Hi folks,

I want to know how you guys think 11 chords should be interpreted - I'm thinking particularly of dominant 11ths (e.g. C11).

There seems to be more than one school of thought on this...

Some people seem to use 11 chords to indicate a triad a tone below the root, with the root in the bass. So C11 would be Bb/C, E11 would be D/E etc. So, in essence, by this definition an 11 chord is a kind of sus chord.

Whereas some say that 11 chords are dominant 7th chords extended to the 11th (like 9 and 13 chords) - i.e. they contain the 3rd. This gives the distinctive dissonance of having both the 3rd and the 4th in the chord, and has a rather different character to a normal sus chord.

Personally, I like the second definition better. It's far more consistant with the accepted nonclomenture for dominant chords. It doesn't make sense to me that C11 should be essentially another name for Csus. And, if they were essentially the same thing - how would you indicate that you wanted a dominant 7th chord with both the 3rd and the 4th? C7(add11) would be one way, but it's a lot clumsier than C11.

So what do you guys reckon? In your experience, what is meant by C11 etc, and which definition do you prefer?

Originally posted by moley


So what do you guys reckon?

I reckon.....



...that this question, is only of interest to Jazz pianists!! ;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


I reckon.....



...that this question, is only of interest to Jazz pianists!! ;)

:spit:

Jazz guitarists too :D

Anyway, we've got Chris F, and there must be some other Jazz pianists lurking around here somewhere...

But is it true to say that sus chords don't contain the 3rd as well as the 4th? Mark Levine, in The Jazz Theory Workbook takes pains to explain that explaining a sus chord as only being 1 4 5, with the third being invalid, is a myth that is not substantiated by modern jazz practise. I can't remember the exact argument but can look it up if required.

I'm not a jazz pianist, so don't count my opinion as having much weight, but I'd certainly tend to consider a C11 chord as one defined by a major 3rd and flat 7th (dominant) with an 11 added as an extension on top.

Wulf

Originally posted by wulf
But is it true to say that sus chords don't contain the 3rd as well as the 4th? Mark Levine, in The Jazz Theory Workbook takes pains to explain that explaining a sus chord as only being 1 4 5, with the third being invalid, is a myth that is not substantiated by modern jazz practise. I can't remember the exact argument but can look it up if required.

Yes, I know the bit you mean.

He said that you can voice them with the 3rd, and that it's a myth to say that you shouldn't. But, how often does anyone voice a sus chord with a 3rd, I wonder...

I tend to think that if you voice a sus chord with a third, you're sorta reharmonizing it. Which is ok, of course. But I could be wrong.

Well, first off, I can't say that I've ever seen the chord symbol "C11" in my life. In my experience, there are two basic kinds of "11ths":

1) Those found on minor chords (ex. - Gmi11), in which case the presence of the third is implicit; and

2) Raised 11ths, as found on Major and Dominant chords (ex. - C7#11 or C7#4). In this case, the third is also assumed to be present in order to define the chord quality before alteration.


Sus chords are (to me) a different animal. Regardless of what may or may not be the "common wisdom" or what may or may not be a "myth", I trace their construction back to the simple fact that the term "sus" is a shorthand for "suspended". Tracing these harmonies back to their origins in traditional theory, they suspended tones would be called "suspensions" (duh), and almost always involve the third of the harmony. So, to make a short story long, I don't typically voice thirds in my "Sus chords".

Beyond that, what makes up a "sus chord" depends largely on the style of music to which it is applied. If I see "Csus" in a cover version of Springsteens "Brilliant Disguise", I'll assume we're talking about the notes C, F, and G. If I see the same chord symbol in a McCoy tune, I'm probably thinking of a Bb triad (plus whatever other color tones I find appropriate at the moment) over a C root...but I'd be more confident in that construction if the chord symbol had read, "c7sus". A lot depends on the context.

Last, there is a growing body of nomenclature in some of the more modern guitar-based music in which chords which can not be easily defined are notated by interval (ex. - C5(9), which would denote a stack of fifths). While this type of notation is pretty unclear when taken out of context, it is perfectly valid once a simple set of performance notes are added.

Geez, I bet I just opened up a whole big can of worms here....but heck, what's the theory forum supposed to be for, anyway? :D

:confused:

O......k..

I need to break out the Theory Book again..

Thanks, Chris.

I agree with everything you said there about m11, #11 and sus chords.

And, extending what you said about voicing sus chords differently depending upon whether you're playing pop music or Jazz - I would notate the chord Bb/C (for example) differently depending upon which style. In Jazz, I'd probably call it Csus, because it is the nature of Jazz that the chords provide an outline to the harmony, rather than a specific voicing. Though, an exception to that would be if I had say a sequence of slash chords - e.g. C Bb/C Ab/C G/C or something. In this case, notating it as a slash chord I think gives a clearer idea of the progression.

However that chord, in a pop song, I would just notate as Bb/C rather than Csus. Like you said, in this case, Csus would tend to imply just C F G, because it is generally in the nature of pop music that the harmony is more explicitly defined.

However it is this chord, Bb/C that I have also seen notated as C11 :hmm:

OK, that's it for that chord. What about the other 10? I thought we were gonna talk about 11 chords...

Originally posted by moley
Thanks, Chris.

I agree with everything you said there about m11, #11 and sus chords.


Going back to an earlier conversation about related chord scales for sus chords, you were questioning the wisdom of considering the major third in the chord scale, and thinking you might favor the minor instead. The discussion we've just had is a demonstration of why I usually feel that the major third is the implied scale tone instead of the minor.

And speaking of the minor, I often voice these chords as a related "ii" chord over the root of the dominant, just as an easy way of getting some basic diatonic color into the voicing.

Ex. - Dsus = A-7/D

or - Absus = Eb-7/Ab, etc.

This aproach also works for coming up with solid melodic/motivic material once you get used to it.



DOORMOUSE ROUNDABOUT,

Give it time. If we discuss all eleven chords at once, what's the point of keeping the forum open? :)

Anyone remember what the Steely Dan guys called a mu chord? All I remember is the name... I'm thinking that it might have been -- or is close to -- what you guys are calling (for example) Bb/C, which I think of as a major chord with a II in the bass....

Originally posted by Damon Rondeau
Anyone remember what the Steely Dan guys called a mu chord? All I remember is the name... I'm thinking that it might have been -- or is close to -- what you guys are calling (for example) Bb/C, which I think of as a major chord with a II in the bass....

I recall hearing Fagen refer to a major triad with added 9th as a mu chord. He liked that chord. I like it too. He uses it a fair bit. So do I. But, just for the record, I liked it before I even knew who Steely Dan were :D

And he often does literally voice it : 1 2 3 5. It's kinda a cluster, but it works.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


Going back to an earlier conversation about related chord scales for sus chords, you were questioning the wisdom of considering the major third in the chord scale, and thinking you might favor the minor instead. The discussion we've just had is a demonstration of why I usually feel that the major third is the implied scale tone instead of the minor.

