Naming 3-note voicings of IV chord

[matt.guitarteacher]

Ok. Real egg head stuff here I guess.

These are mostly passing chords for melody with triads. I wouldn't worry about what things like this are called usually, but I'm writing down for something, and it got me thinking.

Bb-D-F, Bb-D-E??, Bb-D-F

So, if you actually did want to NAME the middle one, is it Bb(add#11)? Sounds like real nerd stuff.

and this one....F-Bb-D, F-Bb-E??, F-Bb-D

It's basically some kind of suspension, but I wouldn't be inclined to name it that way necessarily?

[bako]

Egghead at your service.

Bb(add#11) is lengthy but reasonable.

Bb D E can be many things, context dependent, however....

you stated that it is a IV chord and is surrounded on each side by Bb D F

so F natural is a given assumption as is A natural from the major 3rd or F

so it is an incomplete Bbma7b5 which as Reg likes to remind us is most often a Bbma7#11 because of it's derivation.

Years ago I tried to organize my thinking around triads and sevenths.

I was frustrated by the fact that only 4 structures were considered proper triads, major, minor, diminished augmented.
What then were these other structures that 7th chords were built upon?

1 3 b5
1 4 5

These two can also accept 7 or b7 yielding:

ma7b5
7b5
ma7sus
7sus

also a bit less clear is how to think about m7#5 which is the same as MaAdd9

Anyway 1 4 5 already had a name, suspended and 1 3 b5 I simply think of as mab5.
I coined a phrase for these extra non-official triads (a crime in some circles).
I called them prefixes.

Many classical theorists lay off of naming every structure and define it in relation the "real" chords.
There are some advantages to this streamlined approach but sometimes it's the fleeting details that
create what is unique about the sound.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Egghead at your service.

:-) hah. I was talking more about me, for asking in the first place.

Bb(add#11) is lengthy but reasonable.

Bb D E can be many things, context dependent, however....

you stated that it is a IV chord and is surrounded on each side by Bb D F

so F natural is a given assumption as is A natural from the major 3rd or F

so it is an incomplete Bbma7b5 which as Reg likes to remind us is most often a Bbma7#11 because of it's derivation.

Years ago I tried to organize my thinking around triads and sevenths.

I was frustrated by the fact that only 4 structures were considered proper triads, major, minor, diminished augmented.
What then were these other structures that 7th chords were built upon?

1 3 b5
1 4 5

These two can also accept 7 or b7 yielding:

ma7b5
7b5
ma7sus
7sus

also a bit less clear is how to think about m7#5 which is the same as MaAdd9

Anyway 1 4 5 already had a name, suspended and 1 3 b5 I simply think of as mab5.
I coined a phrase for these extra non-official triads (a crime in some circles).
I called them prefixes.

Many classical theorists lay off of naming every structure and define it in relation the "real" chords.
There are some advantages to this streamlined approach but sometimes it's the fleeting details that
create what is unique about the sound.

Thanks, bako. Appreciate your thoughts.

[christianm77]

I'm increasingly with the classical theorists. Play movement, not chords yadda yadda.

[JonR]

I'm increasingly with the classical theorists. Play movement, not chords yadda yadda.

Hey, that's as good as your recent scale quote!

So, scales don't exist - and neither do chords! This is real zen stuff.

IOW, "scales" and "chords" are things that seem to emerge when we stop that "movement"; when we freeze it in order to examine it. But freezing it kills it, of course. And we can't make it come alive again just by sticking the right scales and chords back together - any more than we revive a dismembered corpse by stitching it back together.

Am I thinking along the same lines here?

I.e., essentially, chords are momentary snapshots of points along what is a series of moving and interlocking melodies. Right? Where once there was polyphony and counterpoint, now we have these "modules" - harmonic building blocks we can just slot into place, to save us worrying about the complexity of counterpoint. But proper harmony is not "blocky" like that. And that's why jazz uses so much chromaticism and chord alterations, to try to get back to that fluid mobility between chords - to enhance the movement, to oil the machine.

[christianm77]

Hey, that's as good as your recent scale quote!

It's not mine - Coleman Hawkins via Barry Harris.

So, scales don't exist - and neither do chords! This is real zen stuff.

IOW, "scales" and "chords" are things that seem to emerge when we stop that "movement"; when we freeze it in order to examine it. But freezing it kills it, of course. And we can't make it come alive again just by sticking the right scales and chords back together - any more than we revive a dismembered corpse by stitching it back together.

Am I thinking along the same lines here?

I.e., essentially, chords are momentary snapshots of points along what is a series of moving and interlocking melodies. Right? Where once there was polyphony and counterpoint, now we have these "modules" - harmonic building blocks we can just slot into place, to save us worrying about the complexity of counterpoint. But proper harmony is not "blocky" like that. And that's why jazz uses so much chromaticism and chord alterations, to try to get back to that fluid mobility between chords - to enhance the movement, to oil the machine.

Haha just play notes man!

Actually I've got into scales a lot recently, and I am basing my playing heavily on scales. However, I'm not thinking about scales in that sort of CST - scale on a chord thing, but rather taking diatonic keys (with potential alterations) and using these to generate harmonies. I think I got into that from looking at the Figured bass stuff, but also practicing a lot of intervals through keys and scales.

But it all comes from the relationship of notes to the tonic - both diatonic and chromatic... So, for example - 4-3 in the major key drives the majority of cadences. 7-1 obviously too - but in jazz much weaker function. b6 (BH) is big. b3-3 - that's a good one obviously for jazz.

And of course you can take these composite intervallic formations and turn them into arpeggios too... Arpeggios are just a melodic expression of a frozen vertical instant. That's how they are used in classical music.

It's kind of like Quantum Mechanics - is it a particle or a wave - well both. Is it a scale or chords - well both. Depends how you measure it.

Oh god I used QM as a metaphor. I've become one of Those.

Anyway early days yet...

[jordanklemons]

Hey Matt... these are always tough questions to answer. Really comes down to what you're trying to convey, to whom, and for what purpose.

If it's purely for the purposes of simply naming these 3 note fragments for a guitarist and there's nothing else happening, I personally would NOT go with the add#11. To me, that would imply a full 1-3-5 triad with the #11 added. So if I saw JUST the name, I would assume that this was a 4 note chord and play it as such.

I would be more likely to name that with a b5 triad. It's a little sticky with that, as you're using the natural 5th, then moving down to another note, and then back... so I like the idea of thinking of that other note not as an altered 5th, but instead as some type of 4th (the #11) as it visually makes the motion happening a little more obvious and shows the relationship happening. But again, this brings back the problem that the #11 is generally an added note and doesn't necessarily replace the 5th.

One possible fix to that (if you're looking for super specific) could be to call it a Bb#11(no 5th) [or BbMaj#11(no 5th)] but really, that's a little silly to me. While more specific, it's a little confusing for sight reading and would take someone a minute to interpret.

Hence why I'd probably just screw the #11 altogether and stick with the flat 5. So (again depending on the situation) I'd probably stick with something like...

Bb - Bb(b5) - Bb

The 2nd set is maybe a little trickier because now the 3rd is missing, so this definitely needs to be SOME type of sus chord, but it's not a tradition sus 4 obvious, as the 4 is raised and I don't recall ever seeing a sus#4. Anyone else ever see that? Regardless, that may possibly be the best option here. It's not the b5 because you have the 5 in the bass. It's not an add because the 3rd is missing. So it's gotta be a sus.

I would probably go with...

Bb/F - Bbsus#4/F - Bb/F

It's a bit untraditional, but it's probably what I'd do. Otherwise, you'd have to do the (no 3rd) thing and name it...

Bb#11(no 3rd)/F Or Bb#4(no 3rd)/F

Which, again, is just starting to get a bit silly. To me.

[christianm77]

The E in the original example isn't a suspension.

A suspension (SUS) (sometimes referred to as a syncope^[9]) occurs when the harmony shifts from one chord to another, but one or more notes of the first chord (the "Preparation") are either temporarily held over into or are played again against the second chord (against which they are nonchord tones called the "Suspension") before resolving downwards to a chord tone by step (the "Resolution"). Note that the whole process is called a suspension as well as the specific non-chord tone(s):

For example - E7 Asus4 A
So the E is more properly a lower neighbour tone.

Of course how you notate it is up to you. I would probably just write Bbmaj7(#11) for the whole bar.

A serious point here is how limited the chord symbol system is when reflecting the use of non chord tones in harmony. As an exercise take some Purcell and try writing out a chord chart for it.

[jordanklemons]

Of course how you notate it is up to you. I would probably just write Bbmaj7(#11) for the whole bar.

I would personally be a bit hesitant to agree with a Bbmaj7#11 name for the first example, depending on the situation. the Bbmaj7#11 is going to tell the player that the F note and the A note are part of the tonal landscape you want to create. If you want that tonal landscape happening, and within that landscape want one of the musicians to play the specific voicings you shared - or if you want that type of vibe for a solo section - then that could be an easy solution. But if you're looking specifically for just a Bb-D-E tonality... then asking for a BbMaj7#11 is going to tell the musician to play something different from that. And, the inclusion of the A note that's not part of the voicing aside, if you're really trying to emphasize that F-E-F movement, including the F note in the name for the voicing meant to get away from the F note and move towards the E note may cause the reader to note properly emphasize that movement. You may end up with voicings where the F note remains unmoved and they just add the #11 an octave above it for a beat... which won't really offer the half step movement your looking for.

