Hello Everyone!
I have a question that I have been stuck on recently. I was going through my book: Intros, Endings, and Turnarounds by John Novello, and he gives an example for an intro in the key of Eb that looks like this:
Imaj- bIIIdim7-IIm7-V7-I
Ok he names them like this:
Ebmaj 7- F#dim7-Fm7-Bb7-Ebmaj7
Ok, why does he use F# when there is a bIII? Wouldn't it be Gb instead? In the key of Eb the G is the 3rd right? So Why spell it using F#? Am I overthinking this or am I missing something when it comes to progressions?
Thanks for your help
Nichole
Hey Nicole and everyone,
Technically and theoretically the correct name should be Gb. The bIII is acting as an upper "leaning tone" to the II (or F in this case). Like the "leading tone" of a scale which leads by 1/2 step up to the resolution, this is creating a strong pull down to the II (or the F). There are several theoretical explanations which get too convoluted for here.
The problem lies in the fact that people are not often careful about naming diminished, augmented, and even added 6th chords correctly. Therefore they often use the "enharmonic" name. This is unfortunate because if you are learning a pattern like the above in all keys, Using the correct name in some keys and the enharmonic name in others muddles the actual pattern. Learning the above pattern in C, you would name the chords C Eb D G C not C D# D G C.
One reason for this is to avoid the use of double flats or double sharps. If the Gb dim were notated on the staff, it would be spelled Gb Bbb Dbb Fbb (yuk). In the key of Gb you end up with Gb *Bbb dim* Ab Db Gb the Bbb dim being the same as an Adim, which many would opt for in notation since it is clearer to read quickly. In the key of F# it would be F# Adim G# C# F# which has its own problems with the G# min. Of course rarely will a chord chart or lead sheet be written in the keys of Gb or F#. This is the result of a 500 year old notation system that was not designed for the extreme chromaticism that we have available today.
The question is, does it matter which name you give a chord or note that has more than one possible name? Yes and no. Yes, because if you are trying to understand the theory and learn progression patterns or scale patterns, then you might miss the fact that a certain pattern is happening (Eb F# F -- I #II II -- looks different on paper from Eb Gb F -- I bIII II). Later, this can affect how you think about chord substitutions). It also helps to identify the actual musical intent.
No because particularly in sightreading, the enharmonic spelling for some chords may be easier to grasp quickly. I would much rather see A dim7 than Bbb dim7 on a lead sheet of an unfamiliar tune. This free substitution of enharmonic spellings has been going on for 2 to 3 centuries so it is nothing new.
My suggestion is, if you are working on patterns of some sort (progressions, scale patterns, etc.) always try to determine the spelling that fits the pattern (even if it becomes something weird like a Bbb dim7) that way the pattern remains consistent in all keys. In the cases of weird chords like that Bbb dim7, keep in mind that it will probably be notated as an A dim7 on chord charts and lead sheets. If you are writing a set of chords down for yourself or someone else, notate the easier way when necessary and in brackets write the actual chord to help remind you of the actual pattern.
I hope this helps.
