message in a bottle

[aaeolean]

ok, as far as I'm concerned, the main riff in this tune is based on SUS2 chords. A lot of people call them 9th chords. I disagree 'cause there is no 3rd.

Does anyone agree? Or am I loosing sleep over nothing?

[flathead]

Or am I loosing sleep over nothing?


:) :) :)

[SeattleRuss]

It's widely known that Andy Summers will play a SUS2 chord whenever possible. And you're right - a SUS2 chord is not a 9th chord.

[aaeolean]

Thanks, now I can get some sleep

[SkinnyDevil]

Funny this came up, considering the "layman" post.

You are correct, of course. However, using the 9th distinction is probably common because of the actual shape of the chord. With the 2 in the top voice (a sus2 typically is played with the 2 a whole step up from the root rather than over an octave away), lotsa folks just call it a 9.

Despite what I said in the other thread, I actually introduce this as an add9 to my students (along with several other songs) just so they get used to utilizing the shape. I then explain that it's really a sus2, but more often than not the mechanical aspects outweigh the theoretical aspects because most students just want to play songs (and care very little about the names of chords).

[Cuno]

Yep, i call them 9ths too. Or add 9 if it matters (like when talking to some other guitar player). The classic grip that i mostly think of as sus2 is the barre that starts on the a-string, but without the 3rd on the b-string.

Eg C sus2:

E|- 3 -
B|- 3 -
G|- 5 -
D|- 5 -
A|- 3 -
E|- x -


The 'message in a bottle' chord was used in Every Breath you Take, where Andy Summers alternate to use his index finger for 1st and 3rd. So in that song it is a 9 chord.

But it's no big deal, you can all call it The Mafoo Chord if you whish :D

[slideonsteel]

What Andy is doing is drawing upon non-tertial harmony for this sound. 'sus 2' and ninths, are ways of hinting at what's going on, but as one post above correctly observes that without a 3rd, we can't call it a ninth, without a 7th, we'd have to call it some kind of 'add 9' but it would still need a 3rd.

Calling it a 'sus 2' is perhaps more problematic historically even though it is becoming more common in the current literature. 'Suspensions' come from voice leading techniques and practices in 18th century polyphonic music and involved the delayed cadential resolution of the the 3rd in the final tonic chord, having it linger on the 4th, and then resolve, sometimes with ornamentation involving the 2nd. Historically I don't think that we have much evidence of a 'downward suspension' (call it a 'depression'!?) of the third lowered to a 2nd and then resolving back up other than this ornamental resulution. Therefore a 'sus 2' would involve a different dissonance, one created by the suspension (or 'raising' of the root to a 2nd and its downward resolution, but it would include the 3rd. This chord, often without resolution is used frequently in modern music. (Piano intro, for example to Stevie Wonder's You are the Sunshine of my Life-Not the whole tone part) This would be a more legitimate candidate for it being called an 'add 9'.

Andy is doing something different. He's stacking up 5ths instead of 3rds. His 'chord' derrived from C, would be C G D. The D is not transposed down an octive. Using names for this that are derrived from harmony based on 3rds is very imprecise. It seems really best to not use these awkward names and talk about quintal sonorities. I was appalled at one time to see chords appearing as C5 (so-called 'power chords', meaning 5ths which are simply intervals and by definion NOT chords) ... so perhaps we should start talking about Cquint.

Of course the same is true for quartal sonorities which are used perhaps a bit more frequently, or the 'So What' voicing made famous in Miles Davis' tune of that name, consisting of two P4's and an M3. In most cases the characteristic sound of these chords comes from hearing them in 3-4 note voicings, in root position and no voices transposed or the intervallic quality gets blurry.

Now we have Cquint, Cquart, and Csw ... or C4, C5 (if we can take this term away from the hard rockers) and C4sw.

In both quintal and quartal harmony, when you have more than 4 voices, you begin to have enough tones present to transpose voices around, 'pound round pegs in square holes' and describe these chords in terms of tertial harmony again, even though that completely defies common sense. In such cases, the chord name is bizzare, i.e., altered, modal, suspended, omitted tones, etc. when described tertially, and perfectly regular when described quartally or quintally.

Would love to hear from others who have observations on this.

[Bizarro]

brain... hurting... ;)

Therapy: Smoke on the Water. Diads! :eek:

[Bizarro]

I haven't actually analyzed the song too much, but I think the final designation on 3rds, 2nds, 9ths, and so on should be based on a complete analysis of the vocal melody, bass line, and guitar line, plu synth if there is one. The beauty of having multiple instruments playing is that the sum of the parts might have a different overall musical structure chen compared to an isolated instrument (just the guitar, in this example)...

The quartal and quintal stuff is interesting! Nice ideas there, and welcome to ibreathemusic!

[szulc]

I agree with the Quintal/Quartal analysis.
Stacked 5ths are really inverted stacked 4ths just like stacked 6ths are really inverted stacked 3rds.
Trying to put this in a tertiary context is like putting square pegs in round holes.

[EricV]

I agree, too. I always thought of those kinda arps as stacked fifths. The only reason why I sometimes call them "x maj add9" is cause it sometimes is easier to memorize them, or to indicate what the harmonic background is.
I have a song with a riff that´s based on those kinda stacked fifths, "Atlanta Dawn". In the TAB I made for it, I put chord names like "G add9" etc, although the guitar is playing stacked fifths. The piano and bass are playing chords with thirds though, therefore there is a minor or major sound to the chords in the riff... that´s why I put in those chord names.

I recently wrote another tune based on Hirajoshi ( a japanese pentatonic ), and the chords you get from harmonizing that scale... well, it´s tough to name them if you see them in a strict tertiary context. ( BTW, Hirajoshi in E would be E-F#-G-B-C-E )
If you i.e. stack every other note to get triads, for F# you´d get F#-B-E. All fourths.
Eric

[slideonsteel]

A note to Bizzaro--Smoke on the water was my favorite for many years ... I can still do the solo, note for note. don't let the brain hurt ... this isn't that difficult ... and thanks very much for your warm welcome.

Your comment about the vocal melody, bass line, synth etc. is important. We always have to consider the 'resultant' harmony no matter what harmonic or non harmonic thing someone is able to add to the mix at a certain time.

The chords we're talking about here are quintal triads ... three note chords in root position and voiced in natural order with the bass reinforcing the root note. We're on pretty solid ground calling them quintal triads.

But consider for a moment the implications of what you're suggesting about adding the vocal melody to the mix .... Doesn't the vocal melody move pretty freely around the availible tones of the overall tonality? Do you really want to re-label your chord charts for everything the voice might do? An eighth note vocal run would require a different chord on each note of the vocal line ...

We're dealing today mostly with the idea that a melody is enhanced by a harmonic setting ... In other words ... a melody exists over a specific harmony ... We don't analyze the resultant harmony that the voice adds, or each note of an improvised solo, unless its significant ... meaning that it hits on strong beats or sustains ...

Best ...

Jeff

[SkinnyDevil]

Intereting position, Jeff. It's worth noting that Andy might have had stacked fifths in mind. My immediate reaction was similar to Bizarro's position - that since the other voices (instrumention doesn't matter if we're merely analys=zing harmonic structure) are firmly rooted in tertial practice, AND because the guitar follows a standard tertian progression, it's best to view it as a 2-chord rather than stacked fifths.

That said, I suppose it doesn't really matter how we choose to view it, so long as it opens doors for us. I also have to admit that quite a few others have injected quartal & quintal ideas into otherwise tertial practices (Steve Stevens put a nice quartal series of chords in several trax on his "Atomic Playboys" album as well as with Vince Neil, for one distinctly plebian example - hahaha!) and, following that admission, have been just as guilty of doing so myself.

A last thought: While suspensions may have evolved as voice-leading practices, it's worth noting that all chords evolved as "static" results of multi-voice harmony. As such, I think the current practice of using the term sus2 or sus4 for a stand-alone chord is as valid as naming any other chord.

Thanx for injecting Qs into the discussion!

[slideonsteel]

I don't have any problem with the terminology of sus2 or sus4 really ... no matter whether they resolve or not. But in my book, when you say sus2 ... there shouldn't be a root in the chord too ... if there is, then we're dealing with some kind of 9th. Same with a sus4 ... can't have the 3rd present or we're talking about some kind of 11th chord. I have the same problem when people assume that a #4 and a b5 are the same thing. They're talking about the same TONE, but when you say a chord is a #4 ... its because of the presence of the natural 5th as well. Otherwise its an altered 5th ...

Best

[madhatter@skool]

I may be wrong on this, but I thought that a SUS2 chord meant suspend the third & substitute in the second. same thing with a SUS4, suspend the third & add in the fourth. A second is not the same as a ninth. When you play a ninth, it can contain 1 3 5 b7 9. The ninth is the same note as the second, but it is played an octave up. So you CAN have a sus 2 with a root in a chord that is not a ninth. The reason is that you are playing the second(NOT the second an octave up—which is the ninth) It’s all relative to the root of the chord. Again, I’m not totally sure of this.

Ex1. Ab sus2
|--------|
|--1-----| tenth (third an octave up)
|--1-----| octave
|--1-----| fifth
|--1-----| second
|--4-----| root

Ab9
|--------|
|--------|
|--3-----| ninth (second an octave up)
|--4-----| b seven
|--3-----| third
|--4-----| root





Ex2. Cmaj
|--------|
|--1-----|octave
|--0-----|fifth
|--2-----|third
|--3-----|root
|--------|

C sus4
|--------|
|--1-----|octave
|--0-----|fifth
|--3-----|fourth
|--3-----|root
|--------|


Any theory buffs, please respond. I’m interested to see about this.

[slideonsteel]

Hi madhatter,

Your statement "suspend the 3rd and 'substitute in' (add?) the 2nd" ... would be an add9 chord. Checking your Ex. 1, I see that this is exactly what you mean. It doesn't matter what octave voices occur ... the ninth could be in the bass if you could tolorate that voicing. Arranging the voices as they would be tallied, we have R 3 5 and 9. There is no difference between a 10th and a 3rd. For harmonic purposes, it gets called a 3rd wherever it occurs. This chord is an 'add' 9, because it's not supported by a 7th, and incidentally we can't tell whether it's dominant or major. Context might indicate that.

To clarify a point a little more ... the scale, for harmonic purposes, is spelled Root, 9, 3, 11(or 4 in suspensions), 5 6(13 in dominant and fully supported minors and majors), 7. That's all the chord tones we have. We don't ever talk about 10ths or 12ths. Whether we should occasionally add the possiblity of a sus2 is the question that has distracted this thread.

I should point out here that in checking the New Real Book (p. vi) they give a very complete list of modern chords, they make no mention of a suspended chord that refers to anything but a raised 3rd. No sus 2 chords at all.

A chord in common use today would be a C7sus9 (C F (optionally G) Bb D) which is commonly writen as Bb/C. A CMaj7sus9 would be C F G B D). Minor chords are not suspended for they would be indistinguishable from dominant 7 sus.

In polyphonic music there were many types of suspensions, characterized by their delayed resolution downward by step. Measured from the root these would be 7-6, 4-3 (with ornamental 2-3), and 9-8. The 9-8 (or 2-1) is what I'm referring to. A 9-8 suspension would have a delayed resolution to tonic. So I can see the justificication in calling this a sus2 and won't fight it. In C, this would be D E G (optionally 7 or b7). Don't flip out that I'm suggesting a C chord ... that doesn't have a C in it ... Presumably this note would resolve downward by step to C. In modern harmony suspensions frequently don't resolve. But this chord... is not the one Andy was using ...

Oh yeah, back to Andy, I think he's thinking quartally because that's the structure that really accurately describes what he's playing: C G D.

I too invite other voices and perspectives. Its fun to put our collective minds to this.

Best,

Jeff

[SkinnyDevil]

Ahhh...I must have missed your point before regarding "9" vs "2" (the 2 being supported by a triad...).

Well, I'd chime in first that in "serious" music, a suspension is only partly as we discribed it previously. It is also typically a note from one chord carried over the bar into another chord (like a G into a Dsus4) and then, as you pointed out, resolved with a D triad (for one example).

But to address the point directly of naming the second scale degree either 2 or 9: It has always been my understanding that (at least in modern parlance) that a suspension REPLACES a tone - specifically the third scale degree. Used in a triad, the 2 replaces the 3 (for a sus2) or the 4 replaces the 3 (for a sus4). Therefore, a suspension proper would be spelled 1-2-5 or 1-4-5.

IF one is employing a triad (1-3-5) PLUS a second scale degree, it is then termed an add9 chord (triad plus 9, or 1-3-5-9). IF one is employing a 7th chord (1-3-5-7, for example) and adds the additional second scale degree, it is then termed a 9th chord (1-3-5-7-9).

In short, if the 2 is supported by a triad, it is a type of 9 chord, while if the 2 replaces the 3, it is a sus2 chord (the term "suspension" reserved for replacing the 3 only).

That said, hang on a sec......

OK - I just refered to Cooper's "Perspectives in Music Theory" (sorry - it's the closest one to where I'm sitting). Seems the term (in classical music) suspension can be used for several devices - like the one I mentioned above OR any non-chord tone momentarily delayed in it's movement or resolution. That said, Cooper notes on page 233 the "added tone technique": adding a 2, 4, or 6 to a basic triad (though he declines to elaborate as to whether they are then referred to as 2 or 9, 4 or 11, 6 or 13).

He does, however, make the point that things become mushy at this point (probably why we're not all in easy agreement on this), since analysis must necessarily vary (is it a 13th chord or a first inversion of a 7th chord or an added tone chord?) and so states:

"Most analytical judgements must be based on style, context, function, and chordal disposition." Sounds like a professor's way of saying we're all right (hahaha!!!!!).

All that said, in modern GUITAR usage, I'd tend to call Andy's chord a sus2 (just for ease of communication)...but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he came up with the part by stacking 5ths.

Thoughts?

[RandyEllefson]

What's in a name?

Going to play my guitar now......:D

I find "C5" to be an acceptable indication of an interval, and when I use it, do not necessarily state or even mean to imply "This is a chord".

Keep in mind this entire thread is far more precise than the average dude with a guitar cares about, the point being that people use the word chord out of convenience, and that's pretty much it. Sure, I know I'm playing intervals, but most people I talk to about it look at me funny when I call them intervals, so I call them chords. It's just the way it is.

Haven't lost any sleep over it yet.....;)

While this conversation is interesting, you'd have to take the argument about changing chord indications to Hal Leonard Publishing, or somewhere similar, because they're publishing most things anyway. But either way, I think that's a lost cause.

Here's the thing. At the top of sheet music, people put in chord charts (do they now have to also call them interval charts so no one is appalled?) with notes to play, which fingers to use, and put a name on it. They then put this name in the sheet music when that's what they want you to play. If they write performance notes, for consistency, they will call the "chords/intervals/place to put you fingers" the same thing. To me, it's a self-contained world for that exact transcription of that song. Sure, other people will use similar sounding names for some consistency, but it's not a big deal. Can you figure out what to play?

I think that for sheet music, you put in what works. A great conversation like this one is a good subject for an article (or book even), but isn't really that practical. There's theory and then practice. They don't always go together. I guess what bugged me was someone saying he was "appalled" when people used the wrong term. I find that a bit extreme.

[mjo]

Wholly cow, you guys !!
I hadn't checked this thread before, I wasn't too interested in..........? what song was it ?-
This is pretty heavy stuff, very interesting for me.

