Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjg2 | Hacker News Reader

as a programmer and a classically trained pianist, this section:

> For example, the notes C, E and G (The C major chord) can have any of the following names, based on what is considered to be the root note.

> root note chord name

> C C Major

> E E Minor #5

> G G sus4 (13)

> (To the best of my knowledge, I'm no music theorist)

is disqualifying for any usefulness in this program-- it will lead to more misguidance than clarity. without theory, there is no reason.

i would analyze these inversion chords in the frame of the key of C major: CM, C6, and C64 based on Figured Base Notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(music)#Figured_bass

View on HN

For what it is worth it’s not wrong to say that the triad where E is the root would be Em#5. The inversions you point out still have the same root (C) even if the bass is different. But I agree you’ve identified the fundamental problem: we cannot infer the root note and, therefore the name (enharmonics aside), from just a set of notes and attempting to is a fool’s errand. Even with a root note, it's going to be difficult many times to have a sensible answer

The key problem with this implementation in addition to not simply taking the root note as input (or a key or scale), appears to be the chord database is pretty spartan, since it doesn't appear it would identify C-E-G as anything other than CMaj. If you want figured bass/slash notation then you'll need to specify that as well (bass note).

A number of chord namers take these as additional inputs.

Em #5 would have a B#, not a C. This isn't a pedantic point; it very much matters if we're trying to be accurate with chord naming.

Another example to illustrate how identifying the root is important: C E G A. It's either a C6 or an amin7.

You're absolutely right about enharmonic equivalents and I could/should have been more precise. However of course the given task of "keys" or pitches -> chords we don't have any information about this, enharmonic equivalents are equivalent. The point is, if the C/B# note (we don't know which one), G and E are given to you and I tell you to root is "E", then the chord could be Em#5. If it really were unambiguously C then it would be a Em♭6(no 5). Point in any case is you need more to go on (at the very least a scale).

I think the point that root and bass should not be conflated is also valid.

Chords in isolation are an academic exercise. In the context of an overall chord progression, this “enharmonic ambiguity” normally disappears completely, at least for mainstream jazz, pop, rock, folk, most classical, etc. - you know, the music that people who weren’t music majors actually like.

Sure, but I certainly haven't been proposing that naming chords based on identifying pitches on a standard keyboard with no other context is suitable, quite the opposite (fool's errand in my original comment). In the confines of the problem statement, it's all enharmonic ambiguity, and that's the point. The Em#5 example was based off the one in the original article, but a much more down to earth one would be F♯ and G♭. Not exactly obscure chords and illustrative of the fundamental issue with this method.

Unpopular opinion: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then dude, it's a duck.

Inverted chords have, in my ears, never sounded anything like the chords they are supposedly an inversion of. It's like saying "10 is just really 3+7". It's true, and it's also useless. Let 10 be 10. Let 3 be 3. Etc.

Most composers don't even use this system as they compose, it's just for after the fact analysis. Composers hear a tune in their head and then transcribe it. Unless they're writing cookie cutter shit without inspiration, then they might synthesize some soulless crap that intentionally follows some well known chord progression as picked by a dart thrown at a poster of the circle of fifths.

You’re saying if the triad E G C is played in a piece in C major it doesn’t sound like a C chord??

Ok. Then what do you call it?

E-G is a 3 semitone interval and G-C is 5 semitones so it's an E+3+5 chord. If you wanna play it on piano, that means leave a gap of 2 keys and then a gap of 4 keys.

Known in western classical harmonization theory as "Em+" (E chord with minor third, augmented 5th). C first inv is actually Gsus4add6no5 or as I like to call it G+5+4. It has an incredibly warm and rich tone, nothing like C+4+3 (C major triad).

It works in C because all of its notes are also present in the C major scale, but that's just a coincidence. Calling it a C inverted chord is like making astrological or numerological conclusions.

And no, shifting up or down by octaves is not the same sound. It's close but not equal. You can probably get away with octave substitutions in a busy song but you can not say it sounds exactly the same. A 9th is not a 2nd. 11 not 4, 13 not 6. When you play La Campanella, is that your excuse for skipping those octave jumps? :)

As I said, unpopular opinion :)

It would make jazz lead sheets impossible to read and play. The whole point of a jazz lead sheet is that a chord symbol can be played in a huge variety of different ways depending on how the jam is going. If you followed the chord symbols literally and only played them all in root closed position then depending on the stage you might get a cymbal thrown at you.

I don't understand how this is a relevant criticism of my system.

If you are already ignoring the actual chord "voicing" as written in the "classical" system, then just keep doing that in my system??

If you are already able to intuit that a note should go elsewhere, then keep doing that for your jazz sets? What's the issue again?

"Gsus4x5" is just as unreadable and ignorable and malleable as "G+5+4".

You are right, and we can add the observation that the first harmonics of the E and G will form a CEG triad with the C.

E-C is simply not a sharp fifth. Sharp fifth is enharmonic with minor sixth. E-C is a major sixth.

Right. This is where math-oriented people get stuck on counting half-steps and forget that the assigned names carry information. E-B# is a different thing from E-C which is different from abominations like E-Dbb.

This is off. E-C# is the major sixth. E-C is the minor sixth, which as you say is enharmonic with sharp fifth (E-B#).

Yes, how could I gaffe so badly? Inverting a major third gives a minor sixth. Rule of nine, minor-major swap. Elementary school stuff.

Interesting.

Coming from a cover band/local small-time musician, C6 means C-E-G-A. In other words, C with an added 6 on top.

The charts I play from generally don't have any inversion information on them, and I probably play different inversions each time.

This is unfortunately one of the ambiguities in notation. But usually not a problem because it should be quite clear when figured bass is being used.

In jazz/pop notation inversions are indicated with slash chords.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com