What's this guitar chord?

[Mr.HOLMES]

Wired no b5 in that my fault had the wrong look at the first chord.

This is E major/A there is also a b2 G# to the A...
Sorry my first post was wrong because I was to fast in looking....

Or interpret it as A major7/9 no 3rd.... depends on key of the tune.

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by dylansmale

then what do you call a chord with 2 strings? a shnowzer?

An 'Interval'.
Consesnus does differ as to whether a two note interval constitutes a chord- but that is more of a theoretical argument.
General consensus is that two notes is an interval, three notes, a chord.
If you open most music theory books (like George Van Eps, Harmonic Mechanisms for Guitar) you will see this demonstrated.

But as others have noted this utilises open strings.
The chord above is Amajor9 no 3, which most people would abbreviate to Amajor9.

[Outlaw Hans]

the b5 is the E flat. E is 5th of A. So Eflat is b5.

edit: Oops. I read first fret on both strings. So yes, it's a normal 5.

Amaj7 9 (without the 3rd)

[te-problematique]

this is a pointless argument.....but i'm going to join anyway.

1st: to the person who said it's not a chord because there's no 3rd: that is a very misguided statement ...just because the 3rd isn't there dosen't mean it's not in the melody perhaps, or even the sound of it still sounds like the chord, this is subjective, but that's a very conservative way of interpreting harmony, and not all too relevant these days, this is an issue of voicing, not whether or not it's a chord because there's no 3rd

2nd: any combination of notes can be considered a chord...3 notes = a triad 2 = a diad, all chords or, more correctly, harmony, which is made up of any possible combination of chords

[teacue]

Originally Posted by mister-newb

Yeah, it's A, then this chord we're talking about here, and then D. Simple stuff.

OK if the chord progression is:
A / your chord / D / and then back to A

your chord is a dominant one (E) with A in Bass like an "Orgelpunkt" (dont know the name in english) as you also can play the bass A when you play the D chord.
Despite of the A in Bass it is not a A chord (Tonic) but it has the dominant caracter (E) with an open color due to the 4th (or 11) in bass.
Well that is how I hear it when I play this progression which is not unusual at all.

So in a score I would simply name this chord: E/A (E with A in bass)

Best regards

PS. I have now found what is Orgelpunkt in english: Organ point

[TEMAS]

Originally Posted by mister-newb

Not sure if I have the right forum, but I need help. I was looking at online charts and couldn't find it.

1st fret, 4th string from top
2nd fret, 3rd string from top

Play from A string down

Anyone??

Please be more specific about exactly what notes you are playing and I or someone else will be able to assist you.


Here are the first 4 frets of a guitar tuned normally. 0 is open string. The note you are playing is defined by which fret your finger is under.

O: E A D G B E
1: F A* D* G* C F
2: F* B E A C* F*
3: G C F A* D G
4: G* C* F* B D* G*

So, for example, E major would be: E B E G* B E

D minor is X A D A D F*




For your information, technically Top E is the thinnest string, Bottom E is the thickest. Top and Bottom refers to the pitch / frequency.

[inthemix]

this is a chord of more than 2 notes.. (so it IS a chord)

It has A - E - G# and B

I agree..its an E/A or an Amaj7 add 9

[teacue]

Originally Posted by TEMAS

Please be more specific about exactly what notes you are playing

mister-newb was already kind of more precise even if he indeed inverts the usual terms:

Originally Posted by mister-newb

Let's make this simpler. Play an E, then remove your finger from the 2nd string from the top on the 2nd fret

His chord is a most common Guitar E whith an open A on the 5th string instead of B.

[Outlaw Hans]

In the mix: Not necessarily...If it's unclear as to what the 3rd is it's not really possible to properly name the chord. This one could be either minor or major. Note: this is with A as the 1.

it could be a sus2 with an added maj7 as well. Sus (suspended) chords don't have a third. It's not a determined chord (minor/major) But it's a common sound so there's a "chord" name for it: Sus2 or Sus 4. The 3rd is replaced by either a 2 or a 4.

[inthemix]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

Not necessarily...If it's unclear as to what the 3rd is it's not really possible to properly name the chord. Yours could be either minor or major. Note: this is with A as the 1.

how could it be minor?

