Modewheel - a reference tool I came up with

Phil_aka_Pip

viz said:

It’s quite simple, conceptually at least, by polar coords like Lee said. If the top of the Ionian arc is, say (0,1), then when it’s at 30 degrees, ie for C# major, you need to flip the background to the flats background, so when 0.35<x<0.65 and 0.35<y<0.65, you show background number 2. Etc. 

You're way ahead of me there

viz

Phil_aka_Pip said:

viz said:

It’s quite simple, conceptually at least, by polar coords like Lee said. If the top of the Ionian arc is, say (0,1), then when it’s at 30 degrees, ie for C# major, you need to flip the background to the flats background, so when 0.35<x<0.65 and 0.35<y<0.65, you show background number 2. Etc. 

You're way ahead of me there

I doubt that!

it’s even simpler if you describe the orientation of the wheel by angular position; 15 degrees to 45 degrees, it’s background 2; 45 to 75 it’s background 1 again, etc. 

LeeCassidy

Brad said:

LeeCassidy said:

God, the quoting here can be a bit of a pain in the arse!

C D E F G A A#. I'm still unsure how you think somebody can confuse the sixth and seventh steps here. Quite plainly, there are seven steps. So long as you can count, I don't see the issue.

In the case of C7, how would I explain that the 7th is a whole step from the 8th? As best I can tell, what you describe is only an issue if you expect enharmonic naming. Who's to say I would spell the chord with a Bflat? I've stated what I think of this convention, and I would likely spell it as A#. And again, I maintain no information is lost, beyond the enharmonic naming convention who's only purpose is to make writing standard notation easier.

Nobody should be looking at this tool, set to Mixolydian, to work out chords. They of course can, but I would not suggest it. They should, like everything else I can think of, be basing their chord spellings around the Ionian mode and the Aeolian mode. To get a dominant 7 chord, they should take the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th notes in the appropriate key, and then lower the 7th by one semitone. Whether they call that lowered 7th a Bflat or an A# is neither here nor there for the chord's construction, function, or sound, and I maintain nor for an understanding of it.

A, Aflat, and A# are not 'a type of 6th', unless you're deadset on using enharmonic naming conventions. There's nothing special about those notes outside of that convention that makes them reserved for the 6th in the key of C.

Because Bb is the b7 of C not A#, irrespective of whether they sound the same or if it is still a seventh step.

It not about making standard notation easier to write, it's about communicating a shared common language and understanding. If someone were to ask me to play a C chord, there is an expectation (or there should be) that I'd play a C major chord. In the same way if dealing with C7 there is an unspoken understanding that it involves Bb not A#. If someone were to use/say A#, well of course I'd get where they were coming from, adapt and the sound would still be correct. But there has never been anything I've ever read/discussed with people where A# has anything to do with C Mixolydian. It's either a C Major scale with a b7 or mode 5 of F major.

Chords, scales and modes are inextricably linked so people should be able to work out chords with this tool. What happens when someone wants C Phrygian, they find out it is mode 3 of Ab major and can be used over a C-7 chord which consists of the notes C Eb G Bb? They apply the tool and come out with C C# D# F G G# A#? I agree it doesn't alter the sound (that's not my point) but is that not going to cause more confusion than the time honoured conventions you seem to be against? You can view it this way because you already have a solid grounding in music theory, but what about people that don't already have that? Unless your plan is to get people to only look at music theory from the perspective of sharps? What happens if someone then opens up a Real Book?

It's like saying I'm going to refuse to use a silent 'K' when spelling because I might get confused between knight and night, or because the 'K' is not sounded when saying the words knock, knee and knowledge. True, it doesn't really make any sense as a rule and nor does it change the sound or meaning of these words when speaking, but there are other implications than just for the written word.

A, Ab and A# are not a type of anything by themselves, they only take on life in relation to other notes and placed in context and in my opinion the context has to be correct as much as it can be from a learning perspective.  

@viz I disagree that it's both major and minor (although I do get why you see it that way), it's an altered dominant that can be used as either functioning to create tension moving to the I chord, or non-functioning for a vamp.

Play G9 where the 9th is the top voice like this x-10-9-10-10-x lowering it by semitone gives us G7b9. Conversely raising it by a semitone gives us a #9. We're altering the 9th in any case, regardless of the fact the #9 happens to be the same as a b10. I agree it doesn't make sense to think of it as an augmented 2nd either because it isn't, it's a type of 9th because it's above a 7th.

Anyways I'll bow out now as it seems we're just going round in circles. Like i said, I like the concept and i think it has potential. Good luck with it!   

