one for all!

[titser_marco]

ok. easy lang marco,,  i understnd your point, i got that but of course that four letter word fuzzed me out.

F#7#9 is not a the ii chord.. its the III of the D. D was the home chord so E9 would be the II of D.

i was not referring to E as the home chord.. ok? peace bro.. you should come on the 7th..

speaking of another oas in the making.. hmmm.. bold comments.

It's good to hear that you have enough sense in you that the four letter word doesn't exactly mean aggression (unlike some stupid people here in the forum). Anyhow, the discussion on whether you were talking about a ii V I in E is clear here in your post:

thats MY progression... DM9 was really EM9..

as ii-V ng E ung F# at B..

EM9 is better, but i decided to make it DM9.

But yes, the new chord run on D would imply that the F# chord is the III chord in the key of D. However, it could also be interpreted in this way if it were still in the key of E:

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

There. Given that new perspective, those who plan to solo over that have more options in terms of, ahem, "allowed" notes.  I however, was, and still am, more interested in plotting the different inversions and upper partials/extensions of the chords. Not much of a guitar solo person, really. In these cases, I prefer to extend the harmony because it can get so fcking BIG!

And speaking of the 7th, why don't you (prog) post this on that thread for everyone to study.

[markflo]

grammar cop: kindly give an example of this progression uhm...typewritten by you... (not "yours", right?)

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

i've never seen the 1st and 3rd chord in my whole life...can you give samples?

love,
theory cop

[titser_marco]

(Now who's getting antsy over such a mundane matter as his grammar being criticized? Haha.)

Hahaha, I laugh at your general direction. You don't even know that it's a complete boxed set. And tell me, how can you quote something that has no lyrics?

This is a real quote from FZ: Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.

And after reading this, I tend to agree.

to quote your avatar's song

Shut Up & Play Your Guitar (you smart a$$)

this isn't an english grammar thread it's a guitar thread...go to pinoyexchange or something, man...

If you review your grammar lessons, "my" is a possessive pronoun.

PRSMan: Regarding the oas issue, I don't think a comparison is really necessary but rather a re-evaluation of the over-sensitivity of a lot of people here towards assertive (note NO AGGRESSIVE) rhetoric. If you can't stand strong attitudes, then live in solitude. To use your interjection,  GEEZ.

dude...nobody really OWNS a chord progression...he probably meant that that was the chord progression that HE provided...take it easy...jesus christ...don't be so friggin' antsy...just solo over the goddamn thing, will ya?

DM9 - A7 - F#7#9 - B7

sir san tune or standard nyo nakuha yan?  

thats MY progression... DM9 was really EM9..

as ii-V ng E ung F# at B..

EM9 is better, but i decided to make it DM9.

who the fcuk gave you the right to own it? and that progression has been used before, theres no way you could own it.

hmmm.. well if you are trying to give me an insult, good luck.

you could say that i dont own it.. if thats what you want and if that satisfies your ego. darnel was referring to a standard where i got that one, well i didnt get that from any standard or tunes or anything. like who gave joe pass the right to his own lines and progressions? did he have to apply for something? license to own progression? think well bro, give me a jazz progression exactly as i stated above,

DM9 - A7 -F#7#9 - B7.. if you find one i hope youll be happy..

E9 - A7 - F#7#9 - B7. well this might be the progression you might be fighting for.. ahhh  

let me tell you something bro, if youre trying to point out something do it in a nice way, ok

Joe Pass didn't claim it was his, while you did in in bold and all caps.

And what you said doesn't prove anything. It just means you haven't done your share of listening.

Also, as you were saying, you altered the basic ii-V-I progressionin E:

EM9 is better, but i decided to make it DM9.

It would do you well to know how to write your chords properly. If you were indeed talking about ii-V-I, F#7#9 as far as I know is not a ii chord but a II chord, since it's a major chord, based on your notation. It would do you good to know how to write your notes if you're really seeking clarity and credibility.

[titser_marco]

grammar cop: kindly give an example of this progression uhm...typewritten by you... (not "yours", right?)

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

i've never seen the 1st and 3rd chord in my whole life...can you give samples?

love,
theory cop

It's the same progression, only notated (for the lack of a more accurate term) in a different key. But anyhow for your benefit:

In E:

bVII9-IV7-II7#7-V7
DM9   A7   F#7#9  B7

Now in D, the same chords can still work, but when you use that system it becomes different:

I9      IV7  III#7#9  VI7
DM9   A7   F#7#9     B7

Now, if I get you correctly are you telling me to cite examples of songs that feature a progression in I-III, or examples of I-III progressions? Please clarify. I'll help you to the best of my ability (now, is this sanitized enough for you guys?).

