That is self-evident. My suggestion was simply that chord symbols appear to have reached a level of complexity that their utility (in their various forms) might be questioned. I think debate on this topic might be useful.
On the contrary. Actually I have no skin in this game, as I rarely use chord symbols. But I have had many conversations with players who do, and who struggle with them because the formulation (in current practice) is so often ambiguous.
I was not calling them idiots. I was calling the state of the system idiotic. There is a world of difference.
No. I was reminding us all that players in earlier times were adept at reading figured bass (in real time) and that their system can readily accommodate all the nuances of modern chord symbols.
Thank you for being so open minded and tolerant of diverse opinions
Since I’m tagged, I’m wading in to probably be the most hated person in this thread LOL! (It’s my birthday and I’ve had a lot of whisky, so cut me some slack.) First of all, figured bass doesn’t work with this … at all, really. I mean, Rimsky-Korsakov said figured bass was “now obsolete” in 1886, so it’s certainly insufficient with more modern chords and scales that might be options here. I’m not always a huge fan of some of the modern chord-scale theory (vocabulary and language are more important IMO), but there are just too many things lacking with an intervallic interpretation here to know how to blow over it or comp in any way but the most rudimentary manner.
Second of all, I still don’t see how any of the computer detection methods are an improvement over just typing it in. Without taking context into account, there’s just no way to know how anything but a simple chord is actually functioning in a basic vertical analysis without considering the horizontal. In @AMazedBrane’s example, we’re discussing something like that would usually be presented like this, right?
Both Am7(#5) and Csus4add13/A are probably less likely to be encountered than Am7(b6) or F2/A, and once we allow rootless chords, things like D11/A, Bb69/A, Gm11/A, Eb69/A, etc, are all likely candidates too, as are modal chords like A aeolian, A phrygian, or any D minor variant over A. “Csus4add13/A” is so unlikely that it will almost never be encountered unless it is resolving to something parallel over a pedal, which obviously requires some horizontal analysis too. Once you add a #5 or b6 on a minor chord, often the b6 is more common in case you also have the natural 5th either below or rubbing against it, like the Abm9(b6) chord 5 seconds into Delfeayo’s Dilemma.
I’m not knocking your app as an ear training method at all AMazedBrane, on the contrary I think apps like that are great, but unless there’s a horizontal analysis too, I’m just failing to see how that helps with chord symbol analysis in notation software in anything but very simply explained chords. Some sort of context of how the harmony is functioning horizontally is really required too, which takes a lot more skill and analysis.
maybe I need to make this clearer in my UI, but there are arrows on the left and right side of some labels (the root label and the inversions label) : they are buttons that parse all the calculated results (possible roots or possible chord names).
In the screenshot I uploaded only one appears at a time but all the other possibilities are there, I just decided to display them one by one with the possibility of clicking next/previous rather than a full list that I thought would make the UI too crowded ; so yeah the Csus4add13/A was just one of the possible names, doesn’t mean the most likely, this is at the discretion of the musician/composerto choose the most relevant (although I might include some sort of “most likely” suggested answers in the future).
(and don’t forget one of the main goals is to facilitate communication in a live context between those who know the chord names/fingerings on their instruments but not the notes & those who know the notes but not the chord names ; in rehearsals, especially for instance between keyboard players and guitarists, it’s a quick tool to communicate to the other musician, believe me lots of musicians are lazy and just want a quick tool sometimes to facilitate their lives especially when they’re practising together ; in the ear training section it’ll be more than just ear training but a full training both earwise and theoretically on how to build/reocgnize chords and intervals)
Horses for courses. I used it the last several seasons at my church job for organ charts, comping pop hymns. {An explicitly written bass line on the staff and figures that don’t specify octaves} was the ideal mix of information for my skill set. I found it much easier to read for that style of music than letter names for bass notes. I even got a couple compliments on my organ playing (which really surprised me).
If there’s an explicitly written bass line and you’re comfortable with performing from figured bass, then sure, use it. The overwhelming majority of the time when chord symbols are used in jazz there isn’t a written bass line and the bass player is improvising from the chord symbols just as everyone else is. I don’t really know how to incorporate figured bass into that as it’s not based on counterpoint or continuo, and with modern chord/scale theory no one is thinking that way while improvising either. There’s less freedom with this in pop music of course, but a bass player still will typically vary from anything written as they feel the groove needs it.
I often use a language analogy with improvisation. The chord symbols of the tune decide the topic of conversation, but they don’t dictate the conversation, which can have all the unique twists and turns a verbal conversation can have. In the image below the topic of musical conversation is F7sus, but look at all the harmonic and melodic twists and turns McCoy Tyner adds to it.
Of course, his conversation partners of Ron Carter and Elvin Jones are also very knowledgeable in this subject and willing to follow him wherever the conversation goes, LOL!
Got it! Just out of curiosity, what are the other possibilities it comes up with in your example? Similar to the list I quickly posted above? (and dang, just realized I had a typo and left out the m in Dm11/A) Other options as well?
Here are to versions, the one from the “lite” app I wanna release soon, more aimed at beginners/intermediate users (with more text guiding users) and the one from the full blown app, more for intermediate/advanced users who already know what they’re doing and just want quick tools ; different UI but I might swap the “pad” view for a circular representation of notes, not sure yet.
I realize now I slightly changed my algorithm in the lite version so that it takes into account the bass note as if part of the chord, whereas in the full blown one I filtered upfront so that in inversions the bass note is only taken into account if it’s a 3rd, 5th or 7th, so the Csus4add13/A becomes Csus4/A.
I’ll make the corrections in both apps so that there are both versions (with the bass as part of the chord and with the bass out of the chord) that can be determined rather than an arbitrary one.
With A as the root it will still display Am7#5 though and not Amaddb13 because it doesn’t assume the 5th (E) is not played, I can definitely add this in my algorithm, that whenever I have a b13 and no 5th it could display Am7b13(no5) for instance, but for now I’m not making those assumptions (it won’t be difficult to implement though if I got feedback from users that want those kind of assumptions)
Hey, lead sheet editor is good news and the screenshots look interesting. I will look out for „Chord Engine“ for sure… Make a noise when you drop it in the app store, will you - even if it‘s on social media ;-). I am also eager to see the new tools of the lead sheet features you mentioned. Keep up the good work!
Just from a simple guys perspective: There is a notation app I tried, unfortunately with way too many suggestions (138) for a Cmaj9 chord, but the dev. grouped a few chords under: “most likely” which resulted in maybe 15 chords and there you will find most of the time what you are looking for. This feature would help a lot because it takes way too much time to look through all of the possible (but never suited for a musicians hand) 138 chords.
I got you covered !
When you click on the piano view to display all possible calculated chord fingerings (wayyy more than 138 actually), if you long press on the magic wand you got access to filters so that you can filter out many of them : on the top row you can choose rootless/3rd-less/5th-less positions, and you can choose either just block chords or just open ones or any.
On the bottom row there are options for 4 filters : the first 3 ones are arbitrarily based on the number of fingers you need to play the chord and calculated for any chord, the last one (“common”) are presets I hardcoded for common voicings of most chord types (so it won’t work for advanced chords if I didn’t hardcode them but still a lot of them will be covered as common presets), clicking on the magic wand picks randomly a chord voicing, the arrows on the left select the next/previous calculated fingering, the -/+ buttons on the right are here to scroll the piano view in higher or lower registers.
This part is already working, the mini keyboard view is draggable as the app works as well on iPad
Oh and when you press on the root/bass pad (the one that’s always with a white border) it plays back the chord, and when you long press it plays back the arpeggio.
I know we’ve been out of topic for a while now as we’re not talking about Dorico, my apologies, but there was still some Dorico influence in my work though on the lead sheet editor that I’m making, as in my Sketch file in which I do the design, I had considered using a similar color scheme as Dorico but ended up thinking it might be considered as plagiarism so I left it out and changed my UI, here are some sketches I started with though :
Talking about root and bass notes - and bear with me because I don’t have the theory knowledge of you guys here - let me add another half simple guys comment: I checked out at least a dozen chord progression creator apps with chord recognition and - some of them - with lead sheet features. I realized that most of them used an intelligent algorithm recognising chords and presented many (!) more variations of possible chord symbols. Two small simple apps came up with less than ten and I usually got what made sense in my progression context, filed under rootless, inversions etc. Or I entered the chord symbol manually and some apps I tried presented 50 to 150 chord diagram variations - algorithmically correct I guess, but no way you would ever use them in real life as a guitarist: whether the fingering was next to impossible or you had some notes on the 9th fret and open strings in between which sounded strange.
I tried an app that could not detect a commonly used “Hendrix chord” (7#9). Others could not detect a 7/13 with the 7th as bass note, often used in Blues/Jazz, or a G9 with the 3d as bass note. And so on and so forth. In a nutshell: As a normal guitarist with a little jazz on your mind you will welcome a restriction that does not necessarily show all the options an algorithm will find. At least not in the first place. No criticism meant here, just an opinion and others will surely have a different view on this.
last not least I will definitely try out Dorico on my Macbook even when I prefer a portable version like your app.
Amazing! This looks great and I can see the ipad version already (sorry, couldn’t resist ;-))… I like the idea of playing the chords as arpeggio also which helps when you are oriented playing a lot by ear…
…may I ask: Are chord diagrams in the lead sheet possible and can pauses be applied to make clear where chord changes happen in the bar/beat?
Finally: Maybe your topic could be moved over to the audio bus forum so we do not hijack the forum here?
And my example was just a mention; not saying it’s appropriate or useful for anyone else. Obviously jazz works the way you described with harmonies and improvised lines. All I was doing was filling out the texture while the MD led the accompaniment on piano.
Thanks Mark! Pretty off-topic, but there is a kind of fascinating debate in academia right now about what it means to be an educated musician in the 21st century and how much figured bass should even be taught anymore vs chord symbols and other nomenclature systems. For an obvious example in this debate, is it still valid that the Western European tradition is usually taught as Music and the all the traditions of the entire rest of the world taught as World Music, including traditions that have a rich theoretical history of their own? Even in the Western European tradition, how many contemporary composers are writing music where figured bass is relevant? Rimsky-Korsakov thought it was obsolete 150 years ago.
My own undergrad experience in the 90s (high academic university, didn’t really care if you could play an instrument or not) was super heavy on figured bass. I was required to have 2 semesters of theory (basically Bach chorales), a semester of modal counterpoint (Fux, Palestrina), and a semester of tonal counterpoint (mostly Bach fugues), did well on the GRE, and pretty much haven’t used figured bass since, LOL!
As I teach a Master’s course on Jazz Pedagogy once every four semesters, I do try to keep up on current pedagogical thought in other genres and disciplines. The current reevaluation of methods and desired goals in light of what skills are needed to be successful in the 21st century, I find very interesting.
I’m glad the debate is going on; certainly I’ve heard the ideas. I went to Eastman in the early 80s and was glad to have the previously mysterious world of figured bass revealed to me, among 1000 other things.
For my own edification I’ve tried RN analysis on a lot of the 19th century music I love, and found limits in its usefulness. I grew up with jazz, particularly my dad on piano, so I learned to hear the big chords early. Going from those things back in time to then try to understand the genius of Bach’s counterpoint is a hard way. When W.A. Mathieu came out with Harmonic Experience in 1997 I ate it up. I told everyone it was the best book I’d ever read. But since then I have been wishing for more contrapuntal theory to explain the wonders of a lot of music.
To try to tie all this to the thread somehow … In my experience harmony is being taught (and chord symbol nomenclature represents music) in a way that is too static, too vertical. All music goes sideways. What we hear is either tones (voices) within harmonies moving, or a disconnect when a succession of chords doesn’t admit any easy connections. For example, in this song Bill Wurtz makes a sudden digression in the last bridge, and then snaps back to V (at 2:57 in the video). We hear his melody connect chromatically, but I am still puzzling over what is actually happening when we go from E♭13sus to B7sus! At my age I am very surprised when I encounter a charming harmonic progression I’ve never thought of before.
And I wish I could write treatises like that after a lot of whiskys…
