An octave chord is not a real standard concept?












2















One user named Maika Sakuranomiya had posted this answer to a question:




Cadence for Phrygian mode: v(no5)(no3) - i




A (no5)(no3) means an octave chord, which indicates a power chord without the fifth - two or more same notes being played in different octaves.



However, then another user named User45266 had commented like this on the answer:




V(no5)(no3)? I'm sorry, but what? That is literally just a single note. I see why you wrote that, but I can't quite convince myself that a single note can be part of a cadence.




A user named Dom had posted a similar comment:




Concepts like V(no5)(no3) are not real.




Does that mean octave chords are not part of standard usage?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • The problem is that the theory of chord analysis and functional analysis is adapted to another historical concept of music like e.g. plain chant with a perfect interval at the finalis.

    – Albrecht Hügli
    2 hours ago











  • No disrespect, Albrecht Hügli, but Tomoko Vertex, this site holds that answers should be accepted after a delay period to allow other answers to have a chance to arrive. You seem to have accepted the first answer one minute after it was posted, where generally we wait hours, at least.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Yes, User45266. I did. :D

    – Tomoko Vertex
    2 hours ago











  • meta.stackexchange.com/q/5234/401908 backs me up here. I'm not sure I find that funny, if you're doing it as a joke.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago













  • @TomokoVertex I do like this question and your other posts, and I just want to help you with the workings of this site. I don't mean to be rude or discouraging.

    – user45266
    1 hour ago
















2















One user named Maika Sakuranomiya had posted this answer to a question:




Cadence for Phrygian mode: v(no5)(no3) - i




A (no5)(no3) means an octave chord, which indicates a power chord without the fifth - two or more same notes being played in different octaves.



However, then another user named User45266 had commented like this on the answer:




V(no5)(no3)? I'm sorry, but what? That is literally just a single note. I see why you wrote that, but I can't quite convince myself that a single note can be part of a cadence.




A user named Dom had posted a similar comment:




Concepts like V(no5)(no3) are not real.




Does that mean octave chords are not part of standard usage?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • The problem is that the theory of chord analysis and functional analysis is adapted to another historical concept of music like e.g. plain chant with a perfect interval at the finalis.

    – Albrecht Hügli
    2 hours ago











  • No disrespect, Albrecht Hügli, but Tomoko Vertex, this site holds that answers should be accepted after a delay period to allow other answers to have a chance to arrive. You seem to have accepted the first answer one minute after it was posted, where generally we wait hours, at least.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Yes, User45266. I did. :D

    – Tomoko Vertex
    2 hours ago











  • meta.stackexchange.com/q/5234/401908 backs me up here. I'm not sure I find that funny, if you're doing it as a joke.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago













  • @TomokoVertex I do like this question and your other posts, and I just want to help you with the workings of this site. I don't mean to be rude or discouraging.

    – user45266
    1 hour ago














2












2








2








One user named Maika Sakuranomiya had posted this answer to a question:




Cadence for Phrygian mode: v(no5)(no3) - i




A (no5)(no3) means an octave chord, which indicates a power chord without the fifth - two or more same notes being played in different octaves.



However, then another user named User45266 had commented like this on the answer:




V(no5)(no3)? I'm sorry, but what? That is literally just a single note. I see why you wrote that, but I can't quite convince myself that a single note can be part of a cadence.




A user named Dom had posted a similar comment:




Concepts like V(no5)(no3) are not real.




Does that mean octave chords are not part of standard usage?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












One user named Maika Sakuranomiya had posted this answer to a question:




Cadence for Phrygian mode: v(no5)(no3) - i




A (no5)(no3) means an octave chord, which indicates a power chord without the fifth - two or more same notes being played in different octaves.



However, then another user named User45266 had commented like this on the answer:




V(no5)(no3)? I'm sorry, but what? That is literally just a single note. I see why you wrote that, but I can't quite convince myself that a single note can be part of a cadence.




A user named Dom had posted a similar comment:




Concepts like V(no5)(no3) are not real.




Does that mean octave chords are not part of standard usage?







theory chords harmony chord-theory cadence






share|improve this question









New contributor




Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







Tomoko Vertex













New contributor




Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









Tomoko VertexTomoko Vertex

436




436




New contributor




Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • The problem is that the theory of chord analysis and functional analysis is adapted to another historical concept of music like e.g. plain chant with a perfect interval at the finalis.

    – Albrecht Hügli
    2 hours ago











  • No disrespect, Albrecht Hügli, but Tomoko Vertex, this site holds that answers should be accepted after a delay period to allow other answers to have a chance to arrive. You seem to have accepted the first answer one minute after it was posted, where generally we wait hours, at least.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Yes, User45266. I did. :D

    – Tomoko Vertex
    2 hours ago











  • meta.stackexchange.com/q/5234/401908 backs me up here. I'm not sure I find that funny, if you're doing it as a joke.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago













  • @TomokoVertex I do like this question and your other posts, and I just want to help you with the workings of this site. I don't mean to be rude or discouraging.

    – user45266
    1 hour ago



















  • The problem is that the theory of chord analysis and functional analysis is adapted to another historical concept of music like e.g. plain chant with a perfect interval at the finalis.

    – Albrecht Hügli
    2 hours ago











  • No disrespect, Albrecht Hügli, but Tomoko Vertex, this site holds that answers should be accepted after a delay period to allow other answers to have a chance to arrive. You seem to have accepted the first answer one minute after it was posted, where generally we wait hours, at least.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Yes, User45266. I did. :D

    – Tomoko Vertex
    2 hours ago











  • meta.stackexchange.com/q/5234/401908 backs me up here. I'm not sure I find that funny, if you're doing it as a joke.

    – user45266
    2 hours ago













  • @TomokoVertex I do like this question and your other posts, and I just want to help you with the workings of this site. I don't mean to be rude or discouraging.

    – user45266
    1 hour ago

















The problem is that the theory of chord analysis and functional analysis is adapted to another historical concept of music like e.g. plain chant with a perfect interval at the finalis.

– Albrecht Hügli
2 hours ago





The problem is that the theory of chord analysis and functional analysis is adapted to another historical concept of music like e.g. plain chant with a perfect interval at the finalis.

– Albrecht Hügli
2 hours ago













No disrespect, Albrecht Hügli, but Tomoko Vertex, this site holds that answers should be accepted after a delay period to allow other answers to have a chance to arrive. You seem to have accepted the first answer one minute after it was posted, where generally we wait hours, at least.

– user45266
2 hours ago





No disrespect, Albrecht Hügli, but Tomoko Vertex, this site holds that answers should be accepted after a delay period to allow other answers to have a chance to arrive. You seem to have accepted the first answer one minute after it was posted, where generally we wait hours, at least.

– user45266
2 hours ago




1




1





Yes, User45266. I did. :D

– Tomoko Vertex
2 hours ago





Yes, User45266. I did. :D

– Tomoko Vertex
2 hours ago













meta.stackexchange.com/q/5234/401908 backs me up here. I'm not sure I find that funny, if you're doing it as a joke.

– user45266
2 hours ago







meta.stackexchange.com/q/5234/401908 backs me up here. I'm not sure I find that funny, if you're doing it as a joke.

– user45266
2 hours ago















@TomokoVertex I do like this question and your other posts, and I just want to help you with the workings of this site. I don't mean to be rude or discouraging.

– user45266
1 hour ago





@TomokoVertex I do like this question and your other posts, and I just want to help you with the workings of this site. I don't mean to be rude or discouraging.

– user45266
1 hour ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0














Each age in music history had its own standards and uses, rules and theorists. But an octave chord will be possible in all periods of music. Today and also in earlier days it is used to evoke a certain effect. Actually it’s just a tone in unison. But mind the overtones! The 5th and 3rd will still be heard.






share|improve this answer

































    4














    Disclaimer: I am user45266. You're not entirely wrong about octave chords:



    Sure, an octave chord could be considered its own chord, if it helps. The doubled-up-an-octave note definitely achieves a different effect than just a single note, and I could totally see it becoming an entity similar to a power chord.



