Chord Symbol Chaos

[Billnc]

Personally, since modal harmony is static, I would use something like A dorian, quartal harmony as a note. I don't know how wrong that is.

[RonD]

Originally Posted by VersatileJazzGuitarist

Is this it:

C11? - Jazz Bulletin Board

Thanks for posting this.
I only managed to get through 8 pages, , before my head started to spin... but, I was pleased to see that musicians could debate a subject without it turning in to a "flame war". (maybe that came later.)

Cheers, Ron

[mstevenson]

Great link to another interesting post.

To me, a C11 implies playing the 11th interval at the top of the voicing as opposed to lower which I would consider it a sus. So I view it as a clue to the intended voicing.

Now that I've had to express it verbally, I realize that this is how I approach 11ths.

I'm heading back to that link you sent!

[czardas]

Originally Posted by mstevenson

To me, a C11 implies playing the 11th interval at the top of the voicing as opposed to lower which I would consider it a sus. So I view it as a clue to the intended voicing.

Hmm, I would be careful with this. There is a distinction between an 11th and a suspended 4th. The voicing isn't really so significant.

I haven't read the link, so I'm not sure what's been said there.

[mstevenson]

Originally Posted by czardas

Hmm, I would be careful with this. There is a distinction between an 11th and a suspended 4th. The voicing isn't really so significant.

I haven't read the link, so I'm not sure what's been said there.

Isn't the distinction that fact that one is an octave higher than the other?

[czardas]

Originally Posted by mstevenson

Isn't the distinction that fact that one is an octave higher than the other?

Not for me. A suspension is a note suspended over from a previous chord, although the term is used more freely today. An eleventh is a note that actually belongs to the chord. The octave in which the notes appear doesn't alter the chords construction. How you arrange them depends on what sounds good.

[mstevenson]

I feel that it also depends on how the chord is being resolved (if at all). Where do I want the focus to be; the sus resolving to the third or the 11th resolving to the 7th. For me, that basically determines what sounds good and how I will look at it.

Here is a quote from another post at another forum that I found interesting:

<quote>: You are quite right that chord symbols are not notations for voicings. Therefore, writing 11 instead of 4, meaning I presume that one wants the 4 to be above the rest of the chord, is meaningless.

Referring to the oxford school harmony book (1961) which I studied when I was a child I find the following in the chapter on dominant 11ths ... "the 11th is sometimes prepared as if it were an ordinary 4th but not infrequently it is unprepared and has the character of an appoggiatura."

Now I am not really interested a difference in the functional analysis of a C7sus as opposed to a dominant 11th, but I think there maybe a stronger case for saying that we don't need a symbol for C9sus as the dominant 11th chord already has a fairly long history. But really any symbol will do as long as it is clear, won't it?

I will continue to use 11 in my charts as I have yet to either hear a compliant or hear a problem with it being played. And I have been writing charts and transcribing charts since the 70's; both for small groups and big bands.

Everyone will have their own opinion on what is "correct" but it has worked for me. Love this discussion!!

One more closing quote I saw on that same forum:

From your beloved 'Harvard Dictionary of Music":
Quote:
The principle of superimposed thirds that leads from the triad to the seventh chord and to the ninth chord can be carried on still further, resulting in the eleventh chord (g-b-d'-f'-a'-c')

Go figure... Here is that other forum: C11? - Jazz Bulletin Board

[czardas]

Originally Posted by mstevenson

I feel that it also depends on how the chord is being resolved (if at all). Where do I want the focus to be; the sus resolving to the third or the 11th resolving to the 7th. For me, that basically determines what sounds good and how I will look at it.

Here is a quote from another post at another forum that I found interesting:

< quote: You are quite right that chord symbols are not notations for voicings. Therefore, writing 11 instead of 4, meaning I presume that one wants the 4 to be above the rest of the chord, is meaningless.

Referring to the oxford school harmony book (1961) which I studied when I was a child I find the following in the chapter on dominant 11ths ... "the 11th is sometimes prepared as if it were an ordinary 4th but not infrequently it is unprepared and has the character of an appoggiatura."

Now I am not really interested a difference in the functional analysis of a C7sus as opposed to a dominant 11th, but I think there maybe a stronger case for saying that we don't need a symbol for C9sus as the dominant 11th chord already has a fairly long history. But really any symbol will do as long as it is clear, won't it? <unquote

I will continue to use 11 in my charts as I have yet to either hear a compliant or hear a problem with it being played. And I have been writing charts and transcribing charts since the 70's; both for small groups and big bands.

Everyone will have their own opinion on what is "correct" but it has worked for me. Love this discussion!!

You make some interesting points. I think C9sus is a bit of a conundrum too, although I would shy away from arguing that it shouldn't exist. I would be more inclined to make a clear distinction between the two. My impression is that C9sus ought to exist because it has a clearly defined formula. I see it as forming part of another chord C11 (the main or parent chord). I don't make the distinction between the 4th or 11th as regards voicing (at least not in this case), but rather as regards formula.

C11 => 1, 3, 5, b7, 9, 11
C9sus => 1, 4, 5, b7, 9

Between the two formulas there is a difference of just one note. It is true that alternative symbols could be used, and may in some situations be more practical. The question in my mind is this: Does a chord symbol represent a clear set of notes as defined by it's construction, or does it represent a number of note combinations from a select group? I think both are applicable depending on the intended purpose.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by VersatileJazzGuitarist

Is this it:

C11? - Jazz Bulletin Board

Yep. 11 pages

[JonR]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

11th chords can have a third, "sus" for the most part means leave it out.

So that leaves us with function mostly, but as anything, that can be debated.

"Sus" chords had to resolve until May of 1965. (Maiden Voyage)

Or July 1964, with the Beatles' "Hard Days' Night".
(Mind you, there's infinite debate about exactly what that chord is... and they didn't exactly exploit its implications.)

[JonR]

Originally Posted by VersatileJazzGuitarist

And for the truly obsessed, I just discovered a long Wikipedia article on the subject. Looks like it does a fantastic job of exploring the ambiguities and varieties.

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but there is a serious error in that page. The triangle symbol doesn't refer to a major triad - it refers to a major 7th extension.
The maj7 may not always be included in the chord when played, but the implication is that the chord's 7th would be major and not minor, if it had one.
IOW, it would (at least should!) never be used to indicate a dom7 chord, or even a major triad on V.
A major triad is indicated by the root letter only - always. "maj" or "M" is superfluous, and risks confusion.
That leaves "m", "min" or "-" to refer to the lowered (minor) 3rd, and "maj" (or the triangle, or more confusingly a capital "M") to refer to the raised (major) 7th. That's the neat economy of chord symbol language: the shortest possible names are reserved for the commonest chords and extensions.
"C7" - major triad and minor 7th - common.
"Cm(maj7)" (or variations) - minor triad and major 7th - rare.

In "Cmaj9", "maj" refers to the 7th, not the triad or the 9th. (Both the latter are assumed to be major; other symbols would be used if they weren't.)

Apart from that, I agree, it's a good job.

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by JonR

Or July 1964, with the Beatles' "Hard Days' Night".
(Mind you, there's infinite debate about exactly what that chord is... and they didn't exactly exploit its implications.)

Fadd9 with a G is the bass.

3 0 3 2 1 3 (fret the low G with the thumb)

Played on a 12 string...I have sources (and by sources, I mean other folks' hearsay) that that's how George pulled it off live.

On the record...well, you know...

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by JonR

Or July 1964, with the Beatles' "Hard Days' Night".
(Mind you, there's infinite debate about exactly what that chord is... and they didn't exactly exploit its implications.)

Years ago Guitar player magazine had an article about this using mathematics or somthing and decided that there was a Piano note in there as well. I think it was a low G. They wound up deciphering what the chord was or so they say

I forget all the detail and I tossed the issue ages ago.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Fadd9 with a G is the bass.

3 0 3 2 1 3 (fret the low G with the thumb)

Played on a 12 string...I have sources (and by sources, I mean other folks' hearsay) that that's how George pulled it off live.

On the record...well, you know...

