A beginner's question about inverted chords

[boyfrompluto]

I've managed to puzzle out some of the basics with the help of this website and other places on the internet. (Books of any sort other than popular fiction are impossible to get where I live.) But my understanding is so weak that when I try to put the elements together, I just get confused. My present question (I have others for later) is about chords and chord inversions. It's a general question, but I'll stick with one specific example to keep things as simple as possible.

The chord CEGB has, as I understand it, three important properties: (1) its root note is C; (2) its 3rd interval CE is major; its 7th interval CB is also major. This chord has three inversions EGBC, GBCE, and BCEG. All of these are supposed to be the "same" as the original chord.

I suppose my confusion comes down to the meaning of the word "same" in this context. The first inversion EGBC has root E, a 3rd interval EG that is minor, and a 6th interval EC rather than a 7th. The second inversion GBCE has root G, major 3rd interval GB, and a 6th interval GE rather than a 7th. The third inversion BCEG is even worse. It has root B, a 2nd interval BC instead of a 3rd, and a 6th interval BG instead of a 7th. So the four chords, the original and its three inversions, are not at all the "same".

Maybe you'll tell me that I'm not supposed to analyse the inversions as chords in their own right, but to treat them all as having been obtained from CEGB. If that's so, then a different puzzle arises. When I see the chord EGBC, how do I know that it's not really EGBC but actually CEGB in disguise?

[proaudio4]

All inversions can be thought as a chord from its root.
Your last example BCEG is usually written Cmaj/B
Just a C major chord with its natural 7th in the bass.

Can it be thought as a B chord. Yes, but there's no 3rd. (no D,or D#).
This makes it tough to label from its root. In this case I would definately
label it as Cmaj/B

Trues some inversions sound more dissonant. Again, in the case of the last example BCEG,
The major second as the foundation and having no 3rd or fifth makes this chord interesting to label from the root. Your correct that moving to this inversion the chord sounds very different. Instead of being a static major chord, it now has turned into a chord that wants to resolve. This is a great chord to create passages with movement. The 7th in the bass is well pronounced and asks for movement.
If you move the 7th down an octave and keep the C major triad on top, the large interval opens the closed voicing.

Labeling chords are just that, a label. It really doesn't matter what you call it. It's all about its intervals.
The intervals are what defines a chord. As far as labeling, always choose the easiest that makes sense enharmonic to the tonal centers you're playing.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I've managed to puzzle out some of the basics with the help of this website and other places on the internet. (Books of any sort other than popular fiction are impossible to get where I live.) But my understanding is so weak that when I try to put the elements together, I just get confused. My present question (I have others for later) is about chords and chord inversions. It's a general question, but I'll stick with one specific example to keep things as simple as possible.

The chord CEGB has, as I understand it, three important properties: (1) its root note is C; (2) its 3rd interval CE is major; its 7th interval CB is also major. This chord has three inversions EGBC, GBCE, and BCEG. All of these are supposed to be the "same" as the original chord.

I suppose my confusion comes down to the meaning of the word "same" in this context. The first inversion EGBC has root E, a 3rd interval EG that is minor, and a 6th interval EC rather than a 7th. The second inversion GBCE has root G, major 3rd interval GB, and a 6th interval GE rather than a 7th. The third inversion BCEG is even worse. It has root B, a 2nd interval BC instead of a 3rd, and a 6th interval BG instead of a 7th. So the four chords, the original and its three inversions, are not at all the "same".

Maybe you'll tell me that I'm not supposed to analyse the inversions as chords in their own right, but to treat them all as having been obtained from CEGB. If that's so, then a different puzzle arises. When I see the chord EGBC, how do I know that it's not really EGBC but actually CEGB in disguise?

You seem to have a very good understanding indeed. Everything you said is essentially correct.

The "same" in this context does not mean "identical", but more like different versions of the same basic thing. Think of different inversions as different shades of the same colour.

You cited EGBC as one example. Although as you said, it is usually analysed as a Cmaj7 chord, in some circumstances, it could perhaps be analysed as an Emin chord with an added minor 6th (although this is not as likely).

If the piece was in C major, then the chord would be clearly heard as a variant of the tonic chord, as this is the strongest in the tonal hierarchy. (Much stronger than the third). If the piece was in G major, it would be a secondary seventh on the subdominant, another fairly strong chord in the tonal hierarchy (stronger than the sixth). If the piece was in E minor however, perhaps some form of E minor would be heard. - It depends on context though.

Another way to think of it is in terms of pitch classes. In analysis, what is usually important is what pitches are contained within a chord, rather than the specific intervals between each note.

One reason why C major prevails overall above E minor, is that a major chord is more stable than a minor one, and given the choice, our ears hear the major characteristics more clearly than the minor. (This is related to the overtone series).

This is one reason why in classical music, chords like this are often treated in a specific manner (with the seventh almost always falling a diatonic step, and often the succeeding chord being a 4th above or a 5th below the root of the seventh chord). - This kind of part-writing makes the harmony clear.

[proaudio4]

Well put!
Although intervals define the pitches in a chord, not the other way around.
As you know, 3rds and minor 3rds are the "basic" building blocks of diatonic chord structure.
Having said that, you're correct. No one talks in just intervals, it's all about the actual notes.

[DrBoomBoom]

I always have to remember that music is like money rather than distance. For example, when you count an interval from C to E, you count 1 2 3, including the C and E, not 1 2 as if counting the distance from C to E. It's the same with chords. In the right context, it's a C maj 7 no matter what inversion or what intervals (you could be stacking a tenth instead of a third) just like a dollar is a dollar whether you have five dimes and two quarters or a quarter, dime, quarter, dime, dime, dime dime stacked up. Goofy way of thinking I guess, but it works for me.

[boyfrompluto]

I'm back now. Many thanks for your replies.

I think my question is answered, for the time being. Basically, I can analyze and name the exact same set of notes (=chord) in several different ways. And the most apppropriate way will depend on the musical context and the purpose of my analysis. That makes sense to me. (Though it also makes the whole matter of music theory even more complicated than I had already realized!)

I've looked again at my original sources, and they do indeed IMPLY this new (to me) way of thinking about things. It's just that they don't give examples, or make it explicit, probably because they're meant for beginners.

As for dimes and quarters, I haven't a clue what they are. But I take your point DrBoomBoom. My background is in symbolic logic, computing, and mathematics, so I like everything to be organized and meaningful in a logical sort of way. The naming of intervals as seconds, thirds, and so on seemed completely perverse to me at first. (Are they fractions, or what? Add two thirds, and you get a fifth rather than a sixth!) But the names are only words; it's the tones and semitones that really matter. I'll just have to persevere. Learning new concepts is like a framework for understanding, and it takes a while to sink in and become second nature.

[Laura Smith]

There are different rules for 3-part harmony, 4 part harmony and five part harmony. Your chord has four parts/notes. Note that a G6 and an Em7 are the same notes. So in places the notation or chord context is ambiguous. If you go to five part harmony, a Gm11 and a Gm7sus4 are the same. An Gm11 is the same as a Bb69. Again, ambiguous.

If you play the following notes ascending in a chord Eb A D G C F, you'll have no trouble identifying it as an F sounding chord, even though Eb is on the bass, and it's voiced mostly in 4ths.

Ignore the tones and semitones. Focus on "cycle of fourths" and "application of pentatonics" and you'll have a better grasp of structure than by analyzing intervals.