Chord Analyser

[Steven Briggs]

Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST that analyzes MIDI notes
and tells you what chord it is? Alternatively, one that you type in notes
and it tells you what chord it is?

I've looked all over and can't find one....

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

[Laurence Payne]

Band-in-a-Box creates chord sheets from imported midi files.

>Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST that analyzes MIDI notes
>and tells you what chord it is? Alternatively, one that you type in notes
>and it tells you what chord it is?
>
>I've looked all over and can't find one....
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks
>


CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

[JB Seattle]

Powertracks from www.pgmusic.com the same people that make band in a box is
the best I have used.
Also GNMidi from www.gnmidi.com is pretty good too.
JB
"Steven Briggs" <steven.briggs@occamgreen.com> wrote in message
news:bbfiep$cas$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST that analyzes MIDI notes
> and tells you what chord it is? Alternatively, one that you type in notes
> and it tells you what chord it is?
>
> I've looked all over and can't find one....
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
>

[Al Stevens]

"Steven Briggs" <steven.briggs@occamgreen.com> wrote in message
news:bbfiep$cas$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST that analyzes MIDI notes
> and tells you what chord it is? Alternatively, one that you type in notes
> and it tells you what chord it is?

http://www.alstevens.com/midifitz/

It's free, and it tells you what the chord is that you play on a MIDI
keyboard. It can also generate realtime drums and bass accompaniment.

[PC]

"Steven Briggs" <steven.briggs@occamgreen.com> wrote in message
news:bbfiep$cas$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST

you already said it.

VST does that in the editor page

[Angeline J.]

"Steven Briggs" <steven.briggs@occamgreen.com> wrote in message
news:bbfiep$cas$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST that analyzes MIDI notes
> and tells you what chord it is? Alternatively, one that you type in notes
> and it tells you what chord it is?
>
> I've looked all over and can't find one....
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.




You'll be a much better musician and composer if you learn how to identify
and analyze the chords yourself.

[Angeline J.]

"Steven Briggs" <steven.briggs@occamgreen.com> wrote in message
news:bbfiep$cas$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST that analyzes MIDI notes
> and tells you what chord it is? Alternatively, one that you type in notes
> and it tells you what chord it is?
>
> I've looked all over and can't find one....
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.




You'll be a much better musician and composer if you learn how to identify
and analyze the chords yourself.

[Nemo]

"Angeline J." <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fCWCa.5058

> You'll be a much better musician and composer if you learn how to identify
> and analyze the chords yourself.

I hate the people making stupid assertion when asking for something useful.
Evidently finding a program that helps you identifing weird chords can help
you improve your skills.

Why don't you think before speak?

[Angeline J.]

"Nemo" <nemo@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:TduDa.41910$pR3.903190@news1.tin.it...
>
> "Angeline J." <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fCWCa.5058
>
> > You'll be a much better musician and composer if you learn how to
identify
> > and analyze the chords yourself.
>
> I hate the people making stupid assertion when asking for something
useful.
> Evidently finding a program that helps you identifing weird chords can
help
> you improve your skills.
>
> Why don't you think before speak?




It's better to get a book which helps one identify 'weird' chords. Learning
how chords are put together is central to gaining a greater understanding of
how music works. If we want to become the best composers we can be (I assume
that is a goal of everyone here), we must have an understanding of music
theory.

Besides, those programs won't work all the time. In a complex piece the
third and the fifth will often be missing (on purpose). In very complex
harmonic pieces, the root note can be missing most of the time. It's called
"implied harmony". example: George Shearing's arrangement of "Over the
Rainbow".

Thus far, the computer is no substitute for the human mind. Try using one of
the translation websites on a foreign language news article and you'll get
the idea.

[Laurence Payne]

>> You'll be a much better musician and composer if you learn how to identify
>> and analyze the chords yourself.
>
>I hate the people making stupid assertion when asking for something useful.
>Evidently finding a program that helps you identifing weird chords can help
>you improve your skills.
>
>Why don't you think before speak?
>

Unfortunately, the weirder the chord, the less likely it is that a
program will give you useful information.

CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

[FRETBUZZ]

Re the program to identify chord names:

Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes to a
basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:

the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6

I know it's a bit Luddite to suggest this to a computer based newsgroup...
but maybe getting hold of a guitarist's chord bible (with notation) would
help - after all, you know the note names so it would merely be a case of
flicking through the pages till you get to the appropriate root note or a
page showing a chord with the right notes in it; granted this is a bit of
extra work...but it will help you remember the chord names and possible
alternatives as well, plus the better ones often include a theory tutorial
about chord construction.

Regards

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kq7udvg2311lgokusgubqgnb7fbo62jmtb@4ax.com...
> >> You'll be a much better musician and composer if you learn how to
identify
> >> and analyze the chords yourself.
> >
> >I hate the people making stupid assertion when asking for something
useful.
> >Evidently finding a program that helps you identifing weird chords can
help
> >you improve your skills.
> >
> >Why don't you think before speak?
> >
>
> Unfortunately, the weirder the chord, the less likely it is that a
> program will give you useful information.
>
> CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm


---
Outgoing mail has been scanned by AVG and is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01/06/03

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <bbt13f$rv7$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, FRETBUZZ
<fretbuzz01@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes to a
> basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:
>
> the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
> the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6
>
> I know it's a bit Luddite to suggest this to a computer based newsgroup...
> but maybe getting hold of a guitarist's chord bible (with notation) would
> help - after all, you know the note names so it would merely be a case of
> flicking through the pages...

Someone already mentioned education as a replacement for the program.
"You shouldn't WANT a car, because a bike is cheaper."

I know of no program dedicated to this task, but found that feature in
Emagic's Logic sequencer recently. I play a clot of notes with an Oxy8
and in the transport bar it is analyzing every damn thing on the fly.
And pretty well too; even playing odd bass notes gives me "slash"
chords. But it's certainly not free.

--
///---

[Angeline J.]

"FRETBUZZ" <fretbuzz01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbt13f$rv7$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Re the program to identify chord names:
>
> Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes to
a
> basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:
>
> the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
> the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6


Determining which chord it is depends upon the context of the chord, ie.
what chord precedes it, what chord succeeds it, what key is it in and what
sort of harmonic structure does the song use?


> I know it's a bit Luddite to suggest this to a computer based newsgroup...
> but maybe getting hold of a guitarist's chord bible (with notation) would
> help - after all, you know the note names so it would merely be a case of
> flicking through the pages till you get to the appropriate root note or a
> page showing a chord with the right notes in it; granted this is a bit of
> extra work...but it will help you remember the chord names and possible
> alternatives as well, plus the better ones often include a theory tutorial
> about chord construction.


In the long run, learning new harmonic structures and how they work, *why* a
progression has a certain feel to it - that's the real payoff. Gaining more
knowledge, more options, becoming a better composer.

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:070620030930225349%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <bbt13f$rv7$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, FRETBUZZ
> <fretbuzz01@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes
to a
> > basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:
> >
> > the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
> > the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6
> >
> > I know it's a bit Luddite to suggest this to a computer based
newsgroup...
> > but maybe getting hold of a guitarist's chord bible (with notation)
would
> > help - after all, you know the note names so it would merely be a case
of
> > flicking through the pages...
>
> Someone already mentioned education as a replacement for the program.
> "You shouldn't WANT a car, because a bike is cheaper."


<snip>


Actually, it's: you should want to learn something because good music comes
from people who understand music, not people who know how to run a computer
program.

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <8cqEa.1629$Jw6.1184028@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, it's: you should want to learn something because good music comes
> from people who understand music, not people who know how to run a computer
> program.

The fallacy comes right after anything beginning with the phrase "You
should want...".

I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those things I
can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.

--
///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <m8qEa.1626$Jw6.1182626@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Determining which chord it is depends upon the context of the chord, ie.
> what chord precedes it, what chord succeeds it, what key is it in and what
> sort of harmonic structure does the song use?

Most frequently context is irrelevant in assigning a name to collection
of chord tones. If a chord can only be analyzed by context, it's going
to ber a tough chord to analyze anyway. Most are not.

--
///---

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:070620031506271367%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <8cqEa.1629$Jw6.1184028@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's: you should want to learn something because good music
comes
> > from people who understand music, not people who know how to run a
computer
> > program.
>
> The fallacy comes right after anything beginning with the phrase "You
> should want...".
>
> I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
> doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those things I
> can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.


Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird chords (the
original poster's need)

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message news:070620031508117620%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <m8qEa.1626$Jw6.1182626@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Determining which chord it is depends upon the context of the chord, ie.
> > what chord precedes it, what chord succeeds it, what key is it in and what
> > sort of harmonic structure does the song use?
>
> Most frequently context is irrelevant in assigning a name to collection
> of chord tones. If a chord can only be analyzed by context, it's going
> to ber a tough chord to analyze anyway. Most are not.
>


So, as FRETBUZZ wrote:

> Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes to a
> basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:
>
> the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
> the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6


In both of those cases, the context will determine the label.

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <bVCEa.1917$Jw6.1434511@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
> > doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those things I
> > can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.
>
> Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird chords (the
> original poster's need)

The OP never used the words weird, odd, complex or unusual. For all I
know he's analyzing triads.

Nevertheless computers do well what we teach them to do. Overture and
Logic both do an exceptional job of such chord analysis. Certainly they
can be faked out by a C Maj 9 with the 3rd in the bass, calling it a
Em7. But then a human could argue that it really is a Em7 in function.

What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be taught to
identify?

--
///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <JYCEa.1918$Jw6.1435283@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > Determining which chord it is depends upon the context of the chord, ie.
> > > what chord precedes it, what chord succeeds it, what key is it in and what
> > > sort of harmonic structure does the song use?
> >
> > Most frequently context is irrelevant in assigning a name to collection
> > of chord tones. If a chord can only be analyzed by context, it's going
> > to ber a tough chord to analyze anyway. Most are not.
> >
>
>
> So, as FRETBUZZ wrote:
>
> > Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes to a
> > basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:
> >
> > the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
> > the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6

That's not quite right. The later chord in eac example would be better
"named" be Dm7/F and Am6/F. Either than or the bass function is
unimportant. And if the bass funtion is unimportant that it doesn't
matter which you name it.

> In both of those cases, the context will determine the label.

As my other post emphasizes, I'm not sure that context always makes
this chord non-ambiguous. For example, most of the time I see a
diminished chord identified in sheet music it's a 7b9 chord with a 3rd
(or other non-root) in the bass.

Computer programs and human brains are both capable of a great deal of
ambiguity, contradiction and differing of "opinions". So while a
program can't resolve all chord assemblies, neither can a musician.

--
///---

[Jeffery S. Jones]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:27:30 GMT, "Angeline J."
<fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"FRETBUZZ" <fretbuzz01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bbt13f$rv7$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Re the program to identify chord names:
>>
>> Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes to
>a
>> basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:
>>
>> the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
>> the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6
>
>
>Determining which chord it is depends upon the context of the chord, ie.
>what chord precedes it, what chord succeeds it, what key is it in and what
>sort of harmonic structure does the song use?

A bunch of programs give OK guesses for this. GNMIDI is a nice
shareware tool which does this in a useful fashion, generating text
markers to work with.

It isn't a substitute for knowing the chords. But as a short cut to
getting them, it is a help. If you want to play harmony, I'd still
say that you must learn the chords.

But if you want to use your MIDI file as a virtual fake book, the
chord analyzer tools give you a quick way to do it. If the program
guesses wrong, you can still add your own choices *if* you know how to
harmonize.



>> I know it's a bit Luddite to suggest this to a computer based newsgroup...
>> but maybe getting hold of a guitarist's chord bible (with notation) would
>> help - after all, you know the note names so it would merely be a case of
>> flicking through the pages till you get to the appropriate root note or a
>> page showing a chord with the right notes in it; granted this is a bit of
>> extra work...but it will help you remember the chord names and possible
>> alternatives as well, plus the better ones often include a theory tutorial
>> about chord construction.
>
>
>In the long run, learning new harmonic structures and how they work, *why* a
>progression has a certain feel to it - that's the real payoff. Gaining more
>knowledge, more options, becoming a better composer.

I think that chord analysis tools can help to do that.

