why chords?

[amit235]

i dont how much my question makes sense.. [:)] please give your views on this

regardless of the voicing a chord remains same but its impact changes drastically with different voicings. some voicings can be named alternatively....(having different root notes)

A chord can be played in numerous different ways but a particular voicing can be played only in a single way.. so how are chords so important..

It seems that a chord is defined by the notes and context.. A chord can be thought of as a mixture of two different chordal structures so how can we know which structure dominates the other..


so why dont we have something that can define a vertical harmonic structure more uniquely

So why do we stress on chords so much..

[beboop]

It seems that a chord is defined by the notes and context..

right, that's your answer.

Chords names are an abstraction, a reduction, a way of classifying and thinking about a set of simultaneous pitches for practical purposes (performance, composition, analysis). Chord names are not things-in-themselves.

Specific vertical structures are defined uniquely in standard notation, specific voicings can be specified by interval numbers.

So we do have ways of defining a vertical structure uniquely -- chord names, though, are the wrong tool for that level of specificity.

[llatham]

It seems that a chord is defined by the notes and context.. A chord can be thought of as a mixture of two different chordal structures so how can we know which structure dominates the other..

Being able to think of a chord as two chords doesn't mean it IS necessarily two chords. We can think of, for example, a Whole Tone Scale as being an Augmented Triad (C-E-G#) paired with another Augmented Triad a whole step higher (D-F#-A#) but that' doesn't mean that that that's how it was created in this instance.

So, while it can be helpful to relate some structures to "sub-structures", you should always be wary of placing too much emphasis on the sub-structures.

so why don't we have something that can define a vertical harmonic structure more uniquely

We do. We have notes! I don't mean to sound condescending, but I run into a lot of people who read charts and who don't realize this. Those were developed largely for an improvisational style where specifying voicings "exactly" might be counter-productive to the larger goal of improvisation. It is assumed in most styles that use chord symbols that they are "suggestions", and are intended to allow the player to choose various voicings - so they aren't supposed to be specific.

Now, when we get into something like "sus2", we usually treat that as a 2 in a specific location, as opposed to a 9 for example, which would typically be voiced in a higher octave (though there's no rule that says it has to be). Likewise, it's kind of understood that something like an 11th chord like C E G B D F would omit the E note from the voicing. Additionally, we can define things like G7/B that tells us what the bass note should be - but even in improv, a walking bass still can provide alternate notes. But, when you get into defining more specifically, the "exact" voicing, it's kind of contrary to the entire reason for using chord symbols - they already had notes, so, if they wanted to write something specific they could have used notes! Chord symbols were used intentionally to be *less specific* than notation.

Some people have come up with other methods of specifying voicings without using traditional notation (or tablature for guitar, etc.). You can use numbers, or letters, so a C11 could be written simply [1,5,7,11] (that would voice it without the 3rd) or you could literally put C-G-B-F, or C-F-B-G, etc. With guitar, you can use chord charts (fretboard diagrams) which is of course very helpful when you want to include open strings within a voicing for example - of course it may not mean much to a keyboard player.

It seems people are trying more and more to make their chord symbols be more specific and I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Notes and notation have been around a long time. If you want to specify something, why not simply write it out.

So why do we stress on chords so much..

I think there are two reasons for this. The first is that, many of us listen to, and learn to play in a style of music that's largely chordally based. We're taught "chord progressions". I can no longer count the number of times I've seen people ask something like "how do I make a chord progression?".

But, in a chordally-based style, it IS important to stress chords and chord progressions. It's part of the system. It's just like Guitarists typically learn to strum chords and how to play lead lines, but they don't do as much work in contrapuntal textures (in general, unless of course they're specifically trying to master that) because in the styles that they typically play, those aren't as important a thing to know. They concentrate on what's important (like I constantly run into Bluegrass players who have no idea how to play a Major 7th chord on guitar, but they can play hundreds, if not thousands of bluegrass tunes).

The second reason is, we tend to be narrow-minded about music (or at least, many of the people I meet are). When you get a chance, listen to some Gregorian Chant. You may or may not like it, but the point is, this is a style of music called Monophony - there is no harmony! It's a single melodic line, and that's it. Harmony is not only not important, it's not even a consideration.