Well, I wasn't saying that I'd necessarily favour the minor instead, I was just saying that it depends on the context, and that I don't think you can have one scale to play over all sus chords.

I don't know, I just don't consider sus chords to be necessarily a form of dominant 7th chord. They very often are, but for example, I don't consider the idea of a sus chord resolving to the minor (e.g. Csus Cm) to be all that unusual.

And speaking of the minor, I often voice these chords as a related "ii" chord over the root of the dominant, just as an easy way of getting some basic diatonic color into the voicing.

Ex. - Dsus = A-7/D

or - Absus = Eb-7/Ab, etc.

This aproach also works for coming up with solid melodic/motivic material once you get used to it.

Exactly, yes. D-7 D-7/G Cmaj7 is not uncommon as a form of the ii-V-I.

Going back to your guy's point about "context":

You are absolutely correct about the guitarist in a rock setting playing the root, 4th, & 5th if confronted with a "Csus" (RUSH live on these chords).

You will also always see your "Jazz" Csus notated as Bb/C in a rock setting. I have, on a rare occasion, seen "C 2sus4" for a chord with root, 2nd, 4th, 5th (probably a RUSH song ;) ).

I tend to go with what would be the (hopefully logical) written meaning than the implied meaning when it comes to 11 chords:
sus = just the Root, 4th, & 5th.
11 = the full triad plus extensions to the 11th.

Over simplified? Probably.:p

But wouldn't it be notated in the manner that the composer had intended it to be voiced?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that C11 was the incorrect way to notate C7add11...

Originally posted by thrash_jazz
But wouldn't it be notated in the manner that the composer had intended it to be voiced?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that C11 was the incorrect way to notate C7add11... Correct. C7(11) would not have the 9 in the extensions, unlike C11.

Originally posted by thrash_jazz
But wouldn't it be notated in the manner that the composer had intended it to be voiced?

Yes, but it depends on what the composer's view on the correct way to voice a C11 is...

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that C11 was the incorrect way to notate C7add11...

Well, yes, like PhatBasstard says, C11 would imply the presence of the 9th. Not that it makes a huge difference in the cosmic scheme of things though :D

Methinks in general C11 would be a chord symbol to keep away from...

Originally posted by Damon Rondeau
Anyone remember what the Steely Dan guys called a mu chord? All I remember is the name... I'm thinking that it might have been -- or is close to -- what you guys are calling (for example) Bb/C, which I think of as a major chord with a II in the bass....

I seem to remember it as a major triad with the fourth above the root in the bass; i.e. E/A. My first cover band many years ago tried to learn "Pretzel Logic". We had a hell of a time with the chorus. I just found an online tab site that has the chorus chords as D/E E/A C/D D/G. No wonder the pianist and I could never agree on what they were!

Hey, mflaherty, we used to do "Pretzel Logic" in my old cover band, too. Great tune to play. Those are the same roots I used in the chorus. I never much cared what our guitarist called the chords (he was the Namer of Chords in that band), 'cuz what we played sounded great.

The Dan boys know their way around jazz harmony and could come up with a zillion ways to harmonize that root movement.

Originally posted by mflaherty


I seem to remember it as a major triad with the fourth above the root in the bass; i.e. E/A. My first cover band many years ago tried to learn "Pretzel Logic". We had a hell of a time with the chorus. I just found an online tab site that has the chorus chords as D/E E/A C/D D/G. No wonder the pianist and I could never agree on what they were!

The dan like that chord, yes, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading that a mu chord is a major triad with added 9th.

I'll see if I can turn it up on google...

...here you go:

http://www.jmdl.com/howard/steelydan/mu-major.html

Major triad with added 2nd.

That page waffles on about Steely Dan using them in a special way... Seriously, I was using mu chords in the same way (although I didn't call them that), before I even knew who SD were. Ok, granted, they were using them way before I was, but I didn't know that.

You are correct. I even found the original article that I misremembered so well ;)
Intro to the Steely Dan Song Book (http://www.steelydan.com/songbook.html)

So, does anyone have a name for a major triad with the fourth in the bass?

Well, geez, thanks for the links, you industrious bass players.

I guess the thing to note about SD's Mu chord -- and, as we've seen, it's an add9 -- is that voicing matters. The 3 has to be up there with the 2 to create a little dissonance. It's too damn sweet otherwise...

Originally posted by mflaherty
So, does anyone have a name for a major triad with the fourth in the bass?

I would just call it C/F (for example). You could call it Fmaj9, but to me, an important part of the colour of it is that it doesn't have a 3rd (if you view it as an Fmaj9). So I'd go with C/F.

On another thread I spoke about defining tonality horizontally as well as, or instead of, vertically. The answer to this question requires knowing the harmonic context. The scale underlying those notes could be C or F. Knowing the context helps determine whether the B should be natural or flat. A soloist would want to know this. To me, it's Fmaj9. Also, to me, in a slash chord, the first symbol is the underlying tonality, and I don't buy indicating a C11 with Bb/C because it's misleading, changing the third of C from major to minor.
I view Bb/C as being brought to us by the same folks who brought us tabs. Laziness.

I looked at that mu page. Quite enough sycophancy at work there.
You'd think that somewhere along the line, Dan's large debt to Horace Silver would be cited.

Yes, Don, I agree with you on both counts: contextual analysis and the off-kilterness of Dan-heads.

There were times in the past when I got musical thrills -- real thrills -- from Steely Dan. I can still remember hearing the Wayne Shorter solo on "Aja" the first time, the chromatic funk of "Peg", and the guitar solo on "Kid Charlemagne" still gives me rock 'n roll arousal.

But that was all more than two decades ago. The time has come and gone. Their recent stuff has done nothing for my old ears.

In (non-PR) interviews, Fagen has been quite explicit about his debt to Horace Silver and others. "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" was a conscious rip-off of Horace.

Most non-musicians I know can't stand Steely Dan. They've always had that effect on folks: love 'em or hate 'em. More a musician's band than anything else. There aren't too many still around who do the "sycophant" thing. Just because you've been to Berklee and know your way around jazz harmony doesn't mean you're the be-all and end-all. Still, it's nice that there were some pop musicians around who could think up and get across a tune like "Bodhisattva", if for no other reason than to challenge cover bands.

70's rock would have been a lot more boring without 'em.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
...and I don't buy indicating a C11 with Bb/C because it's misleading.

I wouldn't do it simply because you might want that E natural voiced that the C11 would contain but Bb/C would not.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
On another thread I spoke about defining tonality horizontally as well as, or instead of, vertically. The answer to this question requires knowing the harmonic context. The scale underlying those notes could be C or F. Knowing the context helps determine whether the B should be natural or flat. A soloist would want to know this.

...or rather, decide it ;)

To me, it's Fmaj9

But with no 3rd? To me, this chord has a different character to Fmaj9, because it has no 3rd. I really think the lack of a 3rd is an important part of the colour - and it certainly is in the instances that spring to mind in Steely Dan songs.

