Understanding Chords, a guide.

[warrior545]

this article was written for those who wants to understand chords better.

reading chords the right way of course, was the number one goal,
but in this article there is more than just reading chords as you may notice.

http://musicdm.wordpress.com/2012/02/09 ... ng-chords/

this blog don't ask for donations,
you can subsribe to the blog to show appreciation if you want.

[Ogg Vorbis]

You wrote this...

why exactly the 1st, 3rd, and 5th degrees ? couple of theories for that too…. basically they intensify and compliment each other, one explanation is that they derived from the overtone series, and that the 3rd and 5th degrees of the scale are the closest overtones to the 1st degree (or you can call the 1st degree also the root).
the overtone series theory makes a lot of sense even in the most complicated chords and harmonies, I would recommended reading more about this subject for those who want to know more and understand music better, the overtone series is a great subject that every professional musician should get to know.

But you didn't cover consonance and dissonance. 1-3-5 makes a stable triadic "unit" or basic building block of music because it is the most number of consonances that you can associate together.

Seems like a discussion of chords should include consonant and dissonant intervals. Then you can get some insight into basic harmonic function like resolutions and cadences.

Just a couple thoughts.

[warrior545]

thanks for the comment and suggestion, it is appreciated, I might use it in my next article.

the overtone series already suggested for reading to expand knowledge and it covers consonance and disonance, although the main goal of the article is giving tools to read chords.

[jancivil]

But you didn't cover consonance and dissonance. 1-3-5 makes a stable triadic "unit" or basic building block of music because it is the most number of consonances that you can associate together.

before what happens? you fall off the end of the earth? is this supposed to be psychological? I can't tell what that means.

it does not tell why a third is preferred, while the overtone series bit kind of does.
but then, why is a minor triad stable while another vertical construction '1 4 5' is not? is that kind of thing going to be true through itself or is it tied to historical practice and received culture...

why is a stack of perfect fifths unstable? how many before this is true? where does one define 'dissonant'? I've seen text saying a perfect fourth is a dissonance. a major second, a minor seventh. Is dissonance a physical matter and to what extent? to what extent is it contextual.

You end up with faux facts, 'a construction 1 2 5 isn't consonant' and is 'not a stable building block'. I wouldn't agree with that as a true statement necessarily. et cetera...

it's 2012 people.

[Ogg Vorbis]

it's 2012 people.

Not sure what this means. Historically the major or minor triad evolved as a "unit" of sorts which describes a tonality (read Rameau). And there certainly IS an overtone series component going on with consonance and dissonance.

I understand that in some contexts, such as blues, dominant seventh chords don't need to resolve traditionally. But it payed dividends to my understanding to give attention to how things work in many different contexts.

[jancivil]

I remember learning 'chords' or aggregations of notes off of records, by ear, nobody telling me what was acceptable and all this.
I remember it dawning on me that I enjoyed parallel P4ths, something I probably first heard as a child on some record where somebody was out of line. I remember writing harmony parts for our keyboard player in a chart, parallel minor 7ths or whatever sounded good. I didn't know any 'better'.

I had done quite a bit of experimentation and learning outside of teh parental guidance, before 'theory' and I'm damn glad I did.

I remember finding what some call the 'Zappa Major', or the '2' chord, that 1 2 5 thing that's all over Uncle Meat and I never thought it was anything to avoid per se. It's not unstable, he goes for it as a parallel planing device all through that stuff.
I found in a baroque context a bit later that it might be thought of in terms of a suspension, eg., 'the bass suspension', 2-3 suspension. A very cool thing to find! But, I would be hard pressed to explain to someone that is not entrained to these paltry conceptions of harmony why a major second or minor seventh 'is' a dissonance. Through itself. Does it beat? If so, more than what? A major third, minor sixth on a piano? Are you sure? So, is dissonance physical and to what extent. It is a matter of historical fact that at one time the perfect fourth was said to be 'not one of the consonances'. Is dissonance to mean 'it needs to resolve'? These are questions of musical thought. 'Chords' don't really carry a lot of meaning per se.

And I remember in theory class finding out about all of these things to avoid. Fortunately I had some cause and effect in my life before I found this language in these textbooks, some street wisdom and could take things with a grain of salt. By then I wanted to know how baroque music was made so I was ready for discipline and restrictions. Lacking context I would've asked why and chances are I'd've got bullshit answers.

I always found that open pos. G7 on a guitar, in strummy-strum folkie polite music a kind of harsh dissonant thing that really you must resolve to C... but not so long afterwards, Fuji done showed me the Foxy Lady chord, a major/minor 7 #9 and oddly enough it didn't have to resolve, it's the 'I' chord in fact. There are reasons for that that you consider if you want to be real about 'understanding chords', or you're really just regurgitating what you received, the 'conventional wisdom' or something. Not only isn't it wisdom, it's not even knowledge, it's just some information lacking context and given a context it may lack meaning altogether. I remember my first master class the asshat saying 'that is no sharp nine, it's a major/minor chord,' You sad ignint jazzers. Meaningless, and at 19 I knew *better*.

This kind of approach has fostered a stupid form of conservatism in music and the cookie cutter shit we're led to accept, dead parrots that we are becoming. Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue innit.

[Ogg Vorbis]

This kind of approach has fostered a stupid form of conservatism in music and the cookie cutter shit we're led to accept, dead parrots that we are becoming. Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue innit.

