My curiosity was peaked recently about the difference between sus and add4 chords. The following is the result of some limited resaerch:
A lot of folks will say a Gsus (Gsus4) chord is a Gadd4, with the 3rd dropped (also that "sus4" is redundant in that "sus" implies the 4th unless otherwise noted like in Gsus2).
But then a jazz guy points out from "The Jazz Theory Book" that this is not quite right in:
"A persistent myth is that 'the 4th takes the place of the 3rd in a suspended chord'. This was true at one time, but in the 1960s a growing acceptance of dissonance led pianists and guitarists to play sus voicings with both the 3rd and the 4th. Play figer 3-36 and you'll hear the Fsus chord that Wynton Kelly plays at the beginning of Miles Davis's recording of 'Someday My Prince Will Come". Note that Wynton plays both the 3rd (A) and the 4th (Bb) in his voicing. Note also that Wynton plays the 3rd above the 4th. Jazz pinaists often include the 3rd in sus chords. Note that the 3rd is always above the 4th."
From this, it seems to boil down to 2 schools of thought:
1. triad-based harmony 2. extended harmony (jazz)
In the jazz context, chord names are more for "improvisation framework" rather than a specified chord to be performed.
Triad based harmony builds chords from stacking major and minor 3rds on top of each other, and tend to specify what should be performed.
> My curiosity was peaked recently about the difference > between sus and add4 chords. The following is the > result of some limited resaerch:
> A lot of folks will say a Gsus (Gsus4) chord is a Gadd4, > with the 3rd dropped (also that "sus4" is redundant in > that "sus" implies the 4th unless otherwise noted like > in Gsus2).
> But then a jazz guy points out from "The Jazz Theory > Book" that this is not quite right in:
> "A persistent myth is that 'the 4th takes the place > of the 3rd in a suspended chord'. This was true at > one time, but in the 1960s a growing acceptance of > dissonance led pianists and guitarists to play sus > voicings with both the 3rd and the 4th. Play figer > 3-36 and you'll hear the Fsus chord that Wynton Kelly > plays at the beginning of Miles Davis's recording of > 'Someday My Prince Will Come". Note that Wynton plays > both the 3rd (A) and the 4th (Bb) in his voicing. Note > also that Wynton plays the 3rd above the 4th. Jazz > pinaists often include the 3rd in sus chords. Note > that the 3rd is always above the 4th."
> From this, it seems to boil down to 2 schools > of thought:
> >> In the jazz context, chord names are more for > >> "improvisation framework" rather than a > >> specified chord to be performed.
> >> Triad based harmony builds chords from stacking major > >> and minor 3rds on top of each other, and tend to specify > >> what should be performed.
> >> What does the agb survey say about this?
> > I say put the book down and play and listen - just my 2c - ed s.
> Listening is only 1/2 of communication.
> Sn.
and the other half is play , and see what works. ed
I think the obvious problem would be "What does the arranger want me to play?"
Do I play root-4-5 or r-3-4-5?
And whether the arranger (composer, director whatever) was someone else or yourself, you'd face the same problem.
If you wrote an ultra groovy song and wrote "Xsus4" in your score, then when it came time for you to play it, you'd have to remember if you meant "sus4 or add4".
add11 or add4 would certainly be how I'd want to write or read it, depending on where in the voicing they wanted the 4th.
> >> In the jazz context, chord names are more for > >> "improvisation framework" rather than a > >> specified chord to be performed.
> >> Triad based harmony builds chords from stacking major > >> and minor 3rds on top of each other, and tend to specify > >> what should be performed.
> >> What does the agb survey say about this?
> > I say put the book down and play and listen - just my 2c - ed s.
> On Nov 9, 3:16 pm, Charmed Snark <sn...@cogeco.ca> wrote: >> ed s expounded in news:a481a716-55d6-4f47-bc00- >> a2806111e...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>>> In the jazz context, chord names are more for >>>> "improvisation framework" rather than a >>>> specified chord to be performed.
