Talk:Chord (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Chord (music) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Triad

What is a triad? Hyacinth 05:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed outline

Here's my proposed outline:

  1. intro
    1. In music and music theory a chord (from the middle English cord, short for accord) is three(3)or more notes sounding simultaneously, or near simultaneously over a period of time. Broadly, any combination of three or more notes is a chord, although during the common practice period in western music and most popular music some combinations were given more prominence than others. Thus in common usage a chord is only those groups of three notes which are tonal or have diatonic functionality.
    2. A chord is thus also the harmonic function of the group of three notes, and it is unnessary to have all three notes form a simultaneity. Less than three notes may and often do function, in context, as a simultaneity of all notes of chord. One example is a power chord, another is a broken chord or arpeggio, where each note in a chord is sounded one after the other. One of the most familiar broken chord figures is Alberti bass. See: accompaniment.
  2. Chord sequences
  3. Harmonic function
  4. Definition and Construction of Chords
    1. Chords are named for how many notes they contain and more commonly for what type of intervals they are constructed from.
    2. How many: trichord, tetrachord, hexachord, etc.
    3. What kind: tertian, secundal, quartal.
    4. Chords are labelled with chord symbols.
  5. The triad
    1. Types of triads: Major chord, minor chord, diminished chord, Augmented chord
  6. Seventh chords
  7. Extended chords
  8. Added tone chords
    1. Sustained chords
  9. Borrowed chords
  10. Other chords: Polychords.
  11. Nonchord tones and dissonance
  12. Chord sequences
  13. Harmonic function

[edit] Removed

  • "A beautiful example of this is the "major-diminished", with a minor third, diminished fifth, and major seventh. This resolves to a fully diminished seventh."

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)

[edit] Reverted

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:

  • "There are three main types of seventh chords."
When the previous article said, "There are 6 types of seventh chords composed of the following intervals" and gave correct details.

Then the article states:

  • "There is only one form of the seventh chord."
This is followed by sections labeled "Major chords" and "Minor chords", which are not seventh chords (and, with sevenths, are each two types of seventh chords), and the last section "Seventh chords" also declares they above sections did not describe seventh chords.

I'm not sure what this is, vandalism, a test, someone very mistaken about music theory...? Hyacinth 21:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some Additions/Corrections

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

I may be most likely to feel "ownership" of this article and far from being offended I appreciate your edits. The explination is more clear and the details corrected. One note, two requests:
  1. "Most textbooks": can you give one or two examples? Do textbooks tend to agree or diverge in their classifications? Wikipedia:Cite sources may be useful if you have not seen it already.
  2. Please see A Hard Day's Night (song) and its talk page, where there has been much work regarding the opening chord (note Wikipedia:No original research), and User_talk:Luqui#Nonchord tone.
Hyacinth 01:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, Hyacinth. I've added a "references" section and included some of the textbooks I am most familiar with that support this info. I didn't know if the "further reading" section was for cited sources, which is why I created a new one. Should I also be doing in-text citation?
I'll check out the other pages you referenced; they sound enticing. --TobyRush 15:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Added tone chords