Music Theory majors, please correct me on these matters. My knowledge of proper notation only comes from a fair share of Sessions columns from my GP magazines, which basically amounts to not a lot. Thanks.

The "theory cop" tag is so hilarious, I have to admit. It's so goddamn PREPOSTEROUS that it's so funny. Kudos to you on that, mate.

[progressive_pilipinas]

grammar cop: kindly give an example of this progression uhm...typewritten by you... (not "yours", right?)

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

i've never seen the 1st and 3rd chord in my whole life...can you give samples?

love,
theory cop

ahhh... a I - V - III - VI progression in the key of D.  nyehe.. anyway, its not a really appealing progression, kasi kung yung(o tagalog na ito)III - VI,, II - V din yun ng E.. mas appealing kung after ng B7 kasi nga ive made the vi a major, kung vi sana eh maganda rin na magresolve sa G(IV) kaso ginawa ko B7, kaya sana E siya.. eh kaso sinubukan kong wag ibalik sa E, kung ibebase ko sa key of E. kaya balik sa D.. weird ang pagresolve niya from a major VI to a I. pero kasi nga gusto ko marinig kung pano gagawin ng mga magpopost, kaso naging DEBATE forum,, nakupow!  

[progressive_pilipinas]

grammar cop: kindly give an example of this progression uhm...typewritten by you... (not "yours", right?)

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

i've never seen the 1st and 3rd chord in my whole life...can you give samples?

love,
theory cop

It's the same progression, only notated (for the lack of a more accurate term) in a different key. But anyhow for your benefit:

In E:

bVII9-IV7-II7#7-V7
DM9   A7   F#7#9  B7

Now in D, the same chords can still work, but when you use that system it becomes different:

I9      IV7  III#7#9  VI7
DM9   A7   F#7#9     B7

Now, if I get you correctly are you telling me to cite examples of songs that feature a progression in I-III, or examples of I-III progressions? Please clarify. I'll help you to the best of my ability (now, is this sanitized enough for you guys?).

Music Theory majors, please correct me on these matters. My knowledge of proper notation only comes from a fair share of Sessions columns from my GP magazines, which basically amounts to not a lot. Thanks.

The "theory cop" tag is so hilarious, I have to admit. It's so goddamn PREPOSTEROUS that it's so funny. Kudos to you on that, mate.

BRO, hehe, i apologize then i offended you and even dared you to post songs,, haha! i was asking you to find songs with I - V - III - VI progressions.. well, hmmm.. may nakita ako I - V - III - VI kaso followed siya by a ii - V, so clear ang pagbalik sa I.. hehehe, and that was classical music, forgot the site na.  

[titser_marco]

Wait wait, mejo nawengwang ako sa explanation mo, puro kasi comma hahahahaha. Pero if I get you correctly:

1. Ayaw mo ng I-III kasi inde maganda rehistro sa tenga mo, tama? Walang issue dun, tenga mo yun e.

2. Gusto mo ng II-V based run kasi maganda rehistro sa tenga mo, tama?
Walang issue dun, tenga mo yun e.

Ako naman, mas gusto ko shang tingnan from the key of E. The first chord (DM9) is the flatted 7th of the key of E, so technically even if you start with DM9, it's not in the key of D if you take it from the point of view of E. Gets ba? Or malabo explanation ko.

On the thread turned into a debate question: Kaya nga sabi ko ipost mo sa April 7th jam thread para aralin ng mga pupunta tapos pakikinggan. Sana may pianista din para mas marami tayong extension and inversions. But then again, we have at least 2 guitar players on stage, so that leaves space for 12 simultaneous notes. Hmmm.....

progressive_pilipinas, I'll bring some manuscript paper para madali ifigure out yung mga inversions plus extensions.

grammar cop: kindly give an example of this progression uhm...typewritten by you... (not "yours", right?)

