I think you're conflating two different things: chord naming and chord voicing. Not the same.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
What do you call it?
- Thread starter Slade N
- Start date
Ok, then chord symbols are not what you want. The point of chord symbols is that you’re not specifying the exact voicing. If the 5th is unaltered then its presence or absence has no impact on the function of the chord, or on the associated scale. It’s a detail which affects the sonority of the voicing.
I think chord symbols are not what you want here. If you’re wanting to specify voicings that specifically then you’re just going to end up with overly fussy confusing chord symbols, and I’m not sure what that achieves.
In relation to your m11 chords, I’d say the presence or absence of the 9th makes more difference than the presence or absence of the 5th. So it seems arbitrary to not specify the 9th but insist on specifying the lack of 5th.
In any case, I don’t think chord symbols are what you want here.
Yep, arranger/composer intent versus artistic interpretation. And i think we are getting a little too deep into artistic interpretation in the specific style of jazz. Yes, a player can make a choice on how to voice an F7...which notes to include, omit, their ordering, intervallic distance between notes, etc. But to me the chord symbol should be carefully chosen by the arranger/composer and represent their intent for that moment in the song, which likely takes into consideration what the melody is doing, the overall style, and more. We also need to note that just because the keys player is dropping the root and fifth doesn't mean nobody is playing it. the bass player can be picking up those parts of the chord in many cases.
I guess i am trying to say that chord symbols can be more prescriptive than is being alluded to in the last handful of comments, all things depending.
Maybe.
When I see Cadd2, I immediately understand that the composer/arranger wanted to hear it as that "mu-cluster."
When I see Cadd9, I immediately can hear that harmonic sound of the added 9th.
And, for my bass playing the difference between those two chords means (almost) nothing!
Yes, but of course. It's all about the the total note pitches from all chord instruments, but...
In my specifically provided case, there are "frozen" chords, of "frozen" instruments - nothing to add, nothing to remove. I just need to notate the correct chord names.
Yeah, I understand, it’s just that when you see Cadd9 written, the composer/arranger very likely didn’t mean specifically to voice that chord with the D a 9th above the C. They could very well have had the ‘mu’ voicing in mind. Personally, I call the C ‘mu’ chord Cadd9. That’s how I’m used to seeing it written. I’d tend to play it C D E G, or similar. I think you’re reading more into the chord symbol than the composer/arranger intended. There isn’t a widely held convention for interpreting the chord symbol as literally as that.
Well, you're *assuming* that, but it won't be a correct assumption in every case. By no means does everyone make that distinction.
For pretty much everybody's playing, in fact. I'd say that it would be as close to plain old nothing as one can imagine.
Exactly.
OP - practice 2 octave arpeggios on your bass for all the more complex/extension chords…
including playing AND SINGING THE PITCH AND SAYING ALOUD the names of all the chord extensions.
Yes, you are correct.
Transcribers who know more about Steely Dan's "mu" chords, notate it as ex., G(add2), the others notate it as G(add9), while the transcribed chord voicing is the same.
I still can’t quite agree with you on that one I’m afraid. I’m a pianist and I’m well familiar with the Steely Dan ‘mu’ chord, but have always called it add9. I feel like we’ve done this to death now though!
Yes the 9th is usually a higher note above the 7th. A 2 is mostly used as a sus2, replacing the 3rd.
But there is some confusion with the add2 and add9 as mentioned. Both names are used for the same chord, although I prefer add9.
A 2 in this topic’s case has nothing to do with chord progressions as some suggested. Those are entirely different things. Namely chord progressions and chord voicings. The OP was just asking whether a 2 or a 9 is the same thing in a chord.
Last edited:
I agree with the following explanation.
(Maybe, it's too superficial, but it's OK for me.)
"Cadd2 indicates a close voicing, notes C D E G. The C may be low down or close to the other notes or both. The important part is the D and E are next to each other, which gives the chord a sparkle compared to the usual vanilla major chord (without the second, the D).
Cadd9 is a more open voicing, C E G D. Again the C may be lower; what we’re really talking about is minor 7th interval from E to D. The “add” in “add9” is basically telling us there’s no seventh in the chord; without it C9 is a dominant chord, basically C7add9."
But, due to inversions of those two very similar cords, functionally they are identical.
