is used to paint you as the angry cucked lover who killed her in a rage maybe you have been arrested for domestic violence before [maybe even innocent then too!] & that you overcame him when HE walked in the room & YOU called the police & LIED...
So in all 3 scenario's the SAME THING: You walk into a room a dude is standing over the dead body of your GF & he has a knife in his hand...
But in all 3 cases what happened BEFORE & AFTER provides you with the TRUTH- a canonical whole... and yet in what scenario is the outcome ABSOLUTE & PRE Determined = NONE
AND that IS where the creativity & the real distinction comes in for Classical is performed from an arrangement that is PRE set in advance for the whole orchestra, chamber players, chorus, soloists etc who perform FAITHFULLY whereas Jazz is a free floating form full of improvisation that still requires some set rules type framework to work within yet even so those rules are sometimes broken if a master player can make it all add up... and LIVE the same song is almost never exactly the SAME!
This should PROVE to ba an argument from analogy that has 100% fidelity with the concept being taught in the above video...
IF anyone still doesn't understand the video & it's 100% ALL CORRECTNESS now... then maybe music mathematics law & anything else that requires a capacity for the sublime, logic & creativity is not for you & you should sell your instrument & become a porn star... anyone- even YOU can master THAT- Modern [aka moronic] Guitar!
My NAME is Liam
Modern Guitar: YOU can call me SIR!
you are welcome!
EDIT- PS I am 100% certain that if anyone in this comment section was the dude in the above scenario's or even the guy with the GF in the 1% Scenario #3... all of a sudden like a bolt of lightning striking Paul on the road to Damascus SHAZAM... they understand- like INSTANT SOUP!
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar What is the source for these statistics? In common practice (classical) writing, this chord when built on the 2nd scale degree most often moves to a V chord (i.e. take the m7/b5 function).
Simply a technicality, the half-diminished chord can have different functions according to the key we’re in. Just like any other chord. No need for 2 different names.
I didn't invent either the names or the distinction.
MusicTheoryForGuitar of course not, as many concepts in music theory, there are often several ways of analysing, which is the beauty of it! :) Nonetheless, thank you for a nice and clear explanation, as always!
An alteration in chromatic armony where should go?i suppose it resolves a half tone up or down so if its a flat or a sharp give melody a chance to lead chords. Pre built cadence are just like cages
@Luís Mota : A technicality often serves a function.
Aylbdr Madison not in this case. Whether calling it m7b5 or half-dim has no relevance to the function of the chord. The names are interchangeable.
Thank you.
I'm wondering,
What did you base on the assumption that the half diminished chord derives from the Bb9 and that the diminished 7th chord derives from Bb7b9?
Can you add a link to an article or something?
Thanks!
Thx for bring this out. In my opinion, one should concern the voice leading not from the name of chord nor classical nor jazz, but it’s functional use in the key. A Dm7b5 can thus be used for modulation.
My thoughts exactly, except more from a half-dim7 perspective.
Just when I thought I wouldn't run into anymore enharmonics, I get this bombshell
If this even counts as an enharmonic
Man, this is just enlightening. I am an amateur pop songwriter, and in some songs I use the Bm7b5 G7 Cmaj7 progression. It always felt quite not right labelling that chord Bm7b5 since it clearly doesnt have the same feel as usual (say in Bm7b5 E7 Am). I can see it all so clearly now, it was a B half diminished all along !
Wait, I thought the one resolving to the G was the flat 5, and the one resolving to the E was the dim?
at first , i was surprised , then after watching the video , it makes sense... furthermore now it is clear to me where the name half-diminished comes from... thank you
Thanks for this clarity! Subscribed.
I see the the half-diminished seventh chord as having what I call "Dominant Seventh Below" function. For example, in the key of C minor the Fm chord (iv) is the dominant below (subdominant), and being minor, is built from the top down as C-Ab-F. Fm's seventh below is D, and this forms the chord C-Ab-F-D, the half-diminished seventh. This is contrasted with the "Dominant Seventh Above", which would be plain old G7 (V7) in C minor. In any key iv and V are reciprocals about the determinant so the half-diminished seventh chord is the reciprocal, or so-called negative harmony, of the dominant seventh chord. The correct fundamental roots of 4 and 5 are also symmetrical about the generating tone. It's used this way in a lot of cases too, where it may be called the "Money Chord", so what I am talking it's not just a purely theoretical construct. I use the functions a lot in my own music. Thinking this way also opens the door for subdominant leaning major and minor tonality, think "Harmonic Major", rather than the historically dominant leaning modes of western classical music.
