In Key of C, are there any other cords other than C, F, and G? If so, what are they?

Also, what are the chords for G minor and F minor?

In any key ,PerfectPeach, a multitude of chords may follow according to the song you are playing.My guess is that you are refering to basic "easy Rock and Roll" and "Pop" song that contains almost nothing,like three or four chords.

You could be playing in "Key of C"(also called C major)
a Jazz song that will contain easily 15 or more different complicated chords.

But to the basic Key of "C" other basic chords besides "F" and "G" mentioned, you may easily add the chords of "D","A","E" "B", "A minor", "D minor" "F minor".There are a lot more but these only, will allow you to play another few hunded songs......in Key of "C Major" or other Keys, of course.

As for the other keys mentioned the same rule applies, except you will need to transpose them.

Basically, when you will be able to play most of them, you'll see the same chords coming back in other Keys, but transposed differently in a single piece of music.Hope it helped.

In the key of C, the two main chords other than C are F and G. In the key of C these three chords are called the Primary Triads. There are three more main chords in the key of C; D minor, A minor and E minor, all of which are directly related to the key of C, and are called Secondary Triads.

The notes in the chord of G minor are G, Bb and D. The notes which make up the chord of F minor are F Ab and C.

The key or chord of C is the same as C major. The stating of the word 'major' is optional when you mean 'major' in music. If 'minor' is intended, then that word must be used every time you refer to a chord or a key.

To say that a piece of music is in any particular key is to mean that the main notes in that piece belong to the scale of that same name.

Mozart56 has given a very good reply. This is a huge subject, and it is rather difficult to ascertain exactly how much you know about chord construction and music theory in general from your post, but if I can be of any help in answering specifics, please post away here, and I will do my very best to clarify whatever you wish, from the absolute basics to (I believe)any degree of difficulty which you may desire to discuss .

Cheers! Ritz...

Not trying to contradict Ritzmar's post, just adding a little.

In any major key there are exactly seven diatonictriads. Diatonic means staying within the boundaries of the scale. In C major, for example, the scale is C, D, E, F, G, A, B, and back to C. Notice there are no sharps (#) or flats (b). This is the key signature for C major.

So, in order to stay within the key of C, your triads must not have any sharps or flats (collectively known as accidentals). The triads are:

C Major (tonic) C E G
D minor (super-tonic) D F A
E minor (mediant) E G B
F Major (sub-dominant) F A C
G Major (dominant) G B D
A minor (sub-mediant) A C E
B diminished (leading) B D F

Notice the absence of chords like D Major or F minor. The reason they are not listed is that they are not diatonic with C major. A D Major triad would be D F# A. That sharp takes us out of the diatonic key of C, therefore it is not used. (be advised that it is possible--and common--to use non-diatonic chords in music, but that's a little more advanced music theory).

Also, the seventh triad I listed (B D F) is not common in rock or pop music, but very common in jazz. On a side note, (for the music theory buffs reading this) some music scholars assert that there is really no such thing as a diminished chord, but rather refer to it as a dominant seventh without the root.

I agree, Jbokie. We are slightly at cross purposes, though, I feel. There are seven diatonic chords in a major key, ie six others related to the tonic. But the seventh chord, being a diminished chord and highly unstable in every conceivable situation cannot assert itself as a key, but merely sounds as if it belongs to another key, depending on the context.

I am fully aware of the diminished chord being regarded as a dominant seventh with the root missing, and often it is used in a very similar way. But I disagree totally with the theory that this is exactly how it functions. The inclusion of the root here adds a real focal key-point and, although a dissonant chord, is far more key-based in its own right than the simple diminished fifth chord. Also, as you probably know the diminished seventh is often considered as a dominant minor ninth with the root missing, and the dominant thirteenth merely a dominant seventh with an unresolved appoggiatura (thirteenth falling in classical orthodox style to the fifth of the chord) but one's ears, (if they work properly!) whatever the apparent visual evidence on the score may suggest clearly tell us that all of these are uniquely different chords, and are therefore real individual chords in their own right.

