On Jun 23, 8:37 pm, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:19 am, "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? The last three D's *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. [The "sus" chords
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 more
> > > likely to use sus4 of all of the sus/add family, that 2nds were
"unknown"
> > > and 11ths were on 7th forms and thus distinct.
>
> > Again i think you're placing to much reliance on some kind of implied
> > inversion. When you name a chord C7 you know it has CEGBb but there
is
> > absolutely no implication about the inversion. Similarly in C9 with
> > CEGBbD.
>
> > > Personally, I think
> > > C E G D should be add 2 period. "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). 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
add
> > that note, then C2 and C4 would be fine for Cadd9 and Cadd11, and
have the
> > merit of conciseness. (I've always thought "add" was clumsy.)
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.
Whew! a voice of reason is always a breath of fresh air. "Uncommon"
chord notation usually has only a few basic sources of origin. One
source is simple ignorance. Written by a (possibly very good) musician
that does not realize the conventions of the medium that he is
composing or arranging. Another source would be when a (generally)
classical mindset musician wants to "orchestrate" a specific voicing
in an improvisational genre. This is very much related to the first
and is generally not effective. If one wants something played a
certain way, then chord symbols are not appropriate means of
communication.
Often, the function of chord symbols are forgotten or confused. In
short, there are two functions. One is to give the harmonic scheme for
performance, mostly in Jazz and popular music in the form of a lead
sheet that allows the musician to have the essential information to
play a song that he is not that familiar with, or to give them a guide
as to the nature of what the song is about. In these cases, they will
always be interpreted according to the experience, training and
overall musician****p of the performer. i.e. the same set of chords
will be played differently by a country band, or by a big band
guitarist or by an be-bop musician. No matter what the notation, at
the gig, the song will take on the flavor of the group that is sight
reading the music. In these cases, the melody, the root, and the most
simple way of indicating the tones that suggest the tonality desired.
Bill Evans would have added his tones, Monk his magic, Peterson would
fly over the keys with his scales and chords etc. To even attempt to
restrict musicians to specific voicing pattern is, quite frankly,
insulting.
Then there is the legit reason for these "uncommon" chord notations.
That would be for analyzing and notating music that does not fit into
the general scheme of what musicians will be playing. Using an old
tune, like Maiden Voyage, unless one has heard the tune, or unless you
write it out, or unless you use footnotes, the four sus7 chords would
be played just as they are written. The D7sus found in the RB 1 is
enough because musicians that were playing this tune would be likely
to have heard it and would have been familiar with what this chord
meant in this context. A country musician would have most likely
strummed a D7sus chord to the melody. The RB 3, however, is written
more for musicians that do not know the conventions and in this
edition, the basic voicing patterns are indeed written out and then
the astute country musician (or any musician for that matter, I am not
picking on CW musicians) will have the tune sound a lot more as it
should even if the musician had never even heard of Herbie Hancock as
the score explains the notation.
In analyzing written (or transcribed) music, there may be a need for
"uncommon" chord symbols. The music may be "uncommon". This is
certainly true as the CPP notation needed changes and in many cases
replacement to analyze music that was "uncommon" for the time. In
these cases, not only are footnotes helpful, they are necessary and
expected along with an explanation as detailed as necessary to explain
the premise of the analyzer in his attempts to explain what is
happening. In this case, the discussion of this chord vs the other
notation is simply a study in futility. Without the context, the
function and other factors that affect the music, the "Uncommon" chord
symbols serve no real purpose. except to attempt to create a "book of
standard conventions". If this is the case, however, the symbols must
be in common usage and then one must research and see how these
symbols are used and then the book is a research of what has been done
to establish a convention, not the other way around. Simple logic and
the basic conventions of Root by the Letter or Number, the M/m
quality, the numeric additions and the alterations with the "add" or
"no" words will pretty much give more information necessary to spell
the notes of the chord.
The only confusion that should arise is when the Alpha notation is
mixed/confused with the functional RN notation. When Alpha notation is
used, there may be confusion of "note spelling" notation and "implied
function" notation. In all cases, that is why the FUNCTION and the
CONTEXT of the chords being discussed MUST be specified or there is no
correct answer.
LJS
|
