How do you call such chord?

[jancivil]

Check it out, here is what the concern with pitch-class analysis of music looks like.

[Allen] Forte’s work has been guided by a cartographic impulse that can conceal the deeper value of his innovations. In the present work, for instance, he tirelessly maps out the surface of several dozen individual movements by Webern, in many cases relating each and every note to a matrix consisting of octatonic subsets grouped together according to which of the three forms of p.c. set class 8-28 they evoke. As often is the case with Forte, the actual analytical insights are often concealed below the surface of the analyses. Insights are here in abundance, however, especially in Forte’s treatment of the later works of Webern’s atonal oeuvre, opp. 12–16. Paradoxically, it is in discussing these works that Forte makes his case for the centrality of the octatonic to Webern’s music most convincingly, even though (as Forte himself admits) his octatonic Swiss army knife works less infallibly here than in the earlier opus numbers due to Webern’s introduction of an increasing number of non-octatonic surface formations.
https://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.00.6. ... perry.html

(Forte is about everybody's go-to regarding Webern, or at least among the chief referents when one is going to embark on that kind of work. Forte was innovative in that he decided there was such an ethos to this music that the structure as a whole may be known, rather than it being individual wild hairs ad culum.)

here's a picture:

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Oh, note staffs and not piano rolls with integers. Big surprise that is

[jancivil]

There it is.

[jancivil]

There is something called pitch-class set (often attributed to Forte) which would not be 0-11; if it was let's say the far end of 'basic' (eg., 3 to 9 tones), ie., variable minor or a synthetic scale with a real 9 it would be 0-8. This attribution to Forte arrives later than pitch class theory, going back a couple decades to 1953 and Babbitt, afaik,

A problem with set theory for tonal music arises with inversions of harmonies. I'm going to just leave that there.

The usefulness of thinking in terms of sets within a set, abstractly, can in part be demonstrated in simple terms:
I like this intervallic bit, eg: "B-C-Eb", I like the sound of it, evocative.
In this 'theory', we're looking for equivalences. So this intervallically can be duplicated at 11 other starting points, and it can be flipped, eg., F D C#. B C Eb. F D C#. Bb A F#. Ab G E. (the last three is an inversion); now we've a 12-tone row.

So we have abstracted a little musical germ with the aim of internal cohesion by reiterating equivalence.
It's an abstraction of intervals; talking in terms of sets and suchlike is not unexpected as a mode of operation. If we look at that germ, its most 'packed' form is simply + 1 semitone, then plus 3 more.
So the tighter interval for this class is a semitone, in which case B is said to be 0.

So the choice of notes in a 12-tone row have to do with smaller segments, typically. Was Webern thinking in terms of six or 4; or manipulating from an abstraction from octatonic symmetrical, with say a derived 3-note class...
The crux of pitch class theory is segmentation because the meaning is revealed in the finer workings, segmentation.

In tonal, functional music (let alone the simplicity of modal activity), these things are not as abstract as that, the notes will have a meaning in the tonal realm (or the modal meanings relating to the central tone) and ramifications that have to be fit to the tonal (or modal) fabric. You don't extrapolate things out of tonality abstractly like that for long or you've exceeded the tonal framework.

[jsaras]

It's a bit of a cluster, just like this thread.

[j wazza]

what would you call this chord, from the bottom note up
1
6
3 + octave
5 + oct
7 + oct
2 + 2 oct

major 7 add9 add13, with inversion?

[shawshawraw]

what would you call this chord, from the bottom note up
1
6
3 + octave
5 + oct
7 + oct
2 + 2 oct

major 7 add9 add13, with inversion?

I'd write C6 (or whatever6). If you play guitar that fingering is obvious

[Etienne1973]

what would you call this chord, from the bottom note up
1
6
3 + octave
5 + oct
7 + oct
2 + 2 oct

major 7 add9 add13, with inversion?

Pure note wise it is an Maj7 9/13 but I don't hear that sound. Voicing seems to have an odd note order. Chord option note 13 for example is too low for my ears. That doesn't mean there's no musical situation where this makes sense.

[j wazza]

what would you call this chord, from the bottom note up
1
6
3 + octave
5 + oct
7 + oct
2 + 2 oct

major 7 add9 add13, with inversion?

Pure note wise it is an Maj7 9/13 but I don't hear that sound. Voicing seems to have an odd note order. Chord option note 13 for example is too low for my ears. That doesn't mean there's no musical situation where this makes sense.

thanks, i agree it doesnt sound like a major chord
i really like this kind of chord where the first interval is a 6th or 7th and the intervals get smaller as you go up the keyboard, with some thirds at the top, it mimics the way the intervals between each harmonic in the harmonic series get smaller as you move up the harmonics
the intervals from each note to the next are 6th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd

i find it more interesting than starting a chord with a third like usual
it works in minor too or if you chuck some 4ths in there
if i want something powerful ill start with an octave, fifth or fourth (or an octave + fifth/fourth), but usually i want the more colourful 6th or 7th
its good for jazzy or neo soul music but i also use it for synth pad progressions

[j wazza]

what would you call this chord, from the bottom note up
1
6
3 + octave
5 + oct
7 + oct
2 + 2 oct

major 7 add9 add13, with inversion?

I'd write C6 (or whatever6). If you play guitar that fingering is obvious

thanks, it does have more of the 6 sound than just sounding like an extended major chord so this makes sense

[jancivil]

as to assuming the naivety has produced definitely an A root from the words A Aeolian, I don't

What I mean is that they probably limited themselves to using that particular scale. Why that might be relevant, I'll get back to it later.

You're smart.

It may have been a good guess, but a statement of fact out of that is not useful in itself. The verb is is not used to convey “maybe” or “probably”.

Anyway, I'm going to hold my answer: it's an Am chord. That whole bar probably is, but the implied voiceleading makes my head hurt and think that this is something going on in the upper strings of guitar:p

This “answer” conveys one thing only to me: your comfort with matters beyond coming away with a simplistic assumption of the block chord name is rather low.
“in the upper strings of guitar” is pretty much non sequitur.

Def not scary smart. Admittedly guessing “here’s a brand noob, probably so probably…” appears a safe general guess, but the object in the OP, A D C is_not an A minor triad.

Rather than the seemingly more safe assumption I’d rather be more comprehensive. In the abstract, it’s statistically not so improbable it’s 3/4 of a quartal sonority A D G C. While in no case is it an Am.

[jancivil]

nah, you're good. set theory does have a ridiculous amount of applications in post-tonal music, so people trying to 'debunk' you are just betraying their own ignorance.

What people? Find a pair and address an actual point and the person writing here. The OP has already indicated it’s a noob effort on white keys, the operative notion being A Aeolian. There is no post-tonal anything to be had. A is its tonic, its *1*. The <A minor> triad will be its “i” chord. However, the intent we have from the original post is the seven white keys with “A” as its nominal anchor. I can’t know what they’re hearing next from “ADC” or at all.

“0” is BUNK here, for the OP or anyone, certainly beginners. I made a very direct point, it’s [1 = 0 now is] more mentation than is called for with no_use_value whatsoever. IE: wheel not reinvented.

This vagary, <applications in “post-tonal music”> shows us nothing at all, past you couldn’t be arsed to follow the actual visible text or were so keen to gainsay you screwed the pooch. NB: the prefix ‘post’ in your own typing.

If you’re having at a person, show us specifically what part of this they’re ignorant of. This was an entirely useless post that works only to be disrespectful.

[jancivil]

I would like to clarify my objections to the use of PC Music Theory as pertains to the question in as simple terms as I can. Pitch Class (as opposed to merely saying “pitch”) itself assumes 1) octave equivalence and 2) enharmonic equivalence. 1) presents no difficulty here. 2) for tonal music isn’t done, because key - chief signifier of tonality per se - frequently makes a distinction. Key of, say C#, contains two white key notes that are not equivalent to the same two in say C major. E# & B#. Information that isn’t trivial is not conveyed. Then, 0 is not 1 per se.*

If where the initial poster is going does turn out to be modal (& all white keys anchored on “A” does tend towards Aeolian rather than a functional A Minor with its V, or dominant harmony), fewer potential confusions arise (until we get some black keys going).
But to reiterate, *for modes to be themselves, a solid “tonic”, a definite home known as 1 is necessary.

“n minor add4 omit5” only needs “n” explicated. Hence “A minor add4 omit5” for the sonority ADC is actually perfectly useful, a personal lack of experience notwithstanding. A semitone higher, Bbm add4 omit5, done. A#m add4 omit 5 is equally understood, but A# tends to carry different connotations (per the color wheel) than Bb, obvious exception being we’re sticking with it forever.
0 can’t tell us Bb from A# so its use case derives from music that requires no distinction in itself.

It doesn’t represent higher diversity to toss it in, it’s just off the mark, ahistorical, fruitless. And proudly obtuse.