Chords and context

Chords, like tones, are always named in context.

Let's start with tones first. Say you are playing a tune in the key of F, and you play the tone located on the 3rd fret of the 3rd string. Now, you could call that A#. After all, the tone is an A#. But you wouldn't. You'd call it a Bb because Bb appears in the context of the song which is in F (F major contains a Bb).

Chords are the same way. For example an E-7b5 chord (also called an E half-diminished 7) has the very same notes as a G-6 chord. But the don't have the same harmonic context. Consider a few measures of a jazz tune that go:

F-7 | D7 | <X>

Which chord should go there? The E-7b5 or the G-6?

The answer is G-6. Why? because the chord progression is ii7 | V7 | i -- and the ii-V-i chord progression is a a jazz standard form.

Sometimes a a chord can be very hard to name because the context is ambiguous. And sometimes a chord can take on multiple names. A careful composer will use that opportunity to say something about how they are thinking about the song. However, those opportunities are typically quite rare.

Lastly, as a passing note (sorry): Guitars can only play 6 different tones at a time. The full harmonic expression of tertiary harmony requires more tones than that. Very often guitarists are playing a partial chord, but naming a chord based on the notes they are playing. That is almost always a mistake. If the chord name you can come up with based on the notes you are playing doesn't make sense in context consider what notes you might not be playing.

Chords are named in context provided there is a context in which to name them. If there's no context, the chord can still be named, although sometimes it may have more than one name, depending on which note you choose to be the root. I say sometimes because in tertian harmony, isolated chords should be named according to their simplest arrangement of major and/or minor thirds between the notes.
For example, in a chord containing the notes, C E G the simplest arrangement is to consider C as the root with E a major third above it and G a minor third above that - and call it C major. This is how we hear the chord in isolation, i.e., in its simplest arrangement of thirds, sounding strong and consonant. If we were to choose E as the root, the chord would be an E minor with an added flat sixth in the bass (no 5th). In order to hear that we'd need the right context. The same goes if we consider G as the root. The chord would be G6 sus with the fourth in the bass. Again we can't hear it that way without the right context - our brains automatically sort the notes into their simplest arrangement of thirds. And in many cases, there may not be any context possible that would allow us to hear the chord in anything other than its simplest arrangement.

This applies to all triads apart from the augmented triad, as all arrangements of it are equally simple. When chords have two (more or less) equally simple arrangements (such as ACEG = A min7 or C6 as mentioned above) then both names can apply equally. That's a well quoted example, but we never hear of the other two naming possibilities of those notes, i.e., E minor with an added b6 /11th or G 6/9 SUS. That's because those two arrangements are far from simple in tertian harmony and can't be heard without a context that would allow us to hear them that way.

So my point is, if you have to name a chord in isolation, you should first try to name it according to its simplest arrangement of thirds, if possible.

Simple sounds good to me......sighhhhhhhhhhhh......

Seriously, I get so bogged down sometimes, wondering what I'm doing - I'll tab (my) songs out so I know exactly what I'm playing, but WHY I'm switching to one chord from another sometimes gets lost in the mix. I just play what sounds good to me - I suppose I'm lucky to have you guys here to analyse WHAT I'm doing.....

Reminds me, must get stuck into the new SCW.....

Thanks as always for the insights....it may all come together one day.....

:D :D :D

Vic

Hi, Vic,

Drop me a PM, I'll sort you out.

Don't know why I missed this the first time around. But since this has been re-opened, I'll toss in a couple of things.

Kingpatzer and Fretsource did an excellent job explaining the basics of why chords are named (keep it with the key signature, keep it to standard chord progressions wherever possible), but there's one aspect that could use a bit more: function.

That can be the trickiest of all, because it takes into account notes that you might not actually be playing! For example, playing 320001 -> x32010 is easy to call a G7 -> C, but if you played xx34xx -> xx555x you'd have the same basic sound... so that would also be G7 -> C, even though the first "chord" doesn't even have a G note!

The whole purpose of chord names is to show the harmonic skeleton of a song. That's why context is so important. A fingering like xx310x might be Fdim (F-Ab-Cb) if it's a "stand-alone" name you're looking for, but if it makes a clear resolution to C it's better named G7b9 (G-B-D-F-Ab), even though the G and D notes are missing - the tritone (B-F) is resolving to the major chord, which is what drives a V7->I change.