# Technique, Theory, Playing Tips and Tricks > Theory, Technique, Tips and Tricks >  A7 sus

## Dave Greenspoon

I've checked the Cafe's chord directory, a chord chart excerpted from Bud Orr's _Anthology of Mandolin Music_ and James Major's _Mandolin Chord Book_ cannot find a fingering for A7 sus.  Can anyone suggest one that will not break my fingers, or is it simply not a chord played on the mandolin?

Thanks in advance!

Dave  :Confused:

----------


## groveland

GDAE

All open strings.  D is the sus, E is the 5th, G is the 7.

Also:
2 2 5 3
7 5 7 5
9 7 10 10
7 5 0 0
0 7 5 0
0 0 7 5

----------


## Eddie Sheehy

What's A7 sus on the violin Dave?

----------


## Bruce Clausen

Most often A7sus is followed by A7.  So it's useful to learn them as a pair:

2555 leads to 2545
2253 leads to 2243
7500 leads to 6500
9753 leads to 9743

(etc.)

BC

----------


## Dave Greenspoon

> What's A7 sus on the violin Dave?



If I played violin, I might have known and if so, I wouldn't have asked.

----------


## Dave Greenspoon

Thanks to groveland and to Bruce for the helpful answers!

----------


## Don Stiernberg

Is the flatted seventh really necessary on a sus chord? I know you stipulated A7sus, but I also like
  2255, and use it in similar situations, as a dominant chord. The aforementioned 2555 includes all the intervals, but is a little less handy to finger. Either way it seems to be a chord that wants to resolve to D. Please let me know what you think and while we're at it, isn't a sus chord also functional when the chart calls for an 11the chord? A11=2255??thanks everybody in advance, and for all the cool voicings listed above. We can never have enough "grips".

----------


## Dave Greenspoon

I wish I knew enough theory to respond to Don's question; I leave that to the better edumicated than I.  :Wink:  

My question came up because I'm trying to work on a "talking 12 bar blues" piece that I first heard from Jimmy Buffett as a Lord Richard Buckley tune, _God's Own Drunk (And A Fearless Man)_.   Turns out the original seems to have been_ God's Own Drunk And A Welshman To Boot_,  at least according to bardsguild.com.  There the progession is given as *E*, *E7*, *A7*, *A7 sus*, *E*, *E7*, *A7*, *A7 sus*, *B7*, a *"C weirdness chord"* that is produced (on guitar) "by sliding the B7 fingering up one fret on the neck." (doesn't that make it a B#7?) *A7*, and *A7 sus* with "Bring down the 12 bar talking blues riff to signal the end of the story."  Atleast here the A7 sus resolves not to D but E.

I don't know if the progression fits a standard format for 12 bar blues or not, or even if this is the way Bubba recorded the song or not.  All I know is that I've loved Buffett's version since I first heard it waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, and I'd love to get it under my fingers.

Thanks again to all of you who have been willing to share your knowledge!

----------


## Tom Gibson

I'll be interested to hear what others say about the need or use of voicing the flat 7, but for the general A sus I like the 975x (or 9750, but for other sus chords I'm used to omitting the E string).  I think it's the voicing in 4ths that adds an interesting sound to my mostly untrained ear.

----------


## Shelby Eicher

This parrothead tune does exhibit normal changes. There are several Clapton tunes that do this same thing. Your C weirdness chord is just a flat 6 chord or C7th chord. I always tell my students to find several voicings for every change. In this tune one of these will sound like it fits in the song more than the others. In a Jazz tune I use a variety of voicings for all changes. It keeps it from sounding sterile. A favorite Asus or Em7 voicings is - 757 (DGE or 4th, 
7th, 5th) to an A7 - 657 (C#GE or 3rd, 7th, 5th). You can also think of an Asus7 chord as an E minor 7th chord (this is a direct substitution). You do have to watch the B or 9th. Sometimes it works and other times not as well. A study of inversions will help with these type of chords and voicings. Of course you have to have an understanding of your chord spelling as well. This will free you up to play instead of think as your performing.
Best,
Shelby

----------


## mandolirius

To address Don's question directly, I don't think the flat seven is necessary. It seems like an optional note to me. A matter of preference, although I'm sure someone can come up with an example where the flat seven IS absolutely necessary.   :Smile:

----------


## John McGann

When you see "A7sus" as a chord symbol, the sus means raising the 3rd to a 4th (1/2 step).
AC#EG becomes ADEG (we don't play them in that order, but the tab in Groveland's post above yields those notes in an order we can play them on the mando).

Technically a "sus4". There is also a "sus2" where you lower the 3rd to a 2nd (whole step).
AC#EG becomes ABEG.

If a chord symbols says "sus" it's usually a sus 4 triad ( 145 ). You wouldn't add the 7th unless it was called for in the chord symbol. James Taylor, who uses the sus4 and sus2 like we use water, would use it on the I chord a lot, and the dom7 would sound out of place there.

If you like mid-period Who (Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia) the 7sus4 chord appears a lot in Pete Townshend's writing (and is some of the coolest chordal music in rock and roll IMHO).

Donny- sorry about the Cubs, but they'll re-tool some for '09 and (to mix metaphors) take it to the hoop!

----------


## WindinBoy

[QUOTE=John McGann;586889]

If you like mid-period Who (Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia) the 7sus4 chord appears a lot in Pete Townshend's writing (and is some of the coolest chordal music in rock and roll IMHO).
QUOTE]

That's the sound that I hear for a suspended chord-Think  "Pinball Wizard" one of the best from the Who, and you will never forget the Suspended chord transition.

----------


## John McGann

Pinball Wizard is sus4 Triad (Bsus4 to B) on guitar 7x9977 to 7x9877
On mando maybe 447x to 446x.

----------


## Eddie Sheehy

Oh sorry Dave.  I misread your title.  OK, what's D7 sus on a viola?

----------


## Ted Eschliman

Oh boy!
Keeping in Suspense...

----------


## Pete Martin

I also just use two note sus voicings.  Asus  72xx.  Works well on violin

Tom, I find that 4ths voicing works very well on sus chords, very Bill Evans like.  

Don, I often use sus without the 7th on modal jazz.  More open sounding.

----------


## Don Stiernberg

Dave,
        The progression you describe seems to pertain to guitar playing and brings up another good use for sus chordson any instrument. First of all all of the chords in the tune are expressed as 7th chords. This happens regularly in blues, the flatted 7th being an essential "blue note" and appropriate color tone in that context. The A7 to A7sus is an example of voice movement in an accompaniment part, which is always fair and good to do--why stay on just a plain old A7,just hammering away, when moving from the C#(third) to the D(fourth) sounds cool?And yes indeed, this sort of moving voice activity can be done on the I, the IV, or V chords, in this case E, A or B. Also in grass-check out Sam Bush's records and we'll probably here him rocking around this same territory, say, on Sailin' Shoes or Revival or One Love...

 John, Tom, Mandolirius, Groveland, Shelby,Pete and all you cats: Thank you also for adding detail and very cool observations. Any of you think or finger differently when the chart says A11 instead of Asus? It is the same group of tones, but...

 Isn't it funny how there's more time for posting now that the baseball season is over? At least it's over here in Chicago....John, the Cubs might be there next year, but I may not. Too many years of 
 (as Steve Goodman said) having your dreams stomped on like so many paper beer cups in the bleachers. Meanwhile, Go Red Sox Nation, and of course:

  Go Mando Nation! More Grips!