Other than calling it C/F, I can't think of any other name for this chord.

Also, to me, in a slash chord, the first symbol is the underlying tonality, and I don't buy indicating a C11 with Bb/C because it's misleading, changing the third of C from major to minor.

Well, the question is - what does C11 mean in the first place?

But, I wouldn't personally take slash chords that literally - i.e. to the extent that Bb/C would imply Eb rather than E. Like you said before, context has to dictate that, and I wouldn't necessarily assume that the fact that it's notated as Bb/C indicates that it would be Bb Major tonality, rather than say Bb Lydian.

To me, the Bb indicates a Bb major triad, but doesn't really indicate what scale is to be used: that's up to you.

I view Bb/C as being brought to us by the same folks who brought us tabs. Laziness.

What would you call that chord?

Originally posted by moley
Well, the question is - what does C11 mean in the first place?

I apologize if your question is rhetorical!

Same as C13, only with extensions to the 11th IMHO.

Of course, any Jazz pianist or guitarist will only play the notes they feel sufficiently imply the chord while still maintaning flow from the previous to the following chord.

The horizontal harmonic approach, that has been mentioned, that makes point in time/vertical analysis difficult sometimes.

Originally posted by moley

What would you call that [I]chord?[?I]
Are you talking about Bb/C? I call it a Bb triad over a C bass. Generically, it's X/II

Originally posted by PhatBasstard


I apologize if your question is rhetorical!

No, quite serious!

Same as C13, only with extensions to the 11th IMHO.

I would tend to agree. But, as I said originally, it would seem some thing of C11 as being essentially the same as Bb/C, i.e. with no 3rd.

Originally posted by Don Higdon

Are you talking about Bb/C? I call it a Bb triad over a C bass. Generically, it's X/II

Yes, but I mean you were saying that calling it Bb/C is lazy. I'm just wondering what chord symbol you'd use to denote that chord.

Originally posted by moley


Yes, but I mean you were saying that calling it Bb/C is lazy. I'm just wondering what chord symbol you'd use to denote that chord.


C7sus?






Second verse, same as the first... :)

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



C7sus?






Second verse, same as the first... :)

:D

Yes, you could call it that, but it's not exactly the same thing is Bb/C. Bb/C would be a valid voicing for C7sus, but C7sus is less specific and includes other voicings.

Originally posted by moley


:D

Yes, you could call it that, but it's not exactly the same thing is Bb/C. Bb/C would be a valid voicing for C7sus, but C7sus is less specific and includes other voicings.

I agree, however, I think we still have an apples and oranges comparison going on.

While it's true in a heavy Jazz situation C7sus might be an acceptable way of essentially writing Bb/C, but I know in most Rock, Pop, Happy/Smooth Jazz situations C7sus is going to be looked on/read as Root, 4, 5, dominant 7 with the 2 not voiced.

I've seen it voiced as such (C7sus) in many lessons/examples by people such as Will Lee, Neil Stubbenhouse (sp?), etc.

I don't understand why it needs to be so vague in the first place. Why can't Bb/C mean just that? A Bb triad over a C bass. And C7sus mean just that? A Root, 4, 5, dominant7 chord. If you want that D in there I've seen it acceptably written as C7sus9 or even C7 2sus4.

I see nothing wrong with simply writing the exact chord you want there without having to imply anything. Take the guesswork out of the equation.

Oversimplified? Probably.:rolleyes: :D

With pop music, I agree, PhatBasstard, about being specific about the chord. In a pop song, I'd go with Csus = C F G, C7sus = C F G Bb, and if I want C Bb D F I'll call it Bb/C.

But it's in the nature of Jazz charts, that the chords are usually less specific, and it's left up to the player to interpret or reharmonize it how they like.

Originally posted by moley
But it's in the nature of Jazz charts, that the chords are usually less specific, and it's left up to the player to interpret or reharmonize it how they like.

Not only that, but many different people will chart things differently because of this "interpretation".

Originally posted by moley

But it's in the nature of Jazz charts, that the chords are usually less specific, and it's left up to the player to interpret or reharmonize it how they like.
If you really believe that, you can tell me why "jazz charts" whatever they are, have any chord symbols at all.

Originally posted by Don Higdon

If you really believe that, you can tell me why "jazz charts" whatever they are, have any chord symbols at all.

Huh?

Can't? Won't?

...I'm just not sure I get the question! :confused:

They have chord symbols so that the players know what the harmony is... No brainer! :D

Originally posted by Don Higdon

If you really believe that, you can tell me why "jazz charts" whatever they are, have any chord symbols at all.

Let me try:
As a guide to support the melody/theme.

Oh, and a "Chart" can be any written organization for outlining, or stating absolutely, a piece of music.
Whether it's Jazz, Rock, etc. will be self-evident.
:)

I'll be answering these one issue at a time.
Originally posted by moley
Yes, but I mean you were saying that calling it Bb/C is lazy. I'm just wondering what chord symbol you'd use to denote that chord.

I answered one question, i.e., "What would you call that chord?"

Several note combinations have been discussed, so my answer was: "Are you talking about Bb/C? I call it a Bb triad over a C bass..."

You have taken my response and applied it to a different issue.

I earlier said that symbolizing C11 with Bb/C was laziness. I broadly linked it to tabs in that it enables the player to produce a musical effect without understanding it musically.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
I'll be answering these one issue at a time.


I answered one question, i.e., "What would you call that chord?"

Several note combinations have been discussed, so my answer was: "Are you talking about Bb/C? I call it a Bb triad over a C bass..."

You have taken my response and applied it to a different issue.

No, sorry, I didn't make myself clear in the first place. When I said "what would you call that chord?", what I meant was, what chord symbol would you use to denote the chord Bb/C.

I earlier said that symbolizing C11 with Bb/C was laziness. I broadly linked it to tabs in that it enables the player to produce a musical effect without understanding it musically.

Ahh. Well it comes down to what C11 actually means in the first place, which was the original question - i.e. whether C11 and Bb/C are pretty much the same thing or not.

If you take C11 to mean a dominant 7th chord extended to the 11th, then they're not the same thing.

In which case, I guess it comes back to: what chord symbol would you use to denote a Bb triad with a C bass?

Originally posted by moley

But it's in the nature of Jazz charts, that the chords are usually less specific, and it's left up to the player to interpret or reharmonize it how they like.

I think are differing views about this - so I have been to many Jazz classes/workshops and have just been on my regular Summerschool, with about 20 of Britain's top Jazz pros.

So - many of these people are writing tunes and their view is that if they take the time and trouble to write them carefully, then people should respect their wishes. So I have heard tutors shouting things like - I want to hear that sharp 11!! ;)

I have also been involved in a few discussions with a local Jazz arranger/composer, who explained how he wrote a lot of his pieces out as "slash" chords, because he had a particular sound in mind which involved a particular voicing of a chord and he found this was a good way to specify exactly what was played by the chordal instruments.