These are his own distinctions. “Half diminished” is simply a shorthand term for minor 7 flat 5.
You say it's shorthand without demonstrating why. I feel that the video is rightly pointing out that our chord grammar, our musical nomenclature, does have rules and can be accurate or inaccurate (or ambiguous). How we talk to each other about chords is not automatically correct.
Musical rules change according to musical context, how the chord is used. Minor chords and diminished chords do not perform the same functions. Therefore they cannot be the same.
Its more important to point out that these are not his own private distinctions, but crucially his position is justifiable. Can you justify the position that 7b5 chords are the same as half diminished chords?
YOU are obviously NEVER going to compose an 'ODE to JOY'... there is however always a job in banking awaiting you I am sure...
@@chinuaford1467 Music rules don't change, we bend them ourselves once we learn the actual rules of the music.
But you have to remember music is only a theory so far, with so many that are the same but with different labels for different reasons, for various functions is probably why music will always remain a theory.
exactly.
@@MrAdamNTProtester I've been a professional jazz pianist for more than 60 years. But thanks for your encouragement.
Appreciate your honesty. And your style of teaching. And your accent. Rock on brudda ty
Naming/labeling things is the heart of music theory. It helps us to recognize structures and communicate ideas more clearly. I have no problem giving a new name to any structure that functions in an independent way.
Common practice music theory is full of renamed structures, including minor/major keys and triad inversions. The precedent is in place to name functions rather than to give only one name to a group of notes. So, if one disagrees with the concept of gregarious naming, they would be in opposition to the approach long since established in western music theory.
Also, one of the best parts of being a music theorist is that we get to name things. This often happens years or decades after the music is originally written. Example...Scriabin did not label any Mystic Chords. Music historian A. Hull coined that term 6 years after "Prometheus: the Poem of Fire" debuted.
Thank you for the thought provoking content.
2:30 can anyone explain (or better, link a video) to why the altered minor chord functions like a II chord?
I came here a little skeptic but maaaan, this makes so much sense. In school some teachers used to say "Bb7 (or Bb9) with omited generator" and I always thought "Come on, just say m7b5", but now it makes sense. It was just to demonstrate where it came from without actually saying it. Don't know if that makes sense to anyone but it does to me :)
All of your 'Video's, are concise, and easily understood, even to non-musicians .Thank You
No they weren't. I understadn that there is a simple formula fot this and he made it more complicated than Chinese arithmetic in Norwegian witha thick stutter. I am more confused now than ever.
Well I didn't know that. Thank you for the instruction. Love your work mate. Cheers.
This is all very fascinating!! However, at the end it is in the application! ! No wonder there is so much confusion between jazz and classical!! 2 different worlds but same results!! Thanks for sharing!! 👍 👍
Hey man, not trying to dispute you or argue, rather I was hoping maybe you could reconcile how it was taught/described to me. I like your explanation with the 9ths being the origin, but that doesn't explain diminished *triads.* How does your take account for them? I was always taught that dim and aug were sort of opposites of each other: an aug was major chord with an augmented fifth and a dim chord was a minor chord with a diminished fifth (hence the names). This made sense to me carrying over to the 7ths as well: the "half dim" reflecting the diminished fifth + dom/minor 7th, and full diminished 7th referring to both a diminished 5th and a diminished 7th. I like what you said, but the way I learned it makes a lot of sense too. I guess the fundamental difference here is that your diminished/ half-dim 7ths are incomplete 9ths whereas my dim / half-dim 7ths are minor chords at the core with added diminished intervals.
Ironic I always recognized half diminished as rising by half step to tonic by means of dominant harmony, and recognized the m7b5 as a chromatic alteration of a minor chord that would resolve as an imperfect cadence in any harmonic resolution whether by 5th or other chordal movement, I never recommended my students to have a distinction. Yes it is enharmonic but only one exists naturally in a key center. Sensible and effective. Whether someone wants to argue about modal substitution or chromatic alteration, the fewer steps to identify harmonic movement and note choices the better, this really is a more clear path. Even if there are examples of a ii minor being altered in baroque harmony it is more common to be used as a half diminished modulation to a new key a half step above in classical harmony, and less likely to be a chromatic substitution in a more static chord movement in jazz standards. People will still argue and dislike the channel, but this should be easier to understand and recognize while reading notation or tab. So give the man his due!
