I want to create an Aug6th chord (French) on F: F-A-D#-A-B. Is there a way to create it so that the popover recognizes the symbol, for example, #6? It recognizes F6 but not F#6 (F# plus added 6th) or F6# (treats as F6).
Is that an âItalianâ (Neopolitan) 6th chord?
(And FACD# would be a âGermanâ 6th?)
Itâs been 60 years since I studies these , so my memory may be hazy.
Itâs the French 6th. I always think of the French as being a fancy version of the German, so a dominant vs a dominant b5, but spelled enharmonically. So F-A-D#-C (German) or F-A-D#-B (French).
IIRC (itâs also been a while), Neapolitan is a lowered IIâ¶.
Thatâs what I recall now that you mention it. Thank you.
This is my core expertise, so:
The boxed numbers below are the places these chords live in the scale:
- all the augmented sixth chords (italian, german french) on the 6th scale degree, the bass moving to the fifth degree.
- the Neapolitan chord is built on the fourth scale degree and has a minor third, and â characteristically â a minor sixth.
Both chords are genuinely not inversions, but came into existence just the way shown.
P.S.: These are two chords where Roman Numeral Theory fails, because it builds on the assumption, that every chord has to be an inversion of a stack of thirds, which simply is not true in these special cases ⊠there is no âroot positionâ of the Neapolitan chord, it exists in precisely in this one shape, it is in root position already.
Sorry for the lecture 
1 Like
@kevin.romero.gtr, are you wanting functional chord labels below the staff â as in basic chord analysis, or input above with the chord symbol popover â with Fr+6 as a chord symbol?
If the former, and youâre interested in a third-party solution, forum member @dan_kreiderâs MusAnalysis font works through input via the Lyrics popover. One can easily specify It+6, Fr+6, Ger+6 â and even the lesser-used Sw+6 (âSwiss,â enharmonic equivalent of Ger+6, with #^2 instead of b^3):
2 Likes
Schenker had a different view of the âNeapolitan Sixthâ and considered the flat second degree of the scale to be a vestige of the Phrygian mode with its half step between the first and second degree of the scale. So it can occur in root position as well as first inversion chords. For example from Beethovenâs op. 57:
Yes, this a very famous example of this relation, but it does not prove the the point retroactively. I would rather see Beethoven using it as a âspecial effectsâ relation (I was never convinced by the phrygian theory).
99% of all occurrences of this chord are 3/6-chords.
The much older original usage is something like this (early 18th century), and I would be surprised if anybody heard the third chord as a sudden change of root:
The older (in fact centuries old view) was: there are two possible consonant chords:
a 3/5 and a 3/6, the 3/5 more stable, the 3/6 less so but not an inversion of the first, and itâs possible and common to do a 3/5-3/6-3/5 movement without thinking about ârootâ change.
Here is the famous example from Carissimi, Jephtha (1650)
Occams razor âŠ
But I didnât want to start a theory war here ⊠
1 Like
I didnât mean to open up a theory discussion, butâŠcool.
The âinversionâ of the German sixth occurs frequently in flamenco guitar, the âinversionsâ of the French less so. I am still learning to work with the figured bass but so far I canât figure a way to notate the diminished third inversion of the augmented sixth chords. So for a German 6th F-A-D#-C the inversion would be spelled D#-F-A-C. There is also the problem of jazz chord nomenclature. It wonât allow #6. I tried #13.
So I have put asterisks in the engraving so I can footnote the discrepancies in jazz and classical methods of analysis. Not Doricoâs fault and probably too niche for them to expand.
And from the Schenkerian point of view, the augmented sixth âchordsâ are actually just chromatic passing techniques applied to consonant harmonies. For example the Italian 6th can be seen as a combination of two chromatic passing tones connecting between the notes of a IV6 and V chord. After this technique was used a lot, the initial IV chord could be omitted when necessary for rhythmic and motivic reasons, since it could be understood from the context:
I prefer this kind of explanation because chords make sense as arising dynamically out of a context rather than isolated entities handed down from on high and strung together according to rules in a harmony book.
