![]() | Chord (music) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chord (music). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chord (music) at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
What is a triad? Hyacinth 05:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
From an artistic point of view a triad is basically a three stacked notes on any instrument forming the particular frequency range the artist desires. Peculiar mr. Hup ( talk) 01:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's my proposed outline:
I removed the above example from Chord (music)#Nonchord tones and dissonance, as it is an example of an seventh chord resolving to another seventh chord, both of which are extended chords. Hyacinth 23:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I reverted edits by User:202.147.86.99 because the information on seventh chords contradicted itself and, more importantly, was inaccurate. First the article stated:
Then the article states:
I'm not sure what this is, vandalism, a test, someone very mistaken about music theory...? Hyacinth 21:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've been an enthusastic reader of the Wikipedia for months, and am just now getting up the courage to submit and edit... so I am really hoping that I don't hurt anyone's feelings! However, I am a music theory professor, so I do feel like I know my stuff about theory, which is why I thought I'd dive in here.
I beefed up the sections on seventh chords and extended chords. I admit that I am not as fluent in jazz theory, but what I posted checks out with most textbooks as far as Common Practice Period harmony goes. TobyRush 9 Dec 2004
Noetica, what do you mean by uncanonic? Hyacinth 22:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, what do you mean by non-classical? Do you mean popular, folk, and other musics excluding classical music? Post- classical music era? Everything not European classical music? The latter, I assume, is taken to have its own 'theory' (or set of theories), with other forms possibly having their own theories? Hyacinth 03:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just posted a big long reply which didn't go through and was lost. ERG.
See:
Talk:Interval (music) and
Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes.
In short: I think that the articles you propose would be great (such as "Harmony of European classical music"), but obviously would not replace existing articles (in this case
Harmony).
Similarly, I feel strongly that there should be a comparative presentation of similar intervals in various theoretical or tuning systems, somewhere. Whether it is at
Interval (music) or "Comparison of musical intervals" or some other title I do not know. There also should be "here are all the ratios", "here are all the integers", "here are all the diatonic intervals", etc., presentations.
Hyacinth 17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed then. My advice is to not worry to much about article titles, as they can always be moved later with little trouble. Hyacinth 02:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, a chord should be built from thirds, i.e. the definition seems to be incorrect without mentioning that point:
In music and music theory, a chord (from the middle English cord, short for accord) is three or more different notes or pitches sounding simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously, over a period of time. For example, if you simultaneously play any three (or more) keys of a piano, you have just played a chord.
For example, if you play simultaneously C, D and E, it will be not a chord, but a cluster. -- -lulu- 21:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is the reasoning behind the random pixel width on the images? Hyacinth 10:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The guitar C chord states four notes are being played. This is impossible to tell without seeing the player's right hand. If strumming, six notes would be played: two Gs, two Cs and two Es.
Please disregard this if I'm wrong but I believe the chord being played in the picture, if the guitar is in standard tuning, is actually written as C/G or 1st iversion of the C major chord. More precicely the notes being played, if all the strings are being strummed as mentioned above, make two I6 chords one octave apart from eachother.
I have just finished editing this page. As Otto Karolyi says in his famous "Introducing music" (p.63): "Two or more notes sounded simultaneously are known as a chord. The vertical combination of three sounds: fundamental note, third and fifth, gives us a chord known as a triad". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andeggs ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
It is easy to find mention of "diad chords" on the web. How much of that qualifies as reliable sourcing, I do not know. This was the first google hit just now. I have to disagree about two notes "being" the implied three note chord. What is strongly implied in the mind of one listener may be entirely absent in another's. While some instances may have a diad nailed into a solid cadence that admits no ambiguity, there will be other cases as well, where a variety of different chords may be implied by a single diad. Music, after all, must balance between familiarity and surprise, if it is to be at all interesting or engaging.
That the article is missing information on two-note chords merely means that information is yet to be added. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Both pages need a clean up since the fundamental concepts are fairly impenetrable for beginners. At the moment the triads and sevenths are listed in detail on the chord symbol page but not on the chord (music) page and this seems the wrong way around. One solution is to repeat the material on the two pages - but since chord symbol really only requires one column in these tables - shouldn't we just merge? Andeggs 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added the template on countering systematic bias because this page is mainly about Western chords. Get rid of it if you think it's unnecessary Andeggs 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that there is a need for explination. What the article needs to qualify is not that it describes "Western" chords but that chords are Western. Hyacinth 19:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I welcome Tymoczko's recent improvements and also the decision taken to limit this article to the traditional Western development of chord theory, as that will allow for a more defintive treatment of the subject, without having to include all sorts of exceptions. However, the attempt to present an alternative pentatonic interpretation of interval names as being 'equally justified' is ill advised in my opinion. In traditional western theory, intervals, historically, have been named according to the note spacings of the seven note diatonic scale, and its derivative, the chromatic scale. More precisely, intervals have been numbered according to their diatonic derivation and qualified according to their chromatic inflection.
There has never been any mainstream acceptance of a system in which intervals are defined according to the note spacings of the pentatonic scale. Instead, the note relationships of the pentatonic scale have been painlessly integrated into diatonic theory. The degrees of the scale can be properly numbered from 1 to 5, but the notes are named with reference to the seven degree diatonic scale, hence the missing letters in the pentatonic example given in the article: GA_CD_F. Therefore, even in a completely pentatonic composition, the interval G to C is a fourth, not a third. And the next G above forms an octave, not a (guessing here) 'hexave'. G to C can't be a third as long as we apply note names of the seven note diatonic scale to it. It could only be called a third if the pentatonic scale had developed its own note names (as it has in some non-Western traditions) and the interval spanned three of them.
Maybe Tymoczko will agree with some of my comments and make some modifications. As for me, I'll just remove the word 'chromatic' from 'semitone' as it's incorrect. Three chromatic semitones above G would make G### (not a third but a triply augmented unison!!) Mark (11 April 06)
I have proposed, at Template_talk:Infobox_Chord#From the root, that the infobox be modifed by adding a list of intervals from the root (I don't know how to do it myself) and would appreciate comments and assistance. Hyacinth 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the section on common chords has some anomalies regarding the terminology and definitions given within its various sub sections. I'm reluctant to change any of them as I'm well aware that terms can vary between regions. Also terms, symbols, etc., that had specific meanings when I was a student may, several decades later, have acquired wider or even different meanings that are now considered 'official'. So, at the risk of appearing obsolete, I'd like to list, for anyone's consideration, those that I feel may need some attention.
Sevenths
1. The table has a column for 'chord names' but two of these are named augmented/major and augmented/minor. Obviously these aren't the chord names. I assume the author was just giving their descriptions (augmented + type of seventh), in which case they shouldn't be in the column labeled "chord name".
2. CAM7 - This symbol is used for the chord C augmented with a major seventh. Is it standard? - I've never come across the use of the letter 'A' to represent augmented chords. (Maybe I should get out more)
Extended chords
1. Whereas the main article ( extended chord) explains extended chords (including seventh chords) as being logical tertian extensions of the triad, in this article they are defined as being extensions of the seventh - and so begin at the ninth. In other words, the seventh is presented as a fundamental diatonic chord and the ninths, etc., as being heavyweight versions (extensions) of it. I was taught that extended chords mean extensions of the triad and that sevenths are the first extended chord - but I can see sense in both interpretations.
2. The term major fourth is used as a chord name for the note combination: 1-3-5-11. Is it acceptable nowadays? In my day (and region) it was always an added eleventh.
3. The table includes chords without sevenths as extended chords, whereas the extended chord article suggests that chords without the seventh shouldn't be classed as extended chords but just as added note chords.
4. Some seventhless chords are included in a table, such as the 6/9 chord - but there are three note combinations not covered:
1-3-5-9-11-13
1-3-5-9-11
1-3-5-11-13.
Does anyone know if these combinations have acquired standard, or even semi-standard names? If so, they could be included for completeness.
