There was a small outbreak of comments on this question:
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:
- A question per conceivable sonority seems unlikely.
- 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.