Fantasy chords? Naming Them - A Generator Anywhere?
Pat
or may not be conventional chords. Possibly they are fantasy chords.
I would like to know if there is a chord generator on the internet
that works backwards from the usual chord generators that you see
where you can type in the fret numbers and it will tell you what to
name that chord when you type in above in your compositions.
Do you know what I mean? In most chord generators you would enter, for
example, that you are looking for A7 and it would give you a list of
numbers that include among other things [353263], but I would like one
where you enter your set of fret numbers [abcdef] and through some
convention or protocols it names the chord or gives some alternate
names for it. Does anything like that exist already somewhere, and if
so, where? Thanks
Pat
Tom Lippincott
I think by far the best "chord generator" is your brain. It's not that
complicated; the system for naming chords is based on the major scale; Root is
the main note, then there's 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. A basic 7th chord is
constructed from R, 3, 5 and 7. You raise the 2nd, 4th, and 6th up an octave
to get 9th, 11th and 13th. Anything else is an alteration of or variation on
that. I recently had to write charts for some of my tunes that use some pretty
chromatic harmonies and I just used the above logic as best I could; the
weirdest (or most potentially confusing to the person reading the chart) thing
I came up with was a minor/major chord where a chord contained both a major and
minor third but clearly the flat 3 wasn't a sharp 9. I also wrote out the
chords in standard notation though, to avoid any possible confusion.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
jsim...@ultranet.com
point-and-click on the fret postitions and then tell you the name of
the resulting chord. I've fooled around with the demo (which seems
fully functional) but I haven't bought it. It's available at
http://www.chordwizard.com. Hope it's what you're after....
Jeff
Patrick L.
Mechanical means of naming chord is a haphazard affair at best.
I was playing one of fancy digital pianos, which had an LCD screen
naming the chords as I played them, sometimes wrong, not knowing a
damn thing about context. For example, it said I was playing Bm7b5,
and even though, technically correct, it was contextually wrong
which is the same as a simple 'wrong') since I was playing a G9, I
just didn't play the root.
Patrick L.
Pat <taci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a57b4243.02030...@posting.google.com...
Joe Finn
such software exists it may not serve you as well as you might think and
could only confuse things. If you bring me into the studio and put chord
symbols in front of me you are basically saying that the interpretation is
up to me. If you have composed something where specific voicings are
required then they should be notated on the staff. This is the way things
are clarified [or should I say documented] in music.
BIAB has a midi chord detection function that works backwards. You play a
voicing via midi and it offers you a range of standard nomenclature options.
You have to realize however that the whole chord symbol thing will only take
you so far. If you have seen any of the "name that chord" threads on this
newsgroup you will know what I'm talking about. These threads are hysterical
and entertaining but are also definitive statements regarding the
limitations of our current system of chord symbols. Chord symbols lose
their utility in direct proportion to increasingly complex harmonies.
One of the things I find myself doing from time to time is working with song
writers who don't know how to get their music down on paper. For rehearsals,
recordings and copyrighting you will want to have a good accurate
representation of your composition on paper. You can probably find a
musician in your area to do this but be prepared to pay by the hour.
.............joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
"Pat" <taci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a57b4243.02030...@posting.google.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
taci...@earthlink.net
>
>
> One of the things I find myself doing from time to time is working with song
> writers who don't know how to get their music down on paper. For rehearsals,
> recordings and copyrighting you will want to have a good accurate
> representation of your composition on paper. You can probably find a
> musician in your area to do this but be prepared to pay by the hour.
> .............joe
Joe, thanks for your response. Part of my daily personal practice
involves transcription and, when possible, original compositions. Some
of the chords I create I have tried to look up but don't fit the mold,
that is, they don't seem to be on any of the lists I've been able to
look up in any keys, ergo my term "fantasy chords," should I make a
chord diagram? What would someone paid by the hour make of a [x44679] ?
Pat
Joe Finn
move on.
x44679 if understand what you mean is Db Gb Db Gb Db. Some people wouldn't
call this a chord because only two tones are present. Assigning a chord
symbol would be meaningless. ....joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
D.Stearns
I thought you might be interested to know that the Cuban composer Enrique
Ubieta has based his whole concept of "bimodalism" on that very chord that
combines a major and minor triad of the same tonic! If you're familiar with
something like Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience" and its use of tonal
lattices, then I think you could illustrate this rather poetically as a
combined overtone and undertone chord--that is a 4:5:6 and a 1/(6:5:4)
combined.
