How do you call such chord?

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

How does the sign A 0 (0,3,5) tells me which note is added or omited if I did not already knew what it designates in concrete chords prior to the notation?

Because nothing is added nor omitted.

Yes, by which you just confirm the problem because in a Am add4 omit5 chord there is both, implying a diatonic relation to triads.Those terms are gone among others.

I'm always desperate at some level. Writings which imply intolerance of diversity probably add a tiny bit to it. But not much.

Intolerance of diversity in general not the same as intolerance to claims about an alternative system of notation, which someone insists to add something for an OP, while actually subtracting it. This is a music theoretical discussion, and your claim of intolerance towards diversity in general is but another desparate red herring. An irrelevant distraction. What did you expect to find on a music theory forum? Blind support? An advice would be to stay off the personal stuff, for I know there is a limit to the tolerance to that on this forum, and your membership may be short if you continue that route.

I take your confession and propose you leave it at that, for that is good enough for me. Case closed.

Harmonies described in your pitch degrees contain no info as to the musical conceptions mentioned there. It does not tell about gender, triads, diatonic relations, functions and so forth.

Neither is it intended to tell all of that.

So, a confession. Thanks. And in accordance with my critique of your translation between systems a post ago. Well without "that", do not be surprised that many already trained communicating musicians will find it inferior and irrelevant. Don't take it too personal, it is just the way we grew into it

[shawshawraw]

I can see it being useful. A guitarist/producer friend works a lot on piano rolls in Cubase and I'm sure he has a similar mindset after getting really adept reading and editing the blocks.

But I think it's merely a way to notate or transcribe. It's not high-level enough for describing the events in harmonic space. I understand that you can picture a sonic image of a tonic minor in your mind when you look at it, but I can also do this looking at a piano score, let's say - an X shape is a 1st inversion closed voicing and a Y shape an open voicing... etc etc. But if you ask me "how do I call this chord", I can't just draw three dots on the stave and hand it to you...

[fmr]

I have to say that I am lost in the discussion now. I think we agreed that this isn't even a chord (EG not all notes belong to the harmony, only two of them), therefore, it doesn't have a "name".

This happens a lot with so many "named" chords that happen to not be chords at all. And that's another thing that you can't tell by looking at a piano roll. It can only be understood by looking at the score, and interpreting the tonal (musical) environment.

[N__K]

Harmonies described in your pitch degrees contain no info as to the musical conceptions mentioned there. It does not tell about gender, triads, diatonic relations, functions and so forth.

Neither is it intended to tell all of that.

So, a confession. Thanks.

I never presented it as anything except what it is - re-check my posts if you want.

You appear to have imagined a lot more into it, and then dressed it up a something that needs debunking or confessing. That makes for invigorating forum entertainment, admittedly, but I'm left with a feeling that some of that was carried out at my expense. Well, such is life.

[...] do not be surprised that many already trained communicating musicians will find it inferior and irrelevant. Don't take it too personal, it is just the way we grew into it

Indeed. I've emphasized in most of my posts that it's for people who find it useful - not something to be imposed on those who already have all the methods they need.

A lot of folks will have no use for it whatsoever, which all fine by me. It's comparable to how nowadays many computer musicians regard the staff, roman numerals, functional harmony rules etc. as irrelevant, that being often true in their case. Different purposes, different methods.

Thing is, for a segment for music makers, even that kind of simple markup is an improvement. I've interacted with artists - some of them commercially releasing in club/EDM market - who simply click in notes into and out of the piano roll, evaluate whether the combination sounds good, and repeat as necessary. No substantial theory involved, mostly intuition and mimicry of genres they listen to. Nothing wrong with that, as such, and I've been there too - but I also know from experience that even the simplest of systematic approaches can improve composition workflows (and their results) considerably.

That's the segment of music makers I would expect to be most interested in that markup.



Anyway, I feel like I've stretched the offtopic way too far already, and will now try not to continue it any further. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

[donkey tugger]

I have no idea about musical notation and have never had a need for it.. I do know the names of about 10 chords on the guitar, plus some others which are 'the smiths chord', 'the 10cc chord' etc, etc.

I've therefore no horse in this race, and no clue which is the better system. I am however marvelling at all the palaver. As I see it;

He's shared details of a system that works for him
He said that others might find it useful
He's not trying to stop anyone using the 'usual' method

What's the beef?

[NERF_PROTOSS]

Anyway, I feel like I've stretched the offtopic way too far already, and will now try not to continue it any further. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

nah, you're good. set theory does have a ridiculous amount of applications in post-tonal music, so people trying to 'debunk' you are just betraying their own ignorance.

[jancivil]

"intolerance of diversity" - this kind of shit is what I'm on about. You aren't making affirmative arguments for the thing, you've been challenged as to meanings and the point of it and you can't support it with anything (you're incompetent): SO, what do you do, you snidely attack in this passive aggressive reach w. 'intolerance of diversity'. You actually need to politicize this and call people intolerant of diversity? For nothing more than people not buying your bullshit.

The arrogance we noted right away really reveal with this crap. You don't know anything of the why, and we're pretty sure of the how, of pitch class theory, ie., what it's f**king used for. You don't grasp what quartal vertical thinking in music is really at all, but you think to show a video of some lame, lame electropop music and want people to talk shop about your understanding, which is non-f**king-existent. You've stated things as fact you never examined, such as the sus chords are really quartal sonorities. It's been demonstrated beyond all doubt you're wrong, flat wrong with every assertion.

