4 ms·
For what it is worth it’s not wrong to say that the triad where E is the root would be Em#5. The inversions you point out still have the same root (C) even if t
by epcoa 2y ago
For what it is worth it’s not wrong to say that the triad where E is the root would be Em#5. The inversions you point out still have the same root (C) even if the bass is different.
But I agree you’ve identified the fundamental problem: we cannot infer the root note and, therefore the name (enharmonics aside), from just a set of notes and attempting to is a fool’s errand. Even with a root note, it's going to be difficult many times to have a sensible answer
The key problem with this implementation in addition to not simply taking the root note as input (or a key or scale), appears to be the chord database is pretty spartan, since it doesn't appear it would identify C-E-G as anything other than CMaj. If you want figured bass/slash notation then you'll need to specify that as well (bass note).
A number of chord namers take these as additional inputs.
- tunesmith 2y agoEm #5 would have a B#, not a C. This isn't a pedantic point; it very much matters if we're trying to be accurate with chord naming. Another example to illustrate how identifying the root is important: C E G A. It's either a C6 or an amin7.
- epcoa 2y agoYou're absolutely right about enharmonic equivalents and I could/should have been more precise. However of course the given task of "keys" or pitches -> chords we don't have any information about this, enharmonic equivalents are equivalent. The point is, if the C/B# note (we don't know which one), G and E are given to you and I tell you to root is "E", then the chord could be Em#5. If it really were unambiguously C then it would be a Em♭6(no 5). Point in any case is you need more to go on (at the very least a scale). I think the point that root and bass should not be conflated is also valid.
- shermantanktop 2y agoChords in isolation are an academic exercise. In the context of an overall chord progression, this “enharmonic ambiguity” normally disappears completely, at least for mainstream jazz, pop, rock, folk, most classical, etc. - you know, the music that people who weren’t music majors actually like.
- epcoa 2y agoSure, but I certainly haven't been proposing that naming chords based on identifying pitches on a standard keyboard with no other context is suitable, quite the opposite (fool's errand in my original comment). In the confines of the problem statement, it's all enharmonic ambiguity, and that's the point. The Em#5 example was based off the one in the original article, but a much more down to earth one would be F♯ and G♭. Not exactly obscure chords and illustrative of the fundamental issue with this method.
- pistoleer 2y agoUnpopular opinion: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then dude, it's a duck. Inverted chords have, in my ears, never sounded anything like the chords they are supposedly an inversion of. It's like saying "10 is just really 3+7". It's true, and it's also useless. Let 10 be 10. Let 3 be 3. Etc. Most composers don't even use this system as they compose, it's just for after the fact analysis. Composers hear a tune in their head and then transcribe it. Unless they're writing cookie cutter shit without inspiration, then they might synthesize some soulless crap that intentionally follows some well known chord progression as picked by a dart thrown at a poster of the circle of fifths.
- epcoa 2y agoYou’re saying if the triad E G C is played in a piece in C major it doesn’t sound like a C chord?? Ok. Then what do you call it?
- kazinator 2y agoYou are right, and we can add the observation that the first harmonics of the E and G will form a CEG triad with the C.
- pistoleer 2y agoE-G is a 3 semitone interval and G-C is 5 semitones so it's an E+3+5 chord. If you wanna play it on piano, that means leave a gap of 2 keys and then a gap of 4 keys. Known in western classical harmonization theory as "Em+" (E chord with minor third, augmented 5th). C first inv is actually Gsus4add6no5 or as I like to call it G+5+4. It has an incredibly warm and rich tone, nothing like C+4+3 (C major triad). It works in C because all of its notes are also present in the C major scale, but that's just a coincidence. Calling it a C inverted chord is like making astrological or numerological conclusions. And no, shifting up or down by octaves is not the same sound. It's close but not equal. You can probably get away with octave substitutions in a busy song but you can not say it sounds exactly the same. A 9th is not a 2nd. 11 not 4, 13 not 6. When you play La Campanella, is that your excuse for skipping those octave jumps? :) As I said, unpopular opinion :)
- kazinator 2y agoE-C is simply not a sharp fifth. Sharp fifth is enharmonic with minor sixth. E-C is a major sixth.
- shermantanktop 2y agoRight. This is where math-oriented people get stuck on counting half-steps and forget that the assigned names carry information. E-B# is a different thing from E-C which is different from abominations like E-Dbb.
- epcoa 2y agoThis is off. E-C# is the major sixth. E-C is the minor sixth, which as you say is enharmonic with sharp fifth (E-B#).
- kazinator 2y agoYes, how could I gaffe so badly? Inverting a major third gives a minor sixth. Rule of nine, minor-major swap. Elementary school stuff.