If anyone disagrees, here is something to ponder. What “rule” in music theory prevents 2 pitches from being labeled a chord?
The "rule" is the definition, which makes a distinction between an interval/dyad and a chord/triad.
But music theory always trails practice, and it's an oft-cited maxim that when a style or practice can be codified using music theory, that style is dead.
It's also well known that much music theory that claims to capture the "rules" (like those of Bach's counterpoint) often is a list of that author's own biases, rather than an accurate model of actual practice.
The crux of Neely's argument is that functionally, a power chord acts like a chord, even though it lacks a third. It provides enough harmonic information to act as a complete chord. He notes that it gains an audible third via distortion and harmonics, so the third is present even in the player didn't play the note.
But it's more than that - he argues the term "chord" should describe how a chord behaves in practice, and not be bound by theory texts. The fact that we call it a "power chord" despite only being an interval supports this.
So Neely - and others - argue for moving away from the classical definition because it doesn't reflect actual practice. But the classical definition still has value.
Note that we aren't arguing for an interval like the perfect sixth to be treated as a chord. And in practice, power chords are almost always played on distorted guitars or basses. Neely agrees that it acoustically gains the "missing" third, which is why it can be treated as a chord.
In short, Neely argues that if music theory doesn't represent common practice, it has little value.
Yet he acknowledges that in practice, a power chord gains the "missing" third. And I think that somewhat undercuts the argument that a power chord is a dyad or interval.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean