Looking for a tool: I give it the notes, it tells me chord

[C00kie]

try your brain.

The helper adds are really great when trying the brain already has failed or gives questionable results.

[mr]

I do that.
But I'm always wrong.

[herodotus]

try your brain.

The helper adds are really great when trying the brain already has failed or gives questionable results.

The problem is that chords are an inconsistent abstraction that increasingly make little sense in our post-tonal world. Chord names are inconsistent from one theorist to the next, especially if the first theorist is writing about Jazz and the other is writing about Wagner.

And it's really easy to find harmonic combinations that have no rational names, because almost all chords and all chord naming structures are tertiary (i.e. they are built from thirds). Any harmonic combinations based on fourths or fifths is going to be hard to name, even though they are used in music every day. And even if you can find some sort of way to fudge an analysis of a fifth based chord into a third-based system of classification, what value does such an analysis have?

In many cases, it makes much more sense to speak of combinations of intervals, than it does to speak of chords. Chords are only useful concepts when someone is consciously using traditional harmonic structures.

[jancivil]

try your brain.

The helper adds are really great when trying the brain already has failed or gives questionable results.

I don't tend to get many 'questionable results' in my musical thought. I am able to work very freely, I know what I hear to know it on my instruments, or in the piano roll.

There is a reason for that: I pretty much know what I'm doing. I tend to know what I'm doing because I did not have any helper robot doing my work for me at any stage of my development. Ignore this advice at your own cost if you will.

Information is not knowledge.

The problem is that chords are an inconsistent abstraction that increasingly make little sense in our post-tonal world. Chord names are inconsistent from one theorist to the next, especially if the first theorist is writing about Jazz and the other is writing about Wagner.

...

In many cases, it makes much more sense to speak of combinations of intervals, than it does to speak of chords. Chords are only useful concepts when someone is consciously using traditional harmonic structures.

I very much agree. For instance, I don't agree at all with 'c' for '6/4 position'. It reifies the concept of chord, in lieu of information per the part writing thought that it stems from.

* Second inversion: your chord is [bass to treble] G C E. You figure the other parts' interval to the bass. E to G is a 6th. C to G is a 4th. (In a part-writing exercise you might have a bass line and/or a tune, and you see 6/4 and you know what's happening.)

* First inversion: E G C. G to E is a 3rd, C to E is a 6th. It's technically known as a 6/3 chord. indicated usually in figured bass by the number 6.

* A root position triad is known as a 5/3 chord.

So, I6/4 to V5/3 can be seen to obtain out of a double appogiatura or double suspension (per 'V').

[jancivil]

try your brain.

The helper adds are really great when trying the brain already has failed or gives questionable results.

The OP is about relying on a machine to tell you specifically what's happening: input the notes and you're given answers for 'what chord?'.

NO. One learns by doing. When one leans on helper robot, one is going to have one's questionable results because of an inability to answer one's own questions. Ultimately, 'what chord?' will be automatic recognition, the brain is the best computer system for this task, only a cripple needs this kind of crutch.

Having the robot help you with the name of the chord, in place of learning what chords are all about, completely puts the cart in front of the horse.

[elassi]

For trained people it might be blasphemous to use tools but I can understand the OP. I've read tons of theory and still didn't get it. Too abstract for my way of thinking and/or self-learning. But then I found - by random - Emerald Tablet's website and somehow he knows the right words (for me!) to explain the logic behind it. I have to thank this man and do it here with my post.

http://emeraldtablet.vndv.com/index.html

[trimph1]

I suppose one can use chord robots as a 'learning tool'. In other words, it becomes a kind of software based 'flash card' system.

Having said that I am in agreement with jancivil here...if you must use the tool do it with the idea that you still use the brain as well. For you may not always have that tool with you all the time...

[aciddose]

a tool that spits out intervals and maps them to fixed chord names could be useful, but for example i use zero-based intervals where you'd have a major for example as 047. that's typically "135" though, since only the white keys are counted. that's a stupid system outside of piano though and sometimes even for piano - it makes it far more difficult to transpose.

so based upon my preferences a "almost working" tool like this would be absolutely useless for me. if i designed one it wouldn't use standard names or methods of counting intervals or anything like that.

