C2 chord?

[onlyclave]

He's likely going by the classical definition of suspension. Technically, if you want to get into counterpoint, there can't be a suspension of a note that resolves upwards - that's against the very definition of suspension. If it resolves upwards, it would be a retardation, and I'm not sure if too many people would adopt the nomenclature "Cretard2".

There can of course be a suspension of the second over the root (9-8 suspension), but then you get into contrapuntal patterns that are wholly foreign to our system of chord symbology. The whole concept of "sus" in contemporary and popular music is different than that in the common practice so its important not to get confused by the two. "Sus" in contemporary music means a chord that has another note substituted for the third.

That's what I was thinking too. Perhaps C2 is a Gsus4 in 2nd inversion? Can you really apply tertian analysis to quartal harmony?

 

[Febs]

A C9 chord, typically, has the note D voiced outside of the octave whilst the Csus2 or C2 chord is voiced within the octave and omits the third.

Please don't confuse C9 (C E G Bb D) with Cadd9 (C E G D).

 

[slybass3000]

A chord symbol has nothing to do voicings. It is a way to mention the notes in the chord. In this case it is a way to describe these three notes: C-D and G. It could have been written also: Gsus4/C. C2 is an easier way of writing it.

Would you write a chord like this : Cmin7 add2 for a Cmin9 when the ninth would be below the 7th for an exemple ? NO !!!

You can place your notes according to your instrument as long as you respect the low interval limits, avoid the min9 interval and the cluster on top.

 

[puff father]

Huh..., I'll be. Never heard of a 'X'sus2 chord and wouldn't have known what to do with it if I had seen it (until now anyway). If I saw any chord with "sus" I would play it as a sus4. Csus2 I would have (hypothetically on a g**tar) played C,F,G,D and not C,D,G,C. I guess it makes sense though. I hear it and use it all the time, just didn't know (duh) that it had a name. The D was always just a passing tone to me.

I'm amazed that the answer to "What's a C2 chord?" has ended being such an involved discussion.

The poor OP may have no more idea what to play now than he did before asking the question!

@OP: Just play a C with a D on top and it will sound fine! Add a G over the D and it sounds cool too (on that hypothetical G**tar that is).

 

[Richard Lindsey]

A chord symbol has nothing to do voicings. It is a way to mention the notes in the chord. In this case it is a way to describe these three notes: C-D and G. It could have been written also: Gsus4/C. C2 is an easier way of writing it.

Would you write a chord like this : Cmin7 add2 for a Cmin9 when the ninth would be below the 7th for an exemple ? NO !!!

You can place your notes according to your instrument as long as you respect the low interval limits, avoid the min9 interval and the cluster on top.

I agree with sly. Voicings always matter in terms of color, but they don't always matter--in fact they usually don't--when we're talking about the nature or name of the chord. You can voice a C major chord a number of different ways, it can be a close voicing or a wide voicing, but it's never anything but a C major chord.

IMO one really can't maintain a consistent distinction between add2 and add9, in our modern practice anyway. It is by no means universally accepted that there is any real distinction in the first place, regardless of what the origins of the terms may have been. I'm well aware that the argument has been made, but I can't see that it's really supportable across the board.

Consider some concrete practical examples. Suppose I'm a guitar player playing the voicing C E G D. If that has to be an add9 rather than an add2, what happens if I decide to play the voicing C E G D E? Nothing has changed but the addition of a high E. Did the D just become an add2 because it's now next to a high E? Even though its relation to the root and 5th is unchanged, and even though it's outside the first octave above the lowest note the guitar is playing? If so, why? And what do you gain in harmonic terms from thinking so?

And what if there's also a bass playing a low C? ANY D I hit on the guitar is outside the first octave above the bass, and possibly even outside the second octave. Is that an add2 relative to the bass, or an add9?

Suppose I revert to my C E G D voicing, but there's also a synth player hitting a chord in his right hand, comprising D above middle C, the E right next to it, the G above that, and the C above that. The D that's his lowest note is the same concert pitch as the D I'm hitting on the 3rd fret of my B string on my guitar. IOW, not only the same note but the same pitch in the same register. Does that mean the synth player is playing an add2 but I'm playing an add9? Would one seriously argue that they're two different chords? What would you gain in understanding or clarity from doing that? What if I go back to my C E G D E voicing? Am I now playing an add9 too? If so, why? And if you adduce the pedal steel explanation, what's to stop a 9th from resolving up to a 10th, which is nothing but the 3rd in another register?

Even more to the point, even if one could make the distinction, what would be the point in harmonic terms? There's no harmonic difference of any significance, no added explanatory power in terms of what's going on, and for me, an explanation that adds no explanatory power is generally dispensable.

I'd contend that add2 and add9 are nothing but the same chord voiced differently, the same way you can voice a major 7th in a cool Bill Evans way or in my hamfisted way and it's still a major 7th.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

He's likely going by the classical definition of suspension. Technically, if you want to get into counterpoint, there can't be a suspension of a note that resolves upwards - that's against the very definition of suspension. If it resolves upwards, it would be a retardation, and I'm not sure if too many people would adopt the nomenclature "Cretard2".

There can of course be a suspension of the second over the root (9-8 suspension), but then you get into contrapuntal patterns that are wholly foreign to our system of chord symbology. The whole concept of "sus" in contemporary and popular music is different than that in the common practice so its important not to get confused by the two. "Sus" in contemporary music means a chord that has another note substituted for the third.

You may be right about the classical definition. You are definitely right about the unacceptability of the term Cretard2!

Another thing to think about is that by older definitions, suspension would imply a necessary resolution. But the way we use chords now, that is by no means the case. So thinking about how a suspension might resolve in classical terms is not necessarily a guide to how they're being used in music right now.

 

[HaVIC5]

A chord symbol has nothing to do voicings. It is a way to mention the notes in the chord. In this case it is a way to describe these three notes: C-D and G. It could have been written also: Gsus4/C. C2 is an easier way of writing it.

Would you write a chord like this : Cmin7 add2 for a Cmin9 when the ninth would be below the 7th for an exemple ? NO !!!

You can place your notes according to your instrument as long as you respect the low interval limits, avoid the min9 interval and the cluster on top.

If chord voicings don't matter, why have two different chord symbols for the pitch collection A C E G? It could be Amin7, or C6, depending on context. Or what about A C Eb G? A-7(b5) or C-6. Or what about D/C? It could "mean" Cmaj7, or it could mean D7 in third inversion.

Remember, chord symbols weren't invented as devices for theoretical analysis - they were invented in the 1920's as an easy means to convey basic knowledge of harmony for the purposes of improvisation. They weren't supposed to be an all-purpose means of analyzing and codefying harmonic practice - they were just a shortcut for jazz improvisers. There are different practices associated with different chord symbols depending on the stylistic norms.

I've had this argument with a lot of people. They emphatically argue that there shouldn't be any difference between Cadd9 and Cadd2, because within jazz specifically there usually isn't any distinction between the 2 and the 9 within harmonic voicings. The problem with this is quite simply that there are standard practices that don't conform to jazz paradigm. There are other forms of music besides jazz (when was the last time you saw Cadd9 on a jazz chart, anyway?) and they have their own ways of interpreting chord symbols. Country and country rock players have their own way of understanding these two chord symbols for the reasons I outlined previously, and no amount of guffawing and harumphing from the jazzers is going to change that basic fact. You can't argue with the truth except for blithely saying "thats not the way it SHOULD be!" According to whom? Jamey Aebersold? Please.

REMEMBER. Chord symbols are NOT theoretical tools. Most of the time they are painfully lacking in analytical ability, and serve to convey basic information about the harmony. Some chord symbols may convey more information than others (voicings, extensions, inversions, etc) but they aren't the be-all-end-all-truth on harmony.

Even more to the point, even if one could make the distinction, what would be the point in harmonic terms? There's no harmonic difference of any significance, no added explanatory power in terms of what's going on, and for me, an explanation that adds no explanatory power is generally dispensable.

One thing that can be very easily gleaned from your post is that you, and most people, put way too much faith into the power of chord symbols to explain what is going on harmonically. You give all sorts of possible exceptions to the Cadd2, Cadd9 idea, but in doing that you open up a whole wide range of other questions.

Consider a big band voicing, if you will. The trombones are playing a G major triad in first inversion, the trumpets are playing a B-7 third inversion (F# on top), and the saxophones are playing a spread C major 6 with the first alto playing an A on the staff. The ear very clearly hears the composite of this event as a "C major 7" sort of sound, now doubt about it, but in order to understand what's truly going on, you have to analyze the voicing. Sure you could just go ahead and say that its just a "C major 7 (9,#11,13)", but there's way more than that chord symbol can give you happening within the chord. It's not just "color", its the very intervallic nature of the harmony.

