4 ms·

Em #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 illustra

Em #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 ago
You'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 ago
  Chords 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 ago
    Sure, 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 ago
Unpopular 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 ago
  You’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 ago
    You 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 ago
    E-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 :)

epcoa 2y ago

You'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 ago
Chords 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 ago
  Sure, 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 ago

Unpopular 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 ago
You’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 ago
  You 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 ago
  E-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 :)