Re: Chord Analyser

[U]

A group of tones can have many chord names

It;s a contextual thing..

It depend's on what key you are in

you can have a missing root you can have other missing tones but
that would affect the name of the chord.


but beyond that the same group of tones (or their inversion) can be
intepreted many ways

For instance a C chord (C-E G )could be a considered an Em #5 ( E -G
B#) or, a bit of a stretch, as a G sus4 aug 5 No third

It's contextual.

take a harmony course






On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:17:11 GMT, "Angeline J."
<fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"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 automat
a. 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 bu
t the most esoteric jazz progressions.

[U]

>
>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.
>


Actually..I;m not so sure that is true..

the Beatles knew very little (academiaclly) about music..

Yet very few would sonsder ther music to not be good.

Good music comes from some right brain place

being able to do theoetical analysis is good but it's not what' s
most important.

[U]

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


^^^I probably agree with this but..

>I know music inside and out; much better than computers.


this is questionable..?unless you're a reincarnation of Mozart

because if you truly knew music inside and out you'd be able to just
take your midi file and turn them into nomemclature via the computer
and in your head, on the fly, be able to see what the harmony is
(chords are) by sight reading the music on the staff and hence not
want a dumb program to do it.

Actually if you were Mozrt ou'd be able to hear it at a concert then
go home and write the whole thing down from memory. but any ways..

beyond that music is less logical than CS; besides the context I
mentioned in other posts.Musical theory itself is not like scientific
theory; it's not even a pseudo science. There's tonality ther's modes
there's atonality.. and today these things overlap but beyound that
there' modulation..

so it's hard for a computer to have any way of being able to presume
the context for any thing but the easiest pieces

[Angeline J.]

"U" <udubleau@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ej03lv46vmknhsvhlle3hc3rjsnfv3bfnf@4ax.com...
> A group of tones can have many chord names
>
> It;s a contextual thing..
>
> It depend's on what key you are in
>
> you can have a missing root you can have other missing tones but
> that would affect the name of the chord.
>
>
> but beyond that the same group of tones (or their inversion) can be
> intepreted many ways
>
> For instance a C chord (C-E G )could be a considered an Em #5 ( E -G
> B#) or, a bit of a stretch, as a G sus4 aug 5 No third
>
> It's contextual.



I know that.



> take a harmony course



I used to teach a harmony course.

[Jeffery S. Jones]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:04:09 GMT, U <udubleau@excite.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.
>>
>
>
>Actually..I;m not so sure that is true..
>
>the Beatles knew very little (academiaclly) about music..

That isn't exactly true. Paul and George were students of music,
maybe not experts on classical but nowhere near being untrained
naturals. They could read and write music (as could John).

>Yet very few would sonsder ther music to not be good.

The music of the Beatles, especially the later Lennon and McCartney
pieces, used some heavy jazz/blues harmonies combined with classical
structures.

>Good music comes from some right brain place
>
>being able to do theoetical analysis is good but it's not what' s
>most important.

No, but being aware of the structure makes it easier to write it
down, and also easier to know what chords and harmonies might mix well
in a song. It is a lot easier to write complex music if you know more
than the three basic chords of rock and roll.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>