----------


## John McGann

> Any of you think or finger differently when the chart says A11 instead of Asus? It is the same group of tones, but...


Buck Owens advised: "Please, don't play, A-11..."  :Whistling: 

I would maybe interpret that one as missing the 3rd like a sus4 but voicing the 4th in the higher octave (so it 'looks like 11 rather than 4')...but due to our tuning we'd maybe put the sus4 up there anyway, like AEDx (225x) might be more "A11" than ADAE (2000) where the 4th is next to the lower root.

Chord symbols lose their "accuracy" after awhile; sometimes, you want a specific sonority that could be interpreted with several different chord symbols- and any one of those on their own might not give you what you have in mind...I might want CDAE (5000) and that could get some mighty odd chord symbols (D79 no 3rd, Am11 over C, etc.). All those hip Bill Evans type voicings have lots of 2nds and 4ths in them, and chord symbols just don't do the thing of getting them across, you have to have a specific combination of notes that lie outside of our 3rds based chord symbol system.

But overall, chord symbols are a great shorthand to get you, umm, in the ballpark  :Crying:  Sorry Cubs fans- I do believe they will get over the hump soon, and as a Sox fan I can tell you it will be worth the wait!

----------


## bobby bill

An A11 and Asus might be fingered differently simply because an A11 could include notes absent from an Asus.  An Asus is simply A D E.  An A11 could include any of the stacked thirds up to the 
11th.  If we were in the key of A major and the chord was built on the tonic,the notes would include: A Csharp E Gsharp B D.  Obviously you have to toss a few of these notes on the mandolin.  I might toss the 5th first and then maybe the root since the bass will surely cover that.

The term "sus4" seems to have taken on a new meaning in the last couple of decades and I'm probably being crotchety about that.  Today it seems to mean (as in the Who examples which I love by the way) any chord with a 1 4 5 regardless of context.  

In the previous several centuries, it referred to the context and required (1) a set up chord which contained the note which would become the suspended fourth (2) the famous sus4, and (3) the resolution chord.

In the most common example (think churchy organ music), in the key of C you might have:

1.  the set up chord: dominant 7th - G B D F

2.  sus4 based on the tonic - G C F (the B and D from the prior chord resolve to C but the F is suspended from the prior chord)

3.  resolution chord - tonic with the suspend 4th resolving to the the third - G C E.

If nothing else, this will explain where the term "suspended" came from and what it means.

----------


## John McGann

It goes to show how ambiguous a chord symbol "A11" is- I've seen it used as shorthand for stacked 4ths...it doesn't tell you to assume a b7 OR a natural 7...if you have a 3rd below it, it makes a potentially ugly b9 interval...

Less ambiguous might be the ol' triad over bass note sound, "G/A" played ADBG (2023). It has the 4,9 and b7 over A and might be seen as A7 (9,11,no3rd)... AHHHRGH there it is, another clunky chord symbol (don't yell it out at a jam, or the tune will be over before you finish saying it!) "G over A" is a bit more succinct..and _still_ may not be what someone wants when they write "A11"...it could function as an A7sus too...Tony Rice uses this chord in "Devlin'" and some other tunes, very common in the 70's Steely Dan/Crusaders/Larry Carlton/Lee Ritenour zone (goes well with an avocado green refrigerator!)  :Wink:

----------


## Doug Hoople

Funny how A11 is so ambiguous, but Am11 is not. 

The A11 never has the 3rd in it, at least not to my knowledge. It's the only "standard, unmodified" chord that specifically forbids the 3rd. I mean, the A, A6, A7, A9 and A13 all call for the major 3rd, but A11 does not. 

But the Am11 requires the 3rd. An Am11 with no 3rd in it would actually be an A11. Anyone who knows the deluxe, luscious sound of a minor11 chord played on a Brazilian guitar would have to concede that the 3rd is essential in that chord.

BTW, I've been searching for satisfying mimor11 voicings on the mandolin, and so far, satisfaction eludes me. Anyone with a good one?

----------


## Bruce Clausen

One could avoid the ambiguity by using the expresson A9sus4 instead on A11.

As far as good m11 voicings on the mandolin, the main problem of course is the normal limit of four notes.  I'm sure we all work around that in various ways, finding voicings that work with the notes we know we'll be hearing from other instruments in the group.  But for a six-note voicing on solo mandolin, we need to split two courses at once, and this naturally creates some limits.  I propose this voicing for Bm11:

4-(04)-4-(05)

i.e. B-D-F#-C#-E-A

Not all that grabbable, but could be ending chord, I guess.

BC

----------


## Doug Hoople

> One could avoid the ambiguity by using the expresson A9sus4 instead on A11.


Yes. exactly. My vote is for either A9sus4 (aka A9sus) or G/A, since they're both more specific and prescriptive. I'd be happy to abandon A11 in favor of the others anytime.  A11 quite often leads to questions about what's in it, the quality of the 3rd, the quality of the 7th, etc. A9sus4 and G/A both provide nearly complete descriptions.

----------


## Bruce Clausen

Agreed, Doug.  But we're after a five-note chord not four, no?  So wouldn't Em7/A be better?

BC

----------


## jefflester

> Isn't it funny how there's more time for posting now that the baseball season is over? At least it's over here in Chicago....John, the Cubs might be there next year, but I may not. Too many years of  (as Steve Goodman said) having your dreams stomped on like so many paper beer cups in the bleachers. Meanwhile, Go Red Sox Nation, and of course:


Oh Don, say it ain't so.  :Disbelief: 

Traitor.    :Wink:   :Grin:

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Agreed, Doug.  But we're after a five-note chord not four, no?  So wouldn't Em7/A be better?
> 
> BC


Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. I can't even say whether or not I've seen it, so couldn't even comment on whether A9sus4 or Em7/A should be more common. But Em7/A is a pretty good way to make sure the 5th is added when it's what the arranger really intended (as opposed to G/A, that is). A9sus4 sort of signals the harmonic function better. Em7/A is getting a little arbitrary to signal much in the way of meaning, so I guess I'd lean toward the A9sus4, simply for that reason. 

But sometimes, common chords really make things easier. Context is everything. For example, rather than spelling D9/A, Am6 makes for pretty nice shorthand. You lose a bit of the intended function from an analysis standpoint, but Am6 is an instinctive grab for a chord, so it's better for high-speed reading situations. 

What's the sense of the thread here? Anyone else care to weigh in?

----------


## groveland

I want the function to be clear above all else, and the form left to the improviser.  I see an A9sus4 and I'll treat it like a dom7 and know that I can modify it accordingly if the context allows.  I would have to do a backflip or two in my head to see the note equivalent of Emi7/A, and then say, "oh, I see what they did..." and then wonder why, and second-guess myself, and so on. And then the bar's long gone and I bungled the solo.

----------


## Bruce Clausen

Those are good points, Doug.  I actually do prefer A9sus4, as an expression that tells me the function of the chord, over names like G/A or Em7/A.  But (in answer to your second point) as a player I'd always rather see a name that gives me the full infomation-- I see a big difference between Am6 (four notes) and D9 (five notes), even if more often than not I play the same voicing for both chords.  And as far as names like D9/A go (where the chord name already includes the bass note), as a mandolin player I'll probably ignore the "over A", since the mandolin won't be playing the real bass note in the band context.  But I'm sure there's a lot of scope here for individual preferences.

