Jump to content
HAPPY NEW YEAR, TO ALL OUR HARMONY CENTRAL FORUMITES AND GUESTS!! ×

Naming chords: Functionality vs Mere Labels


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

I've noticed a few threads by people posting the tab of a certain combination of notes, and asking what chord it is.

 

The first thing to realise is that the same combination of notes can function in more than one way. The same combination of notes can sound like two different chords when in different contexts.

 

You shouldn't feel the need to apply a label to every chord, and you certainly shouldn't try to name chords in isolation. A chord taken in isolation does not contain all the information necessary to apply a meaningful and practical label to it.

  • Members
Posted

Yes, that's part of it.

 

Most of what I'm saying is directed towards those chords that people post, and people can't seem to agree on the right label.

 

There's a reason why the label is ambiguous. Because the chord is isolated. Its meaning is largely determined by context.

 

Chords also don't only appear as the result of purely harmonic motion, by the motion of root tones. There is the contrapuntal motion as well.

 

Take three part counterpoint as an example. If you look at the music, it may seem that a certain combination of chords will be such and such a chord. But when you listen, it sounds quite different to what you expect. This is often because the chords in predominantly contrapuntal music derive their effect because they are the result of simultaneous melodies - not because they are the result of purely harmonic progressions.

  • Members
Posted

I've found it is helpful to just learn the notes and shapes of chords on the fretboard instead of just learning the chords of a key.

 

Take an Fmaj7 in the eighth position:

 

x

10

9

10

8

x

 

Instead of learning "Fmaj7", learn the shape of the chord and it's intervals. That way you know the shape of a Maj7 chord all over the neck where the root is on the second string. Same thing for the third string.

 

5

5

5

3

x

x

 

And the first string.

 

x

x

2

2

3

1

 

Learn these shapes and the intervals and you now know the maj7 chord in three shapes in every key. (not including open chords of course) Now learn the shapes for Min7, 7th, min, maj, dim, aug, 9th, 11th, 13th, and sus chords. That should give you something to do for awhile.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Anomandaris

Yes, that's part of it...(etc etc etc)... This is often because the chords in predominantly contrapuntal music derive their effect because they are the result of simultaneous melodies - not because they are the result of purely harmonic progressions.

 

 

^Good stuff.

 

 

:cool:

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by blackrose

I've found it is helpful to just learn the notes and shapes of chords on the fretboard instead of just learning the chords of a key.


Instead of learning "Fmaj7", learn the shape of the chord and it's intervals. That way you know the shape of a Maj7 chord all over the neck where the root is on the second string. Same thing for the third string.



Learn these shapes and the intervals and you now know the maj7 chord in three shapes in every key. (not including open chords of course) Now learn the shapes for Min7, 7th, min, maj, dim, aug, 9th, 11th, 13th, and sus chords. That should give you something to do for awhile.

 

 

And this is a useful thing to do.

 

I'm just pointing out that if you find that you can't apply a grammatical label to a chord, then you shouldn't feel any frustration.

 

In fact, it's probably more often than not that you will not be able to provide a label which accurately reflects that chord's "meaning" - especially in more modern music.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Anomandaris



And this is a useful thing to do.


I'm just pointing out that if you find that you can't apply a grammatical label to a chord, then you shouldn't feel any frustration.


In fact, it's probably more often than not that you will not be able to provide a label which accurately reflects that chord's "meaning" - especially in more modern music.

 

Yea, I agree with you completely.

 

I am very guilty of chord inquiries on this board. :(:D

 

I get curious about those things too much I guess.

  • Members
Posted

no offense, but i think this whole thread is one big elitist mental masturbation.

i doubt most of the questions asked about labels are just for curiosity sake and of no use. you cannot argue against the value of knowing what chords you're playing are in songwriting (that might not be what you're arguing, but it sounds). in fact, what are you arguing?

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by sacredparadigm

no offense, but i think this whole thread is one big elitist mental masturbation.

i doubt most of the questions asked about labels are just for curiosity sake and of no use. you cannot argue against the value of knowing what chords you're playing are in songwriting (that might not be what you're arguing, but it sounds). in fact, what are you arguing?

 

 

Labelling chords isn't a bad thing, but labelling them when there isn't enough information to accurately label them is a pointless exercise. That's my point. There's no point posting a single chord, in isolation, and then asking what label can be applied to it. It depends on the context.

 

As for composition, it's most important to know how the chord will function, not what arbitrary label you can apply to it.

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by sacredparadigm

in fact, what are you arguing?

 

 

Many times, there are threads in which someone asks 'what is this chord?', and he gets several different answers. Oddly, all of those answers may, in fact, be 'correct', and at the same time be 'incorrect'.

