sus chords had a 3rd! Following that logic, shouldn’t the so-called 5 or No3 “chord” actually be called sus5? heh heh. 11no3? I would like to see that in context, I never have, and would not want to, since it’s just a common sus4 chord.
Sure, I guess. But I just wanted to give a logical reason to why Cubase doesn’t do No3 chords – because the 3rd is needed in order for the algo to understand its function.
A sus chord is still a triad - there needs to be 3 notes to define a chord for both Cubase & music theory. All you can get from 2 notes is an interval. Now maybe you use that interval to imply a chord, but two notes is always going to be ambiguous because those notes could be in several different chords.
I never argued that. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to manually enter such a chord.
Depends on context. But, yes.
You could also call an F6 a Dm7(b5) or call a Bb13 a Csus9(b13) if you so will. There are many ways to skin a cat and it almost always depends on context.
Music theory is not a body of governance but it is subject to change and re-interpretation. Both “no 3” and 5 chords have been used in written music. It’s not up to me to argue whether or not that is a “proper” chord or just an interval. But I can certainly imagine cases where a composer would use a no 3 chord because of its ambiguity, feeling or whatever and saying they can’t do that because it is not based on a true triad, that’s ridiculous.
But what does entering a simple consonance in the Chord track serve, when it comes to tracks following the chord track? You can’t even invert it if you accept it as a chord. And what notes would “chords & scales” allow over such a chord? It’s ok as notation, I have also seen “D pedal” notated, whatever that means, but what do we want to achieve with such notation? How would the chord track act? How would adaptive voicing work from and to a plain P5 consonance without parallel motion?
The system is fairly rigid already. For example, if I have a Bossa and I need the bass to follow the chord track, it won’t just do to assign a Cm7 chord and the Bass voice to my track, I have to break down the chord into:
exactly because in Cubase we have to take notation too literally, an ornamental 6/4 being considered a whole other entity, outside of the given chord. Well, this could be it indeed, in legalese, but when I give a bar that has a single Cm7 on top, 95% of the basists I’ve played with will do just that ornamental 6/4 thing, unless told to specifically NOT do it.
So, what’s the take away of this post? Probably none, I just want to amplify the “ambiguity” factor that was brought up in the conversation.
Edit: Oh, and another thing. Isn’t interpretation of chord symbols closely related to the instrument called to play them? Does a tresero really play a C7(b9)(b13) when they see it? I mean, they look at their tres, it’s got only three courses of strings. Play Bbm7 over a bassist’s C (Ab -Bb- Db)? Play a Caug (C, E, G# as Ab) and let the piano handle the tensions? What’s a guy supposed to do unless they are given a part for their instrument, in notation, telling exactly which notes to play at what time? Genuine question.
Steve, you were 100% right, it was a 3rd thing. As you can tell I have very basic music theory. This is the reason I’m trying to use the chord track in the first place, to put names on chords I instinctively tend to play and enjoy… Turns out I must be doing it ‘‘wrong’’ because it’s not detecting much of what I serve it hahaha
This being said I’m surprised it didn’t catch the most used guitar chord in modern music…
Thanks for the help folks, I appreciate it. My post seems to have triggered a pretty constructive discussion!