What's the proper name for this chord?

[stringtapper]

No your right it's no better in that case, I was just trying to that it's no worse. History has blessed us with the notion of a Dominant 7th but if we were making all this stuff up from scratch again then Myxolidian 7th would do as well.

Not really. Mixolydian denotes a specific mode from the diatonic major scale. Dominant generally defines the quality of the chord's 3rd and 7th, and (to a lesser degree in jazz/pop) the function of the chord. But what if you're in a minor key? There's still going to be dominant chords but they won't come from the mixolydian mode (disclaimer: this is looking at everything in a very simplistic modal sense, as all chords in a tune deriving from one diatonic collection, which is obviously not how a lot of music actually works, i.e. movement through key ares, etc.). So using "dominant" is actually more efficient in that sense because you're not having to change the overall label depending on whether you're playing a vanilla dominant seventh or an altered flavor.

The main reason I'm suddenly very interested in understanding all this is I want to add chords to my fretboard visualiser project in a way that properly represents the underlying theory and also relates the chords to the scales that they are derived from. At the moment I've done chords as a kind of bastardised version of a scale. It's important because I want to add the ability to add of user defined scale and chord types and I'd like the editor to make sense in terms of conventional music theory.

I notice you use "Phrygian Dominant" and I like that label as well. Just know that most people are going to know that as "5th Mode Harmonic Minor."

[stringtapper]

Oh and I almost forgot, here's a nice resource on chord/scale choices from one of my teachers:

http://www.danhaerle.com/scalechoices.html

[crumhorn]

@stringtapper

I've been thinking about these things a bit more and I'm starting to come round to the same view. Dominant denotes the 5th degree of the scale no matter what scale. So myxolydian can't replace the term dominant because mysxolydian itself as a dominant which happens to be a minor.

But when it comes to non diatonic harmonies I think it's true to say that no system for chord naming really delivers. Because all key signatures, chord spellings and even the musical stave ultimately derive from the 7 note diatonic tone set.

It's been an interesting though process though and I think I've learned a lot on the way.

On the subject of alternative names for Phrygian Dominant (which I love - Thelonius Monk meets Flamenco!). The system can already cope with alternative names for the same scale and highlights the equivalents as well as the scale you select, eg. natural minor, aeolian mode and harmonic minor. This is one reason I want to open it to user added scales. Because there are so many scales (and names for scales) and I don't have the patience to research and add them all.

Also the whole subject of modes of non diatonic scales is something I haven't figured out yet from a data modelling point of view. At the moment it works on the principle that all scales are either one of the seven diatonic modes or derived from them by selecting a set of notes from the mode and sharpening or flattening some of them. The base mode and root note is used to establish the key signature. I need another layer in my model to deal with modes of altered scales.

And thanks for that really useful link!

[Incornsyucopia23]

No your right it's no better in that case, I was just trying to that it's no worse. History has blessed us with the notion of a Dominant 7th but if we were making all this stuff up from scratch again then Myxolidian 7th would do as well.

Not really. Mixolydian denotes a specific mode from the diatonic major scale. Dominant generally defines the quality of the chord's 3rd and 7th, and (to a lesser degree in jazz/pop) the function of the chord. But what if you're in a minor key? There's still going to be dominant chords but they won't come from the mixolydian mode (disclaimer: this is looking at everything in a very simplistic modal sense, as all chords in a tune deriving from one diatonic collection, which is obviously not how a lot of music actually works, i.e. movement through key ares, etc.). So using "dominant" is actually more efficient in that sense because you're not having to change the overall label depending on whether you're playing a vanilla dominant seventh or an altered flavor.

The main reason I'm suddenly very interested in understanding all this is I want to add chords to my fretboard visualiser project in a way that properly represents the underlying theory and also relates the chords to the scales that they are derived from. At the moment I've done chords as a kind of bastardised version of a scale. It's important because I want to add the ability to add of user defined scale and chord types and I'd like the editor to make sense in terms of conventional music theory.

I notice you use "Phrygian Dominant" and I like that label as well. Just know that most people are going to know that as "5th Mode Harmonic Minor."