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

i've never seen the 1st and 3rd chord in my whole life...can you give samples?

love,
theory cop

ahhh... a I - V - III - VI progression in the key of D.  nyehe.. anyway, its not a really appealing progression, kasi kung yung(o tagalog na ito)III - VI,, II - V din yun ng E.. mas appealing kung after ng B7 kasi nga ive made the vi a major, kung vi sana eh maganda rin na magresolve sa G(IV) kaso ginawa ko B7, kaya sana E siya.. eh kaso sinubukan kong wag ibalik sa E, kung ibebase ko sa key of E. kaya balik sa D.. weird ang pagresolve niya from a major VI to a I. pero kasi nga gusto ko marinig kung pano gagawin ng mga magpopost, kaso naging DEBATE forum,, nakupow!  

[progressive_pilipinas]

Wait wait, mejo nawengwang ako sa explanation mo, puro kasi comma hahahahaha. Pero if I get you correctly:

1. Ayaw mo ng I-III kasi inde maganda rehistro sa tenga mo, tama? Walang issue dun, tenga mo yun e.

2. Gusto mo ng II-V based run kasi maganda rehistro sa tenga mo, tama?
Walang issue dun, tenga mo yun e.

Ako naman, mas gusto ko shang tingnan from the key of E. The first chord (DM9) is the flatted 7th of the key of E, so technically even if you start with DM9, it's not in the key of D if you take it from the point of view of E. Gets ba? Or malabo explanation ko.

On the thread turned into a debate question: Kaya nga sabi ko ipost mo sa April 7th jam thread para aralin ng mga pupunta tapos pakikinggan. Sana may pianista din para mas marami tayong extension and inversions. But then again, we have at least 2 guitar players on stage, so that leaves space for 12 simultaneous notes. Hmmm.....

progressive_pilipinas, I'll bring some manuscript paper para madali ifigure out yung mga inversions plus extensions.

grammar cop: kindly give an example of this progression uhm...typewritten by you... (not "yours", right?)

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

i've never seen the 1st and 3rd chord in my whole life...can you give samples?

love,
theory cop

ahhh... a I - V - III - VI progression in the key of D.  nyehe.. anyway, its not a really appealing progression, kasi kung yung(o tagalog na ito)III - VI,, II - V din yun ng E.. mas appealing kung after ng B7 kasi nga ive made the vi a major, kung vi sana eh maganda rin na magresolve sa G(IV) kaso ginawa ko B7, kaya sana E siya.. eh kaso sinubukan kong wag ibalik sa E, kung ibebase ko sa key of E. kaya balik sa D.. weird ang pagresolve niya from a major VI to a I. pero kasi nga gusto ko marinig kung pano gagawin ng mga magpopost, kaso naging DEBATE forum,, nakupow!  

haha! sige bro, dala ka ng mga babasahin kung makakadala ka,, hehe,

about yung sa pagkakaintindi mo,, gets ko na ibebebase mo siya sa E,,

anyway. kita kits sa 7!! wohoo!!

[PRSMan]

PRSMan: Regarding the oas issue, I don't think a comparison is really necessary but rather a re-evaluation of the over-sensitivity of a lot of people here towards assertive (note NO AGGRESSIVE) rhetoric. If you can't stand strong attitudes, then live in solitude. To use your interjection,  GEEZ.

GEEZ... pre, ang feeling mo naman... think you're tough?  Or are you just a wannabe tough guy?  Will you be as tough when you're face to face with other forum members?  No need to answer... I've seen your picture... ooohh... you look soooo tough...

[markflo]

i'm not getting antsy over your "mundane" matter. i'm getting antsy coz of the fact that you're being a condescending pri|ck to people in this forum. you sound like you know it all...why don't you put your money where your mouth is and let us hear some of your playing?

i don't know zappa's discography...i'll give you that. but you know what i was talking about. i was apparently quoting the title of an album...oooooweeeee...BIIIIIG MISTAKE...

i guess you're an "english" virtuoso...what are you doing in GUITAR CENTER?

(Now who's getting antsy over such a mundane matter as his grammar being criticized? Haha.)

Hahaha, I laugh at your general direction. You don't even know that it's a complete boxed set. And tell me, how can you quote something that has no lyrics?

This is a real quote from FZ: Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.

And after reading this, I tend to agree.

to quote your avatar's song

Shut Up & Play Your Guitar (you smart a$$)

this isn't an english grammar thread it's a guitar thread...go to pinoyexchange or something, man...

If you review your grammar lessons, "my" is a possessive pronoun.

