# A few chord questions (inversion, extension)



## Winspear (Jun 2, 2012)

Hi  I have a few questions on these two advanced chords. I'd tab them but my tuning is unusual so notation will be easier.







I forgot to put a key signature in but it's in F# minor.

First chord: F# C# F# E A B 
I have identified this as F#m11 and wikipedia confirmed this for me. I have the root, fifth, octave, minor seventh, minor third, and the fourth (or eleventh) on top. 

Question A: I notice I don't have the ninth. Is there anything wrong with this? Does this change anything?
Question B: What inversion is this? How do I work that out? It seems pretty random - it just works with this tuning/fingering. I'd imagine us guitarists rarely use standard triads unless playing open chords. I have the notes in a really mixed up order here. Is there a particular method to figuring out what inversions are best to use / what I _am_ using?



Second chord: I worked this out as Amaj7sus2 (I thought it's an add9 but chord dictionary tells me otherwise).
A E B G# B
First, fifth, major second, major seventh, major second

Question C: What is the difference between sus2 and add9? They would both use the B. Also I have no third in here...once again what does that change? (I think I read that's what makes it a sus2 instead of add9 actually? But then I read that changing the 5th for the 2nd makes it sus2..which is true, both?

Question D: Same as inversions question above

Question E: Does how these two chords relate in a progress have any effect on their naming, usage, inversions etc? Something to do with voice leading?

Thanks!


----------



## Solodini (Jun 2, 2012)

The removal of the 3rd, and replacing it with a 2nd is what makes it a sus2. Swap the 3rd for a 4th and you have a sus4. 

To my mind, as soon as you're out of straight ascension of triads, set inversion names become pretty redundant. There's probably a jazz term for those voicings which I don't know.

To the question of removal of notes and whether that changes anything, does it sound structurally different? Does adding the 9th in make the tonal centre or tonality sound massively different? If not then no, it doesn't change anything. Adding extra notes (not repetitions of already used notes) can make the root less clear and throw things off. This is usually a voicing issue to resolve, unless you're just putting 15 of everything in, in which case things can become pretty messy!

Remember: theoretical names exist to communicate musical ideas. Don't forego your ears in favour of nothing but theory. Theory and ears are like a compass and a map to your musicality. Your ears tell you if you're going in the right direction by way of whether things sound good; theory tells you what routes you can take to reach the desired destination. Use them both in combination. You could plan to go to the beach on the east coast, leaving from the centre of the land, misread the map and end up on the west coast. As long as the result pleases you equally then what's the problem?

Chord names in context are based on functional effect of the chord. FACEGB (voiced properly) can form F9(sharp)11 [I'm on my lady's PC with a silly keyboard layout] or Am13(no11) or C13(no9) or Emin13b9(no7). You can apply pretty much any name to a combination of notes. Learn to hear the function of a chord in context. If a chord of BD(sharp)F(sharp)A(sharp) sounds like a IV (Bmaj7) leading to a I (Fsharp) then then name it enharmonically according to that function. If it sounds like III (Ebmin13 missing stuff) then so be it: use that function or defy it. The choice is yours [Serafinowicz face].


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 2, 2012)

A) Nope, don't need the 9th, infact I tend to shy people away from trying to play every embellishment (you called it an extension). You pick the ones you need, toss the rest. The difference between Bm6 and Bm13 is the addition of a 7th, and maybe a 9th or 11th, but strumming them all, in about every application someone uses it is going to sound like shit, you are strumming the scale...

B) First inversion, root (F#) is in the bass. First inversion is 3rd in the bass, 2nd 5th in the bass, and 3rd 7th/6th in the bass (for 7 and 6 chords). Inversions are very useful tool in voice leading your progressions. You may need to drop/eliminate a few more notes to make your chords agile enough to voice lead well though, really depends. 5th is the easier to remove, next easiest is any unwanted, not require embellishment, followed by the root. The 3rd is generally pretty important to hold onto, but you know how it is with rules.

c) Solodini got C to death

D) again, first inversion

E) How those chords relate might be interesting. Your second chord could easily be Eadd11. So context is going to define it's position heavily. Your first chord could also be A 6/9 (A six nine). Where you put them will affect how people hear them. Add those to the chords Solodini listed and you see how important context gets. The more embellished a chord gets, the more ambiguous it is. Both of these would not be 'standard' chord inversions, but it is going to depend what comes first, and what comes after. 

Ex: Play the second chord followed by Amaj7, just for fun. For least movement move one B to C#, the other to A.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 2, 2012)

Solodini said:


> To my mind, as soon as you're out of straight ascension of triads, set inversion names become pretty redundant.* There's probably a jazz term for those voicings which I don't know.*



Slash chords. This just involves taking a chord and putting a note other than the root in the bass. For example, Am7/B, or Am7/G#. Keep in mind that this is different from inverting a chord, as chord inversion by definition is taking a set of pitches (A C E G, from bass to treble) and moving them around (E A C G, for example). Slash chords can result in what is an inverted chord (some chord member other than the root in the bass), but is distinct when the bass is not necessarily in the original chord (such as my Am7/G# example).



> Remember: theoretical names exist to communicate musical ideas. Don't forego your ears in favour of nothing but theory. Theory and ears are like a compass and a map to your musicality. Your ears tell you if you're going in the right direction by way of whether things sound good; theory tells you what routes you can take to reach the desired destination. Use them both in combination. You could plan to go to the beach on the east coast, leaving from the centre of the land, misread the map and end up on the west coast. As long as the result pleases you equally then what's the problem?
> 
> Chord names in context are based on functional effect of the chord. FACEGB (voiced properly) can form F9(sharp)11 [I'm on my lady's PC with a silly keyboard layout] or Am13(no11) or C13(no9) or Emin13b9(no7). You can apply pretty much any name to a combination of notes. Learn to hear the function of a chord in context. If a chord of BD(sharp)F(sharp)A(sharp) sounds like a IV (Bmaj7) leading to a I (Fsharp) then then name it enharmonically according to that function. If it sounds like III (Ebmin13 missing stuff) then so be it: use that function or defy it. The choice is yours [Serafinowicz face].



+1. I'd write more, but I have to go to work.


----------



## Solodini (Jun 2, 2012)

I always seem to ignore slash chords as they don't communicate specific voicing while implying that the rest of the voicing isn't straight 13579. Maybe I just read too much into it.


----------



## Varcolac (Jun 2, 2012)

Your naming's a little off. First chord's not Fm11 but an Fm7add11. Second chord's fine.

Sus2: R 2 5
Add9: R 3 5 9
9: R 3 5 7 9

Sus4: R 4 5
Add11: R 3 5 11
11: R 3 5 7 9 11

It's perfectly fine to play an 11 without a 9, but chord naming convention would call for it to be an add11 rather than an 11. With 7, 11, 13, etc., you have everything up in triads from the root to that number. If it's "add#", you just add that note. If it's "sus#", you replace the 3rd with that note.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 2, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> Your naming's a little off. First chord's not Fm11 but an Fm7add11. Second chord's fine.



No, F#m11 is correct. If you wanted to be needlessly specific, you would write F#m11 (no 9), The seventh is implied when dealing with embellished chords (as the 7th is the first embellishment), if there is no 7th, then you use the add11 nomenclature. Leaving out an embellished note does not require add notation.

Ex:

F9 : F A C Eb G (note the 7th)
Fadd9: F A C G (no 7th) 

F13: F A C Eb (G) (B) D , where only D and Eb are manditory for the chord as far as embellishments
F6: F A C D, not add 13, as that is just a 6th chord.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 2, 2012)

You guys are brilliant  +1 rep to all, thank you!

Some more questions: is 7M simply another way of writing maj7? 

If I were to use the chord GDF# in this progression as the end of a chromatic run, I realise it is out of the key. Is there any particular way I would name that in relation to the key, or would it simply be Gmaj7? (Any need to address the lack of a 3rd?)


----------



## Dayn (Jun 2, 2012)

I don't think there _is_ a way to name a chord in relation to a key beyond a different inversion making more descriptive sense. Am would be A-C-E (1-b3-5) whether you're playing in C major or Bbm.

1-5-7, yeah? Gmaj7(no3) is how I would write it. You're playing G major 7 (1-3-5-7) without a 3 (1-5-7). It's all about what makes sense to you and whoever is reading it, really. You could call it Dadd11(no5) (D-F#-G, 1-3-4/11) if it made more sense in context.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 2, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Some more questions: is 7M simply another way of writing maj7?



I have never seen 7M, but M7 is sometimes used for maj7



> If I were to use the chord GDF# in this progression as the end of a chromatic run, I realise it is out of the key. Is there any particular way I would name that in relation to the key, or would it simply be Gmaj7? (Any need to address the lack of a 3rd?)



G D F#, could be a Dadd11 chord ( D - D F# A, but you can drops 5th easily, as mentioned before, it is add11 as the 7th is not present, but would be C# if you wanted to add it), which would flow nicely from the A chord

So you could make your progression sound like F#, A , D. Which would cadancial, if you wanted such a thing (and those notes might bring that out.) A is the dominant of D, and as you are voicing 3 notes, and 1-3 (D-F#) will probably be more recognizable as 1-5 (G-D), it might be what people are hearing anyway. Your A chord having the 3rd would strengthen that a fair deal though, as it would give it a more definite sonority. 

the F# - A is a different type of chordal movement, known as a chromatic mediant, which involves 2 chords a 3rd apart (in this case a minor 3rd). I won't go into much detail on those now though, as that is another more detailed story in itself that I am not fit to justify.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 3, 2012)

7M was just listed in Guitar Pros chord name insert. I'm typing in my own but was just curious. It has no option for maj7. 
There is M, 7, 7M, m, m7, m7M..hmm.

Far from the original topic now but you guys keep answering my questions so...

I've used that Gmaj7 to keychange from F#minor to B minor - in which the G# changes to a G. Is this a known technique, flattening the second to keychange to the fourth? It worked pretty well!

In this new key I also have the chord GDABEF#. 1 maj3 5 maj7 9 13.
Is this called Gmaj7add13? OR Gmaj13..? There is no 11th in there

Starting to get the hang of these chords I think. I've been playing them for god knows how long but never had a clue what I'm doing, what with them being scattered across arpeggios and fills. I had always thought said fills were random but every one I analyse turns out to be in a chord like this with no odd notes . Now I'm notating them I can see the relations and what each voice is doing, helping me to refine things further and make smoother transitions  Theory is win.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 3, 2012)

Solodini said:


> I always seem to ignore slash chords as they don't communicate specific voicing while implying that the rest of the voicing isn't straight 13579. Maybe I just read too much into it.



Well, no chord symbol communicates specific voicing. If you want specific, you go for tablature or standard notation. The idea of chord symbols is to provide a shorthand version of what's going on. This is both a good and a bad thing: on one hand, you have to figure out your own interpretation for each chord, but on the other, it gives you the freedom to do what you want with the music. I make scores for my band's songs, and these range anywhere from leadsheets (melody + chord symbols, perhaps a few relevant figures now and then) to fully realized scores (every note written out, maybe with chord symbols to make reading faster). Occasionally, I want my violinist to play something (since he hardly plays anything - partly my fault for not writing violin parts) but I don't have time to break out my violin and orchestration book to create a proper violin part, so I give him chord symbols and whatever instructions I may have and tell him to make up his own part around that. That's the kind of thing that chord symbols are good for. However, when I write a line in standard notation, I expect that line to be played. It's a different mindset between the two, but neither is necessarily better nor worse than the other.



EtherealEntity said:


> I've used that Gmaj7 to keychange from F#minor to B minor - in which the G# changes to a G. Is this a known technique, flattening the second to keychange to the fourth? It worked pretty well!



The modulation happens a little sooner than the G&#8710;. F# minor (F# G# A B C# D E) and B minor (B C# D E F# G A) are separated by one note, so you're likely looking for some sort of common tone or common chord relationship. I don't know how your progression goes, but F#m G&#8710; Bm is v VI i in the new key. Dominant-tonic relationships are stronger progressions and thus make for more solid modulations, but you can certainly start a progression in the way I've outlined above.

As far as your questions on chord naming, I've written a bit of a guide.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 3, 2012)

Since there is a discussion going on about chord naming convention, I'll contribute my own nomenclature.

My system is based on the following prerequisites: chord symbols must be extremely clear and take up as little space as possible. To demonstrate, the only difference between FM7 and Fm7 is the size of the 'M', so 'M7' versus 'm7' leaves a lot of room for time-consuming misinterpretation. For that purpose, Fmaj7 and Fm7 are more acceptable symbols for those chords. But not the suffix, 'maj7', is four characters long. It doesn't seem like much, but when you have a chord on every beat in a measure, those four characters can easily become 16 characters, resulting in either a very messy looking measure or a measure that is superficially enlarged for the purpose of making the chord suffixes readable. F&#8710; is much cleaner and has no chance of being confused with Fm7. Keeping these situations in mind, let's talk about the notation.

For triads:
Tertian sonorities are the easiest to notate, and the most basic tertian chord is the tertian triad.



> *Major triad* (1 3 5) - Just the letter note name of the chord, e.g. "G" (G B D). 'GM' poses the possibility of confusion with 'Gm', so just get rid of the 'M'. Other examples: F#, Eb, A.
> 
> *Minor triad* (1 b3 5) - Letter note name plus a lowercase 'm', e.g. "Bm" (B D F#). There is a trend (particularly in the jazz arranger community) to notate minor triads with a "-", but B- doesn't seem quite as clear as Bm, as "-" could potentially be construed as a speck on the page, or a speck on the page could be erroneously interpreted as a "-". Trust me, I've seen both situations. "mi" and "min" are both in common use, but that's a lot of extra letters. Ultimately, "Ebm" is easier to read than "Ebmin". Other examples: Abm, Gm, D#m.
> 
> ...


--------

The next step in tertian sonorities is the seventh chord. In chord symbol notation, seventh chords are generally regarded as a triad type (as detailed above) plus a seventh. As such, I will address this topic by listing the quality of sevenths and relating them to triads.



> *Major seventh* - Letter note name, plus triad notation, followed by "&#8710;". As stated in the introduction to this guide, "&#8710;" is chosen because it consumes little space relative to other common options. "maj7", "ma7", and "M7" are common alternatives. Since some people don't know how to produce "&#8710;" on their computer (the unicode is U+0394, or option+j on Macs), those symbols are acceptable. In this case, I reject "M7" (on account of the whole uppercase/lowercase thing), and "ma7" is better than "maj7" because the former has fewer characters than the latter. Some ultra-specific notation indicates both triad quality and seventh quality (such as BMM7, a B major triad plus a major seventh), but that takes up way too much space.
> 
> Application:
> Major triad + major seventh - D&#8710; (D F# A C#) (1 3 5 7)
> ...





> *Minor seventh* - Letter note name, plus triad type, followed by "7". As far as I know, "7" is the most common notation for a minor seventh in a chord symbol. I've seen "min7", "mi7", "m7" and "-7" on a few select occasions, but that practice is rarely consistent when I have seen it, particularly since it tends to obscure the distinction between triad quality and seventh quality, and it looks like crap (Abminmin7).
> 
> Application:
> Major triad + minor seventh - G#7 (G# B# D# F#) (1 3 5 b7)
> ...





> *Diminished seventh* - Letter note name, followed by °7. You'll notice I exclude the triad quality here. Diminished sevenths are singularly attached to diminished triads. The diminished seventh interval in enharmonically equivalent to a major sixth, so a diminished seventh attached to any triad quality other than a diminished triad is more accurately described as a sixth chord (a term which I naturally have a problem with). dim7 and d7 are common notations. For consistency, I still prefer °7.
> 
> Application:
> Diminished triad + diminished seventh - C#°7 (C# E G Bb) (1 b3 b5 bb7)


--------

Following sevenths are extensions, or 'embellishments' as SirMyghin calls them. I prefer 'extension', but whatever. Going a third above a seventh yields a ninth, a third above that is an eleventh, and third above that is a thirteenth. Going a third above a thirteenth gets you back to the root of the chord, and we don't need to talk about those redundancies (except in the extremely rare case of augmented fifteenth chords). Notating extended chords is a bit of an art. An extended chord is determined by the presence of a seventh in the chord and the highest extension in the chord. The format is thus: letter note name, triad quality, highest natural extension in the style of seventh quality (so a C&#8710; chord plus a ninth is C&#8710;9, C7 plus a ninth is C9, Cm7 plus a ninth is Cm9, Cø7 plus a ninth is Cø9 and C°7 plus a ninth is C°9), and any 'alterations' in parentheses. An example:

F&#8710;13(#11). This tells us that the triad is F A C, the seventh is E, the highest extension is D, and there is an alteration that is B. While not explicitly stated in the chord symbol, it is assumed that the ninth is G. We know this because, as in scale formulae, any chord/scale member that is not preceded by '#' or 'b' is assumed to be either of major or perfect quality, and that all members of the chord are accounted for unless specifically state in symbol, such as F&#8710;13(#11)(no9). I discourage writing that (no9) unless you really really _really_ mean it. Most players will automatically omit the fifth of the chord as well as any extensions below the highest extension. Indicated alterations should be played because whoever wrote the symbol thought it was important enough of a detail to include. As you might have realized, an alteration is merely an extension that requires a # or b in front of it.

Let's look at another.

Bbm11(b13,b9)

Let's break this symbol down. First, the triad: Bbm. That's Bb Db F. Then, the seventh. We can infer that the seventh is minor, because the highest natural extension is presented in the same style as the seventh: a number means that there is a minor seventh (Ab) and a perfect eleventh (Eb). Then, the alterations. When there is more than one extension, they are ordered from highest number to lowest. So, there is a minor thirteenth (Gb) as well as a minor ninth (Cb). Altogether, the chord symbol translates to this: Bb Db F Ab Cb Eb Gb. The fifth will likely be omitted, so take the F out.

--------
--------

*Important! *If a chord contains an 'extension' but no seventh, that extension ceases to be called an extension. However, to analyze such chords, we must venture beyond standard tertian notations.

--------
--------

In the case of chords whose members extend beyond the standard complement of triadic chord tones but do not contain a seventh, we must consider the non-standard tones as *added members*. Added members may include 2, 4, and 6. These may also be called 9, 11, and 13 respectively, but 13 is largely neglected in favor for 6. These added members are subject to the same alterations as those in extended chords. The proper suffix for these chords is '(addX)', where X is the added member. For example, Em(add6) is an Em triad (E G B) with an added major sixth (C#). Em(addb6) is the same, but with an added minor sixth (C). Another: D#+(add4), a D#+ triad (D# Fx Ax) with an added perfect fourth (G#). D#+(add11) is the same exact thing. Depending on the voicing, I might prefer one over the other.

You probably know (add6) chords simply as 6 chords. It's true that one is six characters long and the other is merely one, but I choose (add6) for consistency: people know that F6 is F A C D, and they also get that F(add6) is F A C D; put down F9 or F11, then you intrude on the symbols for extended chords. F2 and F4 are somewhat better, but nobody writes that. Just make it all (addX) and you're cool.

A note for those that care to think about this sort of thing: sixth chords are very easily realized as inverted seventh chords (F6 and Dm7/F are the same notes, in the same orientation). True sixth chords do exist, but they sound to me like seventh chords about 90% of the time. Remember, people, sixths invert to thirds.

--------

Then, there are chords with substituted members. This is done by taking a member of a triad or seventh chord and replacing one of the chord's members with a tone immediately adjacent to it, most frequently the third. Let's take an A major triad, A C# E. Let's replace the third with a second, B. I'll call A B E "Asub2". Or replace the third with a fourth, "A D E", "Asub4". Yes, these are sus chords. No, I don't call them sus chords. Suspension is a melodic technique, not a harmonic one. If you write Esub4, though, somebody will smack you as soon as they scrutinize the suffix.

--------
--------

After a while, naming conventions break down. There is no good way to specify non-tertian harmony in a chord symbol. 'Q' and '4' have been used to denote quartal voicings (ex: AbQ = Ab Db Gb, possibly continuing on), and there are a few quintal symbols, like using '5' for power chords (C#5 is just C# G#), but you can't use 'Q', since the quartal guys are already using that. Maybe 5/9. Secundal voicings are out of the question. The more specific you want to get with things, the more you have to rely on standard notation or something equivalent to that (such as a chromatic staff or graphic notation). I'll leave you all with just a couple more tricks out of my chord naming bag:

! - Symbol for a split chord member. (!3) after a chord symbol means that the chord contains both a major and a minor third. B(!3) = B D D# F#, Am(!7) = A C E G G#, E11(!9) = E G# B D F F# A.

Polychords - I don't know how one would proceed to illustrate this on this forum, but a polychord is notated by writing one chord over another, with a line between them, as though the dots in this symbol were replaced with two different chord symbols: ÷

Inversions - Just indicate with a slash. A first inversion Eb triad is Eb/G. Not everybody does this, but if there is a seventh in the bass, I include it in the chord suffix. So, rather than writing Am/G, I'll write Am7/G. To me, this chord is functioning as Am7, so I want to put that information in a place where it will be entirely clear.

Lastly, I don't accept the whole idea of implied roots unless somebody really convinces me, and they have to do so with an assload of context, as in you have to play a section of the music, and upon repeating it, consistently omit the roots to all of the chords. If you mean Em7, write Em7. Don't write G and then say "But the bass is playing E." What the fuck?! I can understand that some chords that get this treatment have the same function as others (vii° and V7 are functionally the same), but F#° is not D7 without a root. If you write an F#° into a guitar part and then have the bassist play D at the same time, that's all fine and cool for arrangement. But in analysis, things should be strictly business. It's kind of hard to pinpoint the workings of music when you're being told one thing and then you're hearing another.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 3, 2012)

Fucking epic..Thanks! That will take a few reads to digest but will certainly be referring to it plenty!
Your last paragraph is very true - throughout this I have been analysing ALL instruments to write the chord names, resulting in different chord names when the guitar is actually playing the same thing, depending what the bass is doing (SirMyghins example of my second chord being Eadd11 instead). I ended up trying the bass in E and used that at one point instead of A.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 3, 2012)

Careful there, basses can play a lot more than root notes  The lowest note heard need not be the root by any means.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 3, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> Careful there, basses can play a lot more than root notes  The lowest note heard need not be the root by any means.



Believe me, I do know this. And if I ever had a doubt, you never hesitate in reminding me.  Nevertheless, in every jazz harmony or arranging class I've ever had, and in every comping video I've ever seen or article I've ever read, the instructor or author consistently says that the bass "plays the roots". It irks me that they make this assumption, so extending that idea to say that every chord a guitarist plays has a phantom root that's a a third lower is pure fucking nonsense.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 3, 2012)

^^ not intended for you, but Ethereal. I am just a rebel bassist who breaks that every time I can. Using bass as a melodic instrument opposed to just rhythm has netted me way too much flack over the years, and stuff like YOU AREN"T FOLLOWING DRUMS DIE!, yet I persist.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 4, 2012)

Oh certainly  I think refering to it as the root is useful for this theory though. But yes, I am often using fills, connecting notes and other melodies. 

I have another question...
That accidental key change from F#m to Bm which was certainly the right thing to do, has dug me into a little bit of a hole. This was to be a 16 bar progression. I only wanted to be in Bm for 4 bars before going back to something similar to what I had at the beginning. The transition to Bm was very smooth but I can't seem to get back so well. I put in one chromatic note (Fmaj7, A E and F is that correct? E in the bass) which seemed to help. Here is what I have:

```
|F#m11 (no 9)         |E              |B5         |Dsus2                          |

|F#m11 (no9)          |Amaj7sus2       |B5       |Gmaj7                          |
    
|Bm                  |A               |Em9        |Gmaj13 (no11)    Fmaj7|

|F#madd11     C#m    |Dmaj9           |Bm          |G
```
Are there any particular techniques that would be useful for transition back from the 4 bar Bm progression? It changes the feel quite a lot.

I'm also wondering if it's actually worth stating the keychange as there are those two G naturals throughout anyway.

I'm also practicing compiling all the guitar parts (this is two riffs, bass, and lead guitar forming these chords) into a piano part to practice voice leadings and see how the progression sounds simplified.

Also: Difference between sus2add11 and sus4add9?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 4, 2012)

Mind posting some tab or something? Voice leading is going to have a big effect on how things will sound, and while I want to say "turn that last Bm into a D9", the effect is entirely different for that chord and may come across as cheesy. Also, make sure that you notate your inversions. F A E is certainly F&#8710;, but if E is in the bass, write F&#8710;/E.

Some other considerations: B5 Gmaj7 is most likely going to sound like one continuous Gmaj7 chord. I can understand your purposes for writing them as separate, but be aware that using chords that nest into one another (B F# is found in both chords, and is the entirety of one of them) will create the effect of a static harmony. As far as stating a key change... I wouldn't. If the chromaticism is short-lived, just write the accidentals in. It's a pain in the ass to write another key signature for a four-measure tonicization, then change it back for the following phrase.

sus2add11 and sus4add9 can be the same thing. One implies that there is a second and an eleventh from the root, the other implies a fourth and a ninth, so it's only a matter of octave placement. Keep in mind that it might be a different chord altogether. If I see C D F G, I'm more likely to believe that it's G11/C, or that we are similarly dealing with G7 and a C pedal tone that is acting as a non-chord tone (something like C-E-G, C-D-F-G, C-E-G, where C and G stay constant). Beethoven does this sort of voicing in some of his dances. And don't write the omissions. If I read Gmaj13, I'm thinking G B F# E, and I don't even care about A and C.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 4, 2012)

I'm just heading out so can't read/reply fully at the moment but sure I've uploaded the tab here quickly Open tuning.gp5

Yeah I've gotten rid of that keychange and am just keeping the various G accidentals in there. I've noticed what's happening throughout, on every 4th bar I seem to move to F# phrygian and involve a G. 

There's not much voice leading in the riffs themselves as they are all over the place, but I used the chord names to compose the string part. I didn't keep it too strict but it flows pretty well I think. I still need to tidy bits of it up. 

You are certainly right about the transition from B5 to Gmaj7 but I think it's a good thing here - you can certainly hear the change but most of the notes are held as is very evident in the string part. I think that works really well - let me know what you think and any obvious mistakes you see. Cheers!

A few of the chords have been changed around from what I wrote above and I feel I have that transition working better now..still a bit funny though.

-------
I also meant to ask about the chord at the end where I wrote Em with a raised 6th. I don't know what to call it. EGC#
It occurs because as I noticed earlier, I move to phrygian on every 4th bar - so I'd usually have a normal E6 (E G# C#) but the G is being flattened.
Apparently these can be named m6...That to me though implies a 6th chord built on the minor scale - E G C, no? I feel Em/M6, Emin/Maj6 would be more appropriate.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071124164735AAgy1nx This answer here seems to confirm that it is m6. Does that mean there can be confusion around the construction of major 6th chords, too? I thought I understood this all until now haha.

I suppose, more simply put:
C6 - C E G A, or Ab?
Cmin6 - C Eb G Ab, or C Eb G A?

Same confusion occurs later (not on the tab I uploaded) where I use an E6 chord outside of my 'phrygian bar' - so it's a major E this time also with the C#.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jun 6, 2012)

C6 = C E G A
Em6 = E G B C#

The 6 in 6/add6 chords is always major.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 6, 2012)

^ Cool, good to know that rule. 

All my chords are correct then. 
How would you write a flat 6th? Not that I'm using one.

Are there any other extensions where such rules apply to look out for? As I've always been assuming that the extensions would simply come from the major or minor scale as implied by the base chord, i.e. Em6 = C not C#


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 6, 2012)

Emb6 = E G B C

Or, you know, treat them like seventh chords.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 6, 2012)

Another something caught me out..I had a chord:
D F# C# E G# B


I thought, Dmaj13, without the 5th.
However, looking up maj13 chords tells me I should have a G rather than a G# in there as the 11th..Seems to be another tricky variation like those I questioned above?


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 6, 2012)

G is indeed the 11th. I think the reason it is telling you is it should be G is that Dmaj7 would typically appear in D major, which does not have a G#. 

If you were playing in A the G# would be present, diantonically. You could write Dmaj13(#11) if it makes you feel better, then the instruction is transparent.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 6, 2012)

Thanks, #11 it is then  I keep slipping up and just counting the notes from the key of F# minor, which is why I thought it was a normal Dmaj13 at first.

"If you were playing in A the G# would be present, diantonically"
This makes me think you are implying that writing Dmaj13 would be fine if I were in A? What is the best approach to take - treat each chord as a series of intervals regardless of key, or just name them relative to the key?


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 6, 2012)

I would write Dmaj13 if playing in A or F#m, F#m is the relative minor of A, so both apply. Naming embellishments can become tiresome, and often a little tedius as they are just that, embellishments, extra flavour. 

I tend to think in keys, except when I am not.  Usually I am quite aware of whatever key I have dreamed up or switched between. I prefer to think either diatonically, or in terms of chord tones/intervals than anything like chord scale theory. Anything outside chord tones and intervals is fair game depending how I feel, but I don't think "Oooh, what this needs is a little more of a phrygian feel", 99% of the time. Scales are too flexible, imo. An eye on where you come from, and where you are going should keep things moving nicely. If you have trouble writing melody to follow non-diatonic progressions, there are some tricks to that, a simple one is at the change approach a chord tone of the out of key chord from a semitone below, it should come out in the wash then.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jun 6, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Another something caught me out..I had a chord:
> D F# C# E G# B
> 
> 
> ...


Dmaj13 #11 no 5
Not that it should be written out like that (way too long), but it's a very precise way to write it.
I often write my chord names out longhand like this, just because I'm not handing out chords sheets to anyone and if I'm just glancing over some sheet music I know what some huge lump of notes looks like without looking too close. It's only for my own benefit really.

About 11ths:
11 implies a perfect fourth in a chord that also contains 3rd,5th(often omitted),7th, and possibly a 9th, if you want a #11 you have to specify it

C11: C E G Bb D *F*
Cmaj11: C E G B D *F*
Cmin11: C Eb G Bb D *F*
Cmaj7 #11: C E G B D *F#*
C7 #11: C E G Bb D *F#*

All the higher extensions (other than 7) are either perfect(11) or major(9,11,13) unless noted.
Cm9: C Eb G Bb *D* <major 9 on m7 chord
Cm13: C Eb G Bb *D F A* <major 9, perfect 11, major 13
Cm11*b9*: C Eb G Bb *Db F* <minor 9 specified, perfect 11


----------



## Trespass (Jun 6, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> Believe me, I do know this. And if I ever had a doubt, you never hesitate in reminding me.  Nevertheless, in every jazz harmony or arranging class I've ever had, and in every comping video I've ever seen or article I've ever read, the instructor or author consistently says that the bass "plays the roots". It irks me that they make this assumption, so extending that idea to say that every chord a guitarist plays has a phantom root that's a a third lower is pure fucking nonsense.



Because the root is implied. 

Usually the head is played fairly straight with little substitutions (so as not to clash harmonically with the melody or distract from the melody). The audience member has heard the root motion and harmonic rhythm that makes up the song, so if the bass player substitutes something other than the root later on (which is very common in any bassline past the 50s) then it's not exactly a big deal. The viewer will fill in the harmonic material.

Not to mention if it's a well known standard or blues. Then you can pretty much do anything.


Besides, who gives a shit if the bass player plays the root or not. That's part of harmonic ambiguity and impressionist quality jazz has had since bebop & Kind of Blue.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jun 6, 2012)

Also, combination tones can imply different roots than the performer is intending, this is why certain inversions of extended chords, don't always 'work' the way you want them to.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 7, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Because the root is implied.
> 
> Usually the head is played fairly straight with little substitutions (so as not to clash harmonically with the melody or distract from the melody). The audience member has heard the root motion and harmonic rhythm that makes up the song, so if the bass player substitutes something other than the root later on (which is very common in any bassline past the 50s) then it's not exactly a big deal. The viewer will fill in the harmonic material.



I understand the concept and the mechanism, but I do not believe that implied roots occur as often as the jazz establishment would have us think. Harmonic substitution is very neatly explained by standard functional harmony (in that I, IV and V are primary functions, and vi, iii, ii and vii° are secondary substitutions), but saying that one thing is another thing that's a third in one direction or another is a goo way to muddy things up.



> Besides, who gives a shit if the bass player plays the root or not.



I don't know. Apparently every big band arranger that I've played for and every jazz academic that I've come into contact with. It's always "Don't play the root - the bassist has that". I'm saying that the lowest note is not always the root, not the converse.



> That's part of harmonic ambiguity and impressionist quality jazz has had since bebop & Kind of Blue.



I'd argue that this is more of a function of chord progressions and approach toward chromaticism and modality than it is what member of the chord the bassist is playing. If that were the case, we could say that Mozart was an impressionist because he used first inversion seventh chords.


----------

