Questions in the form of "What chord is this?"

Question

There was a small outbreak of comments on this question:

What chord is this from Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 "G - Db - F"?

about its topicality. Specifically, @MatthewRead and I engaged in the following exchange:

Can you clarify why you're asking? (Why does it need to have a name?) – Matthew Read♦

@MatthewRead Asking for the name and/or function of a sonority would seem to me to be a valid, answerable "theory" question. "I'm curious" would seem sufficient justification for asking. – Andrew

@Andrew Not really, we don't want one question for every conceivable set of notes. A better question would be about how to identify chords, so the poster actually learns something useful. – Matthew Read♦

I think there are improvements to be made in the linked question. However, I would point out that:

1. A question per conceivable sonority seems unlikely.
2. A question about how to identify chords (generally) would require reciting entire harmony texts here, which does not seem useful.

What seems better to me is to permit and perhaps even encourage questions about sonority identification. A good question would provide sufficient context around the sonority (printed or aural) to allow a detailed answer. (The linked question does not currently meet this criterion.) This way, it is not necessary for those answering to find a score or a recording for themselves. A good answer would not merely identify the sonority (or several possible interpretations thereof) but explain the process of determining the sonority and/or cite sources of explanation for more "famous" examples where there is legitimate scholarly debate.

Finally, if someone has a specific reason for asking a question, presumably the asker will make that reason known, possibly through a later edit when the reason becomes relevant. Otherwise, "I'm curious" or "I just want to know" seem like reasonable defaults for any question on this site.

Discussion?

Answer 1

I think it's important not to dismiss this kind of question due to a lack of searchability at the present moment. That will come in time--I'm sure Google is working on figuring that out as we speak.

Theoretical analysis of functional harmony, I believe, should be valid and on-topic. Questions should be structured with the proper context, and titled either referencing the music itself (say, "Db triad in the key of F#") or the title of the piece ("Second chord in Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2")--that's not terrible in terms of searchability, either.

What should be off-topic are questions that are just asking for note or chord identification without regard to functional analysis. Non-functional harmony should be dealt with separately.

We clearly already do allow questions about high-level theoretical analysis already, so we have to allow questions of analysis at a lower level. If we don't, we're insisting upon some arbitrary cut-off that would be impossible to justify and even less practical to enforce.

I think something that can be done for cleanliness' sake is to treat two questions that ask about the same function of chord as duplicates (i.e. "F triad in Bb major" and "D triad in G major").

Lastly, I would not consider the reason for asking to be very relevant in this type of question. If you're playing a piece of music and can't figure out the function of a chord, that's enough. "Idle curiosity" would lead someone to write random notes on a staff and then ask about it--clearly off-topic. Functional analysis is useful enough in virtually all disciplines of music that I don't think it needs to be rationalized.