• 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.

What is this chord called?

#22
If I can indulge my desire to be right, instead of my desire to help someone out here for a paragraph: I think some of you guys missed a very important fact-the OP is clearly not someone who has benefitted from a really deep theory education. He is clearly writing by ear, and not thinking "I am going to leave out the 5th first because of the over-tones," or "This has all been tertian so far, so I am going to keep it that way." Both statements are examples of very college-theory-class thinking about harmony, which is a good way to think sometimes, and something that I have been through when I was in school, but often isn't very practical for applying to this kind of composition. (Neither do I support the student who constantly challenges the "right" way to make music in his theory class, it's all about context).

I'm not saying it's definitely a Esus(b9), or that it's not an Fmaj7/E, but I think looking at it from a functional point of view is much more likely to get a good answer. By functionality in this case, I am asking where is this chord coming from and where is it going. Onlyclave I have to strongly disagree with you, context has everything to with a chord name, if you are relating it the key, especially in this case with the way the notes are voiced. You may also have noticed that there are already several non-harmonic tones in play here.

I think the cluster idea, or some other more modern label is probably more likely, but the possiblity that this is acting as a V chord is not too unlikely.

Conical Johnson, I really don't usually go for the "do what you feel" answers that get bandied about TB all the time, but one thing to consider is that the only people who really need a label on the chord are people trying to play over the chord, or people trying to analyze the chord after the fact. All of the ideas that you've seen up here are good possiblities.

As far as the G#min. goes, you've used a borrowed tone for the D#, and you've stepped out of the key for a bit. It isn't going to have a label that exactly fits the "A minor" key. It is a minor vii chord in the easiest label, I think.
 
#23
Calebmundy said:
If I can indulge my desire to be right, instead of my desire to help someone out here for a paragraph: I think some of you guys missed a very important fact-the OP is clearly not someone who has benefitted from a really deep theory education. He is clearly writing by ear, and not thinking "I am going to leave out the 5th first because of the over-tones," or "This has all been tertian so far, so I am going to keep it that way." Both statements are examples of very college-theory-class thinking about harmony, which is a good way to think sometimes, and something that I have been through when I was in school, but often isn't very practical for applying to this kind of composition. (Neither do I support the student who constantly challenges the "right" way to make music in his theory class, it's all about context).
Click to expand...


College-theory answer or not, you're overlooking the point that the music came first and then the analysis. Whether the OP has that level of knowledge or not doesn't matter; the chord presented has a singular name and the other chords presented in his progression reinforce that fact.

When it comes to naming a chord its context has nothing to with its name. Take C major. That can be a tonic in C, a subdominant in G, dominant in F, V/V in Bb but it doesn't change the fact that it is still called a C major chord. If I invert it to E G C it is still a C major chord in first inversion but with no other supporting evidence such as the melody it cannot be analyzed as anything else such as G with double passing tones.

The question was "What is this chord with X Y Z notes" and the answer was given. If he wants a more concise answer more evidence should be presented.
 
#24
I still disagree, what's more, I posted this question to several of my friends who are working pros in Nashville, all of who have degrees in music, and they almost all came up with the different answers, including the Fmaj7, the Esusb9, and most commonly "it depends on where it's headed" The third as discussed is simply not strong enough to make a definite answer outside of listening-which is of course the real way to tell.

Two of the guys even suggested that it was a Amin/E with a passing tone.
 
#27
Calebmundy said:
I still disagree, what's more, I posted this question to several of my friends who are working pros in Nashville, all of who have degrees in music, and they almost all came up with the different answers, including the Fmaj7, the Esusb9, and most commonly "it depends on where it's headed" The third as discussed is simply not strong enough to make a definite answer outside of listening-which is of course the real way to tell.

Two of the guys even suggested that it was a Amin/E with a passing tone.
Click to expand...

So some of the Nashville guys assume all chords are in root position. If all music began on the root note we'd only have 9% of all the music we have now, right?

Am/E with a passing tone can't be analyzed with the information given. What can be analyzed is the third-based harmony based on the info the OP included, so the Esusb9 is still excluded unless we can see the melody with harmonic realization. Tertian + Sus4/2 chords = empty set.

Until then, Fmaj7, third inversion.
 
#30
Context? Are those the only three notes being sounded by the whole group at that time? What's right before it? What's right after it? Without those contextual clues, then it's all just academic ramblings. E and A seem to indicate a pretty solid root/fifth A with a flat 6. I like the simplicity of saying it's an Fmaj7 even with the 7th in the bass. But if there are other notes being played you gotta look at those three notes along with all the other notes being sounded.

And that Fmaj7 effect might be pretty solid if the chord before it is C7. But less so if the chord before it us E7.

jte
 
#31
Calebmundy said:
If I can indulge my desire to be right, instead of my desire to help someone out here for a paragraph: I think some of you guys missed a very important fact-the OP is clearly not someone who has benefitted from a really deep theory education. He is clearly writing by ear, and not thinking "I am going to leave out the 5th first because of the over-tones," or "This has all been tertian so far, so I am going to keep it that way." Both statements are examples of very college-theory-class thinking about harmony, which is a good way to think sometimes, and something that I have been through when I was in school, but often isn't very practical for applying to this kind of composition. (Neither do I support the student who constantly challenges the "right" way to make music in his theory class, it's all about context).

