Avoid, just avoid

[Marduchk]

haha, just the title of this thread speaks volumes about music "theory".

[JumpingJackFlash]

I know there's a word for that but I have no idea what it is. I want to say pedal note but that's in the bass. But it's not a retardation since it doesn't RESOLVE, it holds... I know there's a word for this though.

Inverted Pedal?

[Toxikator]

Is that it? it seems like it wouldn't be, though, since it's just for those few chords...?

I guess it would be a pedal tone.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Is that it? it seems like it wouldn't be, though, since it's just for those few chords...?

I guess it would be a pedal tone.

Pedals generally last longer than just a couple of chords yes. - I don't believe it has a name (beyond 'add4' or whatever), - although it might depend on what happens to it afterwards (for example it could be a suspension or retardation with a delayed resolution)

[Km7]

You don't need volumes of music theory for this thing, things are much simpler and should be _understood_ as principles. Well, probably those who want to show their degrees and how "scientific" they are, they would write long and complex sentences several times paraphrasing the same thing in order to write a hudge book.
---
Yeah, as we talked with Sascha, it appears that in complex chords like this one, one could miss out the minor third.. Hm, actually, the tritone interval acoustically implies a dom7 chord.
Oh, the classical analysis for with suspension and retardation work well only in context. Out of context this approach is helpless and very ... irrational. Especially when it comes to quartal harmony or chords with crazy and many interval combinations which would be a nightmare for a theorist if he analyses them like that. Which simply means that this analytical principle is not universal and natural.
---
Inverted pedal is a pedal point not in the bass, usually in soprano, but to me, such usage here seems inaproapriate...

[Toxikator]

It just seems like it totally ought to be well-documented. I mean come on: "A tone which is dissonant to one chord but consonant to the chords on either side of it is maintained across all three in one voice"?

There's no WAY we're the first people to deal with that kind of nonharmonic tone.

Another use: C-F-A to B-D-F to C-E-G. The B-D-F can be changed to C-D-F; it's not a chord in any practical sense (I suppose a iim7 in third inversion w/o the 5)... but resolves wonderfully.

Even if that C ISN'T maintained throughout the piece for any duration, it's got to be a pedal tone?

EDIT: Yes, it IS a pedal tone. A pedal tone (I just looked it up) is a tone which is maintained throughout a progression and moves from being consonant to dissonant to consonant. The specific types include the "inverted" (in the soprano voice) and "internal" (in an internal voice).

[Km7]

What do you mean that it is not a chord?

P.S.: Ah, about my comment for the pedal point - it looks like I don't follow the thread closely, I read the posts very fast and replied.

[Toxikator]

technically, that it's not a tertian triad. I say "not a chord" to imply that one of the voices is using a nonchord dissonance, which would be resolved; of course, it COULD be analyzed as an inverted 7 chord sans the 5, that's not unheard of, but the way it's treated (it resolves in a way uncharacteristic of a ii chord, the rest of the harmony I was working with was triadic, etc.) it's probably better in this case to think of it as a nonchord dissonance.

[Km7]

Yes. Well, even if a given structure is not tertian, it is still a chord. C-F-Ab is a quartal chord, for example. C-F-G is a chord too. The well-known conventional, classical analysis would analyze similar cases as suspensions, but it forgets that out of context there is no suspension... Also, there might be no preparation and resolution in context...

[Sascha Franck]

Actually, as much as one might try to "explain" some chords, and as much as the explanations would probably even be correct by whatever theory standards, the examples I've been talking about are nothing else but chords that just "fall in place" on a guitar. They will probably even sound lousy on any other instrument.
In addition, it's chords that only work in one key (unless you're using a capodaster).

So, what I'm saying is that you simply don't need any theory to play and use these chords in your music. They're exlusively falling under "trial and error".
I mean, no theory book or whatever would advice someone looking for a proper way to go from an E to an Aadd9 by saying "oh, an F7add4 is always a nice solution, and if you then continue with a Badd4 it'll sound even better" - these chords make close to no sense by whatever theory standards and even if they were, it'd require quite some stretch to understand the how-tos, especially as you'd have to sort of implement some instrument specific instructions.
Yet, each and every guitar chord strummer is using those very chords. Sometimes with quite some success. They "just work".

There's just some situations when theory fails. Especially when dealing with guitar players.

[Toxikator]

I don't think that E-F7add4-Aadd9 sounds good at all . Maybe E-F#M7#5add4-Aadd9... but then that add4 is just the internal pedal tone like before. It's a pretty simple construction in all these examples; the add4 is holding a tone which is common to the chords before and after it. Same with the Badd4; the add4 is just an internal sustenance of the consonance in the chord before it; it's a pedal tone.

This is reflected by the fact that these chords are made by leaving certain strings ALONE on the guitar; the chord voicing isn't changing to accomodate these chords, and the notes of the chord don't WORK in diff. inversions. The reason they work is the motion from one chord to another is holding that voice, which is consonant to chord 1 and 3 but is a add4 in chord 2.

Classic pedal, yes?

Example:MIDI File

[Sascha Franck]

I don't think that E-F7add4-Aadd9 sounds good at all . Maybe E-F#M7#5add4-Aadd9... but then that add4 is just the internal pedal tone like before. It's a pretty simple construction in all these examples; the add4 is holding a tone which is common to the chords before and after it. Same with the Badd4; the add4 is just an internal sustenance of the consonance in the chord before it; it's a pedal tone.

The F#7add4 chord is sounding fine on its own as well.
Did you try it on your guitar?

[Toxikator]

Naw, I can't play any chords like that. I tried it on a guitar and a key multisample.

the chord is fine, but in the GMaj progression I don't like the F natural. that's why I F#'d it!

[pw]

I also find it quite plausible to play a cmaj7 in open position on guitar, using the F on the 4th string alternating with the E - another no no on your list.

Well, you even said it yourself - you're alternating between the two. In that case, the C is no C anymore as soon as you play the F, but a Csus4. And a Csus4 to C movement is a really obvious and common one indeed.

yes, but there is always the higher e present. So, I am only alternating one e/f, but another e stays open. And, As I understand the first post, the issue is not the F over the C, but the F over the Cmaj7. I think I am saying the same thing as you anyway. That, on guitar for instance, some of these 'rules' can be broken and in a very desirable manner.

Which leads me to further ask, as I hinted at before, what the relationship is between harmonic theory, as an abstract body of knowledge, and intrument timbre and playing style in practice. I just think it is interesting that something can be 'wrong' harmonically (theoretically), and may sound horrible when executed by, say, a string ensemble, but the same combination of notes could be played on guitar in a certain way as to sound really good (your D, F#, G, D, E, or my Amin7/Fmaj7sus2,or whatever it is called, examples are better examples than this C example).

[Toxikator]

Again, there's not necessarily anything "wrong" with it. You can legitimately suspend just one voice, even if it is a less common approach.