5. The use of the word dominant for sevenths, ninths, etc. when they are not actually built on the dominant scale degree nor otherwise exhibiting any dominant functionality used to be unacceptable in most circles. Now it's commonly used - but is it considered officially correct?
Sixth chords
It's unfortunate that this section doesn't discuss the added sixth chord here as it's the most common sixth chord of all. In fact, for many musicians, it's the only one they know. True, it's an added note chord and is described there, but the fact that it is the most important sixth chord means it should be treated under 'Sixth chords' and in first place, ahead of augmented and neopolitan sixths. I think the average reader will be confused by its absence from this section. I also feel that this section shouldn't link to 'augmented sixth chords' as its 'main article'. The augmented sixth is just one type of sixth chord.
Suspended chords
It is stated that in suspended chords, such as the suspended fourth "...the fourth is played with or replaces the third" Another school of thought insists that if the third is present the chord can't properly be called 'suspended' but instead is an added eleventh (or major fourth?)
Power chords
I think this section may benefit from being split in two: fifth chords (or bare fifths) and power chords. Really, from a theoretical and historical perspective, fifth chords are far more important than power chords. The concept of perfect fifth intervals as thirdless chords dates back centuries to the universal acceptance in Western music of the third as a standard chord member. The omission of the third produced a 'bare' fifth - a hollow sounding chord, reminiscent of medieval organum, and its use was often met with disapproval - the opening bars of Beethoven's ninth symphony being a famous example.
Power chord, on the other hand, is just a descriptive term introduced to describe the sound of fifth chords played on an overdriven electric guitar. The term only dates back to the late 1950s following Link Wray's discovery that bare fifths, when distorted, produce a strikingly powerful effect like no other chord, for reasons well explained in the power chord article.
Any comments? abuse? ridicule? Feel free to respond. Thanks (Mark, 27 April '06)
I have used the following alternate chord symbols. If they are common, I'd like to have them added:
Hey, I've got a question. What is the name for the chord that is of notes 1-2-3-4 or 5-6-7-1 of a scale? I have "tetra" or something along the lines of that as it's name but I don't think that's right. Anyone have a name? I've found an example in Debussy's Reflets dans l'Eau where there is a passage where a fast C♭-B♭-A♭-G♭ is played down and then returns up in reverse order. It then changes to C-B♭-A♭-G♭ (perhaps an augmented version of this chord?). Thanks in advance.
So I was right then!
I propose that we develop some sort of standard or guideline as to what information goes on the Chord (music) and Harmony articles. See discussion at Talk:Harmony#Chord (music) and Harmony. Hyacinth 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Generally I propose that there could be a better ordering or organization to this article. Specifically, I feel that nonchord tones are an important enough part of what chords are that this stub section could go in the introduction. Anyone else have thoughts/opinions on this? Hyacinth 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
...about the connection between the chords and the musical scales. Can it be said that a Cmin chord is naturally constructed on the C minor scale? or is it possible for it (Cmin) to be constructed on the C major chord? (which would just about send my head spinning) And Dmin which is said in the article to be contructed on the C major scale, can't it also be said to be contructed on the D minor scale? Thanks a lot to anyone who can clarify this for me! -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Any key can follow this formula for valid triads: I Major, ii Minor, iii Minor, IV Major, V Major, vi Minor, and vii Diminished
Each chord has a corresponding mode or chord scale. Each one is the same as C major, just starting from a different point. the corresponding mode for each chord has qualities similar to that of the scale corresponding to the chord name, but is slightly different.
For example, the corresponding mode for ii Minor (Dorian) has qualities similar to a minor scale, but is different because it has a raised 6th, B natural (which matches up with C major's 7th degree)
The modes to go with them respectively are Ionian (Major), Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian (Minor), and Locrian.
So to answer your question, simple chords that can be based on C major are C Major, D minor, E Minor, F Major, G Major, A minor, and B diminished. However, a minor SCALE doesn't necessarily correspond to minor chords. refer to the modes listed above.
I hope i was helpful
Strumr91 02:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The article uses the terms "chromatic" and "diatonic", but without adequate explanation. These terms are the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest, that the statement "...the third is often played on top of a sus4 chord; in jazz theory, this doesn't negate the quality of the chord as a suspended chord." is changed. I believe, there can be no third in the sus4 chord (the same goes for sus2), just the tenth (in modal music). It than has to be explained what the tenth is. With your permision I will look into it.-- Yovi 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
is it me or this guy is a nut case.. he keeps playing mind games with people, especially on this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.145.93 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 May 2007
I added information regarding Octave Chords, since the page redirected here :) ACA 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to include sound files of each individual type of chord? I think that would be a great thing to have in the article, but i don't know if it is possible or if it really is a good idea. Marky1991 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
When taking "any scale" and building a triad with a base in the scale, the second, third, and sixth intervals, when used as a root, will form a minor triad. The root, fourth, and fifth form a major triad, whereas the seventh will form a dimished triad.
I was skeptical about the 'any scale' part, so I decided to try it with a minor scale. Example, the natural minor scale in the key of C is (C D Eb F G Ab B) and the triad that would be denoted I would thus be C Eb G, which is a minor triad. Can someone who knows what this statement should actually say, tighten it up to be correct? Clearly doesn't seem to apply to 'any scale'. -- Amusingmuses ( talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
ђ == a chord is a more than two notes played together ==Δ chord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.143.55 ( talk) 11:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody analyze the 82 second long rap song What They Hittin' Foe as an example... Jidanni ( talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
with the result that the brain "supplies" the complete expected chord in its absence.
I think you need to add two .ogg files here. One with the item missing, for our brain to supply it. One with it already supplied. That way we will know what you are talking about. Jidanni ( talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What if I cooked up a keyboard graphic and highlighted keys in certain chords? For people familiar with piano, that might help a lot. Thoughts? 74.70.124.27 ( talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is far too technical for the people who need it. Since chords are a basic concept, the article should be written in a way that's comprehensible to a general audience unschooled in music theory. Instead, it assumes readers have a strong background in music and uses terms like "tertian sonorities" and "intervallic construction" with no explanation. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tag now removed. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Harmonic Seventh from the list of seventh chords. The article is implicitly about chords in 12 tone equal temperament and the presence of a single chord from another temperament was a jarring anomaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuffink ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Apologies for not signing, I'm new to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuffink ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the Chord notation article should be merged here as already proposed in the past on this talk page. Since the chord notation is included here I don't see any purpose in having a separate article which either duplicates the same material or adds other topics about chords themselves and not just the notation. I would like to do this but I don't think I have enough time and skill AlfredoM ( talk) 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does, "this article needs additional citations for verification"? Hyacinth ( talk) 05:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite the removal of the tag, I ask again, why should and how could the citations be improved? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The chord shows the notes C and G, and also D-sharp-and-a-half, and A-sharp-and-a-half. However, the midi file simply plays a C, E-flat, G, B-flat chord, your typical minor seventh chord. Is this a mistake? Does this need a different file type, since midi doesn't do quarter-tones? Aurora Illumina 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I reproduced the chord and produced a non-quarter tone version with similar voice spacing on the same software instrument for comparison.
Synchronism ( talk) 23:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I had to correct the uploads and the files themselves, they should be working now. Synchronism ( talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It looks and sounds like you were correct Aurora. Synchronism ( talk) 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
How about this: Hyacinth ( talk) 15:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
?The article currently lacks any context for the tuning of any of the chords contained in it, all of which are apparently 12TET. Hyacinth ( talk) 13:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I have read in numerous locations that "chords sound 'good' (consonant) when the respective waves constructively and destructively interfere at regular intervals". Is there a deeper reason or meaning to this?
I know that notes an octave apart are doubled (or halved, depending on one's frame of reference) in frequency, and such notes will obviously be - if I may borrow a term from
orbital mechanics - in resonance, and that "Middle C" (MIDI C5) is 256Hz. Dropping the octaves, it gets more complicated...