    The problem is that V(no3 no5) doesn't mean an octave chord.



    In C major, we'd start with G-B-D, take away the B, then take away the D. What have we got left? Just the note G. No definition of a chord I've ever heard allows for one-note chords, and what would be the point of calling that single note a V(no3 no5) anyway? The whole idea of a one-note chord is pretty useless.



    Sure, just from looking at the chord symbol, you could argue that V(no3 no5) implies that the root is doubled at the octave, forming a two-note chord. But why would it make any sense to even describe that as a modification to a triad anyway? It would be much more efficient to just call it an octave, or some other descriptive term that gets that idea across.



    And I especially want to mention that it makes zero sense to include them in any list of chords, because every list of chords would have to be inundated with octave chords. And since they're so simple, any performer reading that chord symbol as a modification to a triad would immediately have the exact same objections I do. I can hear it now: "Wait,... drop the 3 and the 5 ... isn't that just one note?!". And boom, you just lost the respect of the performers, because you inadvertently made their lives harder by using ridiculous non-standard chord symbols for simple concepts. (Imagine reading sheet music written in G♯ major. That, but much worse.)



    In conclusion, octave chords could be and are used as real things. Go ahead, call them octave chords (if that's how they're being used), and use them to their fullest.



    But don't call them V(no3 no5).






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      I may as well bring up the possibly disgusting use of D sharp major in one edition of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise I've seen. The thing is that the D sharp major passage is just before the ending repeat of the E major section of that polonaise--and that passage infamously has the tonic temporarily drop a semitone. ...So yeah, I can more easily imagine reading music in G sharp major than reading a chord symbol with "no3 no5".

      – Dekkadeci
      2 hours ago








    • 2





      @Dekkadeci You and I can both cringe when guitarists play their "D♯ chords" in the key of G minor, then! Or (possibly worse) when people just using whatever enharmonic spellings they want, creating such horrors as "E-A♭m-D♭m-B". Eww!

      – user45266
      1 hour ago











    • Too true. I've fallen for Abm in key E. Just couldn't play it - it didn't exist! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it's said. Too much can be worse! I'm still sceptial that 5 chords are chords. This octave thing takes it to another level. Why stop there..?!

      – Tim
      15 mins ago














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "240"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84207%2fan-octave-chord-is-not-a-real-standard-concept%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    Each age in music history had its own standards and uses, rules and theorists. But an octave chord will be possible in all periods of music. Today and also in earlier days it is used to evoke a certain effect. Actually it’s just a tone in unison. But mind the overtones! The 5th and 3rd will still be heard.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      Each age in music history had its own standards and uses, rules and theorists. But an octave chord will be possible in all periods of music. Today and also in earlier days it is used to evoke a certain effect. Actually it’s just a tone in unison. But mind the overtones! The 5th and 3rd will still be heard.






      share|improve this answer




























        0












        0








        0







        Each age in music history had its own standards and uses, rules and theorists. But an octave chord will be possible in all periods of music. Today and also in earlier days it is used to evoke a certain effect. Actually it’s just a tone in unison. But mind the overtones! The 5th and 3rd will still be heard.






        share|improve this answer















        Each age in music history had its own standards and uses, rules and theorists. But an octave chord will be possible in all periods of music. Today and also in earlier days it is used to evoke a certain effect. Actually it’s just a tone in unison. But mind the overtones! The 5th and 3rd will still be heard.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 23 mins ago









        Tim

        106k10107270




        106k10107270










        answered 2 hours ago









        Albrecht HügliAlbrecht Hügli

        5,1641420




        5,1641420























            4














            Disclaimer: I am user45266. You're not entirely wrong about octave chords:



            Sure, an octave chord could be considered its own chord, if it helps. The doubled-up-an-octave note definitely achieves a different effect than just a single note, and I could totally see it becoming an entity similar to a power chord.



