Talk:Chord notation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Omitted Notes

The last line of the article, under Added Chords, says to see omitted notes. There was a typo which is now corrected. But where is this section on omitted notes? It is not a reference to an article, nor is there a section in this article called Omitted Notes. So this appears to be a reference to a section or article which does not exist.--65.190.103.147 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Augmented 11 Chords

Please correct the 11ths section regarding Augmented 11th Chords. It is incorrect.

Augmented in a chord name normally applies to the sharped (augmented) 5th chord tone. EXCEPTION: the AUGMENTED ELEVENTH chord is a regular 11th chord, but the 11th is sharped.

C+11 = 1 3 (5) 7 (9) #11 C E (G) Bb (D) F#

Notes in parentheses are usually omitted.

144.139.97.4 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The correct way to shorthand notate the chord you are referring to would be C7(#11), and it's correct (music theory) name would be C Major-Minor 7 Augmented 11.

Compound chords

The article needs to say something about these. Ben Finn 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to clarify in the title that it refers to Pop chord notation (as opposed to figured bass or Classical roman numeral notation)Drabauer 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's referring to chord symbol notation, which is used in many contexts (including pop) as opposed to figured bass, roman numeral notation, or nashville notation. There are many regional and stylistic variations of this system, some of which adapt well to western analysis. Chord letters, I think we can all agree, is an absolutely useless title that does not reflect the terminology used by anyone who uses any of the myriad systems this article refers to.

Chord_notation#Complexities Language

There are an almost infinite number of chords possible is nonsense and ungrammatical. The number of possible chords may be described as very large, but almost infinite doesn't make any sense for any finite number. Then there's the discordance between subject and verb: a number is possible, not are.

I suggest to re-write the first sentence; here's my attempt: The number of possible chords is very large, but only a few, most of which are described below, are found in musical practice. Alternatively, the whole sentence may be omitted. Michael Bednarek 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Diminished 2nd

Would a d2 up (diminished 2nd) be the same notes?Bdodo1992 20:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost Infinite

'There are an almost infinite number of chords' That makes no sense at all, there's no such thing as 'almost infinite'. There is either is an infinite number of chords or there isn't (in which case it is finite). Someone please replace that which a more logical sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.57.158 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 May 2008

Wikipedia is actually a collaborative project which you can edit. See Wikipedia:Be bold. Hyacinth (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Chord main article

As I have posted in the Chord talk page, I think this article should be merged there since it either duplicates it or adds other material on the same topic and not just about the notation (which is in turn included in the main article). Is there anyone with enough time and skill do to this? AlfredoM (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree; the focus of this article is solely on the naming conventions of chords and not the chords themselves. As such it provides a useful resource with the information all in one place. Irontightarguments (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, the information in "Chord notation" under "Extended tertian chords: 11ths", about various qualities of triads under various qualities of 11ths, is not found under "Chord (music)#Extended chords", which only mentions the dominant eleventh chord as does Extended chord. Hyacinth (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Altered chords

As pointed out by another editor (who's comment I removed from the article, it belonged in talk...) there is no coverage of altered chords such as 7 flat nine or 7 sharp nine or chords marked simply as "alt". This should be added if anyone want to volunteer. Irontightarguments (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed

Note that the terms half-diminished 9th and diminished 9th, strictly speaking, refer only to the natural diatonic extensions of the corresponding seventh chords, which have only the minor ninth. Such chords with a major ninth are best referred to the corresponding minor chord with lowered fifth: Cm^9♭5 / … etc.

The above text was removed without explanation. Hyacinth (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement is plain false – the chord C–7^♭59 or C–7^♭5♮9(C-E♭-G♭-B♭-D♮) is perfectly valid and fairly common; it is derived from either a second degree of the harmonic major scale or the sixth degree of the melodic minor scale. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete

Sorry I need to complete the article... I intend to when I get the chance.Dndn1011 12:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This and most articles on music theory, will forever be incomplete because there is simply no central authority on the subject (and an attempt to make Wikipedia such an authority violates the principal of no original work). There are differences between European, east and west coast American, jazz, classical, pop, and many other versions of music theory.

Even if we were to accept one version as being correct (and I suspect it would be impossible to reach agreement among experts), there are many books, sheets and internet pages which do not. If you are a musician trying to learn how to play a song, knowing that the author of whatever you are looking at is "technically incorrect" is of little use. Much more useful would be an explanation of all the possibilities that the author may have intended, which will only get you part-way to exactly what the author intended. Such an explanation will never be complete as long as authors continue to invent notation. Scold them if you wish, but if they have written something your audience would like you to play, then you reject their notation to your own detriment.

