when tones? when harmonics intervals? and when chords?

[pamuma]

HI, I've seen many songs that the producers for do the melodies, often use melodic intervals, sometimes using harmonic intervals, and sometimes using chords.

when should I use each of these?

thanks.

[jancivil]

When it suits your actual musical idea.

[BertKoor]

It doesn't work like that. People just produce music (and producers are people and musicians also). It's only afterwards that others go analysing what is the melody, what are the chords, what intervals, etc. That's just labelling and an abstraction / simplification of what you hear.

Here's music theory 101 for you:
* The atomic element in music is a tone.
* Use any instrument, it will produce tones. A sequence of tones can be called a melody, line or riff.
* The distance between two tones (played after each other or at the same time) is called an interval measured in whole tones according to the scale.
* Intervals can be consonant (harmonic, in harmony) or dissonant (sound bad, friction that needs to be resolved)
* When three tones are involved (sometimes even two is enough) you can deduce the chord they form: root tone (often found in the bass) plus a major or minor third, plus the fifth (roughly halfway an octave), optionally with additions: 7th, 9th, sus, etc etc.

and sometimes using chords

Not sometimes, but likely always! In modern western music it's nearly impossible to produce something without a (implicit) chord progression / scheme. And chords are built from intervals, which are woven around a melody, which consists of simple tones.

So that leads you back to square one: tones form intervals and melody, which relates to chords, which are alwys there if you look closely (and don't produce post-modern music)

[fmr]

* The distance between two tones (played after each other or at the same time) is called an interval measured in whole tones according to the scale.

The interval has nothing to do nor is dependent on any scale

* Intervals can be consonant (harmonic, in harmony) or dissonant (sound bad, friction that needs to be resolved)

Intervals can be harmonic (when you play two notes over-posed), or melodic (when you play the two notes one after the other). Harmony is not in opposition to dissonance - consonance is. Intervals can be consonant or dissonant, but even that distinction varies (what is dissonant in a context may be consonant in another). A 7th may be part of a harmony, but is generally considered a dissonant interval, for example.

* When three tones are involved (sometimes even two is enough) you can deduce the chord they form: root tone (often found in the bass) plus a major or minor third, plus the fifth (roughly halfway an octave), optionally with additions: 7th, 9th, sus, etc etc.

Three notes may form a chord when they can be over-posed in triads (over-posed thirds). So, if you have, for example, a C, a D and a E, you have three notes, but you don't have a chord. If you have a C, a E and a G, you have chord, with the C being the root, no matter which note is in the bass. The same can be said if you have a B, a D and a F, or a B, a D and a F#, or a B, a D# and a F#, or a B flat, a D and a F. All these examples are chords, again, no matter which note is in the bass.

In modern western music it's nearly impossible to produce something without a (implicit) chord progression / scheme. And chords are built from intervals, which are woven around a melody, which consists of simple tones.

So that leads you back to square one: tones form intervals and melody, which relates to chords, which are always there if you look closely (and don't produce post-modern music)

Biased thought. First, when you say western music, you probably are referring to western POP music. Second, even in pop, there are people who think beyond chords, and chord progressions.

[stringtapper]

So, if you have, for example, a C, a D and a E, you have three notes, but you don't have a chord. If you have a C, a E and a G, you have chord…

This is incorrect. A simultaneity containing C, D, and E can be a chord. What it cannot be is a triad.

A chord can be any three pitches sounded simultaneously, and to be even more correct about it a chord can even contain as little as two pitch classes and still be considered a chord. The common example comes in final chords of tonal pieces where only the Root and 3rd of the Tonic appear with one or both pitch classes doubled in different octaves. So the SATB texture might be C-C-E-C (5th omitted) but even though there are only two pitch classes it is still a chord.

[fmr]

So, if you have, for example, a C, a D and a E, you have three notes, but you don't have a chord. If you have a C, a E and a G, you have chord…

This is incorrect. A simultaneity containing C, D, and E can be a chord. What it cannot be is a triad.

A chord can be any three pitches sounded simultaneously, and to be even more correct about it a chord can even contain as little as two pitch classes and still be considered a chord. The common example comes in final chords of tonal pieces where only the Root and 3rd of the Tonic appear with one or both pitch classes doubled in different octaves. So the SATB texture might be C-C-E-C (5th omitted) but even though there are only two pitch classes it is still a chord.

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of over-posed thirds (when in it's fundamental position, of course. If the position is inverted, it has other internal intervals, but is still the same chord. If it is not over-posed thirds, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that, a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

I know that the Wikipedia article quotes otherwise (it even says a single note is a chord, which is absurd), but what I said is what I was taught, and learned with all the masters. Besides, if you read the entire article, you'll see it contradicts itself, and doesn't explain how the "other" chords, actually work, and where did they come from (chords come from the functional harmony, which is the system we commonly know as tonality). And the article body only considers and talks about chords out of thirds

Also, two sounds are not a chord, but a harmonic interval. In your example, the fifth can be omitted because the triple root, at least theoretically, can make the fifth sound as a resulting harmonic - but it is there, implicit. And this only happens in four voice polyphony because of the voice leading, and obligatory resolutions.

[stringtapper]

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of triads. If it is not, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that. a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

Sorry, but I don't know of any modern music scholar who would agree with you. How could you possibly explain quartal and quintal sonorities in the works of Debussy if you restricted all chords to being triads?

You couldn't. But the fact of the matter is that people who analyze such a piece professionally are going to call those sonorities "chords." That's just the way it is.

Also, sus chords in jazz. They are very much chords (i.e. the "suspended" 4th is not a dissonance to be resolved as it would have in older music) but not strictly built in 3rds.

You might have been taught a certain way, but the world has long passed you by in this regard.

I know that the Wikipedia quotes otherwise, but that is what I was taught, and learned with all the masters. Besides, if you read the entire article, you'll see it contradicts itself, and doesn't explain how the "other" chords, actually work, and where did they come from (chords come from the functional harmony, which is the system we commonly know as tonality).

I'm not quoting anything from Wikipedia. I'm nearly finished with a Ph.D in music theory. I'm quoting from my memory of what I research and teach every day.

Also, two sounds are not a chord, but a harmonic interval. In your example, the fifth can be omitted because the triple root, at least theoretically, can make the fifth sound as a resulting harmonic - but it is there, implicit. And this only happens in four voice polyphony because of the voice leading, and obligatory resolutions.

I didn't say two sounds. I said two pitch classes. A sonority containing only two pitch classes from a tonal triad with one or more members doubled is still a chord. Period. (In fact some would argue that, given sufficient context, only the Root and 3rd occurring would still be a chord because the harmonic function as the Tonic triad would be clear with only those two elements present.)

[fmr]

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of triads. If it is not, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that. a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

Sorry, but I don't know of any modern music scholar who would agree with you. How could you possibly explain quartal and quintal sonorities in the works of Debussy if you restricted all chords to being triads?

You couldn't. But the fact of the matter is that people who analyze such a piece professionally are going to call those sonorities "chords." That's just the way it is.

No, it's the way YOU were taught. Debussy music cannot be analysed in terms of "chords" because his universe is outside of that, the same way as Messiaen (which departed where Debussy left). The term "chord" only makes sense in terms of tonal music, which is not where Debussy worked. The same can be said of Schoenberg, which also worked outside of tonality and "chords". And the same can be said of the earlier renaissance polyphony, which already had chords, but they were not treated as that, rather a simple consequence of voice addition.

Also, sus chords in jazz. They are very much chords (i.e. the "suspended" 4th is not a dissonance to be resolved as it would have in older music) but not strictly built in 3rds.

It is not a dissonance to be resolved, but it is still a dissonance (the fact that it is called "suspended", makes it implicit that it is there in place of something else - usually the third).

You might have been taught a certain way, but the world has long passed you by in this regard.

