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]

Originally Posted by aaeolean

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

[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!

[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.