You Don't Know What A TRIAD Is [Music Theory]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2024
- Do you find triads confusing? Why are there so many rules about what is and isn't a triad? To have all your Q's A'd, keep watching this video.
---
FREE eBook "How To Learn The Notes On Your Guitar Fretboard": www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
FREE eBook "18 Tips To Make Your Pentatonic Solos Sound Professional": www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
Complete Chord Mastery course: www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
Master of the Modes course: www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
---
If you like this video, share, like, comment & don't forget to subscribe for more content!
Need help with music theory for guitar? Check out these FREE resources: www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
FOLLOW ME:
UA-cam: / musictheoryforguitar
Facebook: / musictheoryforguitar
Twitter: / theoryguitar
Website: musictheoryforguitar.com
So yea, the meanings of words are very important, but also not always critical to correct communication, but often can be. And so off I went to read a few definitions. But then it immediately became apparent this was not going to be as easy as I thought. I of course found the one most common definition was "a group of three things or persons." The next thing I noticed was a number of dictionaries included the definition "a secret Chinese Society" and another was just "A Chinese Gang."
The musical definitions varied from the most limiting being "a major or minor triad containing the minor or Major third with a perfect fifth," to "a group of three notes containing intervals of thirds." Only a few seemed to understand music theory very well, and those would go on to include augmented and diminished.
But seeing how there really was no general consensus, and that few of those who seemed to just even go so far as to consult actual music theorists, I decided that to have a functionable definition that was not limited solely by opinion and definitely not by ignorance or apathy, I should look deeper into the etymology, the history of the word itself.
The general consensus, and here I found little disagreement, is it comes from the Latin _triad_ and Greek _trias,_ simply meaning _three._ The first recorded uses are from 1546, and then in 1801 it was introduced as a musical term.
Fun fact: According to the Oxford Dictionary, there are bout three occurrences per million words in modern written English.
So now, as for my own use, I'll still think of the word as meaning "three of something." And for music since I am not in agreement with things that limit ones understanding, I will use the term as I always have, meaning a chord containing three different notes, and that can be a chord that doesn't even have a fifth or a third. A chord could just have a root, 7th, and a 13th, or whatever.
Loved the video regardless. I think the subject is interesting, and it kept my mind off some icky stuff. lols
Thanks, Tommaso.😊
Beautiful explanation!!!
and now, what is a dyad and what is a bichord? -I think, for my own sanity, I'll just stick to calling everything a chord and just adding the particular type of chord in front of it: I think there is some value to dividing chords up into dyads, triads and extended chords but because all of them have unique sounds, I prefer having one paradigm. With that being said, I don't see exactly why "trichord" would be more tricky to remember than "triad" except that people are used to the second word. I think "Viennese" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in making it (the Viennese trichord) seem more exotic than it really is. The only way to make the distinction clearer would be to call triads "thirds chords" instead and then call trichords "three-note chords" and include thirds chords within three-note chords.
Agreed. And "trichord" is definitely a purposeful fancy name.
"Tertiary" is an adjective that is used to indicate that you are doing harmony in thirds. "Secundal" is when you stack seconds, "quartal" is when you stack in fourths, and "quintal" is sometimes used for stacking fifths.
SecundAL
TertiARY
QuartAL
QuintAL
One of these things is not like the others ;-)
I'd go for "ternal".
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar ua-cam.com/video/rsRjQDrDnY8/v-deo.html
@@christopherheckman7957 Yes, and it's less transparent than just calling them "thirds chords", "fourths chords", etc. I know Latin makes things sound fancy in English, but it doesn't make them better or easier to understand.
Great discussion! Though provoking to say the least! 🙏🙏🦋
Yes, okay, but... When I play a Cmaj11 chord, am I stacking a B dim triad on top of a C major triad, or am I stacking a G-B-F non-triad on top of a C-D-E non-triad? 🤪
HAHAHA :-)
Very interesting discussion! Thanks a lot for it. Now the question for another video: why does a ("standard") triad consist in intervals of thirds (and not fourths, let's say)? Does it have to do with consonnance (and frequency)? So with harmonics? So what is consonnance?
I am editing that video right now, actually...
Standard triad comprises 2 types of intervals, the major 3rd and the minor 3rd. Therefore, applying this definition to augmented and diminished chords might face opposition since it deviates from the classical triad definition based on perfect 5th. Some argue that it doesn't align with the classical triadic definition, while others consider it a valid interpretation of triads. I lean more towards the latter perspective.
hence the question is: can we use any notes to form any chords, and we are free to assign names as we wish?
For instance, Allan Holdsworth had his own system of naming scales and chords. The symbols and names he used were comprehensible only to him. For example, when he played a G9#5 chord, in his mind, he might not have conceptualized it with that name at all.
But, for effective communication, there needs to be a certain level of consensus. Even someone like Allan, in his teachings, tries to translate his system into the widely accepted language and definitions of music. Otherwise, it would be impossible to understand the differences between an individual's musical definitions and those recognized by the general public.
