the myth of modes

[DeaconBlues09]

The problem is that definitions of words are not really determined through empirical means. Popular usages defines language, which fluctuates across cultures and eras. It is always a moving target.

One would have to narrow down the context of the words usage, as well as have a pretty complete record of it's use in that context, in order to truly say a word means "such and such".

This is certainly possible with words where the overwhelming majority of people use it a particular way, but not so much with obscure or specialist terms.....which is half the reason that people are having difficulty talking about modes here: a lot of people are talking about different things, but using the same term.

Well, I hear what you're saying with that, and I actually agree that this applies 95 percent of the time. However, there is a fundamental difference in that context between words such as "silky," "sad," "romantic," "bad" etc... and words like "triangle,".

Pray tell friend, what is your definition of the term "Suspended Chord."?
No examples, or discussions, mind you. Just a clean definition in one sentence (you can use as many commas as you like...)

 

[Michael B]

Wow. Trying to follow this topic. It not only devolved to semantics in context, but to the actual discussion of definitions. Good job internet. I don't know if this has been said in a few pages or not but it is Music Theory not Music Law. So for every rule there are lots of exceptions. It doesn't dilute the usefulness for any rule at all. If you want a sus4 for what it can bring, go for it.

 

[DeaconBlues09]

Wow. Trying to follow this topic. It not only devolved to semantics in context, but to the actual discussion of definitions. Good job internet. I don't know if this has been said in a few pages or not but it is Music Theory not Music Law. So for every rule there are lots of exceptions. It doesn't dilute the usefulness for any rule at all. If you want a sus4 for what it can bring, go for it.

"There are only two things in the world: nothing and semantics."

― Werner Erhard

 

[HaphAsSard]

It not only devolved to semantics in context

Discussing semantics is evolution in my book, especially if education is the subject. Students need to learn concepts and common parlance, not just how to break every rule in the book.

 

[Michael B]

Perhaps new topics:

The Myth of Sus Chords.
Or:
What Do Words Mean?

 

[HaphAsSard]

The latter is more appropriate to the "Off Topic" section. Go right ahead though

 

[DeaconBlues09]

Perhaps new topics:

The Myth of Sus Chords.
Or:
What Do Words Mean?

Watch it there fella, and don't open the door to that particular discussion unless you're willing to face the rabbit hole!

I majored in philosophy for my BA and I'm a compliance attorney by profession. I can go off about this topic until the cows come home!
(joking though...this is all in good fun guys, right? )

 

[lomo]

Now I remember why I usually frequent the amps forum.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

Wow. Trying to follow this topic. It not only devolved to semantics in context, but to the actual discussion of definitions. Good job internet. I don't know if this has been said in a few pages or not but it is Music Theory not Music Law. So for every rule there are lots of exceptions. It doesn't dilute the usefulness for any rule at all. If you want a sus4 for what it can bring, go for it.

IF semantics is sorting out the detail of the meaning within the information, then maybe we need more semantics and less generalisation.
A good theory book is about 500 pages, what you can do with the information contained on those 500 pages will fill libraries around the world...and a few lifetimes to read.

 

[Michael B]

IF semantics is sorting out the detail of the meaning within the information, then maybe we need more semantics and less generalisation.
A good theory book is about 500 pages, what you can do with the information contained on those 500 pages will fill libraries around the world...and a few lifetimes to read.

I would agree with you except my comment is about a debate over the literal meaning of a word. It wasn't about the topic.

 

[static0verdrive]

I'm with DeaconBlues on the suspended chord issue. Not to say you CAN'T or MUST NOT use a third if you want to, but I was under the impression is should still work if the third would be minor..? I would love some direction here as I'm at that dangerous level of knowledge - I know a lot more theory than the average intermediate (player? musical thinker?) but honestly sometimes I worry it's just enough to be a danger to the song

... still loving this thread. I don't think it's devolved too much - I'm still learning from it!

 

[DeaconBlues09]

I'm with DeaconBlues on the suspended chord issue. Not to say you CAN'T or MUST NOT use a third if you want to, but I was under the impression is should still work if the third would be minor..? I would love some direction here as I'm at that dangerous level of knowledge - I know a lot more theory than the average intermediate (player? musical thinker?) but honestly sometimes I worry it's just enough to be a danger to the song

... still loving this thread. I don't think it's devolved too much - I'm still learning from it!

Look, I firmly maintain that there is a fundamental difference between knowledge and emotion that must be internalized in order that one may fully realize their potential in any field in life, but most crucially when it comes to creative expression.

FWIW, I never learned how to play music on a formal level. I had maybe 2 dozen guitar lessons from various teachers over a period of 5 years in my teens, the rest I absorbed through reading, and trying to figure out how that applied to what I was playing, and then trying to take everything a step further.

You need to have proper wings before you can fly. I know that sounds trite, but it's as honest and direct as anything else I have posted here. If you don't have the fundamentals, you can't branch out.