That's funny you come here saying that, and invoking your PhD (what makes you think I don't have a degree, too?), because, in fact, I would say the world has long passed you by, and all that "chord" problem, no matter how many PhD's you have. In the end of the XIX century and beginning of the XX century, to be more precise, with the very same Debussy you mentioned, or with Ravel, Schoenberg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Messiaen and many others, the "chords" were no longer the centre of the musical thinking. If something, you still have like 100 years to travel to reach the point I am now. And there is nothing to be "invented" or "discovered" in what concerns chords, no matter how many "sus" you put in there. They are and will always be the same old plane thirds.

I didn't say two sounds. I said two pitch classes. A sonority containing only two pitch classes from a tonal triad with one or more members doubled is still a chord. Period. (In fact some would argue that, given sufficient context, only the Root and 3rd occurring would still be a chord because the harmonic function as the Tonic triad would be clear with only those two elements present.)

That's very much what I said, but, as you recognize too, the fifth is still there, implied. Quoting you: "the harmonic function as the Tonic triad would be clear with only those two elements present". That's exactly the point... "the function" - that's what make the chords what they are.

[jancivil]

and sometimes using chords

Not sometimes, but likely always! In modern western music it's nearly impossible to produce something without a (implicit) chord progression / scheme. And chords are built from intervals, which are woven around a melody, which consists of simple tones.

So that leads you back to square one: tones form intervals and melody, which relates to chords, which are alwys there if you look closely (and don't produce post-modern music)

I don't know at all what you mean by 'modern western music', but your insistence that it's so difficult to 'produce' anything without a chord progression is useless and just wrong. We could go to any genre or type of music in the 'west' and find vamps, drones, or where the whole idea is a repetitive bass line that goes nowhere... in a pure linear approach to making the thing. "Chord progression", maybe we need that defined to begin with. I would not call a two-chord vamp a chord progression.

Melody is not necessarily related to chords per se. It may be for you, but that's no truism. It doesn't appear to be more than a statement of your restricted experience.

[stringtapper]

Debussy music cannot be analysed in terms of "chords" because his universe is outside of that, the same way as Messiaen (which departed where Debussy left). The term "chord" only makes sense in terms of tonal music, which is not where Debussy worked. The same can be said of Schoenberg, which also worked outside of tonality and "chords". And the same can be said of the earlier renaissance polyphony, which already had chords, but they were not treated as that, rather a simple consequence of voice addition.

Sorry sir, but the term "chord" is in fact used in the study of non-tonal music.

A quick example I just found by thumbing through Joseph Straus's "Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory" is on p. 21 where he clearly calls the vertical sonority in first full measure of Webern's "Wie bin Ich froh!" a "four-note chord." The chord contains A, G#, C#, and C.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

It is not a dissonance to be resolved, but it is still a dissonance (the fact that it is called "suspended", makes it implicit that it is there in place of something else - usually the third).

So you are conceding that the 4th is in fact taking the place of the 3rd but that there is no resolution occurring? Then you have made my point for me. Thank you.

That's funny you come here saying that, and invoking your PhD (what makes you think I don't have a degree, too?), because, in fact, I would say the world has long passed you by, and all that "chord" problem, no matter how many PhD's you have.

I cited it in response to your own claim to have "studied with the masters" and your implication that I was just looking things up on Wikipedia.

That's very much what I said, but, as you recognize too, the fifth is still there, implied. Quoting you: "the harmonic function as the Tonic triad would be clear with only those two elements present". That's exactly the point... "the function" - that's what make the chords what they are.

The harmonic function is clear because the Root and the 3rd are all that's needed to convey to most crucial information as to the sonority's function (in this case in a tonal context). Unless the chord contains an altered 5th (i.e. diminished or augmented triads) the 5th contains no information about the chord's place in the diatonic hierarchy (conveyed by the Root) or the chord's quality (conveyed by the 3rd).

[jancivil]

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of triads. If it is not, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that. a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

Sorry, but I don't know of any modern music scholar who would agree with you. How could you possibly explain quartal and quintal sonorities in the works of Debussy if you restricted all chords to being triads?

You couldn't. But the fact of the matter is that people who analyze such a piece professionally are going to call those sonorities "chords." That's just the way it is.

