Re: 7b5, or 7#11?

On Jun 23, 2:19=A0am, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:Aow7k.230$cv5.29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> So why, when add9 existed already? =A0 =A0The last three D's =A0*are*
=
a 9th
> >> above the root!
>
> > I think the philosphy is that:
> > Sus 4 means replace the 3 with 4 (or move the 3 to 4 etc.)
> > So "add 4" should mean that the 4 being added should be adjacent to
the=
 3
> > it would have been replacing.
>
> Yes.
>
> > So sus 2 and "add 2" would of course mean the same thing.
>
> No "sus 2" means the 2 is there instead of the 3. =A0 =A0[The "sus"
chord=
s take
> their name from a "suspension" in which the 2 or 4 come from a previous
> harmony and would resolve onto a 3, but haven't quite got around to
doing
> so. <g>]
>
> > I think the confusion is that 9ths are probabaly (or at least have
been=
)
> > more common historically than 11ths, and triad forms of the past were
m=
ore
> > likely to use sus4 of all of the sus/add family, that 2nds were
"unknow=
n"
> > and 11ths were on 7th forms and thus distinct.
>
> Again i think you're placing to much reliance on some kind of implied
> inversion. =A0 =A0When you name a chord C7 you know it has CEGBb but
ther=
e is
> absolutely no implication about the inversion. =A0 Similarly in C9 with
> CEGBbD.
>
> > Personally, I think
> > C E G D should be add 2 =A0period. "9" should be reserved strictly for
=
those
> > chords that also include the 7th (or the 6th in the case of a 6/9)
>
> Well the "add" in "add9" actually means the 7th is omitted.
>
> Actually, mulling it over, I could see a case for renaming Cadd9 as C2
> (without the add). =A0 If you take your case from C6, and say that
digits=
 9,
> 11, 13 mean stack thirds on the 7th, but digits lower than 7 mean just
ad=
d
> that note, =A0then C2 and C4 would be fine for Cadd9 and Cadd11, and
have=
 the
> merit of conciseness. =A0 =A0 (I've always thought "add" was clumsy.)
=A0=
 But,
> even taking into account what you're saying about C2, this is not really
> general practice.
>
> > But I'm not going to bother trying to change the evolutionary process
> > (except in miniscule increments :-)
>
> It may happen though :-)
>
> Dave
> --
> David Webber
> Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
> For discussion/sup****t
seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.=
htm

Just as a practical matter, in terms of reading chord notation, I
mostly play big-band lead sheets, and I can't recall ever seeing C2 or
C4. Depending on context, if I saw a C2 I'd be tempted to add a 6th
and maybe a major 7th as well, since C2 looks like essentially a
"tightly-voiced C9." With a C4 I'd probably play a C7sus4 or even a
C9sus4 (including the 7th) on the 1st read-thru. So if someone is
using such notation (and I am trying to follow the conversation) they
should *also* notate exactly what is intended... else I'm unlikely to
play what you intended!

Likewise, in a chord like Cadd9 or Cadd-b10, I'm likely to try it 1st
without the 6 or 7; but many or even most pianists would automatically
add a 6th or 7th when they see a 9th or especially a 10th indicated.

"Uncommon" chord notation such as been described in this thread is
great shorthand, but as long as they remain uncommon, kindly spell out
the intended tones in the first usage, to assist those who will
encounter them when sightreading your chart, and possibly never again
encounter them. To be honest, the majority of charts I read playing in
big-bands are read once, then never again.