7sus4 versus 11

[stoken6]

This was my gateway drug into 11ths chords

[video:youtube]

D11 / Gmaj9 / C11 at 0:08. First time I realised 11th chords were more than "that Manilow dominant chord".

 

Cheers, Mike.

 

[richforman]

I'm with Al - to me an 11th chord has a 7th, 9th and 11th, or is equivalent in common lead-sheet language anyway to a slash chord like Bb/C. A 7sus4 is something different, has the 4th, 5th and 7th. The 11th to my mind is an ocave higher than the 4th!

[AnotherScott]

This was my gateway drug into 11ths chords

Sounds like Steely Dan. ;-)

[MathOfInsects]

But those are plain ol' slash chords.

[Tusker]

If I see a 7sus4 or a 11, I am typically going to voice it the same way (no third).

 

So it doesn't matter.

 

[Groove58]

When I see C7sus4, I think C F G Bb.

When I see C9sus4, I think C F G Bb D.

When I see C11, I think C G Bb D F.

When I see Bb/C, I think C Bb D F.

 

When I'm writing a chart, I use the chord symbol that suggests the voicing that I want played and that makes best sense within the sequence of chords and the overall key of the tune.

[I-missRichardTee]

A slash chord is more about convenience . not about understanding music.

I reject slash chord as a separate part of theory.

Slash chords probably lead to confusion to the unintiated .

A chord is generally*** measured from the bass note, slash chords confuse the issue.

They are mainly for convenience. eg A C chord with whatver is in the bass, IS identified BY THE BASS NOTE, not the chord above the slash.

 

***Inversions are an exception.

[linwood]

...but there are times when you might want to think 2 roots.

http://linwoodbell.com/clientdownloads/pr.jpg

[I-missRichardTee]

2 roots? Says who? Spud Murphy?

I was taught only one. Now I am curious. In above example, which are roots?

 

Oh wait, you said THINK 2 roots.

[I-missRichardTee]

OT Hey there Linwood. Just today I was revisiting Tristan Isolde prelude. Takes my breath away. Have you ever paid attention to it?

 

I used to own a five page piano score for it... if I want to acquire some PDF type scores what are some routes you recommend for finding PDF classical scores for piano?

 

 

[emenelton]

...but there are times when you might want to think 2 roots.

http://linwoodbell.com/clientdownloads/pr.jpg

 

1. C7#9b6

2. A7#9b6

3. F#7#9b6

4. Eb7#9b6

5. Ab maj7 13

[linwood]

The point is I'm moving both roots down in m3's starting with C in the bass and Ab up top and the vl for the triads in the top work as they should.

 

b13#9

 

[burningbusch]

A slash chord is more about convenience . not about understanding music.

I reject slash chord as a separate part of theory.

Slash chords probably lead to confusion to the unintiated .

A chord is generally*** measured from the bass note, slash chords confuse the issue.

They are mainly for convenience. eg A C chord with whatver is in the bass, IS identified BY THE BASS NOTE, not the chord above the slash.

 

***Inversions are an exception.

 

I disagree. A progression written E, E/D, E/C clarifies a descending bass against an unchanging upper harmony. One could write that as forms of E, D, and C chords but that would unnecessarily complicate a straightforward progression.

 

Busch.

[burningbusch]

The point is I'm moving both roots down in m3's starting with C in the bass and Ab up top and the vl for the triads in the top work as they should.

 

b13#9

 

 

Busch.

[emenelton]

The point is I'm moving both roots down in m3's starting with C in the bass and Ab up top and the vl for the triads in the top work as they should.

 

b13#9

 

I didnt know it was a trick question

I see now a major triad from the b6 of a dom 7 -

[burningbusch]

---

[MathOfInsects]

I disagree. A progression written E, E/D, E/C clarifies a descending bass against an unchanging upper harmony. One could write that as forms of E, D, and C chords but that would unnecessarily complicate a straightforward progression.

