Chord naming in atonal music

[Kris]

How do you name chords in atonal music, assuming by atonal we mean it lacks a key center?

To use a simple example, if I see the notes A-C-E, and I'm in the key of C, then it is pretty clear that it is an Am chord. But without the C key as a reference, what determines the chord name? Or are chords simply not applicable in these cases?

[kumgang]

A chord is still a chord even in an atonal context. If you see that A- C - E vertical group of notes, it's an Am no doubt. What changes in atonal music is that there is not (as you say) a key to work around, and that music can shift in a very free way.

[Chris Davis]

How do you name chords in atonal music, assuming by atonal we mean it lacks a key center?

To use a simple example, if I see the notes A-C-E, and I'm in the key of C, then it is pretty clear that it is an Am chord. But without the C key as a reference, what determines the chord name? Or are chords simply not applicable in these cases?

Chords in atonal music simply lack "function" strictly speaking. You couldn't for instance label something a "dominant" (as in roman numeral V) in atonal music. Without the tonal context that dominant is not obliged to fill its traditional function of moving to Tonic (yes I realize that's not the only thing dominant chords do.).

That said, A C E is still Am. But we can no longer hear that chord in hierarchy. As in, it doesn't serve the function of vi in C major in an atonal context. It's just Am, and can move anywhere it wants rather than having the traditionally pre-dominant function of moving to dominant or another pre-dominant.

[WenatcheeTheHatchet]

There are couple of different ways of attempting to explain how a chord would be named without reference to tonality. That's broadly how we got to things like set theory, quartal harmony, whole tone scales, modes of limited transposition, dodecaphonic concepts in interpretation, and stuff like that. Some composers like Messiaen lay out their own applied theory for interpreting their works where other composers don't really care and just compose what sounds cool and it's left to the rest of us to sort it out. In a way music theory (with a few exceptions) is our collective struggle, after the fact, to explain the "why" and "how" of how something "works". That's both the bane and beauty of music theory. It helps in interpretation to know that what looks like an A minor chord in a Renaissance piece has nothing to do with "modern" tonal organization. All sorts of things about Byrd make sense when you know he's not writing major or minor music as we normally understand it.

[Classitar]

I thought ACE was the first inversion FM7 - wait - no, its the second inversion Dm7/9 or ...

[Kris]

See, what I don't understand is how we can say that it is still an Am chord without the reference that the key center gives us. Why not, as Classitar says, an Fmaj7 where the root has been left out for one reason or another (e.g. it is played by the bass). Of course, the same question can be asked in the context of tonal music as well: it could be the IV chord in C major. But here the key center gives us a context, and it would be fairly obvious from the chord progression whether it is the vi chord or the IV chord, right?

[Classitar]

I think you're right - the context (as determined by the resolution of the chords or implied chords in a melody) indicates the function of the chords - ?

[Chris Davis]

See, what I don't understand is how we can say that it is still an Am chord without the reference that the key center gives us. Why not, as Classitar says, an Fmaj7 where the root has been left out for one reason or another (e.g. it is played by the bass). Of course, the same question can be asked in the context of tonal music as well: it could be the IV chord in C major. But here the key center gives us a context, and it would be fairly obvious from the chord progression whether it is the vi chord or the IV chord, right?

Am is not a functional label. Saying a chord is Am implies nothing about its resolution or tendency--it's just an a minor. IV is a functional label. IV is predominant and moves to dominant (or can be used to expand a tonic chord or move to another predominant chord).

Labeling A C E as a Fmaj7 without a bass is ridiculous. Label chords as you hear them. We'd hear that chord as an Am, not Fmaj7. Unless you're used to imagining bass tones I suppose.

The key give us context for Roman numeral labeling, but not for simple labeling of a chord with general terms. It's totally appropriate to call something at A minor in an atonal context. It is, after A C E, which is a minor chord with a root of A.

I think you're right - the context (as determined by the resolution of the chords or implied chords in a melody) indicates the function of the chords - ?

Yes, the key gives us context for roman numerals. A chords can just exist as well. It doesn't have to resolve anywhere. I can write a tritone and not resolve it, but I'd still call it a tritone. I could also write an Am chord and call it Am and I'm under obligation to resolve it in any specific way. In either case, I'd be writing atonally in the sense that I'm writing outside of common practice tonality. The piece I'm writing, however, maybe "tonal" in a sense that it has a pitch center.

[Kris]

Chris, I think you are misunderstanding my question. I never said that Am is a functional label. But the function of the chord does hint at what label we give a chord. I'm not asking how it works with "regular" music.

Look at it from the other direction. For instance, you say that of course we can call something an Am in an atonal context. I am not disputing that. If you know it's an Am, then that's what it is. But if I don't know what to call a certain set of notes, i.e., what name to give that chord, then what do I do? I have been taught that in order to establish which chord it is, you look at the function of the chord within the progression.

You may think that calling the three notes A-C-E an FMaj7 ridiculous, but it is pretty much standard practice in jazz for the guitarist to omit the root, leaving it for the bass player for instance. The band leader may call out "FMaj7!" or "four", and you'd be expected to play the notes A-C-E, not F-A-C-E But all that's beside the point. It was just an example of ambiguity. The point is that chords can be ambiguous, but that this ambiguity can be resolved by looking at what function that set of notes has, and thereby enabling you to name the chord. Try this one instead: C-F#-A-D#.

Maybe my question is based on the fact that I know so little about atonal music, and I am assuming (maybe incorrectly) that there are no chord progressions in atonal music. Therefore, there are no chord functions (or at least not in the same sense).

In any case, it's no biggie for me. I was just curious. I was trying to analyze a piece of music and I just started wondering how it works with atonal music.

Thanks for your time everyone.

[Chris Davis]

You may think that calling the three notes A-C-E an FMaj7 ridiculous, but it is pretty much standard practice in jazz for the guitarist to omit the root, leaving it for the bass player for instance.

Yes, I know this. But in that case a root is still sounding isn't it? I'm talking about situations where the root (F, I guess) would not be present in the sonority.

But if I don't know what to call a certain set of notes, i.e., what name to give that chord, then what do I do?

You could do pitch class set analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_class) in this instance.

[Tarbaby]

Or are chords simply not applicable in these cases?

This might be true, Kris. At least, from what I remember from second year theory when we were analyzing the music of Schoenberg. We were just looking for permutations of the "tone rows" and didn't talk about chords at all. In that kind of atonal music, you wouldn't find the chord A-C-E anyway. It just wouldn't fit.

Interestingly, in "Romantic" music you might find traditional chords all over the place, but no "key center".

In first year theory, we learned how to analyze (I just now noticed that word has "anal" in it! ) baroque and classical music, mostly using the Bach part writing rules. In second year theory, on the first day our teacher gave us a piano reduction of Liebestod from Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. He simply told us to take it home and analyze it. (Now I can't keep from laughing when I write that word).

The next day he asked, "What key is it in?" Nobody had an answer! While it uses standard chords, the key center keeps shifting so that you don't know WHERE you are anymore. The lesson was, that what makes Romantic music romantic is that feeling of being "lost". You never get what you expect to get. Sort of like the carrot on the end of the stick.

I know that doesn't answer your questions, but I found it very interesting and thought you might, too.

Alan

[lam]

The derivation of the chord names we use is based on a tertian (and tonal) harmonic system and, by definition, have no meaning in atonal music. These names would only be abstract labels for concurrences of specific note groups and would be of no meaningful use.
lam

[yotamz]

What he said.

FYI, there are no 'chords' in atonal music, only 'tone-clusters', 'pitch-class subsets', and 'vibrational concurrences'.

[lam]

What he said.

FYI, there are no 'chords' in atonal music, only 'tone-clusters', 'pitch-class subsets', and 'vibrational concurrences'.

Actually, the Harvard Dictionary of Music defines a chord as a "simultaneous sounding of three or more tones...". If we agree on this definition then chords actually do occur in atonal music (as well as the other items you mentioned). They just don't have the same function or meaning as in tonal music.

lam

[Denian Arcoleo]

You may think that calling the three notes A-C-E an FMaj7 ridiculous, but it is pretty much standard practice in jazz for the guitarist to omit the root, leaving it for the bass player for instance.

Yes, I know this. But in that case a root is still sounding isn't it?

Usually it isn't. Jazz players are experts in rapidly working out the upper reaches (tertiary harmony) of chords and don't need to have the root sounding in order for them to hear and understand the chord sans root.