For someone who doesn't know much about music, everything's fine.

 

many comments have already covered the theory of superimposed triads perfectly, nothing to add on that

just try to consider a triad, on this particular case and synth patch, "more open". for example start playing notes distant eg: D3 and A3 will surely sound pretty nice together, then try C3 and D4, then try a triad like D3-A3-E4. This will help being familiar with the polychord sound and maybe finding a cool sequence for your patch

I just add that many many legendary tracks from 80s detroit techno and house were produced sampling a triad from a funk record then transposing it with an akai sampler, that sound changed the dance music ehehehe but the producers played just 1 key on their samplers, so just parallel triads

 

Great point.
Voicings can completely change the sound of anything just by spreading the same notes at wider intervals. Experimentation can often bring the best results.

 

exactely : ) a "triad" isnt just 1-3-5, a triad is an ensemble of 3 sounds/notes, doesnt matter the interval in beetwen.

I just introduced a concept midway beetwen Maurice Ravel and Frank Zappa ehehehe, some additive synthesis of harmonics and so on.

 

Agreed - it would be nice to post some great examples.
And why stop at triads, how about stacking four-note chords. The challenge is (of course) to find great sounding examples.

Here's one of my favourite examples.
See at about 2:10 into the video, one of the most famous bitonal chords in music.
Understanding Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring - Part 1: Dance of the Adolescents

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXUxdF6jo8Y

 

Given the thread's apparent obsession with jargon - you have just started discussing chordioids
Not sure what the penalty is for that transgression

 

Sure is - clusters mixed with spreads is an amazing sound. Stravinsky might have been the father of modern voicings.

There's a story about Charlie Parker I heard where he sought out Stravinsky and knocked on his door. Stravinsky reputedly said "I do not know you" and closed the door on Parker.

 

i had to think twice about his question and i came to the conclusion that there is no proper term for it which would be a technique or somthing releated to music theory itself.

because, first of all, you can never really tell where exactly the difference beween a chord and a sound is. if you have a simple additive synth, two voices with C and G Hz will sound like one voice with C and G partials.

i do things like that a lot on the event layer, and i also dont have a name for what he does.

what is a "chord"?

a chord is 2 or more musical events occuring together but with different frequencies. for example 60 63 67.

what can you do to a chord?

it is easy to find terminology for some basic operations, when i name some of them, you will immediately know what to do.

transposition
addition
for example if you add -5 to 60 63 67 i will become 55 58 62.

octave shift
the same, but in steps of 12, 24,...

mirroring
mirrors the numbers around the median
the median of 60 63 67 is 63.5, so 67 becomes 60, 60 becomes 67 and 63 becomes 64.

mirroring around a point
mirrors the numbers around a given point, for example the highest or lowest note of the chord.
60 63 67 --> 67 71 74


inversion
already defined in music theory as something else than you would in math.
take the lowest member and shift it one octave down or the other way round. 60 63 67 --> 63 67 72

in a similar manner you can also stretch the frequency values of a chord, omit or add notes, filter for conditions, and so on.

now what he is going to do could be called "multiplexing" of chords.

A: 60 63 67
B: 72 79

first we decide that the lowest notes in both chords are the bases, then we align the bases to each other by transposing B, and then we "multiplex" it.

A ** B == 60 63 67 67 70 74

which is about what happens in an autochord effect or when ou play a sampled chord polphonically.

but why is it "multiplexing"? it could as well be called "thunderstorm effect" or "superchord" if you know what i mean.

just call it like you want!


btw., for excessive use of this technique in whatever context, you are strongly advised to use a just tuning scale. think about it.

 

C6add4..

Or Cadd4add6 if you want to make sure they don't elide the 5th

(Could be also called C13add11, or Cadd11add13,
considering the extension/decoration is on a higher octave..)

 

These chords go up to eleven.

 

The possibilities in decoration/extensions are much greater depending on what 7th you choose, or if you put a 7th on on the F triad(Eb) which would lean it towards a 7#9 sound, if you cluster with the C triad, or if you open voice them C, F, A, C, E, G
Which then makes it an Fmaj9/C and that's only the tip of it. The 7th could be major or minor as it is a polychord not a full chord theoretically until made into one by making a 7th chord using what exists, not what is added (Fmaj9/C). By adding you can make anything just about.... as long as you treat as a polychord.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2021

Thank you! Oh, how myths get convoluted and changed!
Will research that in a minute.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the poor drummer had to multitrack too, after he lost his arm in that car crash.
But I know he could trigger everything live with his set-up.

 

You lost me on that last part, sorry for my ignorance BaSsDuDe but "if it sounds good keep it" is my heed.
Falcon didn't crack itself!

 

He's talkin about the possibilities that including/adding a 7th will bring, in particular to the F triad..
Being the 7th a common alteration in modern music..


