Levine: sus4 chord includes the 3d

[Ron Stern]

"A persistent myth is that "the 4th takes the place of the 3rd in a sus chord." This was true at one time, but in the 1960's . . .

. . . 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.

So what is the name now for a sus4 chord without the 3d? The Unicorn? Kraken? Thor? Zeus? Do I have to go back through all my music and add the 3d to all sus4 chords?

Not to mention the fingering problems.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Crazy piano players!

[Banksia]

I don't think it will apply too much to guitarists, as Ron said, for simple practical reasons. If you've ever tried to play some Chick Corea or Donald Fagen voicings you'll know the guitar version never sounds exactly right.

Guthrie Govan once did a lesson on two-handed tapping chords to get some of these voicings - it's certainly doable in the opening verse of a CM.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

.So what is the name now for a sus4 chord without the 3d?

A triangle with one side missing. Who is this Levine guy anyway?

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Maybe ...

[Aristotle]

That's an Escher triangle, right?

C-E-G-B-D-F sounds more like slush than sus.

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah,

Guitar and piano have completely different timbres. The pure timbre of the piano allows them (IMHO) to get away with things that we can't. The range probably helps too.

Peace,
Kevin

[docbop]

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.

So what is the name now for a sus4 chord without the 3d? The Unicorn? Kraken? Thor? Zeus? Do I have to go back through all my music and add the 3d to all sus4 chords?

Not to mention the fingering problems.

An 11th chord.

Levine usually references recorded music to support his statements, what did he reference? What page in Levine is the quote from, I image there is more to the statement.

[JohnW400]

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.



Not to mention the fingering problems.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. After all what is the suspension all about? I was taught that 4 is the suspension and resolves it to 3. So If you already have a 3, then what? The SUS suffix means to do something to the 3rd

I think if you have a 7sus4 with a third in it then you really have an 11th voiced, however.

Even if you want to name a quartal chord (C F Bb E for eaxmple) it's still an 11th by virtue of the E (IMO)

I'm not sure how I would name this chord but I wouldn't use the term SUS 4 (maybe add4)








-----------------------------
---f---6----------f---6-------
---e-- 9----------e---9-------
--------------or--Bb--8-------
---g--10----------g--10------
---c---8----------c---8-------

[Ron Stern]

Mr. Levine (p. 46) defines the chord and does not limit his definition. If formerly it took 4 kazoo players to play a sus4, it now takes 5.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

Mr. Levine (p. 46) defines the chord and does not limit his definition. If formerly it took 4 kazoo players to play a sus4, it now takes 5.

Well I'm all for giving more musicians a job

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

I'm not sure I really agree with this. After all what is the suspension all about? I was taught that 4 is the suspension and resolves it to 3. So If you already have a 3, then what? The SUS suffix means to do something to the 3rd

That is a good point. I'm sure John understands this, but just to clarify to the noobs, the "4 is the suspension and resolves it to 3" refers to classical theory and in jazz we typically don't think of suspensions that way. But it is the origin of the term and explains why we think that "The SUS suffix means to do something to the 3rd" - so, in pop/jazz chord terminology, by definition the 3rd will not be present in a sus chord (Whether sus, sus4, sus2, 7sus4, etc.) What Levine is talking about is an 11th chord where the 3rd has not been omitted (as it typically is) and the 9th is.

Looking at his examples in his The Jazz Pianist Book (p.24), I notice that the 3 is always above the 4 - a Maj7 is less dissonant than than a m9. These chords, Gsus4(add3), could also be thought of as FMaj7#11/G and suddenly the confusion lifts (He'd already used G7sus=F/G already, I don't know why he didn't simply apply it here.) To me that is a better explanation than reinventing the meaning of the word "sus" to explain this one chord.

