Jump to content

Talk:Chord (music)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of notes in a chord

[edit]

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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andeggs (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonstandard. Note that the article contains no information on two note "chords". Hyacinth 09:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Diads, or diad chords

[edit]

It is easy to find mention of "diad chords" on the web. How much of that qualifies as reliable sourcing, I do not know. This was the first google hit just now. I have to disagree about two notes "being" the implied three note chord. What is strongly implied in the mind of one listener may be entirely absent in another's. While some instances may have a diad nailed into a solid cadence that admits no ambiguity, there will be other cases as well, where a variety of different chords may be implied by a single diad. Music, after all, must balance between familiarity and surprise, if it is to be at all interesting or engaging.

That the article is missing information on two-note chords merely means that information is yet to be added. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what makes the biggest difference as to whether a dyad will be perceived as a chord is whether or not it is part of a progression, or whether it is just two notes (context), and that a mandolin and banjo website would primarily be considering dyads as part of progressions. Hyacinth (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions here:
  • Are two notes perceived as a chord when heard?
As you say, it depends on context. I believe that context includes the level of musical experience on the part of the listener. Certainly a simultaneous pair of notes may be heard as concordant or dissonant, as a sound in itself, or as indicating a "fuller" chord. Sequential pairs of notes may or may not be heard as the beginnings of an arpeggio... for example, lots of major-mode tunes (in melodic traditions) end with a 1,3,1 sequence strongly implying the I chord, very often as part of a V, I cadential ending. (Where there is a chordal accompaniment to such tunes, it may very well vary from time to time, or among individual accompanists. Not uncommon for a C-E pair to suggest an A minor chord in one spot, and a C major chord in another, for example. For another example, in D major, an accidental natural C may be usually accompanied by a C major chord in one tune, and a D7 in another.)
I think the present question is better framed as:
  • May two notes be called a chord in discussion?
I think there is a case to be made for calling two notes a chord in some contexts. Various authors will differ. Some may insist that there must be at least three notes present, before calling any given sound a "chord," but diad or dyad chords are certainly spoken (and written) of as such. See also Power chord.
Seeing this (at the end of the section) is what prompted me to revisit this here. __Just plain Bill (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you all could cite a source or sources this discussion may have been over long ago. You may not cite Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a point in what you just typed? The sources are there for anyone who cares to go looking. There's one (Karolyi) right at the top of this section. What has "long ago" got to do with it, anyway? __Just plain Bill (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a copy of Karolyi in front of me, I'm reluctant to add the cite requested. Again, this needs to be addressed by someone who knows and cares, and has the time to spend on this. Off to practice my two-note chords double stops. __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether two notes can be called a chord seems to have stopped without resolution. On the article page it is currently (Nov. 2017) answered affirmatively. Is this the consensus of knowledgeable editors using good sources? If so, shouldn't there be a statement to that effect here? I see that the references cited are contradictory, one saying 2, the other 3. Kdammers (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution may be found in the article, where “set of pitches consisting of two or more (usually three) notes” has stood unchallenged for years now. (I got my hands on a copy of Karolyi’s book, and added that cite.) The text reflects what two differing reliable sources say. Now I will go change the parenthesis to “usually three or more” to reflect the Benward and Saker reference more clearly. Thanks for drawing attention to this. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

[edit]

The opening sentence of this article reads "A chord in music is any set of notes that is heard as if sounding simultaneously."

It then cites Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p. 67&359. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.

I own this book and can pledge that it specifically defines a chord as "three or more pitches sounding simultaneously."DaddyTwoFoot (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later in the article, Ottó Károlyi's Introducing Music is cited as saying, on page 63, that "Two or more notes sounding simultaneously are known as a chord." I have the 1982 Penguin printing of that book open in front of me now, and that is indeed what it says. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my point being that the opening sentence is an erroneous citation. The book does not match what this article states the book says. I'm aware that other sources say it is two or more pitches, and some say that it's three or more. This book says it's three or more, so any citation of it should reflect that.74.85.202.167 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is stopping you from fixing it. I haven't looked to see if broken or arpeggiated (un-simultaneous) chords are cited, but that seems uncontroversial enough. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The true definition of the chord.

