Leader: Guitarist, play me a Dadd9. (Plays). OK, let’s change that to a Dmadd9 (Plays exact same thing).
You can kinda sorta understand chords by starting with the Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La-Ti-Do song.
A major chord, in that system, is the tonic, 3rd, and 5th—Do, Mi, Sol. The Do that ends the scale shows how it repeats, up an octave (or you could go down from where you started, Do, Ti, La, Sol…).
If you play a usual D chord (with a bass of A), the pitches of the strings are: Sol, Do, Sol, Do, Mi.
If you play a Dmaj7 chord with a bass of A, you also need the 7th note of the scale, Ti. the pitches of the strings are: Sol, Do, Sol, Ti, Mi.
The relative minor of a scale is the sixth, tonic, third: La, Do, Mi. Play a Bm (barre an Am to fret 2) and the strings are: Mi, La, Mi, La, Do, Mi.
There are other chords in the key of D: F#m, G, A…but leave the chords of this key and do-re-mi falls short.
Thinking this way makes my head hurt. Hope I got it right.
This is simple. As has been stated, sus2 does not include the third. Add9 or add2 does. A sus2 chord should not have major or minor tonality. At least that’s how I’ve always parses it. It doesn’t really matter to me whether the 2nd is the top note of the harmony. The sus2 chord, just like the sus4 chord, has a particular “color” and feel that is different from add9 and add11 chords.
Correct. Any note in any chord may appear in any octave transposition without altering the name of the chord. The name sus2 does not imply that the second degree “should” be voiced adjacent to the root note.
But here’s the thing. The chord I see most commonly used as Dsus2 is the open version - as an example, take a look at this transcription of Closer to Fine by The Indigo Girls. Note that the Dsus4 resolves back to D (with the 4th moving down to the 3rd)… fair enough, that fits with the definition of suspension. However, the chord they call Dsus2 also resolves back to D (with the 2nd moving up to the 3rd)… that’s something called a retardation.
As I mentioned, the question is then whether a retardation is the same thing as a suspension. Also as I mentioned, the answer to that question is different depending which source you use. To elaborate:
-Wikipedia says they are the same, but Thinkquest says they are not the same.
-Harmony: A Course of Study says they are the same, but the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music says they are not the same.
-Dictionary.com says they are the same, SMU says they are not the same.
…and so on and so forth. If a retardation is not the same thing as a suspension, then that “Dsus2” does not contain a suspension, and therefore should not have “suspended” as part of it’s name.
As I continue to think about this, maybe they call it Dsus2 because the more technically correct name (Dret2 - D Retarded 2nd) just doesn’t sound nearly as cool. If thats the case, then fine, I suppose - but I still don’t have to like it 
Aw crap, I hit “Submit” instead of “Preview”. Where I typed “whether a retardation is the same thing as a suspension” above, I really meant “whether a retardation is a type of suspension”.
I have never come across the word retardation in a chord chart of any sort. Suspension is the naming convention. I don’t see why this is so contentious.
Because the naming convention is incorrect. That was the entire point of this thread.
Not according to two of your sources. Suspensions don’t even have to resolve in modern harmony, yet they are still called suspensions. That’s what the term means to most musicians today-no 3rd, with either a 4th or 2nd substituting and pulling the harmony to a resolution of the 3rd, or creating ambiguous tonality. Both in my v
classical and jazz instruction, all my teachers used the term suspension to refer to suspended 4ths and 2nds.
Put it this way. Suspension and retardation refer to contrapuntal techniques. A suspended chord, as Wikipedia explains, borrows the term suspension to mean exactly what I’ve stated it means. “Suspended chord” uses a more expansive definition of suspension that includes retardation.
Well, actually it would be according to three of my sources. And, the other three agree with my position. Unless you are going to make a case that the three sources that agree with me are questionable and should be disregarded, I don’t see how you can think that the matter is beyond question.
Further, the three sources that disagree with my position state that a retardation is a specific type of suspension. If that were to be true, it would stand to reason that the more specific term is still the one that would be most correct to use. Otherwise, we could just call all of these chords “altered chords” and be done with it.
As for music instruction, my instructors were the ones who first nurtured my discontent regarding the sus2 chord. But, that’s just anecdotal (as is you saying what your instructors told you), so it seems to me that it doesn’t really help along the discussion.
The term suspension is not redefined when applied to suspended chords. When used correctly, it describes what is happening in the chord (in your own words, the altered note is pulling the harmony to a resolution of the 3rd). I’ve already pretty well described that (regardless of which source you believe), when the 2nd note is the one pulling the harmony to a resolution of the 3rd, the most correct term is a retardation. Is there a reason why you don’t think the most correct term would result in the most correct chord name?
Listen, I’m not expecting to change the world here. I understand that regardless of the outcome of this thread, millions of people are still going to use sus2 as a chord name. I stated in my original post that I am generally ok with this, and this thread is nothing but musical geekery in discussing what the correct chord name really should be.
Let me draw a parallel. The D major chord is spelled D-F#-A. One way you can invert it would be to spell it A-D-F# instead. While most people will still just refer to that as a D major, the most correct term from a chord theory perspective is actually D/A. I’m not going to correct everyone every time they refer to A-D-F# as D major; however, for purposes of music geek discussion, I will definitely contend that D/A is the most correct name.
That’s the same idea as what I am saying now in terms of the sus2 chord.
The naming convention is an artificial construct applied by scholars to the ways musicians manipulate notes (which are also an artificial construct, by the way). The notes don’t care what they’re called. I’m sure Mozart wasn’t sitting around, thinking “gosh, I need to invent a new chord. What am I gonna call it?”*
Harmony is virtually indistinguishable from counterpoint to the ear. If you have a string quartet playing, you’ll have 4 notes at once, which could be a chord; if the notes aren’t always changing on the same beat, you get counterpoint; if the notes aren’t always resolving to nice neat triads (M, m, dim, aug) then you get something else.
What do you call that something else? Well, in counterpoint, when the note on the fourth is carried over from the previous chord, then resolves to the third, the counterpoint is suspension. What’s the chord?
That depends on your definition of “chord.” If you define a chord as a triad built on stacking thirds, then D-E-A might be a chord. That depends on your definition of “third.”
D-E-A might be built D-F flat-A, which would be an augmented third stacked on top of a diminished third. But that depends on how you define “F flat.”
If F flat is enharmonic (that is, tonally identical) to E natural, then the only difference on the notes is how they’re written. They’re played on the same fret (on guitar) or on the same key (on piano) or the same fingering (on wind instruments) but they look different on the staff. Musically, they’re identical, except for the key signature that they live in.
And that depends on how you define “key signature.” If you’re playing modern music you’re probably playing on even temperament, where E and F-flat are the same. But you might be playing on a different musical scale, where E and F-flat are different notes completely.
Let’s disregard temperament for a moment and just base the definition on how it’s written. If you write Dsus2 as D-E-A (and not D-F flat-A) then you have a perfect fourth stacked on top of a major second.
Back to our definition of chord. If a chord is build on thirds, then clearly D-E-A isn’t a chord. If you define a chord as “any three dissimilar notes,” then we find the chord of D-E-A needs a name. We’ll call it D-something-without-a-3-but-has-a-2. It has no tonal quality (it is neither major nor minor) but it could resolve to one of them.
So we’re back to borrowing the term “suspended” from counterpoint, because we’re describing a chord found in a contrapuntal resolution technique. Could we call it “Dret2” instead? I suppose we could have. But we didn’t, because (as you can see from the examples above) many of the terms in music aren’t prescriptive, where “every time you see these tones, it’s called X.” Most definitions boil down to “it depends.”
If you insist that a suspended chord always resolve down and a retarded chord always resolve up then where does that leave you with a guitar, where sometimes you might have to play that Dret2 with the E on a higher fret, but play the F# on a lower fret? You’re resolving second-to-third, but because of the fingering, you have to move the note down, so does that mean it’s technically a suspended chord? Is that the only thing that matters, the direction of the resolution? Or does the scale degree matter more, that you’re resolving second-to-third? What if you’re on the piano and you can resolve in both directions at once? What if you never resolve? Do we need a different name for chords like those?
Me, I don’t think we need a separate name for every kind of chord, with every kind of resolution (or no resolution) in either direction. It’s confusing enough as it is with two different terms for D-E-A (Dsus2, Asus4) without needing to confound the matter by adding Dret2, Aret4, Dno3add2, Ano3add2, Dno3add4, and Ano3add4, depending on context.
*He probably didn’t say “gosh.” He probably said “ach du Lieber.”
What about D major, 2nd inversion?
I can play a D major 2nd inversion in my right hand, with a D bass. It doesn’t suddenly mean we have “D/A/D.” A represents the note in the bass voice, not just the lowest note in the triad.
I can also play D-A-F# with my right hand. Not every chord needs a different name. Isn’t music confusing enough?
Well, sure. But in the example I mentioned, the notes being played are A-D-F# - this means that the A is the note in the bass voice as well as the lowest note in the triad. Therefore, as I said, D/A would be the most correct name.
I think that’s just splitting hairs. It needn’t be called D/A when there’s already a term for that type of inversion that doesn’t depend on which instrument you’re playing. It’s like saying “that’s a dog” and you’re saying, “no it’s NOT a dog, damn it, it’s Rottweiler.” It’s still a dog.
A designation of D/A is really only helpful if you’re faking the harmonies yourself with a pickup band and the bassist needs to know where he’s going. Any decent musicians are going to want to know which A, D and F# to play, which octave? What construction? How is it bowed? Hat on or off?
If you want to really describe the chord, then D/A is just a half-assed method. We should name it A3/D4/F#4. Then it’s specific enough.
As I keep saying, this thread is based on music geekery. Splitting hairs is precisely the idea here. To follow your example, it’s generally accepted to use the word “dog” to refer to Rottweilers, Basset Hounds, and Springer Spaniels. However, if this were a dog geekery discussion, it would certainly make sense to differentiate.