Likewise, listen to some Fugues by Bach (or, Electric Counterpoint by Steve Reich played by Pat Metheny) - the interest is in the combination of three or four melodic lines. While harmony is created as a "by-product", the emphasis is still on the horizontal, rather than vertical aspects of the music.

Listen to some African Drumming, where pitch is non-essential (or at least, ill-defined). There's no harmony, and no melody - just rhythm and higher and lower sounding drums. So obviously, performers don't place too much emphasis on chords.

So, placing stress on chords is important for some styles, but not all styles.

HTH,
Steve

[ughnonumus]

So why do we stress on chords so much..

As soon as we add another OSC, we have a chord; as soon as we add another voice (i.e. instrument), we have a chord. Why do we keep adding this stuff? Isn't one note enough?

[jedilaw]

One note may be enough, depending on the desired effect. BB King is well known for not playing chords. But I think it's wrong to say that we don't "need" chords in music. No, there's no absolute requirement for them, but there are a whole helluva lot of situations in which a chord or two is needed.

[amit235]

thanks to all for replying..

the thing that made me against these chords is that there is far too less generalization as to what a chord can function..

this is because i believed that the primary important deciding quality of chord should be its root note and when the root changes we should have a new chord..
but we have two chords with different roots having same arrangement of notes functioning different in differnet scales.

i feel chords are too abstract things to understand music..

my point is that lets say a group of notes in a particular order does a function.There is some deciding factor(in terms of order of notes n the notes itself in reference to some scale) which enables these note groups to function like that.

we can have other group of notes that can function like the one mentioned above.

so there must be some similarity between both.
and if we make a set of union of all similarities then if any of the similarity vanishes then the group of notes wont function as such..

we can see that chords do act like union of similarities but we get a lot of exceptions.

is it too difficult to develop some other kind of thing that tackles this problem. with at best no exceptions.


i am no great theorist or have a vast knowledge in this field so i can be wrong at may places. please do point clarify wrong points or illogical points or if some assumptions are wrong..

i have started learning stuff about music theory but i feel that functioning of chords and chords progressions arent so transparent..and continuing to study in this manner is like mugging things up even with some of the standard books on harmony..

i will be greatful to the music theorists here.. if can provide some good online/textual material to read in this regard..

[beboop]

i feel chords are too abstract things to understand music..

What you can do, and it requires no further study or preparation, is learn as many tunes that use chords as you can. It'd be best to start with a genre you have some emotional connection to. When you've figured out, by ear, what the chords are, it's also useful to make up, by ear, a new melody that works with that sequence of chords.

Yes, chord names, chord symbols (C7 etc) are an abstraction. But you deal with abstractions all day, every day, without distress. Take the word 'dog', in isolation it doesn't specify any particular dog, or breed of dog, or function of dog. Yet you have no difficulty parsing the abstraction 'dog', and understanding it contextually.

What you lack is practical experience of chords. Acquire some, and the chord symbol system won't be quite so mysterious.

The 'theory' you need for this is minimal. After you've learned a few things by ear, or concurrently, it's useful to learn how chords are derived from scales, to memorize how they're spelled, to acquaint yourself with common sequences of chords as they appear in actual music.

Once again, for a specific vertical structure, write it in standard notation. That's not what chord symbols are for.

[tapper mike]

BB King may not play chords but he knows them well. He plays to them and when he writes a song he gives chord progression charts to his musicians. He has been known to be quick about calling someone out about using an inappropriate chord or voicing in a particular tune.


If you listen to the beatles the exact opposite of chord progression writing was used. Usually Paul would sing the melody and wrap chords to the melody.
Same with Stevie Wonder. They sing to a key but don't wrap chords to the key
although often they do follow key type progressions. You'll always find an odball extended chord in Stevie Wonders music. As well an oddball chord in Paul McCartney's (such as a Cmajor chord when the rest of the song is in E)

Coming from the pop/rock guitar background I've always written tin pan alley style. Throw a common progression up and then write the melody. If I couldn't here the melody in context the melody had little value. I developed a modal method which has gotten me thru many a gig where I didn't know the song due to my sense of relative pitch. The rules are simple see the chord play the chord. Play to the chord. Play over the chord, know what the next chord is and know how to transistion from one chord melodically to the next chord.

I sum up notes in three ways.
Chord Tones
Mode Tones
Passing/Neghboring Tones

If I'm playing a vamp (chord doesn't change) I rarely stick to pure chord tones. and never use passing/neighboring tones. I'll cycle thru various modes
based on the chord.