Theorists do an excellent job, and can alert us to clearer thinking and perception, but occasionally the sound of the blend of the notes produces a definite result apparently incompatible with the notes on the score. For a very simple example of this, merely look at the number of blues songs which on paper end on a dominant seventh which classically has to 'move', but which sound perfectly finished. The fact that here we could legitimately state that the Mixolydian Mode is being employed does not in any way alter the 'fact' that major chords with added minor sevenths need to resolve, and should be treated as dominant sevenths of a new key. Theorists ought to remember that all the theory in the world cannot erase the fact that if music sounds finished, then it probably is.

Removing the root from a dominant minor ninth, just as one example, allows for a far greater range of remote keys to be easily accessed via the remaining diminished seventh, as there is no longer a strong sense of tonality, and this effect Wagner and Liszt exploited what Chopin had hinted at earlier, but did not explore as completely as later composers. (Incidentally, Chopin was more harmonically daring than any composer since Bach, and was the contrapuntal and harmonic beacon lighting the road to 20th century composition)...

I agree with your views on theorists.

(I take the blame for turning this straight-forward post into a theoretical diatribe. I will keep this post very short.

What many of our distinguished theorists have forgotten is that practice comes before theory, and consequently theory can not (should not) control practice. It is all too common for a theorist or professor or scholar to say that something is "technically incorrect". What in the world does that mean, anyway? They forget that Vivaldi, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin were all radical in their day, and the theory of the time had to change to reflect that. I could go on and on, but I'll cut myself short here.

jbokie

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbokie:
I agree with your views on theorists.

What many of our distinguished theorists have forgotten is that practice comes before theory, and consequently theory can not (should not) control practice.

jbokie

---

Excellent point, Jbokie. The only thing which theorists are legitimately able to do is to look at what artists have done, see what worked and what did not work, and then try to find common traits which appear in the works being analysed. Beethoven was once told by a music critic that a device he had used in a string quartet would have to be altered. "Why?" asked the great man. "it is against the rules of theory", was the somewhat ill-advised reply. "I make the rules!" was the outraged response...we need the works of genius before we can work out what the rules should be...

Incidentally, although I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I cannot remember the example, I remember you helping me significantly with a musical problem, JB, once, at Answerpoint. Great to see you again!..

jbokie, that statement you made is true for any field. Every system that exists wants to resist its own evolution but the process cannot be stopped!

As for the idea that there is no such thing as a diminished chord, I can think of a million reasons why that is counterintuitive. I think the contexts where seeing a diminished as a dominant seventh minus its root are a lot more sparse than those that would justify it being put in a special class I like to call 'symmetrical divisions of the octave.' Besides, the diminished sequence even has its own scale (obscure sounding at first, but very useful--and not just in jazz). And if you wanted to get creative you could make up your own scale that would still be outlined by a diminished 7th.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Odie,

Welcome, Odie!

Yes, welcome, Odie, to echo Jusork!
I am a little confused by your word 'semetrical' which I do not know. However, the scale from which the diminished chord is drawn (The Locrian Mode) was created by the Swiss theorist Glareanus around the middle of the 16th century ("Dodecachordon"). He himself, however stated that he had included this mode merely for completeness, and that to all intents it was unworkable for a genuine composition. To most ears the chord is unstable, and it is very hard to hear as the home chord of a key, should the music come to rest on it.

I am not saying that future generations will not hear it as such, should enough music have been composed with that chord as its tonal centre. But up to now I am unable to experience it other than as waiting for it to move to the 'logical' major or minor key based on the note a semitone higher than the root of that diminished chord (if that makes sense!)...

Thanks for the warm welcome, guys! I didn’t realize until after I’d subscribed to this thread that it was old. Thanks to the Professor for pointing that out to me..

Ritzmar, I meant to type 'symmetrical.' I was having one of those bad spelling days it seems. I just edited that post to correct the spelling error. I have lots to say in response to your reply. Forgive me if this seems long-winded. Also, while preparing this, I wrote it for anyone interested so please don't feel insulted if I mention stuff that you probably already know.



