Music Theory questions

[Jim Broyles]

Mark, read slowly! The maj implies the SCALAR 7th. If it didn't have the maj it would be the FLAT seventh! It doesn't need the maj if it's a straight major, and it doesn't need it if it's a dominant chord. 13 has the 7 and the 9 but not the 11; 11 has the 7 and the 9, but in these cases the 7th is always the flat 7. I might concede the point on the maj6 chord. It should contain the scalar 7th, IMO, but it doesn't have to, I guess, as dumb as it seems to me. But, every other XmajX has the natural 7th.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

I feel like we are talking about 2 different things. I think I'm reading carefully, but I think I'm not writing carefully or clearly enough...! So:

To put it simply, do the following chords (as written) have 7ths (of any kind) in them:
Dmaj
Dmaj-add2
Dmaj-add4
Dmaj6
Dmaj-add11

I can't say I've ever seen these (just these, mind you) chords, when written this way, imply that the C# note is there. Nor any C note. But if you have, I'd love to see examples, so that I'm aware of the practice.

Now do the following have C#s?
Dmaj11
Dmaj7
Dmaj13
Dmaj7#9
Dmaj9#5

YES!!! Very much so. I agree. I've read all your words carefully and I still agree with you! I would have agreed yesterday, and in 1993 as well!

Most people will not write the maj or the M in the top group, but I still think they are equivalent in my experience. But maybe not? I've seen chord charts where D6 was written as Dmaj6. Dadd2 was written as Dmaj-add2. To me, these are alternate notations for the same chord without the 7th.

Cheers
MRT

[Jim Broyles]

See, I would not write Dmaj if I only wanted a D triad. I guess technically, no, Dmaj has no 7th.
I do not use add2. I use add9, or 2 without the add. If I saw Dmaj add2 I'd play D F#A E.
If I saw Dmajadd4 I'd play D F# G A.
As much as I don't like it, I'd play D F# A B for Dmaj6. It ought to be D F# A B C#.
DmajAdd11, to me, would be D F# A C# G, but no E (9th.) If I didn't want any 7th at all, I would write that as add4 or add11.The problem is that chord symbols do not designate which octave the notes are in.

Second group - yes. All have C#'s. The rest of your post is addressed in my first paragraph.

Everything is fine.

[aliza]

Hi everyone. Thanks so much. I guess that sort of fogged up and then clarified a whole lot of things. : ) I was always wondering if a C9 included the 7th or not. You were saying that it does, right? But an add9 would not include the 7?

Also, what is the difference between lets say an add4 or an add11?
Is it just that the 11th is higher up, opposed to being between the 3rd and 5th?
And in answer to the question about what the base was in that chord, it was the G. But the song I'm supposed to be giving the chord symbols for is in the key of D Major. I was confused because although I for the most part understand all that was discussed above, the book hadn't yet taught about added 4,6,9,11,etc. So I thought I might've been missing something basic. But I guess not. Thank you,
aliza

[Jim Broyles]

Yes, C9 includes the Bb, or flat7, of C. Cadd9 would be C, E, G and D without any type of B.

Add4 = add11. I wouldn't really know why anyone would use add11 if they don't want the 7th or 9th. Just say add4and end the confusion.

Some arrangers like to keep a tonic pedal tone or a bass note drone and play, for example, G, C/G and D/G for the I, IV and V chords in the key of G. Using a I/4 (tonic with the 4th in the bass) might be part of a song's arrangement. If you charted out the passage using that chord we could see how it fits in the arrangement.

You will see a 9th, 11th or a 13th as a V chord a lot of the time, since the dominant 7th resolves nicely to the I - think the F in a G7 going to the E of a C major. The other notes just add a little spice to the sound.

[Jim Broyles]

Deleted.

[aliza]

Hi. Can someone please explain Hemiola to me?

[JeffD]

Its a wierd kind of almost syncopation, where the beat is in three, but the emphasis of notes is in two, like every other note. I hear this more often than not in classical waltzes,

Its like ONE two THREE one TWO three ONE two THREE one TWO three. Well not as exaggerated as that, but you get the idea.

It can be really nice in a waltz because it adds a kind of swing to the dance, if its done right.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

Three beats in the space of two is the most basic definition. If you are in 6/8 time, there are two beats normally, each with duration of a dotted 1/4 note. If you play three quarter notes in the measure, then you are playing three beats in the same space. This is an example of hemiola.

Cheers
MRT

[Ken_P]

Pretty much anything by Brahms is a master class in hemiola, but it's very easy to hear in this example:



You can very clearly hear certain sections of the orchestra playing groups of 3, while others are playing groups of two, and who's doing what will change several times back and forth. Note that the basic pulse and note values are the same throughout, it's just the emphasis that changes.

[Jim Broyles]

Wanna hear some hemiola we probably all heard? Piano playing "Chopsticks" is three everything else is two. Watch the foot tapping and listen to the piano.

[Jim Broyles]

Pretty much anything by Brahms is a master class in hemiola, but it's very easy to hear in this example:



You can very clearly hear certain sections of the orchestra playing groups of 3, while others are playing groups of two, and who's doing what will change several times back and forth. Note that the basic pulse and note values are the same throughout, it's just the emphasis that changes.

Help with imbed

[bobby bill]

I would say that hemiola, rather than two within three or three within two, is more broadly any time during a piece where the meter seems to shift for a brief period (but not long enough to put in new time signature). It may shift from three to two or vice versa, but there are also other variations. The example JeffD gave is used in Jacob's Santa Morena, but what I hear is a quick three against a slower (twice as long) three.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvI4WpRBvc4

[JeffD]

Does it go both ways, three in two and two in three? I don't know. I had always heard the word used to refer to a two emphasis in a three time.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

Does it go both ways, three in two and two in three? I don't know. I had always heard the word used to refer to a two emphasis in a three time.

Traditionally (and since the OP is studying for the AP exam...), it's probably best to say that hemiola is 3 beats in the space of 2. One can broaden the definition, but not everyone will agree with that. Polyrhythm would be the more common term for other x against y rhythms.

Also, it's probably worth pointing out that hemiola is usually used to describe a regrouping of the existing pulse into a different rhythmic feel.

regular 6/8: 3eighths+3e=6e for two beats, hemiola: 2e+2e+2e=6e for three beats.
regular 3/4: 3quarters+3q=6q for two "beats", hemiola: 2q+2q+2q=6q for three "beats".

This is different than triplets, which are generally a departure from the underlying rhythmic subdivisions. Therefore, hemiolas occur most naturally in 3/4, 6/8, 9/8 rhythms where you have the 3 aspect from the time signature already in the pulse. You can't have hemiola in 4/4 time unless you temporarily establish a different rhythm in opposition to the time signature first, by using triplets for example.

Cheers
MRT

[Jim Broyles]

Well, I found this:

hemiola
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music | 1996 | MICHAEL KENNEDY and JOYCE BOURNE | 228 words | Copyright

hemiola or hemiolia. This rhythmic device consists of superimposing 2 notes in the time of 3, or 3 in the time of 2, e.g.:

But I also found a drummer demonstrating hemiolas as "speed changes" wherein the space of four quarter notes was taken by two quarter note triplets, then eighth notes, then eighth triplets, then sixteenths, then "fives," then sextuplet sixteenths, then "sevens," then thirty-seconds. From what I have gathered, the only true hemiolas in that demo are the triplets and sextuplets.