Is chord progression necessary?

[JumpingJackFlash]

If you can't name it, how is it a chord?

Ok, let's call it pitch class set 7-19 then if it makes you happy, or we could call it "Bob" if you wanted, it doesn't matter. It may be difficult to name according to the standard, artificial conventions that have become part of our culture, but that's neither here nor there.

I can't name ever person on this forum, or ever animal in the zoo, or every car I pass on the motorway... It doesn't mean that these things aren't (and can't be classed as) people, animals or cars respectively.

But I really can't be bothered to go round and round with you spraying your customary venom all over the place. Carry on if you want, but I've got better things to be doing.

[jancivil]

If you insist that every phenomenon vertically is a chord, that is a narrow definition as per musical thought. So to cherry pick 'definition of chord' {which you do not have from me in any form} as 'your definition is narrower' is disingenuous to say the least.

[jancivil]

If you can't name it, how is it a chord?

Ok, let's call it pitch class set 7-19 then if it makes you happy, or we could call it "Bob" if you wanted, it doesn't matter. It may be difficult to name according to the standard, artificial conventions that have become part of our culture, but that's neither here nor there.

I can't name ever person on this forum, or ever animal in the zoo, or every car I pass on the motorway... It doesn't mean that these things aren't (and can't be classed as) people, animals or cars respectively.

But I really can't be bothered to go round and round with you spraying your customary venom all over the place. Carry on if you want, but I've got better things to be doing.

What venom? I strongly disagree with you. This is more sophistry, actually it rather defines sophistry. "if you want", "if it makes you happy"? I didn't name it. I clearly was about 'I don't have to name these'. For your analogy to have any base, everything that strikes anyone as a car must be a car.

You aren't even addressing the questions, you're dancing. Can I not point that out? You can say 'you're arrogant', 'your customary venom all over the place' but I can't say 'this is sophistry' and 'absurd'? This sophistry, & your vitriolic assessment of my person are escapes.

I have posed food for thought here, anyway. You have tried to fit things into a box that isn't necessary.

[jancivil]

I want to reiterate this before I go: if you want things in a modal type of music which does not deal at all in chords to have chords, you're going to have to start naming for this to have any sense at all. If you want a dense cluster of tones out of a fabric that includes tones quite closer than a semitone to be chords, you're going to have to name it for this statement to mean anything. Beyond this, I think if you hit all of the tones on a piano to get a full cluster defining it as a chord is quite pointless.

So as per the original post, a couple people say no to the question. I think there are things a curious person may like to see discussed. So it turns out to be a vigorous argument, particularly when your interest is to justify a statement you made that I questioned? Oh well, can't stand the heat stay out the kitchen. At a certain point you are only cherry-picking things to be argumentative about in service of your statement being right. You could stand to read the questions, it might lead you to thought.