I DO NOT prefer this kind of explanation because it is very ethnocentric. What kind of context you talking about? Lotâs of other musics have borrowed Western harmony but used it differently and the question is can Dorico accommodate strange harmonies in its chord diagrams and figured bass. The answer right now, for me, is no. The chord diagrams, for example, does not recognize a raised 6th and autocorrects to a sixth. That was my original question.
Sorry, @kevin.romero.gtr I donât understand what is ethnocentric about saying that harmonies need to be understood in context rather than following rules in a book. I think it is the opposite of ethnocentric. The example I gave is just one of many, depending on the situation and style. Any chord can have many different explanations for its existence, again depending on context.
This is exactly why I made my first example in that way.
Viewed genetically âstandard formula of the bass going down from 8 to 5:
The first example is the standard way, with C#: itâs not an alteration âafter the factâ, it is mandatory (making the cantizans/tenorizans combination cadence to 5)
The interpretation as some IV chord is not very plausible in that light.
1 Like
If you are talking about chord symbols like C7, Ab7(#11) etc there is a very precise context, no?
And this context prefers to write f-a-c-d# as F7.
When i teach Jazz harmony (which I do), would tell my students to write F7-E7, when Iâm speaking about Mozart (which I also do) I would prefer F-A-C-D# going to an E chord ⊠so context matters, but Iâm not so sure, why this should be a question of ethnicity (?)
But maybe Iâm getting just old âŠ
Thank you @meixner for your explanation. I am afraid that we might be talking past one another, which is my fault. I have never be able to get comfortable with what seems to me to be an historical approach to music theory. The music that interests me operates on its own logical principles that are independent of a historical framework.
When you tell your students in the jazz context to write F7-E7, is that a matter of convenience or a historically accurate application of voice-leading properties and conventions? One problem is that jazz extends common practice harmony and would not exist without it, yet, so many jazz musicians are unaware of what mode means across contexts (not saying you are that way). Same for classical musicians who persist in claiming that Flamenco âinsists on resolving to the dominant.â What about when Eb moves to E in an EM resolution? Enharmonic convenience?
Anyway, what I was after was clarity in the analyses. It does not make sense to insert an F7 or F7b5 chord diagram and then a German or French sixth figured bass. Or, putting a positive spin, it makes sense and we can describe these in different ways according to the system we are using.
I ask, because, I do agree that context matters. The problem is the context concept. What do you mean? Historical, practical, social, musical, engraving/publishing, cross-cultural? It is a meaningless concept unless one defines or elaborates on what they mean.
Anyway, I do appreciate the theoretical discussions. I am a classical and flamenco guitarist and ABD in ethnomusicology.
I experienced this tension a month ago when participating in a Facebook Music Theory group. There was a thread starting innocently enough about the interpretation of a chord progression Ab-C-Eb-F# to an Eb major chord. There were more than 1000 replies of all sorts, between âThatâs just wrongly spelled!â and âItâs [this and that out of a theory book]!!â and âYou academic navel gazers!â and âItâs 2024, itâs an Ab7â ⊠and so on.
I tried really hard with numerous examples and different ways to instill some common sense AND historical context, but to not much avail. In the end it was a miniature culture war, which could not be resolved. It dawned on me, that for many people cultural and historical/genetic explanations didnât matter at all, which I find surprising: everybody would concur â I think! â that the English language has a history, and many words and constructs can and should be explained through their development, but in music this seems to be a very alien concept for many.
To answer your question about F7-E7: I know really a lot about music theory from 1200 to 2000 to not be naive in the sense I saw in that discussion. So of course - as you say -
âjazz extends common practice harmony and would not exist without itâ and itâs very obvious for me that this derives from a progression of an aug6 chord to a dominant a half step below, but in Jazz this has morphed through the decades into another explanation as a letâs say: halftone approach, or secondary dominant (âtritone subâ), and consequently is now written as such, and consequently this writing/explaining system has no symbols for the âotherâ interpretation. Another fun fact: Jazz musicians of the 30s and 40s discussed the chord we now name ii7 in a cadence as a âIV with the sixth in the bassâ, obviously coming from the idea of a subdominant with sixte ajoutĂ© â this interpretation has completely vanished and now the only version taught is the II-V-I as sequence of fifths. This shows again how teaching/learning/explanation styles change.