Not necessarily true. Consider the following series of chords:
[XX0232]
[X32010]
[x20033]
[x00232]
[320033]
One could certainly just refer to that chord progression as | D | C | G | D | G|. However, the most correct way would be | D | C | G/B | D/A | G | - this shows that the composer’s intent is to have a descending note in the bottom end of that series of chords. So, it can certainly be helpful.
No doubt. This speaks to the fact that finer distinctions are in fact a good thing.
As you said, the slash designation denotes the bass note of the chord. As such, there would be no reason to put multiple slashes.
But if I’m playing a D in second inversion in the high registers of a piano, then is there a bass note? No, not really — there is only a lowest note which isn’t very low at all. This is why I say D/A is not always the most useful descriptor for every such triad.
Well, if the notation that exists displeases you, we change it. I maintain that if you’re going to split hairs about chord notation — and that’s all it is, a simplified notation that scales down the harmonic concept into a digestible bite — then we might as well make it specific. Which notes, which harmonic construction? There is as much difference between your D and D/A as there is between D-F#-A and D-A-F#, but we don’t denote that. I don’t see a particular reason to get in a twist about giving instructions to the bassist but not to anybody else.
My responses have been terse as I’ve been typing this on a phone. You’re trying to apply traditional harmonic nomenclature to modern harmony. It doesn’t always work very neatly, as we have seen.
Anyhow, sus2 is a modern naming convention that is pretty much universally accepted. I don’t think you would encounter this chord in the same kind of context in classical theory, so I don’t see why we should look to traditional theory for modern nomenclature. Would you try to explain quartal harmony in those terms?
At any rate, using the term suspension for both types of chords simplifies the matter, as the substitution of the 2nd or 4th for the 3rd have similar effects harmonically. If you want, call it a D5 add 9 or a D add9 (no 3rd), but don’t call it a Dadd9, which is a different chord.
While we’re at it, isn’t the “add” terminology also a fairly modern convention?
So, first - Fish, apologies for not responding to your longer post (#32 in the thread). I would swear that didn’t show up when I looked at the thread before, but of course it’s far more likely that I just plain missed it. Anyway…
Agreed. The way certain notes sounded together most definitely preceded any scholar’s notation of such. And I’ve got no problem with the philosophy of “hell, if the notes/chords sound right, than dammit, they sound right”. This thread is and always was to discuss the proper naming (set in place by the scholars you mention) of the chords/notes/etc.
There are only a select number of keys in which you see a Fb. Even fewer where you see an Fb involved with any variation of a D chord. And even in those relatively few instances, I’m note sure what you are saying would disagree with my point.
Well, sure. But the key signature is an important element in describing any musical sequence, and I’m not sure why one would want to discount it.
Again, agreed - but refer again to above comment.
In terms of “popular notation”, sure (please once again refer to my initial post). In terms of “correct notation”, any time that “it depends”, it depends on specific situations. Nobody that has posted has pointed out a situation where a suspension is more correct than (or even as correct as) a retardation as a description of the 3rd altered to a 2nd.
The fact that the note appears in a different octave does not change the function of said note with regards to suspensions/retardations.
Scale degrees are exactly how the direction of resolution is described.
Again, I missed this post when you first posted it. See post #36 as an example of why proper naming might matter.
[sorry if this shows up twice - on preview/submit, I am seeing a blank post under my name, which should have contained this comment]
So, first - Fish, apologies for not responding to your longer post (#32 in the thread). I would swear that didn’t show up when I looked at the thread before, but of course it’s far more likely that I just plain missed it. Anyway…
Agreed. The way certain notes sounded together most definitely preceded any scholar’s notation of such. And I’ve got no problem with the philosophy of “hell, if the notes/chords sound right, than dammit, they sound right”. This thread is and always was to discuss the proper naming (set in place by the scholars you mention) of the chords/notes/etc.
There are only a select number of keys in which you see a Fb. Even fewer where you see an Fb involved with any variation of a D chord. And even in those relatively few instances, I’m note sure what you are saying would disagree with my point.
Well, sure. But the key signature is an important element in describing any musical sequence, and I’m not sure why one would want to discount it.
Again, agreed - but refer again to above comment.
[QUOTE=Fish]
So we’re back to borrowing the term “suspended” from counterpoint, because we’re describing a chord found in a contrapuntal resolution technique. Could we call it “Dret2” instead? I suppose we could have. But we didn’t, because (as you can see from the examples above) many of the terms in music aren’t prescriptive, where “every time you see these tones, it’s called X.” Most definitions boil down to “it depends.”[\QUOTE]
In terms of “popular notation”, sure (please once again refer to my initial post). In terms of “correct notation”, any time that “it depends”, it depends on specific situations. Nobody that has posted has pointed out a situation where a suspension is more correct than (or even as correct as) a retardation as a description of the 3rd altered to a 2nd.
The fact that the note appears in a different octave does not change the function of said note with regards to suspensions/retardations.
Scale degrees are exactly how the direction of resolution is described.
Again, I missed this post when you first posted it. See post #36 as an example of why proper naming might matter.