            The problem is that V(no3 no5) doesn't mean an octave chord.



            In C major, we'd start with G-B-D, take away the B, then take away the D. What have we got left? Just the note G. No definition of a chord I've ever heard allows for one-note chords, and what would be the point of calling that single note a V(no3 no5) anyway? The whole idea of a one-note chord is pretty useless.



            Sure, just from looking at the chord symbol, you could argue that V(no3 no5) implies that the root is doubled at the octave, forming a two-note chord. But why would it make any sense to even describe that as a modification to a triad anyway? It would be much more efficient to just call it an octave, or some other descriptive term that gets that idea across.



            And I especially want to mention that it makes zero sense to include them in any list of chords, because every list of chords would have to be inundated with octave chords. And since they're so simple, any performer reading that chord symbol as a modification to a triad would immediately have the exact same objections I do. I can hear it now: "Wait,... drop the 3 and the 5 ... isn't that just one note?!". And boom, you just lost the respect of the performers, because you inadvertently made their lives harder by using ridiculous non-standard chord symbols for simple concepts. (Imagine reading sheet music written in G♯ major. That, but much worse.)



            In conclusion, octave chords could be and are used as real things. Go ahead, call them octave chords (if that's how they're being used), and use them to their fullest.



            But don't call them V(no3 no5).






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              I may as well bring up the possibly disgusting use of D sharp major in one edition of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise I've seen. The thing is that the D sharp major passage is just before the ending repeat of the E major section of that polonaise--and that passage infamously has the tonic temporarily drop a semitone. ...So yeah, I can more easily imagine reading music in G sharp major than reading a chord symbol with "no3 no5".

              – Dekkadeci
              2 hours ago








            • 2





              @Dekkadeci You and I can both cringe when guitarists play their "D♯ chords" in the key of G minor, then! Or (possibly worse) when people just using whatever enharmonic spellings they want, creating such horrors as "E-A♭m-D♭m-B". Eww!

              – user45266
              1 hour ago











            • Too true. I've fallen for Abm in key E. Just couldn't play it - it didn't exist! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it's said. Too much can be worse! I'm still sceptial that 5 chords are chords. This octave thing takes it to another level. Why stop there..?!

              – Tim
              15 mins ago


















            4














            Disclaimer: I am user45266. You're not entirely wrong about octave chords:



            Sure, an octave chord could be considered its own chord, if it helps. The doubled-up-an-octave note definitely achieves a different effect than just a single note, and I could totally see it becoming an entity similar to a power chord.



            The problem is that V(no3 no5) doesn't mean an octave chord.



            In C major, we'd start with G-B-D, take away the B, then take away the D. What have we got left? Just the note G. No definition of a chord I've ever heard allows for one-note chords, and what would be the point of calling that single note a V(no3 no5) anyway? The whole idea of a one-note chord is pretty useless.



            Sure, just from looking at the chord symbol, you could argue that V(no3 no5) implies that the root is doubled at the octave, forming a two-note chord. But why would it make any sense to even describe that as a modification to a triad anyway? It would be much more efficient to just call it an octave, or some other descriptive term that gets that idea across.



            And I especially want to mention that it makes zero sense to include them in any list of chords, because every list of chords would have to be inundated with octave chords. And since they're so simple, any performer reading that chord symbol as a modification to a triad would immediately have the exact same objections I do. I can hear it now: "Wait,... drop the 3 and the 5 ... isn't that just one note?!". And boom, you just lost the respect of the performers, because you inadvertently made their lives harder by using ridiculous non-standard chord symbols for simple concepts. (Imagine reading sheet music written in G♯ major. That, but much worse.)



            In conclusion, octave chords could be and are used as real things. Go ahead, call them octave chords (if that's how they're being used), and use them to their fullest.



            But don't call them V(no3 no5).






