Chords without the 3rd

[pinbridge]

Hello,

I often come across some chords like sus2, sus4 or the power chord being categorised as major. While I understand that some may tend to resolve to a major chord or that they are substitutes for a major chord, why don't I see them categorised as minor or a category of their own?

Thanks.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Good question.

It's sometimes talked about that way to give some context for how the other notes relate and the context of the key surrounding the chord. Chords don't happen in a vacuum, and the "would-be" third of the chord is going to be major or minor, usually, depending on key of the moment etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They do have their own categories -- sus2, sus4, power chord.

Why they're categorized as major -- I reckon that depends on the context. For instance, playing rock, a I-bIII-V-bIII progression played using power chords will tend to sound minor because the bIII chord imposes that upon the progression.

Pete Townshend and Alex Lifeson built careers as rock guitarists using the ambiguity of sus2/sus4/power chords to resolve to either major or minor. Being a fan of both players, I don't even think of those sorts of chords as major or minor -- in a sense, I think of them as passing chords with their tonality defined by the resolution chord.

[pinbridge]

Thanks Matt, Thumpalumpacus. I was really thinking of chords as they appear in, say chord dictionaries. There's supposedly no context in this case. The most puzzling to me is why the power chord often finds itself in the major category, when it could be played in lieu of a major, minor, or dominant chord!

[Jonah]

Thanks Matt, Thumpalumpacus. I was really thinking of chords as they appear in, say chord dictionaries. There's supposedly no context in this case. The most puzzling to me is why the power chord often finds itself in the major category, when it could be played in lieu of a major, minor, or dominant chord!

Tradition ... if you look back in teh histyory when the major/minor relations were under process of formation you'll find that major always had priority... Major cadence was considered to be more stable than minor one.
If you look for period instructions on thorough bass.. you'll find that whenver there's no figure on bass in cadence it should be a major chord (even if the piece is mostly in minor).
This could be found also as written out in many baroque pieces - when the minor piece is finished with major cadence.

'Power chord' also has history... check classical symphonies or quartest.. using octaves or 5ths has approximately the same function as modern 'power chord'... and it is almost always associated with major triad.


I think it is mostly a sort of 'cultural musical hearing'

Our ears take major 3rd as something that is there a priori... meaning if there's no 3rd there should be a major 3rd.

So minor chord is much more characterictic... it should have minor 3rd to be identified correctly.

Dominant chord (if you take it as separate cathegory) should have minor 7th.

This is just as an idea how to explain what you asked

[cosmic gumbo]

I think you ear/brain wants to hear major when it's missing a third. I find it hard to sell a convincing minor chord without the minor third.

[Lobomov]

Pete Townshend and Alex Lifeson built careers as rock guitarists using the ambiguity of sus2/sus4/power chords to resolve to either major or minor. Being a fan of both players, I don't even think of those sorts of chords as major or minor -- in a sense, I think of them as passing chords with their tonality defined by the resolution chord.

Same era I guess .. but one of my personal favorites Andy Summers did the same thing with The Police. A lot of Sus chords and rootless 9 chords instead of both major and minor chords.

[pinbridge]

I think you ear/brain wants to hear major when it's missing a third. I find it hard to sell a convincing minor chord without the minor third.

I just tried that with a six-string barred power chord (without the 3rd on the G string). I played it for a while all the notes together and then arpeggiated in various patterns. Then I followed it with either a major third or a minor third (the missing one on the G string). I can't say I was any more convinced that the major or the minor third was the note I was expecting!

Sometimes I feel all the music theory in the world is just made to fit the circumstances rather than the circumstances follow the theory!

[christianm77]

Sometimes I feel all the music theory in the world is just made to fit the circumstances rather than the circumstances follow the theory!

And that's how it should be.

[Boston Joe]

I just tried that with a six-string barred power chord (without the 3rd on the G string). I played it for a while all the notes together and then arpeggiated in various patterns. Then I followed it with either a major third or a minor third (the missing one on the G string). I can't say I was any more convinced that the major or the minor third was the note I was expecting!

Sometimes I feel all the music theory in the world is just made to fit the circumstances rather than the circumstances follow the theory!

2 points:

1. Replace the word "theory" in your head with "description."
2. A lot of the names of things are what they are for historical reasons. (Ex. A Pentatonic scale has five notes. A hexatonic scale has six notes. Shouldn't a diatonic scale have two notes?)

[Thumpalumpacus]

And that's how it should be.

Exactly. Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive, the way I value it. It's useful to tell myself or others what has been played, but writing with theory in mind is a good way to write a song that sounds by-the-numbers.