CGC is the "core" of a C Major chord; CGC always sounds "good". However, I am told that the frequencies for notes are not linear, but closer to asymptotic, with Δf being proportionately larger for lower pitches. Does this not wreak havoc with the "whole ratio" hypothesis when one considers enharmonicity (I probably just coined a word there) and inversions?
As a composer myself - albeit one with less background in piano than
relat
ivity and less background in general music theory than
Quantum Mechanics - I do know from experience chords have less flexibility in lower octaves; that is, the same FAC (F major) chord based on F4 will sound better than one on F2. (I use a variety of instruments, including
ensemble ones, so is this another factor?)
Help with this would be greatly appreciated.
-RadicalOne•
Contact Me•
Chase My Tail 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: Before anyone explains anything, I should point out that I do not think of music as on a five-line staff; I see it as either a
piano roll or a piano keyboard. Referring to lines and spaces (or clefs, key signatures - more, I use mixed sharp-and-flat signatures - and other "traditional" music theory) will lose me entirely. One last comment on the way I visualize music: There is no such thing as an A#; it's always a Bb. The same pattern for D#/Eb, Db/C#, Gb/F#. Enharmonics are irrelevant.
-RadicalOne•
Contact Me•
Chase My Tail 02:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Aurora Illumina 03:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The third, as in the Major third? I find it dissonant as well. I wonder if it has to do with the fact I like to use strings at frequencies around 64Hz. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
MIDI instruments will normally give equal temperament, though some allow others - my EMU allows three kinds of just, Scarlatti, Kirchenberger, slendro and pelog and a few more, as well as user tuning tables. Check your global settings. Redheylin ( talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Keyboards and frets use EQT, but singers, stringers and even woodwind tend towards the just degree of the perceived root. Brass is a mix of just intervals on EQT valves! You do not have MIDI settings? What is making the sounds? Redheylin ( talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand? I thought you wanted "basement", so Texas Instruments SN76489 addressed with assembly language and machine code arguments. Redheylin ( talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A perfect fifth (P5) should be 1:3 but tuning a 12note scale like this means some keys sound awful. Redheylin ( talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Most obvious dissonance in C major since it's the lowest of the three, probably. I tried playing with the really low keys on the piano. Octaves are the only chords that remotely sound passable as music; even a perfect fifth down there sounds like plain noise. Maybe because the octave has the ratio of frequencies being exactly 2 even in equal temperament? Aurora Illumina 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we have three C major chords, then 3 F major chords, then some interruption. then 3 G major chords, and then a repeat of the low C major chord, then the P5 chords. Make sure we're not comparing the wrong chords with each other... Aurora Illumina 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling you'd disagree on this one, given that you strongly avoid minor keys. Either way, the point still stands that you can't do very much in the lower octaves other than P5 or octaves. Aurora Illumina 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Not B and C, but E and F do. I used it in Space Conquest. Yet both are a semitone.
I have done some experimentation that further complicates things. Experimenting with different instruments has led to the appearance that different instruments have different tolerances; Some instruments work better at low frequencies than others. (Interestingly, most are the ones I like to use in basslines.) In order:
-RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: Here is a demonstration of non-octave intervals at low frequencies, demonstrating the timbre and sound I mentioned earlier. It is an excerpt from my composition Universal Journey. I play it twice, once just chords, and once with the melody. (I overlaid a click track so I could release this copy freely.) -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
So it was not coincidence that the organ sounded the best in low frequencies. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 18:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Now we must find out why. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no visible modulation at all... -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have another small theory, though I'm not sure if it only applies to me or not. Take an Fmaj7 chord (F A C E), for example, and take a simple major 7th interval (F E). The first one can be viewed as an F major chord, with an E on top as a leading note into a following chord, usually a straight F major chord. The F major chord in the bottom overpowers the single E note on top, so the E is viewed as being separate from the chord. The chord with only two notes, F and E, doesn't have any such separation, and thus is more dissonant. When it came to the chord I had in my music file there, the E was in the middle of the chord, so it's not easily separated, and thus the chord will still be dissonant. Aurora Illumina 02:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I was playing around on my synthesizer, and made a very unexpected discovery. If embedded in a chord, semitones, even if directly adjacent, can be consonant - even better than a minor chord. Likewise, semitones, if spread far enough apart, can sound very good indeed.
F-A-C-E-F
FAC
ACE
ACF
FACE
FACEF
-RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 21:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The chord has to be spread ludicrously far before it is acceptable. But yes, it does lead into F major rather well. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
How does this relate to the article? Hyacinth ( talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The above image doesn't work out, and I made the annotated image below it to demonstrate. Hyacinth ( talk) 12:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are still a few comprehensible sentences on this page. References, however, for the rest, have not been forthcoming Redheylin ( talk) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure that Δ means major triad (M), as stated in the subsection Chord (music)#Triads? In other articles ( Chord notation and Jazz harmony) Δ is decoded as a synonym of M7 (a tetrad, not a triad). I have never seen the symbol elsewhere, so I am not sure what is its correct interpretation (hoping there's only one!). — Paolo.dL ( talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paolo, I always thought that a slash "/" in chord symbols indicates the bass note. So C/G would mean the second inversion of C major. You do not seem to make a distinction between Cm(M7) and Cm/M7. I'm not sure if that is correct. − Woodstone ( talk) 05:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant that there are "millions" of different (sets of) symbols, often differing by small details. So, we need "millions" of sources. You might notice that I cleaned the tables in Chord names and symbols (jazz and pop music), removed "thousands" quasi-redundant (almost identical) symbols, divided symbols in different columns, to increase readability. This reduced the "millions" of sources to "dozens" of them. Adding sources will be much easier now. As for diminished dominant, with no slash, what's the problem? Notice that I am not advocating the use of the slash. In the tables, and in the various specific article titles, nobody inserted names with slashes, I used it in the text of a section (not in the tables all over the article) only because it was easier to write, and in some cases much better readable than the notation with supercripts, and the notation within parentheses was awkward when used in a parenthetical sentence. By the way, 3 days ago I edited minor major seventh chord, where the only name used in the text was "minor/major seventh chord", and inserted, before that name, the name without slash, also used in the article title. − Paolo.dL ( talk) 07:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth ( talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Tag removed. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems a bit complicated and convoluted at the moment. Perhaps something like this would clear things up?
'The notes of any given key may be written out in the form of a scale. The notes of this scale are numbered in ascending order, and are referred to as scale degrees. Triads may be constructed above each scale degree, and are named according to their scale degree. Thus, the triad formed above scale degree one is called Chord I, and the triad above scale degree five called Chord V. This system coexists with another system, which describes Chord I as the tonic, Chord V as the dominant, etc.
'Depending on the notes in the mode, such as whether or not it the key is major or minor, the triads built above scale degrees will have different qualities. Thus, they may be major, minor, diminished or augmented. These may be labelled in specific ways: a major chord is usually written with uppercase roman numerals, and a minor chord with lowercase roman numerals. For example, in a minor key, the tonic is described as i. Diminished chords are usually indicated by the use of a small circle, and augmented with a plus sign.'
I don't have any references right now but should the above meet with some approval I'll make an effort to find a textbook to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.243.36 ( talk) 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the info below since it exclusively concerns jazz chord tablature, which has its own article linked here, leaving only a basic introduction. The detail re notation far exceeds the scope of an article on the chord as such and much info already given elsewhere in the present article is duplicated here. I shall check whether this information is present in the relevant article.
Major, minor, augmented, and diminished chords
C+7 | = | C+ | + | m7 |
augmented chord |
augmented triad |
minor interval |
C+M7 | = | C+ | + | M7 |
augmented chord |
augmented triad |
major interval |
Rules to decode chord names and symbols
General rule 1 achieves consistency in the interpretation of symbols such as CM7, Cm6, and C+7. Some musicians legitimately prefer to think that, in CM7, M refers to the seventh, rather than to the third. This alternative approach is legitimate, as both the third and seventh are major, yet it is inconsistent, as a similar interpretation is impossible for Cm6 and C+7 (in Cm6, m cannot possibly refer to the sixth, which is major by definition, and in C+7, + cannot refer to the seventh, which is minor). Both approaches reveal only one of the intervals (M3 or M7), and require other rules to complete the task. Whatever is the decoding method, the result is the same (e.g., CM7 is always conventionally decoded as C-E-G-B, implying M3, P5, M7). The advantage of rule 1 is that it has no exceptions, which makes it the simplest possible approach to decode chord quality.
