We don't have a special word for 5 or more notes, or 894 or more notes.
Why have a special word for 3 or more notes?
"Because we just do, OK" is not a good enough answer, because we are free to change the meanings of words, and change them we do.
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.
Have scales ruined music?
- Thread starter Manuel101
- Start date
We don't have a special word for 5 or more notes, or 894 or more notes.
Why have a special word for 3 or more notes?
"Because we just do, OK" is not a good enough answer, because we are free to change the meanings of words, and change them we do.
You do know that all chords are major or minor? So tell me, is that C5 major or minor? You can't tell, because there is not enough information provided to define a chord. So, C5 is not a chord. Nice try.
3 is the magic number. Don't you remember schoolhouse rock?
If you play the 1 and 5, the brain assumes the 3. if you play the 1 and 3 (or any other note) the brain assumes the 5.
Just like you need 3 numbers to define a position or direction in 3 dimensional space, you need 3 notes to define a chord. If you don't have it then the brain assumes the simplest and most obvious.
2 notes together is an interval or a doublestop. 3 is a chord, more than 3 is a chord with specific additional tones to further define the flavor.
But rest assured, 3 is the magic number.
Not in the musical world I live in... there are open 5th chords, sus2, sus4....
according to the way I and many others use the word 'chord', it's neither. Just an open fifth with its own sound.
The only thing I'm trying to do is ask: what's so special about 3 notes? You don't seem very interested in that conversation, so let's stop there.
"change them we"
Is that a sentence? No, more information is needed. Same with chords.
What I wrote follows a recognised grammar pattern in English.
other examples:
"if he is guilty, then kill him we must."
"He said we would steal it, and steal it we shall"
No more than gravity has ruined trampolines. Knowledge of scales enable the musical spirit to speak. Knowledge of scales cannot replace a musical spirit, though.
Turock said:
Well, AFAIK if a letter/numeral is capital it means its a major..
So if you see a C on a chord change you'll just play C? It has no 3rd and fifth too.. That doesn't sound right and reasonable..
OK, but "change them we" on it's own is not a sentence. Neither are notes C and G a chord. By your logic, one note should be chord. Why two?
I through with this. We are hijacking someone's thread. You are right about sus chords being neither major nor minor.
Mine doesn't - at least not in many contexts. I love open fifths for what they are. In other contexts, where it's a common chord progression, then yes. But that's a cultural understanding, not some kind of fundamental basis of music IMO.
But why would the simplest thing be to make things up that aren't there? Wouldn't the most obvious thing be to just hear what there is?
Of course if you break down the harmonic structure of each note, it probably is true that for some chords you can take one note out and still find that partials exist at many of the same frequencies as those of the missing note, so the brain might be fooled some of the time...
On a very basic level, the 1-3-5-7 are the critical notes of a chord. The 3 gives the basic major or minor (natural 3 vs. flat 3). The 7 provides the major or dominant voicing (natural 7 vs. flat 7). The other notes are typically played as connecting or leading notes.
Again - on a basic level!
Because our brains are fooled by things very often. You are familiar with optical illusions are you not? Of course some illusions work on certain people better than others. The ones that mess with proportions of lines don't fool me much, but the color ones and after image effects get me every time.
In music, our brains tend to produce what's missing if it isn't presented to us. There are bass players that are very into detuning strings to the point where speakers and amplifiers cannot even reproduce those notes accurately, but our brains hear the harmonic overtones and fill in the missing fundamental. Some of these players even "think" they can hear that low. All I can say is how would you know what your ears are actually hearing when it's being interpreted to you by your own brain.
The fundamental is reproduced because it is the simplest and most obvious waveform. Because the major 3rd is a more simple waveform than the minor 3rd when presented with root-5, that is the one that tends to be assumed. UNLESS, perhaps enough of the musical piece has been presented or remembered by the brain in a key where a minor 3rd would be more harmonious to the overall music. But few composers would use a C5 where C minor is intended.
Maybe we should define a chord as 2 intervals or more?
Let's not worry about the word 'chord' any more - You're happy using it your way, I'm happy using it my way (And I'm happy with you using it your way, and as I said from the off, I know many others do too...)
But the big difference between one note and two is...
With one note, there is a succession of harmonic partials that are all multiples of a fundamental frequency. The ear is designed to recognise this relationship as something that happens when 'a thing' is vibrating at its various modes of resonance, and hears it as 'a sound'. (I know that this is a gross simplification, and not true of all instruments, but it is a close enough description of how most western instruments work).
With two notes, the full set of harmonic partials that the ear hears is no longer based on a single fundamental. So, normally, the ear can "do the math", work out which partials belong to which 'cause', and hear two notes.
And yet, if those notes are related by a simple enough frequency ratio, as chosen by a composer (or a 'scale designer'), there will be a number of sequences of evenly spaced partials within the overall set. So if we have a note at 1000 Hz and one at 1500 Hz, then the ear can pick those out. But hey, we also have many multiples of 750, and 500, that are strong as they're present in both our original sequences. What's the inner ear to tell the brain? Thankfully, it hedges its bets, and we get the beautiful sensation not just of two separate notes, or 3 or four, but of harmony.
3 notes extends the effect further, as does 4, as does 5 - but the jump from 'a sound' to harmony is made as soon as you introduce that second note.
So for me, 2 is the magic number. Which doesn't mean I don't appreciate more... I've been listening to Steely Dan all week.
Kinda, but if we keep going I think we might meet in the middle somewhere...
Hearing the missing fundamental is a fairly basic psychoacoustic effect - the ear takes the lowest common multiple of the partials it can hear. It's a survival mechanism that allows you to tell a mammoth from a dragonfly...
Sure, so I can see why hearing a missing musical 3rd in an open fifth might happen for some people (Though I think you want to say 'lowest partial' or 'lowest harmonic', rather than 'simplest waveform') but I just don't usually hear it that way myself. I hear an open 5th as an open 5th.
There is a difference between a partial at a frequency, and a whole harmonic series based on that frequency, which is what would have to be imagined if the brain were to really hear a 'missing note', rather than just hear a harmonic as a natural part of the series that is there.
Not sure if thinking of the overtone series would help me improvise... hmm, maybe I should try it!
You should use whatever note sounds good...
I think what CK means, and anyone who talks about chord tones over scales, is that by only thinking of scales you could be doing 2 things:
Ignoring the most important notes (this is true for harmony & melody)
Excluding a few useful notes (b9, b5, bluesy ambiguity of a minor 3rd over a major chord etc).
There is not Db or Eb in a Gmaj but attacking the 5th from a half-step below or above might make good music.
Oh no you Di'UNT! Did you just correct me for not using the correct term for what I was describing, while simultaneously arguing against using the correct term for something else?
Sorry, this isn't true. An encyclopedic definition first:
Chord: The simultaneous sounding of two or more notes.
Source: The Norton/Grove Concise Encyclopedia of Music, 1994, S.Sadie, ed. p.162
Three is the minimum # of notes necessary to define a triad. Not the same thing at all. Two note chords (dyads) are commonly recognized by music theorists.
GT