Or the much less cumbersome "harmonic-dominant"

But yes, I agree, using "Mixolydian" instead of "dominant" is unnecessarily confusing since the seven other possible dominant scales (Lydian-dominant, Melodic-dominant, Whole-tone, Harmonic-dominant, Symmetrical-dominant, Altered-dominant... isn't there one more that I'm forgetting?) come from very different places. The only thing they all have in common are major thirds and minor sevenths, which form precisely the interval, a tri-tone, that defines a dominant chord and hence scale.

[Incornsyucopia23]

@stringtapper

I've been thinking about these things a bit more and I'm starting to come round to the same view. Dominant denotes the 5th degree of the scale no matter what scale. So myxolydian can't replace the term dominant because mysxolydian itself as a dominant which happens to be a minor.

But when it comes to non diatonic harmonies I think it's true to say that no system for chord naming really delivers. Because all key signatures, chord spellings and even the musical stave ultimately derive from the 7 note diatonic tone set.

It's been an interesting though process though and I think I've learned a lot on the way.

On the subject of alternative names for Phrygian Dominant (which I love - Thelonius Monk meets Flamenco!). The system can already cope with alternative names for the same scale and highlights the equivalents as well as the scale you select, eg. natural minor, aeolian mode and harmonic minor. This is one reason I want to open it to user added scales. Because there are so many scales (and names for scales) and I don't have the patience to research and add them all.

Also the whole subject of modes of non diatonic scales is something I haven't figured out yet from a data modelling point of view. At the moment it works on the principle that all scales are either one of the seven diatonic modes or derived from them by selecting a set of notes from the mode and sharpening or flattening some of them. The base mode and root note is used to establish the key signature. I need another layer in my model to deal with modes of altered scales.

And thanks for that really useful link!

Well, I'd disagree that dominant always means "the 5th degree of the scale." This is the case for only three dominant scales: Mixo., Harmonic-dominant (5th mode of harmonic minor) and Melodic-dominant (5th mode of melodic minor). For the other dominant scales, the 5th mode of anything is not where it's at. Lydian-dominant comes from the 4th mode of melodic minor, Altered-dominant from the 7th mode of melodic-minor and Whole-tone and Sym-dom. are both symmetrical so the concept of mode doesn't apply to them. (Although Sym-dom does have its alternate diminished form of whole-half rather than half-whole). Also, in terms of chords progressions, dominant chords definitely don't always occur on the fifth note of a key, unless one wants to understand every secondary dominant as constituting a modulation. This would make harmonic analysis REALLY complicated though.

[stringtapper]

Lydian-dominant, Melodic-dominant, Whole-tone, Harmonic-dominant, Symmetrical-dominant, Altered-dominant... isn't there one more that I'm forgetting?

Here's an example of how jazz nomenclature is by no mean universally standardized, as I know some of these by different names.

Lydian-dominant = same (or Lydian b7, 4th mode Melodic Minor)
Melodic-dominant = Mixolydian b6 (or 5th mode Melodic Minor)
Whole-tone = same
Harmonic-dominant = 5th mode Harmonic Minor
Symmetrical-dominant = Half-Whole Diminished
Altered-Dominant = same (or Super Locrian, Diminished Whole-Tone)

Besides pentatonic and blues scales (and vanilla Mixolydian of course) that's about it unless you want to get into synthetic scales (3rd and 5th modes of Harmonic Major).


Regarding:

Dominant denotes the 5th degree of the scale no matter what scale.

This:

Well, I'd disagree that dominant always means "the 5th degree of the scale."

Remember that in jazz/pop harmony "dominant" really denotes a seventh chord with a major third and minor seventh above all. "Vanilla" Mixolydian (5th mode Major Scale) gives you the most basic, unaltered pitch collection to use with such a chord. But the altered forms (dominant seventh chords with altered extensions like b9, #9, b5, b13, #11) are either derived from different scales or at least share their pitch content with certain other scale (the ones written above plus some others, see the link I gave earlier) that can be used with them.