Also note that his words are, "Jazz pianists, however, often voice the third with a sus chord... [emphasis added]" Note that he is not talking about guitarists, vibists, or arrangers - it's pianists that can do this. As I said before, pianists seem to be able to get away with more adventurous dissonance than we can.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

In the Jazz Theory Book, Levine doesn't really give much reasoning for the inclusion of the third in the sus4 voicing, he basically says, it started because 'dissonance became more tolerable.'

And, yeah always remember he's writing from a pianists point of view. It's not a jazz book for guitarists, if you're not using it for piano, its much more a textbook than a pratice book.

[Ron Stern]

You can play whatever you want. You can't ask the world to accept without question whatever definition you like. That's infantile.

The question is whether the definition of a sus4 chord is such that it includes the 3d, not whether on occasion someone includes it. I would think those people would be scrambling to stick their new name on their new chord.

What justifies changing the accepted definition? What, exactly? "Because I like to think of it that way" doesn't qualify. "Because things change" doesn't either. This isn't a change which no one can account for, this is a change you urge on the world.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

What justifies changing the accepted definition? What, exactly? "Because I like to think of it that way" doesn't qualify. "Because things change" doesn't either. This isn't a change which no one can account for, this is a change you urge on the world.

I agree completely. But that is what a lot of jazz people like to do. Part of it is the anti-intellectual vibe. Part of it is the streak of individualism that runs through jazz. Part of it is that jazz people don't really police the community as well as they do in the classical world.

I wish that jazz people would stop making up new definitions, especially when old ones will do. I still say, the G11 (with 3 included and 9 excluded) or FMaj#11/G is a better explanation than G7sus(add3) - the first two options do not require any new theory. But people think that it makes them smarter if they can invent their own theory and/or terminology.

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to have the 3rd, you could just use (add 4) instead of (sus 4) the way they do with (add 2) versus (sus 2). ...

That works too. It would be more clear and more consitant with pop/jazz chord notation.

Peace,
Kevin

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to have the 3rd, you could just use (add 4) instead of (sus 4) the way they do with (add 2) versus (sus 2).

Or is Levine just saying that since the '60s, piano players (especially) have been playing the 3rd more often in sus 4 chords?

[Banksia]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Or is Levine just saying that since the '60s, piano players (especially) have been playing the 3rd more often in sus 4 chords?

I think this is what he is saying.

I only got this book last week and, while I find his ideas interesting, his written English is confusing. Every paragraph seems to need the inclusion of "some players play it like......" or "you can try this if you want."

[ksjazzguitar]

But even if that is what he is saying, we are saying that it is still a mislabelling - the standard definition of a sus chord is that it has no 3rd. If it does have a 3rd, then there are other already in use terms for it. There is no need to redefine "sus chord" and change it's defining property in the process.

It would be like me say, "I have a car. But it has no engine, or cabin. It only had two wheels and it moves my rotating pedals activated by the users legs." Uh, why redefine "car"? Why not just call it a bicycle? To me, that's what Levine has done.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

You can play whatever you want. You can't ask the world to accept without question whatever definition you like. That's infantile.

The question is whether the definition of a sus4 chord is such that it includes the 3d, not whether on occasion someone includes it. I would think those people would be scrambling to stick their new name on their new chord.

What justifies changing the accepted definition? What, exactly? "Because I like to think of it that way" doesn't qualify. "Because things change" doesn't either. This isn't a change which no one can account for, this is a change you urge on the world.

Ron,

To a lot of us, it's an 11th. All the theory books I ever read show the 11th as containing the 3rd. Doesn't say how to voice it, just that it contains a 3rd.

Nowadays we've seen some unusual chord names here (Ask Timscarey). That's nothing new. An honsestly once you get past the sevenths there's always a chance of misinterpretation. (Hell, we got that now with things like sus2, sus4 and C5 ). misinterpreting the intention of the chord name will probably go on past my lifetime.


A similar argument has been going on for a long time concerning why use 7sus4 instead of 11. This post seems to be about the opposite. I'll bet there's a huge thread on it over at All About Jazz. (for a more instrument diverse opinion)

Maybe a member that posts there as well as here could bring it up over there just to see what the non guitar players think.