>>>> Triad based harmony builds chords from stacking major >>>> and minor 3rds on top of each other, and tend to specify >>>> what should be performed.
>>>> What does the agb survey say about this?
>>> I say put the book down and play and listen - just my 2c - ed s.
>> Listening is only 1/2 of communication.
>> Sn.
> and the other half is play , and see what works. ed
That's got it covered. So what's this newsgroup for?
Charmed Snark wrote: > My curiosity was peaked recently about the difference > between sus and add4 chords. The following is the > result of some limited resaerch:
> A lot of folks will say a Gsus (Gsus4) chord is a Gadd4, > with the 3rd dropped (also that "sus4" is redundant in > that "sus" implies the 4th unless otherwise noted like > in Gsus2).
> But then a jazz guy points out from "The Jazz Theory > Book" that this is not quite right in:
> "A persistent myth is that 'the 4th takes the place > of the 3rd in a suspended chord'. This was true at > one time, but in the 1960s a growing acceptance of > dissonance led pianists and guitarists to play sus > voicings with both the 3rd and the 4th. Play figer > 3-36 and you'll hear the Fsus chord that Wynton Kelly > plays at the beginning of Miles Davis's recording of > 'Someday My Prince Will Come". Note that Wynton plays > both the 3rd (A) and the 4th (Bb) in his voicing. Note > also that Wynton plays the 3rd above the 4th. Jazz > pinaists often include the 3rd in sus chords. Note > that the 3rd is always above the 4th."
> From this, it seems to boil down to 2 schools > of thought:
> In the jazz context, chord names are more for > "improvisation framework" rather than a > specified chord to be performed.
> Triad based harmony builds chords from stacking major > and minor 3rds on top of each other, and tend to specify > what should be performed.
> What does the agb survey say about this?
> Sn.
To include the 3rd or not to include the 3rd in a sus4 chord. Is that the question? Entirely depends on the ears, eh? I can imagine that it might just happen that the sound of the 3rd and 4th together is the defining sound of a certain piece, in which case the "add 4" as opposed to "sus 4" is important, but I sure can't think of an example. If the lead sheet says "C7" I might just play C9, C7#9, Cadd9 or even C11 (that's a C7add4, isn't it?) if the mood strikes me. If it sounds good, it is. If it sounds right, it is.
I call BS on Levine if that is who you are quoting.
Sus4 is short for suspended 4, meaning you suspend the 3rd and play the 4, or sus2, suspending the 3rd and playing the 2nd instead.
As ed points out in his predictable but true statement, "listen". Sus chords are ambiguous since there is no 3rd to define major/minor, so they can be used in lots of ways.
This ambiguity interfers with or prolongs any candence or sense of resolution, as there is no pull back to the root chord, unlike say playing a 5th to root, which has a strong pull.
It just creates kind of a floating or airy sort of sound.
An add4, or add11 (I agree with Lumpster), is very clear that the writer is wanting both the 3rd and the 4th present, which does have a very different sound, and can be either a minor 3rd or major 3rd.
Derek expounded in news:eb5d4149-5cff-4991-9d4f-c88d8efd9493 @a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> Sus4 is short for suspended 4, meaning you suspend the 3rd and play > the 4, or sus2, suspending the 3rd and playing the 2nd instead.
> As ed points out in his predictable but true statement, "listen". Sus > chords are ambiguous since there is no 3rd to define major/minor, so > they can be used in lots of ways.
> This ambiguity interfers with or prolongs any candence or sense of > resolution, as there is no pull back to the root chord, unlike say > playing a 5th to root, which has a strong pull.
Discussing this with my teach last night, the other factor is the involvment of "prepared chords" - i.e. those leading up to the sus chord. Where the fourth is including in the previous chord(s), then it points to a "sus" instead of an add4 (usually).
> An add4, or add11 (I agree with Lumpster), is very clear that the > writer is wanting both the 3rd and the 4th present, which does have a > very different sound, and can be either a minor 3rd or major 3rd.
