when tones? when harmonics intervals? and when chords?

[stringtapper]

I'll tell you why I consider these chords: when I went to adapt it (and the reason for it is these chords, very McCoy Tyner, only ca. 1890s) for my own purpose, creating lines/parts worked as per the chords, as though chord changes in jazz.

So you see a chord as something inherently existing within a context of linear motion (i.e. melody)?

That sort of goes back to a very old argument in music theory, back to Rameau and Mattheson. Rameau believed that harmony generated melody and Mattheson believed melody generated harmony.

Anyway, I thumbed through Allen Forte's The Structure of Atonal Music and found that he uses the word "chord" several times and in reference to works by both Schoenberg and Webern, admittedly earlier works from the "atonal" period rather than the serial works.

But I also found it in George Perle's Serial Composition and Atonality in reference to a serial work by Scriabin.

Again, my point is that the term has been used in the literature in reference to not only non-tertian sonorities, but atonal and serial ones as well.

[jancivil]

I'll tell you why I consider these chords: when I went to adapt it (and the reason for it is these chords, very McCoy Tyner, only ca. 1890s) for my own purpose, creating lines/parts worked as per the chords, as though chord changes in jazz.

So you see a chord as something inherently existing within a context of linear motion (i.e. melody)?

No, it isn't so much that. I think that, in this context, calling that A G# C# C a chord stretches the meaning of 'chord' past usefulness. So we accept this is a defined chord. What use of it is there going forward in order to understand the thought? The next "chord" is F D B Bb with the vocal doing D# F#. What is that? What are these structures? I wouldn't advise going: "Ok, here's B diminished/major 7 but there's a major third and a perfect fifth per B." The next chord, Eb D F E, you could say it open-voices a cluster of minor seconds. What use is there? It's quite clear Webern was interested in something completely different.

OTOH: the Satie stacks there are parallel and follow the melody. You see in the last section of Act I that motion, that (actually a theme) figure is central to a whole other treatment.

[jancivil]

Ok, finally I can accept this use of 'chord' has ample precedence so I'll cut you the slack.

So you see a chord as something inherently existing within a context of linear motion (i.e. melody)?

That sort of goes back to a very old argument in music theory, back to Rameau and Mattheson. Rameau believed that harmony generated melody and Mattheson believed melody generated harmony.

Either is true, depending. Or both are not true, depending. Indian Classical Music is not interested in chords or harmony at all. You could assert, here's the drone D - A and when the soloist makes F# there's a D major chord. But there's no use to that.

There are people that chart out all the chords first, with no particular other idea in mind. One could say that the ii-V-I as a structural element in Jazz is done for what it is in and of itself, that the bebop tweak of it (b5 substitute in the dominant 7th) exists in order to obtain the full chromatic, per se.

[jancivil]

Somewhere Over the Rainbow: seems like the melody and the obvious suitable chords are integrated, so which is first is kind of chicken v. egg or an unnecessary dichotomy.

[zethus909]

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of triads. If it is not, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that. a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

Sorry, but I don't know of any modern music scholar who would agree with you. How could you possibly explain quartal and quintal sonorities in the works of Debussy if you restricted all chords to being triads?

You couldn't. But the fact of the matter is that people who analyze such a piece professionally are going to call those sonorities "chords." That's just the way it is.

.

sus2 and sus4 chords are chords....listen to alot of later led zeppelin stuff like in led zeppelin 3 the song "thats the way" its full of suschords.....that act as chords in a progression.....non-triad "groupings" are chords....it's silly to say they aren't.....

i never understood why people would say that suspended chords are just like "things" that are waiting to be resolved...to a "real" chord......i never understood that and it really killed alot of my own songwriting abilities....once i realized that sus chords can in fact be chords all to themselves...it opened up a whole new world of music....plus like i said its not juist me making this up...the way i realized they were powerful chords of their own was by analyzing modern songs.....listen to any zep song and you are likely to find some sus chords in there as part of the progression

or even in rocketman by elton, the very first verse starts Gm(7) packed my bags...last nite...Csus4 zero hour 9am.......the Csus4 is a stopping point...it is not a means to an end....the non triad CHORD can create incredible sense of unknown and timeless floating in space type of feeling.......when i was less experienced and always limiting myself to using "triads" the music is so boring and lifeless.......or even triads plus 7ths....thats still pretty boring

suschords are like the real key to really opening up who you are as an artist and expressing your music....i think it's like the last thing that start to gel for you...at least it was forme.....but

i also understand too...that even when we say "chord" it's always based FROM the melody or notes in play.....the chord is merely a derivative of the melody and the of the main monophonic line...so when we say that a chord.....is a chord....it is really truly in a sense...just a grouping of notes that reinforces the melody and top vocal lline......

suschords are a distinct chord that is part of your musical palette......to suggest that they are "not chords"..it really jsut shows you are either very inexperienced at being a musician and songwriter or you are just reading out of some book from 1903 maybe...right jancivil?