Anyway, I like this chord. It's an interesting, pungent sonority, and I
thought you might be interested to know that someone out there actually
bases a whole theoretical approach on that very chord! (Ubieta has a very
good feel for the guitar incidentally, very similar to Leo Brower in that
respect, and I know one of the bimodal guitar pieces which he sent me has
been preformed by Manuel Barrueco and some others.)
take care,
--Dan Stearns
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020303160212...@mb-ce.aol.com...
Tom Lippincott
>Hi Tom,
>
>I thought you might be interested to know that the Cuban composer Enrique
>Ubieta has based his whole concept of "bimodalism" on that very chord that
>combines a major and minor triad of the same tonic! If you're familiar with
>something like Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience" and its use of tonal
>lattices, then I think you could illustrate this rather poetically as a
>combined overtone and undertone chord--that is a 4:5:6 and a 1/(6:5:4)
>combined.
>
>Anyway, I like this chord. It's an interesting, pungent sonority, and I
>thought you might be interested to know that someone out there actually
>bases a whole theoretical approach on that very chord! (Ubieta has a very
>good feel for the guitar incidentally, very similar to Leo Brower in that
>respect, and I know one of the bimodal guitar pieces which he sent me has
>been preformed by Manuel Barrueco and some others.)
>
>
>take care,
>
>--Dan Stearns
Thanks for the info, Dan. I've played a few of Leo Brower's pieces, and I
remember hearing some of those types of sounds.
taci...@earthlink.net
I see what you mean. I liked the sound of it, though. I guess its kind
of a redundant power chord of sorts. I was looking for a certain voicing
and came up with this. That's what leads me into seeking my own chords
sometimes my fingers just start seeking out the sound I'm looking for or
listening for. Aren't the rules subject to some bending? Appreciate the
answer. Pat
taci...@earthlink.net
Thanks for the response. I'm pretty new to this and hope to learn to do
what you've suggested. Frankly, I'm a little confused by the suggestion
of the Root. In creating some of the chords I have termed "fantasy
chords" I would not be certain which note would be the Root note since
none is the "key" note or tonic note, and in that case, how do I
determine the root? (I know you're going to send me to my scale but I
feel that I can use notes from other scales, or outside the scale, isn't
this so?) Pat
Pat
Joe Finn
news:3C856BFD...@earthlink.net...
>
> I see what you mean. I liked the sound of it, though. I guess its kind
> of a redundant power chord of sorts. I was looking for a certain voicing
> and came up with this. That's what leads me into seeking my own chords
> sometimes my fingers just start seeking out the sound I'm looking for or
> listening for. Aren't the rules subject to some bending? Appreciate the
> answer. Pat
I like the sound of it too. The main point is that not everything you
compose will lend itself to the conventions of chord nomenclature. Standard
notation will give you the precise sort of specificity you are looking for.
The conventions or "rules" of notation get bent all the time. The trouble is
that this is frequently what stops a productive rehearsal or other session
dead in it's tracks. It will be hard enough to bring a group of players
together to run through some of your compositions without wasting people's
time with music that is not correctly notated. Spend the extra time in
preparation to make certain that every note is exactly where you want it.
This makes for a smooth session and the musicians will appreciate it.
...........joe
Tom Lippincott
>Thanks for the response. I'm pretty new to this and hope to learn to do
>what you've suggested. Frankly, I'm a little confused by the suggestion
>of the Root. In creating some of the chords I have termed "fantasy
>chords" I would not be certain which note would be the Root note since
>none is the "key" note or tonic note, and in that case, how do I
>determine the root? (I know you're going to send me to my scale but I
>feel that I can use notes from other scales, or outside the scale, isn't
>this so?) Pat
>Pat
well if all else fails, just make the lowest note the root.
Here is an example;
I just made up a chord that I've never played before and have no idea what I'd
call it off the top of my head. Here it is;
E; 6th string, open
C#; 5th string, 4th fret
F; 4th string, 3rd fret
A; 3rd string, 2nd fret
D#; 2nd string, 4th fret
G#; 1st string, 4th fret
Since E is the lowest note in the chord I'm going to call it the Root. First
of all lets see if we can make some sort of a scale out of these notes;
E, F, G#, A, C#, D#
now let's compare that to the E major scale;
E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D#
So right away that tells me something interesting; there's only ONE note in
this chord that falls outside of the E major scale. So it would be fairly easy
to say that this is some sort of E major chord (there's a G#; natural 3rd, a
D#, natural 7th, and the upper extension/color tones of 11, A, and 13, C#) but
with a flat 9 (the F). So this chord could be;
Emaj13(nat11, b9)
notice I said natural 11; in common practice it's uncommon to use a natural 11
on a major 7 chord (usually if an 11th is used it will be sharp; the natural 11
tends to obscure the sound of "major" or "home")
One other thing that occurs to me as I look at this group of notes on the
guitar is that if I take away the E, the notes form a somewhat familiar shape
to me that is from the F# melodic minor scale, so I could conceivably call it
F#m/maj7(6/9)
___________
E
Incidentally, in college one of my teachers used to call the 7th mode of
melodic minor "Ionian #1." That's interesting given our situation; it's like
an E major scale with a sharped root, but with the "regular" root left on the
bottom as the lowest note of the chord. Anyway, whatever you call it, if you
expect someone else to play it, since it's not a typical commonly played chord
it would probably be best to write out the notes as well, at least as a guide.
Stanley Jordan
We end up looking for computer software because the complexity of
naming is uncomfortable for our brains. Yet when we hear these
"strange" chords, they often have a very distinctive and quite musical
sound. So the ear does the analysis just fine. It's just that the
brain stumbles due to a cumbersome language and notation.
This whole idea of building up chords in stacked thirds based on the
major scale and then altering or deleting tones as needed is perfectly
adequate for most common music, but as soon as you start getting away
from that into more "outside" domains, that old system becomes a
hindrance.
There are 4095 combinations of tones within the chromatic scale (4096
if you count silence). But the major scale only contains 127
combinations (or 128 if you count silence). Why should we have to bend
and stretch 128 things to get 4096? Why not start with all 4096, then
then simplify by classifying those possibilities based on natural,
hearable, structural patterns and relationships?
The standard system looks at the chromatic world through
ionian-colored glasses, thus introducing distortions.
Of course I still use the standard system, but I also use a chromatic
system based on modulo 12 arithmetic. I discovered this in the 1970s,
but I can't claim to be the first. Milton Babbitt has been using this
system since the 1960s. It works especially well for "weird" music.
You can read more about it in a book called "The Structure of Atonal
Music," by Allen Forte. My only disagreement is that he excludes
certain cardinalites, such as 1-note and 2-note combinations. Other
than that my system goes in some other directions, but the basic idea
is the same.
BTW, I have written software that does the type of analysis you're
asking about, using the chromatic system. But it's often unnecessary,
because the chromatic system simplifies things to where you can do it
quickly enough in your head.
-Stanley Jordan
> >
> >I have trouble naming chords I make up for my compositions. They may
> >or may not be conventional chords. Possibly they are fantasy chords.
> >
> >I would like to know if there is a chord generator on the internet
> >that works backwards from the usual chord generators that you see
> >where you can type in the fret numbers and it will tell you what to
> >name that chord when you type in above in your compositions.
> >
Mark Kleinhaut
s...@stanleyjordan.com (Stanley Jordan) wrote:
>I think the problem is that we are using a somewhat outdated system.
>We end up looking for computer software because the complexity of
>naming is uncomfortable for our brains. Yet when we hear these
>"strange" chords, they often have a very distinctive and quite musical
>sound. So the ear does the analysis just fine. It's just that the
>brain stumbles due to a cumbersome language and notation.
>
I agree with the point that our ears can do just fine attaching identities
to the chords we hear, and one will hear the distinctions more clearly, the
more time spent doing this. Hearing weierd chords and voicing is a matter
of ear training, like anything else.
The jazz shorthand of chord symbols indeed leaves a great deal open to interpretation
by the player (which is in some ways part of its attraction), but clearly
standard notation covers us when chord symbols fail to convey the reguired
chord, especially if its weird, ambiguous or oddly voiced for a certain effect
intended by the composer. For my compositions, I'll just use standard notation
when it's "that" specific. Other times, I intentionally enjoy the ambiguity
as other introduce their own unique vocabularies as they process what I've
written.
>This whole idea of building up chords in stacked thirds based on the
>major scale and then altering or deleting tones as needed is perfectly
>adequate for most common music, but as soon as you start getting away
>from that into more "outside" domains, that old system becomes a
>hindrance.
>
I don't disagree with this, but isn't this going off on a tangent now, albeit
an interesting one?
>There are 4095 combinations of tones within the chromatic scale (4096
>if you count silence). But the major scale only contains 127
>combinations (or 128 if you count silence). Why should we have to bend
>and stretch 128 things to get 4096? Why not start with all 4096, then
>then simplify by classifying those possibilities based on natural,
>hearable, structural patterns and relationships?
>
Sounds like fun with math, but how is this relating to the music? At this
point, a new system would have little application to where this conversation
started out, that is; dealing with standard chord symbolic notation. Are
we now talking about theory systems for use in composing?
Again, if the intent is to use a shorthand to convey compositional intent,
the backstop to chord symbols would be standard notation. For guitarists,
there is of course that remaing extra layer of dealing with fingerings, but
for that we have things like tab and picto-grids.
>The standard system looks at the chromatic world through
>ionian-colored glasses, thus introducing distortions.
>
>Of course I still use the standard system, but I also use a chromatic
>system based on modulo 12 arithmetic. I discovered this in the 1970s,
>but I can't claim to be the first. Milton Babbitt has been using this
>system since the 1960s. It works especially well for "weird" music.
>
What do you do with this? It sounds like a tool for composing, but can it
have any application to naming chords? And even if it does, it won't solve
the problems of communication to the other musician what you're looking for
unless they get fully conversant in the system too. How practical is that?
Sometimes it's just simpler to say "hey, just do like this":)
>You can read more about it in a book called "The Structure of Atonal
>Music," by Allen Forte. My only disagreement is that he excludes
>certain cardinalites, such as 1-note and 2-note combinations. Other
>than that my system goes in some other directions, but the basic idea
>is the same.
>
>BTW, I have written software that does the type of analysis you're
>asking about, using the chromatic system. But it's often unnecessary,
>because the chromatic system simplifies things to where you can do it
>quickly enough in your head.
>
>-Stanley Jordan
>
Interesting discussion points. I'm not really a theory buff, though I've
downed enough of it so that it all makes sense. I think we agree that it
all starts and ends with the ears.
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Joey Goldstein
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Dan Adler
> There are 4095 combinations of tones within the chromatic scale (4096
> if you count silence). But the major scale only contains 127
> combinations (or 128 if you count silence). Why should we have to bend
> and stretch 128 things to get 4096? Why not start with all 4096, then
Stanley,
Can you explain what you mean by 4095 combinations of tones? There are
12*11 combinations of 2 tones (ordered) or divide by 2 if they are
unordered, how do you get to 4095?
Charlie Robinson
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut >>
-------------------------------------------
I've been lucky enough to play and study with some of the leading figures of
the jazz avant-garde and it is interesting that some of them use very
simplified chord indicators which leave things open ended enough for you to
insert things from your own experience. The overriding point in what you guys
have been saying is that we have barely begun to scratch the surface in terms
of chromatic harmony. One can go from Cecil Taylor's structures to more obscure
theorists, who expose mathematical, multicultural and numerous other means of
musical expression. The point is to absorb the sounds that are uncovered in
this process and incorporate these ideas as catalysts for your own
improvisations. The music that we play, jazz, since its inception has been a
patchwork of different ideas and perspectives from the world of music at large
while still managing to make it's own unique contribution.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
Mark Kleinhaut
I was wondering about that too, but decided I didn't really care enough to
bother asking:)
Stephen A. Ritz
that you can make from the notes of one octave of the scale. It's
generalized because you allow chords of 1, 2, or even 0 notes, as
well as the usual 3 or more. To construct a chord, you look at each
note of the scale, and decide whether it is in or out of the chord.
For a 7-note scale, you have 7 binary choices, so there are 2 to the
7th power ways of choosing, so there are 128 possibilities. If you
don't like the idea of a chord with no notes, there are only 4095.
For 12-note scales, there are 2 to the 12th power, or 4096 ways of
choosing.
Steve Ritz
Stephen A. Ritz
a 7-note scale.
Steve
Thom j.
indicating.. I am 'no jazz expert' but when it comes to sound, music,
noise, etc. A "syn-wave" is the basis of all sound and it is all math.
"Soundwaves=Multple'Syn-waves" in hertz-kilohertz=equals=math!
I know this is way off the trail of this thread but any/all sounds have
mathematical number/s {if you will} no matter what sound or music
it is! It is in chords, notes, harmonics, enharmonics so on & so on.
So for me, I understand what is stated both by Stanley and Charlie
& usually I'm lost most of the time.. <G> It is jmho & my$.02 that
wont get me a free cup of java anyhwere :) Cheers Thom_j.
Stanley Jordan
It's basically a 6/9 chord with some alterations, including two
different 9ths.
You could also do a more scale-wise analysis and say that we took a C#
pentatonic, flatted the 6th and added a minor 3rd.
This is an example of the kind of "weird" chord that can be easily
analyzed in the Chromatic system, without any special analysis
software.
The standard Diatonic System uses the ionian scale as a ruler for
measuring intervals, and it starts with 1.