I'm not saying it's definitely a Esus(b9), or that it's not an Fmaj7/E, but I think looking at it from a functional point of view is much more likely to get a good answer. By functionality in this case, I am asking where is this chord coming from and where is it going. Onlyclave I have to strongly disagree with you, context has everything to with a chord name, if you are relating it the key, especially in this case with the way the notes are voiced. You may also have noticed that there are already several non-harmonic tones in play here.

I think the cluster idea, or some other more modern label is probably more likely, but the possiblity that this is acting as a V chord is not too unlikely.

Conical Johnson, I really don't usually go for the "do what you feel" answers that get bandied about TB all the time, but one thing to consider is that the only people who really need a label on the chord are people trying to play over the chord, or people trying to analyze the chord after the fact. All of the ideas that you've seen up here are good possiblities.
Click to expand...

+1

my experience with theory is that it is part logic, part convenience, and mostly convention. it USUALLY makes communicating easier, but there will always be gray areas (if not, music would have gone nowhere fast).

when i entered my too uptight music dept in college (way long ago) i was a folky gtr player who thought E, G, B-flat was an Edim chord. i was "set straight." in the context of the key of F it is a "V-0-7" chord. that is, a dominant seventh with an omitted root. had i analyzed it as "vii dim," i would have been marked wrong cause i would have been missing the purpose of the chord in context.

i think that the example of C-E-G always being a C maj chord is purposefully misleading. maybe it would be more accurate to debate C-E-G-A?

i can't render an opinion on the "chord" in question cause i don't have a piano in front of me. the A before and the G# after the E could give a strong dominant feel to that "chord" making the other notes (A,F) feel like suspensions. maybe the F gives off the impression of a flatted 6 of a i chord? and, of course, it could be a maj7. naming it off of theory conventions belittles (IMHO) what the music is trying to "say." and that, i believe, is the whole point.
 
#32
Calebmundy said:
the OP is clearly not someone who has benefitted from a really deep theory education.
Click to expand...

Ouch.

In a sense you are right, but I should say that none of this thread is over my head, and although it's true that these were not conscious decisions, the concepts of tertian harmony, commonality of overtones in fifths, etc. are all things with which I am quite familiar. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. The point here was not to get a "right" answer, but to be able to talk about the tune better with the musicians who will play it.
 
#36
Conical, your question was a pretty good one, actually. But you said the tonality to you is more of a min9 than a maj7. So you being the point man on this, you have made the determination that it's an Esus4(add b9). If it's a min9, then E has to be the root. So if someone argues it's a Fmaj7 3rd inv, they are basically telling you that your feelings on the matter don't count. And without further information about the chord than E,A,F, it comes down to feelings and the writer's intent. So you as the writer need to put your foot down and declare this thread to be ass.

Next song, stick to major and minor, please ;)
 
#37
Hmm, no, I'm going to have to disagree with that. Hearing people's thoughts on a subject doesn't shove my own out of my head, so I'm not really worried of getting too many opinions on a subject.

Plus, it's fun to have people debating my chord progression.
 
#39
JimmyM said:
Conical, your question was a pretty good one, actually. But you said the tonality to you is more of a min9 than a maj7. So you being the point man on this, you have made the determination that it's an Esus4(add b9). If it's a min9, then E has to be the root. So if someone argues it's a Fmaj7 3rd inv, they are basically telling you that your feelings on the matter don't count. And without further information about the chord than E,A,F, it comes down to feelings and the writer's intent. So you as the writer need to put your foot down and declare this thread to be ass.

Next song, stick to major and minor, please ;)
Click to expand...

I think you have a point there in a way. Actually, function will follow in analysis no matter what you call the chord. What is important is really expressing what the chord is rather than what it does. It will do what it does regardless of what it is called.

The other side of the coin is that knowing what it does, will ultimately give you a better understanding of how you can use it for future reference.
 
#40
I think what a lot of people here have been missing is the distinction between the voicing of a chord and the chord itself. You can voice chords all sorts of ways in all sorts of registers, and omit the notes in a variety of ways - for example, you can voice an Fmaj7 chord as F C E G, by ommiting the third and substituting a 9 to create an upper structure C major triad. You could voice it A D G C F (stacked fourths), which would omit the root (presumably played in a lower voice) and 7th and add the sixth and 9th. All sorts of possibilities, but the main thing is that whatever the voicing you have, the "idea" of the chord, or the general sound of the chord in the abstract, functional (or non-functional) sense is preserved. It SOUNDS like a tonic major 7 chord, it SOUNDS like an altered chord - the voicing may be divorced slightly from the literal tertian spelling.

This is where Calebmundy's desire for an understanding of the functional relationships of the chords in the progression comes in - knowing what happens within a certain progression will give context and therefore imply certain notes within an E A F voicing, which by itself is a triad that doesn't have an easy translation into the tertian language. Esus4 b9 (omit 5) seems way too literal - you have a hell of a lot more information than you need to describe three notes. However, if it were given context within a progression, you might be able to justify it with some other chord. It could be a voicing of G7 (just the b7, 9 and 13), it could be a voicing of Dmin7 (just the 9, 5 and b3), it could be a lot of things if there is greater context and an understanding of what others are playing.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back