How do you call such chord?

[excuse me please]

Basically, it's a D7 chord.

[The Noodlist]

Basically, it's a D7 chord.

No major 3rd. There's root, 5th and minor 7th
A Aeolian = C = D minor

[excuse me please]

Basically, it's a D7 chord.

No major 3rd. There's root, 5th and minor 7th
A Aeolian = C = D minor

But we are talking about a chord a c d.
If it were a minor chord then it's an Am sus4 chord, an Am11 chord or a Dm7 chord. Or even a C69 chord.

However, since no harmonic context is given, the chord is still undetermined. Still, basically, D7 is the strongest option in this case IMO. Based on the three notes alone. Even though the melody is supposed to be in A aeolian, the combo a c d makes a dominant impression. No matter what. I wonder what others think about this. I could be totally wrong, of course.

[jancivil]

:sigh: already complretely covered, someone pointed out early that with an F under it it's a chord of the seventh on D (regardless of knowing it's A Aeolian or the quality of the chord on 4). It could well be all things considered, but following that the OP clarified beyond doubt it's A Aeolian material so it isn't

in itself it's asked and answered & then repeat and rinse, but let's do have more Peanut Gallery input.

[Vurniks]

"The free online tools says there are 15 possible meanings of this chord."
IE: you have nothing, and ignore that people are contributing actual ideas in their own words.
The literal answer is 'this is not a chord'. So the tool or tools is/are not credible for a real answer any more than people here, and certainly should not be expected to replace one's own enquiry into the matter.

A D C is an incomplete chord. I don't care much about the rest.

[N__K]

A D C

A as a root note in the A Aeolian mode.

One of my favorite pitch sets. In set theory it's [0,3,5], Forte number 3-7B.

So I might call this "0,3,5 pitch set started from A".

Personally, in my own notes, I use integer markup inspired by set theory - but unlike it, with 12 interval classes instead of 6. That allows to mark both degrees and chord intervals unambiguously with simple numbers.
I use round brackets - for example (0,3,5) - to differentiate it from set theory markups. When a starting pitch needs to be specified, I write it before the set: A(0,3,5). When it's part of a chord progression formula, I use a number and degree sign ° to mark the degree on which the pitch set is built - for example, 0°(0,3,5).

So, if this was a part of a harmonic progression in which A was decided as the 0th degree, I'd write it up as "0°(0,3,5)".

***

I suspect that you did not ask for quite that kind of explanation But if you work in tunings with 12 pitch classes, and need a clear way to classify pitch sets like "A,C,D" for personal notes, I'd recommend simply using integers in 12-pitch space (and/or set theory, or some combination of those ideas - whatever works best for you).

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

And how does that ^ work when trying to communicate with other musicians? "Hey, Peter, play the A(0,3,5) chord"? Jeez. Why don´t people just study instead of catching doubtful snippets at forums and invent their own of everything? It becomes incommunicable. Solipsism where everyone sits in their own private reality talking to none but their own projections. It is a dangerous path, tho it may look innocent at the superficial level. Learn to read a note sheet. It is simple once grasped, and already tested through centuries.

[jancivil]

your pitch sets bidness has nothing to offer as a musical conception, having really zero use value to us

[N__K]

And how does that ^ work when trying to communicate with other musicians? "Hey, Peter, play the A(0,3,5) chord"? Jeez. Why don´t people just study instead of catching doubtful snippets at forums and invent their own of everything? It becomes incommunicable. Solipsism where everyone sits in their own private reality talking to none but their own projections. It is a dangerous path, tho it may look innocent at the superficial level. Learn to read a note sheet. It is simple once grasped, and already tested through centuries.

It'd be interesting to do some research on this. Anecdotally, I know that musicians who regularly work in DAWs are likely to be familiar with 12-pitch thinking, due to composing via piano rolls. That's a lot of people these days, and that number is growing.

