Classical Chords

Can anyone suggest any Classical or Neoclassical Chords? Also any chords for Flamanco style?

Please dont tell me to buy a book, I got all chords, but I do not know which one are commonly used for the above stlyes.

Thank You

Your typical major/minor chords are the norm for those styles. It's styles of playing that matter. For example:

|-0----0-0-0-1----1-1-1-0--|
|-0----0-0-0-1----1-1-1-0--|
|-1----1-1-1-2----2-2-2-1--|
|-2----2-2-2-3----3-3-3-2--|
|-2----2-2-2-3----3-3-3-2--|
|-0----0-0-0-1----1-1-1-0--|

That sounds pretty flamenco, and it's nothing but E major and F major.


|-5-4-3-2-1-0-|
|-5-5-3-3-1-0-|
|-5-4-4-2-2-1-|
|--------------|
|--------------|
|-5-4-3-2-1-0-|

That sounds classical, but again nothing but major and minor chords.

Yea and I'd hit the 3rd right at the bottom to .. I forget the word .. make it more obvious. Like:

|---------------------------------
|---------------------------------
|--7--8----10---8-----7---------
|--7--8----10---8-----7-----------
|--9--10---12---10----9-----------
|0--------------------------------

That was the first time I've ever writen notation on the computer. Anyway, let the bottom E ring out and play the triad over top. Play some messed up scale over top:

E |0---1---4---5---7---8--11---12----

E minor harmonic with lowered 2nd and raised 3rd, haha. no clue what it is but sounds decent. Tea Party ish.

Yea I use them chords two. But I use Am,Ema, and back to Am. But I will try Fm and Fma I guess. I got all the chords ever made, so I could figure some good ones from Minor and Major. I just need direction, because it would take way too long to find the right ones.

Hey thanks though.

My appologies. Those triads should be up 2 frets or the bottom E should be a D for it to work. Did that without a guitar in my hands.

I like cheese. Did THAT without a guitar in my hands!

hah yea. I shouldnt've replied in the first place, as I have no idea what those terms refer to. Was just trying to go on that e to f thing.

If you have a book or website or chart that has "all the chords ever" on it, that's not helpful alone. What you need is music theory lessons to learn scales, chords, and how chords fit together. Then "finding the right notes" comes a LOT easier.

Most classical music is built on simple chord forms. You don't hear many 9th, 11th, or 13th chords in classical music. The extent of most voicing in classical music are 7th's. What classical music does alot of is use inversions of chords. Here's simple one in F major.


e:---------------------------------|----------------------------------|
b:---------------------------------|----------------------------------|
g:---5---5---5---5---5---5---5---5-|---3---3--------------------------|
d:-----7-------7-------5-------5---|-----3-----3-0-3---3---3---3---3--|
a:-8-------8-------7-------7-------|-5-------1-------0---3---0---3----|
e:---------------------------------|----------------------------------|



Here's the chord progression:

|| Fmaj . Cmaj/E . |Bbmaj/D Bmaj Fmaj/A . ||

Where this term or misnomer came from is beyond me. A chord is a chord...

From notice:
Most classical music is built on simple chord forms. You don't hear many 9th, 11th, or 13th chords in classical music. The extent of most voicing in classical music are 7th's.

I have no understanding of this statement. Bach is not classical, but baroque. He did lots of 7 and 7ths, 9, 11, and 13s.
I don't get this logic. Bach would have been, probably, as good as Charlie Parker. Bach was great in HIS idiom and time. This word "classical" is simply incorrect. One might would suspect that Charlie Parker and Dizzy listened.

Originally posted by griphon2
I have no understanding of this statement. Bach is not classical, but baroque. He did lots of 7 and 7ths, 9, 11, and 13s.
I don't get this logic. Bach would have been, probably, as good as Charlie Parker. Bach was great in HIS idiom and time. This word "classical" is simply incorrect. One might would suspect that Charlie Parker and Dizzy listened.

If Bach isn't classical, and he used 11th and 13th chords then why did you post that. Classical chords, there was a classical era and "most of it" was dominated with simple chord shapes. And how can you even compare Charlie Parker to Bach??

I think "classical chords" is a bad analogy. You should say classical chord voicings, there really is no such thing as a classical chord.

Sorry, can't have classical without Bach, which is Baroque. Without understanding this concept, modern music is a dream.
Sorry, not this commercial crap. It's pure bad and horribly dishonest business. Payola is back, but more subtle. Especially if your stupid.

Classical chords is a bad analogy, especially when you consider it constituting for everything in music from Baroque to 20th century music. The obvious truth is no certain chords give you a classical sound, but there is a good starting point behind creating classical music. Aside from what the thread is about, there was a classical era amongst baroque, romanatic, etc. Mozart was a classical musician, Bach was not of the classical era. That's why I didn't get why griphon brought up Bach in the same sentence that points the discussion towards the era's. I know Bach is the father of all modern music and of course all the chords were used during all the time periods. I was just saying most of it was simple chord shapes but more emphasis on chord voicing and inversion. With that idea as a foundation it's pretty easy to write classical music, that's my tip on how to use chords to make classical music. There is no strict menu, but be careful in using advanced chord voicing because they can create a texture that isn't classical sounding. 11th and 13th chords are more modern because they grow more increasingly ambiguos to the tonal center of a chord. Tonal centers were very important in classical music.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 11-01-2003 at 10:08 AM]

"Classical" is a term more commonly used by the average citizen to describe a style of music, not a specific era, which would include such harmonic geniuses as Bach, Chopin, and your buddy DeBussy.

[Edited by chris mood on 11-02-2003 at 12:16 PM]

NTM, can't really argue the logic. The term Classical is really a misnomer. Any one can call what is before me or you as classical, especially of merit. And, frankly, that's correct. Classical chords means, I guess, Western harmony or it's notation. Bach, sort of, created or started a means to analize supposed passing tones. As more theorists got involved, and American became real, things went kind of askew, theoretically. That's where we are now. Working out the bumps. There are going to be lots of views. That's where we are. 20 years from me, the theory will become standard. Still correct, but a good and reasonable working tool for the average musician and guitar player.

Yeah, what really throws novice musicians for a loop is when they try to combine classical theory analysis against blues based music. Or better yet, modern rock, which is more diminished based then anything. Who'd ever thought those good ole boys from Nirvana would change the face of rock music by sliding major chords around in minor 3rds.

Depending on how you take the word classical and it's context, whether it's a misnomer. In this thread I think it's cool because it refers to a style of music, rather than a particular era. When griphon said, bach wasn't classical but baroque that tells any decent mind he's talking about era's. I didn't bring up the era thing so why would I argue it otherwise.

Using Classical theory in modern music gives us Neo-classical music. Using the strict ideas of each era breaks it down into different sub-genres, neo-romanticism, and neo-baroque (malmsteen is neo-baroque to me for the most part). Nothing wrong with using old ideas in new context.

There are no strict laws or recipes for music, only the laws and rules the musician makes for him or herself. (unknown)

Rubbish!

What is your deal?


LOL