Thanks so much for the perfect explanation! I was confused over decades, but now I got the enlightenment 👏👍😃
harmonization of major scale : m7b5 is on step VII leading to I , harmonization of minor m7b5 is on II leading to I through a Dom V chord . Both resolve different . in major as true dominant substitute, in minor it resolves to secondary dominant leading to I. Did I get it? don´t know.
I have studied in 2 different jazz schools, in both teachers used to call that chord "half diminished" (for any context). The explanation of the two mains contexts of this chord is great ! To me that chord has two names, and two mains tonal contexts (among others), but those names are not specifically related to those context, and the "jazz vs classical" spelling don't stand (in my own experience of course).
Great video! I really appreciate your more in-depth explanation of issues like these. At 5:14 you said “B7 with a b9”. I think you meant Bb7 with a b9. Could the small circle symbol, (o), used to designate diminished, also possibly originate from being a figured bass number, with (o) referring to the root and therefore (o) with the line crossed through it meaning no root?
the little circle is a zero (yes, it's figured bass), and it's meant to indicate "no root". The diminished chord was conceptualized as "dominant b9 with no root". The circle with the line is a later notation (20th century as far as I know) to indicate 'half diminished' (the line meant to 'divide in two' the symbol)
Thanks for your response! I enjoy investigating these mostly overlooked issues. The min7 is halfway between the maj7 and bb7. I’ve also noticed that the forward slash through numerals in figured bass means to lower the pitch by a semi-tone. I’m fascinated with how in depth figured bass actually is as it shows up in sheet music from the Baroque period .
Mmmh, the slash (IIRC) indicates when a note is raised, not lowered. Or at least that's the way I remember it being used in Bach's book (CPE, not JS). I may be wrong though.
I like the approach... The only thing is that the vii degree of the major (or ii degree of minor) where the m7b5 stems from is a diminished triad so to say it doesn't come from a diminished chord doesn't sit.
As mentioned by someone else the the m7b5 has a sub Dom function whereas half dim has a Dom function. That would mean (generally) in a minor setting you're using a m7b5 whereas in a major key you're using a half diminished?
I often wonder if we'd be having such intense brain-twisting over chord names and functions if we had 12 note names instead of 7.
Thank you for this very good explanation. This reminds me of the dominant 7th and the German Augmented 6th chords.
Wow. This was sooo eye-opening! Amazing lesson, again. 🙌🏼
You could say that the words minute and minute are the same because they have the same letters, but one means 60 seconds and the other means very small. It's all in the context of the sentence in which they are used for the meaning to come out.
A very interesting distinction, which I had never considered. There is one other way of naming that chord: m6. An Fm6 is exactly the same notes. Do you treat it differently? For many years, I worked as an arranger for church musicians, including guitarists. I found that when they encountered a chord symbol they didn’t understand, they simply ignored the confusing part of it. If they saw a D dim, they would play a D dim7, which of course would clash. Or if they saw Dm7b5, they would play a Dm, which would also clash. But if they saw Fm6, they would play Fm, which, although not the complete chord, would not clash. Therefore, the minor 6 became my naming choice in that circumstance. And these musicians, being opposed to reading music in the first place, most certainly were not open to theoretical explanations.
Yes it's a different chord in principle. What you report about readers is common - and also part of the reason why a lot of people (especially in jazz) do not know about this distinction. If I were to chart music for other guitar players, I would do the same.
What a great explanation! Thank you very much. Love your videos. Cheers.
I'm not sure I will ever get to a level of playing where I will actually use any of this stuff but I love watching your videos for the sheer beauty of the theory. Great work, man. Thank you so much.
Don't sell yourself short - once you strip out all the funny names, music theory is not so hard. Have a look at this so you can start to use a few of these chords: ua-cam.com/video/zetUCdduqQY/v-deo.html
@fivetimesyo : It's easy to become overwhelmed if you try to digest too much all at once. Take your time and find something that you feel you are close to grasping, then focus on fully grasping that concept before moving on. The fun is in the journey of learning new things. No need to get bogged down in what you don't know yet. We all go at a different pace, and learn things better in slightly different ways. It's an adventure, have fun with it. ^-^
@MusicTheoryForGuitar : The very first thing I learned in music theory class were tetra chords. Then I was taught that 2 tetra chords = one scale. So I immediately stripped out the funny name "tetra chord". But it's still there in my memory and has even served a function once or twice. I also learned all 7 positions of the Major scale, and played them so much by themselves, using the root note that happened to be on the low E string, that I learned the sound of the modes before learning that they were actually modes. Basically stripping out the modes funny names unintentionally.
