Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Why don't we have a triad symbol for notation?


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Sven Golly:

 

Well, the E in a D chord is a ninth... which is probably why it sounds like one. ;):D

 

As for the name of D E A, I always thought it was Dsus2... ??? :confused:

 

Love this thread, btw... :thu: It's nice to see discussion of music interspersed with all the wacky G.A.S. and NAMM speculation that seems to have taken over the board the last week or so... ;)

 

Cheers,

SG

When is a 9 not a 9? Ans: when it's a 2. :)

 

You're right, they're almost interhangeable. But in this case, the way it's voiced, kind of makes it a 2.

 

By the way I Googled Mu chord - I was almost right. According to what I read, the Mu is a triad PLUS the 2. So, for the D example, D, E, F#, and A. I think you could could it a D2 chord, or a D(add 2) chord. D2 would suffice, I think. Guys that have never heard of this might not know what you meant, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
When is a 9 not a 9? Ans: when it's a 2.

We do have laws in music ... octave equivalence.

 

A rose is a rose is a rose.

No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message.

 

In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who was the idiot who first used the triangle for a major 7th? .... names anyone? I'm guessing someone from North Texas State. "

 

If it started at North Texas it must be right! Hey, we have plenty idiots up there - but they can all play!

 

I love these jazz theory threads and this new bunch of them is coming at the right time for me. I'm even back in my old c-real book..

:cool:

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Floyd Tatum:

When is a 9 not a 9? Ans: when it's a 2. :)

 

You're right, they're almost interhangeable. But in this case, the way it's voiced, kind of makes it a 2.

 

By the way I Googled Mu chord - I was almost right. According to what I read, the Mu is a triad PLUS the 2. So, for the D example, D, E, F#, and A. I think you could could it a D2 chord, or a D(add 2) chord. D2 would suffice, I think. Guys that have never heard of this might not know what you meant, though.

So what you're saying is that 2+2=13? ;)

 

Ahem.

 

From my standpoint, playing the triad with an added note (like a 2 or a 4) is Xaddn (uh-oh... old algebra flashback ;) ). So, your chord above would be, if I were to chart it, a Dadd2. That's just the way I've learned to represent chords, not from any established texts that I'm aware of... :) Saying D2 seems to be a little ambiguous, at least to me. YMMV. :D

 

Cheers,

SG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it started at North Texas it must be right! Hey, we have plenty idiots up there - but they can all play!
I worked with a few guys who studied at North Texas State and they all had a bit of an attitude; that's why I made my original comment. I had the feeling they thought they were on a higher level than the rest of us. My perspective could be wrong, but I came to that conclusion more than once.

 

So, who was the idiot who came up with the triangle for a major 7th?

No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message.

 

In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

I have to take issue with the whole concept of the mythical "sus2 chord". There's really no such thing. It's a load of BS. The alleged "sus2" chord simply exists as a modern shorthand for a particular type of voicing. (In the key of C, it's voiced C-D-G.) It's not a suspended anything.

 

People have latched onto the fictional "sus2 chord" name for several reasons:

 

a) it's a popular voicing in contemporary music,

b) it's a quick shorthand way of communicating the desired chord,

c) guitar players love to use this particular voicing, and

d) it's physical shape is very similar to that of the authentic sus4 chord

 

So what do I call this chord? Easy; it's a C2 (or C9) chord. But here's nothing suspended about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cnegrad:

Greetings,

 

I have to take issue with the whole concept of the mythical "sus2 chord". There's really no such thing. It's a load of BS. The alleged "sus2" chord simply exists as a modern shorthand for a particular type of voicing. (In the key of C, it's voiced C-D-G.) It's not a suspended anything.

 

People have latched onto the fictional "sus2 chord" name for several reasons:

 

a) it's a popular voicing in contemporary music,

b) it's a quick shorthand way of communicating the desired chord,

c) guitar players love to use this particular voicing, and

d) it's physical shape is very similar to that of the authentic sus4 chord

 

So what do I call this chord? Easy; it's a C2 (or C9) chord. But here's nothing suspended about it.

Tell us how you really feel about it... ;):D

 

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm completely comfortable with either notation; my reference to the 'sus2' was from exposure to it in the pop/rock genre. I've never seen it in the jazz world, but then I've never played a "triad with the 3rd replaced with a 2nd" ;) chord in a jazz tune, without also playing a 7th or 13th...

 

One take on the subject is as follows: the term 'suspended' refers to the fact that the listener is kept 'in suspense' as to the quality of the chord (major vs. minor).

 

Now, obviously, you might reply that this is a "load of BS" (to use your words). I'm just suggesting the possible origin of the (mis)use of the "sus". It's not my theory, I'm just repeating what I've seen and heard elsewhere.

 

Either way is fine by me... I'll know exactly what someone means by "Dsus2", and I'll wonder what they meant by "D2" and avoid the third to be safe. As long as we're playing music, it's all good. :)

 

Cheers,

SG

(edited to fix the 'BS' quote, and to alter what seemed to be a rude tone... no rudeness was intended, nor should any be inferred, by this post. I'm loving the discussion! :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cnegrad:

Greetings,

 

I have to take issue with the whole concept of the mythical "sus2 chord". There's really no such thing. It's a load of BS. The alleged "sus2" chord simply exists as a modern shorthand for a particular type of voicing. (In the key of C, it's voiced C-D-G.) It's not a suspended anything.

 

People have latched onto the fictional "sus2 chord" name for several reasons:

 

a) it's a popular voicing in contemporary music,

b) it's a quick shorthand way of communicating the desired chord,

c) guitar players love to use this particular voicing, and

d) it's physical shape is very similar to that of the authentic sus4 chord

 

So what do I call this chord? Easy; it's a C2 (or C9) chord. But here's nothing suspended about it.

Wait.... I was under the impression that it was a suspension of the 3rd for a 2nd (9th), just like a sus4 suspends a 3.

 

So you say you can't suspend a 3rd for a second?

What happens then if the second RESOLVES to the 3rd: ie

 

C sus2 / C Maj / Csus 4 / C Maj

 

I think compositionally, that's a suspension of 3 for 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being shot down for mentioning this name, Jamey Aebersold has a PDF of chord nomenclature available on his website at the following URL:

 

http://www.jazzbooks.com/miva/documents/nomenclature.pdf

 

It may be helpful to some that aren't quite sure what we're discussing, or at least as a point of reference.

 

If you're not tolerant of Aebersold (and there are many who aren't), you can always use it to line your birdcage. ;)

 

Cheers,

SG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! I'm not saying that the voicing doesn't exist, and I understand it's usage when it appears on a chart, and play it appropriately. But the school that I learned from states that one can have a 2 (or 9) in a chord without it having to suspend anything. It's just another note that's used for coloration. After all, we don't have sus13 chords do we? The aspect of suspension doesn't really apply.

 

Sorry if my post had some attitude, but I guess you touched on one of my pet peeves. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D Hehehehe... it's all good, cnegrad.

 

I'm curious, though... if you are suggesting C2 is valid, why not C4? Why bother using the 'sus' nomenclature at all? I'm interested in the origin of 'sus' in your learning... what it means literally (not just musically... that part's clear ;) ).

 

SG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I worked with a few guys who studied at North Texas State and they all had a bit of an attitude; that's why I made my original comment. I had the feeling they thought they were on a higher level than the rest of us. My perspective could be wrong, but I came to that conclusion more than once.

 

So, who was the idiot who came up with the triangle for a major 7th?"

 

There was a lot of eliteism up there. That is probably the result of the jazz program being one of the first in the country - or one of the few anyway. You should have gone to school with some of them. I know what you mean - some of them acted that way at NTSU when I was there {after I left USMA I was a nervous wreck - you can imagine - and although I wasn't a music major I spent most of my time at the old music building practicing and took lessons, theory etc.}. I was around a lot of "hipper-than-thou" types, but I think that was mainly defense mechanism. Most of the exes I know today arent affected. I think you ran into a minority that probably all music departments are cursed with. Anyway I don't know who it was --Bach maybe? I swear I remember using it when I was in high school and that was a long long time ago!

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sven Golly:

if you are suggesting C2 is valid,

I'm not acknowledging the _ legitimacy_ of C2 at all; I'm merely acknowledging that it exists on paper, despite how technically incorrect it may be. To me, it's always C9, regardless of what octave the 9 may appear in.

Why not C4? Why bother using the 'sus' nomenclature at all? I'm interested in the origin of 'sus' in your learning...
Because even though I approach things from a contemporary harmony standpoint, contemporary music is clearly beholden to it's traditional past. And in the case of the sus4, it's clear that the 4th on a major chord is clearly in lieu of the third. THAT'S what makes it a SUS. On the other hand, a 2 (or 9) can coexist with the third in a major chord. Now on a minor chord, the 4 can also coexist with the 3rd degree, so it's not a sus either. And for me, it's always called a minor 11.

 

What we're really talking about here is proper spelling, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Donald Fagen (whether he was joking or not), the mu major is simply a major triad except substitute the 2 for the tonic. So, it's 2-3-5.

 

This is in my well-worn copy of "Steely Dan Complete to AJA, which is filled with terrible transcriptions of their music. Enough, however, to clue me in when I'm missing something important, or don't have the tune at hand to listen to.

 

It's a name for a voicing, not just a chord. While the 2 is equivalent to a 9 (especially since the root is generally being played an octave lower by the bass), it sure sounds different. In charts, it's generally just called a C; let the musician figure it out.

 

Here's one that trips me up. Take a 13th chord, and raise the root one semitone. I usually end up calling that a C13/C#, but that always seems like a cop out. And you really don't want to hear anyone playing a C there!

 

Another fave of mine I'd notate as a C69, but it's voiced as (mostly) stacked 4ths and has a real sweet & full sound to it. Of course, a 69 chord usually sounds pretty sweet and full, but it's more of a pants-on quickie compared to the stacked 4ths voicing. Let's see if I can do it in my head ... Well, in E, it's

 

E A D G C (and then I stick another E at the top, plus double-bass on the tonic)

 

It's real purty in Eb on a guitar, played just below the octave. Don't fret the low E, play it open. Bar the other 5 strings, and fret the B string with middle finger at the octave. Oops, this is the keyboard corner. Sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chuck Sher' New Real Books use:

C (add 9 omit 3rd)

 

Floyd, Jamey Abersold and Mark Levine both use:

C- ∆

not C- ∆7

 Find 660 of my jazz piano arrangements of standards for educational purposes and tutorials at www.Patreon.com/HarryLikas Harry was the Technical Editor of Mark Levine's "The Jazz Theory Book" and helped develop "The Jazz Piano Book."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cnegrad:

I'm not acknowledging the _ legitimacy_ of C2 at all; I'm merely acknowledging that it exists on paper, despite how technically incorrect it may be. To me, it's always C9, regardless of what octave the 9 may appear in.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. For me, a C9 implies a 7th as well, so I guess we'll stand on opposite pages on this one. ;)

 

And in the case of the sus4, it's clear that the 4th on a major chord is clearly in lieu of the third. THAT'S what makes it a SUS. On the other hand, a 2 (or 9) can coexist with the third in a major chord.

Yes, but we were referring explicitly to a triad consisting of just the root, 2nd and 5th. Based on your definition above, that's a sus2. If you're playing the major triad with an additional 2nd (9th), it would be noted as Cadd2.

 

What we're really talking about here is proper spelling, that's all.

Exactly. :D

 

Cheers,

SG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add my two cents. First, I do not have the sus2 written in any of my lead sheets (the ones I create myself).

 

The sus4 chord replaces the third of the chord with the fourth. I don't see why a sus2 chord, replacing the third of the chord with the second, should cause anyone any heart burn; it's straightforward and clear.

 

I would see that particular notation in popular Top 40 type tunes or arrangements, and it never caused any problems for me.

 

If you wrote Cadd2, you might be tempted to play the third as well (which I would) and sus2 makes it clear what the arranger wants. I never use it so it's not an issue for me.

No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message.

 

In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Usually with this chord it's important to leave out the third. When someone writes Csus2, pretty much everyone knows what it means. If there were a "proper" name for it, that would be nice, but I've never seen one. And I disagree that it's outright wrong (using the defence mentioned above: the 2 is used instead of the 3, and it does provide some tension or suspension that tends to call for resolution. Which is part of what makes that interminable Gordon Lightfoot song so ... interminable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by learjeff:

According to Donald Fagen (whether he was joking or not), the mu major is simply a major triad except substitute the 2 for the tonic. So, it's 2-3-5.

 

This is in my well-worn copy of "Steely Dan Complete to AJA, which is filled with terrible transcriptions of their music. Enough, however, to clue me in when I'm missing something important, or don't have the tune at hand to listen to.

Well, I guess that settles it, then, straight from the horse's mouth. I had a feeling it was a three-note voicing. 2 substituting for 1 - yeah, that's the sound!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I lied -- it's NOT in my "Complete to Aja" book, after all. So, I don't remember where I read it, but there was a quote from Larry Carlton too. The way it was described was if you played a normal 1-3-5 triad, but missed with your thumb. And, if you've played much Steely Dan on piano (as I have), you'll know that's they way they play it on the albums. Just ask "Is there gas in the car" -- I'd hope that anyone whose ID is a line from a Steely Dan song would know!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by learjeff:

the 2 is used instead of the 3, and it does provide some tension or suspension that tends to call for resolution.