BC

----------


## Bruce Clausen

Oops, groveland posted as I was working mine up.  I agree completely with his view.

BC

----------


## Jim Broyles

Well , there is not supposed to be a question of whether there is a 3rd in an 11 chord. The "rule" is that 9th, 11th and 13th are regular stacked 3rd  chords containing root, 3rd, 5th and needing the b7th, unless otherwise indicated by the chord symbol.  7sus4 tells me it has the b7 and the 4 but not the 3 and not the 9 or 2. The 6th doesn't have to have the b7, but the 13th does. Sus4 does not = 11, to my way of thinking. Add9 has a 3, sus2 doesn't. 
The OP put the guitar chords in a subsequent post, and the object of the A7sus4 in his music became clear. It's x02030 on a guitar, and that's why they named it A7sus4. It's just a name for the chord the guitar has to play. What I would play on mandolin for this song is 6500 for the A7 and 7500 for the A7sus. In this case, you definitely need the b7 to get the right sound for the Buffett song.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Well , there is not supposed to be a question of whether there is a 3rd in an 11 chord. The "rule" is that 9th, 11th and 13th are regular stacked 3rd  chords containing root, 3rd, 5th and needing the b7th, unless otherwise indicated by the chord symbol.


That's why the 11 chord is the odd chord out. The 11 typically doesn't feature the 3rd. Try it. Find an 11 chord in any arrangement and throw in 1,3,5,7.9.11 by whatever means. If you have a guitarist or a bassist or even just another mando player or you play two inversions in short succession to get the effect, all that's fine. If you play the 3rd, it will sound wrong. 

Actually, it would be more interesting still if someone could come up with situations where an 11 chord implied the 3rd. i'd be surprised if there were any more than one or two very exceptional cases.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> And as far as names like D9/A go (where the chord name already includes the bass note), as a mandolin player I'll probably ignore the "over A", since the mandolin won't be playing the real bass note in the band context.  But I'm sure there's a lot of scope here for individual preferences.
> BC


This is actually a very interesting point of traction, because people get different things from different chord symbols. The case I'm thinking of really does refer to D9/A. In the C section of Jacob do Bandolim's 'Simplicidade,' the chords are D9/A Db9/Ab D9/A Bbdim G/B C9/Bb G/B Eb7/Bb repeat, etc. 

No really  :Smile: . The D is there in the recording. 

But I showed my transcription to a good sight-reading guitarist who was initially baffled by the D9/A. Once he puzzled out the notes involved, he changed it to Am6 Abm6 Am6 Bbdim G/B, etc. Once he was done, he heaved a sigh of relief and said, "Much better!" 

I found myself feeling just a little inadequate at that point for not being fluent in the right choice of chord synonyms, although in retrospect, I should have realized that it's more of a toss-up than it might have seemed.

Bruce is right. D9/A tells the functional story much better than Am6 and, most particularly, demands that the D be part of the spelling. There's no D in Am6, and so it doesn't say as much about the intended function of the chord. But Am6 is an instinctive grab, whereas D9/A most likely requires a bit of processing for most players before they can work out the right notes. 

In the end, it's all a compromise, no?

----------


## Pete Martin

Here is the most common voicing I use on Am11:

5 2 5

I'll also use 

7  10  5

Oh, mando voicings!!!!!

----------


## groveland

> Actually, it would be more interesting still if someone could come up with situations where an 11 chord implied the 3rd. i'd be surprised if there were any more than one or two very exceptional cases.


Hi Doug.

This topic comes up from time to time, and we usually end up in the same place.  It's certainly genre-dependent, but in jazz, the 3rd in often included - But we're talking piano.  The 3rd would be voiced above the 4th, root in the bottom.

However, for mandolin, I can easily see doing a partial voicing with those characteristics (3 over 4), which sounds great; like a G7sus4:

0 3 3 7 (r 7 4 3)
or
7 3 3 7 (5 7 4 3)

By the same token, a G9sus4:

2 3 3 7 (9 7 4 3)

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Hi Doug.
> 
> This topic comes up from time to time, and we usually end up in the same place.  It's certainly genre-dependent, but in jazz, the 3rd in often included - But we're talking piano.  The 3rd would be voiced above the 4th, root in the bottom.
> 
> However, for mandolin, I can easily see doing a partial voicing with those characteristics (3 over 4), which sounds great; like a G7sus4:
> 
> 0 3 3 7 (r 7 4 3)
> or
> 7 3 3 7 (5 7 4 3)
> ...


The 0-3-3-7 (r 7 4 10) sounds more to me like a G9sus4sus10, with the 10 resolving to the 9 and the 4 resolving to the 3 0-3-2-5 (r 7 3 9). It's a beautiful double suspension, actually. Or, in more statically dissonant settings, it's a beautiful chord all by itself, something that you might find in a Lydian modal piece or something along those lines. 

Nice work digging that up, groveland!

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Here is the most common voicing I use on Am11:
> 
> 5 2 5
> 
> I'll also use 
> 
> 7  10  5
> 
> Oh, mando voicings!!!!!


These are pretty good, Pete. Obviously, they need to be played in an ensemble setting to really come off as Am11, but they sound good.

----------


## Jim Broyles

> That's why the 11 chord is the odd chord out. The 11 typically doesn't feature the 3rd. Try it. Find an 11 chord in any arrangement and throw in 1,3,5,7.9.11 by whatever means. If you have a guitarist or a bassist or even just another mando player or you play two inversions in short succession to get the effect, all that's fine. If you play the 3rd, it will sound wrong. 
> 
> Actually, it would be more interesting still if someone could come up with situations where an 11 chord implied the 3rd. i'd be surprised if there were any more than one or two very exceptional cases.


Well I don't know how _typical_ it is, Doug. Here is a quote from the wiki article about chords:



> 11ths
> 
> These are theoretically 9th chords with the 4th note in the scale added. However, it is common to leave certain notes out. As well as the 5th, the 9th (2nd) can be omitted. Often the major 3rd is omitted because of a strong dissonance with the 11th (4th). *Omission of the 3rd reduces an 11th chord to the corresponding suspended 7th or 9th chord and it is properly no longer an 11th chord* (Aiken 2004, p.104) (see Added Chords below). Similarly, omission of the 5th in a sharped 11th chord reduces its sound to a flat-five chord. (Aiken 2004, p.94).


I guess this is what I was getting at.

Here's a link to the reference:  Amazon

----------


## John McGann

Well, it's pretty rare that you are going to find a "true 11th chord" as defined by having the 3rd below the 11, because it's a nasty b9 interval between the 3rd and the 11th- try it on piano and see- good for avant garde stuff but not so much for 'mainstream' (whatever that is!)




> Similarly, omission of the 5th in a sharped 11th chord reduces its sound to a flat-five chord. (Aiken 2004, p.94).


That's flat wrong. A dom7#11 scale CDEF#GABb (4th mode of melodic minor) for example has a #11 AND a natural 5th. I don't need the 5th in this voicing:

CF#EG# (b7 3 9 #11)

to tell my ears that I could have a natural 5 in there.