Question. If your root is on the low E, what would be the “typical” or “most common” way to fret a m7b5 ?
From low to high, I would use this: 0-x-5-3-3-0. There are other ways but some don't sound good.
0-1-0-0-3-0
0-5-5-3-5-3
0-7-x-7-8-6
0-7-8-7-8-10
0-10-8-7-x-x
0-10-8-9-8-10
And my favorite:
0-13-0-0-11-0
you make theory fun dude, thanks for being an amazing teacher.
Its an arnold schoenberg. Story
In his harmony book he make resolve si re fa la chord to mi minor chord
Right at the end when you explained the resolutions, I understood everything.
Context is key. With the guitar being a "shape-based" instrument, it is easy to simply associate a chord shape with its common name and just run with it. I experienced this a couple years ago when I had to play a particular voicing of an add 2 chord where the 2nd was in the bass. At first I thought ot was just a dominant 9th sus 4; but given the particular context, that shape did not function as a suspended dominant chord.
Yup.
Nice. And it confirms what I always thought: in the end we all depend on the guy at the Bass, Mate...
So you say in the beginning Dm7b5 is not DØ- and then you put other root notes to it. So it can be Bb7, Fm6, E7#5b9. But to say it´s not the same Chord- isn´it that a little bit as if i would say C major isn´t C major? because if i put an A in the root, it´s Am6, or if i put an D in the root it´s D7/9sus and so on? A little like "Bread ist not Bread! - because if i put cheese on the bread, then its a sandwich.
D half-dim has same notes as Fm6. Could you comment on difference (if any) between them? Thx
This is eye opening! Thank you for sharing this knowledge!
Really interesting. So many times I have encountered people insisting that inversions of different chords with the same notes(but different root notes), are the same chord. Like the example given by @Aylbdr Madison in the comments about Cmaj6 and Amin7, they function differently, despite having the same notes. You have expanded that idea to show how chords with the same notes AND the same root note function differently.
Keeping this in mind, how would you go about naming the chord with notes C Eb G#? While people do mention that it is simply an inversion of Ab major, and I agree that C Augmented Minor is wrong, as it implies a major third, I am not sold on it simply being called Ab Major. If I play it as a chromatic alteration to Cminor, when it is the I chord (Gm -> Cm -> Cm#5 -> Cm). I think it should have a name with C at the root right?
Thanks a lot! Very useful for a pianist as well
How do the two above chords relate to a m6 chord? D F Ab C is also Fm6.
Ok so if I got this right, then the Ab tone in the half-diminished D chord is diatonic to the scale (of, e.g., Eb major in your example), whereas the Ab tone in the Dm7/b5 chord is not (as in your example we would be in C major). Correct?
That's a great comment, the half-diminished chord is really part of the diatonic major scale, at the 7th degree.
@@musicmuncher6689 yeah of course. I think we can see the main difference between these two chords when we expand them. While the m7b5 should maintain regular intervals as second grade of the major scale(except for the 5th, which of course we altered), the half-diminished should maintain the classic "locrian-sounding" intervals.
Therefore I would expect the m7b5 to have a major 2 as an expansion, while I think the half-diminished should have a minor 2, following the intervals of a locrian scale.
(I took the second as an example, but it is also the case with the 4th and 6th)
m7b5: R-2-b3-4-b5-6-b7
h.dim.:R-b2-b3-b4-b5-b6-b7
Did I explain myself well?🤣
Nice! But I wonder...
How many markers and whipers do you go through anually?
Actually I tend to use the diminished chord in jazz a bit as tritone substitution, so a 251 that isn’t Dm7, G7 C but Dm7, Db0,C . I’ve seen that quite a bit in John Mehegans books from the 60s. It voice leads a bit easier.
It also makes a great substitution chord for a F minor: C, F, F-, C can become C, F, D-7b5, C. Here again the D-7b5, in really, is a G7b9 (the Dom 7th in the key of C)
What is the difference between Bm7/b5 and Dm6 in the 4th inversion?
There is no 4th inversion ;)
MusicTheoryForGuitar i think he means Dm6 and the 3rd inversion of Bm7b5?
@@yinchenxu5249 haha yeah my terminology sucks
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar okay you got me on a technicality only lol
Well, if you meant the 3rd inversion of Dm6... it's still a different chord. Dm6 is a stable chord with an added dissonance. The m6 chord also tend to function as a tonic chord (in context).
Tomaz, u rock! Thnx brother ❤ u r one of the best.