Ever play from a fake book? You can't do a lot with one unless you
know how to build the harmonies. But if you know the chords used, and
can listen to the music (or if lucky, see a real score of it -- sheet
music isn't cheap most places), it can speed up learning.


--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

[Barry Graham]

"FRETBUZZ" <fretbuzz01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbt13f$rv7$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
> the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6
>
If the Am6 is ACEF# it could be F#m7b5.
Am6 is the sort of name that frequently appears in stock sheet music so that
"Grandma Potts from Stumpy Gully" doesn't get phased by a m7b5 chord. Often
the bass line gives it away.

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:080620031001292250%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <bVCEa.1917$Jw6.1434511@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
> > > doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those things
I
> > > can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.
> >
> > Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird chords
(the
> > original poster's need)
>
> The OP never used the words weird, odd, complex or unusual. For all I
> know he's analyzing triads.
>
> Nevertheless computers do well what we teach them to do. Overture and
> Logic both do an exceptional job of such chord analysis. Certainly they
> can be faked out by a C Maj 9 with the 3rd in the bass, calling it a
> Em7. But then a human could argue that it really is a Em7 in function.
>
> What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be taught to
> identify?



See a previous post of min in this thread about implied harmony.

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:080620031008076132%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <JYCEa.1918$Jw6.1435283@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline

>
> Computer programs and human brains are both capable of a great deal of
> ambiguity, contradiction and differing of "opinions". So while a
> program can't resolve all chord assemblies, neither can a musician.



True.

I am convinced though, that reliance on such a program limits one's musical
horizons. A good musician can ID chords easily and nearly instantaneously.
If a composer does not have those skills, I'll wager that the harmonic
options available in that mind will be fewer and sometimes even nonexistent.

I have that opinion because I've been in that place before - lacking
knowledge. One can never know too much music theory, IMO.

[dave]

i agree, whats the use of having a computer program to anaylse chords for
you. it would be a lot simpler to work it out on a piano or guitar than
trying to be smart and start up your computer to do it, and end up getting
it wrong. Im not a professions musician at all, but its not rocket science.



"Angeline J." <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CaeGa.4518$Jw6.3145344@news1.news.adelphia.ne t...
>
> "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:080620031008076132%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> > In article <JYCEa.1918$Jw6.1435283@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
>
> >
> > Computer programs and human brains are both capable of a great deal of
> > ambiguity, contradiction and differing of "opinions". So while a
> > program can't resolve all chord assemblies, neither can a musician.
>
>
>
> True.
>
> I am convinced though, that reliance on such a program limits one's
musical
> horizons. A good musician can ID chords easily and nearly instantaneously.
> If a composer does not have those skills, I'll wager that the harmonic
> options available in that mind will be fewer and sometimes even
nonexistent.
>
> I have that opinion because I've been in that place before - lacking
> knowledge. One can never know too much music theory, IMO.
>
>

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <w4eGa.4517$Jw6.3143719@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
> > > > doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those things
> I
> > > > can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.
> > >
> > > Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird chords
> (the
> > > original poster's need)
> >
> > The OP never used the words weird, odd, complex or unusual. For all I
> > know he's analyzing triads.
> >
> > Nevertheless computers do well what we teach them to do. Overture and
> > Logic both do an exceptional job of such chord analysis. Certainly they
> > can be faked out by a C Maj 9 with the 3rd in the bass, calling it a
> > Em7. But then a human could argue that it really is a Em7 in function.
> >
> > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be taught to
> > identify?
>
>
> See a previous post of min in this thread about implied harmony.

See my response to that post.

--
///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <CaeGa.4518$Jw6.3145344@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Computer programs and human brains are both capable of a great deal of
> > ambiguity, contradiction and differing of "opinions". So while a
> > program can't resolve all chord assemblies, neither can a musician.
>
> True.
>
> I am convinced though, that reliance on such a program limits one's musical
> horizons.

I agree. I don't think anyone has argued for "reliance" on such a
program. Someone was simply looking for such a program. I don't think
they said they didn't want to learn harmony, didn't want to be able to
identify chords or any other variation on that now fixed theme.

> A good musician can ID chords easily and nearly instantaneously.

I'll leave it to you to define what a "good musician" is. I've known a
number that couldn't identify much of anything either on paper or in
English, but jeez could they play music. They didn't know what a 7b9
was but could play them anytime they were called for.

> If a composer does not have those skills, I'll wager that the harmonic
> options available in that mind will be fewer and sometimes even nonexistent.

Provided they also lacked a vast amount of personal playing experience,
I would agree.

> I have that opinion because I've been in that place before - lacking
> knowledge. One can never know too much music theory, IMO.

There is an age-old fear (or variation on sloth) exemplified by a
reluctance to learn harmony because it will "shape" a musicians
thinking. "Influence" them adversely; make them sound "academic", etc.
I think that's bogus. I too have always been passionate about learning
theory.

But I don't discount a computer's program to encourage that curiosity
for others, rather than squelch it. I make no judgement whatever on
such a program use for good or evil.

In essence:

"Say, what time is it?"
"You oughta buy a watch."
[Vamp on watchs, clocks, and the history of time measurement.]

--
///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <bcc33k$k6a$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, dave
<sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> i agree, whats the use of having a computer program to anaylse chords for
> you.

How about correcting your errant thinking as you learn; verifying your
guesses and/or pointing out other ways of using the same chords? Just
the first though off the top of my head.

> it would be a lot simpler to work it out on a piano or guitar than
> trying to be smart and start up your computer to do it, and end up getting
> it wrong.

As a student, once you think you've accurately "worked it out", how
best to verify?

> Im not a professions musician at all, but its not rocket science.

Neither is the concept that a program has to be "validated" by people
who don't need it before it's deemed feasible.

--
///---

[dave]

well on you go and spend hours playing chords into a computer Gerry, and
have fun guessing what they are. Then when you hone this skill down to a
fine art, give me a shout.

Personally, ill continue to work chords out on an instrument, and using what
I call "the sense of hearing", shall be able to tell whether Im onto the
right chord or not.





"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:130620030841267748%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <bcc33k$k6a$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, dave
> <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > i agree, whats the use of having a computer program to anaylse chords
for
> > you.
>
> How about correcting your errant thinking as you learn; verifying your
> guesses and/or pointing out other ways of using the same chords? Just
> the first though off the top of my head.
>
> > it would be a lot simpler to work it out on a piano or guitar than
> > trying to be smart and start up your computer to do it, and end up
getting
> > it wrong.
>
> As a student, once you think you've accurately "worked it out", how
> best to verify?
>
> > Im not a professions musician at all, but its not rocket science.
>
> Neither is the concept that a program has to be "validated" by people
> who don't need it before it's deemed feasible.
>
> --
> ///---

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:130620030829133796%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <w4eGa.4517$Jw6.3143719@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
> > > > > doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those
things
> > I
> > > > > can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.
> > > >
> > > > Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird
chords
> > (the
> > > > original poster's need)
> > >
> > > The OP never used the words weird, odd, complex or unusual. For all I
> > > know he's analyzing triads.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless computers do well what we teach them to do. Overture and
> > > Logic both do an exceptional job of such chord analysis. Certainly
they
> > > can be faked out by a C Maj 9 with the 3rd in the bass, calling it a
> > > Em7. But then a human could argue that it really is a Em7 in
function.
> > >
> > > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be taught to
> > > identify?
> >
> >
> > See a previous post of min in this thread about implied harmony.
>
> See my response to that post.


You didn't respond to that particular post.

George Shearing's "Over the Rainbow" (his arrangement)

In a good portion of the chord progressions, the root note is left out.

I'm not sure what computer algorithm could be devised to recognize that.

Computers seem all powerful, but consider that even a 2 year old has a
greater capacity for understanding language than a computer.

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <gqoGa.5193$Jw6.3288869@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be
> taught to identify?
>
> George Shearing's "Over the Rainbow" (his arrangement)
>
> In a good portion of the chord progressions, the root note is left
> out.

Leaving the root note out of the chord doesn't automatically produce an
inaccurately identified chord. Clearly a program doesn't depend on
analyzing chords only if the root is present.

Are you gonna spell me a chord that you think a computer can't analyze
or not? I'll assume you won't attempt it.

> I'm not sure what computer algorithm could be devised to recognize
> that.