[teacue]

Is it this chord?


If yes, then see my previous post (#35) and I would call it: E/A

Best regards

[Outlaw Hans]

well, how could it be major? There's no 3rd. The 3rd determines whether it's major or minor.
Example:
C-E-G= major
C-Eflat-G =minor.
In this case: With a C# it would be major. With a C it would be minor. Neither are in it. So it's a genderless chord.

We tend to "think" or "feel" in major when the 3rd is missing. It's obviously because most music is major. Take blues for instance. If you played power chords only (so 1 and 5, no 3rd) and a blues scale on top, theoretically it would approach a minor key rather than a major (because the blues scale has a minor 3rd). However we tend to "feel" major unless there is a clear minor 3rd in the chords as with a typical "I put a spell on you" type of blues.

[te-problematique]

yes, the third does determine maj/min/dim/aug...but it will still sound like it is leaning to either way, and function accordingly...your right, it could be considered a sus chrod, but that depends on the voice leading and whether or not the suspension is prepared ....this is all far beyond what info we have so I think it's safer just to say it's a major (most likely given progession) with the third omitted....I love theory!

[Outlaw Hans]

yes, the nicest thing about music theory is that it's nowhere near perfect and has some serious shortcomings. Different options with this one, for sure.

[Dr.Wu]

the difference between theory and practise is that in theory there is no difference......

[inthemix]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

well, how could it be major? There's no 3rd. The 3rd determines whether it's major or minor.
Example:
C-E-G= major
C-Eflat-G =minor.
In this case: With a C# it would be major. With a C it would be minor. Neither are in it. So it's a genderless chord.

It IS a major chord!
E major
think about it E - G# - B thats E major

and there's an A in the bass

[Outlaw Hans]

In the mix: As I stated before all of my theories are based on some sort of A chord. If it's E/A you're right: it's a major chord.
The best "title" for this chord totally depends on the context of it in a chord progression or with a certain melody on top.

[A440]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

So for me I can hear a TRITONUS as b5 = A no 3rd b5/9 and e over Eb is an b2.
I would kill the E on TOP but I guess you like this b2 dissonant ringing.

The correct Chord Symbol would be A no 3rd b5/9

+1 that's what I'd call it too.

[A440]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Wired no b5 in that my fault had the wrong look at the first chord.

This is E major/A there is also a b2 G# to the A...
Sorry my first post was wrong because I was to fast in looking....

Or interpret it as A major7/9 no 3rd.... depends on key of the tune.

oops..looks like I made the same error as you Mr Holmes...I get confused when people call the low' e' the 'top' string...to me the top string is the high 'e'..

anyway, its an E/A ..E major triad with an A bass...

[Peter Oxford]

Most of the confusion hereabouts appears to stem from lack of clarity in the original posters question.

Guitarists refer to the top string as the highest in pitch. The original poster seemed to think that the physical position of the string from the ground up as the guitar is played defined which was top.

Something any Guitar tuition book on the planet would have clarified. Invest in one.




It is clearly, either an E/A (A Bass) Chord or an A Maj9th.




The composer would choose which to name it, depending on the overall musical context, (especially what the bass is doing relative to the other instruments) and it should be clear from the musical arrangement, which it would actually be.




But there are some good things to grasp in this thread if you want to.

The first thing is that how we understand such details, has evolved over the years.

And what we understand would depend upon what we were taught and how those that taught us were taught themselves, and so on.




Imagine a time when no Internet Google search existed, no Tuition DVD’s, few if any Books, and everything, even the work of specialists teachers and Musical Colleges, was much more individual and different, and quite separate both within any given country but most especially, from country to country. Around the world, some of these very profound differences in musical notation still remain.




Many, many decades ago, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people would have been clearly taught that any two or more notes sounded simultaneously formed a Chord.

Today, the relationship of Intervals are normally taught first, which gives us an underlying grasp of how the names of chords come about, before we learn about chords, and this is then followed by the common and then the more complex compound names of chords.

And so, two notes are known as and referred to as intervals, and three or more notes are a chord, (in my day three note chords would have been called a triad), because the additional note gives more information and clearer and greater clues about the nature and character of what is the composer’s overall intent, harmonically speaking.




