Talk:Root (chord)

message: Root chords along a minor scale  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Add 

message: This page lacks sources.  I found an interesting one: "R. Parncutt - Music, Gestalt, and Computing: Studies in Cognitive and …", Springer (1997).  This book offers an overview of results in cognitive sciences about perception of music, and it has some material on the perception of roots of chords.  It might also be a useful source for other pages!  Cazort (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What and why does this article need sources? Hyacinth (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough sources

message: Why and where is this article confusing or unclear? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing or unclear

message: *A more recent psychoacoustic theory of chord roots was offered by Richard Parncutt.
I removed the above since without context or explanation it doesn't serve much purpose. Hyacinth (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychoacoustic theory

message: How about some mention of root in the context of scale and what if any relationship this has to the root of a chord?  Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Root of a scale 

message: When all of the notes of a chord are translated to the range of one octave, the root of an interval will be the lower pitch in an odd numbered interval and the upper pitch of an even numbered interval.  
In a chord with three or more notes, the root is the note that meets this criteria the greatest number of times when compared with all other pitches in the chord. 
For example, in a C major triad in first inversion, with the notes from bottom to top { e, g. c }, we have the following relations: 
Note Considered	Comparison I	Comparison II	Analysis                                  	Rating
c              	e to c = 6th	g to c = 4th 	c top note of even interval in both cases.	+2 It's the root.
e              	e to c = 6th	e to g = 3rd 	e is bottom of even & bottom of odd.      	+1 Not the root.
g              	g to c = 4th	e to g = 3rd 	g is bottom of even & top of odd.         	0 Not the root.
The acoustical basis for this definition of roots is found in the overtone series. 
Except for electronically generated sine waves, most tones in nature consist of many frequencies. For most musical instruments, the vibrating medium produces tones matching the harmonic overtone series. The first 9 tones in the series consists of the following notes, from low to high, using C.  
Note Name                 	C3    	C4      	G4              	C5       	E5                   	G5             	Bb5             	C6       	D6
Interval above Fundamental	unison	1 octave	1 octave + fifth	2 octaves	2 octaves + major 3rd	2 octaves + 5th	2 octaves + b7th	3 octaves	3 octaves + Major 2nd
There are no intervals in the overtone series until the 8th overtone, D6, where the fundamental is not the root. 
Yamex5 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a clearer, more concise definition and better acoustical basis? 

message: In its section on "Assumed root", the article contains this statement which puzzles me:
An assumed root (also absent, or omitted root) is "when a chord does not contain a root ([which is] not unusual)". In any context, it is the unperformed root of a performed chord. 
The quotation included in this statement is refered to a Rhythm Guitar Tutor by Charles Chapman (2004). The reason why this puzzles me is that the root is not a property of the chord itself, but of its representation. As the first sentence of the article says,
The concept of root is the idea that a chord can be represented and named by one of its notes.
In other words, the concept of root belongs to an analytic representation of the chord. The "assumed root", therefore, is not "when a chord does not contain a root", but when the analyst considers that the root is not among the notes of the chord.
The musical example supposed to illustrate this puzzles me even more. It shows at the left a chord consisting of the notes B E G C and described as an "A minor ninth chord without root and with B in the bass." Without context, as in the example, such a chord could also be described as a C major seventh chord (C E G B) in third inversion. The caption further claims that what it shown at the right is a "full Am9", but the chord shown there is a mere A minor seventh chord (A C E G) in root position. I would have two questions: (1) why is the chord at the left analyzed as a chord with assumed root? (2) what is the chord at the right supposed to illustrate in this respect?
The article further says that 
In jazz and jazz fusion, roots are often omitted from chords when chord-playing musicians [...] are improvising chords in an ensemble that includes a bass player [who] plays the root.
To which could be objected that in any polyphonic ensemble playing chords (say, a string quartet), there usually is only one instrument (at times two) playing the root. There is no reason to believe that the other players think that the root is "assumed" in such a case: it merely is played by others. The lengthy explanation that follows merely states which "additional extensions" could be added to a dominant seventh, but does not seem to concern the root played by the bass player.
I am aware that these sentences may describe practices that are common among guitarists or jazz players. I sympathize with the idea that concepts which may seem obvious for classical musicians must be clearly be explained for others. But the reverse should be true also. To me, what this section tries to explain is by no means clear. I leave it to those who know to clarify ... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumed root?