Why is a minor chord or key considered to be "lesser?"

Question

I am trying to understand why the terms major and minor, meaning greater and lesser, are applied to chords and keys. Why is a minor chord considered to be lesser and a major chord greater?

I understand how a minor chord is formed by flatting the third above the root in a triad, but what in doing so makes a greater chord become a lesser chord? What properties or sound of a minor chord make it lesser than a major chord? What reduces its named status from greater to lesser? In reverse, what makes a major chord the greater one?

Are the terms unknown arbitrary labels chosen for two chord types simply to be accepted, not thoroughly understood or, is there an exact historical account of who, when, where, and especially why, the terms major and minor were chosen to describe two chord forms?

Answer 1

Unfortunately the terms minor and major have a very different historical reason, and actually it was about being imperfect and perfect.

Franchinus Gaffurius argued in his "Theorica musicae" for dissonance and consonance by using the so called proportion theory (based on pythagorean-platonian tradition). Comparing the interval ratios of a quart octave (triad chord with proportions 4:3:2, imperfect) versus a quint octave sound (6:4:3, perfect) his conclusion was that the cleaner harmony was a result of the bigger proportions. This is actually wrong, however it shows the concept of minor in that time was about the harmonic quality of an interval step in the counterpoint: greater harmony, consonant, major, versus lesser harmony, dissonant, minor (in latin he wrote: majore quidem majoribus numeris, minore minoribus). Obviously the significance of major and minor experienced huge changes during the introduction of the well temperament tuning and the modern music theory.

Another side story is that the terms major and minor have been used in the rhythmic context of Mensural Notation, which shows that imperfection/perfection and major/minor were handled in a very similar context: Wiki Mensurations

In conclusion, the minor comes from "being lesser" but it has lost this significance.

---

Theorica musicae (1492) - Franchinus Gaffurius "Dispositis vero tribus chordis secundum harmonicam medietatem [...] ea tunc producetur melodia quam proprie harmoniam vocamus: Haec nempe duabus consonantiis inaequalibus constat, quae ex dissimilibus proportionibus (majore quidem majoribus numeris, minore minoribus) conducuntur".

Answer 2

The interval, that is the distance, from the root note in a minor or major scale to the third note is called a third. The interval called a third is either small or big which is called minor or major. Thus a major interval is bigger than a minor interval.

Major and minor chords consist of 2 thirds on top of each other. It is the first third that determines whether the chord is a minor chord or a major chord.

A minor chord consists of a minor third and on top on that a major third.

A major chord consists of a major third and on top on that a minor third.

Answer 3

It isn't. The minor third between ^1 and ^3 of a minor scale is smaller than the major third of a major scale. That is the only way in which a minor key is 'less' than a major one. There is no further inference of inferiority. It's about math, not status.

Having said that, there IS, in Common Practice styles at any rate, a feeling that a piece is not truly complete if it ends on a minor chord. Hence, on a small scale, the 'Tierce de Picardy' and, on a larger scale, the Finale of Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony in E minor (which ends in E major). To this extent, the minor key could be seen as inferior.

Answer 4

Major and minor, with reference to intervals, is quite specific. And it refers to 2nds, 3rds, 6ths and 7ths. The others are called 'perfect', and not particularly related to this question.

Each of 2nds, 3rds, 6ths and 7ths, therefore, have a major and minor label attached to them. The major always being a semitone larger than the minor. Not really connected with the scale or key they may belong to. Although on first view, that may seem to be the case.

So, regarding 3rds - C>E is a major 3rd,(4 semitones), while C>E♭ (3 semitones) is a minor 3rd. In key C, that 3rd is the defining factor as to whether the chord is major or minor. So, if that interval is M3, it is part of a major chord, whereas if it's m3, it's part of a minor chord.

The terms major and minor here, then are not synonymous with more or less important, but rather containing a larger or smaller interval.