The Cadd2/Cadd9 idea attempts to control that, and give some idea of the voicing the composer wants. If the composer/arranger wants that lapsteel effect, how else are they supposed to notate it? Are they just SOL, and are subject to the whims of the overzealous jazz improviser, overembellishing the chord to their own desire?

I think you completely understate the nature of voicings within composition and music, because to a jazz improvisers, voicings are interchangable. That simply isn't the case with a lot of other forms of music.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

If chord voicings don't matter, why have two different chord symbols for the pitch collection A C E G? It could be Amin7, or C6, depending on context. Or what about A C Eb G? A-7(b5) or C-6. Or what about D/C? It could "mean" Cmaj7, or it could mean D7 in third inversion.

Remember, chord symbols weren't invented as devices for theoretical analysis - they were invented in the 1920's as an easy means to convey basic knowledge of harmony for the purposes of improvisation. They weren't supposed to be an all-purpose means of analyzing and codefying harmonic practice - they were just a shortcut for jazz improvisers. There are different practices associated with different chord symbols depending on the stylistic norms.

I've had this argument with a lot of people. They emphatically argue that there shouldn't be any difference between Cadd9 and Cadd2, because within jazz specifically there usually isn't any distinction between the 2 and the 9 within harmonic voicings. The problem with this is quite simply that there are standard practices that don't conform to jazz paradigm. There are other forms of music besides jazz (when was the last time you saw Cadd9 on a jazz chart, anyway?) and they have their own ways of interpreting chord symbols. Country and country rock players have their own way of understanding these two chord symbols for the reasons I outlined previously, and no amount of guffawing and harumphing from the jazzers is going to change that basic fact. You can't argue with the truth except for blithely saying "thats not the way it SHOULD be!" According to whom? Jamey Aebersold? Please.

REMEMBER. Chord symbols are NOT theoretical tools. Most of the time they are painfully lacking in analytical ability, and serve to convey basic information about the harmony. Some chord symbols may convey more information than others (voicings, extensions, inversions, etc) but they aren't the be-all-end-all-truth on harmony.



One thing that can be very easily gleaned from your post is that you, and most people, put way too much faith into the power of chord symbols to explain what is going on harmonically. You give all sorts of possible exceptions to the Cadd2, Cadd9 idea, but in doing that you open up a whole wide range of other questions.

Consider a big band voicing, if you will. The trombones are playing a G major triad in first inversion, the trumpets are playing a B-7 third inversion (F# on top), and the saxophones are playing a spread C major 6 with the first alto playing an A on the staff. The ear very clearly hears the composite of this event as a "C major 7" sort of sound, now doubt about it, but in order to understand what's truly going on, you have to analyze the voicing. Sure you could just go ahead and say that its just a "C major 7 (9,#11,13)", but there's way more than that chord symbol can give you happening within the chord. It's not just "color", its the very intervallic nature of the harmony.

The Cadd2/Cadd9 idea attempts to control that, and give some idea of the voicing the composer wants. If the composer/arranger wants that lapsteel effect, how else are they supposed to notate it? Are they just SOL, and are subject to the whims of the overzealous jazz improviser, overembellishing the chord to their own desire?

I think you completely understate the nature of voicings within composition and music, because to a jazz improvisers, voicings are interchangable. That simply isn't the case with a lot of other forms of music.

I think you misunderstand. I never said that voicings are interchangeable. If they were interchangeable, there would be no point in having more than one. They sound different, but more often than not, they don't change the chord name when you are talking about a different arrangement of the exact same notes. (There are of course a times when they do, as in the m7/M6 example you gave, but IME add2/9 isn't one of them.) That is, they are not interchangeable in terms of how they sound, but they are often interchangeable in terms of chord nomenclature.

Yes, of course you can build a big complex-sounding chord out by having the horns and woodwinds play different chords, but so what? Those are different sets of notes. What does that have to do with interpreting the same set of notes differently, which is precisely the question with add2 vs add9? What you describe is an important point, but it's irrelevant to this particular question.

You're arguing that chord symbols of the type we're addressing here are not rigorous descriptors of what's going on harmonically, but then you treat them as if they are rigorous descriptors of voicing. They are no such thing, in any practice I know of (and no, I'm not just a jazz guy--where do you get the assumption that the only people who could disagree with you on this are "jazz guys" anyway?). If anything, chord symbols are FAR LESS rigorous at describing voicing than at reflecting harmonic detail. If you see "C" you at least know there's C E G involved, but you are told NOTHING about voicing. It seems a pointless quibble to claim that all kinds of, say, major 7th voicings can be described as the same chord, yet the most minor of voicing differences in an add2/9 chord, which can't even be conceptually maintained in any rigorous way once you get away from a single instrument (and often not even with a single instrument), must be distinguished by two different chord names. If chord names are an inexact tool, as you say, why kill yourself trying to use them as if they were more exact than they are, especially when you don't extend the same rigor to other chord names?

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying it SHOULD be this way. Maybe it would be great if you could specify every chord voicing with a different chord name. (But where would you draw the line?) But, because of the very inexactitude you point to, you can't do this. I'm saying, whether it should be this way or not, it mostly IS this way IME and AFAICS. You seem to be positing a widespread, if not universal, agreement about the distinction between add2 and add9. AFAICS, that agreement doesn't exist. You might wish it did, you might think it should, but I see little reason to think it does, even in country or rock (both of which I have some experience with, BTW). You seem to be suggesting that there are different chord symbols, or a fundamentally different understanding of those symbols, in country or rock as opposed to jazz. IME this simply isn't true. We're not talking Nashville numbering here, we're talking the language of C, C7, Gm9, etc. Those don't vary AFAIK, though stylistic choices do (as when a jazz guy sees a C on a chart and elects to play, I dunno, a C69 instead--he doesn't think that C actually symbolizes C E G A D, he still knows C = C E G; he just knows he can sometimes make that substitution if he feels the context warrants it). A C is still C E G, not necessarily in that order.

FWIW, I've been a pretty serious guitar player, as well as a bassist, for quite a while. I certainly can't claim to have seen all the charts there are, or even some major fraction, but I've seen my share. And I can tell you that by and large, guitarists don't expect to get detailed voicing information from chord symbols. That's generally not the sort of information they expect chord symbols to convey. It's a job for which chord symbols are very blunt tools indeed--blunt to the point of being almost entirely ineffective. Suppose you want the guitar player to play a C in a very wide voicing. How do you do that with the chord symbol "C"? You can't, and no guitarist with a grain of sense would expect you to be able to. If a composer wants a certain voicing, he or she has the option of writing it out in notes--just as you would for horns or woodwinds--or adding some verbal description ("play reeeaalllly high up on the neck"). Just about the most you can get out of chord symbols in terms of voicing is with slash chords. But even then, they generally give you only one piece of information about the chord and don't specify the intervallic relationships of all the other notes in the chord. Thus, for a Dm/C#, you do know at least that the C# is on the bottom, but other than that, you don't know anything at all about where the other notes are in relation to each other or the bass note.

IOW, basically, with few and incomplete exceptions, chord symbols don't "do" voicing. They weren't designed to. So it's hard to see why one should bother to pretend that they do. The very inexactitude you point out, stemming from the genesis of chord symbols as shortcuts, is precisely why they don't do voicing.

You never did address my specific examples and questions about Cadd9 versus Cadd2, by the way.

 

[slybass3000]

If chord voicings don't matter, why have two different chord symbols for the pitch collection A C E G? It could be Amin7, or C6, depending on context. Or what about A C Eb G? A-7(b5) or C-6. Or what about D/C? It could "mean" Cmaj7, or it could mean D7 in third inversion.

Remember, chord symbols weren't invented as devices for theoretical analysis - they were invented in the 1920's as an easy means to convey basic knowledge of harmony for the purposes of improvisation. They weren't supposed to be an all-purpose means of analyzing and codefying harmonic practice - they were just a shortcut for jazz improvisers. There are different practices associated with different chord symbols depending on the stylistic norms.