So if a do a lesson about Jazz cadences, I will adopt this system, because it is contextually right to say Ab7-G7-Cm6/9 ALTHOUGH I know this is not how this came about originally. In another lesson with the same students speaking about Mozart, I would strongly admonish them to follow his written logic and read Ab-C-Eb-F# as what it is in 18th century grammar (see my little genealogy in this thread). Normally there is no problem to hold both systems in the mind and just be conscious about contexts.
Your example about the Flamenco formula misinterpreted as âinsisting on resolving to the dominantâ (a view I would not share either) shows again the tension between different - dare I say? â belief systems. I personally am the most interested in the âgeneticsâ of music constructs, and I think, the most honest way to do this is to present them in terms of their own time/context. Hence I avoid applying 19th century systems like Roman numerals or function theory to baroque music or Mozart, or Generalbass thinking to Machaut etc.
But this post is already much too long, and it might appear inappropriate in a forum for notation technology âŠ
EDIT Hereâs what I wrote there trying to reconcile:
" **Jazz people** (besides being classically trained I'm also playing and teaching Jazz theory, so I guess this is not too suspiciously academic !đ
Can we maybe agree that when we say Ab7, we mean just the shape, the thing to reach for on the instrument, and notate it in the most simple way, just out of practicality â there are already so many other things to consider in real time: tensions, voicings, reharms,⊠This very speedy and hands on approach makes us write Ab7 instead of G#7 most of the time, Bbm7âA7âAbmaj7 instead of Bbm7âBbb7âAbmaj7 (which would more resemble to how we teach it as âIIâbII7âIâ (tritone sub), and so on, and generally life is easier while playing.
So itâs the shape which dominates the labeling, but the label doesnât say much about itâs function, if we use it like this. For example âdominantâ in its genuine sense means: will eventually go to a âtonicâ. But consider the following chord progressions, which all use the same"dominant" shape:
Ebm7âAb7âDbmaj7. standard dominant usage
Am7âAb7âGmaj7. closely related, Ab7 substituting D7
Ebm7âAb7âBbmaj7. another cadence (âbackdoorâ), but sounding quite differently
âŠâAb7âAmaj7 (thinking G#âA as bass movement). chromatic approach from below
and of course more âopenâ changes like for example Ab7âB7âD7âDb7⊠(constant structure, âimpressionisticâ sound progressions)
I think most Jazz educators will agree, that for the first example you can use every dominantish scale according to taste and situation, for the second and third example a Dom7(#11) is the best idea, and the fourth case would be served best with an altered scale â so we are aware of different functions and teach different usage, but we just donât reflect this fact in writing because (see above). In âclassicalâ context we do, and practically all composers differentiate between Ab/C/Eb/F# and Ab/C/Eb/Gb because in this context it just makes more sense to do so.
So I think this whole discussion is largely divided between different approaches, everybody coming from a different daily context âŠ"
3 Likes
No negative energy here, but I do think there are some nuances in my âdisagreementâ with some of your position.
For example, flamenco is situated in a long Spanish guitar tradition and that tradition incudes the âinvention of chordsâ either before the Germans or Italians as well as counterpoint. No single theory can explain everything nor was any theory ever the only historical option. Look at the partimento tradition that is emerging.
The point of theory is to explain how a music works. The Spanish guitar has been around for 500 years (if you include the vihuela as relative) and has diffused as both spanish classical and flamenco, so there is no single theory that can explain it. Additionally, flamencos do not have a well-developed formal theory. They have borrowed from classical and jazz, so, One has to make decisions about how to approach harmonic description and explanation.
As for honesty, one can use Roman numerals to analyze 16 century music so long as one hedges the arguments and explains why it might be ok in the present to do so.
Anyway, Iâll take a look out of curiosity.
As an aside, I once told my flamenco guitar maestro that flamencos use phrygian tonality. His response: flamencos use whatever the hell they like. Neither of us was completely wrong or right.
Yes - teaching it 
Tomorrow I will meet Bob Gjerdingen, who will participate in a symposium at our University - looking forward!
Iâm genuinely interested: did Flamenco develop some sort of notation for its own use?