The only true b5 scales* by Aiken's definition (that excludes a natural 5 altogether) in "common usage" in the jazz educational lexicon is the altered scale (1 b9 #9 3 b5 #5 b7) (7th mode of melodic minor) and the W/1/2 diminished (1 2 b3 4 b5 #5 6 7).

A b5 chord is a different construction with different implications than a #11 chord.

*not including locrian mode

----------


## Jim Broyles

I think he's saying that the #11, which is the same note as the b5, sounds like a b5 chord if you don't have the natural 5 in the chord. This makes sense to me, John, but I'm just a layman with a little knowledge, and we all know what that can mean.  :Smile:  Don't forget, he's talking about a chord, not a scale. I guess we'd need a piano to actually demonstrate it, but if  you play C-E-Bb-D-F#, it will probably sound different from C-E-G-Bb-D-F#. IOW,  like a C9b5, won't it? It does to me.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> I think he's saying that the #11, which is the same note as the b5, sounds like a b5 chord if you don't have the natural 5 in the chord. ... Don't forget, he's talking about a chord, not a scale. I guess we'd need a piano to actually demonstrate it, but if  you play C-E-Bb-D-F#, it will probably sound different from C-E-G-Bb-D-F#. IOW,  like a C9b5, won't it? It does to me.


I think groveland had it right, and John alluded to the same by referencing the scale... context is everything. Chords and voicings mean different things based on their settings.

If, for example, the melody, or the progression leading up to or away from a particular chord, has the natural 5 in it, then we're likely to hear a #11 chord instead of a b5. But that would be driven by the context. 

I was particularly struck by the (0-3-3-7) voicing that groveland gave us. I played it, and, in isolation, it immediately struck me as possibly a double-suspension in a more "standard" lead sheet type of piece, or as a "piano voicing" static dissonant in a more modal piece. It could have worked both ways quite easily. I'm sure there are other possibilities, but my feeble musical imagination flashed on only those two just now. 

Context is everything

----------


## John McGann

Our perspective is complicated a bit due to the high register of our chosen instrument. If we check this out on guitar, piano, or octave mandolin, we'll hear that a b5 chord is really a different beast than a #11 chord.

#11 really does imply that it "lives" in the second octave above. If I may be so boorish as to talk guitar for a moment  :Laughing:  Let's compare these basic chord sounds:

C7b5: CGbBbE (x3435x)
C7#11 CEBbDF# (x32332)

Although I added the 9th on the #11 chord, my ear hears a world of difference between the two chords- even though there is no 5th in the #11 chord- Aikin says it sounds like a b5.

"I know b5, Mr. #11, and believe me, you are no b5!"  :Whistling: 

Looks pedantic on paper, but I don't think it's splitting hairs-they are two distinctly different _sounds._ The C7b5, to me, also implies the usage of a #5, as in the altered scale. That #11 vibe, to me, is the aforementioned lydian dominant.

Of course, on the mando, when we get into the more extended chords, we have to drop something out. Dom 7 sounds, to me and to thousands of arrangers across the planet, sound best with the 3 and b7 (or vice versa) in the "bass"- our two low strings- and the color notes on the top two (usually 'one from column A and one from column B)- root/b9/9/#9 on one string and b5/5/#5/13 on the other. Nice and orderly!

----------


## Jim Broyles

See, this I why I quote you in my signature. I do hear the difference , especially with the #11 on top.

BTW, these entire threads can get sounding pedantic if you ask me, and I am not immune from sounding that way.   :Smile:

----------


## Doug Hoople

> with the #11 on top.
> 
> BTW, these entire threads can get sounding pedantic if you ask me


Yeah, it's funny. No matter how innocent or simple these threads start out, they can be relied upon to end up at the #11, can't they?  :Smile: 

Personally, I enjoy the conversation and almost always get something new out of these threads.

----------


## Ted Eschliman

> BTW, these entire threads can get sounding pedantic if you ask me...


1, 2, 3, 5, 6

Pedantic scale, right?

----------


## groveland

> #11 really does imply that it "lives" in the second octave above.


I'm not sure what we mean by "lives", because we know we can shuffle the voices at will and they never change their names. But in any case, this is how I know it:

*Naming Rule 1:* Any degree named above 7 implies the existence of a 7, like 9, 11, 13.  There are no implications as to the voicing order or frequency of the notes. Mix and match as desired. By the same token, any name below a 7 implies there is no 7, like 2, 4, and 6.

The same rule applies to b2, #2, b9 and #9.  b2 and #2 mean there's no 7. b9 and #9 means there's a 7.

If the 5 is not there in the chord, you can have a b5 or a #5.

Naming altered 5ths has a little more going on -

*If the chord has no 7 in it:* 
_If the 5 is already there, you can't have a b5 or #5 named in the chord_.  It has to be a #4 or b6, respectively. The 5 spot is already taken.

If the 5 is not there, you can have a b5 or a #5.

*But like our first rule, if the chord does have a 7 in it:* 
"Any degree named above 7 implies the existence of a 7" is true, and if you have a 5, the #4 becomes a #11 and the b6 becomes a b13.

And again, if the 5 is not there, you can have a b5 or a #5.

*Context matters:*
Put the #4 or b6 chords in a _scale context_ that includes the b7 and a 5, and then you have a 7(#11) or a 7(b13), respectively.

Note: The 7's cited above can be either b7's or 7's. Same thing applies to both.

Note: Just because you're not playing a note in a chord, doesn't mean it's not implied - The scale context, function, surrounding chords, and other instruments will imply notes even if omitted.

----------


## Jim Broyles

> 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
> 
> Pedantic scale, right?


How do you play a demolished chord in that scale?

----------


## groveland

The edit timeout strikes again.




> There are no implications as to the voicing order or frequency of the notes.


To be more clear, "frequency" meant "number of times a note occurs" in a chord.

Also, I believe this restatement of the rules is better.

*Naming Rule 1:* 
Any degree named above 7 implies the existence of a 7, like 9, 11, 13.  Any name below a 7 implies there is no 7, like 2, 4, and 6. The same rule applies to b2, #2, b9 and #9.  The b2 and #2 mean there's no 7. The b9 and #9 means there is a 7.

*Naming Rule 2:* 
If the 5 is not there in the chord, you can have a b5 or a #5.  Otherwise, you have to use the alternative, that is, #4 or b6.

*Naming Rule 3:* 
If there is a 7 in the chord, then any #4 becomes a #11 and any b6 becomes a b13.

I think that covers all cases.

----------


## John McGann

> "Any degree named above 7 implies the existence of a 7" is true, and if you have a 5, the #4 becomes a #11 and the b6 becomes a b13.


For clarity, I prefer the admittedly redundant C7(9) rather than C9, because some people might interpret that as C triad (add 9), some could interpret it as Cmaj7(9); if you happen to use a lower case "c" some mighty play Cm7(9) or Cm (add9). If I want specific sounds as a composer, I'll use chord symbols that might look clunky, but that will increase my chances of getting the desired sound.

It would be great if those rules were universally acknowledged and applied, but they aren't- there really is no universally agreed upon scheme for chord symbols. For example, some will see "maj7" as implying 9, #11 and 13 where the original intention may be just a 4 note voicing. The _implication_ is correct in that those notes are usually good (especially on IVmaj7, #11 being volatile on the Imaj7 if there is a natural 4 in the melody), but they aren't _always_ going to be.