I love your videos and always either learn something or have parts of my own knowledge reaffirmed. I view you as a master of the material that you present. So please understand I don't disagree with you on the theory or your presentation of it. However, sometimes in practical application, whether performing these chords in someone else's charts or writing with them in my own, I have had to learn to think of these chord names as synonyms to either play the correct chord pitches expected of me or to have others play the correct chord pitches I have written, even if the naming convention is incorrect. I long ago found this necessary because there are so many chord types and naming conventions, along with multiple ways to write symbols for those chords that my brain just needed simplification to be able to ”grab” the correct group of pitches at the right time during performance. That was the only way I was able to carry out my job playing guitar on big band jazz charts, with the thousands of chord and voicing choices. My brain just seems to remember certain types of naming convention over others. Even if, theoretically, the naming I sometimes use is incorrect, my ears are just as happy to hear the correct pitches. Thanks for your knowledge and hard work!
Good information, thanks. Although I personally I do prefer the Barry Harris/ Pat Martino perspectives that the Dominant chords come from the Diminished chord and not the other way around.
I see an analogy to something simpler than chords, namely that of enharmonic notes. C♯ and D♭are the same pitch (in the equal-tempered system), but they are derived in two different ways (from the notes C and D).
Dm7b5 moves to G7b9 then to Cmaj7 or Cm. The indicator notes being the movement of the 7th in the first to the 3rd in the second, remaining static for the final Cmaj7. You can explore the harmonic characteristics of the Cm as follows: C, D, Eb, F, G, A, B and C again. This is interesting in that it is a combination of the minor and whole tone scale!
How or where can I learn classical notation for inversions and bass?
Google them. They aren't difficult.
In classical music, the half diminished chord was hardly ever used after the end of the baroque era....I think. What you do see a lot, in XVth to XVIIth century music, is the diminished triad, most often in the first inversion (D F B, in C major or minor). Conversely, the m7b5 (II degree in minor), is pretty typical of romantic music, as it is in jazz.
As you're suggesting, context makes it all.To my ears, in context, those 2 chords sound very different. Which goes to show that, as often, theory is not purely intellectual: it reflects what the listener feels at the psycho-sensorial level.
Never thought about that so a cool perspective and it probably checks out. There wasn't much specific mention in my uni degree between the classical department which taught us theory, sightsinging and SATB voice leading rules etc and the contemporary Dept that taught jazz amongst other things about this nomenclature. I do remember being taught by the classical Dept iiø as a nat and harm minor not iim7b5, for what it's worth. Music (like all) language is an evolving index to aural ideas and the language may have been modernised so I'm not suggesting they were or weren't correct, just saying that's how we were taught in uni.
Just offering a take on the discussion and probably won't read any replies - I'm lazy like that.
This reminds me of the argument of IV7b5 from the Lydian dominant (Mel min). The argument that is should be spelt as a #4 not a b5 which implies the Alt scale VII7b5 from Mel min. If the alt scale degrees 1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 why do we call the chord built from it a VII7#5 or 7#9 should be VII7(b3) and the like..? I'm not actually disagreeing with half diminished implying the harmonic function of viiø to I resolution.
But I think of the in my playing m7b5 is the quality of the chord spelt out in chord symbols and half dim implies the harmonic function. So combining the ideas, a m7b5 is just the spelling of the chord and context can be derived from the surrounding chords/cadence and ø implies the m7b5 has the specific vii - I harmonic function. So m7b5 might or might not be a ø depending on context and can be used all the time with or without harmonic implications as it is just a chord spelling but ø is a m7b5 spelling with a specific harmonic function implied.
It explains why a lot of my teachers in jazz prefered the m7b5 spelling to ø because it is more ambiguous.. maybe.
I’ve got a claw hammer, most people just call it a hammer, it can pull out nails or bash them in depending on which way you hold it. It really doesn’t matter which term you use when asking me to pass it, I’ll pick up the same object and pass it to you. You will then be able to use it to bang in a nail or claw one out.
Just curious if this distinction would make any difference if playing with just rather than equal tempered intonation.
If you have only 12 notes, the situation is the same as equal temperament. If you have enough more notes available, then the notes in these chords are actually different in pitch.