To my mind, this difference, is essentially about teaching, and the flow of introducing ideas, to aid the understanding of the student, rather than any thing else of import.




The second thing is that although chords can exist in isolation, it is true to say that in most forms of Western music, they are used in progression.

In other words, we need to understand how they relate to one another.

This becomes all the more important when, and as, the chords we are using are made up of a larger number of notes.

We need to distinguish 'close' and 'open' harmonies (as with triads), chords where notes are repeated at different pitches, and chords where 'extra' notes are included (i.e. 7th, 9th, etc.).

As we increase the number of different notes we find that the same arrangement of notes can be 'named' in more than one way and there are also many more 'inversions' possible.

It is for this reason that the musical context is everything, and that composers and musical arrangers alike, should choose chord names that precisely define that. Alas, it is often the case that they don’t, as not all modern recorded composers are properly trained in musical theory.




For my self, it is clear that some chord names have been changed over the years, (greatly to my lament) and that the advent of the internet has caused such changes. Today, in my opinion, some have become more complex and difficult to understand, where as, if the tenants of strict musical theory had properly been applied, they would have remained far more simple to understand and remember.

Thus, as we have already seen, the key (no pun intended) to good understanding of the name of chords, is a proper appreciation of the root and the nature of intervals.




I prefer to clearly keep root chord names properly relative to the key in which the piece is written in and properly relative to the interval. Though such will seem obvious, put as it is, there are none the less, glaring instances of what I regard as the unintuitive use of chord names one encounters from time to time.


Such misuse has come about via the internet where misinformation is rife, and the work of very well intentioned individuals that lack formal training in musical form and theory. Though it is fair to point out that many chords could have quite different names, quite correctly.





If the key is predominated by flats, I gravitate towards thinking in term of flats, and choose chord names especially for complex compound chords that reflect that. If the piece is dominated by sharps, I do the opposite. In other words as the musician works through the piece, he doesn’t suddenly need to throw his thinking into an entirely different mode, untimely presented with a chord name that reflects a different musical situation.

The question here is not whether the name of the chord is correct from an arbitrary technical point of view. It might well be so.

The essential salient point is, does it make musical sense in the context of the harmonic progression taking place?

You see, if it doesn’t, then it interrupts and impedes the logical progression of thought of the player.

This is my dispute with a lot of what I regard as unintuitive usage.

The question is not whether something is right so much.

As will it help or impede the player.





The third point to make is this.

Working Musicians understanding of these matters commonly differ from that of Musical Theorists.

For the working musician, every day practical chord notation can be much simpler because far, far fewer chord patterns are met with in real life than can be imagined by the fevered mind of an academic theorist.

The performer may wish to be free to indulge in melodic and harmonic extemporisation and for this reason, jazz notation for instance, is not prescriptive, rather it is descriptive of general ideas that might arise from the shape of a melody or from a series of chord progression around which a composition is based.

So, many of the arguments that arise around the precise names of an actual chord can be properly understood, once you make this vital distinction in your mind.

The real point to make is that it is incumbent upon the Composer or Arranger to serve the musician well, and to provide him with absolute clarity in well presented notation removing ambiguity where a specific sequence is required.





My way, in musical arranging is as follows, and though I do not present it as all defining, I trust it may help someone along the way.

Even if I created a 32 Stave Master Score, for a project, and each player gets their individual part, I commonly, also create a 3 Stave Score, which forms a quick and easy to read, but fairly comprehensive and highly illustrative overall view of every thing that is going on, especially for Rhythm Section Players and significant others.

This may include descriptive notes about other major parts, kick ins and fills and even production effects, and so on, in addition to their own clearly written part. In other words right from the start, before ever a note is played, they have a clear understanding of their precise role and a firm grasp of the overall musical context within which they will need to perform.

Elite Session Players are extremely talented indeed, and as soon as they get a clear idea of what precisely is required of them, they can usually provide you with a better part than you could have ever written yourself, on the first or second take.

Some are great sight readers, whilst others are not. Providing the information they require in the form most acceptable to them then, is important, for the clarity and the form in which the information is transmitted needs to be intuitive to them. This is why one might provide a written description with a notated part.

I like to give them a ‘bird’s eye view’ or if you like ‘a vision’ of what the finished product will be like.





