Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
BASS CHORDS
- Thread starter gareth
- Start date
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,409
- 9,868
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Actually, if you read Chris' post, he quite clearly says that two note chords are called diads. Read that again. Two note chords.
I know where you're going on this - that you can't 'name' a two note chord. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.
We're arguing symantics here. And you've begun to bore me.
Well, if a two-note chord exists then surely it must have a name. I'm still waiting for you to name one. While you're at it, see if you can come up with a one-noter, and please type it real slow.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,409
- 9,868
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,409
- 9,868
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
My logic is broken? Your's doesn't exist. You claim two notes can make a chord, I give you two notes and ask you what chord it makes. You can't tell me, and we both know why... you need at least three notes.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,409
- 9,868
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Again, little words make a big difference. Try this:
A chord may be defined as two notes.
A chord may be defined by two notes.
You have to look really hard, but did you spot the difference? One sentence defines the word "chord". The other (a false statement) refers to the naming practices in functional harmony.
Trust me, my logic is fine. You are operating from a paradigm that supposes all chords must be able to be named by a western chord symbol.
I'm not going to post on this anymore. I'll let my posts (good or bad) speak for themselves. To Gareth, I'll say - play two notes, play three notes, play four notes. Experiment. If you play close intervals (2nds, 3rds), try spacing them out over several octaves to avoid violating lower interval limits. Experiment. Have fun, and dig the sounds your making.
And never let anyone tell you that playing two notes at the same time isn't playing a chord.
All semantic nitpicking aside, a two-note harmonic structure is a "chord" if you intend it to function as one and use it in a harmonically functional manner. I think the standard definition of a chord as three or more notes stems from the long western tradition of triadic harmony - in that context, it takes three notes to form a complete chord. However, having said that, I could (if I cared to waste the time) cite hundreds and possibly thousands of examples from the classical repertoire in which the final cadential harmony of a symphony or sonata consists only of the root and third of the final "I" (or "i") chord. Clearly, the composers who practiced this cadence - people like Mozart, Beethoven, Clementi, Scarlatti, etc. - intended for it to be heard as a chord. Either way, call it what you want, it's no skin off my backside. 
As one who teaches music theory at a university for about half of my living, I consider (and teach) that more than one simultaneous sounding note constitutes a "harmony", and therefore can be called a "chord". "Diad" is the technically correct term, but again, this is semantics as everyone knows what you mean when you use either descriptive. The reason I like this expanded definition of what constitutes a "chord" is that in embraces and encompasses all styles and genres, including but not limited to the so-called "classical" period of western harmony. It was quite common in medieval times to encounter two-voice polyphony, and few would argue that that music was "non-harmonic". Likewise, once you get past about 1900 or 1910, the notion of traditional "chords" pretty much gets thrown out with the bathwater (at least among the cutting edge composers).
But like I said, if anyone wants to belabor the point further, I wouldn't dream of stopping you.
As one who teaches music theory at a university for about half of my living, I consider (and teach) that more than one simultaneous sounding note constitutes a "harmony", and therefore can be called a "chord". "Diad" is the technically correct term, but again, this is semantics as everyone knows what you mean when you use either descriptive. The reason I like this expanded definition of what constitutes a "chord" is that in embraces and encompasses all styles and genres, including but not limited to the so-called "classical" period of western harmony. It was quite common in medieval times to encounter two-voice polyphony, and few would argue that that music was "non-harmonic". Likewise, once you get past about 1900 or 1910, the notion of traditional "chords" pretty much gets thrown out with the bathwater (at least among the cutting edge composers).
But like I said, if anyone wants to belabor the point further, I wouldn't dream of stopping you.
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
You can get three or more simulataneous notes from those two strings because of second overtone, the fifth is in there.
Well, I'm sure that the whole controversy could easily be solved if someone would simply state the chord that can be made from a C note and a G note. Is it a C chord, is it major, minor, etc...? Correct me if I am wrong, but a chord can't be defined without at least one more note.