I don't include this note as a complaint, rather it is a warning to students - chasing after a comprehensive and correct version of music theory is tilting at windmills. In the interests of academic progress, I think a warning like this should be included with every Wikipedia article about music theory.

68.144.70.5 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're appear not to be familiar with Wikipedia, no article of which will ever be complete. Outside of Wikipedia, no topic will ever be complete and so your warning appears condescending rather than ignorant. Hyacinth (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 68.144.70.5 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Single Notes

How (in a detailed chart) do you indicate a single bass note by itself? E.g. if I want B7/F# followed by just a bass B by itself, what's the convention? In triple time, I would probably actually play this as: F# (alone), B7, B (alone). It's a common progression in folk music (at least I use it a lot), but I don't know how to notate it. Maybe it's one of those things that's just left up to the player? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talk • contribs) 07:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to write out a bass part for that, chord symbols won't do in such case. Write "N.C." (meaning "no chord") above the bass note which should be played alone. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what you are doing here is playing an alternating bass-chord figure, a fairly standard practice in folk/country music so that all that is necessary is to note the chord itself. Although I would tend to play B (single note), B7 chord, B7 chord in triple time. But to a large extent, how to realize these things is pretty much left up to the individual performer, within the context of standard practices for the particular type of music. Wschart (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Superscripts

Where exactly is the superscript-and-parentheses notation shown in this article actually used? For example, I've never actually seen anything like C^Δ(7); rather, it's always just CΔ. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the weird notation changes; this meant rolling back to a September 2009 version. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fifth "chords"

is it me, or is this article missing any mention of fifth chords, e.g. C5 = C,G ? Any reason for this / objection to me adding it? Happypoems (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not chords. See Chord_(music)#Number_of_notes. Hyacinth (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? 87.69.130.159 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but "no3" notation should somehow be discussed here since it is in practice is used as chord noation, and since it not only includes fitth intervals but also more complex chords. I.m.o. "no3" notation becomes more and more common, and is used as a chord. How can it be described? Mange01 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again: what about power chords? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to dig this discussion up, but power chords are indeed notated using chord notation, even if they are not true chords per se. That's the topic of this article, not what constitutes a true chord. Thus, they should be included.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Complete List of Possible Upper-Structures

Based on the chord-scale and function of the chord, here are all of the possible upper-structures by mode. For example, if you have a C major triad, but wanted to create a hybrid chord out of it, you would;

1. Consider the mode/chord scale of the chord, based on its function in the progression.

2. Eliminate the 3rd of that triad.

3. If you had an Ionian chord scale, and wished to preserve the modal sound, your only option would be to place the V triad of that mode in the upper structure. It is standard "good" practice to separate the upper and lower structures by at least a minor 3rd.

Here is the complete list of possible upper structures by mode:

Ionian: V

Dorian: II- (weak), V-, and VII

Phrygian: bII, bVII-

Lydian: II, V (weak), VII-

Mixolydian: II- (weak), V-, bVII

Aeolian: V-, bVII

Locrian: bII, bV, bVII-

Special chord scales:

Lydian b7: II (weak lydian sound), V- (weak mixo sound), bVII(aug)

Lydian b7 7th chords: V-(maj7), bVII+(Maj7)

Altered Dominant: bV

--Mooquu (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tables crowded with mixed-format symbols

I removed from the tables mixed-format symbols such as C+^maj9 or Caug^M9, where "long" symbols for quality such as max, min, aug, and dim are used together with "short" ones, such as M, m, +, °. These made the table too crowded, difficult to read, and were hardly useful, as IMO it sufficies for the reader to know that Caug^maj9 (consistently long format) and C+^M9 (consistently short format) are both possible. Moreover, it is very easy to guess the meaning of mixed-format symbols, based on their consistently-short and consistently long versions.

Let me also say, but this is just a personal opinion, that the rationale of the mixed-format version is questionable. You either prefer the long version, or the short one. Using both at the same time seems pointless to me. But again, this is only a personal opinion, and was not the reason why I removed mixed-format symbols (although it made the decision easier). Paolo.dL (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol A for augmented

As far as I know, the symbol A, used for "augmented" intervals, is not used in chord symbols, and is typically replaced by + or ♯.

For instance, the C augmented major seventh chord (C+M7, or C+^M7), is sometimes also called C major seventh sharp five, or C major seventh augmented fifth, and in this case the corresponding symbol is, as far as I know, CM7⁺⁵, CM7^♯5, or Cmaj7^aug5.

Have you ever seen CA^M7, or CM7^A5? I guess that this option is avoided, as A may be confused with a note, but this is only an hypothesis.

— Paolo.dL (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspension Chords

This section of the article contains the teaching of adding a third to an already existant suspended 4th chord. This really goes against the grain of additive thought. Normally we begin with the writing tools general to music reading and writing. The natural overtone series provides basis for scales, chords, and keys.

The musical stave is set up for promulgation of thirds. It is easiest to build on this part of nature already in use.

It is suffice to thoroughly present the 11th chord which includes the third prior to any discourse of the suspended 4th chord. It is then only necessary to mention that the use of the third in suspended 4th chords is omitted deliberately. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of the slash for a seperate bass note as a teaching also makes void the use of suspended 2nds, i.e. - C,D,G is Gsus4/C, etc. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

13th Chords

I tried to clean up the table in the 13th section. But I am unfamiliar with proper voicing of these chords, so someone should check these. Specifically, I don't know when the 11th should be omitted. I included in all the voicings I added, but this is likely incorrect. 128.119.56.182 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Minor 13th" by name is only used by guitarists, keyboardists and the like as presented here, and this only under an assumed pretext that of 13th chords with a minor third, it is the most popular (C-Eb-G-Bb-D-F-A), properly called the C dominant minor 13th. It is tolerated, played and used as such, but it is also wrong. Use of "Minor 13th" as such in an encyclopedia article is to be avoided at all costs without some mention of this. And as it can be avoided altogether, why confuse the matter? "Minor 13th" rightfully means C-E-G-B-D-F-Ab because there are two classes of 13th chords, major (which is assumed as the major 13th is diatonic) and minor (which must be indicated). When only "minor" is written before "13th", it only means an "Ab" as opposed to an "A", the remaining tones below remaining diatonic.

The "Augmented 13th" is also incorrectly referenced. Because there are two classes of 11th chords, perfect and augmented, the use of "augmented" before "13th" means an augmented 11th, C-E-G-B-D-F#-A. What is currently spelled is the augmented dominant 13th, C-E-G#-Bb-D-F-A.

The "Half-Diminished 13th" is incorrectly spelled. What is spelled is the half-diminished minor minor 13th. The correct spelling of the "half-diminished 13th" is C-Eb-Gb-Bb-D-F-A.

There is no chord properly called a "Diminished 13th". What is spelled is what would be a diminished major minor diminished minor 13th, and that is under the assumption that a "diminished 11th" is not better treated as a major 3rd. There is no class of "diminished 11th" chords due not only to respect of the 3rd but that also it is less confusing - all occasions of the resultant simultaneous sonorites of the "major and minor 3rd" are already handled with the use of "major 3rd and augmented 9th". The augmented 9th can then be added if there exists a minor 9th.

There are only six occurences of the use of both "diminished" and "13th" in chord names (less further 'add' chords):

Chord Symbol	Chord suffix	Spelling
CoM13	dim. maj. 13th	C, Eb, Gb, B, D, F, A
CoM13-9	dim. maj. min. perf. 13th	C, Eb, Gb, B, Db, F, A
CoM9-13	dim. maj. min. 13th	C, Eb, Gb, B, D, F, Ab
Co9-13	dim. min. 13th	C, Eb, Gb, Bbb, D, F, Ab
CoM7-9-13	dim. maj. min. min. 13th	C, Eb, Gb, B, Db, F, Ab
Co7-9-13	dim. min. min. 13th	C, Eb, Gb, Bbb, Db, F, Ab

- Prophet of the Most High (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

es:Cifra (música)

80.174.138.160 removed the link to "es:Cifra (música)", which translates as "Figure (music)", because "The linked Spanish article is not about the same thing". It was readded by ChuispastonBot so I removed it. Hyacinth (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing article title

The title Chord notation is not appropriate to the contents of this article, as it is too generic. "Chord notation" would include staff notation, Roman numerals, figured bass notation, etc. (see Chord (music)#Notation). Also, notice that chord symbols is as generic as chord notation. Indeed, roman numerals, numbers and alterations in figured bass, and macro symbols are chord symbols as well.

Thus, I propose the title "Chord names and symbols (jazz and pop music)".

This article is and should remain only about one kind of chord representation: pop and jazz chord naming and notation. Inserting here sections about other notations would make the article way too long. It is more advisable to have five separate articles (we already have them, we only need to change the title of this article):

• Chord names and symbols (jazz and pop music) (new title of this article)
• Roman numerals
• Figured bass
• Macro analysis
• Staff notation

All of these specific articles are summarized in Chord (music)#Notation.

— Paolo.dL (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I redirected Chord notation to Chord (music)#Notation, and Popular music symbols to this article.

— Paolo.dL (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference

This article deals with chord names and symbols containing root, quality (or qualities) and number(s). The article title is based on this sentence, which I found in the introduction:

Although they are used occasionally in classical music, these names and symbols are "universally used in jazz and popular music"

Reference:
Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p. 78.
Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.

− Paolo.dL (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Making the title shorter

User:Hearfourmewesique (nice nickame, by the way :-) changed the title to Chord names and symbols (jazz pop and rock music).

The new title was correct, but too long. I shortened it to Chord names and symbols (popular music).

According to the above mentioned reference, the names and symbols herein described are used in "popular music" in general, not only in jazz, pop music, and rock music. Notice that popular music and pop music are not synonyms. Moreover, jazz, pop and rock are only three genres of popular music. For a list of all genres of popular music, see List of popular music genres.

Paolo.dL (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Backdoor progression

See Talk:Backdoor progression#Chord symbols. Hyacinth (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

MAJOR 11th?

Ok, whoever wrote this article hasn't the slightest clue of what an interval is.

Check your own knowledge before making stupid claims like that one. A Major 11 is a an 11th chord with a major 7 instead of a dominant 7, which you would have understood if you had studied the article! Also it is possible to add a 4th interval to a major or minor triad, although this is not commonly done. It would be an added 4 (e.g. C4, Cm4 or C add11, Cm add11) 83.190.160.233 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The 11th is the same thing as a 4th, and thus, cannot be major or minor. It is either perfect (2½ steps), or augmented (3 steps) or diminished (2 steps). Zelani (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'major', 'minor' etc in the names of the 11th chords refer to the chords as a whole, not just the 11th as an interval. For example the major 11th has CE... and the majorminor 11th has CE♭... And, by the way, an 11th isn't 'the same thing as a 4th' - it's a 4th plus an octave. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not necessary for it to be plus an octave: You can voice an 11th chord with the 11 within the same octave. Guitarists are often forced to do this because of the difficulty of finding better voicing. The point is that the naming refers to the function of the note in the chord, and not just the interval. Regardless of the octave, a 4th refers to the 'interaction' between the 4th interval and the root; an 11th refers to the interaction between the 4th and the 7th. At least you can think of it that way. 81.68.92.34 (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the voicing - my point was just that as an interval an 11th is not the same as a 4th. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of "Major 11th", technically, is a misnomer, though. As symbols are used for the sake of brevity, the corresponding descriptions need to build with a similance of ease, else the entire process of simplification be undone. Such is the case for deliberately using "M" or "Major" to clarify the use of the 7th, but C11 properly only includes diatonic tones which is a major 7th already, so the addition of "M" seems redundant, made rational in use only by the teaching of the assumption of the dominant in chord symbol abbreviations. I only bring this to discussion because I have never seriously considered adding "diminished 11ths" (specifically, in the key of C major, using F-flats) to the list of chord symbols. It would be a seemingly senseless and redundant doubling with regard to any chord having a major third, but for all occurences where a minor third is used, the use of the "diminished 11th", for a class of chords, is reasonable and necessary. Likewise, then there is an equal necessity for truly "augmented 13ths" chords (specifically, in the key of C major, use of A sharps). It seems obvious, then, that these are the two least common classes of chords overlooked : the diminished 11ths and the augmented 13ths, with a third and fourth class, the chords of the diminished 15th and the chords of the augmented 15th not even mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.28.153 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Guys. JAZZ musician normally regards 7th as minor 7th unless otherwise shown. So C11 would have a minor 7th instead of a major 7th, and thus CM11 is indeed necessary. People confused because they thought that it's similar to roman numerals symbols. But no, Jass symbols are quite different.

To the guy or girl that wrote "Ok, whoever wrote this article hasn't the slightest clue of what an interval is." - Major 11th is referring to the CHORD TYPE, not the interval. You idiot. The person who wrote the article is obviously aware that the "major 11th" interval does not exist. The Major 11th chord, however, does, as does the Minor 11th chord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.21.172 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusing diminished chords

I read the article. Diminished 9th has a natural 9th and diminished 11th has a flattened 9th? So what's the logic here? Can someone explain it? It's so confusing and I don't think it's right. It would be either both natural or both flattened.

And I don't think the half-diminished 11th with a flattened 9th is correct. Any half diminished chords shouldn't have flattened 7th, 9th etc. I need some experts' opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.50.42 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be a mistake to expect logic, or at least a consistent one. Hyacinth (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

FØ7 will have a (b9) when being spelled diatonically. Often, however, the regular 9 is used in jazz practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.21.172 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Subscripts?

In the chords for Memorial in the sheet music for Minus Ten and Counting, visible in this YouTube video, there seem to be subscripts used: G A₇ Dm G C A₇. Is this a variant notation for one of the other forms, or a different chord? In either case, it should probably be listed. JCSalomon (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for warning us. It does not matter whether the number is written as plain font (A7), superscript (A⁷), or subscript (A₇). The meaning is always the same. For each symbol, several alternative notations are available. We can't specify all of them in each table. It would clog the cells.

Think about the C augmented seventh chord, for instance. It can be written as:

* Caug7 or C+7

* C^aug7 or C_aug7

* Caug⁷ or Caug₇

* C⁺⁷ or C₊₇

* C+⁷ or C+₇

I made this clear in the main Examples. Paolo.dL (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Interval table is bad

That interval table is bad. First off, chord symbols indicate groups of pitch classes, independent of octaves, not intervals, so an interval chart isn't even needed. Secondly even if this were to be ported over to the Interval (music) article it would still be bad because it crams too many enharmonic names in the same column with no distinguishing explanation, leaving the neophyte to wither in confusion. Thirdly the chart is misused later in a poor attempt to describe how chords are built, which is not the job of this article anyway. The later sentence, "Referring to the interval table, we can see that the notes to play for C are the root C, the major third E and the perfect fifth G." implies that the table somehow indicates how a C chord is built, which it doesn't. Fourthly, if it were ported to the article on Chord (music) or Harmony to help show how chords are built, the headings would have to be changed since chords are built using chord member names like flat ninths and flat thirteenths, not interval names minor seconds and minor sixths. I say we should get rid of it as unnecessary and unhelpful, and worse, as confusing and misleading. Does anyone agree? Another Stickler (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Eight years later, yeah. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Dominant Seventh Chord

In the section Chord names and symbols (popular music)#Rules to decode chord names and symbols there appears the following:

"dom, or dominant stands for major-minor (e.g., Cdom7 means CMm7), COMMON FAULT, THIS IS NOT THE C Dominant seventh chord (ref** ref 8) C-E-G-Bb is FDom7, CDom7 = G-B-D-F refer to Grove, Oxford, Collins etc"

This edit is listed in the history as

03:24, 30 May 2018‎ Brian Johnnson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (73,269 bytes) (+359)‎ . . (→‎Examples) (undo | thank)

What does this "COMMON FAULT..." addition mean? (If it claims that Cdom7 = G7 and Fdom7 = C7, it is at odds with Dominant seventh chord and any definition that I have seen.) What is "ref 8"? What are the precise references to "Grove, Oxford, Collins etc"? Bplohr (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Performer's perspective

I see that the Summary section was removed on 02-Jul-2018. Can I voice my concern on this, and let the community decide whether they agree. Originally, it was me, back in 2011, who had added this section. The reasoning was that the rest of the page was aimed at the composer (who wants the performer to make a particular sound, and has to construct the notation to convey this) or the music theorist (who sees a particular chord on the orchestral score, and wants to specify it succinctly within the paragraph of text). The performer, on the other hand, is faced with the notation (C min maj 13, in the example) and needs to work out what to play.

I admit that the title could have been better chosen: "Decoding the notation" or "Performer's perspective" would have been better I admit that the introductory paragraph could have been better chosen, such as the one that I have just written, above.

My personal view is that this section is important, and ought to be re-instated (after first improving it). What does the community think?

TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

This article has a serious lack of sources. In particular, the sections "Advantages and limitations", "Rules to decode chord names and symbols", and to a lesser extent, "Purposes" are essay-like original research IMHO. I also doubt that many people would actually take the time to read these sections. I'm thinking of just deleting them. What does everybody else think? Squandermania (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification/typo

Under the "seventh chord" section of the Specific rules of the Rules to decode chord names and symbols, it says

^o, dim, or diminished stands for diminished-diminished (e.g., C^o7 means C^o7)

The two sides in the example are identical: C^o7. Is it intentional?

Stephanwehner (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It should say that the seventh is diminished. I changed it. Squandermania (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)