I think I'd have agree with that. However, for sus, I can also see the point that if you are scribbling out chords for jazz, which are used as simply as a basis for improvisation, that you might then choose whether or not to include the 3rd or not.
Otherwise it would seem that one term or the other is redundant.
ed s expounded in news:6b5a5ad5-fe30-42aa-bb49- 0cbc97c54...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>> >> What does the agb survey say about this?
>> > I say put the book down and play and listen - just my 2c - ed s.
>> Listening is only 1/2 of communication.
>> Sn.
> and the other half is play , and see what works. ed
That sez experiment randomly until it works. :)
My interest in theory is to understand _why_ things do and don't work. But not just what the forefather's did and accepted, but to build on or deviate from it in a thoughtful way (i.e. deliberately by choice).
Apparently Dvorak developed several styles, and composed in both tradional an nontraditional forms. But to do that, he had to understand the elements of style he was already working with.
One immediate application of theory is to build more interesting bass lines (harmonization).
For example, a good starting point is to use root position chords at the beginning and ends of musical phrases, but otherwise use some inversions mid phrase. This has the effect of root bass notes at the ends, and non-root bass notes mid phrase. No hard and fast rules necessarily, but it does give an efficient place to start.
> ed s expounded in news:6b5a5ad5-fe30-42aa-bb49- > 0cbc97c54...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> What does the agb survey say about this?
> >> > I say put the book down and play and listen - just my 2c - ed s.
> >> Listening is only 1/2 of communication.
> >> Sn.
> > and the other half is play , and see what works. ed
> That sez experiment randomly until it works. :)
> My interest in theory is to understand _why_ > things do and don't work. But not just what > the forefather's did and accepted, but to > build on or deviate from it in a thoughtful > way (i.e. deliberately by choice).
> Apparently Dvorak developed several styles, > and composed in both tradional an nontraditional > forms. But to do that, he had to understand > the elements of style he was already working > with.
> One immediate application of theory is to build > more interesting bass lines (harmonization).
> For example, a good starting point is to use > root position chords at the beginning and ends > of musical phrases, but otherwise use some > inversions mid phrase. This has the effect of > root bass notes at the ends, and non-root bass > notes mid phrase. No hard and fast rules > necessarily, but it does give an efficient > place to start.
ed s expounded in news:8702b0a6-b38c-41f6-bc87-92f3f8ced5e7 @r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>> For example, a good starting point is to use >> root position chords at the beginning and ends >> of musical phrases, but otherwise use some >> inversions mid phrase. This has the effect of >> root bass notes at the ends, and non-root bass >> notes mid phrase. No hard and fast rules >> necessarily, but it does give an efficient >> place to start.
>> Snark
> I started as a Bass player - does that count? ed
:)
I'm not disagreeing w folks that don't wanna study theory. Many have done well enough without it. For hobbiests that feel that it is unpleasant work, then noodle on.
But I've personally [nearly] always felt it was worth learning from other ppl's success & failures. Music theory encapsulates some of that. Our present genereation(s) seem to quickly dis any old knowledge, which is short-sighted imo.
The Darwin Awards OTOH, addresses a different side of that (e.g. the "rockers who died at 27" list).
Charmed Snark wrote: > I'm not disagreeing w folks that don't wanna > study theory. Many have done well enough > without it. For hobbiests that feel that it > is unpleasant work, then noodle on.
Recall the guy I described last week that plays an "E shape" or an "A shape" chord on whatever fret. E shape on the 3rd fret = E3 (actually G Maj) A shape on the 7th fret = A7 (actually E Maj) etc
He asked me how to play an AMaj7 chord. I said "Ok, play an A chord". He did.
Then I said "Where is the A note in that chord?" My intention here, probably obvious, was to then say "Lower that upper octave A note a half step and you'll have an AM7".
But -
He didn't know where the A note was in the A chord. He not only didn't know, he was just totally confused by the question. He had no concept that an A chord contained an A note. He knew that the open strings were EADGBE and once I got him side tracked, I could say where's an A note on your open strings? to which he would appropriately pick the 5th string. But the idea that an A chord contained an A note was just totally foreign to him.
He does, by the way, play an Xsus4 chord. He calls it a "diminished". So if he played this barre chord x35563, what most of us would call a Csus4, he would call that an A3diminished. If he played that on the 7th fret it would be A7diminished.
He even plays 7th chords and names them the same way. 353433 is what he calls E73. Put it on the 7th fret and it's E77.
> ed s expounded in news:8702b0a6-b38c-41f6-bc87-92f3f8ced5e7 > @r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> >> For example, a good starting point is to use > >> root position chords at the beginning and ends > >> of musical phrases, but otherwise use some > >> inversions mid phrase. This has the effect of > >> root bass notes at the ends, and non-root bass > >> notes mid phrase. No hard and fast rules > >> necessarily, but it does give an efficient > >> place to start.
> >> Snark
> > I started as a Bass player - does that count? ed
> :)
> I'm not disagreeing w folks that don't wanna > study theory. Many have done well enough > without it. For hobbiests that feel that it > is unpleasant work, then noodle on.
> But I've personally [nearly] always felt it was > worth learning from other ppl's success & failures. > Music theory encapsulates some of that. Our present > genereation(s) seem to quickly dis any old knowledge, > which is short-sighted imo.
> The Darwin Awards OTOH, addresses a different > side of that (e.g. the "rockers who died at 27" > list).
> Snark
Ohhh believe me I also have studied a lot of theory and think it has made a world of difference – and highly recommend it to everyone! . As a teen I Studied Ravi Shankar Sitar book “my music my life” learned Indian scales and timing (Sitar) . I took several Jazz Improve classes in college - learning to improvise off charts (bass guitar) , bought numerous books on scales and cords ( trying to figure out the damn guitar ) , Had one guitar lesson a few years ago and it brought home the diatonic scale theory ( that I always scratched around at but the light bulb never went on till then.). Realized that the Blues did not follow the diatonic scale but moved more in parallel motion rather than serial motion ( for the most part) One of the best book I ever studied was Guitar Grimoire “scales – cords – progressions” ( the purple one). It was and Is way over my head but I bit off chunks and pieces as needed. ( I never was worth a damn at reading note for note though) http://www.guitargrimoire.com/products.htm
So yes by all means get all the theory you can. As It build’s confidence in what you are doing. And confidence is what putting it out there is all about. But I also just let it rip and try new thing and listen , make mistakes, & do my own thing (based on everything from the past, including Sitar and Bass when approaching the guitar) . In the beginning I tried to block it out and said “ no don’t think like a bass player you're now playing guitar” – but once I realized it added to what I was as a guitar player – It opened me up to the facts that – its just ME so don’t fight it ! - ed s.
> Charmed Snark wrote: >> I'm not disagreeing w folks that don't wanna >> study theory. Many have done well enough >> without it. For hobbiests that feel that it >> is unpleasant work, then noodle on.
> Recall the guy I described last week that > plays an "E shape" or an "A shape" chord > on whatever fret. > E shape on the 3rd fret = E3 (actually G Maj) > A shape on the 7th fret = A7 (actually E Maj) etc ... > He even plays 7th chords and names them the same way. > 353433 is what he calls E73. > Put it on the 7th fret and it's E77.
> Lumpy
That is rather sad. Even if you skip all harmonization/jazz theory, it does seem both practical and appropriate to use a common language (terminology). It not only avoids confusion, but is much more efficient.
So perhaps the "right" thing to say is to have some theory foundation in place.
Sadder still, the longer he goes on that path, the less likely he will embrace the correct terminology. It'll be a combination of being "too entrenched" and/or he'll consider himself too old to learn it now.
ed s expounded in news:004be0c3-0afe-42a1-99ee-1763eca54b69 @c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
..
> than serial motion ( for the most part) One of the best book I ever > studied was Guitar Grimoire “scales – cords – progressions” ( the > purple one). It was and Is way over my head but I bit off chunks and > pieces as needed. ( I never was worth a damn at reading note for note > though) > http://www.guitargrimoire.com/products.htm
I don't think the Grimoire is the best approach for most folks, & certainly not for beginners (too much to overwhelm folks with). But your prior background is different than the avg nube's, so you found some value in it.
> So yes by all means get all the theory you can. As It build’s > confidence in what you are doing. And confidence is what putting it > out there is all about.
How theory is applied will vary by folks as well. I am interested in the composing aspects of it- perhaps orchestral, even if only out of personal curiosity on a pc. I also have a minor pull to try some synth works.
> But I also just let it rip and try new thing > and listen , make mistakes, & do my own thing
Yep- I also have those moments on my LP & amp from time to time. Those lead to interesting little discoveries in their own right. But whatever my theory level is, that never gets in the way. My theoretical brain is not a realtime CPU.
> ed s expounded in news:004be0c3-0afe-42a1-99ee-1763eca54b69 > @c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> ..
> > than serial motion ( for the most part) One of the best book I ever > > studied was Guitar Grimoire “scales – cords – progressions” ( the > > purple one). It was and Is way over my head but I bit off chunks and > > pieces as needed. ( I never was worth a damn at reading note for note > > though) > >http://www.guitargrimoire.com/products.htm
> I don't think the Grimoire is the best approach for > most folks, & certainly not for beginners (too > much to overwhelm folks with). But your prior background > is different than the avg nube's, so you found some > value in it.
> > So yes by all means get all the theory you can. As It build’s > > confidence in what you are doing. And confidence is what putting it > > out there is all about.
> How theory is applied will vary by folks > as well. I am interested in the composing > aspects of it- perhaps orchestral, even if > only out of personal curiosity on a pc. > I also have a minor pull to try some synth > works.
> > But I also just let it rip and try new thing > > and listen , make mistakes, & do my own thing
> Yep- I also have those moments on my LP & amp > from time to time. Those lead to interesting > little discoveries in their own right. But whatever > my theory level is, that never gets in the way. > My theoretical brain is not a realtime CPU.
> So I sez, don't skimp on theory.
> Snark
agreed - theory good - - (i also "compose" to a degree now - rough cuts of some http://www.sectr5.com/original_music , and as a bass player in Marathon we complosed all our own stuff ~ 4-5 hrs worth of progressive original rock of the day ( 78- 84) in tha files somewhere - ed
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:08:35 +0000, Charmed Snark wrote: > My curiosity was peaked recently about the difference between sus and > add4 chords. The following is the result of some limited resaerch:
> A lot of folks will say a Gsus (Gsus4) chord is a Gadd4, with the 3rd > dropped (also that "sus4" is redundant in that "sus" implies the 4th > unless otherwise noted like in Gsus2).
> But then a jazz guy points out from "The Jazz Theory Book" that this is > not quite right in:
> "A persistent myth is that 'the 4th takes the place of the 3rd in a > suspended chord'.
It's true. If you want both the 3rd and 4th, it's not a 4th, it's an 11th. Regards, daveA
> ed s expounded in news:004be0c3-0afe-42a1-99ee-1763eca54b69 > @c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> .. >> than serial motion ( for the most part) One of the best book I ever >> studied was Guitar Grimoire "scales - cords - progressions" ( the >> purple one). It was and Is way over my head but I bit off chunks and >> pieces as needed. ( I never was worth a damn at reading note for note >> though) >> http://www.guitargrimoire.com/products.htm
> I don't think the Grimoire is the best approach for > most folks <snip>
I read up to about page 5 and fell asleep. That's not bad. Sometimes I'll fall asleep on the 1st page; unless it has pictures. ;-)
|
