Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
My first instinct was Fmaj7#5 too - but I'd probably think of it more as two separate chords: Fmaj#5 and then A Major.
Your suggestion is clear, but it has a flaw. The example consists of 16 notes. The sequence of Faug and A chords consists of only 6 notes, so the last 2 notes (F and E) of both first and second measures remain unattributed.
But still part of a sequence involving Faug and A chords. Truth is that we don't know what happens afterwards as the bars are empty. Like I said, in a classical context I don't recognise the arp but in a jazz context I do: my first thought matched yours, and I think it's the most sage explanation BUT from a practical perspective I'd probably think of the former to negotiate my way through it.
The truth is that you would fail a theory exam with that kind of explanation.
I wouldn't think of it as an appoggiatura, because each note is equally 'salient'. Usually, an appoggiatura would occupy a "weak" beat. Here, since everything is uniform, each of the notes seem to hold equal "value", so it seems weird for one of them to asymmetrically be an approach tone.
But still part of a sequence involving Faug and A chords. Truth is that we don't know what happens afterwards as the bars are empty. Like I said, in a classical context I don't recognise the arp but in a jazz context I do: my first thought matched yours, and I think it's the most sage explanation BUT from a practical perspective I'd probably think of the former to negotiate my way through it.
It would depend on the rhythm imo. If transcribed correctly, this doesn't suggest to me two separate chords at all. However, if it was a sequence of triplets, I might change my mind.
I can imagine this being asked in a theory exam, and a kid saying "that's not a chord!".
The truth is that you would fail a theory exam with that kind of explanation.
Truth is it wouldn't be in a theory exam x
Chord identification is a common question on a theory exam.
Which this isn't (either a chord or a theory exam).
Like I've said, I agree with you and acknowledged your correction. For the sake of argument, if it were a theory exam asking the student to 'name a chord given with the associated passage' I'd have said Fmajor7#5. Not quite sure why this conversation is getting so pedantic about a hypothetical situation - feel free to DM me if you wish to continue this further rather than hi-jack the thread.
The truth is that you would fail a theory exam with that kind of explanation.
Truth is it wouldn't be in a theory exam x
Chord identification is a common question on a theory exam.
Which this isn't (either a chord or a theory exam).
Like I've said, I agree with you and acknowledged your correction. For the sake of argument, if it were a theory exam asking the student to 'name a chord given with the associated passage' I'd have said Fmajor7#5. Not quite sure why this conversation is getting so pedantic about a hypothetical situation - feel free to DM me if you wish to continue this further rather than hi-jack the thread.
I don't hijack the thread at all. I just sincerely want you to understand why your suggestion and that approach in general is inappropriate. And it's not only about exams, it may negatively affect your playing, too. When you see a 4-notes pattern in a 4/4 meter it almost always requires a 1-in-4-notes accentuation. If you try to break a sequence of such 4-notes patterns into triads and perceive it as triads it will most likely also lead to improper accentuation. And it's harder to memorize. So why do weird things? If your first instinct tells you to recognize a 4-notes pattern as a 4-notes chord, just trust your instinct.
I don't hijack the thread at all. I just sincerely want you to understand why your suggestion and that approach in general is inappropriate. And it's not only about exams, it may negatively affect your playing, too. When you see a 4-notes pattern in a 4/4 meter it almost always requires a 1-in-4-notes accentuation. If you try to break a sequence of such 4-notes patterns into triads and perceive it as triads it will most likely also lead to improper accentuation. And it's harder to memorize. So why do weird things? If your first instinct tells you to recognize a 4-notes pattern as a 4-notes chord, just trust your instinct.
I acknowledged the correction many posts ago now, but that's still, seemingly, unrecognised.
Without more context, which is greatly lacking, I don't see any point inventing hypothetical situations. There's no accents marked in the piece - who knows where they may be? (please note this is a rhetorical question)
I don't hijack the thread at all. I just sincerely want you to understand why your suggestion and that approach in general is inappropriate. And it's not only about exams, it may negatively affect your playing, too. When you see a 4-notes pattern in a 4/4 meter it almost always requires a 1-in-4-notes accentuation. If you try to break a sequence of such 4-notes patterns into triads and perceive it as triads it will most likely also lead to improper accentuation. And it's harder to memorize. So why do weird things? If your first instinct tells you to recognize a 4-notes pattern as a 4-notes chord, just trust your instinct.
I acknowledged the correction many posts ago now, but that's still, seemingly, unrecognised.
Without more context, which is greatly lacking, I don't see any point inventing hypothetical situations. There's no accents marked in the piece - who knows where they may be? (please note this is a rhetorical question)
Oh my... never thought this thread would go this far . Oh well. If you thought the first arpeggios were interesting you guys are gonna love this one...
It's one of the arpeggios used in the piano part on Evergreen at 2:35
Oh my... never thought this thread would go this far . Oh well. If you thought the first arpeggios were interesting you guys are gonna love this one...
It's one of the arpeggios used in the piano part on Evergreen at 2:35
I'm unable to 'ping-out' that piano part in my earphones, so I'll take it as correct.
The song is in A Major and the harmonic progression at that point reads:
B/A / / / | Bb/A / / / | A / / / |
So, assuming the run you're asking about happens in the first bar, I'd say it is a Bsus4 over an A bass.
Without knowing the key and chords though, calling the run an Emaj9 would have been tempting (despite its lack of 3rd)
OH, I just travelled memory lane and sang along to Evergreen and the next video posted, Almost over you. Not going to analyze notes just going to enjoy the music for now..
Of course, we're all in it for the enjoyment ! But I'd also like to dive a little deeper and understand what I'm listening! I am a pianist myself by the way... even do some of my own arrangements and compositions... but do most of the latter instinctively, heavily relying on my musical ear and creativity.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/yCEGbFo.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/VgrNq84.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/t9OiN17.jpg)