There are some symbols like B7alt. that offer so many options (b9/#9/b5/#5) and each are specific sonorities...they may be "mix 'n match" in a general sense, but they all have their own unique character.

Sometime ya gotta be fussy to get what ya want  :Coffee:

----------


## groveland

Hello John.

I have seen a few sets of symbols used over the years, but they have always clearly represented the same functions.  In other words, a M7, MA7, ma7, maj7, a triangle, all represent a 4-note major triad with a major 7 on top.  The word "major" in the name refers not to the 3rd, but to the interval of the 7th.  The major third is communicated because the chord is not specified as minor (m, mi, MI, -). Absence of a minor designation defaults to major. 

Where I come from, it is _simply wrong_ to designate a M7 chord without the M, MA, ma, maj notation. The 7 alone always designates the b7.  The M, MA, etc. prefix designates the (major) 7. I have never seen the two confused.   :Disbelief:   To allow it would certainly cause problems - Imagine the trainwrecks!  Function goes out the window! Burn the fakebooks! How do we know who to kick out of the band for playing the wrong notes?  :Smile: 

There are a lot of dialects out there, but some simply don't work. 

As for voicings, I personally don't think chord symbols should prescribe form - They should designate function only.  Once separated, problems disappear.

You bring up a good point about "maj7 as implying 9, #11 and 13".  The #11 would be a lydian interpretation (1, 2, 3, #4, 5, 6, 7) of the maj7 chord (1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7).  The chart would have actually specified maj7(#11) if that was a required sound.  It an interpretation by the player, not a specification of the chart.  I like to keep the notions of interpretation and specification separate.  I think that solves problems.

Am I getting preachy here? Yeah, I guess. But I really believe there is an accepted naming system that works, and it communicates every function we need.

----------


## John McGann

> But I really believe there is an accepted naming system that works, and it communicates every function we need.


The problem is that not everyone on earth subscribes to that "accepted naming system"...in other words, not everyone accepts it.

I wish that they did, it would make life much more simple and logical, but in my decades of performing, composing and arranging, my experience has shown me that the more precise I am with chord symbols, the more accurately my intentions will be interpreted. Sometimes leaving the "inferred" to be "understood" can backfire on you.

There are disagreements between the system Jamey Aebersold uses, the system Berklee uses, and a worldwide variety of systems used. It is pretty much universally recognized that there is no truly 'agreed upon system" for chord symbols... I'm with you, Groveland, in that I think there _should_ be.

"M7" can be easily interpreted as minor 7- I use it like that all the time. To me, "maj7"and "m7" are what make clear what chord I mean- no misinterpreting lower or upper case on a chart written in light pencil on a wind-blown music stand at a dark night wedding  :Wink: 

John Coltrane is credited with coming up with the ∆ (delta) symbol for major 7...

----------


## Pete Martin

John, is there a book Berklee uses as its main Theory book?  let us know, I'd like to read it...

----------


## ApK

> I'm with you, Groveland, in that I think there _should_ be.


Amen. 
I think a large part of the reason there isn't (when there really SHOULD be) is that some people get taught something that is really a modification or a variation or a common convention, then pass it on as definitive.  Like a guys tells his student "We just leave the 3rd out in this chord" and the student goes on to tell HIS student "There's no 3rd in this chord."
While, certainly, if you really want people to know what notes to play, you can write them out on the staff like those long haired European guys did,  I think the purpose of writing this stuff down is to communicate clearly.  If getting in the ball park is all we wanted we just need a grand total of 12 chord symbols, one for each root.

BTW, If we're not relying on chord symbols for consistent and definitive meanings, then  once you get to the point of a chord symbol with 5 parts in the name, wouldn't it be easier to just list the notes....  :Smile: 

ApK

----------


## Shelby Eicher

It's obvious that we all understand how these chords are played, used and function in tunes. I agree that it is confusing to the new comer reading charts. You know as I do after 50 charts you get a feel for the differert ways they are written and after a 100+ charts it's easier than it was on the first couple. If there was a "standard way" it would simplifiy it greatly. I always urge my students to learn all the way chords are written. It's interesting that many tunes have been reharmonized through time and there are options(substitutions) that aren't always on the chart. Many times extended voicings are cueing you into what the melody note is dictating but it's best to leave them out of the chord. To me many times it's best to stay out of the soloist way and let them tell that part of the story. In fact if you've played no more than the 3rd and the 7th you've told the defining part of the story. I pleased to see so many with this kind of knowledge.

----------


## Jean-Pierre WOOS

> There the progession is given as *E*, *E7*, *A7*, *A7 sus*, *E*, *E7*, *A7*, *A7 sus*, *B7*, a *"C weirdness chord"* that is produced (on guitar) "by sliding the B7 fingering up one fret on the neck." (doesn't that make it a B#7?) *A7*, and *A7 sus* .


If i had to play that chord change, i'll do like that:

E: 9677
E7: 7677
A7: 6575
A7 sus: 7575
B7: 8797 ... and move up 1 fret to have a C7

Like that, we have the voicing (on the G strig) :9...7...6...7...9...

I think that it would still be better to play:

E: 9677
E7: 7677
A9: 6577  (sounds like a Em6...)
A9sus: 7577 (sounds like a Em7...)
B7: 8797 ... and move up 1 fret.

Gravity notes are are the only ones to change.

----------


## Jim Broyles

You might not play it like that if you heard the record he was trying to cover. 6500 7500 works a lot better for the A7 A7sus in the song. 3230 212x works better for the C7 B7 in the song, too.

----------


## Jean-Pierre WOOS

It's your opinion.The song is a " talkin ' blues, isn't it?

When I play something, I always try to get a little bit different version from what we always hear. It makes me take risks and produces a result not always very orthodox   :Confused: 

In fact, i have never heard that song...  :Redface: 
I thought from indicated chords.

----------


## Jean-Pierre WOOS

About sus 4, vs 11 or b5...

Most often, I avoid the X11 chord, I play therefore " sus 4 " to avoid the unpleasant sound (major 3ce + 4th). 
But, when i play Xmin11, i often play  1 - b3 -bb5 - b7. especially in bossa...

Don't knock on my head, please...   :Smile:

----------


## John McGann

> John, is there a book Berklee uses as its main Theory book?  let us know, I'd like to read it...


Berklee Press

Now, I haven't scoured every book there, but I'd imagine there are differences between them in chord nomenclature- 5 of us teachers across the college would probably not agree on every "standard" way of writing them, depending on our backgrounds and experiences.




> It's obvious that we all understand how these chords are played, used and function in tunes. I agree that it is confusing to the new comer reading charts.


Shelby, "We" aren't always who we play with, though  :Cool:  I don't assume too much- many is the time I have written chord symbols like A/B and the player plays either A, or B, or just look sheepish...they are sometimes pro players. I still write it like that, though, and if I am not around for the rehearsal/performance I can only hope for the best, or as Apk suggests, actually write out the voicing (although odds are strong that if the player doesn't know how to interpret a triad over bass note voicing, they probably don't read notation either).




> But, when i play Xmin11, i often play 1 - b3 -bb5 - b7. especially in bossa...
> 
> Don't knock on my head, please...