[jancivil]

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of triads. If it is not, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that. a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

Sorry, but I don't know of any modern music scholar who would agree with you. How could you possibly explain quartal and quintal sonorities in the works of Debussy if you restricted all chords to being triads?

You couldn't. But the fact of the matter is that people who analyze such a piece professionally are going to call those sonorities "chords." That's just the way it is.

sus2 and sus4 chords are chords....

i never understood why people would say that suspended chords are just like "things" that are waiting to be resolved...to a "real" chord......i never understood that and it really killed alot of my own songwriting abilities....once i realized that sus chords can in fact be chords all to themselves...it opened up a whole new world of music....

suschords are a distinct chord that is part of your musical palette......to suggest that they are "not chords"..it really jsut shows you are either very inexperienced at being a musician and songwriter or you are just reading out of some book from 1903 maybe...right jancivil?

The sus is a throwback to Common Practice Period (or "classical") harmonic analysis. In which case the 4 is literally suspended from the previous harmony. In jazz and pop fake books or charts, it's a convention for whatever reason. This is why we should make a distinction between CPP principles which are about this one area and actual practice where a lot of that is out the window. This quartal, 4ths construction has been around quite a while. The Satie is 1890s, and Debussy was interested in such before that. Frank Zappa loved what he called 'the 2 chord' and a lot of his vocabulary is based in it. Uncle Meat or Black Page #1 & 2, all 2 chords. IE: D E A, the E replacing F. I don't know where the notion that chords are strictly from thirds comes from. Fernando is not lacking in experience, but I don't know what that's about. I said this before, Zappa described a eureka experience in theory class in high school, he played some record to the teacher, 'what is this?' and it was chords stacked in fourths. Community college for me, teacher ran a bunch of fourths and I went 'THAT thing! Oh yeah.'.

[zethus909]

son. Rameau believed that harmony generated melody and Mattheson believed melody generated harmony.

the melody is the master...but the harmony helps the melody fully express itself....but the harmony is always subserviant to the melody

like if i am coming up with a melody...all i need is the bassnotes and then i can play the melody on top....i dont need anything more than a bassnote.........but then you can fill in the harmony after and some of it might be sus chords or some just triads or just 1st and 5th...it depends how youve made the melody go

if the melody is hitting the 4 and then the 5 you will end up realizing that its a sus4 chord that belongs there(ok HUGE oversimplification)....it's actually really simple. because the melody dictates everything...and this is why scales are what everything derives out of

so.like you can make a progression with the chords in place...and the bass notes...and the chords are all 3 note chords but some are sus chords and some arent.......BUT.....when you start singing over it...to create your melody it will NOT always match up with the chords......see?

this is because the melody is the master...the melody is just what you feel it to be...based on the bass notes....not the chord "filling"

the chord fiilling might make you swing your notes into that particualar chord type (ie. instead of singing a 3 you will sing a 4 because its a sus4 chord)...but it wont "be right"

also....when i am analyzing a song sometimes i hear it as a regular triad chord.....and my vocal will be right on pitch.....but then i keep practicing playing and singing it and something just sounds wrong.....and its not my vocal...because my vocal is based on the scale.....the thing thats actually wrong...is i have the underlying chord wrong...its actuall a sus2 chord not a triad....but i am still singing it right...but because its a triad not a sus2 it is making me swing my pitch into that chord...but then the song soundswrong...so its kind of like the harmony is controlling the melody but its actually not....not from a nascient songwriting perspective....not when you are literally writing asong and melody out of THIN AIR....so this is another proof that melody is what everything stems out of

Schoenberg

that guy is about as UNmusical as you can get....this is where people just start debating abou tstuff based purely out of theoretical priinciples and dont realize that they left the actual music behind . iget the whole theory part, theres a point where its just superfluous...imo

'the 2 chord' a

the other thing is that every 2 chord is just another 4 chord.....but in 1st inversion

There are people that chart out all the chords first, with no particular other idea in mind.

yes you could do this, but this isnt songwriting now is it......this is why chord progressions are not copyrighted....its when the actual melody gets written over top....that it actual becomes songwriting....and like i said....most likely, somewhere one of those chords will be changed because the melody dictates that it needs to be...

[stringtapper]

Schoenberg

that guy is about as UNmusical as you can get....this is where people just start debating abou tstuff based purely out of theoretical priinciples and dont realize that they left the actual music behind . iget the whole theory part, theres a point where its just superfluous...imo

Eh, no Schoenberg actually wrote actual music. Shocking I know. So no music being left behind here.

Now whether you think his music is "musical" or not is a completely subjective matter. There's no right or wrong there.

[jancivil]

Schoenberg made some beautiful music in my estimation. It's not for everyone.

As to starting purely with a chord progression with no particular other idea before you, there is the tradition of the chaconne (or passacaglia depending on who you ask) where the chord progression is primary and the generator of the tune as it were. The thing of bebop is here is a type of approach founded in the strong root movement (ii-V-I) and through the device of flatting the fifth of dominant seventh chords, the chord has two points of departure or identities. D7b5 is equivalent to Ab7b5 for instance. So the chords of one tune are the springboard for a new tune and the novelty is obtained in an improvisation. But it's not so simple to make a dichotomy of chords/melody here, because the idea of that trick is to obtain lines, a certain type of line through the expanded chromaticism. Chord progression and line are intertwined. And that was applied to actual songs from Broadway etc in the first place.

[BertKoor]

Sheeezz... I wonder whether clueless pamuma (the OP) was really helped by this in-depth academic discussion.

[jancivil]

We should worry? Someone asks when you should apply a concept as though there is some recipe that applies to all music. The answer is in my reply on pg 1: when it suits your actual_musical_idea. As to academic, I suppose arguing about the word chord is. BUT, I think the conclusion 'looking for chords in Webern will be a total waste of time' is possibly worth noting. To me, if you can't name a chord to where pretty much everybody has it, it may be wise to move away from that line of thought. The rest, 'academic'? To me it's information for use, if you have use.

[klavierr]

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of triads. If it is not, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that. a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

Sorry, but I don't know of any modern music scholar who would agree with you. How could you possibly explain quartal and quintal sonorities in the works of Debussy if you restricted all chords to being triads?

You couldn't. But the fact of the matter is that people who analyze such a piece professionally are going to call those sonorities "chords." That's just the way it is.

Also, sus chords in jazz. They are very much chords (i.e. the "suspended" 4th is not a dissonance to be resolved as it would have in older music) but not strictly built in 3rds.

I'm not quoting anything from Wikipedia. I'm nearly finished with a Ph.D in music theory. I'm quoting from my memory of what I research and teach every day.

Can confirm. I am studying music at my University and what Stringtapper is saying is exactly what I was taught. How would somebody explain things like 5th chords, or sus chords if they do not contain stacked 3rds? All triads are chords but not all chords are triads.

[fmr]

Incorrect. A chord HAS TO BE composed of triads. If it is not, it is not a chord. Any other sound aggregate is just that. a sound aggregate, NOT a chord. So, a C, a D and E are NOT a chord.

Sorry, but I don't know of any modern music scholar who would agree with you. How could you possibly explain quartal and quintal sonorities in the works of Debussy if you restricted all chords to being triads?

You couldn't. But the fact of the matter is that people who analyze such a piece professionally are going to call those sonorities "chords." That's just the way it is.

Also, sus chords in jazz. They are very much chords (i.e. the "suspended" 4th is not a dissonance to be resolved as it would have in older music) but not strictly built in 3rds.

I'm not quoting anything from Wikipedia. I'm nearly finished with a Ph.D in music theory. I'm quoting from my memory of what I research and teach every day.

Can confirm. I am studying music at my University and what Stringtapper is saying is exactly what I was taught. How would somebody explain things like 5th chords, or sus chords if they do not contain stacked 3rds? All triads are chords but not all chords are triads.