[edit]

Unfortunately I see that many people confuse harmony with chords, harmony is produced when two or more sounds are played simultaneously, while chords are three or more different notes played simultaneously, a chord must necessarily have harmony for it to sound good and coherent. . and the melodies have to be in harmony with the chords (and vice versa) and with the bass etc. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hence the combination of two notes is called harmonic intervals Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you take me into account and can modify this definition to that a chord is the combination of three or more different notes or tones. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I've archived most of the history of this talk page stretching back to the early 2000s so we have room to chat here. I'll also courtesy ping @Just plain Bill if he wants to revisit arguments from decades past . Looking over our sources, I really do think we should have another look at this. Let's start out with what similar tertiary reference works have to say, then we'll look at what the article cites.
Chambers Dictionary of Music (2006)
chord
in music, a group of three or more notes sounded together.
Harvard Dictionary of Music (4th ed., 2003)
Chord
[Fr. accord; Ger. Akkord, Zusammenklang; It. accordo; Sp. acorde]. Three or more pitches sounded simultaneously or functioning as if sounded simultaneously; two such pitches are normally referred to as an interval.
Grove Music Online (2001)
Chord
The simultaneous sounding of two or more notes.
The Oxford Handbook of Critical Concepts in Music Theory (2021, p. 477)
A chord, then, is held to be the sum of its dyads, and we will classify dyads by their generic interval class.
Earlier, the Oxford Handbook makes a point I find clarifying for our purposes:

Dyads sit at the intersection of harmony and melody as separable elements within a musical texture. They are the minimal diachronic units extractable from a melodic line, and can imply a determinable harmonic\ identity, even without vertical stacking. As such, the various historical attempts to characterize intervals for the purpose of melodic pedagogy typically assume a harmonic context.

Given the meaning that is put on the distinction between interval / dyad as a potentially melodic or harmony-independent phenomenon—an object that has its own article, it bears emphasizing—and a chord as a fully harmonic phenomenon in most of these sources and others, I think we should seriously reconsider adjusting our definition. I think there's a much clearer distinction made between intervals / dyads and chords in sources than the article presently articulates. Remsense ‥ 论 04:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, we have to reconsider the definition, it is a good opportunity to put an end to certain confusions and for those who really want to learn to feel satisfied. Thank you Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure yet, but this is how I'm leaning. I would appreciate some more folks to give this a fresh look, as it's kind of been a while since the last real discussion—longer than I thought. Remsense ‥ 论 05:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
remsense, even the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries say that chords are at least three tones or notes or more and furthermore, even the Enclyclopaedia britannica has that same definition. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (MacMillan, 1980, Vol. 4, p.339) says a chord is "The simultaneous sounding of two or more notes." Just plain Bill (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brothers, also analyze this: In music, a chord is a group of two or more notes played simultaneously, generally consisting of a root note, a third and a fifth. They then had to give an example of just two notes and not three as reflected here, unfortunately they are biased but I will not go into this page anymore because it is a plate of confusion. Try to research from updated sources and stop the nonsense. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also investigate the difference between harmonic interval and chord and you will realize that everything has evolved for the better. I believe that this difference is clear in many important books. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, I cited that above. I think there's a plausible case both in source coverage and theoretical meaning to change the definition we use.Remsense ‥ 论 21:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change the definition to what? Proposed example text would be useful here. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the number of notes from two to three would be the main thrust of it, I suppose. Like I noted above, there's significant diversity in sources but most treat a chord as being at least three notes, with a meaningful distinction made between chords and dyads / intervals. Remsense ‥ 论 11:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead's second paragraph acknowledges that triads are "the most frequently encountered chords" in Western tonal music. Still, excluding two-note chords (e.g. in the Haydn quartet cadence mentioned above) from wikivoice's definition is IMO unencyclopedic, if an encyclopedia is meant to be a comprehensive collection of knowledge.