You don't know where you are. I'm not real tolerant of bullshit, and that's all this is. My music, well it's easy to find, so go hear it and talk some more shit about being different, "diverse". The rubbish you showed shows us conformity and a lack of curiosity or drive. Fvck Off.

Your entire thrust here is obtuse and fatuous and the argumentation is... I don't have a strong enough word for it.
utterly full of shit. the gall is actually kind of astonishing. You are so far out of your depth right now, kid.

[jancivil]

He's shared details of a system that works for him

Really? Not what I'm seeing. He's been challenged to show it working, and we get 'writings... with intolerance of diversity'.

I actually know about the thing, I don't use it because I'm not doing that kind of music with that kind of intense focus.
It's not trivial like that. Many who do severe serial 12-tone etc music do not use it. It exists only because of this kind of music.

What's the beef?

Gee, I think I've articulated mine rather thoroughly. Intellectual dishonesty and fatuous bullshit about how open a mind a person should have. Open like a sieve, that is.

You'd have to come from closer to where I'm coming from to grok the offense, I suppose.
For context check out Babbitt's Who Cares If You Listen. It's a good read in itself IME.

[jancivil]

"I'd recommend to original poster to check all music theory branches available, find the ones most applicable to their use cases, and choose methods which best serve their music-making needs."
Well, I guarantee - no exagg - PC Theory is NOT the more applicable to calling sonorities in an A Aeolian pandiatonicism.
It's added mentation for no good reason. It confounds 1 as 0; the people that do use PC Theory are thinking of a democratized 12 tones, so 1 is out the window. For a noob it'd be a bit schizoid to have both in mind methinks.
'Ok, so the root note of the I chord is called 0 now'. Extraneous thought, no good/don't work. Conventions like, oh, the seventh chord, major/minor 7 is 0 4 7 10 and the 7 there isn't the seventh. Me, I've done a fair bit of non-tonal music including 12-tone so it's something I see at once. For a noob? FO.

If you had any sense of the room you're trying to work you'd know that we two who are opposed to the bullshitting well know that and have backgrounds in more than one area, to say the least.

While the "branch" you've found it cool to try showing off with def has a use case and it's 12-tone serial atonality. Originally the idea appears to have its germ with Milton Babbitt. It's passing silly, comical if we take that attitude, to use it to call a three-note diatonic sonority.

So instead of laughing it off, I counter it because it's not needed or appropriate for this use case and the poseuring is the opposite of added value to the forum.

[donkey tugger]

You'd have to come from closer to where I'm coming from to grok the offense, I suppose.
For context check out Babbitt's Who Cares If You Listen. It's a good read in itself IME.

I do understand where you're coming from in that respect. I've had to 'pull rank' in terms of political theory recently when someone was trying to tell me I was wrong on the definition of liberalism..

But (and correct me if I'm wrong) I can't see that he's saying that you are all incorrect, just proposing a different way of doing it?

Anyway, was trying to get a feel of what the issue is. Carry on!

[jancivil]

Well, this is not so unlike that idiot's definition of liberalism, really.

as to 'he's not saying your way is wrong', by insisting this is valid he's implied that it has some advantage (and that somehow normal names are insufficient, he feels this more advanced look is the thing), but for this use case it hasn't been demonstrated, let's just say.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

nah, you're good. set theory does have a ridiculous amount of applications in post-tonal music, so people trying to 'debunk' you are just betraying their own ignorance.

Except that his set theory try to cope with tonality as per OPs request, which a set theoretician would not. It is mainly developed for understanding atonal music or equalizing tonal and atonal music, why its ignorance to traditional tonal terms is a point, Talk about betrayal of music theoretical knowledge of applications of sets in your own case, genius. OP did not ask about atonality. Your comment is as incompetent as it is arrogant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory_(music)

[jancivil]

"But I suspect I'm not the only one to have use for (and come up with) something like it, since it's merely an extension of the idea of roman numerals into 12-pitch space."
It isn't. Roman Numeral analysis is about functional tonal harmony. Tonal functional harmony reifies certain of the 'numbers', the dominant-tonic paradigm first and foremost. It was made for music which for any period of time is going to be a seven or at max a nine note (incl both 6ths and 7ths of minor) fabric.

The use of PC Theory is not an extension of that. I've given a good hint of accounts of what it is, but you don't want to know.
There's no 12 tone in tonal music. At the end of its development as it were, analyses of certain things were getting a bit unwieldy.
Schoenberg had an idea that the sort of breaking point is to give way to a different, new music.
But to analyze highly chromatic functional harmony absolutely requires reference to its foundations. Just listing the numbers in the 0-11 set does nothing of the sort. You_are_bullshitting.

[jancivil]

"set theory does have a ridiculous amount of applications in post-tonal music, so people trying to 'debunk' you are just betraying their own ignorance."
betray yourself, do. It *has* certain applications in post-tonal music (my entire objection to talking about it glibly for a noob is my understanding of what it's for), it has literally no use value here.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

And his theory would hardly make it for a complete approach to the traditional set theoreticans. It takes more than a few pitch degrees, but understandings of dyads, thrichords (as something else than triads in a tonal frame), tetrachord, pentachords and beyond. Plus a whole lot more implying an advanced nomenclatura not regarded in this little venture.

And set theory is not notated in piano rolls with integers but makes highly use of plain note staffs. There is really no significant connection here.