PRSMan: Regarding the oas issue, I don't think a comparison is really necessary but rather a re-evaluation of the over-sensitivity of a lot of people here towards assertive (note NO AGGRESSIVE) rhetoric. If you can't stand strong attitudes, then live in solitude. To use your interjection,  GEEZ.

dude...nobody really OWNS a chord progression...he probably meant that that was the chord progression that HE provided...take it easy...jesus christ...don't be so friggin' antsy...just solo over the goddamn thing, will ya?

DM9 - A7 - F#7#9 - B7

sir san tune or standard nyo nakuha yan?  

thats MY progression... DM9 was really EM9..

as ii-V ng E ung F# at B..

EM9 is better, but i decided to make it DM9.

who the fcuk gave you the right to own it? and that progression has been used before, theres no way you could own it.

hmmm.. well if you are trying to give me an insult, good luck.

you could say that i dont own it.. if thats what you want and if that satisfies your ego. darnel was referring to a standard where i got that one, well i didnt get that from any standard or tunes or anything. like who gave joe pass the right to his own lines and progressions? did he have to apply for something? license to own progression? think well bro, give me a jazz progression exactly as i stated above,

DM9 - A7 -F#7#9 - B7.. if you find one i hope youll be happy..

E9 - A7 - F#7#9 - B7. well this might be the progression you might be fighting for.. ahhh  

let me tell you something bro, if youre trying to point out something do it in a nice way, ok

Joe Pass didn't claim it was his, while you did in in bold and all caps.

And what you said doesn't prove anything. It just means you haven't done your share of listening.

Also, as you were saying, you altered the basic ii-V-I progressionin E:

EM9 is better, but i decided to make it DM9.

It would do you well to know how to write your chords properly. If you were indeed talking about ii-V-I, F#7#9 as far as I know is not a ii chord but a II chord, since it's a major chord, based on your notation. It would do you good to know how to write your notes if you're really seeking clarity and credibility.

[titser_marco]

PRSMan: Regarding the oas issue, I don't think a comparison is really necessary but rather a re-evaluation of the over-sensitivity of a lot of people here towards assertive (note NO AGGRESSIVE) rhetoric. If you can't stand strong attitudes, then live in solitude. To use your interjection,  GEEZ.

GEEZ... pre, ang feeling mo naman... think you're tough?  Or are you just a wannabe tough guy?  Will you be as tough when you're face to face with other forum members?  No need to answer... I've seen your picture... ooohh... you look soooo tough...

Now since when did this become an issue of toughness? This is unbelievable. If you mean violent when you say tough, then you're just proving my point: that  machismo-laden bastards like you are very sensitive to critical and argumentative thinking and don't possess enough brains to out argue people, hence the easy way out: violence, or as you might term it, toughness. Hahaha. What a Nazi.

[PRSMan]

PRSMan: Regarding the oas issue, I don't think a comparison is really necessary but rather a re-evaluation of the over-sensitivity of a lot of people here towards assertive (note NO AGGRESSIVE) rhetoric. If you can't stand strong attitudes, then live in solitude. To use your interjection,  GEEZ.

GEEZ... pre, ang feeling mo naman... think you're tough?  Or are you just a wannabe tough guy?  Will you be as tough when you're face to face with other forum members?  No need to answer... I've seen your picture... ooohh... you look soooo tough...

Now since when did this become an issue of toughness? This is unbelievable. If you mean violent when you say tough, then you're just proving my point: that  machismo-laden bastards like you are very sensitive to critical and argumentative thinking and don't possess enough brains to out argue people, hence the easy way out: violence, or as you might term it, toughness. Hahaha. What a Nazi.

tough is what you are trying to project of yourself by using four-letter words.  does it make you feel good to mouth off that way?  isn't there a better way to communicate than to use foul language?

oh, and now i'm a "machismo-laden bastard... don't possess enough brains to out argue people...".  my... i'm sure you felt so good saying that.  tell me, what have you achieved in life that makes you so proud of yourself?

[markflo]

first of all...the flattened VII in the key of E is D (but this suggests a dominant chord and not your so called DM9...Character wise...a DM9 is an altered I chord

the A7 would be the diatonic V of D

the F#7#9 would be something called delaying resolution...but it's also an altered  chord of the relative minor of A

going back...resolution to what?

to B7


another way to look at it would be from A7 (A), it would be the 6th, but an altered 6th (which is a "legal" alteration)

then from B7...altered VI of what?