Again, all this depends on the situation and what exactly you're trying to accomplish here. What's the instrumentation? Do you want a larger tonality happening within which this specific movement of voicings takes place? Or do you simply want everyone to only be working off these 3 note chunks? Etc.

[christianm77]

I would personally be a bit hesitant to agree with a Bbmaj7#11 name for the first example, depending on the situation. the Bbmaj7#11 is going to tell the player that the F note and the A note are part of the tonal landscape you want to create. If you want that tonal landscape happening, and within that landscape want one of the musicians to play the specific voicings you shared - or if you want that type of vibe for a solo section - then that could be an easy solution. But if you're looking specifically for just a Bb-D-E tonality... then asking for a BbMaj7#11 is going to tell the musician to play something different from that. And, the inclusion of the A note that's not part of the voicing aside, if you're really trying to emphasize that F-E-F movement, including the F note in the name for the voicing meant to get away from the F note and move towards the E note may cause the reader to note properly emphasize that movement. You may end up with voicings where the F note remains unmoved and they just add the #11 an octave above it for a beat... which won't really offer the half step movement your looking for.

Again, all this depends on the situation and what exactly you're trying to accomplish here. What's the instrumentation? Do you want a larger tonality happening within which this specific movement of voicings takes place? Or do you simply want everyone to only be working off these 3 note chunks? Etc.

I'd write it out in staff notation if I required it to be played.

If I wanted someone to solo on it, I would abstract the harmony.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Thanks for the replies. It's not for a jazz application. It's simply non-jazz chord melody grids for simple tunes, using 3-note voicings. Think Danny Boy or any number of (especially Irish) tunes with #11 melody. I'm putting a name above, and wanted something which implied the difference between IV and I. I like it being a #11 personally to contrast similar melodic movement on the I chord.

I guess the main thing is not having a 7th. Bbmaj(#11) feels really clean and simple to me, for the whole IV thing, but if it doesn't have an "add", does that kind of imply dominant? Is the "maj" with parentheses around the (#11) enough? I guess it doesn't particularly matter since there's not a real standard convention for these type of things?

[jordanklemons]

Yeah I kind of got the sense that this wasn't necessarily jazz. Not that jazz always has to have the 7th anyways. I've definitely played jazz charts that had C5 and F mixed in next to G7#9b5 chords. I used to ask the band leader straight up for clarification... hey man... do you want a legit F here? Or just any type of F? F6? FMaj7? F lydian? I got enough dirty looks from composers telling me, "I want what I asked for. If I wanted a 7 or a 6 or extensions, I'd write it down. Play me an F chord," or "Play a C5 like I wrote." I don't even ask anymore. I assume if someone took the time to write out something, THAT'S what they want.

There are SOME standardized rules that I've seen... though not everyone knows and follows them, so I suppose they're not fully standardized. But once I learned the more "official" rules from some of my teachers in my masters program, I've started noticing just how common it is to see them the "correct" way in officially published charts, software notation, etc. Things like always putting the highest extensions first and then moving down through the lower numbers (one of the things that got me thinking about chord construction from the top down rather then the bottom up)... or always putting the 7 for a dominant 7 chord and THEN putting the extensions, UNLESS the first extension is not altered.

E7b9b5 vs
E13b9

Because the 13 is natural, you can drop the 7. Otherwise you run the risk of... wait! Is is an Eb root note with a natural 9?! Or is it an E root note with a b9?! Aaaaaahhhhh... I don't now what to do!!

That said, the inclusion or exclusion of the "add" does not affect the implication of whether or not there is a 7. The add simply means that the 3rd is still included. A Csus2 would be C-D-G... a C(add2) would be C-D-E-G. Sus replaces the 3rd, add includes the 3rd. Of course you would never say sus9. But some people might say add9. I don't like that. The idea being that it's NOT a 7 chord, it's just a C chord, but the 2 that's being added is up above the chord in the next octave. To me, I don't necessarily care about the octave or register it's in. If there's no 7, I think of it as a 2. I don't hear a huge different in tonality or function between a 2 hiding in the middle of the chord vs sitting up on top of it. So I just always write add2... but I sometimes read add9... more rarely though. Either way, what you're talking about doesn't imply a 7 for me. Others may see it and think there's a 7. And it definitely doesn't imply a dominant 7, as the word Maj would never imply a dominant 7... a major 7 possible, but not dominant. And again, because the extension is altered (SHARP 11), you'd have to put 7 before it to follow the rules. So you'd have to write Bb7#11. BbMaj(#11) would, to me, be read as a FULL Bb major triad (including the F note) with the #11 added into it as a 4th note. Hence why I mentioned the Bb(b5), as it conveys that there is no F natural note. But again... we're arguing over some pretty minute details at that point... and if you wrote it your way and told me why, I'd never think to argue with you... I'd get it and be more than happy to move forward and play some music with it.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Great post. Thanks.

So I just always write add2... but I sometimes read add9... more rarely though.

Yeah, That's interesting. I read a lot of non-jazz published charts with my church gig, and the main hangup is with having to explain to pianists about handling the 3rd with symbols like Dsus2 versus Cadd9 etc. You have to explain that it mostly doesn't matter. It's just a really specific transcription of an original recording where the guitarist voiced it according to limitations with open acoustic guitar voicings. :-)

Something I've seen a lot more of lately is things like D(4), to account for lead lines where the 3rd isn't replaced, or where other instruments are playing the 3rd or whatever.

I think I like BbMaj(#11) for the original question. It evokes the basic idea of playing a Bb triad with piano left-hand while playing an F-E-F or D-E-D type melody.

Thanks for all of your thoughts.

[jordanklemons]

I think I like BbMaj(#11) for the original question. It evokes the basic idea of playing a Bb triad with piano left-hand while playing an F-E-F or D-E-D type melody.

Aaaaaaahhhh... yeah this is what I wasn't 100% sure about that completely answers the question. As guitar players, we generally have to pick and choose which parts we'll play, so we don't always see the WHOLE harmonic picture the way a band leader or a pianist might. Trying to name something as a standalone part is tricky, which is why I started off by saying that it really all depends on how it's being used and what other people are doing. If there's nothing else going on and you don't want any other notes being played by anyone else, I would personally feel weird naming it with a #11, as that implies the F natural is still present. Which means the pianist is likely going to still have the F natural ringing, and it means the bass player (especially in non jazz or just latin or groove jazz) is likely going to be playing the root and natural 5th... which you may not want. As opposed to the b5 which lets everyone know to avoid the F natural.

But you're showing us the melody notes, and you're planning to have a piano player sustaining out a Bb major triad, that answers the question. The F natural note is still present, so it's definitely a #11. Might not even bother notating it in that case, as it's function as more of a tension note, and not a stable note in the melody that needs to be notated within the chord. But if you wanted to anyways, I would definitely agree that it's a #11. Then you just have to decide whether you want to go Bbmaj#11 or Bb(#11) or something else. I'd probably go Bb(#11) to avoid anyone getting confused and adding a maj7. But again, that's really up to you. I would also just write Bb to denote a Bb major triad/chord... whereas some people would specify Bbmaj. At that point it's sort of just personal taste.

[Vladan]

Can't read this much text as many posts are really wordy so sorry if already put this way ...

If it's IV chord, and if it is Bb, then the key is F. Since it,s b5 sound, b5 in F is Em7b5.

So, "Bb D E" in F, I d call ...

Em7b5, ...

optionally adding
... /Bb (no 3rd).


Sent from VladanMovies @ YouTube

[christianm77]

Great post. Thanks. Yeah, That's interesting. I read a lot of non-jazz published charts with my church gig, and the main hangup is with having to explain to pianists about handling the 3rd with symbols like Dsus2 versus Cadd9 etc. You have to explain that it mostly doesn't matter. It's just a really specific transcription of an original recording where the guitarist voiced it according to limitations with open acoustic guitar voicings. :-)

Something I've seen a lot more of lately is things like D(4), to account for lead lines where the 3rd isn't replaced, or where other instruments are playing the 3rd or whatever.

I think I like BbMaj(#11) for the original question. It evokes the basic idea of playing a Bb triad with piano left-hand while playing an F-E-F or D-E-D type melody.

Thanks for all of your thoughts.

I think for that kind of folk guitar it's big and clever to have chords with no 3rds and lots of droning open strings. Alternate tunings used by many players are obviously based around that - DADGAD and so on.

[Vladan]

Oh, it's a folk song? Then I'd call it C79


Sent from VladanMovies @ YouTube

[matt.guitarteacher]

OK. This is real nerd stuff, but I'm kind of fascinated by how much harmonic information is conveyed by just 3 notes. I'm always trying to figure out how my ears are filling in whatever. I think if it's got some movement, you don't need much. These are just arbitrarily stacked 3-note voicings, reading from a lead sheet. Non-jazz holiday stuffs.