Hi JP (friendly!)- in C, would that be C Eb F Bb? I think it's cool to call the F just a 4. This is often written "Cm7 (11)"; that 11 on the minor chord is available (since it's diatonic* to the key) on the IIm7, IIIm7 (where the 9 is not available, since it's non-diatonic) and the VIm7 (as well as the VIIm7b5).

In other words, 11 agrees with minor chords much more than (full blooded) major and dominant 7 chords...


*Diatonic= derived from the key, i.e. a note from the scale of the key of the moment.

----------


## Jean-Pierre WOOS

> Hi JP (friendly!)- in C, would that be C Eb F Bb? I think it's cool to call the F just a 4.


You 're right John !
But I wrote bb5 with the intention of representing that I acquired the 4th from the 5th and not by raising the 3th...
 :Smile:

----------


## Doug Hoople

Asking for a "definitive" set of chord symbols is a little like asking that we finally get a keyboard that abandons the "qwerty" layout for something more efficient and productive (the "qwerty" system only exists to prevent typebars from sticking at the ribbon). Or like getting weepy for the 70s, when we nearly adopted the metric system here in the US. 

Even if we could finally agree on the best possible system of all chord symbols, there is a massive amount of published material that will never change that uses the old systems. 

Besides, I don't think we could agree on the best possible system of chord symbols. For everyone that agrees that m7b5 is a better, more functionally descriptive way of representing the half-diminished chord, one that is not easily confused with the symbol for the fully-diminished chord, there is someone else who adamantly believes that that slashed-degree mark is beautifully concise and quite distinct from the unslashed-degree mark. I can break the tie on this one by saying "small font, bad eyes, low light," but there are plenty of other issues that spark similar disagreements. And plenty of corner cases where the ambiguities simply don't resolve. 

So we'd first have to agree on the perfect system, which would be an amazing feat by itself. We'd then have to re-publish all the leadsheet music that's ever been published. And finally, we'd all have to agree to burn all the music that's already in our libraries. 

It's not actually that difficult to figure out what the symbols mean for most of the systems already in use, and there are surprisingly few cases where context doesn't point directly to the answer. We're not going to get rid of these systems in our lifetimes, so we might as well just learn to live with them all.

----------


## groveland

Yeah, but Doug... C7 means Cmaj7? NEVER! c7 means Cmi7? NEVER!  and Cmaj7 means Cmaj7(#11)? NEVER! (The latter may be rendered as an improv off the specified chord, but the chord symbol itself will never _mean_ that!)  I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

I would prefer to use the best symbols possible, and if there's a player in the band that has it mixed up - Take some time and teach them the acceptable way(s).  And if that doesn't work... Give 'em the pink slip. Just kidding. Kindof.  :Whistling:

----------


## groveland

Okay, maybe I was a little harsh. But, man, how far can we let it go?  :Confused:

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Yeah, but Doug... C7 means Cmaj7? NEVER! c7 means Cmi7? NEVER!  and Cmaj7 means Cmaj7(#11)? NEVER! (The latter may be rendered as an improv off the specified chord, but the chord symbol itself will never _mean_ that!)  I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.
> 
> I would prefer to use the best symbols possible, and if there's a player in the band that has it mixed up - Take some time and teach them the acceptable way(s).  And if that doesn't work... Give 'em the pink slip. Just kidding. Kindof.


Yeah, there are really three levels at play here... 

1) Existing practice. There's a ton of material in circulation, and none of it uses the "optimal" system (because we haven't agreed on it yet). All practitioners have to be able to come to grips with this. 

2) What do the symbols mean to an experienced practitioner? Most practitioners know what the symbols mean, although, as John has pointed out, even some of the pros don't always. 

3) What do the symbols mean to an inexperienced practitioner?  Inexperienced practitioners can be confused by the clearest and most unambiguous symbols, so a perfect system may not be as much the answer as good coaching.

These don't really address anything, but they do point out some of the problems that make this a difficult issue.

As musicians, there's not a lot we can do about any of this. It's a little like trying to take the irregular verbs in a language and change the rules so that they'll be regular. It just isn't realistic, unless you're Turkish (they re-codified an existing language in the 20th century, and all their verbs are now regular.).

There are, actually, two roles we play where we do have responsibilities, and where what we choose might have an impact: composer/arranger and teacher.  

As composers/arrangers, we're responsible for turning out the leadsheets that become part of the problem. And as teachers, we have to try to encourage our students to adopt one system or another. 

So, then, in either of these two roles, we need to choose the system that makes the most sense, and the choice we make in these roles might actually have an impact. 

So then, what system should we be teaching our students and using in our arrangements? We can't save the world, but we can save our own tiny portion of it.

----------


## groveland

> So then, what system should we be teaching our students and using in our arrangements? We can't save the world, but we can save our own tiny portion of it.


For me, it's exactly what is clearly defined in the New Real Book Vol's 1, 2, and 3 in the "General Rules for Using This Book."  There is a page of chord symbols and their definitions there.

Again, it's not the symbols themselves - It's the system.  Careful consideration of the symbol _with the definition on the staff_ describes what I consider to be the most consistent and clear set of grammar rules to describe harmony available today.  Plus, this definition isn't new at all - It's been around (and accepted and understood) for decades. Now _that_ makes sense!  

So we can save the world, one student at a time. Won't you join us and find time to point an unfortunate student in that direction today? :Grin:

----------


## John McGann

Groveland, can you scan and post these Real Book laws?

----------


## Doug Hoople

> For me, it's exactly what is clearly defined in the New Real Book Vol's 1, 2, and 3 in the "General Rules for Using This Book."  There is a page of chord symbols and their definitions there.
> 
> Again, it's not the symbols themselves - It's the system.  Careful consideration of the symbol _with the definition on the staff_ describes what I consider to be the most consistent and clear set of grammar rules to describe harmony available today.  Plus, this definition isn't new at all - It's been around (and accepted and understood) for decades. Now _that_ makes sense!


I agree that this is probably the most consistent definition available today. And if we could sweep away everything and turn this into the one system that everyone used, we'd be a long way toward the goal of a single, consistent system. 

Not that I don't have a couple of nits to pick... for example, picking the fight that says "ma" and "mi" should be peers... "ma" is for an exception, and "mi" is for a core chord (we don't, and couldn't, use "ma" for a C7 chord, for example). If we had simply said that "m" can stand by itself as meaning minor, we'd be both statistically consistent and more concise. In a world where "M" never stood for "major," there would never have been the need to add the "i" in "mi." I'm also unhappy that it's Cdim for the triad and Cdegree7 for diminished 7th. 

But I know I'm nitpicking, and the New Real Book Brandt-Roemer hybrid is, by far, the most consistent and most thoroughly thought out of all the systems so far. 

And you're right that Brandt-Roemer (the base for the New Real Book system) has been around for decades, but it hadn't been accepted in actual mass practice until its adoption by the New Real Book. Saying that it's been around and accepted for decades is a little like saying Esperanto (a language designed with perfectly consistent grammar and spelling and without any irregular verbs) has been around and accepted for over a century. 

I think it's probably fairer to say that this system was established for widespread commercial use at the time that Sher Music Co. adopted it, as it had very little widespread circulation prior to that. 

(Edit note: I'm showing my age here. I still think of the New Real Book as being a recent phenomenon. But I just looked at the publication date for vol.1 of the New Real Book, and it's 1988!!! So I'm wrong, and you're right, it HAS, actually been decades... two of them, to be precise. But I'll let the main text stand).

I know it sounds like I'm making a big fuss over small things. But there are practical reasons why I'm playing down the significance of this system. For example, to make use of this system in Sibelius (today's most widely used notation software), you have to bend over backwards. In Sibelius, it's much easier to use the older, better established, less optimal systems. And in Finale, Sibelius' perennial competitor, as recently as 2003 (the last version I owned), you couldn't even get it to use Brandt-Roemer at all. 

So, in a world that is filled with highly entrenched and less optimal chord symbol systems, it's hard to recommend a system that has techical superiority as its sole compelling attribute. Think of the perrenial problem in computers. There are dozens of inferior technologies that have prevailed (think Windows vs. Mac) simply by being better entrenched or by having better market positions. 

I guess what I'm saying is that the old systems aren't going anywhere, and we have to incorporate them into our daily lives, even if we know there's a better way.

----------


## John McGann

> JP: But I wrote bb5 with the intention of representing that I acquired the 4th from the 5th and not by raising the 3th...


Logical! But as I understand it, as long as it's a minor, the 3rd is spoken for, and the 4th can be a 4th next to the 3rd or an octave above as an 11th...the only double flat that I know of in a generic chord-function context is bb7 in a diminished 7th (and I spell it as a 6th anyway, because outside of classical music, no one wants to see double sharps or double flats as a player).

----------


## groveland

> Not that I don't have a couple of nits to pick... for example, picking the fight that says "ma" and "mi" should be peers... "ma" is for an exception, and "mi" is for a core chord (we don't, and couldn't, use "ma" for a C7 chord, for example). If we had simply said that "m" can stand by itself as meaning minor, we'd be both statistically consistent and more concise. In a world where "M" never stood for "major," there would never have been the need to add the "i" in "mi." I'm also unhappy that it's Cdim for the triad and Cdegree7 for diminished 7th.


Well, actually, ma refers to the major seventh interval, as opposed to a lone 7, which refers to the b7 interval.

OTOH, mi always refers to the third.  No designation defaults to major.

If you see a C alone, it's a major triad.

If you see a Cmi it's a minor triad. 

If you see C7, it's a major triad with a b7.

If you see a Cma7, it's a major triad with a major 7.

If you see a Cmi7 it's a minor triad with a b7.

If you see a Cmi(ma7) it's a minor triad with a major 7.



John -

You know, I can't publish that page because the New Real Book belongs to Sher Music.  However, the essentials are applied at The Chordwatcher's Field Guide. As for the Rules, I described 3 out of 4 in an earlier post on this thread.  The fourth would be:

Rule #4:
All diatonic degrees of the chord _below the highest degree specified_  are implied to be in the chord. That is to say, if the chord specifies a 13, the 11, 9, and 7 are implied.  If the 11 is specified, the 9 and 7 are implied.  If the 9 is specified, the 7 is implied. In practice, the 11 may be omitted due to dissonance. (Of course, partial voicings omit any voice as needed.)

For more specifics, go to the link above and see the implementations of the 56 chord types provided.  I think they'll be pretty clear!

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Well, actually, ma refers to the major seventh interval, as opposed to a lone 7, which refers to the b7 interval.
> 
> OTOH, mi always refers to the third.  No designation defaults to major.
> 
> If you see a C alone, it's a major triad.
> 
> If you see a Cmi it's a minor triad. 
> 
> If you see C7, it's a major triad with a b7.
> ...


Yes, exactly. The "ma" refers to the 7th, and the "mi" refers to the quality of the 3rd. They're not peers functionslly. 

This system would have been much better if "mi" were, simply, "m." They chose to make "peers" out of "ma" and "mi" to solve the problem of an uppercase "M" occasionally meaning the same thing as "ma." That problem is solved, at least internally, through the establishment of the "ma," and it didn't need to add the "i" to "mi" in order to make the case. 

Since minor chords are statistically much more common than major7 chords, the case is strong that the conciseness of "m" would have been preferable to "mi." And, in that case, there would not be the unfortunate functional conflation of "ma" and "mi." Notationally, they appear to be peers, but functionally they're actually not. 

As I already said, it's a bit of a nit. The fact that the older, lesser standards are MUCH better established is the more compelling reason for recommending that all of them should co-exist. 

If Sher Music Co. hasn't been able to get this standard established after 20 years, then we have a long way to go before we arrive at a single coherent system. 

John, being at Berklee and in a position to be of some influence, has the best shot of those among us of actually advancing the adoption cause further. It will happen in the next generation. It won't happen in ours.

----------


## groveland

> John, being at Berklee and in a position to be of some influence, has the best shot of those among us of actually advancing the adoption cause further. It will happen in the next generation. It won't happen in ours.


Berklee influences the world... John influences Berklee... We influence John... History has been made here today!  :Grin: 

I certainly agree with your point about the third and seven designations kindof stepping on each others' toes.  There are a lot of folks out there that think the ma refers to the third - And everything suddenly comes together when they realize it refers to the seventh!  I have an old Jerry Coker book where he falls into that trap, too.  Just goes to show...

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Rule #4:
> All diatonic degrees of the chord _below the highest degree specified_  are implied to be in the chord. That is to say, if the chord specifies a 13, the 11, 9, and 7 are implied.  If the 11 is specified, the 9 and 7 are implied.  If the 9 is specified, the 7 is implied. In practice, the 11 may be omitted due to dissonance. (Of course, partial voicings omit any voice as needed.)


This perfect consistency is where our impression of chord symbol "systems" gets us into trouble. Such consistency is not universally implied, at least not in the normal case. 

For example, the 13 chord most typically implies only the 7th below the 13th. The 9 will often co-exist nicely enough, but it isn't essential to the quality of the chord. And the 11 more often than not is an unwelcome interloper. 

And we've already had the discussion about A11. While it's true that the 3rd can be used in more advanced or more pianistically voiced jazz charts, the vast majority of the cases in which A11 appears are, in actuality, A9sus4 or G/A chords. 

Chord symbols are shorthand. They're not really systems. They don't really lend themselves to systematic and fully prescriptive codification. They can be applied systematically, but that comes from they way they are used and not from the way they were originally designed. 

Kind of like irregular verbs in spoken language. The words "to be," "to have," "to come," and "to go" are created in most languages before the analytical types show up to codify and regulate, and by then the damage is already done. It's hard to put those irregular verbs back in the box if thousands of people have used them for generations. 

Chord symbols have evolved in much the same way.

----------


## groveland

> And we've already had the discussion about A11. While it's true that the 3rd can be used in more advanced or more pianistically voiced jazz charts, the vast majority of the cases in which A11 appears are, in actuality, A9sus4...


Yes!  And on my site (link above) and in The New Real Book, you will not see an A11 - It will be more than likely an A9sus.  A step in the right direction, yes?




> Chord symbols have evolved in much the same way.


But, you know, with this system I am describing, evolution has actually brought us to a happy place where chord symbols _can_ make sense with a reasonable grammar.  We are soooo close!

(As for Rule #4, I think I can make a more persuasive case offline regarding chord/scale theory.)

