Question:
hey guys how would use theory to find these chords:
?add9
?sus2
?sus4
?2
?9+7
?9-7
Thanks.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Joseph352 hey guys how would use theory to find these chords:
?add9
?sus2
?sus4
?2
?9+7
?9-7
Thanks.
add9 = add the ninth note
major triad + ninth = I III V IX - ninth is note immediately after octave
so for C that is C E G d
sus2 = remove third and add second
I II V
so for C that is C D G
sus4 = remove third and add fourth
I IV V
so for C that is C F G
2 is usually a shorthand for sus2 but can mean add9
Don't know about 9+7 and 9-7. Are you sure you don't mean 7-9 and 7+9?
If that is the case then 7+9 means take a dominant 7th chord and add aa augmented (sharpened) 9th
I III V bVII #IX
so for C that is C E G Bb d#
7-9 = take the dominant 7th and add a diminished (flattened) 9th
I III V bVII bIX
so for C that is C E G Bb db
Hope that helps
John
Answer:
Originally Posted by jreid Don't know about 9+7 and 9-7.
Those are messy, but I would guess that they indicate a maj9 and a min9, respectively.
C"9+7" is probably supposed to be C-E-G-B-D, and C"9-7" is probably supposed to be C-Eb-G-Bb-D.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Nate Those are messy, but I would guess that they indicate a maj9 and a min9, respectively.
C"9+7" is probably supposed to be C-E-G-B-D, and C"9-7" is probably supposed to be C-Eb-G-Bb-D.
Unfortunately that doesn't make as much sense since a 9th chord is by definition the dominant 7 chord with an added ninth. A C9 with an augmented 7 is Cmaj7add9 and a C9 with a diminished 7 has the 7 double flatted so it becomes C6 add 9. I think it is more likely that the chords were meant to be written 7+9 and 7-9.
John
Answer:
Originally Posted by jreid Unfortunately that doesn't make as much sense since a 9th chord is by definition the dominant 7 chord with an added ninth. A C9 with an augmented 7 is Cmaj7add9 and a C9 with a diminished 7 has the 7 double flatted so it becomes C6 add 9. I think it is more likely that the chords were meant to be written 7+9 and 7-9.
John
But that ignores the fact that "sharp" or "flat" ninths don't make sense.
Even in jazz, you rarely find those kind of chords... they're just not musical.
It makes perfect sense, however, that someone would specify a "sharp" or "flat" seventh, because those chord members actually exist as such in many commonly used chords. Further, as you said correctly, the default for a 9th chord is to include the major third and the minor seventh above the root (i.e. a dominant seventh quality chord), so it would be reasonable to specify either a major seventh or a minor seventh (which, in chord theory, really denotes the minor third moreso than the namesake minor seventh) alteration after specifying the default ninth.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Nate But that ignores the fact that "sharp" or "flat" ninths don't make sense.
Even in jazz, you rarely find those kind of chords... they're just not musical.
Actually, I see sharp and flat ninths in my jazz music fairly often.
Not to mention Jimi Hendrix made judicious use of 7(#9) chords.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Rainer. Actually, I see sharp and flat ninths in my jazz music fairly often.
Hmmm... I've heard of sharp elevenths (those make sense to me), but a sharp nine seems odd. Oh well.
Answer:
actually, I hate to break up this arguement but jreid is right. Those chords were meant to be 7-9 and 7+9. I typed them up wrong. Sorry guys, but I did appreciate the help.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Joseph352 actually, I hate to break up this arguement but jreid is right. Those chords were meant to be 7-9 and 7+9.
I still don't think that helps much, 'cause they're still ambiguous. That's just bad notation.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Nate I still don't think that helps much, 'cause they're still ambiguous. That's just bad notation.
It's actually pretty much standard notation (as far as notation goes).
http://www.jmdl.com/howard/music/quick_crd_ref.html http://www.harmony-central.com/Guita...ons/LSN-06.txt
A long hand way of writing these would be X Dominant 7 Flat 9 and X Dominant 7 Sharp 9. More information can be found here.
John
Answer:
Ick ick ick...
Ok, I'll swallow my pride and admit I was way wrong...
... but I'm not going to concede that that is good notation.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Nate Ick ick ick...
Ok, I'll swallow my pride and admit I was way wrong...
... but I'm not going to concede that that is good notation.
Fair enough. There are real problems with notation. People abuse who should know better, and people abuse it who don't know any better, but it is what we have got, and until someone comes up with something better that becomes universally accepted, then we just have to put up with it.
A case in point is the number of C2 Csus2 Cadd2 C9 Cadd9 conversations that appear here every few months.
Regards
John
Answer:
The thing is that there already exists perfectly clear notation. Csus2, Cadd2, and Cadd9 can each be interpreted in only one way. The problem is when people start using vague notation like C2 or C9.
Answer:
Originally Posted by bobthecockroach The thing is that there already exists perfectly clear notation. Csus2, Cadd2, and Cadd9 can each be interpreted in only one way. The problem is when people start using vague notation like C2 or C9.
I think this stems from many musicians ignorance of chord theory. I've played with a LOT of guitarists on worship teams who don't understand the difference between an 'add' or a 'sus' So many just write x2 or x9. Then it gets really interesting when you've got someone playing the x9 chord as a dominant 9 with the dominant 7, and the chord was meant to be a xsus2! It also gets bad when there is a sus chord and people just throw in the 3 because they don't know any better.
On a side note I love #9 and b9 chords! I always use those on songs that vamp a simple progression-- like Sing Like the Saved. I like to play that progression E7b9 A7 E7#9 A13 they just sound so nasty and dirty I love it
Answer:
So basically the moral of the story is that if you don't know anything about chord theory, you should probably learn before writing chord sheets.