[docbop]

Sometimes I feel all the music theory in the world is just made to fit the circumstances rather than the circumstances follow the theory!

People wrote of played the music first, then theory writer come along and makeup labels and rules. Don't most things in history happen this way, one person innovates create something new, then another comes along can creates labels and makes up rules to do it again, and last schools codify it so they can make money teaching it to others. Usually the innovators aren't too happy with the ones that try to codify their creations.

[JPG]

Hello,

I often come across some chords like sus2, sus4 or the power chord being categorised as major. While I understand that some may tend to resolve to a major chord or that they are substitutes for a major chord, why don't I see them categorised as minor or a category of their own?

Thanks.

In classical music a sus chord almost always anticipates a dominant (7th chord) chord. In jazz I believe they're usually associated with dominant chords too, though they don't necessarily need to resolve as it happened 99% of the time in baroque/classical harmony.

Personally I hear them that way too, as falling under the dominant category and not as a substitute for a major or minor chord; in that sense the sus4 is supposed to be related to a major third, whether we're talking major or minor harmony.

[docbop]

Reading the thread I had a question about Sus and was putting my Google Foo to work and came across this page that may be of interest to some of you. Now back to doing some more Google-age.

Understanding suspended chords | Anton Schwartz - Jazz Saxophone

[pinbridge]

Thanks docbop. The idea of having a sus chord and adding the 3rd back in confuses me. In the meantime, I came across this chord: D-7sus4. It made my head spin a little faster!

[pinbridge]

2 points:

1. Replace the word "theory" in your head with "description."
2. A lot of the names of things are what they are for historical reasons. (Ex. A Pentatonic scale has five notes. A hexatonic scale has six notes. Shouldn't a diatonic scale have two notes?)

You might be confusing the prefix "di" with "bi". Diatonic has a different meaning which has nothing to do with "two". Look up its etymology.

[Gilpy]

I've always wondered how to notate this chord: 0 7 x 7 7 7 (usually the bass would play the low E)

I'm sure it has a name...?

[mr. beaumont]

I've always wondered how to notate this chord: 0 7 x 7 7 7 (usually the bass would play the low E)

I'm sure it has a name...?

Well...I'm a use the "C" word again...context?

Bm/E or D6/E?

[medblues]

I've always wondered how to notate this chord: 0 7 x 7 7 7 (usually the bass would play the low E)

I'm sure it has a name...?

Bmadd4/E, E7sus2, D6/E ?

[pinbridge]

I've always wondered how to notate this chord: 0 7 x 7 7 7 (usually the bass would play the low E)

I'm sure it has a name...?

Good question. Given the number of Es, I'd say the root is E. As to the rest, I'd venture to say: E7sus2. But if I understood what a minor sus chord is (!), I might even say E-7sus2.

[Gilpy]

Well...I'm a use the "C" word again...context?

Bm/E or D6/E?

It kind of subs for an Em9 in the following progression, but I like to leave out the 3rd :

(?), Cmaj7, Am7, Bm7

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks Matt, Thumpalumpacus. I was really thinking of chords as they appear in, say chord dictionaries. There's supposedly no context in this case. The most puzzling to me is why the power chord often finds itself in the major category, when it could be played in lieu of a major, minor, or dominant chord!

I agree except for the dom inclusion ... the b5 tanginess that happens between a nat3 and a b7 is what to my ears defines that chord. I'd find a root/five PC pretty unsatisfying in that sense. Blues played with power chords just ain't blues, to my ears. It's rock with blues pretensions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks docbop. The idea of having a sus chord and adding the 3rd back in confuses me. In the meantime, I came across this chord: D-7sus4. It made my head spin a little faster!

It's a great setup for returning to a Gmaj tonic. I've used that trick (with a brief reference to V7, returning to V7sus4) in a couple of songs.

[Jonah]

Well...I'm a use the "C" word again...context?

Bm/E or D6/E?

I second that...

By the way - one of my best teachers in classical theory (fantastic musician and theorist) always told me: 'music is much more complex than any descrition... the whole charm of music is ambiguity of any element... when we try to put one and single lable on these elements we can unconconciously limit implication of it...
so do not hezitate to call them as many names as you can...)))'

[docbop]

I second that...

By the way - one of my best teachers in classical theory (fantastic musician and theorist) always told me: 'music is much more complex than any descrition... the whole charm of music is ambiguity of any element... when we try to put one and single lable on these elements we can unconconciously limit implication of it...
so do not hezitate to call them as many names as you can...)))'

That sound like why the old Jazz masters never talked much about music, ask them a question they played you an answer and left it at that. As one put it it once it's like asking someone to describe the color green, you can't you can only experience it for yourself.