I think I read the same source. The author (forget his name) reported GH as saying he played it as Fadd9 on a 12-string. But I think there's a bass D, and apparently George Martin played something else on the piano.

On 6-string, I've always played it as G7sus4:

3 5 3 5 3 3

- gets close enough.

You can also hear it as the first two chords of the song's sequence played simultaneously.

Whatever the exact nature of it, the effect (IMO) is of an unresolved sus chord.

[mstevenson]

Back again! I've got another one:

It's a C chord that is voiced from the fifth string.

Notes are C G Bb D G

X 3 5 3 3 3

Root, no third, fifth, seventh and ninth; how should it be named? On charts that only I would be using, I refer to it as a C9(no third).

[JohnW400]

Gm/C

[mstevenson]

I like your answer.

[Gitarguy]

Chord notation can be quite a challenge for the guiarist. Especially if you sight-read a lot of arrangements like the band I'm in. Just about the time I think I've seen all the possible variations, something else will come up.

Almost as aggravating is the many different engraving styles. Usually, every chart will look totally different in style from the last, (unless you're playing from a compiled book), none of the publishers seem to be able to agree what jazz charts should look like.

[Reg]

There are many methods to imply what harmonic area the composer/arranger wants... when one wants a specific voicing... you notate it out, when one wants a specific lead line you notate it out. If your writing for a specialized group, you use their notation. It's part of the job to be aware of stylized notation... Piano as compared to guitar slash chords as compared to standard inversions. There is no standardizes system in use. The closest we have is "Standard Chord Symbol Notation" by Carl Brandt and Clinton Roemer from the mid 70's, which is used by many. It has problems with calling b13 a #5, but still is the best published system in use. I think I'll put one together with explanation of why and how labeling works, with sections of stylizes examples... that sound fun

[max chill]

G7+9 = ? I've seen it used for G9aug5 (G9#5) and for G7#9, depending on the engraver.

[Gitarguy]

Max,

I would read that as G7#9 every time. I have seen G9+ for an augmented chord, problem is with consistency and uniformity. I guess the most important thing is awareness and flexibility.

[Reg]

I agree with Gitarguy... the symbol should be placed before the target. Check out the chord symbols guide in front of all Shur fake books, pretty good example of thought out system. That being said I have gigs where I read all the time... There's nothing universal... I use my ears and wisdom... what little I have ... Reg

[Gitarguy]

Originally Posted by Reg

That being said I have gigs where I read all the time... There's nothing universal...

And that's exactly the problem we face. After a while you get used to seeing something different on every chart, and the fact that any given chord is likely to be written down in 5 or 6 different ways.

[Reg]

Yes and No... for the majority of the time charts are pretty good, they don't stand out. It's just the bad ones get all our attention... I don't usually have problems... like you said we understand what's implied...and most of the time by the second or third time through a chart ... we don't need it anymore. And besides I need something to bitch about besides my playing...

[Gitarguy]

Originally Posted by Reg

And besides I need something to bitch about besides my playing...

I don't gripe about the horns when they play out of tune, and they don't gripe about the chords I mess up.

[Reg]

I love getting on alto players shit....

[Gitarguy]

Originally Posted by Reg

I love getting on alto players shit....

Well, it depends...not everyone has a sense of humor. In any case, our system seems to work.

[Reg]

Originally Posted by Gitarguy

Well, it depends...not everyone has a sense of humor. In any case, our system seems to work.

That is the truth...

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Reg

There are many methods to imply what harmonic area the composer/arranger wants... when one wants a specific voicing... you notate it out, when one wants a specific lead line you notate it out. If your writing for a specialized group, you use their notation. It's part of the job to be aware of stylized notation... Piano as compared to guitar slash chords as compared to standard inversions. There is no standardizes system in use. The closest we have is "Standard Chord Symbol Notation" by Carl Brandt and Clinton Roemer from the mid 70's, which is used by many. It has problems with calling b13 a #5, but still is the best published system in use. I think I'll put one together with explanation of why and how labeling works, with sections of stylizes examples... that sound fun

I'll look forward to seeing that.