Of course the history of Jazz has consisted of people constantly re-harmonisng tunes and in a predominantly oral tradition this has meant uncertainty about exactly how the chords on standards are meant to be - which has given license to pianists in particular.

But I think if somebody writes a certain chord - then that's how they want it to be - they don't want people re-harmonising it just because they're bored after x number of choruses!

Originally posted by moley

I guess it comes back to: what chord symbol would you use to denote a Bb triad with a C bass?

I could be wrong, but I don't think Don is saying that Bb/C is laziness in general, or an incorrect notation. I think he is simply saying that many try to use it (incorrectly) for C11.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
So - many of these people are writing tunes and their view is that if they take the time and trouble to write them carefully, then people should respect their wishes. So I have heard tutors shouting things like - I want to hear that sharp 11!! ;)

I have also been involved in a few discussions with a local Jazz arranger/composer, who explained how he wrote a lot of his pieces out as "slash" chords, because he had a particular sound in mind which involved a particular voicing of a chord and he found this was a good way to specify exactly what was played by the chordal instruments.

Of course the history of Jazz has consisted of people constantly re-harmonisng tunes and in a predominantly oral tradition this has meant uncertainty about exactly how the chords on standards are meant to be - which has given license to pianists in particular.

But I think if somebody writes a certain chord - then that's how they want it to be - they don't want people re-harmonising it just because they're bored after x number of choruses!

Which is why, as I stated in a previous post, I see nothing wrong with reading or writing the "specific" chord you want played at a specific time, rather than having to interpret or imply anything.

Being able to think all the "mathmatics" and tetra-chord equations on the fly is a great thing, but not neccassarily a prerequisite to good, or even great music.

I've been keeping up with this thread -- love this new theory forum.

I'm not going to presume I understand exactly what Donosaurus is saying with Bb/C = lazy = tabhead equation. I get a glimmer. Must be nice to live up in the heights like that.

I was always under the illusion that producing musical "effects" is what it's all about. I'll take a good musical "effect" producer any day over one who understands but maybe isn't as "effect"-ive.

As Don so rightly pointed out FIRST, context is critical. Somebody wrote down a sequence of musical notation with the aim of having some other person -- sight unseen -- reproduce the musical intent encoded in the notation. That person wrote it down a certain way for a reason. Assuming that person has some competence in communicating to musicians his musical intent -- never a certain assumption -- then you gotta work with information given. Assume it's good until demonstrated otherwise.

Slash chords can be good musical communicators, especially in context. As in demonstrating that a desired bass part, moving or pedalled, is really "the thing" with a given passage. If the intended harmony above it is written in an understandable way -- alternative, simplified, bastardized, use whatever word you want -- why does it matter to anyone?

Respectable fake books, used effectively by hundreds of thousands of musicians, are full of slash chords used in different ways. I just hauled out my Sher New Real 1. I'm no great judge, but it appears to me a product of thoughtful and deliberate musical editing for the most part. (They refer to Brandt and Roemer, "Standard Chord Notation Symbols". Is this a good authority? I have no idea...) The editorial notes say the aim if for the chord symbols they use to be "clear, complete, and unambiguous."

Their entry for Bb/C is a chord within one octave voiced C, D, F, Bb.

Seems clear, complete and unambiguous to me.

Next time I see it, I hope to use it to good musical effect. That's the point, after all.

Originally posted by PhatBasstard


I could be wrong, but I don't think Don is saying that Bb/C is laziness in general, or an incorrect notation. I think he is simply saying that many try to use it (incorrectly) for C11.

Ahh, maybe you're right. Using Bb/C to notate something which is more complex than that - well yes, I agree.

I got the impression that Don was saying that Bb/C (and presumably other slash chords) in general are a lazy man's approach.

Don, I can see where you're coming from in comparing that to tabs - i.e. creating a musical effect without understanding it. But I don't really agree with it as it relates to slash chords. I can see what you mean, in that Bb/C doesn't really tell you much about the function of the chord, just how to play it. But I do think, that sometimes it is the clearer way to give an indication of what a chord progression is. You just have to assume that the player will understand what's happening harmonically.

Whereas with tabs, there is no basis for making the same assumption ;)

My computer took a crap as I was trying to get this posted at 3:00 this afternoon
Originally posted by PhatBasstard
I could be wrong, but I don't think Don is saying that Bb/C is laziness in general, or an incorrect notation. I think he is simply saying that many try to use it (incorrectly) for C11.
At last. Someone got it. Thanks.

Originally posted by Damon Rondeau
I'm not going to presume I understand exactly what Donosaurus is saying with Bb/C = lazy = tabhead equation. I get a glimmer. Must be nice to live up in the heights like that.
I don't apply any standard to anyone that I don't apply to myself first.
I was always under the illusion that producing musical "effects" is what it's all about. I'll take a good musical "effect" producer any day over one who understands but maybe isn't as "effect"-ive.
And I'll take musicianship. The most miserable experience of my life was being stuck on tour with a band that had 3 players who produced effects, but whose musicianship sucked.
As Don so rightly pointed out FIRST, context is critical. Somebody wrote down a sequence of musical notation with the aim of having some other person -- sight unseen -- reproduce the musical intent encoded in the notation. That person wrote it down a certain way for a reason. Assuming that person has some competence in communicating to musicians his musical intent -- never a certain assumption -- then you gotta work with information given. Assume it's good until demonstrated otherwise.
Good reasoning. I'll have my own comments in a separate response to moley.
Slash chords can be good musical communicators, especially in context. As in demonstrating that a desired bass part, moving or pedalled, is really "the thing" with a given passage. If the intended harmony above it is written in an understandable way -- alternative, simplified, bastardized, use whatever word you want -- why does it matter to anyone?
Tom Harrell's Sail Away has some lovely slash chord sequences.
The editorial notes say the aim if for the chord symbols they use to be "clear, complete, and unambiguous."
Their entry for Bb/C is a chord within one octave voiced C, D, F, Bb.
I swear I've read something like that before.
Seems clear, complete and unambiguous to me.

Cause ==> Effect

Good musicianship ==> Good music (one hopes)

I felt a little responsibility to re-read this thread more closely. I tried to (gingerly, I hope) prod D. REX a bit for stuffiness, but I can see now I laboured under an illusion. Namely, Don, I thought you were slagging the use of slash chords generally. I can see now that's not at all what you were saying. Bb/C is in fact a lousy way of writing it when what's intended is something with a C dominant seventh sound, especially when saying C11 makes better functional analysis sense. Should have read you closer; CAT MASTERED obviously did.

So what about BLISS BLISS HERALD's statement way back there that you just don't see this chord -- C11 -- very much? Why is that? Anyone have any examples of it in use? HOLY MOLEY?

Originally posted by RAMBO DA' MAN


So what about BLISS BLISS HERALD's statement way back there that you just don't see this chord -- C11 -- very much? Why is that? Anyone have any examples of it in use? HOLY MOLEY?


The 11th on Major or Dominant chords is generally considered an "avoid note" if you believe in the validity of such terms (I don't, but that's a whole other story). I suppose the general consensus is that the 11th counteracts the clarity and/or function of the primary guide-tone of the chord, thus either weakening it or rendering it useless. Either way, I love the sound of a MELODIC 11th over Maj/Dom chords, but am not fond of it in the harmonic sense, since the sound of the 11th wants (to my ears, anyway) very badly to resolve.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



The 11th on Major or Dominant chords is generally considered an "avoid note" if you believe in the validity of such terms (I don't, but that's a whole other story). I suppose the general consensus is that the 11th counteracts the clarity and/or function of the primary guide-tone of the chord, thus either weakening it or rendering it useless. Either way, I love the sound of a MELODIC 11th over Maj/Dom chords, but am not fond of it in the harmonic sense, since the sound of the 11th wants (to my ears, anyway) very badly to resolve.

I would assume you mean: don't avoid the 11 on an C11 persay, but you feel, to your ears, it somewhat muddles up a C13.

I can see this point. The problem I would have with this unwritten rule is the "to my ears" statement. As Chris' statement already puts forth, everybody's ears are different and not everybody is going to be hit by the same urge to resolve.

This is another reason I think the author should write the exact chord he intends. If he also doesn't like the sound of the 11 in a C13 chord, don't write C13 and hope everybody "gets it".
How about C9(13) ?

At least if re-harmonization happens, you know the author's exact intent first.
This can't be a bad thing.:D

Originally posted by OBESEORPHAN


I would assume you mean: don't avoid the 11 on an C11 persay, but you feel, to your ears, it somewhat muddles up a C13.

What I'm saying is that to my ears, a harmonic 11th muddies up any chord that contains a major 3rd when it is present at the same time as the third. And apparently my ears are not alone in this, which is why the concept of the 11th as an "avoid note" for Major and Dominant chords exists in the first place, and why I believe that the instance of the chord symbol "C11" is so rare. It's common to see CMa#11, or C7#4, or C7sus, but rare in my experience to see "C11". However, the 11th is a very rich and useful color tone for minor chords (the harmonic "avoid note" for minor chords is typically cited as the b6), and for this reason, mi11 chords are much more common.

I can see this point. The problem I would have with this unwritten rule is the "to my ears" statement. As Chris' statement already puts forth, everybody's ears are different and not everybody is going to be hit by the same urge to resolve.

This is another reason I think the author should write the exact chord he intends. If he also doesn't like the sound of the 11 in a C13 chord, don't write C13 and hope everybody "gets it".
How about C9(13) ?

At least if re-harmonization happens, you know the author's exact intent first.
This can't be a bad thing.:D

I still think this last part depends on the style. Asking that a composer write the "exact chord he/she intends" is a bit of a slippery slope, as I have discovered many times in my own compositions - at what point does a mere chord symbol become insufficient to convey "exactly what you intend"? In my case, since I was a jazz pianist in a previous life, I often hear not only specific chords when I write a song, but also specific voicings...and when this happens, no chord symbol can convey exactly what I want. The most common solution in these instances for me is to write both general chord symbols and suggested voicings (and sometimes rhythms as well) in notation; the performer then has a good starting point from which to play the song exactly I intended it, and also has the general outline in the chord symbols from which to interpret the harmony on his/her own.

I find this solution to be particularly useful when improvisation is an implicit part of the composition. The most common scenario is that a performer will stick fairly close to what's written during the melody, and branch out and interpret during the solos. The point of all of this is that chord symbol notation is only an exact science to a certain degree, and beyond that point a certain amount of interpretation is implied at the level of specific voicings.

Originally posted by Damon Rondeau
So what about BLISS BLISS HERALD's statement way back there that you just don't see this chord -- C11 -- very much? Why is that? Anyone have any examples of it in use? HOLY MOLEY?

I can't recall any specific tunes. I've seen it used in charts of pop songs (including those piano/piano & vocal arrangements of pop songs/albums you see). I distinctly recall seeing it used to denote chords which are actually sus chords. I have seen, for example, chords in such charts notated as C11, when the chord is essentially Bb/C - with no E in the chord.

But, I have also been told that 11 chords should contain the 3rd.

It's an important difference to the voicing of a chord - 3rd or no 3rd.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
The point of all of this is that chord symbol notation is only an exact science to a certain degree, and beyond that point a certain amount of interpretation is implied at the level of specific voicings.

I agree. When it comes to what notes a particular pianist or guitarist are going to play to outline/imply an extended chord like a C13, chord symbols without actual notation are inadequate.

Of course (although I've never seen this done), the author could possibly write chord symbols to actually denote the 3, 4, or 5 note voicing he/she actually wants at that particular spot. It could be written above or below the full intended chord symbol.
One of my Jazz fake books does something similar to this by notating alternate, more often used (in modern times) chord subs, directly above the originaly authored chords.

Originally posted by PhatBasstard


I agree. When it comes to what notes a particular pianist or guitarist are going to play to outline/imply an extended chord like a C13, chord symbols without actual notation are inadequate.

But, in a Jazz lead sheet - is it really desirable that the exact voicing for a 13 chord be given?

IMO, no. One of the things that's great about Jazz is the freedom to interpret harmony in a personal way. As a pianist, I don't want to be told specific voicings, I'd rather voice it the way I hear it. I don't have a problem with relatively non-exact chord symbols (e.g. C7 instead of C13 or A-7 instead of A-11).

If I'm playing a specific arrangement, that's another thing entirely, of course.

But if we're talking about a small Jazz group setting, where everyone's playing from lead sheets - I reserve the right to voice chords, and indeed reharmonize them, how I like.

Some people will talk about "disrespecting the composer's intentions" and suchlike - personally, I don't buy that. The composer heard it one specific way, yes - but that doesn't mean it must be played that way forever more. Improvisation and personal interpretation is what that kind of Jazz is about. Would you accuse Herbie Hancock of disrespecting Lennon & McCartney's intentions by completely reharmonizing Norweigan Wood? Or disrespecting Becker & Fagen's intentions by reharmonizing Your Gold Teeth II? I wouldn't.

Originally posted by MOLASSES


Some people will talk about "disrespecting the composer's intentions" and suchlike - personally, I don't buy that. The composer heard it one specific way, yes - but that doesn't mean it must be played that way forever more. Improvisation and personal interpretation is what that kind of Jazz is about. Would you accuse Herbie Hancock of disrespecting Lennon & McCartney's intentions by completely reharmonizing Norweigan Wood? Or disrespecting Becker & Fagen's intentions by reharmonizing Your Gold Teeth II? I wouldn't.

On the other hand, reharmonizing out of a desire to personalize a song is one thing. and reharmonizing out of ignorance of the composer's intention is quite another. Either way, it can't hurt to know what specific voicings the composer actually had in mind, even if you then choose to disregard them.