Also, often what is happening harmonically is literally (say) IV-chord-played-over-V-bass. That's not the same thing as a V chord of some kind in that moment. It can definitely be written as one, but harmonically speaking, the arrival point is often that IV chord, with a tension factor being provided by the unexpected bass note. I think it confuses it to obscure the primary harmonic movement with a "renamed" version of it designed to place it in the world of V (in this example).

[AnotherScott]

A slash chord is more about convenience . not about understanding music.

 

As far as I'm concerned, all chords written in a chart are there for convenience. That is, to facilitate the performance as quickly and clearly as possible. Communicating proper music theory is not necessarily the task at hand.

[I-missRichardTee]

WOW do I disagree with moth balls of insecticide

 

An F with G bass, is an F chord, eh? In most cases, the G dominates, and is a dominant chord as well.

[EricBarker]

Here is my interpretation:

 

For the MOST part, nothing above "7" is particularly functional, they're extensions on an existing harmony that add harmonic coloration, but from a theoretical standpoint, they don't direct the motion of the progression in most cases. One can argue their importance in the context of the style or feel of the piece, but they don't really have any repercussions on the direction of the progression.

 

Sus4 is a very old and very functional chord. It leads incredibly strongly to resolve to the tonic triad. It's a renaissance-era precursor to the dominant-7, which shares the same leading tone. In fact, one can argue that Sus4 is just a dated shorthand for a dominant-7 inversion.

 

So, to summarize: a Sus4 is really a V7 add11, functionally. The following "Sus2" (which isn't particularly functional, or theoretically correct) just arpeggiates the 5th of the same chord, prolonging the dominant movement. And following my general rule that intervals above 7 not being functional, the 11 is just a color tone.

[EricBarker]

As far as I'm concerned, all chords written in a chart are there for convenience. That is, to facilitate the performance as quickly and clearly as possible. Communicating proper music theory is not necessarily the task at hand.

I would have to agree. In the moment, communicating the most immediate notation for the performer is the most important thing. However, I would argue that it should never conflict with proper theory, and there is little reason for it ever to. Many notations are shorthand, and anyone with a decent harmonic background will be able to fill in the gaps of good shorthand.

 

As I mentioned, you could pick apart Sus4 to be a functional V7add11 if you want to, but Sus4 isn't necessarily wrong. Until you understand the theory why it could be considered a V7, thinking of it as Isus4 will be just fine, and it does correctly describe the function of the harmonic motion. What I'm not okay with is notation that is misleading for the sake of simplicity. A player should be able to interpret the theoretical flow of the chords if they need to. Don't write Bmin when you really mean "D add13".

[I-missRichardTee]

[quote

Also, often what is happening harmonically is literally (say) IV-chord-played-over-V-bass. That's not the same thing as a V chord of some kind in that moment. It can definitely be written as one, but harmonically speaking, the arrival point is often that IV chord, with a tension factor being provided by the unexpected bass note. I think it confuses it to obscure the primary harmonic movement with a "renamed" version of it designed to place it in the world of V (in this example).

 

When there is a bass note G and F A C is above it, or G and D F A for that matter,

That is a G chord of some kind, not an F or Dminor chord.. We continue to disagree.

[Threadslayer]

 

As far as I'm concerned, all chords written in a chart are there for convenience. That is, to facilitate the performance as quickly and clearly as possible. Communicating proper music theory is not necessarily the task at hand.

Right on.

[Sam CA]

 

When there is a bass note G and F A C is above it, or G and D F A for that matter,

That is a G chord of some kind, not an F or Dminor chord..

 

That may or may not be the case depending on the context. The note in the bass can be anything. A bass note G and F A C above is G/F...but that's as far as you can go. That doesn't tell you anything else.

[MathOfInsects]

And what of cases where the harmony moves but the bass note does not? Pop music is filled with songs that go to the IV and then the next chord is the expected V chord, but the bass remains on the IV. (Then she looks me in the eye...). That is clearly a harmonic movement to the next chord, the V, with a tension-producing bass note pedaling beneath it.

 

Would you chart the opening to Smoke on the Water as a bunch of different kinds of G chords, or would you tell the guitar player what chords to play and then indicate the G pedal? I hope the latter!

 

And what of inversions? Is it no longer a C chord if the bass moves to E but there is not any other harmonic change? Safe to say there is a massive library of songs written as I, I/3, IV, V, where the harmony across both those first two changes is clearly the I, and calling it anything else just to name it after the inversion bass note is not only wrong but will infuriate anyone who reads your chart.

 

Or the example Busch cited, where the harmony remains static but the bass has an obligato movementfor example the Leather and Lace thing where the I chord holds over two bass tones (the I and the b7) before changing?

 

In each of these cases, charting it as anything but chord/bass is going to confuse things well beyond reason.

[I-missRichardTee]

I could care less, what interpretations you put on music, including root of a chord.. and any of a number of new interpretations that come out of academia. My beef ( a gripe ) is how this effects students, naive students. My energy is intensified when I picture young people hearing all this ever changing story about musical realities.

I speak from that point of view, the rest of you can hang yourselves up in all the theories you wish.. freedom of thought is always welcome. A difficult topic ought to be made as simple as possible without losing too much that is essential. That is a high art, to teach in a simple way and yet include all that is vital.. I am not sure anyone has accompished this.

 

 

 

 

 

[Josh Paxton]

[checks thread for first time] Well, I'm certainly glad to see that a post asking a simple question with a simple answer hasn't devolved into personal recriminations over tangentially-related topics again. [ducks back out]

[allan_evett]

Here is my interpretation:

 

For the MOST part, nothing above "7" is particularly functional, they're extensions on an existing harmony that add harmonic coloration, but from a theoretical standpoint, they don't direct the motion of the progression in most cases. One can argue their importance in the context of the style or feel of the piece, but they don't really have any repercussions on the direction of the progression.

 

Sus4 is a very old and very functional chord. It leads incredibly strongly to resolve to the tonic triad. It's a renaissance-era precursor to the dominant-7, which shares the same leading tone. In fact, one can argue that Sus4 is just a dated shorthand for a dominant-7 inversion.

 

So, to summarize: a Sus4 is really a V7 add11, functionally. The following "Sus2" (which isn't particularly functional, or theoretically correct) just arpeggiates the 5th of the same chord, prolonging the dominant movement. And following my general rule that intervals above 7 not being functional, the 11 is just a color tone.

 

These are good points for consideration, Eric. I especially like deferring to that which reflects the motion of the progression. It reminds me of the admonition to 'serve the song', with regard to harmony/arrangement and production.

I'm fairly well studied in 'classical' music theory (though now more than a little rusty on some of the finer points from the advanced levels), and studied basic jazz theory, composition and orchestration as well. Though I get the theory behind extensions and altered scales, I use a lot of shortcuts, in both playing and scoring. Slash chords are much preferred, polychords too. Most of the guitarists that have read my charts are much happier seeing Dm7/G instead of G11, or B7 rather than F7b9b5.

[I-missRichardTee]

[checks thread for first time] Well, I'm certainly glad to see that a post asking a simple question with a simple answer hasn't devolved into personal recriminations over tangentially-related topics again. [ducks back out]

 

Why duck? hey let me share with you [video:youtube]

 

[I-missRichardTee]

...but there are times when you might want to think 2 roots.

http://linwoodbell.com/clientdownloads/pr.jpg

 

I only see one root per measure here. I have known those chords for half a century and realize there are substitute roots that are deliciously waiting to manifest... but as such, there is only one at a time.

 

Ever listen to Tristan Isolde prelude... that thing is loaded with endless intimations of multiple roots on tritone based structures especially ; but crazy old Richard only uses one at a time.

 

[video:youtube]