Seems like I have to elaborate a little on this theme. First, the argument you use is naive. If by 5th chords you mean empty fifths, technically those are not chords, since they only have two notes (they are a harmonic interval, like fourths or sixths. To have a chord you need at least three notes. The special case that happens in some pieces, where the root is tripled and the fifth cut, is because the fifth can be cut, because the resonance of the tripled root will make it sound, anyway). The "sus" chords are another special case, where the fourth (and in rarer cases the second) are replacing the third, therefore, they are not notes of the chord, but dissonances, notes extraneous to it. Doesn't matter if they are going to resolve or not. What matter is the "chord" and what function it plays in the music.

Of course, this evolved since the times where the suspended note is a note that comes from the previous chord, and obligatory resolves (this was in the baroque). In the romantic period, dissonances started to be used without preparation, and resolutions sometimes didn't happen, or it were the other notes that would move to another chord, or when the note was moved to resolve, the others also moved, created new cascaded dissonances. When we are familiarized with all these, a "sus" chord is no big deal, and actually loses much of the "charm" people not used to those cascaded dissonances attribute to it.

Backing into chords. The term was used, historically, also to designate other note aggregates. Schoenberg called his fourth aggregates (and he was one of the first to use those intentionally, without any attachment with tonality, actually with the the intention of destroying it) chords too, but when he develops the theme, he always treats the triads. The same way, if you look into many other authors, you see that after the introduction, where they say that three or more notes are a chord, they actually enter into the triad universe and do not leave anymore.

Scriabin also called his mystic chord a "chord", although it was never treated as such, but rather as a completely independent musical entity, from which he derived the composition. The special "sixth" chords, OTOH, are treated as chords, although some of them are difficult to categorize, but become easier when we study how they are formed and in which scale degree.

All this to say that, after many years studying the subject, I came to the conclusion that we can only talk about chords when we are talking about triads, and the rest are simply "sound aggregates" (a term neutral enough to suit the purpose of define a reality without characterizing it too much), This way, we can accommodate different realities without mixing them and creating confusion, something very esy to happen in this field.

Anyway, when we are talking about tonality, and tonal music (and chords definitely belong to tonality, and are closely tied to the tonal functions) we are talking about triads, and when we have not triads, we have dissonances that are explained in connection with triads.

Tonality and everything related (including chords), was established in the beginning of the XVIII century, and was more or less conducted to an almost end in the beginning of the XX century. There is nothing to be discovered in what regards it, and people who think they discovered something, most likely only don't know enough about it. A treaty from the XIX century (Gradus ad Parnasum, in the XVIII century, says pretty much what has to be said about), or something more modern like Harmony, by Schoenberg, already covers everything about it.

To sum it up - what you are being taught now is not all. Probably, if you give him time, your teacher will reach a point where he will clarify the subject (or not). I've seen lots of people here with very strange ideas about tonality and chords, not to mention those that want to play a "lydian scale over the G Major chord"

I end this very long post with something I said in other times. Chords are overrated. Music, nowadays has multiple dimensions, like melody, harmony, rhythm, arrangement, timbre, space distribution, etc. Concentrating solely in chords, or mainly in chords, is losing most of what represents it.

[jancivil]

All this to say that, after many years studying the subject, I came to the conclusion that we can only talk about chords when we are talking about triads, and the rest are simply "sound aggregates" (a term neutral enough to suit the purpose of define a reality without characterizing it too much), This way, we can accommodate different realities without mixing them and creating confusion, something very esy to happen in this field.

Anyway, when we are talking about tonality, and tonal music (and chords definitely belong to tonality, and are closely tied to the tonal functions) we are talking about triads, and when we have not triads, we have dissonances that are explained in connection with triads.

All this to say a conclusion which is the premise. There is no framework here to bridge me to that conclusion, or even close to it. We can only talk about chords per triads because of your referents in historical development as per triads. 'Chord is only meaningful in terms of tonal music.' WHY? It's just a circular argument.

[jancivil]

When we have quartal structures prevailing in a composition, we are NOT talking about triads, so this 'dissonances are explained per triads' is completely irrelevant. So we're back to square one. No, you're dismissing far, far too much music. Where the quartal vertical structure is a formal principle, where there are not triads. So Bartok "Quartes" in Mikrokosmos is a bunch of 'aggregates of sound' as if that 'fourth chord' can't be a real thing. No, it doesn't persuade.