Great video! When I started learning music theory, I looked up on google for instructions on how harmonize the C scale, but the vii chord was always shown as a diminished chord instead of a half diminished. Do you know the reason why? And also when they add the 7th note, they name the chord not as half dim but as b57
If it was harmonic minor, the 7th would be full diminished. So it's likely they skipped a step in the process without explaining that they raise the 7th in the minor scale in order to facilitate harmonic transition (chord changes; it turns the 5th into a dominant that resolves to the i). If that was a C scale, however, rather than Cm, then ... wrong. The 7th in a major key is half-dim, which is why I disagree, tentatively, with the ii in a minor key being a m7b5. Same with the origin of half-dim being dom 9th. Its origin is the 7th of a major scale, which came many years before people were playing 9ths, at least so far as I understand the history.
@@Merrillific Thanks for your reply mate, really helpful👌👌
That's for this, I had no idea that there was a difference until now.
Isn't this just like saying C major is a IV in G and a V in F ? I mean at this point the naming thing is just part of the jumbled up history of theory .
Monk was thinking about this chord as a Fm6 as all the swing era before him. Jazz started to call it D half-diminished under the influence of be-bop guys studying classical music.
Interesting.
Jazz great Johnny Smith raises this exact point on page 7 in his book "Johnny Smith's Approach to Guitar" (first published in 1980)... practically the first thing in the book! Johnny thought it was so important to make this distinction that he starts his whole method with it. Of course, Smith also insisted that guitar notation should be written in standard pitch and use treble and bass staves like the piano. Neither idea is likely to really become the norm.
I think it's an excellent idea to be aware of these distinctions, but still ... using different names for the same set of notes in the same voicing will remain an academic matter and not a practical one. On the same hand, we don't find it practical to use different names for a ii-7 or a iii-7 in every day practice. In the key of C major we just say "D minor7" ... "E minor7" ... should we call the D-7 a "Supertonic minor7" and the E-7 a "Mediant minor7" ? ... Should we then change their names if we play them in a minor key?
But certainly ... thank you for examining this issue and providing such a detailed and well thought out thesis.
Hi, I know your course is not a book but do you have a book that has the type of information you give in your videos? I really like your presentation and content. I'm a bass player/composer and use a six string bass. Thanks
Sorry, I don't. There is a reason why I decided on a video course - it's because I can teach and explain in a better way on video than through a book. BTW, I have a few 6-string bass players among my students, and once I taught a person with a monster 8-string bass - that was fun!
A minor chord can function as the I, II, III, IV, V, or VI in a chord progression.
So with this way of thinking, shouldn't the minor chord have like 6 different names, one for each function?
No, that's confusing cause and effect.
Great lesson. Thank you for sharing
Connecting this difference with the subdominant and dominant function of the chords it is completely wrong. Dominant chord can have also a subdominant function, and a full diminished chord also can have subdominant funcion. It dosent goes this way.
True story man!
Im a jazz player and clasical at the same time.
I understand why I’d use the altered minor (dm7b5) to do a ii-V type motion. But why would I use an incomplete dominant (d half-diminished) instead of just saying Bb9-Eb? Looks to me in this situation like basically d half diminished-Eb is to paint a c minor tonality by saying ii-III instead of choosing to tonicize Eb by saying V-I? Does anybody understand what I’m saying? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills over here!
Or is it simpler to say that when it’s in the ii position it’s an altered minor (m7b5) and when it’s in the vii position it’s an incomplete dominant (half-dim7)? Is that the same thing I just said and is it a reasonable way to comprehend this?
Can a m7b5 resolve up a half step?
For that matter, do we name any other chords based on the direction they resolve?
I've barely touched diminished chords so I admit my knowledge is a bit lacking here.
Yes, we name other chords differently. For instance German Augmented 6th chords are enharmonic to a dominant 7, but we call them differently because they resolve differently. And we decide what is the root of a diminished 7th chord based on what chord they resolve to.
New subscriber here, and i must say I love the channel! Now, isn't this the situation with the multiple possible names for altered chords in general, and isn't the best possible name the one that expresses the correct musical context of the chord?
LOL, so in one chord progression it's half-diminished and in a different one it is m7b5. I wonder how many chords can dance on the head of that pin? If I'm playing a jazz tune like Blue Bossa, do I use the m7b5 or the half-diminished? Don't want to use the wrong one...
Very much thank you for all the music theory video
I've always thought of m7b5 as ii of the minor key and half diminished as the chord built on the seventh degree of major. It may have been worth noting that the half diminished is the 7th chord found in the major key.
5:21 “Cb if you want enharmonic…”
If you WANT?! But what if I WANT to call the whole chord…
I’m sorry… I really do get the point of this video. I just found this little detail amusing.
How does your chord class work? Do you send pre-recorded videos everymonth?
Please direct all course questions to tommaso@musictheoryforguitar.com