Just thought of a different way to express this that ABSOLUTELY makes it a "sus"... a "Csus2" is actually a Gsus4/C! ;):D

 

Ahem. Okay, I'm going to go listen to some Steely Dan now. ;):thu:

 

Cheers,

SG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jazz+:

The Chuck Sher' New Real Books use:

C (add 9 omit 3rd)

 

Floyd, Jamey Abersold and Mark Levine both use:

C- ∆

not C- ∆7

I went to Aebersold's site and read his nomenclature.pdf file, and I see he uses a plain triangle to mean maj7. I can understand his point about using shorthand symbols so as not to distract the musician too much. I just wish he'd used a 7 inside a square instead of a triangle - it makes more sense visually (maj7 has 4 tones), and it would have left the triangle symbol available to mean triad (which would have been appropriate since triad has 3 tones). Think of it: a 7 inside a square could have been used for maj7, a 9 inside a square could have been used for maj9, a 13 inside a square could have been used for maj13. Oh, well, it's too late to worry about it now.

 

I don't like Aebersold's idea of using the + symbol to mean sharp, though. We already have a sharp symbol, #, why do we need another one? The + symbol is already widely accepted to mean augmented, in reference to an augmented triad. So, a chord symbol C+7 is widely accepted to mean Caug7. Similarly, the symbol C+9 is widely accepted to mean Caug7(9). So, when Aebersold uses C7+9, or C+9 to indicate a sharp nine chord, it "muddies the waters", if I may dare to use that phrase.

 

Having been burned in the past, nowadays, if I see a C+9, or C7+9, on an unfamiliar chart, I look at the context to see if I can determine if it means an augmented triad or a sharp nine. Failing that, I keep my ears wide open to see if I've made the right choice. Or, I might just play a simple two-note voicing, 3rd and 7th, so as to avoid the issue entirely, until I'm sure of what's intended.

 

Similarly, if I see C7+11, how do you know whether it means C7(#11), C7(add11), or Caug7(11)? Answer: you don't unless you know the context. I just don't see the advantage of using + to replace #. Using #11 doesn't take any more space than +11, and it has the advantage of being 100% clear in its meaning. However, the drawback is that to completely clear, you should put extensions (other than 7) in brackets.

 

I.e., in my opinion, the recommended way is C7(#11), not C7+11 which is what Aebersold uses. Actually I can't write my real recommended way using this font. In reality, if I were writing by hand, C would be a capital letter, and 7(#11) would be in a small font raised up near the 'top half of the C' as it were (superscript?). Anyway, my point here is that if you want to be very clear, if you use more than one extension, or if one or more of the extensions include sharps or flats, put them in brackets; use regular sharps and flats instead of + or - (except where + means augmented triad, or - means minor triad); use superscript for 7, maj7, and extensions; use lower-case m for minor; and if you use + for augmented, use a full-sized +, and put it right next to the main chord symbol (i.e, C+).

 

That way, you could write C+7(b9,#11), and nobody would have any doubt about your meaning. Drawback is that the brackets take up real estate. But, by using small fonts and superscript, it takes less real estate, and you can also stack the extensions in the brackets on top of one another if you have to. Unfortunately, most notation programs don't support this kind of stuff very well, leading to even more bad notation 'standards'.

 

Which just goes to prove that if you're going to invent a shorthand notation to try and make life easier for musicians, be careful not to re-define existing shorthand notation, which has the effect of making things even more complicated, rather than simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chasing the Mu & "the 2"

 

(Forgive em while I pontificate ;) )

 

When I saw the description of this "Mu" chord, I wondered what would make such an apparently straightforward chord so seemingly distintive. Later I tried playing it &, while it does have an interesting, kinda ambiguous tone, I was immediately struck by where I'd heard it before.

I think this chord, though of course no one can really take credit for sole invention of most musical effects, should be called The Van Vliet.

Jazz/rock bandleader Don Van Vliet (aka Capt.Beefheart) used this chord (resolving to D) as an very distinctive opening & hook in a composition, "My Head is My Only House" on his 1972 release Clear Spot, which I think predates Fagen's "popularizing" it. Though played there by a guitarist Beefheart did much of his composing on piano, later transcribing his idiosyncratic voicings to guitar, so you keyboardists-only needn't resent my moving credit from Fagen to DVV. ;)

 

The "Sus 2"

All of this is a matter of shorthand for effects but about this chord...

(1) It's not generally really a suspension but most modern references to suspensions are inaccurate since a suspension is actually supposed to be a note held over from a previous harmony. [A mere technicality, I know.]

(2) In many cases where I've heard it, the 2nd doesn't actually replace the 3rd.

Here ara two typical voicings of it on guitar (both ascending):

[c-e-g-d-e] & [d-a-d-e]

The second version often resolves to a straight D (with f#) but the first is popular in folk music as it is, simply moving to another chord.