I see that all the time in modern guitar literature. I suppose the popular name for it is a "power chord", but you'll find it in current guitar notation defined by a simple "5", as in "E5", "G5", "Bb5" etc. Like most notation, this chordal notation practice grew out of nothing more than a need to express exactly and succinctly a type of harmony that was an integral part of the music. Don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about using these chords in what has become the conventional manner (which is to say, like a sledgehammer) - but I also can't deny that the perfect fifth is an extremely useful interval, and has its place when the music calls for it. In a way, it's a very useful type of sonority for the precise reason that it does not tie you down to either Major, minor, or Dominant, rather leaving the space to be guessed at by the listener.
This chord, albeit having been used extensively as a bludgeon by the type of musician who likes to put lots of skulls on his album covers, is in reality nothing more than an infant whose gender is concealed beneath a diaper...you can't tell if it's a boy or a girl, but it's pretty damn cute either way.
....Gee, wonder where that analogy came from?
OK, I concede. But I will note that it wasn't taught when I was taking college level music courses, and I'll bet it's not taught today either, and I'll also bet that you don't teach it.
Actually, I give it a mention over the course of a multi semester theory section, as I think it's important that students taking traditional theory classes learn to interpret popular chord-symbol notation. To that end, they are required to analyze classical music in both "dialects":
1) Roman numerals with traditional figured bass inversion information under the excerpt; and
2) Chord symbol notation over the excerpt. In this case, all inversions are written out as "fractions" (Cma/G, F/A, etc.).
When you get down to it, both languages convey the same basic meaning - it's just that one is key-specific and one is not.
Music sounds the same whether you call particular two-note bits of it diads or chords. Why care? It's not as if you derive any deeper understanding of music from the distinction.
I've seen the use of various selections of root and fifth in organ music, too. No chord name or label of any kind attached though - just note values, which is quite instructive in terms of what's musically important, isn't it?
I've seen the use of various selections of root and fifth in organ music, too. No chord name or label of any kind attached though - just note values, which is quite instructive in terms of what's musically important, isn't it?
Back to the original question (and, FWIW, I'm on the 'two notes can reasonably be regarded as a chord, certainly when the harmonic function can be implied by the context of either the surrounding notes or the music being produced by the rest of the ensemble' school)...
One of the factors affecting playing multiple notes at the same time on the bass is that the lower the pitch of those notes, the more 'muddy' they sound. For that reason, bass chording tends to be done with higher notes and often with just a couple of notes sounded at the same time.
It's worth learning chord theory to the level that you can name the notes used to form a given chord - for example, Dm7 = D (root), F (minor third), A (perfect fifth) and C (flattened seventh). Now experiment with just playing two or three of those notes together.
You don't necessarily have to include the D, especially if someone else will be playing it at the same time or you've already implied it before or after. Indeed, the 'jazziest' combinations would be F & C (or C & F), as the third and seventh are what gives the chord most of its 'colour'.
You could also experiment with playing the D string open and then playing your chosen second note somewhere high on the G string - or maybe adding a third note from the chord on the E or A string.
Wulf
One of the factors affecting playing multiple notes at the same time on the bass is that the lower the pitch of those notes, the more 'muddy' they sound. For that reason, bass chording tends to be done with higher notes and often with just a couple of notes sounded at the same time.
It's worth learning chord theory to the level that you can name the notes used to form a given chord - for example, Dm7 = D (root), F (minor third), A (perfect fifth) and C (flattened seventh). Now experiment with just playing two or three of those notes together.
You don't necessarily have to include the D, especially if someone else will be playing it at the same time or you've already implied it before or after. Indeed, the 'jazziest' combinations would be F & C (or C & F), as the third and seventh are what gives the chord most of its 'colour'.
You could also experiment with playing the D string open and then playing your chosen second note somewhere high on the G string - or maybe adding a third note from the chord on the E or A string.
Wulf
I think it's an endless arguement on what constitutes a chord. I go by my brain and ear instead of a dictionary definition that leaves no area for thought.
If I play 2 notes together, it definately sounds like a chord to me because my brain fills in for the missing notes.
If I play 2 notes together, it definately sounds like a chord to me because my brain fills in for the missing notes.