Noetica, what do you mean by uncanonic? Hyacinth 22:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you're referring to my edit summary when I changed this:
An added tone chord is a traditional chord with an extra "added" note, such as the commonly added sixth. This includes chords with an added ninth, thirteenth etc, but that explicitly do not include the intervening thirds as in an extended chord.
To this:
An added tone chord is a traditional chord with an extra "added" note, such as the commonly added sixth (above the root). In modern, non-classical, harmony this may be taken to include chords with an added ninth, thirteenth etc, but that explicitly do not include the intervening thirds as in an extended chord.
I summarised like this: "Clarified, but the content for added tone chords remains worrisomely uncanonic." By "uncanonic" I meant two things: 1) not in accord with some standard; and 2) not tending toward consistency, in the way we would expect a standard treatment to be consistent. Let me now comment on these in turn, as they apply this section and also the nearby sections:
1. Few chords are generally accepted as added tone chords apart from the added sixth chord. In particular, sus4 chords are not to be aligned with the added sixth, as they had been before I edited in the vicinity. (Sus4 does not normally include the third from the root, but rather has the fourth replacing the third; this is quite different from the added sixth chord, in which the fifth from the root must be present also for the chord to retain its identity; see New Grove.) Furthermore, the inclusion of extended chords that lack some of their parts as added tone chords is suspect. The New Grove says this about extended chords, in jazz:
A chord made up of the triad and one or more added 3rds above the 5th (generally the major 7th, 9th, 11th, and 13th); any of the notes between the root and the note defining the uppermost interval may be omitted.
No mention here, or anywhere else, of calling extended chords with such omissions added tone chords. And beyond jazz, in classical theory, there is no such talk either. It is almost de rigueur to omit the third in an 11th chord, and one still calls it an 11th chord, without feeling any need to reclassify it it any way.
Such considerations as these led me to use the epithet "uncanonic".
2. The treatment of extended chords, added tone chords, sus chords, and a couple of other things remaining somewhat inconsistent in the article, and in the articles to which links are provided (e.g., Extended chord), I formed the opinion that these sections and articles were uncanonic in the sense that do not yet provide an authoritative point of reference.
It's also a bit like what I said about intervals, here. Too many different approaches conflated. I would be happy to made clearer distinctions between classical theory (which I know well) and modern non-classical theory (which I know well enough to spot features as non-classical), but not just now! What I will do now is go and add a full stop to "etc", which I missed when I edited the section on added tone chords. --Noetica 01:29, 9 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 think these categories are notoriously vague, but I think it would be irresponsible of to ignore the fact that there are such categories. I also think that these categories need bettrer regulating here at Wikipedia, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that. In the present context by "classical" (uncapitalised) I mean something quite broad. I mean "of Western art music of the late common practice period, assuming a fully developed system of tonality, and exclusively tertian harmony". So by "non-classical" I mean "anything else", but especially later developments in broadly Western music: in art music, in jazz and its derivatives, etc.
We are all in the same boat with the problem of Wiki-handling the enormous diversity that a wealth of different musics presents, are we not? My general point is that it may be best to get explicit in how we restrict discussion, or how we broaden it. To this end, I think it may be best to have articles (or major divisions of articles) with titles like this: "harmony in Western classical music" (again note the non-capped "classical"), with next-level divisions titled, say, "18th century harmony", or perhaps "harmony in the Classical period"; and titles like "harmony in jazz and 20th century popular music". You get the idea. There could be a common core at the start, and then specific treatment as required, under these different headings. I think that the problem is well exhibited at Interval (music), alas.
Thanks for taking note. I don't want to interfere, and I'll just give my opinions in Talk until people think I should edit more, in the general domain of music in WP. I fear I am not satisfied with your recent "canonicisation" of the material on added tone chords, but I don't want to dwell on it. Essentially, there are difficulties of logical and taxonomic relations still, when you look at adjacent sections and at the subsidiary articles to which there are links. --Noetica 05:15, 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)

Hyacinth, I think we agree on everything that's important here. We would like comprehensive treatment, and avoidance of Eurocentrism, 18C-centrism, and every other centrism, right? And cross-comparisons too. The methods and structures are what would need attention, as well as the close attention to detail that we clearly both deem paramount. Surely we agree also that, somewhere and somehow, the needs of relative beginners have to be accommodated. Am I right? Anyway, see my response to you at Talk:Interval (music) also. Go well! --Noetica 00:53, 10 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)

[edit] Definition

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)

Read the rest of the article. What you define as a chord is actually a tertian chord. Hyacinth 21:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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.

In fact, it's a second inversion chord but would only be notated as C/G in sheet music that specifically required a second inversion to be played. However, in strumming styles where the actual inversion is often not important, this is a commonly played shape for chords notated simply as C or C major. (Mark 02 May 06)
I added the 2nd inversion note to the image for clarity. As a guitar player myself I would NEVER use *that* fingering when a C Major chord was called for unless that voicing was specifically needed. I realize, of course, that the player might be skipping the lowest string in playing that chord. Even if they are that is a very non-standard fingering for an open C chord.Es330td 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of notes in a chord

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".