I concur that a quartal stack etc can rightly be called 'chord'. Are you implying that all sonorities in such a work have to be 'chords'?

I'm going to speak for myself: for some years I have composed with no thought as to chord name, or embarked on a schema of chords. Most of the time by far. There are times when attention to vertical agreement/or not is paid, but the entire exercise was to write lines. I have so many things that do happen that cannot be defined as a chord in any useful way; IE., at a given point in time (or let's say at any point in time), fixing a definition will be meaningless and completely beside the point.

[stringtapper]

I concur that a quartal stack etc can rightly be called 'chord'. Are you implying that all sonorities in such a work have to be 'chords'?

I am only arguing against the contention that only sonorities stacked in 3rds (triads, 7th chords, extended tertian) can be considered "chords."

[jancivil]

A quick example I just found by thumbing through Joseph Straus's "Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory" is on p. 21 where he clearly calls the vertical sonority in first full measure of Webern's "Wie bin Ich froh!" a "four-note chord." The chord contains A, G#, C#, and C.

Webern is the very picture of someone writing linearly, in a pure sense. Ok, I found your reference. If that is a chord, every vertical sonority that happens to line up in time must be. If that be a chord, what is its construction (intervallically)?

I also found this:
<Joseph Straus provides a serial analysis of the basic row for the first song from op. 25, “Wie bin ich froh”.5 The source of this analysis is an introductory text for post-tonal studies. His conclusions are pedagogically based and meant to illustrate a point about organization to the novice; they do not necessarily reflect his complete or professional opinion of op. 25. That said, his analysis shows how Webern organized the interval content and points out that it is dominated by (014) trichords transposed by a perfect-fourth; however, he does not discuss the ramifications this has for “Wie bin ich froh.”6 "There is no way of knowing, in advance, which intervals or groups of intervals will turn out to be important in organizing this, or any, post-tonal work." 7 In contrast to Straus’s views, my study provides an alternative solution to the organization of the row [...]
(citing 7: Straus, Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, 23. "Straus’s point is that students new to the Post-Tonal repertoire should approach the music without presupposition.")>

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675 ... thesis.pdf ('Previous Scholarship' pg. 4)

NB: 'trichord' there is not to be confused with 'chord'; in such analysis that term is a derivation of 'tetrachord' and refers to the horizontal, not the vertical.

So, if we buy Straus' analysis, we have this premise to go by: There is no way of knowing in advance which intervals or groups of intervals will turn out to be important in organizing this. How on earth do we derive chordal thinking? Seriously. No, this music is not about chords, Webern's thought was based in the row, deconstructing the row and types of symmetry. The vertical aspect is looking for something quite different than building/stacking chords and is based in the primary material, the row.

<3.2 Dynamic Symmetry
Before moving on to the characteristics of the row, the term symmetry needs to be
defined as it applies to op. 25. Webern’s use of symmetry is largely based on pitch collections, register and timbre shifts, and his use of aggregate completion as a structural determinant.80 In his op. 24, Webern uses the Latin acrostic, sator arepo tenet opera rotas, to create unity and symmetry but this would cause him “considerable difficulties.”81 (citing 81: Bailey, Symmetry as Nemesis, 1.0)>

<Kathryn Bailey discusses the first movement of the op. 27, Variationen. She identifies it as being composed with the use of canons and palindromes. One passage that is cited as exhibiting perfect symmetry is the palindrome from the opening measures; however, it is not exactly perfect.85 The order of the row and presentation is reversed at the axis in m. 4, but a closer examination shows that Webern repeats the rhythms of the first half of this passage in the second half. (citing 85: Bailey, Twelve-Note Music of Anton Webern.109.) >

[stringtapper]

Straus calls the sonority in question a "chord." The sonority is made up of quarter notes all sounding and ending simultaneously. It is not the result of contrapuntal motion.

[jancivil]

It isn't? It isn't there because of Webern's thinking in terms of the row. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Show me the chordal thinking, then. It now appears that you deem any sonority that lines up in time to be 'a chord'. I don't think that is at all useful in looking at this area of music.