If I'm playing a key based progression I'll usually play modally on occasion
I'll sub a mode to create some dissonance.

If I'm playing a bebop type song where keys change often. I'll stick to close to the chord per bar or pentatonic notes and use passing tones to connect the dots from one chord to the next.

[ughnonumus]

One note may be enough, depending on the desired effect. BB King is well known for not playing chords. But I think it's wrong to say that we don't "need" chords in music. No, there's no absolute requirement for them, but there are a whole helluva lot of situations in which a chord or two is needed.

I like the example that you offered. In fact, BB is a fav! However, it's important to come to an agreement on what a chord actually is. When harmonics come into play, aren't we technically hearing chords?

However, if what you're pointing at is less tech (i.e. simply playing a note; harmonics, etc... included), then I'll work from there. BB is also singing on top of his "single notes." Ergo, he's actually playing a chord, but using his whole delivery to present it. In fact, even when he's not singing, there's a bass guitar going on. So, we're back to the bass+guitar singles = aggregate chord equation, again.

Using another analogy, arpeggiators can do a pretty full job using single notes. However, they are also boring by themself. So, we add another, or perhaps, some other track using single notes. However, when they are combines, we're hearing a distributed chord, yeah?

Your thoughts?

[ughnonumus]

BB King may not play chords but he knows them well. He plays to them and when he writes a song he gives chord progression charts to his musicians. He has been known to be quick about calling someone out about using an inappropriate chord or voicing in a particular tune.


If you listen to the beatles the exact opposite of chord progression writing was used. Usually Paul would sing the melody and wrap chords to the melody.
Same with Stevie Wonder. They sing to a key but don't wrap chords to the key
although often they do follow key type progressions. You'll always find an odball extended chord in Stevie Wonders music. As well an oddball chord in Paul McCartney's (such as a Cmajor chord when the rest of the song is in E)

Coming from the pop/rock guitar background I've always written tin pan alley style. Throw a common progression up and then write the melody. If I couldn't here the melody in context the melody had little value. I developed a modal method which has gotten me thru many a gig where I didn't know the song due to my sense of relative pitch. The rules are simple see the chord play the chord. Play to the chord. Play over the chord, know what the next chord is and know how to transistion from one chord melodically to the next chord.

I sum up notes in three ways.
Chord Tones
Mode Tones
Passing/Neghboring Tones

If I'm playing a vamp (chord doesn't change) I rarely stick to pure chord tones. and never use passing/neighboring tones. I'll cycle thru various modes
based on the chord.

If I'm playing a key based progression I'll usually play modally on occasion
I'll sub a mode to create some dissonance.

If I'm playing a bebop type song where keys change often. I'll stick to close to the chord per bar or pentatonic notes and use passing tones to connect the dots from one chord to the next.

I like your analysis and your style. Personally, I follow a similar writing style.

I'm sure you heard the one about Sir Paul being asked to play some particular chord and his reply was something like, "you know- the pretty one." I like the ideal of throwing it all out the window, after absorbing the gist of it all. Then, of course, I'm not intellectualising it- I'm feeling it.

[tapper mike]

I had to follow up on this after playing with my xl-7 and getting a better understanding of techno.

In techno and classical pieces the chord progression is not often the way a pattern is worked out. It is motif first. harmonies are supplimental.

Analyze the motif. What are the notes being played. This helps to define the key.

If the notes in the first bar are,,, abcd
C and G are your keys.
The most common first chord would be Am the second would be G
Bdim would sound rough as would Bm for a first chord of the progression.
Althogh Bm7 no 5th would work.
Avoid dense sounding synths/pads/instruments when playing chords unless you intend to arpeggiate such as organ sounds. You don't want your chord to turn to mush. Use clean sounding instruments harps piano's clean guitars.
Focus on the rythmic aspects of the beat not the melody as you want to support the melody not overwhem it. Punctuate your rythum with consistent attack patterns. Such as emphasising beats 2 and 4 to give the rythum more drive. Learn how to vary your metere if the song has a constant 8 beat
try playing
|:1-2&3&4-,1-2&3&4-,1-2&3&4-,1-2&3&4-:|
skiping the and on the first and fourth measures.
Once you have that down look for more variations on an 8 beat pattern.