It's not about that. Look, I know you have some sort of allergy against anything that smacks of "authority" or dogma or whatever, and that's great. But not all thinking that takes a sweeping perspective is conventionalism. Do you hate the science of biology too because of old farts like Gregor Mendel and Mary Anning and their dogmatic authoritarian tradition?

The whole knee-jerk, "if you say the sky is blue I will say it is pink," iconoclastic, anti-authoritarian thing produces the most predictable and remarkably ironic form of fuddy-duddy-ism one can find.

I don't understand the persistence of reactive attacks we see from you. Your father was a baptist minister or something, we get it. How about putting your dukes away and having a discussion?

So I guess this is how a forum post about a major scale turns into 12 pages and a lock, eh? I guess I stepped right into it.

[jancivil]

I understand that in some contexts, such as blues, dominant seventh chords don't need to resolve traditionally. But it payed dividends to my understanding to give attention to how things work in many different contexts.

and what [you believe] you have is the weight of history making *a* context more significant than *another* context. Hegemony rules ok! :^D

I find a tritone requires resolution according to context or not as an objective matter.

why is a minor triad 'stable' and three stacked fourths not? It owes to context, subjective rather than objective; seems you want it to be objectively true as you adhere to your entrainment.

is isn't 1812! I'm not in that time nor have I ever desired that milieu. Guess what! I'm not ruled by it. How's that?

[jancivil]

This kind of approach has fostered a stupid form of conservatism in music and the cookie cutter shit we're led to accept, dead parrots that we are becoming. Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue innit.

It's not about that. Look, I know you have some sort of allergy against anything that smacks of "authority" or dogma or whatever, and that's great. But not all thinking that takes a sweeping perspective is conventionalism. Do you hate the science of biology too because of old farts like Gregor Mendel and Mary Anning and their dogmatic authoritarian tradition?

The whole knee-jerk, "if you say the sky is blue I will say it is pink," iconoclastic, anti-authoritarian thing produces the most predictable and remarkably ironic form of fuddy-duddy-ism one can find.

I don't understand the persistence of reactive attacks we see from you. Your father was a baptist minister or something, we get it. How about putting your dukes away and having a discussion?

So I guess this is how a forum post about a major scale turns into 12 pages and a lock, eh? I guess I stepped right into it.

well, I think you have your dukes up rather than read my not real brief post you found the bit that pushed that button for you, to focus on and go for the ad hom.

I'm steeped in tradition you lack knowledge of, really. I have seen your other pile of straw before, the rebel without a cause and without a pause before. It seems to be a thing for you. I think it's reactionary pretending to be something else and I've said that before. I never knew anyone to do that... there was that one guy at your school-type thing. It's poor argumentation IMO.

[Ogg Vorbis]

is isn't 1812! I'm not in that time nor have I ever desired that milieu. Guess what! I'm not ruled by it. How's that?

Who said anything about 1812? Functional harmony isn't dead, it's an interesting chapter in musical vocabularies.

I think there IS something to this concept of consonance and dissonance that is rooted in physics...the more simple the ratios of vibrating bodies such as 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 then the more people have perceived it as consonant or "stable" and more complex ratios have been treated with a need to resolve in many culture's music. Nothing terribly religious or dogmatic about that.

I suppose if one equates it all with 1812 and reactively turns the other way, then I'm sure the world looks like it's full of authoritarian idiots who are ruled by the past.

[jancivil]

surely there are physical reasons for consonance!

Historically speaking you have things said that aren't really true - and this era happens to be an area of strength for you. These ideas serve their context, until they do not. They do not serve every context. You have some problematic assertions which seem to me to be claiming more usefulness than I will grant is all.

there's nothing wrong with strictures in traditions...

I'm not sure how broad this word dogma is supposed to be. I follow the rules in a raga Religiously because it works, almost like science. It's as much a proscription as a prescription, things you just do, not, do. When I wrote parts according to the (common practice) styles demanded of me I followed it to the letter, because it had been shown to work for that exercise. I have not rebelled. I know what to do to make a blues solo totally come off and I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here either. Jimi Hendrix was considered innovative on his instrument and a master of the tradition, and if you want a dichotomy it won't be very true.

but I am challenging notions out of a common practice period in a pretty narrow parvenue of music as objective musical law.

[jancivil]

I suppose if one equates it all with 1812 and reactively turns the other way, then I'm sure the world looks like it's full of authoritarian idiots who are ruled by the past.

your straw man is just so naughty like that.

[jancivil]

more complex ratios have been treated with a need to resolve in many culture's music. Nothing terribly religious or dogmatic about that.

if you applied it to the wrong music, another culture that has not succumbed to your hegemony it isn't right. If you told an Indian musician the major seventh in a Bilaval raga 'tends to need to resolve' to the tonic you would be wrong and she'd know it, perhaps finding your overconfidence strange.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Let's give this a rest, I'm sure we're not getting anywhere. There is an 'ignore' feature, perhaps we should use it on each other. Good night.

[jancivil]

I understand that in some contexts, such as blues, dominant seventh chords don't need to resolve traditionally. But it payed dividends to my understanding to give attention to how things work in many different contexts.

well, it's only a 'dominant' seventh if it works that way. This is revealing I think, that I call it a major minor 7, an object, and your term is context-bound. It's not a context in my daily musical life. It has no sway over my thought, not until it must. And I'm pretty adept with that. I just am not limited to it.

I live in California in 2012. YMMV. I don't get what pisses you off about it. earlier arguments color your reading of all that I write? I surely own half of that.