According to the two approaches, some may format CM7 as CM7 (general rule 1: M refers to M3), and others as CM7 (alternative approach: M refers to M7). Fortunately, even CM7 becomes compatible with rule 1 if it is considered an abbreviation of CMM7, in which the first M is omitted. The omitted M is the quality of the third, and is deduced according to rule 2 (see above), consistently with the interpretation of the plain symbol C, which by the same rule stands for CM.
provided the above mentioned qualities appear immediately after the root note, or at the beginning of the chord name or symbol. For instance, in the chord symbols Cm and Cm7, m refers to the interval m3, and 3 is omitted. When these qualities do not appear immediately after the root note, or at the beginning of the name or symbol, they should be considered
interval qualities, rather than chord qualities. For instance, in Cm/M7 (
minor-major seventh chord), m is the chord quality and refers to the m3 interval, while M refers to the M7 interval. When the
number of an extra interval is specified immediately after chord quality, the quality of that interval may coincide with chord quality (e.g. CM7 = CM/M7). However, this is not always true (e.g. Cm6 = Cm/M6, C+7 = C+/m7, CM11 = CM/P11). See specific rules 5 and 6 for further details.
All triads are tertian chords (chords defined by sequences of thirds), and a major third would produce in this case a non-tertian chord. Namely, the diminished fifth spans 6 semitones from root, thus it may be decomposed into a sequence of two minor thirds, each spanning 3 semitones (m3 + m3), compatible with the definition of tertian chord. If a major third were used (4 semitones), this would entail a sequence containing a major second (M3 + M2 = 4 + 2 semitones = 6 semitones), which would not meet the definition of tertian chord.
This rule overrides rule 2. For instance, Cdim7 implies a diminished 5th by rule 1, a minor 3rd by this rule, and a diminished 7th by definition (see below).
Examples
Chord Symbol | Analysis of symbol parts | Component intervals | Chord name | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Short | Long | Root | Third | Fifth | Added | Third | Fifth | Added | |
C | C | maj3 | perf5 | Major triad | |||||
CM | Cmaj | C | maj | maj3 | perf5 | ||||
Cm | Cmin | C | min | min3 | perf5 | Minor triad | |||
C+ | Caug | C | aug | maj3 | aug5 | Augmented triad | |||
Co | Cdim | C | dim | min3 | dim5 | Diminished triad | |||
C6 | C | 6 | maj3 | perf5 | maj6 | Major sixth chord | |||
CM6 | C | maj | 6 | maj3 | perf5 | maj6 | |||
Cm6 | C | min | 6 | min3 | perf5 | maj6 | Minor sixth chord | ||
C7 | Cdom7 | C | 7 | maj3 | perf5 | min7 | Dominant seventh chord | ||
CM7 | Cmaj7 | C | maj | 7 | maj3 | perf5 | maj7 | Major seventh chord | |
Cm7 | Cmin7 | C | min | 7 | min3 | perf5 | min7 | Minor seventh chord | |
C+7 | Caug7 | C | aug | 7 | maj3 | aug5 | min7 | Augmented seventh chord | |
Co7 | Cdim7 | C | dim | 7 | min3 | dim5 | dim7 | Diminished seventh chord | |
Cø | C | dim | min3 | dim5 | min7 | Half-diminished seventh chord | |||
Cø7 | C | dim | 7 | min3 | dim5 | min7 | |||
CmM7 Cm/M7 Cm(M7) |
Cminmaj7 Cmin/maj7 Cmin(maj7) |
C | min | 7 | min3 | perf5 | maj7 | Minor-major seventh chord |
Redheylin ( talk) 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article reads "A chord in music is any set of notes that is heard as if sounding simultaneously."
It then cites Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p. 67&359. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.
I own this book and can pledge that it specifically defines a chord as "three or more pitches sounding simultaneously." DaddyTwoFoot ( talk) 23:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.
Noetica Tea? 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This article's structure is messy. So messy in fact, that parts of this article are only clear to people who don't really need to read it. There are all kinds of problems, such as not explaining jargon before use, but also the order in which things are discussed, such that later parts of the article need to be read first in order to understand earlier bits. I also get the feeling that a lot of essential information / theory is simply missing. I can understand not wanting to go into detail in an introductory article, but at least make sure to cover the fundamentals. And I think more examples would help laypeople as well, even if you cannot provide a MIDI file for each one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
To my mind the lead section is very long - would anyone object to me trimming it down? I think each of its paragraphs is about twice as long as it needs to be, and goes into rather more detail than a lead section requires. Regards, The Land ( talk) 18:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This relates not just to this page but to all the assorted chord pages on Wikipedia. When I first was learning about more exotic chords, I'm sure I can remember each chord being defined not just using traditional terminology (major triad = root, major third, perfect fifth) but using ordered pitch-class intervals (major triad = {0, 4, 7}). i.e., simply define your root as '0' and count the number of semitones up from there (...4, 7). It clicked with me and helped my understanding of chords.
But sometime between then and now that has been removed from every chord page. I think that's a mistake. I can imagine the argument that won the day was something like 'we don't need this, it's esoteric music theory'. But it's very easy to grasp. For readers who haven't come to grips with music jargon yet (and if they're consulting the wiki to learn these concepts that's pretty likely) it's a very intuitive starting point.
It certainly didn't hurt to have it in there. It helped me understand, it might help others. 141.168.250.245 ( talk) 03:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Chord | Interval | P1 | m2 | M2 | m3 | M3 | P4 | TT | P5 | m6 | M6 | m7 | M7 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
d2 | A1 | d3 | A2 | d4 | A3 | d5/A4 | d6 | A5 | d7 | A6 | d8 | ||||
Semitones | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |||
Short | Long | Name | Note in C | C | C♯ D♭ |
D | D♯ E♭ |
E | F | F♯ G♭ |
G | G♯ A♭ |
A | A♯ B♭ |
B |
C | Major triad | P1 | M3 | P5 | |||||||||||
C6 CM6 |
Cmaj6 | Major sixth chord | P1 | M3 | P5 | M6 | |||||||||
C7 | Cdom7 | Dominant seventh chord | P1 | M3 | P5 | m7 | |||||||||
CM7 | Cmaj7 | Major seventh chord | P1 | M3 | P5 | M7 | |||||||||
C+ | Caug | Augmented triad | P1 | M3 | A5 | ||||||||||
C+7 | Caug7 | Augmented seventh chord | P1 | M3 | A5 | M7 | |||||||||
Cm | Cmin | Minor triad | P1 | m3 | P5 | ||||||||||
Cm6 | Cmin6 | Minor sixth chord | P1 | m3 | P5 | M6 | |||||||||
Cm7 | Cmin7 | Minor seventh chord | P1 | m3 | P5 | m7 | |||||||||
CmM7 Cm/M7 Cm(M7) |
Cminmaj7 Cmin/maj7 Cmin(maj7) |
Minor-major seventh chord | P1 | m3 | P5 | M7 | |||||||||
Co | Cdim | Diminished triad | P1 | m3 | d5 | ||||||||||
Co7 | Cdim7 | Diminished seventh chord | P1 | m3 | d5 | d7 | |||||||||
Cø Cø7 |
Half-diminished seventh chord | P1 | m3 | d5 | m7 |
− Woodstone ( talk) 15:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
"A chord, in music, is any harmonic set of pitches consisting of two or more (usually three or more) notes (also called "pitches") that are heard as if sounding simultaneously.[1][2] " Thus, a jangle of discordant noise (not an intentionally different atonal set) is also a chord? Or should our definition /description include Tomy...'s idea that it is desired/pleasing/intentional? Kdammers ( talk) 09:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Chord (music) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chord (music). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chord (music) at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
What is a triad? Hyacinth 05:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
From an artistic point of view a triad is basically a three stacked notes on any instrument forming the particular frequency range the artist desires. Peculiar mr. Hup ( talk) 01:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's my proposed outline:
I removed the above example from Chord (music)#Nonchord tones and dissonance, as it is an example of an seventh chord resolving to another seventh chord, both of which are extended chords. Hyacinth 23:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I reverted edits by User:202.147.86.99 because the information on seventh chords contradicted itself and, more importantly, was inaccurate. First the article stated:
Then the article states:
I'm not sure what this is, vandalism, a test, someone very mistaken about music theory...? Hyacinth 21:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've been an enthusastic reader of the Wikipedia for months, and am just now getting up the courage to submit and edit... so I am really hoping that I don't hurt anyone's feelings! However, I am a music theory professor, so I do feel like I know my stuff about theory, which is why I thought I'd dive in here.
I beefed up the sections on seventh chords and extended chords. I admit that I am not as fluent in jazz theory, but what I posted checks out with most textbooks as far as Common Practice Period harmony goes. TobyRush 9 Dec 2004
Noetica, what do you mean by uncanonic? Hyacinth 22:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, what do you mean by non-classical? Do you mean popular, folk, and other musics excluding classical music? Post- classical music era? Everything not European classical music? The latter, I assume, is taken to have its own 'theory' (or set of theories), with other forms possibly having their own theories? Hyacinth 03:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just posted a big long reply which didn't go through and was lost. ERG.
See:
Talk:Interval (music) and
Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes.
In short: I think that the articles you propose would be great (such as "Harmony of European classical music"), but obviously would not replace existing articles (in this case
Harmony).
Similarly, I feel strongly that there should be a comparative presentation of similar intervals in various theoretical or tuning systems, somewhere. Whether it is at
Interval (music) or "Comparison of musical intervals" or some other title I do not know. There also should be "here are all the ratios", "here are all the integers", "here are all the diatonic intervals", etc., presentations.
Hyacinth 17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed then. My advice is to not worry to much about article titles, as they can always be moved later with little trouble. Hyacinth 02:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, a chord should be built from thirds, i.e. the definition seems to be incorrect without mentioning that point:
In music and music theory, a chord (from the middle English cord, short for accord) is three or more different notes or pitches sounding simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously, over a period of time. For example, if you simultaneously play any three (or more) keys of a piano, you have just played a chord.
For example, if you play simultaneously C, D and E, it will be not a chord, but a cluster. -- -lulu- 21:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is the reasoning behind the random pixel width on the images? Hyacinth 10:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The guitar C chord states four notes are being played. This is impossible to tell without seeing the player's right hand. If strumming, six notes would be played: two Gs, two Cs and two Es.
Please disregard this if I'm wrong but I believe the chord being played in the picture, if the guitar is in standard tuning, is actually written as C/G or 1st iversion of the C major chord. More precicely the notes being played, if all the strings are being strummed as mentioned above, make two I6 chords one octave apart from eachother.
I have just finished editing this page. As Otto Karolyi says in his famous "Introducing music" (p.63): "Two or more notes sounded simultaneously are known as a chord. The vertical combination of three sounds: fundamental note, third and fifth, gives us a chord known as a triad". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andeggs ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
It is easy to find mention of "diad chords" on the web. How much of that qualifies as reliable sourcing, I do not know. This was the first google hit just now. I have to disagree about two notes "being" the implied three note chord. What is strongly implied in the mind of one listener may be entirely absent in another's. While some instances may have a diad nailed into a solid cadence that admits no ambiguity, there will be other cases as well, where a variety of different chords may be implied by a single diad. Music, after all, must balance between familiarity and surprise, if it is to be at all interesting or engaging.
That the article is missing information on two-note chords merely means that information is yet to be added. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Both pages need a clean up since the fundamental concepts are fairly impenetrable for beginners. At the moment the triads and sevenths are listed in detail on the chord symbol page but not on the chord (music) page and this seems the wrong way around. One solution is to repeat the material on the two pages - but since chord symbol really only requires one column in these tables - shouldn't we just merge? Andeggs 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added the template on countering systematic bias because this page is mainly about Western chords. Get rid of it if you think it's unnecessary Andeggs 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that there is a need for explination. What the article needs to qualify is not that it describes "Western" chords but that chords are Western. Hyacinth 19:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I welcome Tymoczko's recent improvements and also the decision taken to limit this article to the traditional Western development of chord theory, as that will allow for a more defintive treatment of the subject, without having to include all sorts of exceptions. However, the attempt to present an alternative pentatonic interpretation of interval names as being 'equally justified' is ill advised in my opinion. In traditional western theory, intervals, historically, have been named according to the note spacings of the seven note diatonic scale, and its derivative, the chromatic scale. More precisely, intervals have been numbered according to their diatonic derivation and qualified according to their chromatic inflection.
There has never been any mainstream acceptance of a system in which intervals are defined according to the note spacings of the pentatonic scale. Instead, the note relationships of the pentatonic scale have been painlessly integrated into diatonic theory. The degrees of the scale can be properly numbered from 1 to 5, but the notes are named with reference to the seven degree diatonic scale, hence the missing letters in the pentatonic example given in the article: GA_CD_F. Therefore, even in a completely pentatonic composition, the interval G to C is a fourth, not a third. And the next G above forms an octave, not a (guessing here) 'hexave'. G to C can't be a third as long as we apply note names of the seven note diatonic scale to it. It could only be called a third if the pentatonic scale had developed its own note names (as it has in some non-Western traditions) and the interval spanned three of them.
Maybe Tymoczko will agree with some of my comments and make some modifications. As for me, I'll just remove the word 'chromatic' from 'semitone' as it's incorrect. Three chromatic semitones above G would make G### (not a third but a triply augmented unison!!) Mark (11 April 06)
I have proposed, at Template_talk:Infobox_Chord#From the root, that the infobox be modifed by adding a list of intervals from the root (I don't know how to do it myself) and would appreciate comments and assistance. Hyacinth 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the section on common chords has some anomalies regarding the terminology and definitions given within its various sub sections. I'm reluctant to change any of them as I'm well aware that terms can vary between regions. Also terms, symbols, etc., that had specific meanings when I was a student may, several decades later, have acquired wider or even different meanings that are now considered 'official'. So, at the risk of appearing obsolete, I'd like to list, for anyone's consideration, those that I feel may need some attention.
Sevenths
1. The table has a column for 'chord names' but two of these are named augmented/major and augmented/minor. Obviously these aren't the chord names. I assume the author was just giving their descriptions (augmented + type of seventh), in which case they shouldn't be in the column labeled "chord name".
2. CAM7 - This symbol is used for the chord C augmented with a major seventh. Is it standard? - I've never come across the use of the letter 'A' to represent augmented chords. (Maybe I should get out more)
Extended chords
1. Whereas the main article ( extended chord) explains extended chords (including seventh chords) as being logical tertian extensions of the triad, in this article they are defined as being extensions of the seventh - and so begin at the ninth. In other words, the seventh is presented as a fundamental diatonic chord and the ninths, etc., as being heavyweight versions (extensions) of it. I was taught that extended chords mean extensions of the triad and that sevenths are the first extended chord - but I can see sense in both interpretations.
2. The term major fourth is used as a chord name for the note combination: 1-3-5-11. Is it acceptable nowadays? In my day (and region) it was always an added eleventh.
3. The table includes chords without sevenths as extended chords, whereas the extended chord article suggests that chords without the seventh shouldn't be classed as extended chords but just as added note chords.
4. Some seventhless chords are included in a table, such as the 6/9 chord - but there are three note combinations not covered:
1-3-5-9-11-13
1-3-5-9-11
1-3-5-11-13.
Does anyone know if these combinations have acquired standard, or even semi-standard names? If so, they could be included for completeness.