How does this all apply to the definition of a sus chord? Once you get sloppy with the definitions, you lose discipline, and then you stop caring. The scope of subjects and distinctions that "don't matter" as long as you "feeeeel...man" grows wider and wider, and then at some point you might as well be an organ grinder trembling with emotion on the street, but devoid means of expression to utilize when you want to call on it....

 

[HandsFree]

Got a bit lost when things got too philosofical, but the meaning of chord symbols is to tell the player what notes are in any given chord.
It should be possible from reading a chord symbol to know if that chord has a third or not. And I've always understood that the whole idea of sus4/sus2 is exactly that. A chord that has the 3rd replaced by 4 or 2.

To be honest this is the first time I've heard anyone questioning this.
Note that just C-sus doesn't mean anything. It should indicate how the 3rd is replaced by either C-sus4 or C-sus2.

If we were to agree that sus4 may also include the 3rd, then we'd need another word to tell us when the 3rd is not part of the chord.

In situations where both 2nd and 3rd are in the chord, as far as I know the common way to tell that is C add2.
I've never seen the situation where 3rd and 4th appear together in a (major) chord, but you could still write that as C add4.

I'm not debating whether a 3rd and 4th together in a chord sounds good or not. Just saying that it will become very difficult for composers and arrangers if generally accepted meanings of chord symbols get interpreted differently by individual musicians.

 

[DeaconBlues09]

I'm with DeaconBlues on the suspended chord issue. Not to say you CAN'T or MUST NOT use a third if you want to, but I was under the impression is should still work if the third would be minor..? I would love some direction here as I'm at that dangerous level of knowledge - I know a lot more theory than the average intermediate (player? musical thinker?) but honestly sometimes I worry it's just enough to be a danger to the song

... still loving this thread. I don't think it's devolved too much - I'm still learning from it!

To address another point in your post here: what do you mean when you say "I was under the impression is should still work if the third would be minor..?"?

BTW, and I'd like to take a moment to clarify, in regards to the whole sus chord thing, I wasn't trying to posit when it MUST or MAY NOT be used. I was simply stating how that chord was defined. There are facts, and there are rules. That a triangle contains three angles is a FACT, but I'm not going to take a position on whether one should employ triangles in their folk ensemble as though my opinion were fact...

Look, I will readily state that Dream Theater bores me as a fact about myself, and that I don't get the John Myung adulation. However, I totally respect those that enjoy their music, and I have no doubt that he is, objectively, an absolutely phenomenal bassist.

If you are going to refute my statement that a sus chord omits the third, fine then. Just tell me what a sus chord IS so I don;t further infect other ppl with my ignorance.

I mean this btw, I really want to know. I enjoy being proved wrong more often than I enjoy being agreed with (just ask my wife! I kiss her passionately every time she corrects my pronunciation!). Being proved wrong teaches me not only about the subject I was wrong about, but also about myself and my limits...

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I would agree with you except my comment is about a debate over the literal meaning of a word. It wasn't about the topic.

That is my point, what a word means in one country has a different meaning in another.
For example if talking about using a half step, is that the same as a half tone, or a semitone, a sharp added to a note, or a b added to a note?
Does a natural raise or lower a note by half a degree, or by a semitone, and when using diminished chords and bb7ths, why is it not a 6th and what happened when you naturalise a bb7?
I was once told on this very form by a member many years ago that if I came to his city talking quavers, crotchets, minim's and semibreve's, I would get my ass kicked because 1/8th, 1/4, half notes and whole notes is the talk there.
So imagine his surprise when I asked him what he calls a "double note?"
To which he answered "two notes tied together, or played together."
Now in the context of the conversation a double note is another name for a breve, or a whole note.
Double time is not play twice as fast, and a double stop is not stop twice..... so the literal meaning of the word, or phrase needs to be understood, not only, those reading it, but those using it on an International floor.
Its not pedantic to expect such clarity, and no offence should be taken when it is asked for or used.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I would agree with you except my comment is about a debate over the literal meaning of a word. It wasn't about the topic.

That is my point, what a word means in one country has a different meaning in another.
For example if talking about using a half step, is that the same as a half tone, or a semitone, a sharp added to a note, or a b added to a note?
Does a natural raise or lower a note by half a degree, or by a semitone, and when using diminished chords and bb7ths, why is it not a 6th and what happened when you naturalise a bb7?
I was once told on this very form by a member many years ago that if I came to his city talking quavers, crotchets, minim's and semibreve's, I would get my ass kicked because 1/8th, 1/4, half notes and whole notes is the talk there.
So imagine his surprise when I asked him what he calls a "double note?"
To which he answered "two notes tied together, or played together."
Now in the context of the conversation a double note is another name for a breve, or a whole note.
Double time is not play twice as fast, and a double stop is not stop twice..... so the literal meaning of the word, or phrase needs to be understood, not only, those reading it, but those using it on an International floor.
Its not pedantic to expect such clarity, and no offence should be taken when it is asked for or used.