In those cases, IMO, it's best called an "add 2" or maybe "add 9".

 

I'd like to reintroduce the question of "When does clarity begin to trump traditional symbols/nomenclature?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Allen Forte's Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice, he gives an example using Schubert's Die liebe Farbe. In this example, he shows a suspended 2nd (actually a 9th) resolving upward to the third of the chord.

 

I will assume that examples using traditional music will be accepted by popular and jazz musicians.

No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message.

 

In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think before we can analyze the Mu chord, we first have to agree on what it means, otherwise we are talking at cross-purposes.

 

Can we agree that it means replacing 1 with 2 in a triad?

 

In other words, using a C triad as an example, instead of the notes C E G, the Mu chord is D E G. I,e, the 2 is not a suspension of the 3, it's a suspension of the 1.

 

Does that device exist in classical harmony? Maybe as an ornament? I can't remember. I certainly don't think they would have used it as-is without resolving it to the triad, which is how the Mu chord would would be used. In other words (if we agree that this is what a Mu chord is), the Mu chord doesn't resolve to a triad, it's already resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INTERVIEW with Donald Fagen:

 

Psillocybe (PRODIGY Member): What's a "mu"? like in "mu" major or minor. i heard that in an interview once in about 1976 and am still confused by it.

 

Donald Fagen : A mu chord -- and now I'm getting technical -- is a major triad with an added second. It was very popular in the mid-sixties.

 Find 660 of my jazz piano arrangements of standards for educational purposes and tutorials at www.Patreon.com/HarryLikas Harry was the Technical Editor of Mark Levine's "The Jazz Theory Book" and helped develop "The Jazz Piano Book."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

In Allen Forte's Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice, he gives an example using Schubert's Die liebe Farbe. In this example, he shows a suspended 2nd (actually a 9th) resolving upward to the third of the chord.

 

I will assume that examples using traditional music will be accepted by popular and jazz musicians.

Ah, but the salient detail is not it's resolution but was that pitch held over from the prior harmony?

I'll grant that it may be an accepted classical use of the term for resolutions as well as "true" suspensions but my main point is that "suspension" is not applicable to just any note added added to a chord, else all extended chords would be suspensions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by d:

...

(1) It's not generally really a suspension but most modern references to suspensions are inaccurate since a suspension is actually supposed to be a note held over from a previous harmony. [A mere technicality, I know.]

...[/QB]

Yes, my cobwebby memory says that a suspension needs to be held over from a previous harmony, it replaces another note and it must be resolved. I could be wrong...

 

A suspension is fundamentally a melodic device determining the harmonic structure. As I recall, by the rules, it had to resolve according to the natural scalar tendencies (F resolving to E in a C chord, B resolving to C, etc.) but rules were made to be broken. As I recall, anything other than the 4th to 3rd was rare, and probably frowned upon.

 

A vertical chord played on a keyboard, guitar, horn section, etc., orchestrated or indicated by shorthand, might not include all the notes but can include extensions or as we called them at Berklee tensions. Every single one of you in right with your examples of shorthand, because I have seen each and every one. The power of this is that in most cases, most of us come up with something appropriate in context.

 

These extended chords weren't around much in Jazz until Duke Ellington, and of course he came to them from melody and line writing, not block chords. There are many of these in the Rite of Spring - from all accounts, Stravinsky did work from a chord-based rhythm. And the opening chord for A Hard Days Night is still a matter of analytical contention.

 

As a guitar chord, the CDG voicing is possible but too muddy except in the highest registers, so the CGCD (or its major 7th variation CGBD - the intro to Green Earings?) is used more often. Great catch on the Beefhart usage, and there are many pre-Dan rock uses (Youngbloods Get Together).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jazz+:

INTERVIEW with Donald Fagen:

 

Psillocybe (PRODIGY Member): What's a "mu"? like in "mu" major or minor. i heard that in an interview once in about 1976 and am still confused by it.

 

Donald Fagen : A mu chord -- and now I'm getting technical -- is a major triad with an added second. It was very popular in the mid-sixties.

Jazz+, that's an interesting quote. Maybe that's what it means then, a triad plus a 2.

 

I just went to my Rhodes and tried both voicings: triad plus 2, and triad where 2 replaces 1. They both sound ok! Actually the triad +2 sounds, I think, more SD-ish, especially when used over a different root. E.g. Cmu/Bb

 

Maybe Fagen might have been "dumbing down" his answer for this interviewer. I think the real proof lies in the pudding of the recordings. I guess i'm going to have to haul out my SD cd's and do some listening and see if I can hear some examples of this.

 

Anyone know of some particular SD songs that use this voicing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...