5. The use of the word dominant for sevenths, ninths, etc. when they are not actually built on the dominant scale degree nor otherwise exhibiting any dominant functionality used to be unacceptable in most circles. Now it's commonly used - but is it considered officially correct?
Sixth chords
It's unfortunate that this section doesn't discuss the added sixth chord here as it's the most common sixth chord of all. In fact, for many musicians, it's the only one they know. True, it's an added note chord and is described there, but the fact that it is the most important sixth chord means it should be treated under 'Sixth chords' and in first place, ahead of augmented and neopolitan sixths. I think the average reader will be confused by its absence from this section. I also feel that this section shouldn't link to 'augmented sixth chords' as its 'main article'. The augmented sixth is just one type of sixth chord.
Suspended chords
It is stated that in suspended chords, such as the suspended fourth "...the fourth is played with or replaces the third" Another school of thought insists that if the third is present the chord can't properly be called 'suspended' but instead is an added eleventh (or major fourth?)
Power chords
I think this section may benefit from being split in two: fifth chords (or bare fifths) and power chords. Really, from a theoretical and historical perspective, fifth chords are far more important than power chords. The concept of perfect fifth intervals as thirdless chords dates back centuries to the universal acceptance in Western music of the third as a standard chord member. The omission of the third produced a 'bare' fifth - a hollow sounding chord, reminiscent of medieval organum, and its use was often met with disapproval - the opening bars of Beethoven's ninth symphony being a famous example.
Power chord, on the other hand, is just a descriptive term introduced to describe the sound of fifth chords played on an overdriven electric guitar. The term only dates back to the late 1950s following Link Wray's discovery that bare fifths, when distorted, produce a strikingly powerful effect like no other chord, for reasons well explained in the power chord article.
Any comments? abuse? ridicule? Feel free to respond. Thanks (Mark, 27 April '06)
I have used the following alternate chord symbols. If they are common, I'd like to have them added:
Hey, I've got a question. What is the name for the chord that is of notes 1-2-3-4 or 5-6-7-1 of a scale? I have "tetra" or something along the lines of that as it's name but I don't think that's right. Anyone have a name? I've found an example in Debussy's Reflets dans l'Eau where there is a passage where a fast C♭-B♭-A♭-G♭ is played down and then returns up in reverse order. It then changes to C-B♭-A♭-G♭ (perhaps an augmented version of this chord?). Thanks in advance.
So I was right then!
I propose that we develop some sort of standard or guideline as to what information goes on the Chord (music) and Harmony articles. See discussion at Talk:Harmony#Chord (music) and Harmony. Hyacinth 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Generally I propose that there could be a better ordering or organization to this article. Specifically, I feel that nonchord tones are an important enough part of what chords are that this stub section could go in the introduction. Anyone else have thoughts/opinions on this? Hyacinth 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
...about the connection between the chords and the musical scales. Can it be said that a Cmin chord is naturally constructed on the C minor scale? or is it possible for it (Cmin) to be constructed on the C major chord? (which would just about send my head spinning) And Dmin which is said in the article to be contructed on the C major scale, can't it also be said to be contructed on the D minor scale? Thanks a lot to anyone who can clarify this for me! -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Any key can follow this formula for valid triads: I Major, ii Minor, iii Minor, IV Major, V Major, vi Minor, and vii Diminished
Each chord has a corresponding mode or chord scale. Each one is the same as C major, just starting from a different point. the corresponding mode for each chord has qualities similar to that of the scale corresponding to the chord name, but is slightly different.
For example, the corresponding mode for ii Minor (Dorian) has qualities similar to a minor scale, but is different because it has a raised 6th, B natural (which matches up with C major's 7th degree)
The modes to go with them respectively are Ionian (Major), Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian (Minor), and Locrian.
So to answer your question, simple chords that can be based on C major are C Major, D minor, E Minor, F Major, G Major, A minor, and B diminished. However, a minor SCALE doesn't necessarily correspond to minor chords. refer to the modes listed above.
I hope i was helpful
Strumr91 02:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The article uses the terms "chromatic" and "diatonic", but without adequate explanation. These terms are the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest, that the statement "...the third is often played on top of a sus4 chord; in jazz theory, this doesn't negate the quality of the chord as a suspended chord." is changed. I believe, there can be no third in the sus4 chord (the same goes for sus2), just the tenth (in modal music). It than has to be explained what the tenth is. With your permision I will look into it.-- Yovi 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
is it me or this guy is a nut case.. he keeps playing mind games with people, especially on this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.145.93 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 May 2007
I added information regarding Octave Chords, since the page redirected here :) ACA 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to include sound files of each individual type of chord? I think that would be a great thing to have in the article, but i don't know if it is possible or if it really is a good idea. Marky1991 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
When taking "any scale" and building a triad with a base in the scale, the second, third, and sixth intervals, when used as a root, will form a minor triad. The root, fourth, and fifth form a major triad, whereas the seventh will form a dimished triad.
I was skeptical about the 'any scale' part, so I decided to try it with a minor scale. Example, the natural minor scale in the key of C is (C D Eb F G Ab B) and the triad that would be denoted I would thus be C Eb G, which is a minor triad. Can someone who knows what this statement should actually say, tighten it up to be correct? Clearly doesn't seem to apply to 'any scale'. -- Amusingmuses ( talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
ђ == a chord is a more than two notes played together ==Δ chord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.143.55 ( talk) 11:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody analyze the 82 second long rap song What They Hittin' Foe as an example... Jidanni ( talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
with the result that the brain "supplies" the complete expected chord in its absence.
I think you need to add two .ogg files here. One with the item missing, for our brain to supply it. One with it already supplied. That way we will know what you are talking about. Jidanni ( talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What if I cooked up a keyboard graphic and highlighted keys in certain chords? For people familiar with piano, that might help a lot. Thoughts? 74.70.124.27 ( talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is far too technical for the people who need it. Since chords are a basic concept, the article should be written in a way that's comprehensible to a general audience unschooled in music theory. Instead, it assumes readers have a strong background in music and uses terms like "tertian sonorities" and "intervallic construction" with no explanation. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tag now removed. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Harmonic Seventh from the list of seventh chords. The article is implicitly about chords in 12 tone equal temperament and the presence of a single chord from another temperament was a jarring anomaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuffink ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Apologies for not signing, I'm new to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuffink ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the Chord notation article should be merged here as already proposed in the past on this talk page. Since the chord notation is included here I don't see any purpose in having a separate article which either duplicates the same material or adds other topics about chords themselves and not just the notation. I would like to do this but I don't think I have enough time and skill AlfredoM ( talk) 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does, "this article needs additional citations for verification"? Hyacinth ( talk) 05:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite the removal of the tag, I ask again, why should and how could the citations be improved? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The chord shows the notes C and G, and also D-sharp-and-a-half, and A-sharp-and-a-half. However, the midi file simply plays a C, E-flat, G, B-flat chord, your typical minor seventh chord. Is this a mistake? Does this need a different file type, since midi doesn't do quarter-tones? Aurora Illumina 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I reproduced the chord and produced a non-quarter tone version with similar voice spacing on the same software instrument for comparison.
Synchronism ( talk) 23:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I had to correct the uploads and the files themselves, they should be working now. Synchronism ( talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It looks and sounds like you were correct Aurora. Synchronism ( talk) 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
How about this: Hyacinth ( talk) 15:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
?The article currently lacks any context for the tuning of any of the chords contained in it, all of which are apparently 12TET. Hyacinth ( talk) 13:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I have read in numerous locations that "chords sound 'good' (consonant) when the respective waves constructively and destructively interfere at regular intervals". Is there a deeper reason or meaning to this?
I know that notes an octave apart are doubled (or halved, depending on one's frame of reference) in frequency, and such notes will obviously be - if I may borrow a term from
orbital mechanics - in resonance, and that "Middle C" (MIDI C5) is 256Hz. Dropping the octaves, it gets more complicated...
CGC is the "core" of a C Major chord; CGC always sounds "good". However, I am told that the frequencies for notes are not linear, but closer to asymptotic, with Δf being proportionately larger for lower pitches. Does this not wreak havoc with the "whole ratio" hypothesis when one considers enharmonicity (I probably just coined a word there) and inversions?
As a composer myself - albeit one with less background in piano than
relat
ivity and less background in general music theory than
Quantum Mechanics - I do know from experience chords have less flexibility in lower octaves; that is, the same FAC (F major) chord based on F4 will sound better than one on F2. (I use a variety of instruments, including
ensemble ones, so is this another factor?)
Help with this would be greatly appreciated.
-RadicalOne•
Contact Me•
Chase My Tail 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: Before anyone explains anything, I should point out that I do not think of music as on a five-line staff; I see it as either a
piano roll or a piano keyboard. Referring to lines and spaces (or clefs, key signatures - more, I use mixed sharp-and-flat signatures - and other "traditional" music theory) will lose me entirely. One last comment on the way I visualize music: There is no such thing as an A#; it's always a Bb. The same pattern for D#/Eb, Db/C#, Gb/F#. Enharmonics are irrelevant.
-RadicalOne•
Contact Me•
Chase My Tail 02:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Aurora Illumina 03:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The third, as in the Major third? I find it dissonant as well. I wonder if it has to do with the fact I like to use strings at frequencies around 64Hz. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
MIDI instruments will normally give equal temperament, though some allow others - my EMU allows three kinds of just, Scarlatti, Kirchenberger, slendro and pelog and a few more, as well as user tuning tables. Check your global settings. Redheylin ( talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Keyboards and frets use EQT, but singers, stringers and even woodwind tend towards the just degree of the perceived root. Brass is a mix of just intervals on EQT valves! You do not have MIDI settings? What is making the sounds? Redheylin ( talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand? I thought you wanted "basement", so Texas Instruments SN76489 addressed with assembly language and machine code arguments. Redheylin ( talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A perfect fifth (P5) should be 1:3 but tuning a 12note scale like this means some keys sound awful. Redheylin ( talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Most obvious dissonance in C major since it's the lowest of the three, probably. I tried playing with the really low keys on the piano. Octaves are the only chords that remotely sound passable as music; even a perfect fifth down there sounds like plain noise. Maybe because the octave has the ratio of frequencies being exactly 2 even in equal temperament? Aurora Illumina 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we have three C major chords, then 3 F major chords, then some interruption. then 3 G major chords, and then a repeat of the low C major chord, then the P5 chords. Make sure we're not comparing the wrong chords with each other... Aurora Illumina 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling you'd disagree on this one, given that you strongly avoid minor keys. Either way, the point still stands that you can't do very much in the lower octaves other than P5 or octaves. Aurora Illumina 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Not B and C, but E and F do. I used it in Space Conquest. Yet both are a semitone.
I have done some experimentation that further complicates things. Experimenting with different instruments has led to the appearance that different instruments have different tolerances; Some instruments work better at low frequencies than others. (Interestingly, most are the ones I like to use in basslines.) In order:
-RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: Here is a demonstration of non-octave intervals at low frequencies, demonstrating the timbre and sound I mentioned earlier. It is an excerpt from my composition Universal Journey. I play it twice, once just chords, and once with the melody. (I overlaid a click track so I could release this copy freely.) -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
So it was not coincidence that the organ sounded the best in low frequencies. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 18:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Now we must find out why. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no visible modulation at all... -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have another small theory, though I'm not sure if it only applies to me or not. Take an Fmaj7 chord (F A C E), for example, and take a simple major 7th interval (F E). The first one can be viewed as an F major chord, with an E on top as a leading note into a following chord, usually a straight F major chord. The F major chord in the bottom overpowers the single E note on top, so the E is viewed as being separate from the chord. The chord with only two notes, F and E, doesn't have any such separation, and thus is more dissonant. When it came to the chord I had in my music file there, the E was in the middle of the chord, so it's not easily separated, and thus the chord will still be dissonant. Aurora Illumina 02:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I was playing around on my synthesizer, and made a very unexpected discovery. If embedded in a chord, semitones, even if directly adjacent, can be consonant - even better than a minor chord. Likewise, semitones, if spread far enough apart, can sound very good indeed.
F-A-C-E-F
FAC
ACE
ACF
FACE
FACEF
-RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 21:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The chord has to be spread ludicrously far before it is acceptable. But yes, it does lead into F major rather well. -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
How does this relate to the article? Hyacinth ( talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The above image doesn't work out, and I made the annotated image below it to demonstrate. Hyacinth ( talk) 12:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are still a few comprehensible sentences on this page. References, however, for the rest, have not been forthcoming Redheylin ( talk) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure that Δ means major triad (M), as stated in the subsection Chord (music)#Triads? In other articles ( Chord notation and Jazz harmony) Δ is decoded as a synonym of M7 (a tetrad, not a triad). I have never seen the symbol elsewhere, so I am not sure what is its correct interpretation (hoping there's only one!). — Paolo.dL ( talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paolo, I always thought that a slash "/" in chord symbols indicates the bass note. So C/G would mean the second inversion of C major. You do not seem to make a distinction between Cm(M7) and Cm/M7. I'm not sure if that is correct. − Woodstone ( talk) 05:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant that there are "millions" of different (sets of) symbols, often differing by small details. So, we need "millions" of sources. You might notice that I cleaned the tables in Chord names and symbols (jazz and pop music), removed "thousands" quasi-redundant (almost identical) symbols, divided symbols in different columns, to increase readability. This reduced the "millions" of sources to "dozens" of them. Adding sources will be much easier now. As for diminished dominant, with no slash, what's the problem? Notice that I am not advocating the use of the slash. In the tables, and in the various specific article titles, nobody inserted names with slashes, I used it in the text of a section (not in the tables all over the article) only because it was easier to write, and in some cases much better readable than the notation with supercripts, and the notation within parentheses was awkward when used in a parenthetical sentence. By the way, 3 days ago I edited minor major seventh chord, where the only name used in the text was "minor/major seventh chord", and inserted, before that name, the name without slash, also used in the article title. − Paolo.dL ( talk) 07:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth ( talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Tag removed. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems a bit complicated and convoluted at the moment. Perhaps something like this would clear things up?
'The notes of any given key may be written out in the form of a scale. The notes of this scale are numbered in ascending order, and are referred to as scale degrees. Triads may be constructed above each scale degree, and are named according to their scale degree. Thus, the triad formed above scale degree one is called Chord I, and the triad above scale degree five called Chord V. This system coexists with another system, which describes Chord I as the tonic, Chord V as the dominant, etc.
'Depending on the notes in the mode, such as whether or not it the key is major or minor, the triads built above scale degrees will have different qualities. Thus, they may be major, minor, diminished or augmented. These may be labelled in specific ways: a major chord is usually written with uppercase roman numerals, and a minor chord with lowercase roman numerals. For example, in a minor key, the tonic is described as i. Diminished chords are usually indicated by the use of a small circle, and augmented with a plus sign.'
I don't have any references right now but should the above meet with some approval I'll make an effort to find a textbook to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.243.36 ( talk) 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the info below since it exclusively concerns jazz chord tablature, which has its own article linked here, leaving only a basic introduction. The detail re notation far exceeds the scope of an article on the chord as such and much info already given elsewhere in the present article is duplicated here. I shall check whether this information is present in the relevant article.
Major, minor, augmented, and diminished chords
C+7 | = | C+ | + | m7 |
augmented chord |
augmented triad |
minor interval |
C+M7 | = | C+ | + | M7 |
augmented chord |
augmented triad |
major interval |
Rules to decode chord names and symbols
General rule 1 achieves consistency in the interpretation of symbols such as CM7, Cm6, and C+7. Some musicians legitimately prefer to think that, in CM7, M refers to the seventh, rather than to the third. This alternative approach is legitimate, as both the third and seventh are major, yet it is inconsistent, as a similar interpretation is impossible for Cm6 and C+7 (in Cm6, m cannot possibly refer to the sixth, which is major by definition, and in C+7, + cannot refer to the seventh, which is minor). Both approaches reveal only one of the intervals (M3 or M7), and require other rules to complete the task. Whatever is the decoding method, the result is the same (e.g., CM7 is always conventionally decoded as C-E-G-B, implying M3, P5, M7). The advantage of rule 1 is that it has no exceptions, which makes it the simplest possible approach to decode chord quality.
According to the two approaches, some may format CM7 as CM7 (general rule 1: M refers to M3), and others as CM7 (alternative approach: M refers to M7). Fortunately, even CM7 becomes compatible with rule 1 if it is considered an abbreviation of CMM7, in which the first M is omitted. The omitted M is the quality of the third, and is deduced according to rule 2 (see above), consistently with the interpretation of the plain symbol C, which by the same rule stands for CM.
provided the above mentioned qualities appear immediately after the root note, or at the beginning of the chord name or symbol. For instance, in the chord symbols Cm and Cm7, m refers to the interval m3, and 3 is omitted. When these qualities do not appear immediately after the root note, or at the beginning of the name or symbol, they should be considered
interval qualities, rather than chord qualities. For instance, in Cm/M7 (
minor-major seventh chord), m is the chord quality and refers to the m3 interval, while M refers to the M7 interval. When the
number of an extra interval is specified immediately after chord quality, the quality of that interval may coincide with chord quality (e.g. CM7 = CM/M7). However, this is not always true (e.g. Cm6 = Cm/M6, C+7 = C+/m7, CM11 = CM/P11). See specific rules 5 and 6 for further details.
All triads are tertian chords (chords defined by sequences of thirds), and a major third would produce in this case a non-tertian chord. Namely, the diminished fifth spans 6 semitones from root, thus it may be decomposed into a sequence of two minor thirds, each spanning 3 semitones (m3 + m3), compatible with the definition of tertian chord. If a major third were used (4 semitones), this would entail a sequence containing a major second (M3 + M2 = 4 + 2 semitones = 6 semitones), which would not meet the definition of tertian chord.
This rule overrides rule 2. For instance, Cdim7 implies a diminished 5th by rule 1, a minor 3rd by this rule, and a diminished 7th by definition (see below).
Examples
Chord Symbol | Analysis of symbol parts | Component intervals | Chord name | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Short | Long | Root | Third | Fifth | Added | Third | Fifth | Added | |
C | C | maj3 | perf5 | Major triad | |||||
CM | Cmaj | C | maj | maj3 | perf5 | ||||
Cm | Cmin | C | min | min3 | perf5 | Minor triad | |||
C+ | Caug | C | aug | maj3 | aug5 | Augmented triad | |||
Co | Cdim | C | dim | min3 | dim5 | Diminished triad | |||
C6 | C | 6 | maj3 | perf5 | maj6 | Major sixth chord | |||
CM6 | C | maj | 6 | maj3 | perf5 | maj6 | |||
Cm6 | C | min | 6 | min3 | perf5 | maj6 | Minor sixth chord | ||
C7 | Cdom7 | C | 7 | maj3 | perf5 | min7 | Dominant seventh chord | ||
CM7 | Cmaj7 | C | maj | 7 | maj3 | perf5 | maj7 | Major seventh chord | |
Cm7 | Cmin7 | C | min | 7 | min3 | perf5 | min7 | Minor seventh chord | |
C+7 | Caug7 | C | aug | 7 | maj3 | aug5 | min7 | Augmented seventh chord | |
Co7 | Cdim7 | C | dim | 7 | min3 | dim5 | dim7 | Diminished seventh chord | |
Cø | C | dim | min3 | dim5 | min7 | Half-diminished seventh chord | |||
Cø7 | C | dim | 7 | min3 | dim5 | min7 | |||
CmM7 Cm/M7 Cm(M7) |
Cminmaj7 Cmin/maj7 Cmin(maj7) |
C | min | 7 | min3 | perf5 | maj7 | Minor-major seventh chord |
Redheylin ( talk) 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article reads "A chord in music is any set of notes that is heard as if sounding simultaneously."
It then cites Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p. 67&359. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.
I own this book and can pledge that it specifically defines a chord as "three or more pitches sounding simultaneously." DaddyTwoFoot ( talk) 23:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.
Noetica Tea? 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This article's structure is messy. So messy in fact, that parts of this article are only clear to people who don't really need to read it. There are all kinds of problems, such as not explaining jargon before use, but also the order in which things are discussed, such that later parts of the article need to be read first in order to understand earlier bits. I also get the feeling that a lot of essential information / theory is simply missing. I can understand not wanting to go into detail in an introductory article, but at least make sure to cover the fundamentals. And I think more examples would help laypeople as well, even if you cannot provide a MIDI file for each one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
To my mind the lead section is very long - would anyone object to me trimming it down? I think each of its paragraphs is about twice as long as it needs to be, and goes into rather more detail than a lead section requires. Regards, The Land ( talk) 18:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This relates not just to this page but to all the assorted chord pages on Wikipedia. When I first was learning about more exotic chords, I'm sure I can remember each chord being defined not just using traditional terminology (major triad = root, major third, perfect fifth) but using ordered pitch-class intervals (major triad = {0, 4, 7}). i.e., simply define your root as '0' and count the number of semitones up from there (...4, 7). It clicked with me and helped my understanding of chords.
But sometime between then and now that has been removed from every chord page. I think that's a mistake. I can imagine the argument that won the day was something like 'we don't need this, it's esoteric music theory'. But it's very easy to grasp. For readers who haven't come to grips with music jargon yet (and if they're consulting the wiki to learn these concepts that's pretty likely) it's a very intuitive starting point.
It certainly didn't hurt to have it in there. It helped me understand, it might help others. 141.168.250.245 ( talk) 03:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Chord | Interval | P1 | m2 | M2 | m3 | M3 | P4 | TT | P5 | m6 | M6 | m7 | M7 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
d2 | A1 | d3 | A2 | d4 | A3 | d5/A4 | d6 | A5 | d7 | A6 | d8 | ||||
Semitones | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |||
Short | Long | Name | Note in C | C | C♯ D♭ |
D | D♯ E♭ |
E | F | F♯ G♭ |
G | G♯ A♭ |
A | A♯ B♭ |
B |
C | Major triad | P1 | M3 | P5 | |||||||||||
C6 CM6 |
Cmaj6 | Major sixth chord | P1 | M3 | P5 | M6 | |||||||||
C7 | Cdom7 | Dominant seventh chord | P1 | M3 | P5 | m7 | |||||||||
CM7 | Cmaj7 | Major seventh chord | P1 | M3 | P5 | M7 | |||||||||
C+ | Caug | Augmented triad | P1 | M3 | A5 | ||||||||||
C+7 | Caug7 | Augmented seventh chord | P1 | M3 | A5 | M7 | |||||||||
Cm | Cmin | Minor triad | P1 | m3 | P5 | ||||||||||
Cm6 | Cmin6 | Minor sixth chord | P1 | m3 | P5 | M6 | |||||||||
Cm7 | Cmin7 | Minor seventh chord | P1 | m3 | P5 | m7 | |||||||||
CmM7 Cm/M7 Cm(M7) |
Cminmaj7 Cmin/maj7 Cmin(maj7) |
Minor-major seventh chord | P1 | m3 | P5 | M7 | |||||||||
Co | Cdim | Diminished triad | P1 | m3 | d5 | ||||||||||
Co7 | Cdim7 | Diminished seventh chord | P1 | m3 | d5 | d7 | |||||||||
Cø Cø7 |
Half-diminished seventh chord | P1 | m3 | d5 | m7 |
− Woodstone ( talk) 15:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
"A chord, in music, is any harmonic set of pitches consisting of two or more (usually three or more) notes (also called "pitches") that are heard as if sounding simultaneously.[1][2] " Thus, a jangle of discordant noise (not an intentionally different atonal set) is also a chord? Or should our definition /description include Tomy...'s idea that it is desired/pleasing/intentional? Kdammers ( talk) 09:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)