 

[John Goldsby]

I think bassists are often warned that they should never play the M3 on a sus chord — probably by their teacher, or a piano player who doesn't want the bassist causing harmonic trouble. It's true that often the lower notes in a sus chord will be the root, 4th, b7. Often in modal jazz, the pianist or guitarist will have the 3rd voiced on top of a sus chord. Check out Herbie Hancock on the original "Maiden Voyage," where he uses a lot of variations of the Amin7/D or Dsus with an F# on top. Check out Don Kasper's sus chord voicings that he wrote out for us.

As bassists, we don't have a lot to do with that part of the chord, but it's there.

I think confusion arises because a sus chord in functional harmony is often just a substitute for the V7 chord. So instead of having Dmin7, G7, CMaj7 . . . we might see Gsus, CMaj7. Or F/G or Dmin7/G. Those chords are functional within a key signature and are moving, not static. They probably wouldn't have a 3rd in the voicing.

Don also posted an excellent example of modal playing from Alan Pasqua with Jimmy Haslip on bass.

Here is a nice example of the Major 3rd in the melody in a D9sus,13 chord - @ 0:33.

Haslip is playing great, and just holding down the bottom with a bass line something like: D, A, C, D. No 4th, no 3rd. Pasqua (which my auto-correct keeps wanting to change to "pasta") is playing chord voicings from the complete D Mixolydian palette. The melody starts on the note G, but moves through all of the notes of the D Mixolydian. There are two other chord/scales that they use in the tune, but let's leave those for now. When the solos build up, they all sometimes shift out of the D Mixolydian sound, and then go back in (playing outside).

For a more complex use of sus chords, listen to "Nerfertiti" (1968) with Miles Davis, Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter & Tony Williams. Nefertiti and Maiden Voyage are just as important in the development of modern jazz and modal playing as the "Kind of Blue" album that's been mentioned here a couple of times.

Herbie says the second chord in "Nefertiti" is an Absus sound, but more precisely Ab7(9)sus4Omit5th. Note the sus in the left hand, and the 3rd in the right (in the melody also). Jaco loved to play this tune, btw.

Wayne Shorter wrote the tune, and many other Miles tunes from that era. Word has it that he didn't use chord symbols, and preferred to write out the voicings that he wanted to hear. John Patitucci confirmed that with me, saying that Wayne writes out scores for everyone . . . they aren't just improvising from lead sheets with changes.

My last little point here is that a lot of fake books have the wrong changes for Nefertiti. Especially that second chord. On the original recording, Ron Carter often goes to a Db in the 2nd bar . . . I guess that's his way of saying "I can do sus too!" People transcribed the chord, assuming Ron was playing the root, and I often see it written as Dbsus. The power of the bass

I think a lot of the confusion, to reiterate my point above, comes from the use of sus chords in modal jazz, and the use of sus chords in functional harmony.

So, don't get bent out of shape . . . @Deacon Blues could sue us, if he wanted *kidding*

@Fergie Fulton — I've done lots of workshops in GB and Ireland, and I always feel totally tongue-tied when I'm talking music . . . I can't tell my quavers from my crotchet!

 

[static0verdrive]

what do you mean when you say "I was under the impression is should still work if the third would be minor..?"?

Sorry; I now agree that's a little ambiguous. I simply meant that I thought a sus chord didn't imply the third, therefore either a m3 or M3 could work.

Mind you, further reflection now makes me believe either third would sound wonky if the fourth is played - you know... like the fourth dated them both in the past, and it would just be awkward to hang out with either now in a sus chord buuuut (and here's where we get to theory vs rule or law) it would of course depend on the voicing; and I think that's what others are also pointing out in the recent posts above. A fourth much higher up might turn out to be a note that plays well with one of the thirds (like how a ninth works when a second doesn't, despite being the same note in different octaves)..? <- That last question mark is intended to convey that I THINK I get it and I'm looking for some confirmation, but I really don't know for sure.

Therefore to summarize my "understanding", a straight-up sus chord containing 1, 4, b7 won't have the third, but if the bass plays one of the 3rds, and say the guitar plays 1 + b7 and some higher 4th, it could still be considered a sus chord..? I would have expected to see that written as a slash chord personally though e.g. Csus4 / 3 (insert massive question mark!)

Carry on.

 

[Lanky Tunes]

and words like "triangle,".

Of course you mean the Jujitsu move, right?

When you say you want to "bum" a "fag" do you mean make a homosexual homeless or have me give you a cigarette without charge?

Language is fluid and it is the only true democracy around.

Pray tell friend, what is your definition of the term "Suspended Chord."?
No examples, or discussions, mind you. Just a clean definition in one sentence (you can use as many commas as you like...)

I would say that it is a chord where the major or minor third is replaced by the second or the fourth.

I have never heard or read of another explanation outside of the one post in this thread.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

@Fergie Fulton — I've done lots of workshops in GB and Ireland, and I always feel totally tongue-tied when I'm talking music . . . I can't tell my quavers from my crotchet!

LOL no probs John, next time you hit London i"ll stand you a beer.....that means i'll buy you one, not have you stand on one.