[sounddevisor]

Since we are already dipping our toes into the murky waters of music theory in this thread, let me add some mud to the waters buy bringing up George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept:

http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/main.html

The Concept (as it is sometimes referred to) can get both deep and far-out, but the main idea is that the Lydian mode, rather than the major scale, becomes the basis of everything. Russell has a whole rationale for why that should be the case, and there are of course wide-ranging ramifications from a functional harmony and chord-naming point of view. Analyzing music on the basis of the Concept can lead to some very interesting insights, and for me personally, it has given me some very good jumping-off points for composition.

[stringtapper]

I looked into Russell's work a few years back but never got further than the info on his site. The book is pretty expensive, even for a bibliophile like me. I've never seen anyone on the SMT (Society of Music Theory, of which I'm a member) lists discuss the method, which makes me think there are probably issues with it. But fresh ideas never hurt anyone and many composers throughout history have come up with interesting theories even if they haven't found their way into the traditions.

I found a short paper online that outlines some issues with the method.

http://www.jeff-brent.com/Lessons/LCC/L ... ancies.pdf

Thanks for reminding me about it. I'm going to investigate it again.

[sporkles]

That chord is actually called Zeke.

[redglass]

FMaj7#11

+1

[crumhorn]

Lydian Chromatic theory is a bit over my head right now. I'm still getting my head around all the different possibilities of the diatonic series. However I do think it makes sense to see the diatonic modes as a series starting with the Lydian Mode and then progressing by ascending fifths to end on the Locrian Mode.

This is probably old hat to you guys but if you take the modes in this order and write out the intervals of each mode in a table form it contains a beautiful symmetry.

+ = Tome, . = Semitone
+++.++. - Lydian
++.+++. - Ionian
++.++.+ - Mixolydian
+.+++.+ - Dorian
+.++.++ - Aeolian
.+++.++ - Phrygian
.++.+++ - Locrian

When playing with these modes it always feels to me like the modes at the top of the list tend to lead upwards to the tonic and the last three lead downwards to the tonic. Dorian is completely symetrical and leads neither up or down.

Also I think that there is some truth to the idea that Lydian 13th chord has a particular stable and satisfying character.

[stringtapper]

However I do think it makes sense to see the diatonic modes as a series starting with the Lydian Mode and then progressing by ascending fifths to end on the Locrian Mode.

This is probably old hat to you guys but if you take the modes in this order and write out the intervals of each mode in a table form it contains a beautiful symmetry.

+ = Tone, . = Semitone
+++.++. - Lydian
++.+++. - Ionian
++.++.+ - Mixolydian
+.+++.+ - Dorian
+.++.++ - Aeolian
.+++.++ - Phrygian
.++.+++ - Locrian

This scheme can also be a good way to look at key relationships (something a professor of mine calls the "spiral of modes").

If you take all of the modes in parallel, all with the same tonic, you get the order of sharps and flats in the circle of fifths.

C Lydian = 1#
C Ionian = 0
C Mixolydian = 1b
C Dorian = 2b
C Aeolian = 3b
C Phrygian = 4b
C Locrian = 5b

You can then count outward from the root C until you've exhausted all the keys:

C# Ionian = 7#
C# Mixolydian = 6#
C# Dorian = 5#
C# Aeolian = 4#
C# Phrygian = 3#
C# Locrian = 2# (<-- the second sharp here is C#, changing the root note)
----------------
C Lydian = 1#
C Ionian = 0
C Mixolydian = 1b
C Dorian = 2b
C Aeolian = 3b
C Phrygian = 4b
C Locrian = 5b
----------------
Cb Lydian = 6b (<-- the sixth flat here is Cb, changing the root note)
Cb Ionian = 7b

It's really just a different way of looking at the same information that's presented in the circle of fifths, but kinda cool nonetheless.

[crumhorn]

That is how fretlearner works out the key signature for the chosen scale.

Root Note Numbers: F = 0, C = 1, G = 2, D = 3, A = 4, E = 5, etc

Mode Numbers: Lydian = 0, Ionian = 1, Myxolydian = 2, Dorian = 3, Aeolian = 4, Phrygian = 5, Locrian = 6

Key signature = root note number - mode number

eg

D Phrygian = root note number 3 - mode number 5 = -2 meaning 2 flats.
F Locrian = root note number 0 - mode number 6 = -6 meaning 6 flats.
A Ionian = root note number 4 - mode number 1 = +3 meaning 3 sharps.