In the end though, when I see 7sus4 I know to leave out the 3rd. If the soloist want's it, he can have it.

That being said I have also played the 11th with the 3rd on top. Here's two I've used (but I call them 11)






11 and with a 13th

----12-------------12----------------------------
----8--------------10--------------------------
----10-------------10----------------------------
----8--------------8---------------------------
----10-----------------------------------------
----8--------------8---------------------------




This may be where naming them in multiple triads (polychords) or Compound 7th chords (Fma7 over C7) start coming handy.

[Reg]

What justifies changing the accepted definition? Use.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

new chord.

So, it's gone from neologisms to neo theorisms. So, you like this book?

[Ron Stern]

Originally Posted by Reg

What justifies changing the accepted definition? Use.

Simplistic at best. But even by this criterion, I got about seven pages of evidence here, not more than three days old, that Mr. Levine's asserted changes are not "used". sus4 without the 3d is alive and well, indeed it's a "persistent myth" as he describes it himself.

[Ron Stern]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

So, it's gone from neologisms to neo theorisms. So, you like this book?

Yeah, kind of, so far. New ways of looking at things. But he makes it much harder than it need be. He forfeits his credibility to no good purpose that I can see. On technical grounds his re-definitions are questionable and for teaching purposes they are disastrous even if the technical grounds are later established.

Why re-define? I struggle not to conclude that it's mainly for money, and that's a drag when you sit down to learn some music.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Reg

What justifies changing the accepted definition? Use.

Yes, but we're not talking about a mass movement of usage here, but one person unilaterally redefining a word. And (as is all too often true in these cases) there is no need since there is already terminology that will cover it. Not only is there no need for the expansion of the definition, it also lacks logic as it contradicts the very essence of the definition. This is the same old taxonomic looseness that I'm complaining about all the time - definitions keep expanding and blurring into each other out of laziness.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

Originally Posted by Reg

What justifies changing the accepted definition? Use.

Yes and the usage has changed. The name implies a harmony that is temporary and will resolve.
Suspension resolution still happens but the chord is also sometimes treated as an entity unto itself that need not resolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having some fun. Here's a short sequence starting with one of John's voicings.
I squeezed in as many Sus with Major 3rd as I could.
Functionally it is just a V7 I progression.
The C13Sus resolves to the C7b9.
The FMa7Sus Bb note resolves upward to the gentler B of FMa7#11.

In 3/4---every chord or note gets 1 beat except where indicated

C X Bb F A E-----X X Db Gb C F-----X X C F# B D
(C13Sus)---------(DbMa7Sus)-------(CdimMa7)

X X Bb E F D-----X X Db E G C-------X X X X Bb X
(C9Sus)----------(C7b9)----------------------------

X F Bb E A X-----C X X X X X--------C X X X X X
(FMa7Sus)------------------------------------------

X F B E A X (dotted half note)
(FMa7#11)-----------------------------------------

X F Bb E A X-----C X X X X X--------C X X X X X----------(C F Bb E A could also be C13Sus but I hear F as the root)
(FMa7Sus)------------------------------------------
.
X F B E A X (dotted half note)
(FMa7#11)-----------------------------------------

Does anyone know the codified names for different 4th chords, they could apply to a few of these?
For me it is a challenge at times to pick a chord symbol that steers toward the desired voicing.
I will gladly take any suggestions for better names for these chords from anyone for who this is a simple matter.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by bako

Yes and the usage has changed. The name implies a harmony that is temporary and will resolve.

Not in jazz it doesn't. Not when it is part of the chord symbol. That is considered the stable harmony and does not need resolution and often isn't. Don't confuse what the name means to classical people and what it means in pop/jazz terminology.

Originally Posted by bako

Suspension resolution still happens but the chord is also sometimes treated as an entity unto itself that need not resolve.

That I agree with. But I think if you start talking about the classical definition of "suspension" and try and use that as a definition of "sus" chord - then you are going to confuse a lot of people. "Sus" in pop/jazz chord symbols has nothing to do with tones that need to be resolved in the classical sense. It might end up being resolved, but so can just about any other note that is not part of the triad and any of them might be not be resolved. The chord symbol provides no information in that respect.

Maybe I'm quibbling, but it's what I do best.

Originally Posted by bako

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

Again, I will repeat that chord symbols do not tell voicing, beyond the bass note. Any system someone might have is just their own. If you want a specific voicing, you have to invent your own secret code or just write it out. Again, if there are 50 possible ways to voice a C7, then how are you going to encode all that data into a chord symbol? Chord symbols are just meant to be the bare bones of the chord, not everything you might want to know. That's what notation is for.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by bako

Yes and the usage has changed. The name implies a harmony that is temporary and will resolve. Suspension resolution still happens but the chord is also sometimes treated as an entity unto itself that need not resolve.

In jazzy harmonies sometimes the sus resolves and sometimes it doesn't.

I can't think of examples of standards with the 3rd and 4th used in the same chord. Stuff like you mentioned: F-Bb-E-A comes across to me as quartal, not sus (thus more "modal" than "tonal" as some say).

The basics that cover 90% or so -
-The 7sus or 11th is usually played as a triad built on the 7th degree: eg A-G-D-B
-On a II chord, the sus note is the root of the V. So, these don't seem to resolve.
-On a V chord, the sus note is the root of the I. When it doesn't doesn't resolve, people describe the effect as "floating." (I guess what was suspended didn't fall). You can hear this at the end of the intro of Just -The Way You Are: A-G-B-D becomes D-F#-A-D.
-When V7sus resolves it can takes the 9th with it: A-G-B-D to A-G-Bb-C#.
-You can futz around "chromatically" with these moving the roots in minor thirds etc., and find "cool" sounds.

FWIW, a Dm9-G13 with the E on top, comes across as an unresolved sus if you want to hear it that way.

I am just not seeing this - putting a third back into a sus chord - as a fertile field. I notice in one of the other current Levine threads, his E7susb9 doesn't have a third.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by bako

Does anyone know the codified names for different 4th chords, they could apply to a few of these?

For me it is a challenge at times to pick a chord symbol that steers toward the desired voicing.
I will gladly take any suggestions for better names for these chords from anyone for who this is a simple matter.

I'll take a shot at this tonight. Looks interesting.

The names of the Quartal chords. Now there's a good question.

I learned the the 3 note variety by type. Perfect -Perfect for C F Bb. Perfect-augmented for C F B. and Augmented -Perfect for C F# B

The inversions were called 2-4 and 4-2. Usually the lowest note was doubled an octave higher ( C F G G ex.) [Tons of stuff to do with these but I'll save that for a different post]

Once you got past the 3 note version what next? I'll have to check out the Pesichetti book and see if he has anything on it. Maybe the Walter Piston book has something on it


Anybody?

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

IOnce you got past the 3 note version what next?

But wasn't that the point when they did Kind of Blue? To break out of the box of functional harmony? So that numbering system isn't going to explain these easily?

You could number the SoWhat chords.

[JohnW400]

Yes

But they're not the only quartal variety. They get more complex as you add notes and then as you change the parent scale.

The So What chord is DGCFA or p4 p4 p4 m3.

The Dorian version of a six note D4 would be D G C F B E. Which is different from the 6 note aeolian version D G C F Bb E.

Here is the 6 note version from the 7th mode Melodic Minor G# C (B#) F# B E A

You get a diminished 4th this chord is a G#7#5 +/-9



I don't think functional harmony when moving to compound intervals. (4,5,7 and 9ths) but 4ths present a challenge as they have become so prevalent in music.

All these compound intervals may resemble tertian harmony but they are an exact way of voicing the notes and may or may not have a third.

This is what I think they mean when they talk about getting away from functional harmony . (I may be wrong here)