-In any case,
even tho I've written the name of the chord built with all the notes, (as requested)
I still think it makes sense to think about it as a Polychord constructed by stacking a C and F triad, because:
Bearing those two triads on your mind, and working out which chord will it make all together, is relatively easy..

But doing it the other way around, like say, working out/naming the two triads that make a Cadd4add6,
would be harder, and less precisely defined because there could be other options/interpretations..
For instance an Am triad is also formed, or even an Amb6 chord..

So going the Polychord or poly-triads nomenclature way will make sense,
just to be more precise/clear of what one's after.

(although by sayin' Cadd11add13 you're being very precise too..)


Also thinkin this way can open a door to creativity,
as it can lead you to find new harmonic possibilities/relationships,
and could be applied directly in some cases like say building Arpeggios out of them..

So this approach could be usful for certain musical styles,
and be applied differently for a given instrument..
for instance with Piano ofc it would be more handy/easy to do than with Guitar.

But it's very doable too..


-Btw, this also reminds me of that video with Herbie Hancock and Jacob Collier,
where at some point Hancock was gonna talk/reveal a very juicy "secret"..

He was beginning to explain how at some point what they did with accompaniment is:
play the fundamental notes of the chord on the left hand,
but play the notes of the Next chord that's coming on the right, as an Alteration for the first chord..
(in I guess a less than simple context)

And just as Herbie was saying that,
Collier interrupted him with his attention deficit, and diverted the conversation..

Oh well, maybe some other day we can hear Herbie's experience/opinion..

 

Last edited: Nov 30, 2021

Oh, that was a cringe-worthy meeting between Jacob and Herbie! I remember.
I met Herbie once at the Albert Hall. A friend was playing with him.
He chucked his Moog off-stage because the roady hadn't warmed it up and it was way out.
And Nam myoho renge kyo is actually nam myoho renge coke with Herbie.
But each to his own.
edit: @Ŧยχøя Don't you think Herbie was pissed off with Jacob in that meeting?
I certainly do!
Hehe I think it was a very humbling experience for Herbie, but all for the wrong reasons!
You get me?

 

Last edited: Nov 30, 2021

Actually simpler than that.

This is not incorrect but in a performing environment even though this is another description Fmaj9/C is an instant play without thought for a majority of musicians and tells them its a C triad and F triad which is the point of the whole thread (Polychord) being one triad on the bottom and another on the top which the OP started. Extensions are great and Jacob Collier has his own niche in reharmonisation, extensions and his own sound. You know it is him instantly.
Take away his voice reharmonisations and I'll take Herbie Hancock any day or Corea (RIP) as both composers and pianists. The point in music is not to be clever but to make anything complex no more difficult than it absolutely needs to be.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2021

I thought the above @BaSsDuDe's comment on page 1 basically provided the whole answer;
everything since has been just (nice) further discussion.

The OP said as much here...

Since then some nice discussion happening (extracts here)

The kind of stuff that's getting discussed above (which I like) is how sometimes it's more useful to see something as an extended chord and sometimes more useful to see it as polychords, etc. (i.e., what's your preferred perspective and why). They're also discussing the pros and cons of notating as extended chords versus notating as polychords.
Clearly, context matters, and (as always) the ideas matter far more than the jargon or the notation.

The aspects of music theory stuff being discussed above are not difficult but they are clearly not beginner level either.

So, a two-part contribution below..

The first part takes a big step backwards and discusses "what aspects of music theory do you need under your belt in order to understand the conversation between @BaSsDuDe and @Ŧยχøя - specifically about extended chords and polychords, etc"

The second part adds a bit to their conversation. A novel example to look at - Stravinsky's (allegedly) bitonal chord

People that already understand @BaSsDuDe's first response can just skip Part 1 unless (like me) they enjoy re-reading this theory stuff from different perspectives.
All too long - so wrapped up in spoilers - for masochists only.

Part 1. Basic music theory - extended chords versus polychords, etc

Spoiler: Part 1. Basic music theory - extended chords versus polychords, etc

Part 1. Basic music theory - extended chords versus polychords, etc.

I've written a few posts before about this stuff, hence reluctant to do it again.
Instead, for anyone that's exploring this as new stuff, follow the pointers below.
Your goal should be to say "yes I understand everything in this diagram"
(and a few other similar diagrams below).


Firstly, the essentials.
Make sure you have some basic understanding of scales, and modes, and using intervals to build chords from scales
One of my favourite recommendations for where to start is here
https://www.daveconservatoire.org/topic/getting-started
They use nice introductory videos - and no knowledge of music notation is required (but is also optionally available).