 

This occurs mostly when a combination of tones does not adhere to a pattern of stacked 3rd; they resemble several different chords, or merely PARTS of several chords. They can't be given an accurate name in isolation; the name that WOULD be fitting cn only be determined by context.

 

While that may seem like semantics, it can spare someone much grief down the line. For example, an example earlier was (low to high) D G D F#. Since we don't know what context it came from, we can't put a single name on it. While it may well be a Gmaj7(no 3rd) in ONE piece of music, it might be a Dadd11 in another. (those are just 2 of the possibilities). If someone is convinced that it's a Dadd11, and comes across the same chord form in another piece of music (but used as the voicing for a G chord), the 'Dadd11' name would be incorrect.

 

Now, if someone posts a garden-variety chord, like a simple C major triad, it's safe to assume the simplest name. Of course, if there's a bass playing an 'A' under that, the name of the chord would actually be Am7 (the guitar would simply be omitting the root).

 

So, the bottom line is that the context of a chord structure is needed to name it correctly. While a 'wrong' name may work in one instance, it may not work in another, and that's a tough thing to unravel if someone is 'set' on the wrong name.

  • Members
Posted

You shouldn't feel the need to apply a label to every chord...

 

I once read a column written by (I think) John Abercrombie in some guitar mag or another. He was discussing an ambiguous chord voicing whose name (by his own design) was simply "Fred."

 

It's true--a chord doesn't have to be named--until you designate one note in the chord as the root, that is.

 

:cool:

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie


So, the bottom line is that the context of a chord structure is needed to name it correctly. While a 'wrong' name may work in one instance, it may not work in another, and that's a tough thing to unravel if someone is 'set' on the wrong name...

 

 

ok. i understand that. i know what you're saying, but couldn't this just be pointed out to the one asking? or is it usually a flame war over what chord it actually is, leaving the person even confused?

  • Members
Posted

Good points guys.

 

I just thought I'd pipe in with this thought.

 

As The guys were saying, sometimes the functions of a chord is truly ambiguous (as in being seen or understood in 2 ways)

 

There, it can act as a "bridge" or "point of rotation" .

 

 

So it may be functioning one way going INTO the chord...the composer REINTERPRETS the role of the chord and it functions another way GOING OUT.

 

So it IS actually functioning BOTH ways at the same time.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by sacredparadigm



ok. i understand that. i know what you're saying, but couldn't this just be pointed out to the one asking? or is it usually a flame war over what chord it actually is, leaving the person even confused?

 

 

I've never seen it turn into a flame war..but I HAVE seen people get very confused over it, which is what we're hoping to avoid. :p

  • Members
Posted

If you have never seen

 

"cannibal :the musical" (it's about Alfred Packer -- they went to Colorado University) it might be worth renting

 

It's Trey Parker and Matt Stone's first movie

 

During one song, the singers argue about the functions of certain elements in the song...it's a pretty funny send-up of these very confusions

 

 

If you ever watch SouthPark, the little Call-sign as the Braniff jet flies across is the theme to "canninbal"

  • Members
Posted

I guess it comforts some people to have a certain name for a certain group of notes (myself included). The most original stuff I've come up with, however, happend when I did not think at all about chords, but merely multiple melodies.

 

Believe me, a lot of strange looking chords came out of that, when I tried to analyse it. The thing is, those chords are nothing but single tones that happen to be played at the same time. Much like Anomandaris' example about counterpoint, I guess.

  • Members
Posted

Yup, that's sort of a big point in "classical" western composition, one is simultaneously dealing with voices in melody and harmony.

 

insert Paul's standard rant about guitar players focusing soley on a monolithic "scales over chords" perspective

 

That's what those "rules" (they are REALLY more like guidelines, but they do keep you out of trouble when heeded judiciously) are about...to help maximize harmonic motion AND smoothly melodic lines. Sometimes when you have a composition not working out and is chumpy, you'll have a voice that is just "coping" and serving the harmony...it'll makes there ugly jumps so as not to "drop the harmony". It won't be very melodic.

 

 

One thing to look at that sort of ties in with the original thread topic is to be suspicious of "weird chords"...look at how they serve the cadence. They might not be all that weird, just inversions of a more familiar chord.

That's kind of the deal with naming a chord in context...the naming should help make things EASIER as it is explaining FUNCTION, not just labelling a cluster of notes (the score already does THAT)

  • Members
Posted

Excellent post, Anomandaris!

 

What the group of notes that comprise a chord is doing functionaly is sometimes defined what comes before and/or after it. As a bass player I love changing the chord by placing an alternate note or an inversion in the bass. I have to be listening to what the lead is doing in order to keep from stepping on his riff with wierd tonality.

  • Members
Posted

the labels really get confusing when you factor in inversions...technically giving the same chord more than one name...if you look at the 3rd or 5th as the root of the chord...:eek:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...