So, we cannot oppose anyone who wishes to refer to any set of three notes as a triad. However, to meet the goal of effective communication, it is advisable to adhere to certain rules. If CDG can be considered a triad, should there not be a rule to follow? If CDG is acceptable, what about CDE? or even C C# D? Are they also considered triads?
Thank you for each of your videos. I am a more intelligent player because of them.
1) Do I call an inversion of a triad a triad?
2) Any three notes played simultaniously I may understand as an inversion of 7th, 9th, 11th or 13h chord with 3rd or 5th suspended?...
3) ...because most of the music I hear is based on interval of 3rd. An alternative to that is music based on fourths which is reserved for complex avantgarde music.
4) While harmony based on thirds is more physiological?
The designation of triads as 3rds strikes me as sensible from a chord construction perspective. In this way, the 3 adjacent lines or spaces on the staff for a given key signature form each core triad. As you illustrate, these can undergo modification with accidentals. This seems easiest and most reconcilable - a coherent logical framework.
Definitions are important. Nomenclature is important. Neither definitions or nomenclature is limiting.
People spend far too much time attempting to redefine things to suit their narratives or preconceptions rather than just learning and understanding what is known. They fear being limited by those definitions, when in fact understanding the definitions free you to explore and explain variations. Without knowing what a triad is, one cannot discuss clearly what a sus2 chord is, why it is not a triad, and how non-tertiary chordal structure is created. Or at least, one cannot discuss this as simply and directly.
Now let me watch your video…
Interested in your reaction when you have watched it.
9:59 This is a natural triad:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Like 200 Hz, 400 Hz, 600 Hz, 800 Hz, 1000 Hz and 1200 Hz
If however string lengths are used at 4 5 6, the Hz will be 1200 Hz - x - 800 Hz.
And x will not be 1000 Hz, I think it will be ... wait, let's calculate, 960 Hz.
800 Hz, 960 Hz and 1200 Hz is a minor triad, obtained by doing the natural thing on the strings rather than the frequencies.
These are then the major and minor triad.
Augmented, diminished, sus 4, sus 2, perhaps the other two as well, are approximations, they are _near triads_ from the point of music theory.
That's why in normal tonality, you don't end a composition on any of those, but only on major and minor.
From many points of view, the _near triads_ share traits with the triads. But they have an extra trait, namely calling for a resolution.
Is this a good enough theory?
It feels like you and Noel Johnston need to talk! 😅 Some nice synergy....
Discussions online about this have a similar feel to the IAU definition of a planet. Don't challenge the logic of the definition in an effort to understand why and when it applies, lest you be pounced on as a heretic.
Well, just as I don't really care if Pluto is called a planet or not (as long as we are aware that there is that specific big rock in that position in space), then I don't really care what is called a triad or not (as long as we are aware of what is going on musically). Some definitions are more useful than others, of course.
You brought light to this situation, not heat. Thanks 🙏
Very cleverly put, and thanks!
I've always thought of shell voicings as triads with the simple (practical) thinking that I'm playing 3 notes. So, whether right or wrong, my brain has decided that when I'm playing 3 notes, it's a triad as opposed to a partial chord.
🤘
👉How many ways can you stack up a chord?
How Many ways can you express a chord?
I generally don't call something a triad except in discussions of more complex chords. For example, if someone asks how to improvise over a Cmaj9 chord, I might suggest starting with notes from the base triad. If we're discussing cowboy chords, I don't call them triads; I just call them basic chords.
I agree with this video, and I would add one thing: if your definition of "triad" differs from the classical definition, you should say so in any lessons you teach. You aren't wrong for calling something a triad based on your own definition, but you are wrong for teaching that it is _factually_ a triad if it's not commonly called that.
As a non-musical example, I am a sofware developer, and I have my own definition of what a _variable_ is. Whenever I teach programming to someone, I give them the standard definition (it's a value that can change), and the I say that it's better to think of it my way (it's a value that you don't know at the time you write the program), and I tell them why my definition is better (because "can change" is a confusing phrase, as most variables do not _change_ once they are set). But this way they don't go around telling everyone they're wrong for using the standard definition, or (more importantly 😉) thinking I'm an idiot for teaching them something wrong.
Yes.
0:17 Are you getting that harp from a guitar synth? 8-)
1:59 E♭; you wrote E. And you wrote a B instead of a C for the root of that diminished chord, too.
4:03 C-D-E is a secundal chord. (And amazingly, you can play this - where the C, D, and E are consecutive; i.e., no octave-skipping - on a guitar in standard tuning!!)
4:20 A quartal triad has the same notes as the suspended triad, so it should count, too.
5:17 The only absolute requirement to have a triad is to have three notes (tri = 3).
6:18 Same with mathematics. If you read through a Calculus textbook, every now and then you'll see something defined, and this is done to specifically nail down what things have that property and what things don't.
8:57 Just when you thought things couldn't get more confusing, there are also augmented thirds and diminished thirds. (So you could, for instance, spell C F G enharmonically as C E# G and have a triad of thirds: one augmented and one diminished.)
9:39 But calling them "incomplete seventh chords" doesn't preclude someone from calling them triads, too.
1:59 E♭; you wrote E.
I love that father Guido Sarducci is enjoying music in his later years... 😊