why chords?

[llatham]

When harmonics come into play, aren't we technically hearing chords?

No. Harmonics combine to form TIMBRE, not a "chord". One may be able to pick out individual tones out of the harmonic structure of a given sound, but it depends on the sound (flutes have very few overtones for example), the original pitch (higher pitches will have harmonics that exceed our range of hearing earlier), the harmonic structure (some waveforms have only odd numbered overtones, some have inharmonic overtones, some have aperiodic waveforms (noise), etc.). If we could "hear" a chord within the overtones of a particular instrument, it's unlikely we would have ever found minor 3rds as being a consonant interval since they'd "clash" with the major 3rd overtone.

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?

Absolutely. As I mentioned in my first response to the OP though, we're dealing with a style of music which is chordally-based. Of course there are going to be chords! It can't survive ling without them.

"Solo" lines are something of a rarity - the opening vocal to Styx's "Renegade", the single note bass line intro to The Door's "People are Strange", the opening lick to Wild Cherry's "Play That Funky Music (White Boy)" - all of them are unaccompanied melodies - until the chords come in.

And even then, sometimes, there are solo lines that follow a harmony or imply a harmony - there are some Bach Sonatas for Solo Recorder (or other similar instruments) that, while they can only play one note at a time, play arpeggios that outline chords so it's pretty obvious what the harmony is (I've heard jazz players do the same thin on sax, etc.).

But again, these are all chordally-based styles, so we kind of expect that.

Your thoughts?

How about Edgard Varese's "Density" - It's called Density 5.21 or something (the numbers are the density of platinum, from which good flutes are made) and is just solo notes. No harmony. It's also "modern", so any harmony it does imply is non-traditional.

It may not be your cup of tea, but many people feel it's fine music, and there's not a "chord" in earshot!

And again, Gregorian Chant existed for 100s of years in an unaccompanied form.

We just tend to be a little "set in our ways" as far as using harmony is concerned.

Best,

[jancivil]

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?

If the ear remembers previous notes in a way that corresponds with a present note, and connotes to 'chord' in your mind's ear, you have a chord.

If you've used a synthesizer or some processor to amplify the 3rd, 5th, and 7th harmonics, and there's not a lot else in the way, you have a 'seventh chord', if you like.

I see the assertion here that *obviously* one note isn't music?

why isn't it? if it evolves over time, has a SHAPE or a RHYTHM by its movement, I can say with some confidence that's it's probably music. (by my above example it can become a sonority equalling a 'chord', if that convention is useful or needed.)

IN fact, 0 notes, by some people's definition, might qualify as music, by mine. What's a note?

[aciddose]

it wouldn't be one note in such a case. one note = a single frequency, a sine, without dynamics of any kind.

the distinction isnt black and white enough to describe in text, but if you can hear any more information than "1" out of that note, it isnt a single note. it's some combination of time/frequency ratios.

[sjm]

I see the assertion here that *obviously* one note isn't music?

Some might even argue that no notes is music, at least if the notes don't play for 4'33"...



Chords provide direction. It's much easier to walk into a room with 5 other people and say, "G Bm C D7" than it is to give a bunch of (often "musically illiterate") people information overkill in the form of notation. In 2 seconds you've told everyone all that they need to know to be able to play a song. You know that you don't need to play the exact chords per se, but that's what everyone else is jamming around, and it gives you all something to build around. And it allows the musicians great freedom of expression whilst doing this.

I tend to think of most music in terms of chords. To me, the beginning of "Fuer Elise" is just Am E; the actual melody is something that you just play over it whilst arpeggiating. Those two chords encapsulate the essence of the structure. It's how I then interpret this basic structure that provides my rendition with its own "individuality" or "flair". But when I play, it's a jazzier, looser rendition - I'm not actually interested in playing it according to fixed notes.

So by leaving things relatively undefined and open, you also are more unlikely to get the same rendition twice. Scores and tabs etc. leave much less freedom for interpretation as they deal with music at a much lower level. That may or may not be what you want in any given situations.

On occasions I have written songs where it's been very important that an instrument plays a specific riff using specific notes. In this case, it's not enough to just speak in terms of chords. But a lot of the time, chords suffice once you've played them the song so that people can hear the basic melody and rhythm you have in mind.

[beboop]

it wouldn't be one note in such a case. one note = a single frequency, a sine, without dynamics of any kind.

hmmm. I thought I replied to this, but apparently the server ate it.

No, a note is not a sine wave. A note is a symbol within the symbolic language of music. A sine wave is a physical phenomenon. They're not the same thing at all.

For that matter a sine is not a sine wave.

These are not trivial distinctions, they're critical. Without them, we might live in some moronic consumer society sliding obliviously into fascism. oh wait...

[Tony Ostinato]

i'm a transcriber and what ive found is no matter what dont let any of this stuff get in the way of getting the charts done!

[aciddose]

i was defining "note" in the context of what i'd previously said. when i was describing what makes music vs. not music, "note" would be the most simplified version of what could be considered a note - a single frequency without any dynamics.

[jancivil]

it wouldn't be one note in such a case. one note = a single frequency, a sine, without dynamics of any kind.

hmmm. I thought I replied to this, but apparently the server ate it.

No, a note is not a sine wave. A note is a symbol within the symbolic language of music. A sine wave is a physical phenomenon. They're not the same thing at all.

For that matter a sine is not a sine wave.

These are not trivial distinctions, they're critical. Without them, we might live in some moronic consumer society sliding obliviously into fascism. oh wait...

you are absolutely right, you can't confuse the names of things for the things themselves.