Re: Minors and manners

[ah567@xxxxxxxxxxx (George W. Miklas)]

Dear harp-l, (Specifically, Bruce)

>Whew.  Listen, George, I'm sorry, man.  
There is no problem Bruce.  My intent is to be specific when
discussing harmonic termonology.  As in the English language,
the smallest of typographical errors can change the message.
I am resonably sure that typographical errors have even changed 
history.  I will use your question below to specifically 
address this in a friendly manner this time.

>What is, say, a so-called "Cmaj7" chord -- C, E, G, B, right?
>And if this isn't 1, 3, 5, >7< in the C major scale, what ~is~ it
>composed of?
This is correct.  Please make a notation that all of the notes in this
chord are diatonic and naturally occur in the key of C.  Let's go on.
 
>Or should this not accurately be called a "C major seventh" chord
>at all, and if not, what should it be called?  
This is the proper name for the chord used in the example above. 
While abbreviations are not "universally uniform," they are generally
standardized by genre.  For example:  Your abbreviation above is
most common and seen in most guitar books.  However, that same
chord can be abbreviated "CM7" or "C(triangle pointing upward)7"
which is the common way that this is seen in jazz fake books.
Let me be clear, it is not the use of abbreviations, but the
structure of the chord both implied and defined.  Let's go on.
 
>If one is to infer that "major chords" can only basically be
>triads of the form 1, 3, 5 (or 1, 3, 5, 8) then there is a world
>of players running around out there using the wrong terminology
>calling this CEGB collection of notes a "C major seventh" chord.
Bruce, in your original post, you did not specify that your 
C Major chord had a seventh.  Nothing is to imply a seventh
when you see "C Major."  "C Major" is either a triad, or a 
four-note chord with the root doubled (generally an octave above).
In my previous response to your post, I only reacted to what I
read.  Let's go on.

>And if this "seventh" stuff is having a similar effect on your
>expert sensibilities (no sarcasm intended, honest :), I can
>relate, and I'm sorry. 
It is all in the terminology Bruce.  There is a standard definition
to scales (major and minor), then there is a "hacker" way of 
explaining it.  I can't stand a half-assed hacker to explain
music theory in vague terms.  This is not a flame toward anyone,
anywhere, nor referencing any posts on this list.  It is a 
feeling toward inept theoretician.

>And please don't yell the lesson -- it makes my teeth hurt (and
>distracts me from it's message :).

>Peace, B*

Yes, Peace indeed!
George Miklas, Bass Harmonicat