[jancivil]

Nota Bene: there are whole cultures, which appear to go back a BIT further than Western ones, which eschew chords altogether in favor of [modal] melody using pure intervals, against a drone.

in that sense, 'why chords?' would be down to the fact that Temperaments (particularly 12-tone equal) tend to be fairly severe compromises of the richness of 'natural' (simple integer ratio, eg: 3:2 for a fifth) interval correspondences. And we're making up for that lack with some other action.

[aciddose]

i think most of what i'll say was already said, but i want to post a short explaination of this opinion:

chords are simply combinations of notes. to understand chords you must understand the fundamental nature of music, and that is in ratios and fractions of time. notes are going to give you ratios of a very high frequency, while rhythm will be at a much lower frequency. when we play two notes, a "chord", we produce not just the notes themselves which could be considered just a scalar. due to the fact our perception is non-linear, the absolute magnitude of this scalar is for the most part meaningless. when we play a chord, we produce a ratio which is what music is all about. we need not play the notes at once of course, they might be played one after the other. the ratios in "pitch" and "time" will still be represented.

if we define "music" in this way, obviously one note isnt music, while two notes suddenly are. they can be both the same frequency occurring at different times, or they can be different frequencies at once. immediately when we have a ratio represented by sound, it becomes music.

demonstration of that:

say we play a note, at any length. let's disregard the fact that we could represent a ratio by note frequency vs. note length, although that may be a very interesting area to experiment in.

the note would be considered:

pitch[1], time[1], or simply "1".

we could only say that this is music if we define music as "1", and not music as "0", however that isnt the typical definition as we would call this "sound" or "no sound", not "music".

with two notes, one say an octave above the other we get this:

pitch[1] + pitch[2], time[1], or simply "1/2". this is a ratio, and we can then classify this as the most basic form of "music".

[llatham]

So why do we stress on chords so much..

As soon as we add another OSC, we have a chord; as soon as we add another voice (i.e. instrument), we have a chord. Why do we keep adding this stuff? Isn't one note enough?

One note can be enough. And in a context of many notes, sometimes one well-placed note has as much, if not more, impact as some huge chord.

There's an entire opera called "The Four Note Opera" that has four pitches in it (and a woodblock hit if you want to call that a "note"). While there are chords in it, there's an entire unaccompanied Aria on one note at one point. It remains interesting (and comedic) throughout.

I think we have a tendency to think more is more, and I don't think it would be harmful for many of us to adopt a "less is more" approach.

Cheers

[llatham]

thanks to all for replying..

i am no great theorist or have a vast knowledge in this field so i can be wrong at may places. please do point clarify wrong points or illogical points or if some assumptions are wrong..

i have started learning stuff about music theory but i feel that functioning of chords and chords progressions arent so transparent..and continuing to study in this manner is like mugging things up even with some of the standard books on harmony..

i will be greatful to the music theorists here.. if can provide some good online/textual material to read in this regard..

"Function" in music is CONTEXT-BASED. Many people have a hard time understanding this.

For example, we are told that the 7th scale degree in a Major scale has a tendency to "lead" to the tonic note, so we call it the "leading tone" and it's why chords with that note, like the V chord, lead to I.

But, scale degree 7 DOES NOT ALWAYS have a leading tone function. When it is the 5th of a iii chord, or the 7th of a IMaj7 chord, it's function is totally different.

So in C major, in the CONTEXT of a Dominant chord - V, V7, viio, etc., scale degree 7's "job" is to lead to the Tonic note. But, in the same key, in the CONTEXT of a Tonic Major 7 chord, that same note's "job" is to descend by step (as a dissonant 7th of a 7th chord) to scale degree 6 - the exact opposite direction!

So the problem is, the CONTEXT is always changing. The context I just gave you is for Common Practice Period classical music. If we talk about Jazz, the 7th in the Tonic Major 7 chord is NOT necessarily a dissonance, and may not need to resolve now.

So in music, and in music theory, context is everything. The trick is, to learn the contextual concepts that make up a certain style.

You might investigate Stefan Kostka and Dorothy Payne's "Tonal Harmony" which is the university standard (or one of the major ones) for harmony courses (classical music largely). Though I am not familiar with it, I understand Nettles and Graf's book on Jazz Theory includes these concepts in a Jazz context which migh also be useful.

Cheers