Originally posted by moley


I recall hearing Fagen refer to a major triad with added 9th as a mu chord. He liked that chord. I like it too. He uses it a fair bit. So do I. But, just for the record, I liked it before I even knew who Steely Dan were :D

And he often does literally voice it : 1 2 3 5. It's kinda a cluster, but it works.
The Steely Dan Mu chord is a suspended 9th chord but its the voicing that makes it "mu".Its the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th together so in E, its f#,g# and b, low to high. Easy on piano, a little harder for guitar.

Originally posted by moley
One of the things that's great about Jazz is the freedom to interpret harmony in a personal way. As a pianist, I don't want to be told specific voicings, I'd rather voice it the way I hear it. I don't have a problem with relatively non-exact chord symbols (e.g. C7 instead of C13 or A-7 instead of A-11).

If I'm playing a specific arrangement, that's another thing entirely, of course.

But if we're talking about a small Jazz group setting, where everyone's playing from lead sheets - I reserve the right to voice chords, and indeed reharmonize them, how I like.

Some people will talk about "disrespecting the composer's intentions" and suchlike - personally, I don't buy that. The composer heard it one specific way, yes - but that doesn't mean it must be played that way forever more. Improvisation and personal interpretation is what that kind of Jazz is about. Would you accuse Herbie Hancock of disrespecting Lennon & McCartney's intentions by completely reharmonizing Norweigan Wood? Or disrespecting Becker & Fagen's intentions by reharmonizing Your Gold Teeth II? I wouldn't.

I never disagreed with this. In fact, I believe I addressed it with this statement in a previous post:
------------------------------------------------------------
This is another reason I think the author should write the exact chord he intends. If he also doesn't like the sound of the 11 in a C13 chord, don't write C13 and hope everybody "gets it".
How about C9(13) ?

At least if re-harmonization happens, you know the author's exact intent first.
This can't be a bad thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This somewhat also agrees with what Chris just said above.

Bottom line: There is nothing wrong with knowing the author's exact, original intent.

Originally posted by jgsbass

The Steely Dan Mu chord is a suspended 9th chord but its the voicing that makes it "mu".Its the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th together so in E, its f#,g# and b, low to high. Easy on piano, a little harder for guitar.

This kind of goes along with "knowing the author's original, exact intent", such as wanting this particular close voicing.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "suspended 9th" since the 3rd is present. Since you want the close voicing, and assuming the E is in the bass, I might go with E2 or maybe F#2sus4(no5)/E (although not very efficient),...or mu ;) :D.

Unusual chords to be sure, but would help get the author's intended voicing across.

Originally posted by jgsbass

The Steely Dan Mu chord is a suspended 9th chord but its the voicing that makes it "mu".Its the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th together so in E, its f#,g# and b, low to high. Easy on piano, a little harder for guitar.

Yes, like I said.

I wouldn't call it a suspended 9th though - that implies that the 2nd would replace the 3rd. The important thing about this chord is that it has both the 3rd and 2nd, next to eachother. I'd call it an add9 chord, not a sus9.

Originally posted by PhatBasstard
This is another reason I think the author should write the exact chord he intends. If he also doesn't like the sound of the 11 in a C13 chord, don't write C13 and hope everybody "gets it".
How about C9(13) ?

Actually I think it's perfectly reasonable to write C13 and hope everybody gets it. C9(13) seems like a pointless chord symbol.

Originally posted by moley


Yes, like I said.

I wouldn't call it a suspended 9th though - that implies that the 2nd would replace the 3rd. The important thing about this chord is that it has both the 3rd and 2nd, next to eachother. I'd call it an add9 chord, not a sus9.

That's the problem. Calling it a "add9" doesn't denote the close voicing the author intends.

Originally posted by moley


Actually I think it's perfectly reasonable to write C13 and hope everybody gets it. C9(13) seems like a pointless chord symbol.

..not if the author (like Chris) specifically doesn't want the 11 voiced. What's wrong with being specific?

The point is: The author wants the C13 without the 11 voiced, but not everybody is going to hear it that way, so...C9(13).

...and for someone like me who is not "Joe Jazz" these kind of specifics would be very helpful. I would like to know the author's true intent before I (or anybody else) start to bastardize the tune.

Originally posted by PhatBasstard


That's the problem. Calling it a "add9" doesn't denote the close voicing the author intends.

Yes, but no chord symbol does! Mu isn't a chord symbol, it's just a name Steely Dan use. There is no chord symbol to denote that specific voicing, because that's not what chord symbols are supposed to do!

If the composer is concerned with a specific voicing, then using chord symbols alone to convey the chords to the player is a bad idea! Chord symbols aren't supposed to convey specfic voicings - that's up to the player.

The closest chord symbol for the Mu chord is add9.

Originally posted by PhatBasstard


..not if the author (like Chris) specifically doesn't want the 11 voiced.

C13 doesn't contain an 11th. You could reharmonize it as a sus chord, and include one, or reharmonize it and include a #11. Either way, you're reharmonizing anyway - so "what the composer wants" goes out the window.

What's wrong with being specific?

It's just not the way things tend to work with Jazz lead sheets. If you want specific voicings, write 'em out on a staff.

The point is: The author wants the C13 without the 11 voiced, but not everybody is going to hear it that way, so...C9(13).

C13 and C9(13) are more or less the same thing. C13 is a standard chord symbol, but I've never seen C9(13) written. I reckon Jazz players would read C13 and C9(13) as the same thing. If the pianist wants to voice it with an 11th, he'll do that, regardless of whether you notate it as C13 or C9(13).

And so they should play it how they hear it. If the player hears it with an 11th, they play it with an 11th. Personal interpretation - a big part of Jazz! If you're the composer, and you want the band to play a specific arrangement, write it out for them. But Jazz tends to be improvised, by its very nature. It's about what the player hears, more than what the composer intended. Gershwin didn't intend I Got Rhythm to be played with tritone subs, and with altered dominant chords and the like. He didn't even intend it to be played by Jazz groups. And I'm sure he didn't intend its changes to be "bastardized" (as you call it) and used for countless other tunes by Charlie Parker and the like. But so what? When Jazz groups play standards, since when has it been about playing it as the composer heard it?

...and for someone like me who is not "Joe Jazz" these kind of specifics would be very helpful. I would like to know the author's true intent before I (or anybody else) start to bastardize the tune.

You call it bastardized, I call it reharmonized.

Originally posted by moley
You call it bastardized, I call it reharmonized.
That blade cuts both ways.

Originally posted by moley
The closest chord symbol for the Mu chord is add9.

I disagree. You can definately (for some chords at least) denote the voicing intent by how you write it. Who says "mu" isn't (or won't become) an acceptable way to indicate this close voicing, and as I stated above: E2 or F#2sus4/E would denote the close, intended voicing of the "mu" chord exactly (if played as written). An "add9" would simply be.....just another add9, thus negating the reason for even denoting the "mu" chord.

