-
Sorry, Jake, call me old fashioned but if you're going to start inventing 17ths then you've lost me. Where I come from it stops at 13 and the chord makes sense.
UNLESS I've entirely missed the point and we're supposed to be having fun trying to decipher a hypothetical chord. In which case the apologies are all mine
-
08-25-2018 07:58 PM
-
Here's another audio example - sus4 with 3 - really nothing terrible unconventional...sus4 with 3rd | Soundslice
To my ears it's not a dominant eleventh - it doesn't become dominant when the E is introduced. That might make sense in a sort of limited 'text book mindset' but doesn't actually reflect what is heard and what the sound is.
-
If one doesn't want to spell it out in notation (although I think it best in such a case) one arranger's convention that I'm familiar with would use symbols like the ones below, as opposed to "add 3". They tell you the base chord plus the tensions that you want added. It doesn't tell you the voicing, unfortunately.
C7 (11,13)
- OR -
(11,13)
C7
Note: the C7 should be centered under the other characters but the text editor here on the forum keeps erasing my spaces.Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 08-25-2018 at 08:59 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
And if so, do you think the implication was clear that if a 3 is present it should be voiced higher than the 11?
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Like this thing...
Sorry it's a mess... chords that go nowhere.
-
Originally Posted by Lionelsax
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Anyway, have I seen it? No but I'm not exactly mister veteran jazz man, hehe.
Of course if this were an arranger's work he/she might include the symbol but of course would use notation because each player would have to read his/her note. But if this is just for a lead sheet or list of changes well then no notation, I guess.
I think that pianists and guitarists need to have their approach to voicings settled when dealing with complex symbols, and often times simplify them (another problem which motivates spelling it out).
And with regards to the implied placement of the 3rd up top? No, not necessarily at all.
I have no doubt that Reg here on the forum could lend some expertise, both from a guitarist's and arranger's perspective.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
The 3 on the top, I get that's the tricky thing that is uncommon to have in a leadsheet.
I guess I'm thinking of it like, we often voice 3/5/7 variants lower than 9/11/13 variants when they are potentially half step, major seventh, or flat 9 apart depending on how voiced. e.g. in a 7#9 we don't don't voice the #9 in a lower octave than the 3rd, in a maj7#11 we don't voice the #11 in a lower octave than the 5, in a dominant 13 we don't voice the 13 in a lower octave than the b7, etc.
It helps us avoid b9 intervals but also in a case of a 7#9 chord, voicing the #9 in a lower octave than the 3 could make the chord ambiguously major/minor
I think there's a similar thing at play here - for the sound I'm talking about, to my ears voicing the 3 in a lower octave than the 4/11 makes it ambiguously suspended/dominant, whereas voicing the 3 above the 4 makes it more obviously a 7sus4 sound - to my ears at least. I don't really think of a dominant eleventh chord as 'a thing' even though it theoretically exists
but the tricky thing in the name is that in the other examples I gave, the 9/11/13 is typically not voiced in a lower octave than the 3/5/7 (if there's risk of them being b9 apart) but in this case we'd want the 4/11 voiced below the 3.
-
around 5:20 here is a good example. Targeting the F# over D7sus4 voicing left hand.
-
If you want to put the 3rd in a 7sus4 voicing, you have to put it on top of the sus4. Otherwise you have a b9 interval, which has no business in a 7sus4 chord.
Ex.
bottom to top ------->
R, sus4, 7, 3
-
Originally Posted by joel paul
-
Hey also, regarding the examples I gave, for anybody who was having difficulty following the logic, origin, or organization:
#1 7sus4 with 3 example | Soundslice
it's just essentially Bm7/E to Bm9/E, to Bm11/E, to Bm13/E, then to E7"alt" - (E7 with a b5 and sharp 5, or b5 and b13, whichever spelling you prefer) then to Amaj9
That example is pretty directly related to my point - the sus sound is accessed through Bm7 variations, but the Bm7 sounds get more extended as you go (m7, m9, m11, m13.) when you get to the m13, which reveals the G#, to me it still feels like an 'extension' of the sound we have been hearing, as opposed to a change form an E7sus sound to an E dominant sound.
It's common to hear V7sus4 to V7 to I, in jazz it's often a substitute for a ii V I. e.g. Bm7/E to E7 to Amaj7, essentially same thing as E7sus4 to E7 to Amaj7. In this case there were 'extensions,' so to speak (I guess that is what is being debated) on the E7sus4, then altered tensions on the E7, then resolving to a normal old Ama9.
Also the melody on top is just going up in thirds.
#2 sus4 with 3rd | Soundslice
This is more assuming a 'modal tune' kind of context - room to stretch out over a longer vamp of C7sus4 tonality. Intentionally made to be very simple and very clear - intentionally not trying to be super elaborate or hip. The chords harmonize a simple melody as the top voice, but are meant more so as something that might be used to accompany a soloist. The maj3 is introduced at the end, trying to create enough of a feeling of 7sus4 that the E does not make the ear think of dominant. Changed chords as it was just the melody/harmony I heard in my head.
-
Read through the whole thread with some interest, as I play in two jazz orchestras, so I spend quite a few hours a week reading/playing jazz guitar charts, which are by nature, 95% chord notation.
I noticed more than a few misconceptions about what is implied by certain chord names/notation/nomenclature. Chord notation is generally identical for guitar and piano. Chord names do NOT imply voicings, that is something that needs to be understood. A thirteen chord does not have to put the 13 in the highest voicing, it's all about context and voice leading. Chord names are interpreted by the musician to fit together in the way deemed appropriate for the situation.
If you want to dictate the order of the intervals and how they're voiced, you must use notation, not chords.
I tried to create a chord name that would result in the intervals being ordered the desired way, but there would always be an alternative voicing with guitar/piano that would be at the discretion of the player.
On guitar and piano, there are always more than one way to play/voice a chord.
The best I could determine might be Gm9(13)/C. It calls for F, as the b7 is always implied in a m9 chord.
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
One thing about intervals and their order:
Most would not voice a 7#9 with the #9 in a lower octave than the 3. It's just understood/accepted. It's easier to have conventions around more common chords. In this specific case, I think (subjective I know) if the chord were voiced that way there would be ambiguity as to whether it's a dominant chord with a #9 or a m7 chord with a major third. Obviously only one of those options has an accepted name. But when we listen to the sound, there's potential for it to be pretty dicey.
Back to my 1 5 b7 (9) (13) (1) 3 sound, maybe at some point this suspended sound would be common enough that are conventional practices in chord symbols and voicings.
I like your symbol, Gm9(13)/C. Might cause a double take, but I think given the conventions of reading lead sheets, it can work.
Thanks again
-
Jake -
Before it was a C chord and now it's a Gm chord with C in the bass. Well, whatever's convenient, I guess.
By the way, your chord has nothing to do with quartal harmony. Quartal chords go up in 4ths - C F Bb Eb Ab etc. Your chord has a G and a natural E. It's not quartal.
If I had to play this chord idea, I'd do it like this (2 options). It sounds nice.
And if I had to name it I'd call it a C13sus4. Probably.
C13sus4 Guitar Chord | C 13 Sus 4 Chord Chart | Standard Tuning
-
F major scale/C omit D?
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Come on, the things you describe is quartal chords.
-
Originally Posted by Lionelsax
It's just nonsense really. That's why it's taken nearly 70 posts to name a few notes. And it's still not clear!
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
C F B E A D G, that's quartal, you have all these notes.
If you play G C E, you will say... Oh no it is not a major chord, there is no 3rd but a 4th, no 5th but a 6th...
That's the none sense.
With all my respect, with humour, I feel a lot of people live in a tire and try to invent the wheel.
-
The OP's chord is not a quartal chord.
