Levine: sus4 chord includes the 3d

[Aristotle]

I have no problem with what you said, John. We all have to come up with coping mechanisms if are going to try improvising or composing with these sounds.

[Ron Stern]

Originally Posted by bako

For me it is a challenge at times to pick a chord symbol that steers toward the desired voicing.

Isn't that what the staffs are for? When you want to specify particular notes?

I begin to see why KS insists on separating chord definition from chord voicing. It never occurred to me that they were associated in the first place. A chord definition is like, a set of ratios, no more. Since it has to have a name, it should be a name that doesn't cover anything else. That way, if you add things, it's easy to see what is the added part.

What other chord definitions imply the voicing?

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

I have no problem with what you said, John. We all have to come up with coping mechanisms if are going to try improvising or composing with these sounds.

I didn't think you did


Ron,

I think slash chords 'might' but not in all cases. Bbma7/C for a C13 sus4 voiced C Bb D F A. But this might not mean the same thing to all players. SO , I agree whole heartedly with your staff comment

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

But wasn't that the point when they did Kind of Blue? To break out of the box of functional harmony?

You seem to be saying that functional harmony and tertian harmony are the same thing - they're not. You can have tertian harmony without functional harmony. (In fact those "So What" chords can be thought of as "fourthy" voicings of m11 chords since they are not true quartal chords.)

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

Isn't that what the staffs are for? When you want to specify particular notes?

Musical staffs are a beautiful thing.
At the same time I am interested in learning and or developing an understandable language of symbols that can indicate varying degrees of generalities to specificity.
I know a symbol is unsuccessful when a skilled musician is steered toward a musically incorrect realization.
Suspended chords that incorporate a major 3rd is a sound that I like and is one of those gray areas regarding naming convention,
at least to me.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by bako

I know a symbol is unsuccessful when a skilled musician is steered toward a musically incorrect realization.

Again, this is based on the faulty assumption that the symbol steers the musician towards the realization. Considering that there are probably over 50 common voicings for a C7, you would need 50 different symbols just for that chord type to do what you want. Considering that there are a dozen possible chord schemas (including extensions and ommisions) and probably a 20 possible chord families (including alterations.) In order to do what you want, we would need over 10,000 different chord symbols (or unique combinations of lexical elements of the symbols.) That is just not feasible and it is not what chord symbols were meant to do. They are just intended to show the skeletal harmony and let you know what notes are available.

Originally Posted by bako

Suspended chords that incorporate a major 3rd is a sound that I like and is one of those gray areas regarding naming convention, at least to me.

For most people, it is not a gray area because the standard definition is that a sus chord has no 3rd, that is the defining quality. We say that there is no gray area because that is simply a misapplication of the term and therefore a mislabeling of the chord.

Peace,
Kevin

[Ron Stern]

Let's come at this another way. If you write X7, doesn't that mean that the triad can be in any inversion? So just writing X7 you haven't specified a voicing. That's not a problem, that I'm aware of.

Seems to me all you want in a chord definition is the root and the rest of the notes in relation to the root, counting from the root up, regardless oh how you end up playing it. It is the very fact that those specifications don't change is what allows you to be more specific with additional symbols, because of the simplicity and invariability of the basic definition.

[lionelmessi123]

If you've ever tried to play some Chick Corea or Donald Fagen voicings you'll know the guitar version never sounds exactly right.

[Reg]

I played a Big Band gig last night... a few of the latin charts had... Gbmaj#11/F, one had F11b9, another one used F7susb9.... they were all implying basic phrygian note collection, with or without the nat.3rd... Reg

[Aristotle]

I think I got it. That's Phrygian from the lowest note of the chord, F. But probably not as part of a cadence in the key of Db. Whew!

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

I think I got it. That's Phrygian from the lowest note of the chord, F. But probably not as part of a cadence in the key of Db. Whew!

The phrygian thing is a bit confusing since it has nothing to do with a minor 7th b9. There is a real interesting thread about this here:

What is Sus and Phyrigan Chord? - Jazz Bulletin Board

I Always thought the notation E Phrygian in the RB always meant play quartal chords from the Phrygian mode. It appears to mean 7sus4b9 or or as Vic Juris mentions an Fma7b5/E which gives a E7sus4b9 (sans D)

Here's a voicing that works with open strings and isn't too difficult on the higher frets





-----0---------7-------------------------------R
-----0---------7-------------------------------5
-----2----------9-----------------------------sus4
-----3---------10------------------------------b9
-----5---------12------------------------------7
-----0---------7-------------------------------R

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

. . . some people started adding the 3d, which is a new chord, but because we like to appear trendy, we say no, the old definition must go, it's now a myth. The new chord is not new, it's standard. The formerly standard chord is a now a myth.

I didn't read the whole two pages here, so this might seem out of place. I was at a pianist's place last night and he had the book open to the pages that the OP quote was from.

I have studied Mark's books and I now see some problems in it, like everyone else...

He thinks the b9th is the last dissonant interval. He "avoids" it whenever possible.

The b9th is between the 3rd and 4th in a basic chord, etc.

By putting it up an octave above the 4th in a sus4 inverts into a maj7 interval, not an "avoid" interval. Therefore I think Mark felt like he could not suggest not using it since it contradicts his last dissonant interval idea.

I still think it sounds like dookie if sustained.

[Ron Stern]

What you say is true for all I know, but doesn't address the question.

The definition of sus4 has been stable for some time now. Mr. Levine finds some notes that he doesn't like to play over it. That calls for the definition to be changed?

He finds some notes that aren't commonly played over it, but are interesting. That calls for the definition to be changed?

If so, what will we name what used to be called sus4? Or do we have to do away with it? Why? If there's something wrong with it, it hasn't been a problem in a shipload of music so far. Were all those people wrong?

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D

The b9th is between the 3rd and 4th in a basic chord, etc.

Is that according to Levine? Or has someone moved the b9?

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

What is Sus and Phyrigan Chord? - Jazz Bulletin Board

Now that I have seen this, I might not be back.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Is that according to Levine? Or has someone moved the b9?

I think he meant the interval from the major third up to the perfect fourth, if you voice it as a minor ninth interval. Actually, I was assuming that if a pianist was playing both the major third and the perfect fourth, he would have them a minor second apart, for crunch.