Levine: sus4 chord includes the 3rd

[ksjazzguitar]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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)

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[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]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

What is Sus and Phyrigan Chord? - Jazz Bulletin Board

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

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

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.