You can get all his notes from the F major scale in 4ths starting with C:
C F Bb E A D G C
but the chord that he gave us does not follow that pattern
C G Bb F A E
And he wanted those notes to be in that order, especially with the E on top. So, if you just want to grab any old notes and juggle them about and call it a chord, fine. But it's invented nonsense. Chords are chords because they have designated intervals which give them their flavour and function. Without that they're just musical gobbledegook.
You may as well grab some letters and insist it's a proper word.
HBRDOUTC
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Though we might not all agree on whether a 7sus4 can have a maj3 and still be called a 7sus4, I hope we can agree that a 7sus4 can have a 9 or 13, and that the fifth, like in most chords in a jazz lead sheet context, is not essential, and its presence or omission does not typically change the chord name significantly.
So all that being said, that means that even without the E we might get a lot of options with a lot of names, that are all essentially the same type of harmony:
C Bb D F = Bb/C = C9sus4
C G Bb D F = Gm7/C = C9sus4
C Bb D F A = Bbmaj7/C = C13sus4.
C G Bb D F A = Gm9/C = C13sus4
C Bb F A = C13sus4.
C G Bb F A = C13sus4
C G Bb F = C7sus4
C Bb F = C7sus4.
So in the context of this sound, yes it might be expressed as a slash chord. To me, in standard practice if we see any of the following: Bb/C, C7sus4, C9sus4, C13sus4, Gm7/C, Gm9/C, they are all indicating the same basic sound.
Regarding the issue of the quartal designation, it's not one that I think is very accurate or useful in this context. In some scenarios, (it's clearer with 3 and 4 note chords) we may refer to chords that could be arranged in diatonic 4ths as "quartal" even if they are not voiced in 4ths, perfect or otherwise.
So, for example your voicing C F Bb E is stacked diatonic 4ths within key of F. But depending on context those notes may still be considered a quartal structure or coming form quartal harmony even if they are re-arranged, like Bb C F E. However in my experience I've seen this designation used when organizing chord voicings into different categories of sounds, for ease of study in practice, but I haven't seen it used on a lead sheet or in the context of naming a chord alongside other names like m7, 7#5b9, etc. If I were looking at a lead sheet and the chords said "Am7 - - - D7 - - - Gm7 - - - - C quartal" I wouldn't know exactly what the composer intended.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Originally Posted by Lionelsax
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
By the way #1, those voicings are essentially the sound I am referring to, though I think having the 4th voiced so low, and right after the root, does make the case a little weaker for 'this is obviously a sus chord.' To me, a very similar chord, voiced from low to high, could be C G C F Bb E, possibly with an additional A on top. To me this is more clearly a 13sus4 chord that also has a maj3.
I'm glad you found/we agree on a voicing that is not an in fact extremely dissonant or random or what not. In some posts you seemed to be saying that the sound I am describing is so specific, dissonant, and uncommon that it wasn't worthy of discussion. I'm glad you explored a bit and maybe might be closer to agreeing with me that this is not some obscure contrived harmonic scenario, but actually a sound that's very easy to come across.
By the way #2 I think those chord naming calculators that you've referenced a few times (first from Power Tab, then from Jam Play) are not good resources. They are using some math and programming to come up with the forms, many of the voicings are not actually reflective of their names, many of the names are not actually reflective of the voicing. It's not like, a reference chart made by an experienced arranger who understands harmony as well as how harmony is typically communicated.
-
I guess in general in these discussions, when the initial reaction we have is to object to something, I think it makes sense to sometimes be open to the possibility that there's just information/concepts we're not aware of yet. I apologize that I know that comes off condescending, but I think a lot of 'heat' in this thread is in part from folks who just haven't been exposed to a certain concept/sound before, and then might be rejecting the validity simply because they are unaware.
On another forum a guy was insisting vehemently that you can't play a V7b9 to lead to a tonic major chord, only to a minor chord. I can understand being at an early point in harmonic studies where this might seem true, but it seems more beneficial to me to start with the premise that maybe there's just something I'm not aware of yet.
1979 L5 CES - Sweden ~$7k
Yesterday, 03:38 PM in For Sale