notating 7/4 and 4/7 chords

[rpjazzguitar]

Anybody have any insight into the proper way to notate a 7/4 or 4/7 chord?

These symbols are common in Brazilian charts. I'm aware that other charts use sus, so it would be, say, G7sus or G7sus4. You might also have Gm7sus or Gm7sus4, but I think those symbols are less common.

If they're vertical, a Berklee published guide suggests that the smaller number be on the bottom, where there are multiple extensions (not quite the scenario I'm asking about), but I've seen it the other way in published charts.

If they are superscripted, the 4 will usually be in the upper left and the 7 will be in the lower right. But, if you then rotate a little bit clockwise, you end up with the 4 on top, which is not recommended by the Berklee book.

Is there any reason to believe the visual presentation (which number is on top) has anything to do with the inversion being suggested by the arranger?

Is there a widely accepted standard reference and/or approach?

For extra credit ... how do you name D G C F, low to high?

[AllanAllen]

For extra credit ... how do you name D G C F, low to high?

G7sus/D but only in the context that all your other examples are G7, and it has no 3rd. Could be a quartal Dm7. What's that Dm7add4? I'd have to dig out my Sesame Street Theme big band chart for that.

[bako]

G7sus is very common

I like Gm7sus but convention seems to lean towards Gm11

Part of naming a structure from derives from the context it is being used and another part is how you wish for it to be interpreted, as a form of communication with a bassist and chordal players.

DGCF

most likely:
Dm7sus or Dm11
G7sus

also possible:
Bbma6/9
Ebma7(6/9)
Fma6/9
Abma9(#11)

quartal voicings are beautifully ambiguous.

[Mick-7]

I would say G7sus. If they want the 5th (D) in the bass, they can notate that (/D).

Dm7sus is not standard nomenclature, you can't be sure what it's meant to imply - that is, if it's a sus chord, it's irrelevant whether the absent third was major or minor.

Oh wait, you have the third in it - D-G-C-F - so I'd say Dm11, it contains the most essential chord tones - but the chord's function usually reveals it's proper name.

[rpjazzguitar]

I have used D4 to indicate a stack of fourths. Not standard. I made it up, based upon seeing D5 and the like on rock music charts. I have to add a note about how to interpret the nonstandard chord symbol. Once the sidemen get that it's a stack of fourths, it works fine. Except, of course, if they keep stacking past the F at the top of D G C F.

[Mick-7]

"based upon seeing D5 and the like on rock music charts."

I don't even know, D5 is what? A major triad with the 3rd omitted?

[rpjazzguitar]

"based upon seeing D5 and the like on rock music charts."

I don't even know, D5 is what? A major triad with the 3rd omitted?

It's commonly used to specify root and fifth. Look in guitar magazines with pictures of guys with beards on the covers.

Calling it a "chord" may be a stretch since chords are usually considered to have at least 3 notes.

[rpjazzguitar]

I would say G7sus. If they want the 5th (D) in the bass, they can notate that (/D).

Dm7sus is not standard nomenclature, you can't be sure what it's meant to imply - that is, if it's a sus chord, it's irrelevant whether the absent third was major or minor.

Oh wait, you have the third in it - D-G-C-F - so I'd say Dm11, it contains the most essential chord tones - but the chord's function usually reveals it's proper name.

Dm11 implies D F A C E and G. The chord I'm asking about omits A and G.

I understand that I can put the notes on a stem and they aren't too hard to read (at least in this key), but I'm still wondering about the best chord symbol to get closest to those notes.

G7sus/D gets the notes right but arguably disguises the function, which could be tonic or subdominant, more or less.

[AllanAllen]

It's commonly used to specify root and fifth. Look in guitar magazines with pictures of guys with unkempt beards on the covers.

Calling it a "chord" may be a stretch since chords are usually considered to have at least 3 notes.

I can't tell if you're joking or just this pompous. It's called power chord and 90% of guitar songs are played with them, the other 9% being cowboy chords.

[rpjazzguitar]

I can't tell if you're joking or just this pompous. It's called power chord and 90% of guitar songs are played with them, the other 9% being cowboy chords.

Huh? A poster asked about what a 5 chord is. The rest was a joke about it.

[Mick-7]

Dm11 implies D F A C E and G. The chord I'm asking about omits A and G.

Is this not the chord you referenced? - D-G-C-F. Root/4th(11th)/7th/3rd = the essential chord tones of Dm11. The 5th & 9th can be omitted, they're not essential.

I mean, you never need more than 4 notes to imply a chord.

[AllanAllen]

Huh? A poster asked about what a 5 chord is. The rest was a joke about it.

I thought you both didn’t know what a power chord was. Sorry, carry on.

[pamosmusic]

I thought you both didn’t know what a power chord was. Sorry, carry on.

Technically it's a Power Diad.

[rpjazzguitar]

I googled "chord". The first thing that came up said that a "chord" is three or more notes.

What happens when it's two notes an octave apart and a third note?

[Christian Miller]

I would normally write 7sus4 unless I’m missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

I would normally write 7sus4 unless I’m missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7sus4 works.

In Brazilian charts 47 and 74 are used. A discussion came up (elsewhere) about which number goes first, e.g. is it Gm47 or Gm74? And, do those symbols mean exactly the same thing?

And then, the issue of a vertical presentation of the extensions came up. Berklee apparently recommends that the lower number goes on the bottom. But, you don't usually see 69 chords that way, although I have seen it with the 9 directly above the 6 on one chart from a Brazilian master.

Musescore seems to like to put the 4 above and to the left of the 7. But, according to one line of thinking, you can't rotate it a few degrees clockwise. or the 4 will be above the 7, which goes against Berklee (some style book from Berklee, I can get the citation tomorrow if anybody wants it).

Anyway, it's a small point but I wondered if there's a right way to do it.

[Christian Miller]

7sus4 works.

In Brazilian charts 47 and 74 are used. A discussion came up (elsewhere) about which number goes first, e.g. is it Gm47 or Gm74? And, do those symbols mean exactly the same thing?

And then, the issue of a vertical presentation of the extensions came up. Berklee apparently recommends that the lower number goes on the bottom. But, you don't usually see 69 chords that way, although I have seen it with the 9 directly above the 6 on one chart from a Brazilian master.

Musescore seems to like to put the 4 above and to the left of the 7. But, according to one line of thinking, you can't rotate it a few degrees clockwise. or the 4 will be above the 7, which goes against Berklee (some style book from Berklee, I can get the citation tomorrow if anybody wants it).

Anyway, it's a small point but I wondered if there's a right way to do it.

Actually it reminds of figured bass (CLANG!). I don’t know if it comes from that. I know many Brazilian composers had that type of instruction. In figured breaks from the usual - like Berklee you put the larger number on top - are sometimes used to imply a melody line or specific voice leading.

I have seen something a bit similar in a non Brazilian chart - the Sher NRB’s I think. I might dig out an example.

In that case it was to underline the 4-3 voice leading in the chords.

If I saw something like G7sus4 G7 on a chart I would instantly understand how to voice it. It’s such a classic move, I assume others would feel the same.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

I would normally write 7sus4 unless I’m missing something?

Only that I think he wanted the 5th in the bass: G7sus/D (DGCF), which as I said is also Dm11.

G7sus4 is redundant, isnt it? - why sus4 rather than just G7sus?

[rpjazzguitar]

Only that I think he wanted the 5th in the bass: G7sus/D (DGCF), which as I said is also Dm11.

G7sus4 is redundant, isnt it? - why sus4 rather than just G7sus?

In this particular instance I want DGCF only. Writing Dm11 means somebody might play E and A. Also, I think calling it an 11 rather than a 4 might lead somebody to put the G on top.

If I were designing a Brazilian-like system from scratch, I might call this Dm7/4 to show that the 7th be played at a higher pitch than the 4.

It may be comparable to writing Cmaj13 when you want a simple Cmaj7.

I've done this different ways, all non-standard. One way: I wrote the notes on a stem and then changed the noteheads to a small circle with an x inside. I added a note to say that these x'ed noteheads indicate voicing, but rhythm remains ad-lib. Otherwise, the pianist is going to play it exactly where it's written and interrupt the groove.

Another way: I've also called it D4 and added a note to explain that D4 is DGCF. Once the sideman knows what I'm referring to with D4, it's easy to read and I don't have to worry about groove.

As far as I know, there's no great way to specify an exact voicing on a stem without risking having it played exactly where it's written. That is, I want to tell the comp-er, "use this exact voicing, but play the tune, including this voicing, in your own rhythm".

A friend suggests an ossia staff for this kind of information.

G7sus will probably be played as G7sus4. But you also see G7sus2 now and then, so there might be an argument for including the 4.

As far as the figured bass connection, I believe that Hermeto Pascoal writes his charts that way. I don't know enough about Hermeto or figured bass to be absolutely certain, but I know that he writes chords with a stack of numbers, vertically, to show the interval, I think, from the note below. I might be misremembering that. I think Calendario do Som (a book of his tunes in his handwriting) was written that way. It's some work to put one of those tunes into standard notation.

[Christian Miller]

In this particular instance I want DGCF only. Writing Dm11 means somebody might play E and A. Also, I think calling it an 11 rather than a 4 might lead somebody to put the G on top.

If I were designing a Brazilian-like system from scratch, I might call this Dm7/4 to show that the 7th be played at a higher pitch than the 4.

It may be comparable to writing Cmaj13 when you want a simple Cmaj7.

I've done this different ways, all non-standard. One way: I wrote the notes on a stem and then changed the noteheads to a small circle with an x inside. I added a note to say that these x'ed noteheads indicate voicing, but rhythm remains ad-lib. Otherwise, the pianist is going to play it exactly where it's written and interrupt the groove.