This is nonstandard. Note that the article contains no information on two note "chords". Hyacinth 09:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
As George T. Jones explains in HarperCollins College Outline Music Theory (1994, ISBN 0064671682), "Two tones sounding together are usually termed an interval, while three or mores tones are called a chord."
Again, "When three or more notes are sounded together, the combination is called a CHORD [emphasis theirs]." Surmani, Andrew (2004). Essentials of Music Theory: A Complete Self-Study Course for All Musicians. ISBN 0739036351.
Very puzzling. I just picked up and opened, at random, a book of Haydn quartets, and I'm looking at the end of the Allegro of Op 55 No 2. The movement is in F major, it ends in what is undeniably a perfect cadence, and the final ... ummmm .... combination of notes is (bottom to top) ... F, F, A, F. This is not an isolated instance - there are probably hundreds of examples of perfect closes, which absolutely do assert a key, but where the fifth is absent. If I am to believe what the article claims - ie that we should not call such a combination of sounds a chord, because it contains only two notes - then I can't help wondering what the point of defining a chord actually is. It doesn't seem to correspond to anything which fulfils a unique musical function. --Stephen Burnett 16:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This was a genuine attempt to elicit an explanation. Can nobody explain why I'm not allowed to attach the name "chord" to a combination of notes with only two degrees of the scale, despite the fact that it is clearly acting as one and performing a clearly defined harmonic function? Moreover, this is not just any transient harmonic function, but the most crucially important in classical western harmony - the tonic in a V-I progression which ends a movement. --Stephen Burnett 10:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You didn't provide a reference, but I'm not going to be picayune and demand that you do so before discussing this further. Maybe this is a legitimate dispute (over the chord-ness of 2 notes only). If so, then maybe this should be rewritten in the article to reflect this academic disagreement (so long as it doesn't bend the lead out of shape too much). Perhaps a section on scholarship? In any case, references saying 2 notes do make a chord would be helpful. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The reference I provided was an example from practical usage. It's not a dispute - just an observation that common musical practice appears to differ from the dictionary definitions which many here seem attached to. Given that many two-note combinations can and do fulfil a very well-defined harmonic function, and seem to do it pretty well - well enough in Haydn's judgement, anyway - I'd really, really, really like to know what is special about a "chord" - ie the 3 note variety - which makes it worth defining? What is so special about it, if it does not have the exclusive ability to fulfill the function of acting as a building block of musical harmony? --Stephen Burnett 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not the trinity that's "holy", it's Wikipedia policy to cite sources, especially in case of dispute. What we have, though friendly and collaborative, is a dispute: we disagree on what the text of the article should be. I don't believe it is "picayune" to request that people criticizing my work, for which I did consult sources, find sources which support their arguments.
My quick answer to your question, however, is unsupported by citation: Since two notes may, in context, fully imply a chord, that would make them that three note chord. In context they play the part of a chord, but they're not a chord. I assume Haydn was well enough away of this and had some sort of way to discuss incomplete versus complete "chords". If he was not, I believe many theorists and composers do today. Hyacinth (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Chord symbol with Chord (music)

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)

My proposed outline for the new page (titled Chord (music)) is:
1. Constructing chords
Number of notes
Type of interval
Degree
Quality
Inversion
Extensions
2. Common chords
Triad
Seventh
Inverted chords
Extended chords
Power chords
3. Other types of chord
Added tone
Suspended
Borrowed
Polychord
4. Chord sequence
Cossonance and dissonance
Simultaneity
In the 'common chords' section I propose we include the tables from Chord symbol. I think the section of that page titled 'Roman numerals' should be woven into the text appropriately. Please put your thoughts on this below, if there are no comments I will assume agreement! Andeggs 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The temporary space for the merge is here. Feel free to assist with the editing.
Sounds good. Hyacinth 13:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No strong opinion on merge, but above outline looks good. −Woodstone 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The big merge is online now - hope you like it! Please edit as you see fit and don't just revert Andeggs 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic bias

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 don't call myself an expert, but from my (brief) reading of the article, there is a Western bias. However, it can easily be explained. In other cultures, alternate scales are used, and within the musical tradition of a culture, certain intervals will be preferred. Therefore, alternate scales will give rise to alternate chords, but much of the theory is still the same.--Chris van Hasselt 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What are some chords that are missing? Hyacinth 05:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert either but I think it's less that chords are missing and more that some cultures compose their note patterns completely differently. See Raga, Chinese musicology, maqam and so on. A good place to start with this is, suitably enough, the page on Classical music Andeggs 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What do those things have to do with chords? Hyacinth 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That indeed is the question which I believe this article should answer before the systematic bias banner is removed. For example, the fact that the same melody can differ from major to minor depending on where it is played on a scale in Chinese musicology must have some impact on the way chords are constructed in that context. I'm not expert enough to know what this impact is though! Andeggs 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is, not many non-Western styles use "chords" in the way Western music does. The very notion of "chord" is pretty Western. However, I think the intro should be changed. A statement should be added to the effect that "chord," in its most general sense, refers to a musically meaningful set of notes that can appear as a simultaneity. A link should be added to "Set Theory (Music)," which addresses chords in this sense. Then the article should say that it treats chords in a Western context. Tymoczko 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes those are good edits Tymoczko. Still not totally happy with "For information on non-Western styles, consult the Wikipedia articles specific to that style." as its a bit of a cop-out IMO. Anyway...Andeggs 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it sounds like a cop out. We could just remove the sentence perhaps. Tymoczko 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Cop-outs are ok in wikipedia. Contributions by an editor do not have to be complete. A signal to people with other knowledge to chip in is acceptable. −Woodstone 14:05, 11 April 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)

This isn't quite right. There are some non-Western styles that use chords -- for instance Gypsy music, some African music, and so on. In the cases I'm thinking of, the chords are triads, but I'm sure there are examples of non-Western styles that use nontriadic chords. I think the balance is about right -- chords are predominantly Western, but they exist in some other styles; however, this article is mostly concerned with Western chords. Tymoczko 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I ask again, what are some of the chords that are missing? Hyacinth 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interval naming

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)

Thanks! I think you're oversimplifying the issue with regard to intervals. Consider the C harmonic minor scale: the chord Ab-B-Eb is not tertian, even though it is aurally indistinguishable from a minor triad. Ab-B is a second, relative to the harmonic minor scale. This is recognized by most traditional theorists. Furthermore, the issue cannot be reduced to one of "spelling" -- since this sort of issue can arise with respect to harmonic minor music that is improvised, and never written down. The underlying question is how the music itself behaves.
About the pentatonic scale, one often finds successions of the following kind in jazz: G-C-F, A-D-G, C-F-A. This is very clearly a sequence of "tertian sonorities" relative to an underlying pentatonic scale. The standard term "fourth chord" isn't relevant, since C-F-A is a triad. But in order to explain the structural similarity of G-C-F, A-D-G, and C-F-A, one has to refer to an underlying pentatonic scale, and one has to understand that the chords are all "tertian" relative to that scale. If you go to my website, you can find a paper ("Scale Networks and Debussy," forthcoming in the Journal of Music Theory), that contains examples of this phenomenon in Debussy, Art Tatum, Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, and Ligeti.
I'll try to soften the language a bit, though, so as not to be misleading. Tymoczko 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I'd like to read that paper - What's your website? ((Mark)
The paper is at http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri/debussy.pdf. The pentatonic examples come toward the end of Section I. I think Andreggs most recent changes are good, and help guard against misunderstandings. Tymoczko 13:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Chord

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)

[edit] Common chord: terminology and definitions

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)

Most of those suggestions look good to me; I'd say change away. I'd started working my way down the article, but got tired after I did the triad table. I favor considering seventh chords to be basic. I also think that the use of "dominant" to describe a type of chord is now acceptable. I don't like the term "major fourth." But in general I think your instincts are pretty good and you ought to make changes as you see fit -- other people will change them back if they disagree. Tymoczko 20:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll get started on them soon. For now, I just want to make it clear that the recent edits comparing broken chords to broken chairs have nothing to do with me. (Mark, 29 April 06)

[edit] Chord symbols

I have used the following alternate chord symbols. If they are common, I'd like to have them added:

  • Diminished triad: C-
  • Diminished seventh: C-7
  • Augmented major seventh: CaugMaj7
  • Augmented seventh: Caug7
  • Minor major seventh: CmMaj7
The symbol, -, shouldn't be used to indicate diminished chords. It can be used for minor type chords though, and is already used in the article (under seventh chords) to show the minor seventh. (Mark, 12 May 2006)


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.

See tetrachord

So I was right then!

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 23:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chord (music) and Harmony

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)

[edit] Order/priority of information

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)

[edit] A bit confused

...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)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

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)

[edit] Third in a suspended chord

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)

[edit] user ILike2BeAnonymous

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

[edit] octave chords

I added information regarding Octave Chords, since the page redirected here :) ACA 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am reverting your edit, ACA. Unfortunately in its present form it means very little. What do you mean by "one note apart"? Do you mean "one octave apart"? If so, these are hardly chords at all. We'd need something more rigorous, with citation.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sound?

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)

It's certainly possible - I already did it for the C Maj and D min examples, in the form of MIDI files. When I have some time I may do some of the others, although I will probably use some decent synth sounds and upload audio files next time around. --Stephen Burnett 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman numerals & Major/Minor

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)

I suppose any major (Ionian) scale is meant. Now corrected. Also reverted to the small roman numerals for minor chords, which fits with this. −Woodstone (talk) 21:42, 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)

[edit] Analyze a rap song

Could somebody analyze the 82 second long rap song What They Hittin' Foe as an example... Jidanni (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] brain supplies examples

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)

[edit] Pictures?

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)