It’s worth contemplating for a moment, that in a great many cases, Session players are forced to perform (with very much expected of them) in situations where they have only the slimmest of grasps on what is actually required of them prior to the down beat, and an even slimmer grasp of how that will relate to everything else.

That they are able to deliver a usable performance under such circumstances is ample testament to their very considerable talents. But what great music they could have delivered we do not need to imagine, as it can be clearly heard on outstanding sessions where their redoubtable talents have been primed with proper preparation.




Although this takes some trouble to do, I have found it usually helps everyone, whatever their job is, and of course, ultimately it helps me too.

You see the human Ear and Brain is only capable of absorbing so much at a time, and distilling the elements of a highly complex piece to its primary essentials, helps greatly in all matters of good mix and balance.

Its worth contemplating that Conductors, Musical Arrangers, Balance (or Mix) Engineers, Producers and Mastering Engineers are all pre-eminently concerned with presenting properly balanced sound.




In other words, I see a Conductor, Musical Arranger, or a Producers role primarily as being that of a ‘Servant’ rather than that of a ‘Master’.

They are their to facilitate, to clarify, make everything easy however difficult it might be, to create a highly creative situation, an atmosphere in which everything possible has been done, to optimise and provide the very best possible opportunity for the Artists to perform absolutely ideally.

Make no mistake. This is what all real Artist’s really want them selves, to perform at their best.

That many are frustrated and hindered from doing so, by the very people that engage them is deep salient and substantial food for soul searching reflection.

Proper preparation is always well appreciated and heartily commented upon by working musicians in my experience. In fact it nearly always provokes strongly hilarious comment regarding the ridiculously ill prepared situations, they sometimes have to encounter, in what forms the daily fare of their work.

Proper Preparation Precedes Pre-eminently Powerful Performance.

Above all, the names of the chords should make sense.

Musical coherence in form and context.



As the original poster has eminently exposed.

Without clarity and understanding.

Confusion can only result.






P

[dbbubba]

First off... if you look in any reputable book or take from any reputable teacher and study western harmony you wil find that a chord is defined a THREE pitches or intervals sounded together.
You can argue all you want about this, but I have ALL of the major textbooks on western harmony including Walter Piston, Schoenberg, etc...
ALL define a chord a THREE intervals... even Schoenberg who is a bit more free with his ideas because his book deals largely with serial composition states this rule.

Back to the chord at hand...

It is an Emaj in the chord progression described (A / mystery chord / D / A) or (I / ? / IV / I)
The only thing is that the bass is an A.
If you play the chord progression with only the top (higher) four strings it is clearly an A/E/D/A or I / V / IV / I chord progression.
If we are calling it a complete phrase the fact that it starts on A and ends on an A defines it as being in the key of A.

You know, there are not too many melodic structures in western music that don't have the V in the progression.
The V chord says: OK that was the deal and now.... ONE MO' TIME!
or Ok,That was the deal... and NOWWWWW....
I would bet that the song this progression is used in has a strong V chord (E) at some point.
That would also define what this chord is.

Two things would help.
What does the bass line play?
What is melody over the top of the progression?

If the bass line isn't an E sounding at the mystery chord then all bets are off!
It would then be this chord progression:
A / really-vague-chord-that-could-be-better-defined-but-oh-well-ain't it cool? / D / A

Sounds like a simple A/E/D/A progression played by a newbie GTR player to me.
My wife does this when she writes on GTR.
Beautiful melodies, but vague chords in places.
She insists that I keep the chord as she wrote it, so I have to have the bass line define the root of the chord.
We have had some HUGE arguments over these things and SHE has the four year degree from a prestigious music school!
I just know how to make stuff sound good!

A/E/D/A or I / V / IV / I

Play it on the top four strings like a ukulele ... happy sounding isn't?

[dbbubba]

Damn you people!

I started trying to think of a song that has this progression.
I mutated it and started playing: A / E / D / E / A

Now I have "Misses Brown You Have a Lovely Daughter" going around in my head!

Just add: F#m / A / F#m / A / F#m / A / A / E (ga dunga dunga dunga) back to the top.....

Speaking of V chords:
John Paul Jones (yes, John Paul Jones of Led Zepplin was the Hermann's Hermits bass player) playing that V chord in that song is probably one of the coolest musical moments for me. There are many cool moments in music for me, but that rates WAYYYY up!