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              I may as well bring up the possibly disgusting use of D sharp major in one edition of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise I've seen. The thing is that the D sharp major passage is just before the ending repeat of the E major section of that polonaise--and that passage infamously has the tonic temporarily drop a semitone. ...So yeah, I can more easily imagine reading music in G sharp major than reading a chord symbol with "no3 no5".

              – Dekkadeci
              2 hours ago








            • 2





              @Dekkadeci You and I can both cringe when guitarists play their "D♯ chords" in the key of G minor, then! Or (possibly worse) when people just using whatever enharmonic spellings they want, creating such horrors as "E-A♭m-D♭m-B". Eww!

              – user45266
              1 hour ago











            • Too true. I've fallen for Abm in key E. Just couldn't play it - it didn't exist! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it's said. Too much can be worse! I'm still sceptial that 5 chords are chords. This octave thing takes it to another level. Why stop there..?!

              – Tim
              15 mins ago
















            4












            4








            4







            Disclaimer: I am user45266. You're not entirely wrong about octave chords:



            Sure, an octave chord could be considered its own chord, if it helps. The doubled-up-an-octave note definitely achieves a different effect than just a single note, and I could totally see it becoming an entity similar to a power chord.



            The problem is that V(no3 no5) doesn't mean an octave chord.



            In C major, we'd start with G-B-D, take away the B, then take away the D. What have we got left? Just the note G. No definition of a chord I've ever heard allows for one-note chords, and what would be the point of calling that single note a V(no3 no5) anyway? The whole idea of a one-note chord is pretty useless.



            Sure, just from looking at the chord symbol, you could argue that V(no3 no5) implies that the root is doubled at the octave, forming a two-note chord. But why would it make any sense to even describe that as a modification to a triad anyway? It would be much more efficient to just call it an octave, or some other descriptive term that gets that idea across.



            And I especially want to mention that it makes zero sense to include them in any list of chords, because every list of chords would have to be inundated with octave chords. And since they're so simple, any performer reading that chord symbol as a modification to a triad would immediately have the exact same objections I do. I can hear it now: "Wait,... drop the 3 and the 5 ... isn't that just one note?!". And boom, you just lost the respect of the performers, because you inadvertently made their lives harder by using ridiculous non-standard chord symbols for simple concepts. (Imagine reading sheet music written in G♯ major. That, but much worse.)



            In conclusion, octave chords could be and are used as real things. Go ahead, call them octave chords (if that's how they're being used), and use them to their fullest.



            But don't call them V(no3 no5).






            share|improve this answer















            Disclaimer: I am user45266. You're not entirely wrong about octave chords:



            Sure, an octave chord could be considered its own chord, if it helps. The doubled-up-an-octave note definitely achieves a different effect than just a single note, and I could totally see it becoming an entity similar to a power chord.



            The problem is that V(no3 no5) doesn't mean an octave chord.



            In C major, we'd start with G-B-D, take away the B, then take away the D. What have we got left? Just the note G. No definition of a chord I've ever heard allows for one-note chords, and what would be the point of calling that single note a V(no3 no5) anyway? The whole idea of a one-note chord is pretty useless.



            Sure, just from looking at the chord symbol, you could argue that V(no3 no5) implies that the root is doubled at the octave, forming a two-note chord. But why would it make any sense to even describe that as a modification to a triad anyway? It would be much more efficient to just call it an octave, or some other descriptive term that gets that idea across.



            And I especially want to mention that it makes zero sense to include them in any list of chords, because every list of chords would have to be inundated with octave chords. And since they're so simple, any performer reading that chord symbol as a modification to a triad would immediately have the exact same objections I do. I can hear it now: "Wait,... drop the 3 and the 5 ... isn't that just one note?!". And boom, you just lost the respect of the performers, because you inadvertently made their lives harder by using ridiculous non-standard chord symbols for simple concepts. (Imagine reading sheet music written in G♯ major. That, but much worse.)



            In conclusion, octave chords could be and are used as real things. Go ahead, call them octave chords (if that's how they're being used), and use them to their fullest.



            But don't call them V(no3 no5).







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 2 hours ago









            user45266user45266

            4,6811935




            4,6811935








            • 1





              I may as well bring up the possibly disgusting use of D sharp major in one edition of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise I've seen. The thing is that the D sharp major passage is just before the ending repeat of the E major section of that polonaise--and that passage infamously has the tonic temporarily drop a semitone. ...So yeah, I can more easily imagine reading music in G sharp major than reading a chord symbol with "no3 no5".

              – Dekkadeci
              2 hours ago








            • 2





              @Dekkadeci You and I can both cringe when guitarists play their "D♯ chords" in the key of G minor, then! Or (possibly worse) when people just using whatever enharmonic spellings they want, creating such horrors as "E-A♭m-D♭m-B". Eww!

              – user45266
              1 hour ago











            • Too true. I've fallen for Abm in key E. Just couldn't play it - it didn't exist! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it's said. Too much can be worse! I'm still sceptial that 5 chords are chords. This octave thing takes it to another level. Why stop there..?!

              – Tim
              15 mins ago
















            • 1





              I may as well bring up the possibly disgusting use of D sharp major in one edition of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise I've seen. The thing is that the D sharp major passage is just before the ending repeat of the E major section of that polonaise--and that passage infamously has the tonic temporarily drop a semitone. ...So yeah, I can more easily imagine reading music in G sharp major than reading a chord symbol with "no3 no5".

              – Dekkadeci
              2 hours ago








            • 2





              @Dekkadeci You and I can both cringe when guitarists play their "D♯ chords" in the key of G minor, then! Or (possibly worse) when people just using whatever enharmonic spellings they want, creating such horrors as "E-A♭m-D♭m-B". Eww!

              – user45266
              1 hour ago











            • Too true. I've fallen for Abm in key E. Just couldn't play it - it didn't exist! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it's said. Too much can be worse! I'm still sceptial that 5 chords are chords. This octave thing takes it to another level. Why stop there..?!

              – Tim
              15 mins ago










            1




            1





            I may as well bring up the possibly disgusting use of D sharp major in one edition of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise I've seen. The thing is that the D sharp major passage is just before the ending repeat of the E major section of that polonaise--and that passage infamously has the tonic temporarily drop a semitone. ...So yeah, I can more easily imagine reading music in G sharp major than reading a chord symbol with "no3 no5".

            – Dekkadeci
            2 hours ago







            I may as well bring up the possibly disgusting use of D sharp major in one edition of Chopin's Heroic Polonaise I've seen. The thing is that the D sharp major passage is just before the ending repeat of the E major section of that polonaise--and that passage infamously has the tonic temporarily drop a semitone. ...So yeah, I can more easily imagine reading music in G sharp major than reading a chord symbol with "no3 no5".

            – Dekkadeci
            2 hours ago






            2




            2





            @Dekkadeci You and I can both cringe when guitarists play their "D♯ chords" in the key of G minor, then! Or (possibly worse) when people just using whatever enharmonic spellings they want, creating such horrors as "E-A♭m-D♭m-B". Eww!

            – user45266
            1 hour ago





            @Dekkadeci You and I can both cringe when guitarists play their "D♯ chords" in the key of G minor, then! Or (possibly worse) when people just using whatever enharmonic spellings they want, creating such horrors as "E-A♭m-D♭m-B". Eww!

            – user45266
            1 hour ago













            Too true. I've fallen for Abm in key E. Just couldn't play it - it didn't exist! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it's said. Too much can be worse! I'm still sceptial that 5 chords are chords. This octave thing takes it to another level. Why stop there..?!

            – Tim
            15 mins ago







            Too true. I've fallen for Abm in key E. Just couldn't play it - it didn't exist! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it's said. Too much can be worse! I'm still sceptial that 5 chords are chords. This octave thing takes it to another level. Why stop there..?!

            – Tim
            15 mins ago












            Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Tomoko Vertex is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84207%2fan-octave-chord-is-not-a-real-standard-concept%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Knooppunt Holsloot

            Altaar (religie)

            Gregoriusmis