[Cymatic Kicks]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

For trained people it might be blasphemous to use tools but I can understand the OP. I've read tons of theory and still didn't get it. Too abstract for my way of thinking and/or self-learning. But then I found - by random - Emerald Tablet's website and somehow he knows the right words (for me!) to explain the logic behind it. I have to thank this man and do it here with my post.

http://emeraldtablet.vndv.com/index.html (http://emeraldtablet.vndv.com/index.html)

That site no longer works, however, all the same information is here:

http://www.cymatickicks.com/ (http://www.cymatickicks.com/)

Thank you!

[jancivil]

spamtastic!

[tapper mike]

try your brain.

+1

[rp314]

try your brain.

The helper adds are really great when trying the brain already has failed or gives questionable results.

The problem is that chords are an inconsistent abstraction that increasingly make little sense in our post-tonal world. Chord names are inconsistent from one theorist to the next, especially if the first theorist is writing about Jazz and the other is writing about Wagner.

And it's really easy to find harmonic combinations that have no rational names, because almost all chords and all chord naming structures are tertiary (i.e. they are built from thirds). Any harmonic combinations based on fourths or fifths is going to be hard to name, even though they are used in music every day. And even if you can find some sort of way to fudge an analysis of a fifth based chord into a third-based system of classification, what value does such an analysis have?

In many cases, it makes much more sense to speak of combinations of intervals, than it does to speak of chords. Chords are only useful concepts when someone is consciously using traditional harmonic structures.

I think that most people who have taken some "traditional harmony" course generally get the purpose of certain kinds of analysis as a means of seeking a better understanding of what's going on in the realm of composition. The rules, the breaking of the rules, the terminology and most of the rest of it are rarely seen as anything other than an academic moment in the process of becoming a "composer".

Did Stravinsky, Charlie Parker or Frank Zappa really know more about music theory than their peers? And didn't Schoenberg and Cage allegedly not see eye to eye regarding how much study of harmony is necessary? Different paths...

So, IMHO, what others tell us can be quite helpful but so can availing oneself of whatever tools are out there.

[jancivil]

I've read tons of theory and still didn't get it.

Not saying you did this, but reading music theory outside the experience of the music the 'theory' applies to is pretty dry or abstract and I wouldn't expect it to click.

The formulation of 'music theory' as we receive it today is typically style and period-bound. To the extent a music is founded on it, it will be useful for that music. The four-part writing principles as synthesized through the years/as we receive it today is a useful *discipline* per se, but it isn't going to make Stravinsky, Varese, Zappa less opaque absent a certain experience, or at all; depending on skill which is an extension of talent or being built for the task, to be honest. OTOH to get the backstory for Schoenberg, you need it. There is a dialectical process at work there.

If the 'theory' you want is supposed to get you to know your jazz re-harmonization and these principles, you can work with a pretty basic subset and ignore for instance a lot of the finer points of four part as per classical style. A composer can use the kind of torture-fest such as I went through in Honors at CCM... but eg., Zappa decided after a bit of community college that there were things he didn't want to ever be bothered with, as he just didn't have an interest in what he thought was dead music anyway.

But taking 'music theory' as is typically taught as solid rules, and as if you need to be applying it to just any and every music, is fraught with issues. It's horses for courses.

[Cymatic Kicks]

spamtastic!

I don't promote my site like that. There is theory knowledge in there that has obviously been helpful to people. I also make no money at all from that site.

Also, I just realized that while it's not reflected here, I sent a private message to elassi saying how much it meant to me that my writing helped him with music theory. I enjoy helping people understand the things that have taken me years to understand.

The personal bonus I get is that whenever I explain things to people, it reinforces my own knowledge and also makes me think about things more, which naturally gets new perspectives on things.

[jancivil]

Ok, sorry. Your second post here was a link to your website.

here is a clickable link to your music theory page: http://www.cymatickicks.com/search/label/Music%20Theory