Chord symbols ≠ voicing, often times pianists or guitarists will play the 7th, 9th, and 3rd right next to each other in any chord with extensions. Conversely, they will also spread notes out in ways that are different than the stacked thirds spelling of chords: a possible piano or guitar voicing for a Cadd9 chord could be D G C E, which still is a kind of C chord as long as the bassist and/or piano LH are playing a C as the root. Even in the case of add9, that still doesn’t tell them where to play the 9th, just that there is one in the chord.
The somewhat-standardized convention when writing chord symbols is that 2, 4, and 6 are used when a note from the base chord is being substituted: 2 and 4 appear in suspended chords (where there is no 3rd) and the presence of 6 in a chord symbol means there is no 7th.
If an arranger wants a specific chord voicing, they’ll notate it on the staff rather than reflect that in the chord symbol (with the exception of inversions, which really only changes the bass/piano LH).
Last edited:
I've posted a question about the Cadd2 and Cadd9 inversions, but nobody answered.
The Cadd9 chord has the tones C, E, G, D, therefore,
The first inversion of Cadd9 should be - E G C D.
The second inversion of Cadd9 should be - G C D E.
Yes or No?
Last edited:
Correct, but voicings don’t need to be strict inversions either, especially when extensions are involved.
Not exactly. Yes, those are possible inversions, but not "the" inversions. There is more than one possible form for each inversion. The reason is that terms like "first inversion" don't tell you the sequence in which the other chord tones appear above the lowest note. Thus, a first inversion Cadd9 could be E-G-C-D, but it could just as well be E-C-D-G or E-D-G-C, to name just two examples. And of course in practice one or another note could be doubled, and so forth.
Currently, I'm listening to a simple track,
"Who Can I Turn To" · Enzo Orefice Trio
It's in Eb major.
Tempo: 92BPM.
In Intro the first chord is Ebmaj13(as ascending - Eb - Bb - G - C - F - G - D)
The second chord in Intro has two chords with a harmonic feel like it's going through a "regular" cadence - IV and V while the bass is pedaling Eb, but...
In terms of notation, we have the piano playing
the following notes (ascending) - Ab - Eb - G - Ab - Bb - Eb - F. There is no D in the chord. ]
It's like Eb11(omit b7)/Ab - piano and the double bass is pedaling Eb.
How would you notate it? Abmaj13 (no 3rd, no 11?)
And the second chord in the same second measure has the following notes:
Ab - D - G - Ab - Bb - as Bb7(add6) or Bb13 (no 9, no 11)
How would you notate that chord.
Thank you.
That one's not clear cut, really. You could call it Abmaj13(no 3)/Eb. Feels clunky. You could call it Eb(add4/add9). Feels very clunky. I'll have a think about that one. When I have time I'll listen to the track too - context might make it clearer.
I wouldn't go with Eb11(no7) though - without the 7th, I don't think it makes sense to call it that. Also, personally I would avoid 11 chords that aren't minor (e.g. Eb11). They are ambiguous as to whether they include a 3rd. Following the system, they would (like 9 and 13 chords) - but I have seen that symbol used to describe what is really a sus chord (e.g. Eb Db F Ab described as Eb11). So I avoid it on the basis of ambiguity.
I've have a think and a listen and come back to you later on that.
Are you saying this one still has the Eb bass pedal? That affects what I would call it.
Like the one above, you wouldn't need to declare the omitted 11th in a Bb13 chord. The 11th wouldn't be assumed anyway (just 7th and optionally the 9th). Not that I'd probably describe this chord as either of these, but Bb7(add6) and Bb13 are kind of the same, except I don't think you'll find Bb7(add6) in common usage. I've never seen it used in the wild.
I don't think I have either. But I have seen Bb7(13), though almost exclusively in charts written by Brazilians. In that setting, it seems to be a fairly common way of rendering the common 4-note guitar chord Bb-Ab-D-G.
Agreed about the 11 in 13 chords. More often than not, you're not going to have both the 3 and the *natural* 11 in the same chord; it would be more common to leave out the 3, making the chord basically a sus (though you could certainly find examples where both notes are worked into the chord somehow). But you would have them both in there in the case of a *sharp* 11 chord.
As for that one chord, I suppose you could also call it an Fm11/Eb. And the following one Bb13/Eb (assuming the pedal continues).
