-
. . . 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."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 . . .
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.
-
02-08-2011 12:55 PM
-
Crazy piano players!
-
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.
-
A triangle with one side missing. Who is this Levine guy anyway?
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
-
Maybe ...
-
That's an Escher triangle, right?
C-E-G-B-D-F sounds more like slush than sus.
-
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
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
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.
-
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 Originally Posted by Ron Stern
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-------
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
Well I'm all for giving more musicians a job
-
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. Originally Posted by JohnW400
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
-
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.Last edited by ejwhite09; 02-08-2011 at 04:10 PM.
-
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.
-
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. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
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.
That works too. It would be more clear and more consitant with pop/jazz chord notation. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Peace,
Kevin
-
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?
-
I think this is what he is saying. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
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."
-
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
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
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.
-
What justifies changing the accepted definition? Use.
-
So, it's gone from neologisms to neo theorisms. So, you like this book? Originally Posted by Ron Stern
-
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. Originally Posted by Reg
-
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. Originally Posted by Aristotle
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.
-
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. Originally Posted by Reg
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-08-2011 at 10:48 PM.
-
Yes and the usage has changed. The name implies a harmony that is temporary and will resolve. Originally Posted by Reg
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.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale