Talk:Mu chord

Voicing
I'm certain this is one of Becker and Fagan's private jokes. In music-theoretical terms a major triad with an added second is different from a major triad with an added ninth, but in reality they're just different inversions of the same chord. It would be more accurate to talk about a Mu major voicing. Here are the inversions:


 * 1, 2, 3, 5
 * 2, 3, 5, 1(8)
 * 3, 5, 1(8), 9
 * 5, 1(8), 9, 3(10)

The numbers in brackets here are just an aid to imagining the shape of the chord:

There are three possible inversions when the 2nd is in the bass (shouldn't the last editor have made his/her remarks in this discussion section before telling the first person they were wrong?) The problem is, as soon as I play any of these chords (at least on solo piano) I'm 'tricked' into thinking of the bass note as a root (the supertonic of the original scale). The chord then becomes a [dominant 9th sus 4] or alternatively a [dominant 11th].


 * 2, 5, 1(8), 3(10)
 * 2, 1(8), 3(10), 5(12)
 * 2, 3(10), 5(12), 1(16)

(Incidentally, the British stand-up and musician Bill Bailey calls the [dominant 11th] and [major triad add second] "smug chords" in part of his act, I guess because of the smooth jazzy cadence you can make with them)

Adambisset 17:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction
On 25th March 2009 this article stated:

"The mu major chord differs from a sus2 chord as a sus2 chord does not contain a 3rd. Often, the mu major chord is voiced with the root (1) in the bass, and 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 1st in the upper register."

These two statements contradict each other, don't they? Which is right? Or is 'mu' just a joke?

IMO the ways in which chords are described in classical or jazz harmonic theory leave much to be desired and it is easy to pick holes in the systems. In particular, I think that the simplest way of describing a chord is probably the best. But in the case of inversions of 'mu' rooted on the 2nd, it is probably better to regard them as complex dominant chords (as Adam notes above) rather than an inversion of the tonic with added 2nd?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WestNab (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How do which two statements contradict each other? Hyacinth (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The original statement is correct. The Mu chord has 2 and 3. The sus 2 chord has no 3. The voicing given is for the Mu chord (NOT the sus 2) and so is correct.
 * The minor version with 2 and b3 is found in the standard jazz "B" voicing for a m7, e.g. b7 2 b3 5. The m7 has an add 9 (the 2) in this chord, but the chords are generically just referred to as m7, not "m7add9" 143.159.21.53 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect depictions of mu major chord
I don't know how to edit the notations (I guess they're picture files of some sort) but I hope someone else can fix this. The first depicted chord has the tonic, 2nd, and 3rd grouped together as a tone cluster; this is incorrect voicing according to Steely Dan. Furthermore, the author of this article seems to assume that only major triads can be altered to "mu" chords, but Steely Dan makes it clear that mu minor chords are useful too.

Properly, a mu chord is any triad, major or minor, which has an added 2nd and is voiced so that the tonic and 2nd are not played adjacently. I don't have the precise citation for this any more, but it comes from a discussion by Steely Dan in the foreword to an edition of their sheet music published in the late 70s.

Best,

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.239.181 (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Click on images to see information about them. See Images and Citing sources. Hyacinth (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A great reply to a very valid concern in regard of this page. Congratulations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.216.120 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why, how, and where does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Why should this article be merged into Added tone chord? Hyacinth (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - There is no good reason to merge. Jus  da  fax   08:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mu voicing
The article seems inconsistent with its description of the Mu chord. It is correct when it says that a Mu chord has no 3, but it also neglects to spell out a typical Mu voicing (1 5 7 9). Mu essentially functions as any major triad with the 4 of that chord in the bass (e.g. A/D or Bb/Eb). The entire effect of it is based on the 3 not being there. With Steely Dan, the guitar would often play a simple major chord (a fifth up from the note the bassist played). And maybe there could be more detail on usage. Steely Dan would use Mu chords for constant motion and also to break up typical blues structure (common Steely Dan style would be to start something as a simple 12-bar blues and then use a variation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.139.166 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Considerations in Naming of 'Mu' Chords
In discussing the naming and construction of chord names, spellings and uses--such as the mu chord--it is helpful to remember the following:

√ Contemporary harmony lacks the consistent terminology inherent in traditional harmony; thanks to the writings of Rameau and others, terms such as 'major', 'minor', 'dominant' have a common understanding and consistent use. As there is no single, universally recognized theorist or treatise for contemporary harmony, the terminology is somewhat fluid.

√ Musicians who insist on a single 'correct' term for a contemporary harmonic technique are typically parroting the way they were taught. Theory instructors often present their own approach and terminology as universal and correct, instead of as a preference or recommendation. The result is countless unnecessary and unproductive arguments between musicians trained with differing terminology (i.e. 'octatonic' vs. 'diminished' scale).

√ With regards to Messers Fagen and Becker, their naming of a chord with an added-2 a mu chord appears to involve a bit of whimsy; it is not common terminology.

√ While the use of add-9 instead of is fairly common, it can be problematic for a keyboardist or guitarist sight reading a part, as the player must quickly determine if the implied seventh is present, or not; add-2 not only solves this problem, it also reflects the common voicing of the second next to the third.

√ A "sus-2" chord can be understood as: a chord to be resolved quickly, "Csus-2" > "C"; an incomplete chord: 1, 2 (instead of 3), 5; a "quintal sonority" (i.e. based in a sequence of perfect-fifths--C,G,D), inverted and doubled in numerous ways and repurposed as a variation of a functional chord.

√ Chords with an add-2 and chords with a sus-2 (absent a third) are not quite the same thing--but they are close enough in sound to be used interchangeably or in close proximity in pop music. Guitarists often choose one or the other based on ease of fingering in open position, or desired effect. Tmhynes (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Still no explanation for "mu"
I read through the article, and there is still no explanation for exactly why the Greek letter "mu" was chosen for this. "mu" is associated with 1/1,000,000 and the prefix "micro". There is also the anecdote about the Zen master replying "Mu" when asked if a dog has Buddha nature. Do any of these apply? If not, I suggest that the article should be amended to say that "mu" is a nonsense word applied to the chord in a bit of whimsy. Something. Because the "explanation" explanation is no explanation at all. ThreeRocks (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge completed
Diff:  -Jord gette   [talk]  17:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)