D

That's the explanation...

you can't imply that it's the bVII9 of E because first of all, there's no E to begin with...and you can't say that the B7 implied it, because there's an A7

the root would be D

now if it was the original EM9...it's a totally different story...but it's not there...so...

go figure...


imbento ang theory mo pareng titser_marco

thing is ... you don'g get me at all...

let's hear a sample...

or you can explain how you would approach soloing over this progression...

grammar cop: kindly give an example of this progression uhm...typewritten by you... (not "yours", right?)

bVII9-IV-II7#7-V7

i've never seen the 1st and 3rd chord in my whole life...can you give samples?

love,
theory cop

It's the same progression, only notated (for the lack of a more accurate term) in a different key. But anyhow for your benefit:

In E:

bVII9-IV7-II7#7-V7
DM9   A7   F#7#9  B7

Now in D, the same chords can still work, but when you use that system it becomes different:

I9      IV7  III#7#9  VI7
DM9   A7   F#7#9     B7

Now, if I get you correctly are you telling me to cite examples of songs that feature a progression in I-III, or examples of I-III progressions? Please clarify. I'll help you to the best of my ability (now, is this sanitized enough for you guys?).

Music Theory majors, please correct me on these matters. My knowledge of proper notation only comes from a fair share of Sessions columns from my GP magazines, which basically amounts to not a lot. Thanks.

The "theory cop" tag is so hilarious, I have to admit. It's so goddamn PREPOSTEROUS that it's so funny. Kudos to you on that, mate.

[markflo]

you think you're so smart and try to impress people here with your impeccable english speaking skills...BIG EFFIN' DEAL! yung mga basurero dito sa US magaling din mag english...

speak some Swahili...that'll impress the living [gooey brown stuff] outta me...

diyan mo tinitira mga tao eh...sa inggles mo...eh never naman nagka "perfect english" topic dito sa forum eh...atsaka pilipino tayo...tawanan mo pag magkamali magsalita ng tagalog (o kung ano mang dialect)

di porke't mali mali ang english ng mga ibang tao dito at ikaw perfect english nakakalamang ka na...english is our second language...it's just a form of communication, just like any other form. galing galing mo nga mag enlish di ka naman makaintindi ng maayos...sablay parin...

may pa who the fcuk who the fcuk ka pa diyan...

tigilan mo nga ako...nakakairita pag naiisip ko yung mukha mo sabay narerelate ko sa pagsasalita mo eh...

parang unggoy na tumatahol...di bagay...

[titser_marco]

The flatted VII can be a 9th chord. It doesnt necessarily mean that  a dominant chord should be there with the b7th as the root.  In the key of C, I can play a Bb9 to follow a bVII9 chord. What you're trying to say is that the bVII should be a VII7, which is a very common change.

first of all...the flattened VII in the key of E is D (but this suggests a dominant chord and not your so called DM9...Character wise...a DM9 is an altered I chord

the A7 would be the diatonic V of D

the F#7#9 would be something called delaying resolution...but it's also an altered  chord of the relative minor of A

going back...resolution to what?

to B7


another way to look at it would be from A7 (A), it would be the 6th, but an altered 6th (which is a "legal" alteration)

then from B7...altered VI of what?

D

That's the explanation...

That's precisely why it's called "implied" because the tonic is not explicitly stated. If "there was an E to begin with" it's not going to be implied then.

Like I said, looking at D as the I chord would be looking at it from the key of D. But refer to my previous post for another angle at this.

you can't imply that it's the bVII9 of E because first of all, there's no E to begin with...and you can't say that the B7 implied it, because there's an A7

the root would be D

now if it was the original EM9...it's a totally different story...but it's not there...so...

go figure...

imbento ang theory mo pareng titser_marco

thing is ... you don'g get me at all...

let's hear a sample...

or you can explain how you would approach soloing over this progression...

Like I said, I'm sure everyone here would solo over this progression and I'm sure they're miles ahead of in terms of speed, (or soul! hahahaha) or whatever parameter you insist on. What's sad is that ideas can come to me anytime, but I'm not physically blessed with speed and some such stuff so I can only do the things I know. I'm sure that's what you wanted to hear: a  statement that resembles surrender or something. If you're looking at a guitar battle, I plead no contest: you are obviously a guitarist; I'm a musician. What interests me in this particular chord change are the extensions or the upper partials to create more tension, not what melodic possiblities are present. I'll leave that to you because you're all better than me in terms of that.