Do you know a lot about computer algorithms?

> Computers seem all powerful, but consider that even a 2 year old has
> a greater capacity for understanding language than a computer.

They can't wash the dishes either. What has that got to do with the
topic? I sense that this has little to do with computers or chord
analysis.

--
///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <bccu0s$51i$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, dave
<sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> well on you go and spend hours playing chords into a computer Gerry,
> and have fun guessing what they are.

Logically such a program would be doing the guess work, not me. See,
that would be the *purpose* of the program. See the initial post for
further clarification.

> Then when you hone this skill down to a fine art, give me a shout.

HEY DAVE!

That was a shout. I could analyze chords into forever before personal
computers existed. Try to focus: I didn't request the program--someone
else did. Are you trying to say I could never have acquired the skill I
have, if I had used software to help me? Is this limited to chord
analysis--or to every utility a computer might have?

Using such a program, for any reason whatsoever, isn't inherently evil,
growth-stunting or anything else. It's just a frigging program!

I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
be a musician or composer if you used a computer. The same with
Band-in-a-Box, quite possibly the greatest practice-aid ever invented
for a musician.

It seems you have too much emotional involvement to address the topic.

> Personally, ill continue to work chords out on an instrument, and
> using what I call "the sense of hearing", shall be able to tell
> whether Im onto the right chord or not.

You might ponder the use of a grammar-checking software, I'm not sure
what the syntax of that phrase intended.

For maybe the fourth and final time--nobody in this thread has endorsed
using a program INSTEAD of learning theory. No one. Nobody has said
you shouldn't listen, hear, or play a musical instrument.

--
///---

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message news:130620031403571932%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <gqoGa.5193$Jw6.3288869@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be
> > taught to identify?
> >
> > George Shearing's "Over the Rainbow" (his arrangement)
> >
> > In a good portion of the chord progressions, the root note is left
> > out.
>
> Leaving the root note out of the chord doesn't automatically produce an
> inaccurately identified chord. Clearly a program doesn't depend on
> analyzing chords only if the root is present.
>
> Are you gonna spell me a chord that you think a computer can't analyze
> or not? I'll assume you won't attempt it.

I'll break out the chord progression from "Over the Rainbow" later.


> > I'm not sure what computer algorithm could be devised to recognize
> > that.
>
> Do you know a lot about computer algorithms?


Yes. One of my majors in college was Computer Science. I went through the Math Department at UC San Diego and much of the upper division coursework was theoretical although we did do a fair amount of real programming.

Programs like compilers (translate third generation languages like C, BASIC, etc. into assembly code) parse a program, break it up into different symbols and run it through an algorithm which (IIRC) models a structure called a deterministic finite automata. It works for computer languages because the grammar is fixed. A deterministic finite automata does not work for spoken languages - there is too much variation.

Chord recognition is almost infinitely simpler than understand a spoken language, but it still isn't deterministic because of context (for example, the "implied harmony"). However, I'll guess that an algorithm could be designed that would recognize all but the most esoteric jazz progressions.

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message news:130620031418435095%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
>
> I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
> software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
> be a musician or composer if you used a computer.


That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how music works.

Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer assisted counterpart.

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
> > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
> > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.
>
> That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing
> because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how music
> works.
>
> Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer assisted counterpart.

Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat.
It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
both extant programs.

--
///---

[Angeline J.]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
> > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
> > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.
> >
> > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing
> > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how
music
> > works.
> >
> > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer
assisted counterpart.
>
> Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
> evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat


Read my post, dubmbass. I said that score writing by hand and its computer
assisted counterpart are the same thing.

[dave]

hey Gerry, no one likes you.


"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
> > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
> > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.
> >
> > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing
> > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how
music
> > works.
> >
> > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer
assisted counterpart.
>
> Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
> evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat.
> It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
> both extant programs.
>
> --
> ///---

[Mike C.]

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gerry seems to be
the voice of reason here and there are only two participants who are arguing
beyond reason with him. I'd say that it looks like *you* don't like him,
because he has shaken up your little world of "how music works, according to
Dave". Sometimes you have to be open to new ideas or you stagnate.

I, for one, don't find it all that necessary to pick up an instrument to
figure out if the chord works or not. I can tell by using my sense of
relative pitch, and if the chord has been misnamed, I can make the
adjustment, either in my head on the spot, or taking a few extra seconds to
physically correct it on the page/in the computer program.

"dave" <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bckmoq$4bj$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk...
> hey Gerry, no one likes you.
>
>
> "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> > In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding
score-writing
> > > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you
couldn't
> > > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.
> > >
> > > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same
thing
> > > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how
> music
> > > works.
> > >
> > > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer
> assisted counterpart.
> >
> > Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
> > evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat.
> > It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
> > both extant programs.
> >
> > --
> > ///---
>
>

[dave]

Hey Mike. No one likes you either!


"Mike C." <Funkifized@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BrEIa.52082$sm5.59582@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et...
> Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gerry seems to
be
> the voice of reason here and there are only two participants who are
arguing
> beyond reason with him. I'd say that it looks like *you* don't like him,
> because he has shaken up your little world of "how music works, according
to
> Dave". Sometimes you have to be open to new ideas or you stagnate.
>
> I, for one, don't find it all that necessary to pick up an instrument to
> figure out if the chord works or not. I can tell by using my sense of
> relative pitch, and if the chord has been misnamed, I can make the
> adjustment, either in my head on the spot, or taking a few extra seconds
to
> physically correct it on the page/in the computer program.
>
> "dave" <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bckmoq$4bj$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk...
> > hey Gerry, no one likes you.
> >
> >
> > "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invali d...
> > > In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
> > > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding
> score-writing
> > > > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you
> couldn't
> > > > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.
> > > >
> > > > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same
> thing
> > > > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how
> > music
> > > > works.
> > > >
> > > > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer
> > assisted counterpart.
> > >
> > > Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
> > > evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and
sweat.
> > > It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
> > > both extant programs.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ///---
> >
> >
>
>

[Loki Harfagr]

"dave" <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:bcvd3d$9fp$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk:

> Hey Mike. No one likes you either!
>
>
> "Mike C." <Funkifized@msn.com> wrote in message
>

OK, just to get in the tune you play:

Trim your posts
Don't top post.

Was it correctly shaped ? Pure Major 6th ;D)

[Angeline J.]

"Mike C." <Funkifized@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BrEIa.52082$sm5.59582@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et...
> Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gerry seems to
be
> the voice of reason here and there are only two participants who are
arguing
> beyond reason with him.


I did call him a dumbass, my bad.

Other than that, what's unreasonable about my position? Please be specific.

[makeitfunky]

Steven Briggs wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of a (preferably free), app/VST that analyzes MIDI notes
> and tells you what chord it is? Alternatively, one that you type in notes
> and it tells you what chord it is?
>
> I've looked all over and can't find one....
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks

After reading all the scientific mumbo jumbo concerning the efficacious
ways in which one choses to learn. Here is one program attached. Crude
as it is, there are other costly alternatives such as Band-In-A-Box and
Cakewalk/Sonar that try to interpet chords. Hope this is of help?

From one of many aliases

[Guentcho Skordev]

In comp.music.midi Angeline J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike C." <Funkifized@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:BrEIa.52082$sm5.59582@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et...
>> Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gerry seems to be
>> the voice of reason here and there are only two participants who are arguing
>> beyond reason with him.
> I did call him a dumbass, my bad.
> Other than that, what's unreasonable about my position? Please be specific.

What if the question was something like:
"I am looking for a program to calculate 254+367-423*7." ;-)

(f'up only to comp.music.midi)

No offence.

Bye
Guentcho

[Angeline J.]

"Guentcho Skordev" <ut13@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote in message
news:bdhfol$43k$1@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
> In comp.music.midi Angeline J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > "Mike C." <Funkifized@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:BrEIa.52082$sm5.59582@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et...
> >> Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gerry seems
to be
> >> the voice of reason here and there are only two participants who are
arguing
> >> beyond reason with him.
> > I did call him a dumbass, my bad.
> > Other than that, what's unreasonable about my position? Please be
specific.
>
> What if the question was something like:
> "I am looking for a program to calculate 254+367-423*7." ;-)




Microsoft Excel.