Originally posted by moley
C13 doesn't contain an 11th.
:confused:Only as this "unwriiten rule of Jazz harmony". Under strict rules of theory (at least the books I've seen) it certainly does.

If you want specific voicings, write 'em out on a staff.
Not always practical on a "Lead Sheet".

Personal interpretation - a big part of Jazz!
Nothing wrong with it....after you know the author's original intent. Many a beautiful moment has been lost to blind "personal interpetation".

Gershwin didn't intend I Got Rhythm to be played with tritone subs, and with altered dominant chords and the like.
Now that would be ugly. :D :D

You call it bastardized, I call it reharmonized.
And this is sometimes the crux of the problem. ;)
I was a little punchy when I wrote this, but you get the idea. :D

Originally posted by PhatBasstard


I disagree.

What other well established chord symbol can you think of that more closely represents the Mu chord?

You can definately (for some chords at least) denote the voicing intent by how you write it. Who says "mu" isn't (or won't become) an acceptable way to indicate this close voicing

Doesn't seem likely.

and as I stated above: E2 or F#2sus4/E would denote the close, intended voicing of the "mu" chord exactly (if played as written)

No it wouldn't, not at all. I've never ever seen E2 used as a chord symbol, so I don't know what I'd make of it if I saw it - but how exactly does it imply a major triad with added 9th voiced next to the 3rd?

My first assumption would be that E2 is like Esus9 or Esus2, where the 2nd replaces the 3rd.

And F#2sus4/E - again, not like any chord symbol I've ever seen (on account of the "2" part, again) - but, it still doesn't specify that the F# be voiced next to the G#. Just because the chord symbol has a 2 not a 9 in it - that doesn't tell you anything about which octave it's voiced in. The numbers in a chord symbol, and whether they're above or below 8 (i.e. 2 4 6 vs 9 11 13) don't tell you anything about where in the voicing they should appear. There is no difference between 2 and 9, 4 and 11, and 6 & 13 except that the convention is that 9 11 and 13 indicate dominant 7th chords.

But more to the point, E2 and F#2sus4/E are just downright confusing. If you wrote E2, I think most pianists would wonder what it meant, whereas the meaning of Eadd9 is clear. As for F#2sus4/E - that is just silly, and completely obfuscates the meaning. It tells you nothing about the function. It should be an E Major chord, but calling it F#2sus4/E just confuses matters. I think your average piano player reading a chart with that written on it would assume you meant F#sus/E - which is really *not* what the Mu chord is.

I stand by what I said. Chord symbols in general don't tell you specific voicings. Some are more specific than others, but there really isn't a chord symbol I can think of that denotes a major triad with added 9th, where the 9th is voiced next to the 3rd.

The closest I can think of is add9, which tells you it's a major triad with added 9th, it just doesn't tell you to voice the 9th next to the 3rd. And nor should it, IMO.

If you want a specific voicing, write it out on the staff. If you want to let the musicians voice it how they hear it, use chord symbols.

IMO it's really not the job of chord symbols to tell you to voice the 9th next to the 3rd.

Originally posted by PhatBasstard
Only as this "unwriiten rule of Jazz harmony". Under strict rules of theory (at least the books I've seen) it certainly does.

I disagree.


Not always practical on a "Lead Sheet".

Not at all practical on a lead sheet. If you want specific voicings - give 'em a written out piano part, NOT a lead sheet! It's not the job of a lead sheet to tell you to voice the 9th next to the 3rd.


Nothing wrong with it....after you know the author's original intent. Many a beautiful moment has been lost to blind "personal interpetation".

Actually, I question that - "after you know the author's intent". It depends on the circumstance, of course. If you're playing something for the composer at their request, and working with them, then yes. But, when Summertime is called at a jam session - where does Gershwin's original intent come into it?

And for example if I'm doing a solo piano version of Maiden Voyage - how does Herbie's original intent come into it? It doesn't, necessarily. Herbie used that distinctive Dsus voicing, but I could use an entirely different one. In that case, it doesn't matter that it's not Herbie's original intent. Even if Herbie were sitting in the audience, I don't suppose he'd mind :D Especially after the severe "bastardization" (your word) that he unleashed on the works of Lennon & McCartney, Becker & Fagen, and the like.

It depends on the circumstance as to whether the composers original intention is important. But if it is important to the extent that specific voicings are needed - why the heck would you be working from a lead sheet?

Now that would be ugly.

Huh? I Got Rhythm *is* played with tritone subs, altered dominant chords and the like, and it ain't ugly...

Originally posted by moley
I disagree.
With just me or the books? I've never seen a Theory book that just arbirarily throws the 11 out of a 13 chord.

It's not the job of a lead sheet to tell you to voice the 9th next to the 3rd.
Why not if it easily can, as in my earlier examples??? Why limit if not needed. It makes no sense.

And for example if I'm doing a solo piano version of Maiden Voyage - how does Herbie's original intent come into it? It doesn't, necessarily. Herbie used that distinctive Dsus voicing, but I could use an entirely different one. In that case, it doesn't matter that it's not Herbie's original intent. Even if Herbie were sitting in the audience, I don't suppose he'd mind Especially after the severe "bastardization" (your word) that he unleashed on the works of Lennon & McCartney, Becker & Fagen, and the like.
Lennon & McCartney, due to their music being ingrained in our psyche over the years, is not a real good example (i.e. If you don't already know their intent due to repeated listenings, you've been living under a rock. I doubt Herbie was.).
Fagen was already trying to tell you his voicing with the "mu", reinforcing my point.

Huh? I Got Rhythm *is* played with tritone subs, altered dominant chords and the like, and it ain't ugly...
Sorry. I get a little silly sometimes. :p

I've never ever seen E2 used as a chord symbol, so I don't know what I'd make of it if I saw it - but how exactly does it imply a major triad with added 9th voiced next to the 3rd?
Well first, the point is it's not the "9th" at this point, it's the 2nd, which is the whole point about it being a good thing to know the author's original intent.
Secondly, I've seen E2 written in several charts, in shows and backup gigs for entertainers I've done that had their stuff charted. It's very logical to read, just like a E7 (root, 3, 5 with the added dom7), E2 (root, 3, 5 with the added 2nd, not 9th). Very easy to understand, but don't confuse with an Esus2 because the 3rd is present in an E2.

I must admit, at nearly 39 I haven't thought about this stuff much sinse High School and College when I really had to know my scales and tetrachord formulas because it was academics. You guys have really had me going back to some of the theory books to reaquaint myself with much of it.

The reason I've forgotten much of the academia, is that through a lot of interval ear training, and being in a lot of bands that would fake anything, and on many chartless fill-in gigs, I've developed excellent relative pitch (I had real good relative pitch as a kid before I ever started playing). Not to be confused with perfect pitch (some of those people are scary).