And to tell you frankly, what I said wasn't even a theory. It was a simple matter of explaining things in musical terms, and would not go into your habit of being preposterous (look it up, will ya?). A theory encompasses a lot of phenomena.

[markflo]

the 7th of the E is a D#7b5...or a half diminished...if you extend the chord to a 9th...it would be a D#9b5

so you wanna flat it? fine

D9...but it's DEFINITELY not a DM9...(yes, those are 2 different things) because the M of a D is a C# oh...but a C# is the 6th of E...so now we're all [strawberry] ed up and going in circles, aren't we? a D9 WON'T HAVE  a "C#"

don't make things harder than they already are...

well, technically, you can play any chord you want...in any chord progression, in any key...kinda like chromaticism...don't mean it'll sound right...or if it will even sound jazzy...it can sound plain ol' dumb...

you can come up with all the theories you want...whatever floats your boat man...

another thing...the E WASN'T EVEN IMPLIED! This is just a case of delaying resolution...like in a blues shuffle when every chord is a dominant...it's a dominant but not treated as a V...i can imply ANY NOTE AND ANY TONAL CENTER HERE...if i were to use your definition...

The flatted VII can be a 9th chord. It doesnt necessarily mean that  a dominant chord should be there with the b7th as the root.  In the key of C, I can play a Bb9 to follow a bVII9 chord. What you're trying to say is that the bVII should be a VII7, which is a very common change.

first of all...the flattened VII in the key of E is D (but this suggests a dominant chord and not your so called DM9...Character wise...a DM9 is an altered I chord

the A7 would be the diatonic V of D

the F#7#9 would be something called delaying resolution...but it's also an altered  chord of the relative minor of A

going back...resolution to what?

to B7


another way to look at it would be from A7 (A), it would be the 6th, but an altered 6th (which is a "legal" alteration)

then from B7...altered VI of what?

D

That's the explanation...

That's precisely why it's called "implied" because the tonic is not explicitly stated. If "there was an E to begin with" it's not going to be implied then.

Like I said, looking at D as the I chord would be looking at it from the key of D. But refer to my previous post for another angle at this.

you can't imply that it's the bVII9 of E because first of all, there's no E to begin with...and you can't say that the B7 implied it, because there's an A7

the root would be D

now if it was the original EM9...it's a totally different story...but it's not there...so...

go figure...

imbento ang theory mo pareng titser_marco

thing is ... you don'g get me at all...

let's hear a sample...

or you can explain how you would approach soloing over this progression...

Like I said, I'm sure everyone here would solo over this progression and I'm sure they're miles ahead of in terms of speed, (or soul! hahahaha) or whatever parameter you insist on. What's sad is that ideas can come to me anytime, but I'm not physically blessed with speed and some such stuff so I can only do the things I know. I'm sure that's what you wanted to hear: a  statement that resembles surrender or something. If you're looking at a guitar battle, I plead no contest: you are obviously a guitarist; I'm a musician. What interests me in this particular chord change are the extensions or the upper partials to create more tension, not what melodic possiblities are present. I'll leave that to you because you're all better than me in terms of that.

And to tell you frankly, what I said wasn't even a theory. It was a simple matter of explaining things in musical terms, and would not go into your habit of being preposterous (look it up, will ya?). A theory encompasses a lot of phenomena.

[markflo]

hey..you laughed when i said "theory cop"...so i explained...

you even spoke like some old english d|ckhead

"HAHAHHA I laugh at your general direction"

oh so now you're gonna back down saying you're just "interested in the upper partials blah blah blah" and you're just "explaining in musical terms"

the tensions are there to add excitement to the resolution...you can add tension to any chord...but if you're not gonna resolve it...then your music is pointless...unless you can pull it off in some unorthodox musical way...which i don't hear you doing...

a statement that resembles surrender is EXACTLY what i'm looking for...coz you clearly don't know what you're talking about theory wise (no, i wouldn't doubt your oh so precious enlish speaking/typing skills)...when you start naming musical terms, and discussing such topics you sure as hell better back it up with some playing or some REAL knowledge...

[skunkyfunk]

Question.  Do you really have to know the theory behind everything in a "mental" sense.  For me it was a stumbling rock.  Steve Vai had a better approach to progressions.  He said you should just start off with simple chords.   Then next, change the voicings of the chords, or do chord subs.  For me I use more ear than theory because when I think, I get lost.  But when I hear the chords, I just get satisfied.  I just feel it is ridiculous to remember a gazillion chord progressions when a lot of variations can be done with a I-vi-ii-V7.  For me it starts from there.  

On a higher note, I think the real jazzers didn't really know what they were doing in a theoretical sense.

[Phil]

nakupu..

[titser_marco]

ahah! Here's where the confusion sets in! You're talkinag about a diatonic chord then.

Get out of the 18th century will ya? Atonality was already here in the early 20th century.

the 7th of the E is a D#7b5...or a half diminished...if you extend the chord to a 9th...it would be a D#9b5

so you wanna flat it? fine

D9...but it's DEFINITELY not a DM9...(yes, those are 2 different things) because the M of a D is a C# oh...but a C# is the 6th of E...so now we're all [strawberry] ed up and going in circles, aren't we? a D9 WON'T HAVE  a "C#"

don't make things harder than they already are...

well, technically, you can play any chord you want...in any chord progression, in any key...kinda like chromaticism...don't mean it'll sound right...or if it will even sound jazzy...it can sound plain ol' dumb...

you can come up with all the theories you want...whatever floats your boat man...

another thing...the E WASN'T EVEN IMPLIED! This is just a case of delaying resolution...like in a blues shuffle when every chord is a dominant...it's a dominant but not treated as a V...i can imply ANY NOTE AND ANY TONAL CENTER HERE...if i were to use your definition...

The flatted VII can be a 9th chord. It doesnt necessarily mean that  a dominant chord should be there with the b7th as the root.  In the key of C, I can play a Bb9 to follow a bVII9 chord. What you're trying to say is that the bVII should be a VII7, which is a very common change.

first of all...the flattened VII in the key of E is D (but this suggests a dominant chord and not your so called DM9...Character wise...a DM9 is an altered I chord

the A7 would be the diatonic V of D

the F#7#9 would be something called delaying resolution...but it's also an altered  chord of the relative minor of A

going back...resolution to what?

to B7


another way to look at it would be from A7 (A), it would be the 6th, but an altered 6th (which is a "legal" alteration)

then from B7...altered VI of what?

D

That's the explanation...

That's precisely why it's called "implied" because the tonic is not explicitly stated. If "there was an E to begin with" it's not going to be implied then.

Like I said, looking at D as the I chord would be looking at it from the key of D. But refer to my previous post for another angle at this.

you can't imply that it's the bVII9 of E because first of all, there's no E to begin with...and you can't say that the B7 implied it, because there's an A7

the root would be D

now if it was the original EM9...it's a totally different story...but it's not there...so...

go figure...

imbento ang theory mo pareng titser_marco

thing is ... you don'g get me at all...

let's hear a sample...

or you can explain how you would approach soloing over this progression...

Like I said, I'm sure everyone here would solo over this progression and I'm sure they're miles ahead of in terms of speed, (or soul! hahahaha) or whatever parameter you insist on. What's sad is that ideas can come to me anytime, but I'm not physically blessed with speed and some such stuff so I can only do the things I know. I'm sure that's what you wanted to hear: a  statement that resembles surrender or something. If you're looking at a guitar battle, I plead no contest: you are obviously a guitarist; I'm a musician. What interests me in this particular chord change are the extensions or the upper partials to create more tension, not what melodic possiblities are present. I'll leave that to you because you're all better than me in terms of that.

And to tell you frankly, what I said wasn't even a theory. It was a simple matter of explaining things in musical terms, and would not go into your habit of being preposterous (look it up, will ya?). A theory encompasses a lot of phenomena.

[markflo]

atonality is great...if you know how to use it right...do you know how to use it right titser_marco?

know the rules, then break 'em...

seems to me you never even heard the rules...or you probably just read 'em off a little book you rented in the library..."how to sound like you know what you're talking about in music"

i'm not talking diatonics...i'm talking jazz, freak...

besides...what's the point of this chord progression if you're so much into atonality?

ahah! Here's where the confusion sets in! You're talkinag about a diatonic chord then.

