3 ms·
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
by 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 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.