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Yes!  And on my site (link above) and in The New Real Book, you will not see an A11 - It will be more than likely an A9sus.  A step in the right direction, yes?
> 
> 
> But, you know, with this system I am describing, evolution has actually brought us to a happy place where chord symbols _can_ make sense with a reasonable grammar.  We are soooo close!
> 
> (As for Rule #4, I think I can make a more persuasive case offline regarding chord/scale theory.)


Cool! On the surface, raging disagreement. Drill deep enough, though, and we find fundamental alignment. 

Let's see now... to do...

1) It's too late to get Sher to amend Brandt-Roemer to take the "i" out of "mi," so I should just get over it. 
2) Talk to Sibelius and Finale and get them to make the Sher Brandt-Roemer hybrid the default. Also, get them to fill the technical gaps in their support for it. 
3) Get folks like John to strongly advocate the system to their students. 
4) Burn all the leadsheets in our libraries that are out of compliance. 

Oh wait... I'm probably getting too enthusiastic! Forget number 4! 

The first three would make a good start, though, no? 

Finally, interesting that Sher thought the 11 chord ambiguous enough to conciously omit it!

----------


## groveland

> Let's see now... to do...
> 
> 1) It's too late to get Sher to amend Brandt-Roemer to take the "i" out of "mi," so I should just get over it. 
> 2) Talk to Sibelius and Finale and get them to make the Sher Brandt-Roemer hybrid the default. Also, get them to fill the technical gaps in their support for it. 
> 3) Get folks like John to strongly advocate the system to their students. 
> 4) Burn all the leadsheets in our libraries that are out of compliance.


 :Laughing:  Ha! Simple! This has been fun.

----------


## John McGann

Someone was kind enough to send me the Sher symbols (I don't own the new Real Books, still working off the old blue one in a pinch but mostly try to learn tunes by ear from recordings). I think it's good overall, except for two points:

1) If we use "Cma7" then the "i" in "Cmi7" is redundant- why not just "Cm7"? It won't be confused for any other type of chord, since we eliminate the single "M" for major 7th...

2) The 13 chord in this system indicates that the 9 must be involved, and it's not true- guitars commonly voice R x b7 3 13 x and on mando, 3 b7 13 (F7 13; 215x). Yes, it's implied that without any other alterations, the 9 would be in the _scale_, but the chord symbol's _scale implications_ may not be exactly the notes you want in the _voicing of the chord._

For clarity, I'd stick to (9, 13) there...I also still use the 7 (13), maybe redundant to some folks, but no mistaking the intent.

Chord symbols: the Camel as the Horse designed by committee!  :Whistling:

----------


## groveland

> ...why not just "Cm7"?


Sounds like a good idea.




> ...The 13 chord in this system indicates that the 9 must be involved, and it's not true- guitars commonly voice...


That's why we say chord symbols aren't used to communicate voicing.




> For clarity, I'd stick to (9, 13) there...I also still use the 7 (13), maybe redundant to some folks, but no mistaking the intent.


I think that's covered: Just as we specify "add" for additional tones, we say "omit" to remove tones. For example, C(add 9 omit 3) or Cmi7(omit 5) or C13(omit 9) in the chord name. (See the Sher stuff for examples.)

I think we're really close here, folks!  :Smile:

----------


## ApK

> That's why we say chord symbols aren't used to communicate voicing.


Right!  I think that's an example of the problem I mentioned above.  A chord symbol may have been constantly defined to mean on thing, but "Since we only have 4 notes at once on mando we..." or "In jazz, most players will...."  and then those conventions get mis-communicated down the line as part of the definition.

I think it perfectly acceptable (in fact, valuable and preferable) to have the chord symbols be understood one and only one way, and then have separate realm of musicianship and theory to help you learn and choose what and why to change under your particular circumstances.

And by the way, a system need not be perfect to be universally accepted.
For example, computer programs would never run on more than one machine if that weren't true!
(Exception that proves that rule:  It took a class action lawsuit to clarify the meaning of "megabyte", but we muddled through before that anyway.)

ApK

----------


## groveland

> I think it perfectly acceptable (in fact, valuable and preferable) to have the chord symbols be understood one and only one way, and then have separate realm of musicianship and theory to help you learn and choose what and why to change under your particular circumstances.


An enthusiatic "Likewise!"  :Grin:

----------


## John McGann

> Originally Posted by ApK  
> I think it perfectly acceptable (in fact, valuable and preferable) to have the chord symbols be understood one and only one way, and then have separate realm of musicianship and theory to help you learn and choose what and why to change under your particular circumstances.






> An enthusiatic "Likewise!"


Of course, we'll be dubbed 'elitist' for the assumption of 'the separate realm of musicianship and theory' needed to speak the language...the 'legalese' of theory turns off those who 'just want to play', but the more you know, the more you can do  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## Shelby Eicher

John,
I agree with your F13 voicing. This sounds good when it's used and it defines the sound that is asked for. Another that sounds as good would be: 
8-Eb(7th), 7-A(3rd), 5-D(13th). 
If you add the 9th to these 2 voicings they sound great: 
8-Eb(7th), 7-A(3rd), 5-D(13th), 3-G(9th)
2-A(3rd), 1-Eb(7th), 5-D(13th), 3-G(9th)
They are a hand full to grab while gigging and many times I opt for the economy version.

----------


## ApK

> the 'legalese' of theory turns off those who 'just want to play'


 :Laughing:   I've given up trying to defend the discussion of theory in a theory discussion section...not sure why the people who are offended by it and want to do it all by ear are reading this anyway!

And as someone who has flirted on and off with the idea of going to law school because I thought it could be fun,  I assure you, I can make even the most touchy-feely of topics sound like legalize...just ask my ex-girlfriends.

ApK

----------


## Doug Hoople

> I think it perfectly acceptable (in fact, valuable and preferable) to have the chord symbols be understood one and only one way, and then have separate realm of musicianship and theory to help you learn and choose what and why to change under your particular circumstances.
> ApK





> An enthusiatic "Likewise!"


I think you'll find that we're already there. I don't know too many people who actually misinterpret the symbols or who have a hard time working out whether a particular note should be part of a particular voicing. That is, among the people who actually know what the chord symbols are supposed to mean. 

There are a lot of people who don't know the chord symbols in the first place, and for those people the struggle will continue. For every person who does accumulate the knowledge of chord symbols and the underlying theory to be able to puzzle them out, someone else gets in line and starts learning. 

But I've been in plenty of musical situations where the conversation turns to what notes should be in a particular voicing, and the ambiguities get resolved pretty much instantly. 

Trying to arrive at a system that is exhaustively prescriptive is a little like stuffing 10 pounds of cr@p into a 5 pound bag (to use the crude and obvious metaphor). The existing system's not so bad, even with its ambiguities. 

Most of the confusion comes from people who simply haven't yet acquired their basic analytical skills.

----------


## mandocrucian

:Disbelief: 



*The P.F.J. Notational Reform Subcommittee* takes action

 :Laughing:

----------


## John McGann

Can I be the guy with hair?

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Can I be the guy with hair?


Hair, no hair... who cares? Can I just be one of those guys?!!?

----------


## John McGann

*Just say "ni"!*

----------


## Tom Gibson

> Hair, no hair... who cares? Can I just be one of those guys?!!?


You can't be one of those guys, but you can have the RIGHT to be one of those guys....   :Whistling: 

This has been a great thread, IMHO.  Where to next?   :Mandosmiley:

----------