Get out of the 18th century will ya? Atonality was already here in the early 20th century.

the 7th of the E is a D#7b5...or a half diminished...if you extend the chord to a 9th...it would be a D#9b5

so you wanna flat it? fine

D9...but it's DEFINITELY not a DM9...(yes, those are 2 different things) because the M of a D is a C# oh...but a C# is the 6th of E...so now we're all [strawberry] ed up and going in circles, aren't we? a D9 WON'T HAVE  a "C#"

don't make things harder than they already are...

well, technically, you can play any chord you want...in any chord progression, in any key...kinda like chromaticism...don't mean it'll sound right...or if it will even sound jazzy...it can sound plain ol' dumb...

you can come up with all the theories you want...whatever floats your boat man...

another thing...the E WASN'T EVEN IMPLIED! This is just a case of delaying resolution...like in a blues shuffle when every chord is a dominant...it's a dominant but not treated as a V...i can imply ANY NOTE AND ANY TONAL CENTER HERE...if i were to use your definition...

The flatted VII can be a 9th chord. It doesnt necessarily mean that  a dominant chord should be there with the b7th as the root.  In the key of C, I can play a Bb9 to follow a bVII9 chord. What you're trying to say is that the bVII should be a VII7, which is a very common change.

first of all...the flattened VII in the key of E is D (but this suggests a dominant chord and not your so called DM9...Character wise...a DM9 is an altered I chord

the A7 would be the diatonic V of D

the F#7#9 would be something called delaying resolution...but it's also an altered  chord of the relative minor of A

going back...resolution to what?

to B7


another way to look at it would be from A7 (A), it would be the 6th, but an altered 6th (which is a "legal" alteration)

then from B7...altered VI of what?

D

That's the explanation...

That's precisely why it's called "implied" because the tonic is not explicitly stated. If "there was an E to begin with" it's not going to be implied then.

Like I said, looking at D as the I chord would be looking at it from the key of D. But refer to my previous post for another angle at this.

you can't imply that it's the bVII9 of E because first of all, there's no E to begin with...and you can't say that the B7 implied it, because there's an A7

the root would be D

now if it was the original EM9...it's a totally different story...but it's not there...so...

go figure...

imbento ang theory mo pareng titser_marco

thing is ... you don'g get me at all...

let's hear a sample...

or you can explain how you would approach soloing over this progression...

Like I said, I'm sure everyone here would solo over this progression and I'm sure they're miles ahead of in terms of speed, (or soul! hahahaha) or whatever parameter you insist on. What's sad is that ideas can come to me anytime, but I'm not physically blessed with speed and some such stuff so I can only do the things I know. I'm sure that's what you wanted to hear: a  statement that resembles surrender or something. If you're looking at a guitar battle, I plead no contest: you are obviously a guitarist; I'm a musician. What interests me in this particular chord change are the extensions or the upper partials to create more tension, not what melodic possiblities are present. I'll leave that to you because you're all better than me in terms of that.

And to tell you frankly, what I said wasn't even a theory. It was a simple matter of explaining things in musical terms, and would not go into your habit of being preposterous (look it up, will ya?). A theory encompasses a lot of phenomena.

[markflo]

i'm still waiting for a sample titser_marco...still waiting here...

i wanna hear how good your "atonality" sounds like compared to our 18th century music...

[markflo]

the jazzers DID know what they were doing...that's the misconception...it's free flowing, but it's far from unstructured...take coltrane's giant steps for example...one of the greatest jazz tunes in the world...it sounds like a rambling of notes...but those notes are actually based on a descending augmented triad and a mixtur of ii-V's that lead to the next of three tonal centers B, Eb, and G...

chord substitutions (chords with 3 or more notes can be substituted for each other) eg superimposition

the HW diminished scale natural used over a V chord as it adds tension to the coming of the I chord...

etc etc etc...

one thing they also had, however, was the ability to mix theory, melody, with unusual rhythms and contour...that's why it sounds the way it sounds...

Question.  Do you really have to know the theory behind everything in a "mental" sense.  For me it was a stumbling rock.  Steve Vai had a better approach to progressions.  He said you should just start off with simple chords.   Then next, change the voicings of the chords, or do chord subs.  For me I use more ear than theory because when I think, I get lost.  But when I hear the chords, I just get satisfied.  I just feel it is ridiculous to remember a gazillion chord progressions when a lot of variations can be done with a I-vi-ii-V7.  For me it starts from there.  

On a higher note, I think the real jazzers didn't really know what they were doing in a theoretical sense.

[alquin]

buti n lang pala di ako magaling, sa english at gitara.. nakakatakot pala pag gumaling ka .....

peace

[BAMF]

Di tayo aabot sa ganito kung puro root-fifth lang ang progression nyahahahehehe.