We should not be in the business of dismissing reliable sources such as Grove and Karolyi, just because they do not conform to somebody's "true definition."

For lagniappe, consider the population of dyads in a dominant seventh chord of four notes, including a tritone between the third and the flat seventh. When an accidental flat seventh appears in a melody line, it can mildly imply such a seventh chord. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Bill, we have to represent the majority view in reliable sources, this is a very basic point made in WP:NPOV. There's a real difference there: the majority view is not "the most common type of chords have 3 or more notes", it's seemingly "chords are defined as having 3 or more notes, and dyads are functionally something else". We can and should mention the very real view that dyads are sometimes considered chords, but we have to present it as a minority view, and not assume it in wikivoice.Remsense ‥ 论 13:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, the first sentence used to say something like "two, usually three". I would not object to "three, sometimes two". I do not see an overwhelming majority in primary or secondary sources one way or another.
Once more, with feeling: proposed replacement text will be useful. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of two notes in music is called an interval. An interval can be melodic, if the notes are played successively, or harmonic, if they are played simultaneously. Although some musicians call the combination of two notes a chord, this causes confusion, since a chord is traditionally defined as a combination of three or more notes. 38.44.17.82 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A two-note chord cannot form a complete harmonic unit, therefore it is not considered a chord if there is no harmonic interval. And the simultaneous combinations (and I am not talking about chords or harmonic intervals) have their name according to the number of notes that sound at the same time, for example: the combination of two notes is called dyads, those of three triads, those of four . , quadriads, fives, quintiahs, and so on. So from here arise what to call the combinations of sounds or notes, now defining the harmonic intervals (two notes) and the chords (three or more notes).
And I am basing it not just on my knowledge, but on the truth. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that everything moves forward and nothing is going to be left behind in what some musician said or will say, since to make a decision like the topic we are dealing with, the definition of a chord requires the analysis of experts in this matter. case in the area of ​​music, which by the way have already evaluated and worked on it, they came up with the true definition of what exactly a chord is. Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here I have more sources that say that a chord is a set of 3 or more,
and all these definitions are all from very, very reliable sources:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chord
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/chord
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chord
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/chord
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/chord
https://www.britannica.com/art/chord-music
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/chord
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/chord-vs-cord
https://www.yourdictionary.com/chord
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/chord
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=chord
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsFTVLl-IVc
https://www.fender.com/articles/chords/what-is-a-chord
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/chord Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definitions can be imprecise, especially for technical terms of art. See Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I've only cited domain-specific music/musicological reference works. @Just plain Bill, I've been trying to provide a starting point for changing the lead and will let you know. Remsense ‥ 论 00:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resemse do it,even Wiktionary says that a chord is the combination of three or more notes. It can be considered that a chord, for example, can omit a note or something like that but not say that it is a set of two notes. 38.44.17.82 (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, even Wiktionary? Wiktionary is user-generated, and hence not a source to be considered. I'm trying to write a description that communicates (a) a chord is a group of notes sounded simultaneously (b) chords are usually considered to have at least three notes, but (c) a minority also include dyads as chords Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Revising the Definition of "Chord" on Wikipedia

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia team,

I would like to propose a suggestion for revising the definition of "chord" on your corresponding entry. Currently, it states that a chord is a combination of "two or more notes." However, this definition can be confusing and does not accurately reflect traditional music theory.

In music theory, a chord is specifically defined as a combination of three or more notes that create a harmonic structure. Combinations of only two notes are considered intervals and do not meet the technical definition of a chord. This distinction is important to avoid misunderstandings among musicians and music students.

I suggest that the definition be revised to more accurately reflect music theory by specifying that a chord consists of three or more notes, while combinations of two notes should be classified as intervals. This clarification would help improve understanding and the use of musical terminology.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you will consider this suggestion. Sincerely, [Pedro A. Ramirez] Pedro alberto ramirez (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chord_(music)&oldid=1254212643"