I'm at the point where I can pretty much play any notes I hear in my head (I'm also a vocalist and I also get a lot of work because of my harmony abilities). Unfortunately (Fortunately?) this has caused me to get lazy about all the terms and "mathmatics" involved in advanced harmonies and scales.

Thanks for waking me back up and making me think because this is stuff I can't really talk about with players on a lot of my gigs.:o :eek: :D

Originally posted by PhatBasstard
With just me or the books? I've never seen a Theory book that just arbirarily throws the 11 out of a 13 chord.

Both :D

I've never seen a theory book that says that 13 chords have an 11, but I haven't seen many theory books that go into that. Are you saying that a 13 chord is a dominant 7th with the 9th, 11th, and 13th? IME, it doesn't contain the 11th, unless you choice to include it, in which case you're not just playing a 13 chord. Levine's book also indicates as much.

Why not if it easily can, as in my earlier examples??? Why limit if not needed. It makes no sense.

Well, it *can't* easily, because chord symbols aren't designed to be that precise. The examples you gave were inpractical. You don't see those chord symbols on charts because they would be confusing. The meaning isn't all that clear.

Lennon & McCartney, due to their music being ingrained in our psyche over the years, is not a real good example (i.e. If you don't already know their intent due to repeated listenings, you've been living under a rock. I doubt Herbie was.).
Fagen was already trying to tell you his voicing with the "mu", reinforcing my point.

But Herbie didn't use the Mu chord in his version! Thus ignoring the composer's original intent!

Well first, the point is it's not the "9th" at this point, it's the 2nd

You say tomato I say tomato, they're the same thing.

which is the whole point about it being a good thing to know the author's original intent.
Secondly, I've seen E2 written in several charts, in shows and backup gigs for entertainers I've done that had their stuff charted. It's very logical to read, just like a E7 (root, 3, 5 with the added dom7), E2 (root, 3, 5 with the added 2nd, not 9th). Very easy to understand, but don't confuse with an Esus2 because the 3rd is present in an E2.

Well, I've still never seen it used. If it is what you say it is - then it's the same as Eadd9 anyway. There really is no difference between 2nd and 9th in this context. You can voice the 9th next to the 3rd in an Eadd9 voicing (I usually do), and you can voice the 2nd in the next octave in an E2 voicing, right...

Originally posted by moley
Are you saying that a 13 chord is a dominant 7th with the 9th, 11th, and 13th?
Yes. If I had a scanner that was up & running I'd attach the page.
The book I happen to have in front of me is a "Music Theory & Composition" by Tomei. I have others I could dig out, but I know what's in them and the ones that deal with extended chords do it in the same fashion.

That being said, I think you're approaching a 13 chord definition by it's common usage in a Jazz, partially voiced context as most players don't voice extended chords in their entirety anyway, with many leaving out the 11 due to taste.
However, the true, full blown definition (according to my schooling and all the literature I've ever seen) includes the 11.

UPDATE: As I'm reading deeper, he does raise a caution flag over certain color tones in certain contexts. While the 11 is part of the true full blown chord, he does say in certain situations you may want to omit it.:eek: :D

Originally posted by moley
But Herbie didn't use the Mu chord in his version! Thus ignoring the composer's original intent!
You're still missing my point on this. I didn't ever say you had to play it like the original composer did, but it's good to know his true compositional statement before you change it.

You're too subtle, PB.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
You're too subtle, PB.

I'm very F***ing subtle! :D (...damn right!)

Originally posted by PhatBasstard
You're still missing my point on this. I didn't ever say you had to play it like the original composer did, but it's good to know his true compositional statement before you change it.

Well yes, in general it's good to know what you're reharmonizing - but what has this really got to do with trying to use chord symbols that specify exact voicings?

I take your point about knowing the composer's original intention first - but I just think that this idea of trying to use chord symbols to indicate specific voicings is silly, because that's not what chord symbols are really designed to do. They indicate the content, but specific voicings, or indeed reharmonizations, are up to the player. This is one of the things that is great about Jazz... F7 could be written on the page, but two different pianists could use two very different voicings.

You're talking about using chord symbols to denote specific voicings - in what circumstances do you envisage this being necessary? If you've composed something you want your band to play, for example, would this be the sort of thing you're talking about? Maybe you've composed it on the piano, and you've come up with some very nice voicings that you feel are integral to the piece as you hear it. I don't blame you! But if you want your pianist to voice them that way - write them out on a staff. The art of voicing chords is a complex one, and you cannot convey enough information in a chord symbol, for this purpose.

One example would be where chords have notes in common. Here's a series of chords: Ab7 G7#5 F#13. Now, you may feel that the common note here (Eb/D#) is an important thing - it may be that when you composed it, you heard it with that note at the top, with descending dominant 7ths beneath them. Maybe you had the D#/Eb in octaves in the right hand, and a descending sequence of tritones on the left hand - Gb & C, F & B, E & A#.

Now there's no way, using chord symbols, to convey this. You could just rely on the pianist noticing the common D#/Eb and voicing it in a similar way, but you can't specify it. There's no way, using a chord symbol, to indicate which note is at the top of the voicing. Let alone any way to indicate it is to be played in octaves!

The typical solution would be writing out the voicing on the staff, and just putting the simple chord symbols Ab7 G7#5 F#13 above it. This way the pianist can see your intention, but also has chord symbols to indicate the harmony. Typically, what might happen is he'll play the written out voicings during the head, and then use his own voicings (if he wants to), and reharmonize (if he wants to) during solos. Or maybe you want him to use those written out voicings every time, in which case you could tell him, or indicate it on his chart.

Anyhow, the most you can get with chord symbols is some kind of half-way house. You could try to write more specific chord symbols to indicate more specific voicings, but there are plenty of simple yet effective voicing techniques (e.g. keeping the top note constant like that) that may be integral to the sound as you hear it - that you can't indicate that with chord symbols.

And if you try you may just end up with something that's confusing, and just obfuscates the meaning - e.g. your F#2sus4/E example.

If you're hearing specific voicings - and as a composer, I realise that you do hear specific voicings - then notate them fully. However put chord symbols above the staff (ones that don't try to specify particular voicings). That way, when it's appropriate to vary the voicings or reharmonize, or whatever, the player has a slightly more general view of the harmony to work with.

I agree with about 98% of what you just stated. For the most part you are not going to be able to specify exact voicings with just chord symbols.

However, I still believe that writing a chord as an 2 rather than an add9 because you want, at that particular chord, to make sure the player knows you want the 2nd between the root and the third (even though many will voice an add9 this way anyway), or a 6 rather than an add13 for the same reasons (i.e. many will voice an add13 as a 6 anyway, but not all).

Sure, there's only a few places this will work, but it's an easy concept to grasp, I've seen it used and used it myself for charts (even got commended on it by none other than Jazz Guitarist Herb Ellis when he was a guest artist/adjudicator when I was in college).
It's just more tools for communication.

Reharmonize yourselves silly. :D