Here’s what I meant by that term, symmetrical divisions of the octave: As you know, western music is based on the number 12. Mathematically, that’s a special number because of how it factors. The divisors of 12 are 1,2,3,4,6, and 12. That’s a lot of possibilities that can be multiplied together to equal 12.

There is a special sequence that corresponds to each divisor. The diminished is probably the most commonly found example. Every interval in a diminished sequence is made of exactly 3 half steps. In other words, every note in the sequence is a minor third above the previous one. Furthermore, because every interval is the same, there are only 3 distinct diminished sequences. An Eb diminished 7th chord has all the same notes as a C or an A or an F# diminished. For some, it might make more sense to think of these chords as inversions of each other. The point where one would choose to notate this sequence in one key instead of another has to do with voicing or personal preference. Though there might be cases where it would make a difference on paper, if you’re staring at a piano keyboard, it makes a lot of sense to realize that there are actually only 3 diminished sequences, rather than 12.

This logic works for not just the diminished, but also the augmented, whole tone, and tritone. It works for the chromatic and the octave as well, though it’s not as practical. The internal and scalable symmetry is shared by each symmetrical division sequence, but the number of semitones per interval has to be the quotient of 12 divided by the number of intervals per octave. The following chart shows these relationships.



As for the ‘diminished scale’ I was referring to, it is very different from the Locrian mode (more about that in a bit). The diminished scale (sometimes known to classical theorists as an octatonic scale due to having 8 scale degrees) is created by overlapping all the notes of any 2 diminished sequences. The result is a scale whose intervals alternate like this: half step, whole step, half step, whole step, etc. Depending on which sequences are being used to create the scale, the intervals might begin with a whole step, then half step, etc. It’s no coincidence that there are only 3 distinct diminished scales, as there are only 3 distinct diminished sequences. The scale sounds very alien at first but you can catch bits and pieces of it in improvised jazz solos all the time. It can also be used as a substitute for a Lydian scale (but with a real spicy twist). The scale can even be used to imitate eastern music. It’s good to have the diminished scales in your bag of tricks but their applications don’t come up very often. They’re absolutely perfect at the right time and place, though.

CLICK HERE FOR AN INTERACTIVE DIAGRAM COMPARING DIMINISHED CHORDS AND SCALES




Now let me get back to how this differs from the Locrian. I can see why you would think of the diminished chord as being derived from the Locrian mode, but that’s not exactly right...actually it’s quite literally half right. Let us think beyond triadic harmony and delve deeper into the theory of 4-part harmony, also known loosely as “jazz theory.” The chord that is born of the Locrian is the half-diminished or the minor 7 flat 5 if you’re talking jazz notation (jazzers get mad about the term ‘half diminished’ because they ask… “which half?”). The formula for extracting a chord from a scale is simple. You just take every other note in the scale. For the Ionian mode of C (the same as the C major scale), playing every other note (C, E, G, B) would give you a C major 7. For the Aeolian mode of C (the relative minor, in this case the A natural minor) you get an A minor 7 (A, C, E, G). That’s why the Locrian yields a half diminished. The Locrian mode of C corresponds to a B half diminished chord (B, D, F, A). There is actually a 7-tone scale whose 7th mode yields a true diminished 7th (like B, D, F, G#) but it is very obscure and I won’t go into that.

CLICK HERE FOR AN INTERACTIVE DIAGRAM SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIMINISHED AND LOCRIAN




Here is where I would have to disagree with Mr. Glareanus (though I must thank him for giving the world the Locrian, no matter what his intentions). The Locrian mode is even more useful than the diminished (octatonic) scale, and you might not realize it but you’ll find lots of music based on its corresponding chord if you think about intervals and forget about what key you’re in. Here’s why: the half diminished is an inversion of a minor 6 chord. For example, a D minor 6 has all the same notes as a B half diminished but it’s voiced with D as the root. You hear minor 6 chords all the time in every genre. It’s so bittersweet and very melodic. Most Latin music is based on the minor 6, it seems. A common Latin progression would go from, say a D minor 6 to a C minor 6 or from a D minor 6 to an A7 flat 9. If you played a B Locrian on top of a D minor 6 chord it would not sound weird at all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Odie,