Another way: I've also called it D4 and added a note to explain that D4 is DGCF. Once the sideman knows what I'm referring to with D4, it's easy to read and I don't have to worry about groove.

As far as I know, there's no great way to specify an exact voicing on a stem without risking having it played exactly where it's written. That is, I want to tell the comp-er, "use this exact voicing, but play the tune, including this voicing, in your own rhythm".

A friend suggests an ossia staff for this kind of information.

G7sus will probably be played as G7sus4. But you also see G7sus2 now and then, so there might be an argument for including the 4.

As far as the figured bass connection, I believe that Hermeto Pascoal writes his charts that way. I don't know enough about Hermeto or figured bass to be absolutely certain, but I know that he writes chords with a stack of numbers, vertically, to show the interval, I think, from the note below. I might be misremembering that. I think Calendario de Sol (a book of his tunes in his handwriting) was written that way. It's some work to put one of those tunes into standard notation.

Hermeto’s system sounds very much like figured bass from your description (only difference being that figures have some shorthand conventions).

[rpjazzguitar]

Hermeto’s system sounds very much like figured bass from your description (only difference being that figures have some shorthand conventions).

I saw him work with a horn section a few years back. He sang the notes he wanted one at a time, low to high.

[AllanAllen]

Technically it's a Power Diad.

[rpjazzguitar]

Hermeto’s system sounds very much like figured bass from your description (only difference being that figures have some shorthand conventions).

https://fmcb.com.br/wp-content/uploa...Som-FMCB-4.pdf

This url has some samples in Hermeto's handwriting. I also turned up a dissertation which explains his system, which is complicated and may have evolved over time.

It looks like he was referencing from the root, not the previous note. So, I either remembered that wrong (most likely) or he did it different ways (possible, but less likely).

The dissertation explains the notation in detail.

https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewc..._dissertations

According to the dissertation some of the numbers may be based on mixolydian or dorian mode.

And, the order of some symbols may follow the way modifiers are placed after a noun in Portuguese.

My guess is that the notation has the benefit of specifying the exact voicing he wants. Every note in its proper position, without having to enter them on a single stem. Perhaps, this would be easier for someone with visual impairment.

If you scroll far enough, the dissertation has a bunch of lead sheets from Calendario translated into conventional notation.

[pamosmusic]

Whoa whoa whoa. I’m only here to make fun of you.

[Christian Miller]

https://fmcb.com.br/wp-content/uploa...Som-FMCB-4.pdf

This url has some samples in Hermeto's handwriting. I also turned up a dissertation which explains his system, which is complicated and may have evolved over time.

It looks like he was referencing from the root, not the previous note. So, I either remembered that wrong (most likely) or he did it different ways (possible, but less likely).

The dissertation explains the notation in detail.

https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewc..._dissertations

According to the dissertation some of the numbers may be based on mixolydian or dorian mode.

And, the order of some symbols may follow the way modifiers are placed after a noun in Portuguese.

My guess is that the notation has the benefit of specifying the exact voicing he wants. Every note in its proper position, without having to enter them on a single stem. Perhaps, this would be easier for someone with visual impairment.

If you scroll far enough, the dissertation has a bunch of lead sheets from Calendario translated into conventional notation.

There’s a rabbit hole in the way different languages describe musical concepts. For example in German I’ve heard ‘kleine none’ (IIRC) used to refer to 7b9. A German classcal musician I know translated this as ‘minor ninth’, which is kind of fair enough - it’s literally a chord with a minor ninth interval in it unlike what we call a minor ninth which is a minor seventh chord with a MAJOR ninth added haha. I kind of like ‘little ninth’. Cute.

There’s also the fact that the notes are named differently with B being Bb and H being B.

So for them a B minor ninth would be a Bb7b9 lol.
Also Musescore has something called ‘German style chord symbols’ and they bake my brain. I’d be interested to know whether German jazz musicians use both systems in parallel or just use the US system.

You also see some charts from the Romance language speaking world (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese etc) with the chord symbols given in fixed do solfege. Sometimes the order of the modifier and the extension are reversed too, presumably to reflect word order in those languages, so Si79b.

Anyway the only difference I can see from a quick glance between hermeto’s system and figured bass I can see is that in figured bass the figures are wittten under the bass line on the bass clef, instead of as a chord symbol (at least then there’s no issues from the language barrier haha).

The point - if there is one - is that musical staff notation is the nearest thing we have to a universal language, although with so many Berklee grads etc all over the world I imagine the modern US chord symbol conventions are increasingly lingua franca these days. It’s a shame in a way, you lose local quirks when you also gain ease of communication. But the system is limited beyond typical voicings and I expect that’s why Hermeto uses his own approach for his unique harmonic approach. He’s not the only one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk