9 and Add9

The question is: how do you know it's a C chord?

The notes are C-D-G. The notes in a Gsus4 are G-C-D. The order of notes makes absolutely no difference in naming a chord.

As I said earlier, all the 'sus2' chords I've ever seen should be named 'sus4' with a different root, or they are not chords at all - just fingerings - with the second being a passing tone, an auxiliary tone, or a neighbor tone of a simple triad. It's the resolution in the harmony that matters.

To be fair, the most common use of "sus2" chords, at least that I see in song tabs or transcripts" is as a harmonic variant of the major.

I.e. C-Csus2-C or some such. In the similar way that the sus4 is commonly used simply as a variant of the major to add colour.

I agree, Helgi - and I mentioned that earlier. Harmonically, it's still sitting on the C major chord when that happens - the 'sus2' is really the melodic line.

That's where guitarists in general confuse fingerings with chords - not every fingering is a chord. For example:

-0-0-0-
-1-1-1-
-0-0-0-
-2-0-2-
-3-3-3-
-x-x-x-

The second chord isn't sus2 - it's a C major with a melody line on the fourth string. The same is true of:

-x-x-x-
-1-3-1-
-0-0-0-
-2-2-2-
-3-3-3-
-x-x-x-

In fact, if you listen to the recordings for songs shown as 'sus2', and tab it out for yourself, you often find that the 3rd is still there (which wouldn't make it 'sus' anything, even if it needed a different name!)

An easier way to put it...
When you have a "sus" chord, automatically think there is something going on with the 3rd. If it is sus2, you replace the third with the 2nd. If it is sus4 you replace that third with the 4th.
No more words.

As NoteBoat said, suspensions usually resolve downward. Those that resolve UP are called 'retardations'.

So, if you were to play a so-called 'Csus2' followed by a C or Cm, the 'Csus2' would be retarded ;), and if we're to continue misnaming suspensions as chords, it could justifiably be called 'Cret2'. I don't expect we'll be seeing that any time soon, though. :lol:

Wow, I've got a good handle on these things and consider myself pretty fluent in music theory...

but you guys have confused the hell out of me. I can't imagine what the beginners think.

E-nstructor explained it best, pure and simple.

remember KISS guys, keep it short and simple

:)

Really? I consider myself relatively new to the theory game, and I understood what was happening...

Are you familiar with the concept of "resolution"? I felt like I got a much better idea of the difference between suspension and just adding melodic elements from this thread.

It really isn't THAT complicated, especially if you just sit down with your guitar and hash it out.

Wow, I've got a good handle on these things and consider myself pretty fluent in music theory...

but you guys have confused the hell out of me. I can't imagine what the beginners think.

E-nstructor explained it best, pure and simple.

remember KISS guys, keep it short and simple

:)

I've been reading and reading this thread in an attempt to discover what could possibly be confusing you. I'm at a loss. What exactly is it that you find difficult. Perhaps we can help.

It is impressive and way too funny how a simple question evolves into such a confusing answer. Keep up with the good work!

I find it very enlightening. It helps me when a new concept gets related to one I already know, and the relatively linear format of the discussions here usually accomplish that fairly well.

Of course, sometimes they take a turn towards the insane... but this one wasn't too bad.

nothing that I've found confusing or difficult really, I sorted it out and knew what you were getting at, but for a beginner, I can see that it would be confusing to people and why they would say "I don't get it and guess I never will."

I guess the main thing that would be confusing is the conflicting posts from one person to the other.

Just trying to make a point, guys.

Now that I'm rereading the thread, I don't see anyone confused without follow-through.

Guess I'm just spinning my wheels on ice. :oops:

Theory can be confusing, no doubt about it. Some things can benefit from the 'pure and simple' approach. It just has to be pure, simple, and right.

Right means two things: understanding that there may be exceptions to a rule, even if you don't know them yet:

The top number of a time signature is the number of beats per measure (except when we're dealing with compound time)

The sixth scale note included in a chord results in a 6 chord (except when the seventh is also present)

Intervals sound good in parallel motion (except when they're fifths)

etc.

Right also means not implying exceptions are possible when they aren't already accepted in terms of theory.

Example: (pure, simple, right) - a sus chord replaces the third with the fourth. C-F-G = Csus

Notation evolution: some people forget which tone replaces the third, so people start clarifying: Csus4. The notation can be seen as 'simpler' by some folks.... but it's certainly less 'pure' - sus chords have a fourth; sus4 is redundant.

Inaccurate explanation: (pure, simple, misleading) the number after the 'sus' shows what replaces the third

Inaccurate application: ....so we can make any chord we want... enter sus2, etc.

Accurate explanation: chord C-F-G is Csus (sometimes written Csus4); chord C-D-G is Gsus (1-4-5) played at first inversion.

One of the biggest roles of music theory is giving musicians a common framework to communicate with each other. If we keep making stuff up because it 'makes sense' based on what we know (like sus2, power6, etc) the next generation of guitarists will only be able to communicate with themselves, and not with the millions of other gifted musicians who don't happen to be guitarists.

One of the biggest roles of music theory is giving musicians a common framework to communicate with each other. If we keep making stuff up because it 'makes sense' based on what we know (like sus2, power6, etc) the next generation of guitarists will only be able to communicate with themselves, and not with the millions of other gifted musicians who don't happen to be guitarists.
Wow I never thought about that. That would be sad. Speaking Guitaranese.

Intervals sound good in parallel motion (except when they're fifths)

Hi there.

Great post, noteboat (or someone else). Please could you eleaborate what you mean with this (Maybe with an example or something. I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Thanks :)

It's just one of the 'rules' of harmony - parallel motion is good, except for fifths and octaves (and there are some exceptions to this exception - that's the nature of generalizing things, and why 'rules' is in quotes).

Here's a MIDI sample with a five note phrase repeated four times... the first time harmonized in thirds, the second in sixths, then in fifths, and finally octaves. The first two passes sound 'rich' or 'full'... the fifths sound a bit 'hollow'... and the octaves are downright boring.

Then go listen to some Wes Montgomery - he brought boring octave runs to life.