I've had this argument with a lot of people. They emphatically argue that there shouldn't be any difference between Cadd9 and Cadd2, because within jazz specifically there usually isn't any distinction between the 2 and the 9 within harmonic voicings. The problem with this is quite simply that there are standard practices that don't conform to jazz paradigm. There are other forms of music besides jazz (when was the last time you saw Cadd9 on a jazz chart, anyway?) and they have their own ways of interpreting chord symbols. Country and country rock players have their own way of understanding these two chord symbols for the reasons I outlined previously, and no amount of guffawing and harumphing from the jazzers is going to change that basic fact. You can't argue with the truth except for blithely saying "thats not the way it SHOULD be!" According to whom? Jamey Aebersold? Please.

REMEMBER. Chord symbols are NOT theoretical tools. Most of the time they are painfully lacking in analytical ability, and serve to convey basic information about the harmony. Some chord symbols may convey more information than others (voicings, extensions, inversions, etc) but they aren't the be-all-end-all-truth on harmony.



One thing that can be very easily gleaned from your post is that you, and most people, put way too much faith into the power of chord symbols to explain what is going on harmonically. You give all sorts of possible exceptions to the Cadd2, Cadd9 idea, but in doing that you open up a whole wide range of other questions.

Consider a big band voicing, if you will. The trombones are playing a G major triad in first inversion, the trumpets are playing a B-7 third inversion (F# on top), and the saxophones are playing a spread C major 6 with the first alto playing an A on the staff. The ear very clearly hears the composite of this event as a "C major 7" sort of sound, now doubt about it, but in order to understand what's truly going on, you have to analyze the voicing. Sure you could just go ahead and say that its just a "C major 7 (9,#11,13)", but there's way more than that chord symbol can give you happening within the chord. It's not just "color", its the very intervallic nature of the harmony.

The Cadd2/Cadd9 idea attempts to control that, and give some idea of the voicing the composer wants. If the composer/arranger wants that lapsteel effect, how else are they supposed to notate it? Are they just SOL, and are subject to the whims of the overzealous jazz improviser, overembellishing the chord to their own desire?

I think you completely understate the nature of voicings within composition and music, because to a jazz improvisers, voicings are interchangable. That simply isn't the case with a lot of other forms of music.

I really don't care about your historical knownledge of chord symbols to prove your points in this case because you don't prove me anything but a lack of knownledge on the ground. Most working musicians and songwriters,composers etc use chord symbols to write down music. And there is one way of doing this : write chord symbols to express the sound and the harmony that they want. If you want specific voicings you have to write it down on paper in the notation form, but even so the rhythm section might get the usual standard chord symbols anyway.

Your example of a C6 or Amin7 even written like this :C/A doesn't tell anything about what note is on top. It does only express that the chord should be voiced with a major triad on top but doesn't tell you what exact voicing to use. Same with your big band example the written symbol would be C Maj13(#11) or D over CMaj7 or Bmin7 over C Maj and the rhythm sections would get these symbols.

 

[HaVIC5]

I think you misunderstand. I never said that voicings are interchangeable. If they were interchangeable, there would be no point in having more than one. They sound different, but more often than not, they don't change the chord name when you are talking about a different arrangement of the exact same notes. (There are of course a times when they do, as in the m7/M6 example you gave, but IME add2/9 isn't one of them.) That is, they are not interchangeable in terms of how they sound, but they are often interchangeable in terms of chord nomenclature.

Sorry if I was putting words into your mouth. My point with the minor 7/minor 6 example was simply to show the fact that in certain specific instances, information about voicings can be gleaned from chord symbols. They are an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. For the majority of chord symbols, voicings do not matter, I completely agree.

Yes, of course you can build a big complex-sounding chord out by having the horns and woodwinds play different chords, but so what? Those are different sets of notes. What does that have to do with interpreting the same set of notes differently, which is precisely the question with add2 vs add9? What you describe is an important point, but it's irrelevant to this particular question.

They're all subsets of a Cmaj7(9,#11,13) chord. Simply calling the structure "Cmaj7(9,#11,13)" doesn't help in understanding it.

But I agree, this is irrelevant.

You're arguing that chord symbols of the type we're addressing here are not rigorous descriptors of what's going on harmonically, but then you treat them as if they are rigorous descriptors of voicing. They are no such thing, in any practice I know of (and no, I'm not just a jazz guy--where do you get the assumption that the only people who could disagree with you on this are "jazz guys" anyway?). If anything, chord symbols are FAR LESS rigorous at describing voicing than at reflecting harmonic detail. If you see "C" you at least know there's C E G involved, but you are told NOTHING about voicing. It seems a pointless quibble to claim that all kinds of, say, major 7th voicings can be described as the same chord, yet the most minor of voicing differences in an add2/9 chord, which can't even be conceptually maintained in any rigorous way once you get away from a single instrument (and often not even with a single instrument), must be distinguished by two different chord names. If chord names are an inexact tool, as you say, why kill yourself trying to use them as if they were more exact than they are, especially when you don't extend the same rigor to other chord names?

I agree with you on all points here, (sorry for making the assumption that you were a "jazz guy," I'm totally a jazz guy myself), but I still maintain my argument that add2/add9 can be conceived differently, and here's why. I'm going not from personal experience (I don't think I've ever been handed a jazz chart with those chord symbols on them), but from multiple reputable sources that say in their experience in country/country rock within the Nashville scene there is a difference, for the reasons I explained earlier.

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying it SHOULD be this way. Maybe it would be great if you could specify every chord voicing with a different chord name. (But where would you draw the line?) But, because of the very inexactitude you point to, you can't do this. I'm saying, whether it should be this way or not, it mostly IS this way IME and AFAICS. You seem to be positing a widespread, if not universal, agreement about the distinction between add2 and add9. AFAICS, that agreement doesn't exist. You might wish it did, you might think it should, but I see little reason to think it does, even in country or rock (both of which I have some experience with, BTW). You seem to be suggesting that there are different chord symbols, or a fundamentally different understanding of those symbols, in country or rock as opposed to jazz. IME this simply isn't true. We're not talking Nashville numbering here, we're talking the language of C, C7, Gm9, etc. Those don't vary AFAIK, though stylistic choices do (as when a jazz guy sees a C on a chart and elects to play, I dunno, a C69 instead--he doesn't think that C actually symbolizes C E G A D, he still knows C = C E G; he just knows he can sometimes make that substitution if he feels the context warrants it). A C is still C E G, not necessarily in that order.

Again, they can vary, the same way that C6 means something different to classical people than it does to popular music people, or G7, or a lot of things really. It still sounds like you're arguing that its something that SHOULD be done. I can understand if you've never come across it in your experience (I haven't, except anecdotally several times)

FWIW, I've been a pretty serious guitar player, as well as a bassist, for quite a while. I certainly can't claim to have seen all the charts there are, or even some major fraction, but I've seen my share. And I can tell you that by and large, guitarists don't expect to get detailed voicing information from chord symbols. That's generally not the sort of information they expect chord symbols to convey. It's a job for which chord symbols are very blunt tools indeed--blunt to the point of being almost entirely ineffective. Suppose you want the guitar player to play a C in a very wide voicing. How do you do that with the chord symbol "C"? You can't, and no guitarist with a grain of sense would expect you to be able to. If a composer wants a certain voicing, he or she has the option of writing it out in notes--just as you would for horns or woodwinds--or adding some verbal description ("play reeeaalllly high up on the neck").

While this is rarely written down on the page, sometimes specific VOICINGS for chords can be named, which adds to the confusion. This is mainly a theoretical tool, and wouldn't normally be helpful in chord symbol notation for a lead sheet, but its still worth noting For example, a guitarist might play E-7/B as a voicing for Cmaj7. Or they might play a Cmaj7sus2 voicing for A-7. Etc. This is what I was hinting at with the description of that big band chord. Each individual component was a name for a voicing for Cmaj7.

Now, if you want to say that "add2" and "add9" are two ways to describe voicings for the same chord "C D E G," that's fine, and far more along the lines of how I think compositionally. But its still a distinction worth noting.

Just about the most you can get out of chord symbols in terms of voicing is with slash chords. But even then, they generally give you only one piece of information about the chord and don't specify the intervallic relationships of all the other notes in the chord. Thus, for a Dm/C#, you do know at least that the C# is on the bottom, but other than that, you don't know anything at all about where the other notes are in relation to each other or the bass note.

IOW, basically, with few and incomplete exceptions, chord symbols don't "do" voicing. They weren't designed to. So it's hard to see why one should bother to pretend that they do. The very inexactitude you point out, stemming from the genesis of chord symbols as shortcuts, is precisely why they don't do voicing.

You never did address my specific examples and questions about Cadd9 versus Cadd2, by the way.