With those basics in place, explore these posts (all in the same thread)

[1] Getting to know a diatonic landscape
https://audiosex.pro/threads/recreating-melody-by-ear.45195/page-3#post-412391

[2] Further exploring a basic diatonic landscape.
https://audiosex.pro/threads/recreating-melody-by-ear.45195/page-3#post-412958
This one discusses extended chords and polychords (but doesn't actually use the word polychord)
It highlights how extended chords and polychords are just useful perspectives. i.e., different ways of looking at the same thing
It explains these three diagrams

Spoiler: Diagrams

[3] This post was just for guitarists - just showing similar ideas to those above.
https://audiosex.pro/threads/recreating-melody-by-ear.45195/page-3#post-412960

Spoiler: Patterns for Guitar

[4] Analysing the Radiohead song - "Everything in its right place"
https://audiosex.pro/threads/recreating-melody-by-ear.45195/page-3#post-412392
This one might be best left for later; it's not really for beginners. It's like a mini case study. It uses all the above ideas - and it's why the above theory posts got written.

Part 2. A novel example to look at - Stravinsky's (allegedly) bitonal chord

Spoiler: Part 2. A novel example to look at - Stravinsky's (allegedly) bitonal chord

Part 2. A novel example to look at - Stravinsky's (allegedly) bitonal chord
This part assumes you definitely already know everything that Part 1 discusses.
Given that you DO know the above stuff this presentation will be terse.

Think of it as a puzzle - which words (and why) should we apply to Stravinsky's chord?
Extended chord?, Polychords?, Bitonal chords?

Nothing educational here - just follow and verify the steps and see where it leads.
(and please please please correct my errors if you find some)

The (old) idea that we start with here is this one...
See a scale as an extended chord (like an arpeggiated scale)
i.e., (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) viewed as (1,3,5,7,9,11,13,1)
and also see it as built from two adjacent chords (1,3,5,7) + (9,11,13,1)

Example 1
See the C Ionian mode as an extended chord built from CM7 + Dm7
CMaj7 (C,E,G,B) plus Dmin7 (D,F,A,C) = (C,E,G,B,D,F,A,C)

Example 2
See the D Dorian mode as an extended chord built from Dm7 + Em7
Dmin7 (D,F,A,C) plus Emin7 (E,G,B,D) = (D,F,A,C,E,G,B,D)

etc, for every diatonic mode

Now play the same game using a Harmonic Minor scale.

First question:
Who wants to argue for or against whether the Harmonic Minor scale is called diatonic or not?
My answer: "I couldn't care less - it's the ideas that matter, not the labels."

Let's use key A for simplicity
A Harmonic Minor Scale = A,B,C,D,E,F,G#,A
viewed as an extended chord would be A,C,E,G#,B,D,F,A

Basic triad built on each note of the Harmonic Minor scale
i Amin A,C,E
ii Bdim B,D,F
III CAug C,E,G#
iv Dmin D,F,A
V Emaj E,G#,B
VI FMaj F,A,C
vii G#dim G#,B,D

The Harmonic Minor extended chord viewed as 2 stacked 7th chords would be
(A,C,E,G#) + (B,D,F,A) = (A,C,E,G#,B,D,F,A)

Now the interesting bit...

Take the 6th mode of the Harmonic Minor scale; starts on F, is sometimes called "Aeolian Harmonic Mode"
Its extended scale is F,A,C,E,G#,B,D,F
Break it up into these 2 chords (F,A,C) + (E,G#,B,D)

Transpose it down 1 semitone (why? - because that's the key Stravinsky used)
(E,Ab,B) + (Eb,G,Bb,Db)
EMaj + Eb7 (ignoring how it's often written as FbMaj + Eb7)
We have Stravinsky's (allegedly) Bitonal Chord.
(well almost - he actually used (E,Ab,B,E) + (Eb,G,Bb,Db)

Discussion...
Why am I saying allegedly Bitonal?
What does Bitonal mean? Presumably it means 2 different tonalities are being used.
But does this count as 2 different tonalities if both the chords belong to the same mode "Aeolian Harmonic"?
Can't we just say Stravinsky played the VI and the V of the Harmonic Minor scale?
Does this not illustrate why arguing over labels is a waste of time?
Once you see what's actually going on the labels become redundant.
They were just signposts that hopefully served their purpose by identifying the right ideas.

I have a slight reluctance to use the word polychord. Why?
because when I hear 'poly' I start thinking 'polytonal' (just my bias)
So, do we need different labels for polychords that are diatonic (not polytonal) e.g., CM7 + Dm7
compared to polychords that are not diatonic (polytonal?) e.g., CM7 + EM7
Again, I prefer to "get past the labels - and just see the ideas".

 

Last edited: Dec 2, 2021

If you add ANY SINGLE extra tone to ANY triad, you turn it into a Bitonal Chord.

e.g.

C6 = Am7
CM7 ~ Amadd9
Cadd9 = Em7(#5)
Cadd11 ~ [D]m7(9)(11), etc...

As a rule of thumb :
( because there's more to it, but that would impart subjectiveness )

MODAL Poly/Extended chords

G Mixo = G7 + Dm7(11)
A Aeolian = Am7 + Em7(11)
B Locrian = B°7 + FM7(#11)
C Ionian = CM7 + G7(11)
D Dorian = Dm7 + Am7(11)
E Phrygian = Em7 + B°7(11)
F Lydian = FM7 + CM7(11)

TONAL Poly/Extended chords

V - G13(9) = G7 + Dm6(9)
VI - Amb13(9) = Am7 + Emb6(b9)
VII - Bøb13(b9) = B°7 + F6(9)
I - CM13(9) = CM7 + G6(9)
II - Dm13(9) = Dm7 + Amb6(9)
III - Emb13(b9) = Em7 + B°b6(b9)
IV - FM13(9) = FM7 + C6(9)

Given the (a)symmetry in fifths, one could also play :

G Mixo = G7 + FM7(#11)/C
A Aeolian = Am7 + G7(11)/D
B Locrian = B°7 + Am7(11)/E
C Ionian = CM7 + B°7(11)/F
D Dorian = Dm7 + CM7(11)/G
E Phrygian = Em7 + Dm7(11)/A
F Lydian = FM7 + Em7(11)/B


Reminder : By the "rule of the omitted fifth", 11(9) pentachords result as inversions in ninths from 13(9) pentachords.

For instance,

• half-step - Em11(b9) = FM13(9) ---> E G D F A [ R-b3-b7-b9-11 ] / F A E G D [ R-3-M7-9-13 ]
• whole-step - FM9(#11) = G13(9) ---> F A E G B [ R-3-M7-9-#11 ] / G B F A E [ R-3-b7-9-13 ]

and so on and so forth...


Now, imagine the above equivalents to Melodic minor, Harmonic minor, Harmonic Major, Hungarian Major and Romanian Major...

Cheers

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2021

First the obligatory AudioSex protocol requires me to say...
"WFT - That's not what Bitonal means you f3*kin moron dipstick"
Sorry about that - just following forum tradition! I'll be civilised now.

Thanks for your extensions to the conversation about extended chords, polychords, bitonal, polytonal, etc.
I sincerely believe that words do not have fixed meanings. They are just malleable signposts to ideas. If they are working well then we have a shared conventional use of a word where most people are using it in a roughly similar way to point at roughly the same idea.

I can sincerely say that (I think) the way you are trying to use the word bitonal is unconventional and hence misleading.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe many people use it as you do - who knows?

I resort to my well worn mantra "The words are just signposts - it's the ideas that matter"

So, what are our (yours and mine) contradictory uses of the word bitonal ?
Let's bring the ideas into focus - and expose the ambiguity of the word.

I previously said...

That was a rhetorical question - I was not anticipating anyone offering an alternative interpretation of bitonal or polytonal.

A simple example...
A chord sequence - four triads - Am,Dm,G,C
It's conventional to say things like
- vi, ii, V, I of C Major
- this is in Key C Major
- the tonal center is C
- the tonality is C Major

It would be very unconventional to say the tonality is shifting from Am to Dm to G to C
The chords are obviously changing but they all belong to the same tonality - C Major.

Now add 7ths - the four chords are now Am7,Dm7,G7,CM7
Just for colourful interest lets change that to Am7,Dm7,G7,C6
I claim (very conventionally) that the tonality has not changed - the tonality is still C Major.

But we now have your two chords Am7 and C6 and you said "C6 = Am7" and you claimed that these are Bitonal
I suggest that this is misusing the word tonality, i.e., a very unconventional and hence misleading use of the word.

Instead, the idea that you had in mind (I think) is this.
C6 (C,E,G,A) and Am7 (A,C,E,G) share the same notes.
If you look at these four notes, as an isolated chord, and especially if you look at elaborate voicings, then it can be ambiguous as to what the root is. Is it a C6 or is it an Am7. That ambiguity will be resolved by the context, as in my example above where it becomes obvious that the first chord is Am7 and the last chord is C6.

So I claim that tonality refers to the space that the chords occupy
Examples
Am7 and C6 occupy the same tonal space - so, they are not bitonal. (hence I contest your interpretation)
whereas
CM7 and EM7 do not occupy the same tonal space, so the label bitonal seems OK here.

My stance again...
- I don't really care about the words - it's only the ideas that matter.
BUT
- I do care about words being used carelessly (which we ALL do)
because then they fail to fulfil their role as signposts and we miss the intended ideas.

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

Last I checked the term bitonal in music meant the coetaneous presence of two distinct keys or scales, not music systems. This is of course unless someone has decided to change it and I missed the change, which I doubt. Additionally, yes how it sounds and the concept will always be more important

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2021