It may be argued that a triad actually contains two 3rds - one major, one minor. But using the root or tonic as the base, it's easy to understand how each gets its name. That apart - in reality, a triad actually contains a 3rd and a 5th, which obviates the confusion!

Answer 5

Are the terms unknown arbitrary labels chosen for two chord types simply to be accepted, not thoroughly understood or, is there an exact historical account of who, when, where, and especially why, the terms major and minor were chosen to describe two chord forms?

The chords are named after their thirds. Major and minor are Latin for "bigger" and "smaller," and the major third is bigger than the minor third because it spans four semitones (originally understood as two whole tones) while the minor third spans only three (originally conceived as one whole tone plus one semitone). This understanding was in place at least by the 1480s, before "chord" was established as a theoretical construct. For example, John Hothby, who died in 1487, wrote in de arte contrapuncti

Disonantia tertia est duarum specierum, scilicet maioris et minoris. Disonantia tertia maior est formata duabus tonis, et tunc talis tertia vocatur ditona, sicut patet per exemplum. Disonantia tertia minor est formata uno tono et uno semitono, et tunc vocatur talis tertia semiditona, sicut patet per exemplum.

This means

The dissonance of the third is of two types, namely bigger and smaller. The bigger dissonance of the third is formed of two tones, then such a third is called a ditone, as may be seen from the example [which is unfortunately not reproduced in the linked page]. The smaller dissonance of the third is formed from a tone and a semitone, then such a tone is called a semiditone, as may be seen from the example.

From another treatise of the 1400s:

De tertia maiori et minori -- De tertia cum quinta

Item due sunt tertie scilicet maior et minor. Maior autem uocatur tertia ditonalis, [...]

De tertia cum vnisono.

Item tertia minor dicitur tertia semiditonalis [...]

And here's an anonymous source that names pitches for good measure:

Duplex est tertia, scilicet major et minor. Major est ditonus qui fit ex duobus tonis. Sicut ut mi, fa la, et e converso mi ut, la fa. Tertia minor est qui fit ex uno tono et uno semitonio minore, sicut de A ad c, et de [sqb] ad d, et de d ad f, et de e ad g, et de g ad b, cantando fa supra re, vel e converso, vel sol, supra mi, vel e converso, et vocatur semiditonus.

Translated:

The third has two forms, bigger and smaller. The bigger is the ditone, which is made of two tones. Such as ut mi, fa la, and the other way around mi ut, la fa. The smaller third is the one made of a tone and a smaller semitone, such as from A to c and from B natural to d, and from d to f, and from e to g, and from g to b flat, sung as fa above re, and the other way around, and sol above mi, and the other way around, and called the semiditone.

Answer 6

I would say that to discern the difference in stature of the major and minor triad, we must go all the way back to the overtone series, which serreptitiously governs much of music theory. I don't interpret major is bigger and minor is smaller necessarily. Rather, major is more important and fundamental than minor.

The major triad is composed of the simplest/lowest harmonics of a given tone. For a C, the first harmonics are C, C, G, C, and E. It is the most natural extrapolation of a tone into a chord. Ignoring differences in octave, and duplicated tones, this is where the triad C-E-G comes from. It is also why it sounds so natural. This fundamental quality of the major chord is likely (I'm speculating here, not being an expert in historical practice) the reason why Renaissance and Baroque compositions tended to end on major chords even if they were predominantly in minor up until that point. The natural phenomenon of the chord's resonance simply sounded better in reverberant spaces.

The minor triad is at least several degrees removed from the overtone series. The minor third appears later/higher in the series, and so it is less a natural phenomenon and much more of an artificial creation.

Answer 7

Personally, I find a lot of guessing in the answers. No real description of the history, etomology, of the concepts.

As a contrast, in the germanic tradition (German, Swedish, ...) the concepts are hard (dur) and soft (moll).

My guess is that sometimes in the long history of music, terms where given to the concepts and simply adhered.