Grabbed me wayyyy back in third grade.

[eligit]

short answer: E major triad plus A (the forth) in the bass.

shorter answer: E/A

[kafka]

It "is" how it functions in a piece of music. Alone, I'd probably call this an AM9. It could be an E/A, depending on where it came from and where it's going.

[dbbubba]

The chord progress was defined by the OP as:

A / mystery chord / D / A

Unless those four chords are a fragment of something else you can't really question whether the root key is A. Standing alone, that progression is in the key of A.

If you were writing this chord progression it out in notation it would be in the key of A.
If it was a fragment of a phrase in another key it would require A LOT of accidentals.

I don't think that we are dealing with a chord progression or melodic situation that is THAT complicated.

BTW... the "rules" are written to make stuff sound "right" and like we expect music to sound.
If you want to break those rules you had better know WHY you are doing it.
Otherwise it is vague at best.
In the late 1800s composers started to "break the rules" but there was a logic and reason behind it.
It wasn't out of ignorance or lack of understanding "the rules."
In fact, almost all of the guys who broke the rules started out writing music that rather strictly adhered to the rules.
The beauty in knowing how to follow the rules and also how to creatively break the rules is that you can do both.
When the guy who writes "modern music" gets the call to write a John Williams type movie score he can actually do it.

KAFKA has the Frank Zappa quote from "Joe's Garage" at the bottom of his posts and that brings up an interesting point.
Although there is no doubt that FZ was a musical genius in every sense I bet that it would have required A LOT of thougt and effort for him to write a complete John Williams type "Indiana Jones" type score.
He could do it, but it wouldn't come as easily as writing the type of music he (FZ) wrote.
FZ learned by bending the rules and that's OK (I am one of the biggest FZ fans there is.)
Frank would have avoided the hassle by saying "Phhhheeeyyyyooooooo!!!!! I HATE that type of music!"
Could John Williams write FZ style stuff... no, but the market for his style of music is FAR greater.

If you are going to bend the rules and make non-traditional music you had better have a good day job, be prepared to starve or be a genius at marketing your music.... or all three. FZ did all three of those at points.

I have seen lot's of metal GTR players doing this stuff.
With the heavy distortion and the overtones it produces there is often an interesting sound produced.
Still, broken down it is "wrong" and often requires the overtones produced by distortion to sound "musical."

[Quint]

Originally Posted by mister-newb

Not sure if I have the right forum, but I need help. I was looking at online charts and couldn't find it.

1st fret, 4th string from top
2nd fret, 3rd string from top

Play from A string down

Anyone??

What song are you using this in? I know that "The Weight" from The Band and "The Way That He Sings" from My Morning Jacket both use this chord. It's a cool sounding chord when used in the right spot.

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Still, broken down it is "wrong" and often requires the overtones produced by distortion to sound "musical."

The two songs I listed above aren't heavy or distorted and I think that chord sounds just fine in those songs. But to each their own.

[eligit]

the usage/name issue tho is dependent on very harmonically coherent or functional music.

if the progression is too simple or too circular.....the argument becomes moot.

so in that case....the simplest name is the best: E/A

if you HAD to consider it in the "key of A" you can just think of it as the V dominant chord (but lacking a b7).....but is that really needed?

also if you are in a simple rock thing like this....is a IMAJ 7 add 9 even worth writing as such?

in some gershwin or some beatles tunes with the melody as part of the equation intense debate might be merited.

in this simple series of chords......meh.

[dannygold]

When I hear guitarists communicate in the studio they often use non chord spelling terminology. Like "play the hendrix chord" (you all know what I mean). Or I like C slid up two frets. Kind of makes a colorful D. No idea what it's called. But I could tell my guitarist friends "plays c slid up to d" and they'd play the fukker. I know that doesn't help, but I find it interesting.

[sysexguy]

I gotta say that the day I learned to drop the jazz style chord naming based on this or that and think like a piano ie. a bass note on top of a simple triad......so many wonderful things happened musically. And yes, I can b5, aug 13, half/ whole minMAj9 till the cats come home.

A song like Toto "Africa" is a great introduction to this concept

Andy