Curiously, a lot of physical instrument interfaces are actually in 12-pitch space, as well. Frets of a guitar and keys of the piano are most common examples - although, depending on person, it can be hard to decide which one to call "logarithmic" and which one "linear"


For me personally, the eye-opener was that log-scale spectrum (the one which usually has 100Hz, 1000Hz and 10000Hz lines overlayed, with increasing density) can actually correlate to 12-TET semitones, when each octave is divided into 12 equal spaces.

spectrum 12-pitch semitone scale and piano keys (low res).png

Since human hearing of pitch is logarithmic, that's a fairly close representation of how we actually hear 12-TET: that is, each 1-pitch step sounding like it is at an equal distance from the previous one.




Regarding universality of staff-based nomenclature and Western traditional concepts of chords: it is telling that posters in this thread cannot seem to agree on a single name for a combination of three pitches

your pitch sets bidness has nothing to offer as a musical conception, having really zero use value to us

LOL, how's that for a welcome

12-pitch paradigm may not be useful to you perhaps, but maybe someone else.

Funny thing is: a long-ish time ago, on another forum, I asked same question as the original poster (albeit in a different key). And most of the answers were similar - fellows could not agree on a single name for "0,3,5". I found that highly illogical, considering the simplicity of it.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Since when has 12 tone music required another notation system than staffs?

Wiki doesn’t say, so what have you read that suggests otherwise?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-tone_technique

The notation in this ^ looks pretty familiar to me. So what is the argument to depart from this and replace it with yours?

12-pitch paradigm may not be useful to you perhaps, but maybe someone else.

You just wrote that to the wrong person and without showing any argument as to the superiority of your system and why it should had more to do with 12 tone music than staff notation. Your system does not even appeal to the concept of notes. You may find that was a mistake.

[jancivil]

12 pitch classes, a pure abstraction? We define sonorities and chord things towards a musical understanding. that's just abstract numbers.
It offers exactly no insight as to what the thing is. If this were an analysis of Webern, it will offer no insight as to an idea in music. Frankly "0 3 5" is so No shit, Sherlock. We have that, only we don't really do 0 for the 1 of a scale in music theory.

The context there is a tonal ("natural minor" or modal (Aeolian) climate with a central tone *1* of A.
A; a minor third from A is C (we resort to the convention "m3" inside the convention <minor key> or <mode>); a Perfect 4th from A is D. We could fixed-Do solfege it as Do Me Fa if we want it abstract enough to transpose.
It could be many things in time, and one reading the thread will understand (one hopes) that people thinking about music had some on-topic speculation.

[N__K]

Personally, I utilize that numerical 12-pitch markup for any music - tonal as well. Usually alongside or instead of chromatic roman numeral markup, to make general "big picture" formulas of harmonic characters of pieces.

I've found that it is good for describing various non-functional phenomena in fairly simple terms.

I have no problem with anyone else using whatever paradigm they prefer. Just offering another perspective here.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

non-functional phenomena in fairly simple terms.

Which can be described with staff notation too, which is not about functional harmony analysis by default. Cannot see any argument that your system should be superior, more simple or add anything new. On the contrary, it cannot even deal with the concept of a simple note in a 12 tone system. You have just made your pitch-abstractions depart from the musical nucleus of notation and walk into numb physicalism.

[N__K]

Well, all I can say is that it works well for me, for thinking about harmonic formulas and writing down many kinds of ideas in relatively simple terms. And I'm fairly certain that it could work for someone else, too - so I told about it here.

Aside from "A(0,3,5)" I might call "A,C,D" "Am add4 omit5", but that does not seem very sensible either.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Aside from "A(0,3,5)" I might call "A,C,D" "Am add4 omit5", but that does not seem very sensible either.

To the average trained it certainly would compared to your alternative. Glad it works for you, but do not hold your breath as to others. You see, many come around with all kinds of revolutionary ideas mainly based on very fragmentet knowledge of music theory and history. But for such a system to be succesful, you´d have to prove its superiority in a Ph.d. project and several peer reviewed articles and in practise too. Then you´d have to convince people to implement it, retrain them and depart from a very nuanced musical notation system whose inherited musicality you have just eliminated and replaced by sheer numbers. You have reduced the music out of the system, and that is good for none writing music.