So, basically, it's convention and I should include it, is what you were saying all along. That's what i thought your objection was, but you'd phrased it in absolute terms, like there was something analytically wrong with this tool.

Well, I feel I addressed that charge several times already. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, and if that's so, I apologise. 

Like I said to Viz, I hope it doesn't seem like I don't appreciate your feedback and you taking the time to check it, because I do (the same goes to Phil aka Pip). And even if we don't agree on this, I do appreciate your point. 

Brad

@viz I know I said I was out, but I can't resist a good debate  

In isolation it totally makes sense why you think of it that way (even though I still disagree  ). The music that we all love tends to use it in this fashion and with it being a dominant chord its open to the whole 'minor/major 3rd' treatment. That's why the Minor Pentatonic will be the go to scale initially, because it does lend itself to a minor blues sound and because our ears are used to the tension in the chord. Funny how there are no extended 7b9 vamps!

I agree about the need for flexibility, but it's dependent on the chord type. E6 and E13 are two different sounds and serve differing usages because one includes the 7th and that is really important. But the 3rd is still the 3rd whatever octave it is in, as it defines the quality of the chord. This shape for E major x-7-6-4-5-4 has a 3rd above the octave, would this then be E10? Say we have E7#9b5, would this be E7b10b12? When dealing with altered dominants (I'm coming from a more Jazz perspective which is where I think our differences occur), the dominant chords are defined by the 3rd and 7th, these are left alone. the 5ths and 9ths can be altered in either direction, the 11th can only be raised and the 13th can only be lowered because otherwise we run into so many problems. 

This 12-(11)-12-13-14-x isn't an altered chord, it's an extended chord (E13... well E7add13). I alluded to the anomalies of the Altered Scale a little further back and I do agree with your analysis here (and I'm fully aware of the contradictions I'm making). 
But look at it this way, harmonise the E Altered Scale in thirds to get a 4 note chord, what is the first chord? It's Em7b5! We only get an E7#9(or b10) from the E Altered Scale by harmonising it in 4ths. The rules of the game have changed because we'd now get 1 b4 b7 b3(b10). It's almost like we get it by accident.

As E7#9 is a type of dom7 chord I think it makes more sense to reassign this to better reflect the type of chord, so it is 1 3 b7 #9 rather than 1 b4 b7 b10. The 3rd is already accounted for in the early part of the chord and it keeps the odd number system in place after the 7th, as is the case for extensions. I hear where you're coming from but your argument that it's still an altered chord because the G# has been lowered doesn't hold true for me. I'd argue 3rds and 7ths can't be altered, they're either major or minor, the 5ths, 9ths, 11ths and 13ths can be altered in dom7 chords. The F## isn't ideal, but if we play G7#9 does G B F A# look so bad in comparison to G B D Bb? 

You're right, there are no sharps in the E Altered, but there is only one natural (the Root), so where does that leave the 3rd in the chord now? Are you going to call Ab even though you say yourself you hear the bottom of the chord as E7 (which I agree it is)? In the scale itself, the 3rd/10th will always be G the 4th and 11th always Ab. But we're not altering scale tones, we're altering chord tones regarding an E9 chord and these chord tones happen to fit the Altered Scale and viewed accordingly.

Hmm as for that chord.... Ealt Seriously though, it depends on context. On it's own it doesn't sound great but as part of a ii V i it's a 'little' more palatable = 10-x-9-10-10-x to x-7-5-7-9-x to x-0-9-5-8-x. Or reassign the intervals to get this
13-x-12-14-12-x to x11-12-12-x-12 to x-12-10-12-12-x. The tritone of G# and D is so strong I'm still hearing this as a altered dominant (just one i'd never use!) so for the sake of my err... my credibility, even though it's been moved down an octave I'd still call it E7#9. This = 7-x-5-5-5-x is pretty jarring but it's still Cmaj7. 

If we're talking getting it from the scale even though I still disagree I do see where you're coming from, but I view the chord itself as being altered. Fascinating indeed though!  

@LeeCassidy ;;Yeah, pretty much and that's the only thing I think is wrong with the tool in that regard, I think it's a really great idea and otherwise works really well so I don't want you to think I'm pissing on your chips. And you made yourself completely clear, it's we just disagree that's all on the use of convention. Much like me and viz on that pesky 7#9 chord!

viz

Brad said:

This 12-(11)-12-13-14-x isn't an altered chord, it's an extended chord (E13... well E7add13). I alluded to the anomalies of the Altered Scale a little further back and I do agree with your analysis here (and I'm fully aware of the contradictions I'm making). 

Class chat. 

And sorry, I meant 12 (11) 12 13 13 x - typo!