The Chromatic System uses the chromatic scale as a ruler for measuring
intervals, and it starts with 0.
Also, in the Chromatic system, if we're talking pure harmony, all
intervals are kept within 1 octave for simplicity,
since from a purely harmonic point of view, octave shouldn't matter.
In the Chromatic System, I would call the C# zero, so the notes of
your chord would be:
C# = 0, or 1st, or root
D# = 2, or major 9th
E = 3, or augmented 9th
F = 4, or major 3rd
G# = 7, or perfect 5th
A = 8, or minor 6th
So, in the Chromatic System your chord is a C#:0 2 3 4 7 8.
By the way, C#: 0 2 3 4 7 8 = A: 0 4 6 7 8 11.
That would make it an A maj.b13#11 with no 9th.
You can also build it from F and you'd get F(7/Maj.7)#9.
That is, an F7#9 with both a major 7th and a minor 7th.
So here is a breakdown of the whole thing:
CHROMATIC DIATONIC
-------- -------
C#:0 2 3 4 7 8 = C#b6/9/#9
= F: 0 3 4 8 10 11 = F(7/Maj.7)#9
= A: 0 4 6 7 8 11 = A Maj.b13#11 (no 9th)
Both columns are useful here.
The diatonic column suggests uses of the chord in standard musical
contexts.
Also, the diatonic column can be handed to a musician right now,
since they already know that system.
The chromatic column is cleaner and more consistent from a notation
point of view.
The chromatic column also does a better job of revealing the
structure.
That in itself is very musically suggestive.
Note that the three roots I found interesting were C#, F and A,
which form a (symmetrical) augmented triad. That makes sense because
the original chord,
C#: 0 2 3 4 7 8 contains (0 4 8), which is an augmented triad. Plus
it contains (3 7),
which forms part of another augmented triad (3 7 11). So with the
exception of the 2,
the chord has a damn near perfect 0-4-8 symmetry.
This means that whatever the chord sounds like from C#, it will
probably sound similar from F and A too.
Symmetries can be used in lots of very musical ways, so it's good when
you find them.
And in fact, the symmetries in this chord go even deeper, because the
chord can be constructed in this way as well:
F:(0 4 11): 0 4 11 = F: (0:0 4 11) (4:0 4 11) (11:0 4 11) =
(F:0 4 11 ) (A:0 4 11) (E:0 4 11)
That is, starting from F, you can build three (0 4 11) chords, and the
set of roots from which you can build them is itself a (0 4 11).
A 0 4 11 chord is a major 7th chord without a 5th, which is very close
to a major 7th chord (both functionally and enharmonically),
because the 5th can easily be omitted since it is not altered.
I don't usually post messages about this stuff, because I'm still
creating the notation system as I go along, but I hope at least the
concept is clear.
If there is a colon, the stuff before the colon tells the root, and
the stuff after the colon tells the intervals or chords or scales
built up from that root.
Note that roots can be denoted with either letters or numbers.
Another convention I use is that cardinal numbers like 0 4 8 are
chromatic-based, whereas ordinal numbers like 5th and 7th are
diatonic-based. So a 5th = 7, a 3rd = 4, and a 1st (or root) = 0.
The main exception to this is when I'm writing a standard chord name.
For example, if I write F7#9 the context should make it clear that
this is just what you think it is-- an F7#9! Within this chord name,
the 7 is obviously a b7th and the 9 is obviously a 9th. But when I
talk about individual intervals, if I'm talking diatonic I use ordinal
numbers like 7th or 9th.
Hopefully this discussion is clear. Let me know if you have questions.
Bob Agnew
directly. I love it! Diatonic is isomorphioc to mod 7 but you have to
subtract 1 because it's 1-based, then do the mod arithmetic, then add 1 back
in.
"Stanley Jordan" <s...@stanleyjordan.com> wrote in message
news:f6f9a220.02030...@posting.google.com...
Bob Agnew
Way to go Stan!
"Stanley Jordan" <s...@stanleyjordan.com> wrote in message
news:f6f9a220.0203...@posting.google.com...
Bob Agnew
N*(N-1).2 in general. I know this because I often have to count clicks at
champagne toastings where there are N people seated at the table in order to
insure that everyone toasted everyone else. If I hear fewer clicks, we have
to toast again until we get it right or else run out of champagne.
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c86...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
Thom j.
"Bob Agnew" <rag...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oLDi8.10915$5S6.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
Thom j.
"Bob Agnew" <rag...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_UDi8.10918$5S6.4...@news2.west.cox.net...