It's pretty clear we agree on most of the same things - normally I'd go much more in detail with rebuttal for a post this long, but I really can't. I got a little overzealous in trying to "prove" something that I know to be true anecdotally, so there we go. Basically, what it comes down to is, I fully understand the system that we have. Most of the time, it just gives notes, and not voicings, and even then people are very liberal with reinterpreting them. However, for some musicians there is a peculiar exception to this rule, with the add9/add2 idea. They have a specific voicing they would like, and this is how they notate it.

As far as addressing your specific examples, I think understanding each instrument's voicing individually answers any questions. One instrument might play an add9 while another plays an add2, the same way one instrument might play E-7 while another plays Cmaj7. The composite of which creates "the chord".

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Sorry if I was putting words into your mouth. My point with the minor 7/minor 6 example was simply to show the fact that in certain specific instances, information about voicings can be gleaned from chord symbols. They are an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. For the majority of chord symbols, voicings do not matter, I completely agree.

Thanks for responding, and thanks in particular for not taking offense at the argument/disagreement. Sometimes I tend to bite down hard when I have an idea between my teeth.

I agree with you on all points here, (sorry for making the assumption that you were a "jazz guy," I'm totally a jazz guy myself), but I still maintain my argument that add2/add9 can be conceived differently, and here's why. I'm going not from personal experience (I don't think I've ever been handed a jazz chart with those chord symbols on them), but from multiple reputable sources that say in their experience in country/country rock within the Nashville scene there is a difference, for the reasons I explained earlier.

Well, I am somewhat a jazz guy, just not exclusively one. So you weren't totally off! All I can say is that besides the logical issues I raised, which there is no point in rehashing, I've never seen that distinction reliably observed in practice either. I know one guy who writes add2 for all these chords, another who writes add9 exclusively, and another who uses either, seemingly with no rhyme or reason. But I'll admit that I've never worked in Nashville. Perhaps you're right and the local practice is different there. I'd still say that there's no wide agreement on any theoretical distinction between add2 and add9 in the wider world that uses these particular chord symbols (which would leave out classical really). The existence of a local tradition doesn't add up to a fundamental theoretical or even practical distinction. Though it would certainly be something to keep in mind if I ever work with any Nashville cats.

While this is rarely written down on the page, sometimes specific VOICINGS for chords can be named, which adds to the confusion. This is mainly a theoretical tool, and wouldn't normally be helpful in chord symbol notation for a lead sheet, but its still worth noting For example, a guitarist might play E-7/B as a voicing for Cmaj7. Or they might play a Cmaj7sus2 voicing for A-7. Etc. This is what I was hinting at with the description of that big band chord. Each individual component was a name for a voicing for Cmaj7.

The thing is, though, E-7/B is not really naming a specific voicing. It's not a complete description of the voicing, because it doesn't specify all the intervallic relations. There are actually all sorts of ways of voicing E-7/B. An arranger may well choose to pay attention to the exact voicing of the chord, but my point is that he/she can't do this with chord symbols alone, and neither arranger or player would expect it as a rule (except perhaps for such local exceptions in practice as you mention). You can often get from a specific written voicing (I mean written with notes) to a chord symbol that reflects it pretty accurately, but you can't automatically get from the chord symbol back to the voicing with comparable accuracy. I think we'd probably agree on that.

Now, if you want to say that "add2" and "add9" are two ways to describe voicings for the same chord "C D E G," that's fine, and far more along the lines of how I think compositionally. But its still a distinction worth noting.

Nah, I'd just say they're different ways of referring to the same thing and that the idea that they represent different and readily distinguishable voicings is not sustainable across the board--with the caveat that certain local practices may prefer to try to treat them that way.

It's pretty clear we agree on most of the same things .... However, for some musicians there is a peculiar exception to this rule, with the add9/add2 idea. They have a specific voicing they would like, and this is how they notate it.

As I say, I have yet to see this myself, but I haven't seen everything. I'll take your word for it that local practices may exist.

As far as addressing your specific examples, I think understanding each instrument's voicing individually answers any questions. One instrument might play an add9 while another plays an add2, the same way one instrument might play E-7 while another plays Cmaj7. The composite of which creates "the chord".

That doesn't quite address what I said about the slightly different voicings on the guitar (especially if you imagine them all combined in a single rhythm figure within, say, a single measure), but it's not worth my quibbling about it further.

Anyway, as always, thanks for the discussion.