It occurs to me that, the way you interpret this theory might make a difference to me, if you happen to be the author of my fake book. The reason I mention it is because I've been caught, more than once playing "slash chords" while ignoring the inversion,- usually the first time through a tune I'll do this, trying to find a voicing. The point is, that "slash chord" has been mis-represented, (seems to me). I'll end up finding the right chord as an extended version based off the bass note given in the "slash chord", ( my own fault i guess for the way i learn it )

....Now we're, way off topic..........sorry.

For now, when I see a sus2 noted, I'll assume the root is meant to be included.

....this is kinda' like swimming, I can get from one end of the pool to the other, without knowing the composition of the "water"....... :rolleyes:

Great discussion !

:Mike

[MadhatteR]

But to address the point directly of naming the second scale degree either 2 or 9: It has always been my understanding that (at least in modern parlance) that a suspension REPLACES a tone - specifically the third scale degree. Used in a triad, the 2 replaces the 3 (for a sus2) or the 4 replaces the 3 (for a sus4). Therefore, a suspension proper would be spelled 1-2-5 or 1-4-5.

This is what I was trying to say(and apparently doing a poor job of saying). Thanks SkinnyDevil

Your statement "suspend the 3rd and 'substitute in' (add?) the 2nd" ... would be an add9 chord-slideonsteel

No, it would be what SkinnyDevil said. But, like he als said, we're probably all right(meaning we all know what we're taking about. The problem comes in explaining it to others.) If you want to call a B diminished chord a "Bzuzz", whatever. You just will have a harder time explaining it to others.
And unfortunately there is no real standard. a C major chord can be written:
C
CM
Cmaj
C[little triangle]

Oh well.

[aaeolean]

i never expected this much input when i started this post. Thanks to everyone who had an opinion. The understanding seems to be that a sus2 chord has no 3 and that the root is included. R 2 5

[slideonsteel]

Skinny--Cooper's book is one of the best. The only one I know that does what it does. I use it frequently.

Randy--I'm appalled that you were appalled that I was appalled ... Totally kidding here, and I guess I should have used emoticons or something in my earlier post. I wasn't trying to be stuffy about C5's at all. They did look funny to me when I first started seeing them in printed music, but I knew what they meant, and had to admit that they worked on sheet music where appropriate. It was better than letting the student guess that he or she was supposed to reduce a chord written simply as 'C' ...

To all -- I've enjoyed this thread as a chance to explore the logic of chord naming in general.

Again, best to all

Jeff

[RandyEllefson]

me too :D

[SkinnyDevil]

I've enjoyed this one, too! Thanx guys!

MJO - what fake book? Did I miss something?

I was also going to say something abut slash chords, but I better start another thread for that.......(haha!).

[phantom]

just wanna mention - great thread!

so we have no sus2 because there is nothing suspended.
we have no add9, cause there is no third.
there is no chord called x"stacked-fifth"
but we can give the chord the name sus2 if we are considering the intention of the guy who played it.
am i right till now?

wow.. great stuff.

btw. where can i get that book by paul cooper? i looked through the german amazon and they don't sell it anymore!? :-(

[slideonsteel]

Phantom,

Cooper has been out of print for years now. The only option to get it is to try the out-of-print services, such as www.abe.com, www.bookfinder.com, www.alibris.com. They should be able to help, if not now, keep checking back. It was a textbook in the 70's from Dodd & Mead. Its worth keep after. Another good one for quartals quintals and that kind of thing is Pershchetti's Twentieth Century Harmony.

Jeff

[phantom]

great,
thanks jeff... and welcome to ibreath.
you have introduced yourself powerfully ;-)...

i'm looking forward reading more of your posts.

sven

[slideonsteel]

Phantom, thanks very much ... also saw that I misspelled Vincent Persichetti's name ...

Jeff

[phantom]

also saw that I misspelled Vincent Persichetti's name ...

no prob.. i found and ordered it immediately at amazon. i guess i'll have it monday/tuesday.. and be sure that i'm going to bug you if i got questions. :D

sven

[slideonsteel]

Phantom, that will be good because its been way to long since I've been through Persichetti ...

Best,

Jeff