A2 Chord?

I've been trying to follow your system but I have to admit to a bit of confusion myself. In the key of C, you named the chord E F B as E Susm2. I understand that - so I was wondering what you called the subdominant chord F B C. I thought, logically, you would call it, according to your system, as F sus Aug 4 - but when I looked it up, I see you're calling it just F sus4, which, clearly, it's not.
In fact, neither of those names would be acceptable in a traditional tonal context as the tritone between F and B would seek to resolve differently to what we expect from suspensions.

Youre right on the subdominant what I have is wrong. It should be something like FSusAug4. If you look at the intervals for that it says 1 P4 P5 And that is wrong too it should be a 1, Aug4, P5.

I don't care for it much either. You're attempting to name non-tertian chords using tertian symbology - which leads to even more confusion!

A Sus chord isnt tertian anyway yet it has a name. I'm simply saying cut out the "flat" or "sharp" terminolgy and use a naming system that describes a tone cluster or chord using the actual intervals between the tones. In no way do I claim to have figured out every name for every group of tones as Fretsource has already pointed out. But It just goes to show you that Fretsource was able to see that there is a chord in the subdominant position that can have the tones of a Root, Aug4, and P5 and you can't call it a Sus4 chord....I agree.....so what do you call it? If we were to call it a Sus#4 that is confusing because someone could inadvertanly try to sharp the already augmented 4th......I believe that is more confusing than just saying it's a SusAug4 or something similar like Sus+4 with the + being a symbol for Aug.

Do you have a better way to name the chord with the tones of F,B,C ?

True enough, a 'sus' chord isn't tertian. But it has a name because it's commonly used in pop music, and for a long enough duration that a name is useful.

Now I'm not a fan of 'sus' chords (or 'slash' chords for that matter), mostly because they don't give you any harmonic information... they can't, since they have no function in tertian harmony. But at least a 'sus' designation tells you what notes are involved, along with some clues as to why through its place in the progression - it's either a classical suspension, or a neighboring tone.

But a name like 'Esus2m' gives you absolutely no harmonic information. In fact, it's probably wrong from the get-go, and confusing to boot!

Listen to the notes. It does NOT have a minor sound - there is no minor third present in the chord. That makes it pretty tough to make a case for it being the 'iii' chord (why isn't it the IV, or the vii instead?) - and it's doubly confusing when you add the term 'm' into your proposed chord name.

Listen to the notes again. What DOES it sound like?

In isolation, you hear a tension, a tone that must resolve. It's also a chord that can have a dominant function because of the tritone tension between F and B.

There are actually three ways this set of notes can be named within the key of C major, depending on the harmonic function. From the most common harmonically to the least, they are:

G13: G-B-D-F-A-C-E; here the chord plays a simple dominant role... and fits nicely in the key of C. While rootless chords don't appear that often, they do appear at times.

or

Fmaj7b5: F-A-Cb-E here the chord plays a subdominant role in the harmony. This use would be more common in minor keys than major ones. (The same tones are also found in quartal harmony, where many writers refer to F-B-E as the 'Lydian Augmented' chord in the key of C)

or... and you're gonna love this one!...

E#maj7(bb3): E#-G-B#-Dx; this chord doesn't have a traditional name in tertian harmony - but that doesn't mean it can;t be used. The IV chord comes out a lot like this when you harmonize the Hungarian minor scale. Some theorists, like Jaroslav Volek, argue that although it's similar to the altered subdominant, it's truly a mediant function - he calls them 'chromatic mediants'.

Chord names aren't interchangeable. That's why the set of notes C-E-G-A is sometimes C6 and other times Am7. Your method communicates only the notes comprising a chord, while draining out all information about harmonic motion.

I do not see that as an improvement.

no it doesn't "drain out all information about harmonic motion ". First of all I am saying ESusm2 (not what you typed as ESus2m) anyway ESusm2 meaning "E suspended minor second" because it's a suspending minor 2nd as opposed to a suspended second or suspended Major second.

From your example Fmaj7b5 chord ... my way of renaming retains the harmonic function but replaces the flat terminology and it would become FMaj7dim5 ...not only does that tell you the same chord but it also tells you the intervals. ...and replaces the misleading b or flat term.

Why do you think in terms of a "flat 5" when it is really a dim 5? F to Cb is a dim 5 interval. Why not call it that in your chord name?

E - whatever you want to call it, susm2 or sus2m - only makes sense if the root motion of the progression calls for an E rooted chord. Based on the notes involved, my point is: that is not very likely for those tones, in any key, in any situation (and you did not supply a logical example for analysis to refute that) - so why give it a misleading name?

Chord names do not reference intervals. They reference scale degrees. You don't call it a 'diminished fifth' because diminished (in a chord name) implies reducing both the third AND the fifth. This is true in every case: diminished triads, fully-diminished sevenths, half diminished sevenths, etc.

Conflating chord symbols with interval relationships confuses things. That's because with any given root (and hence, any given root major scale) there is ONE relationship to a scale degree - there are multiple interval relationships within a chord.

Would you call G-B-D-F a Gm7 chord because there's a minor seventh interval from the root? No - because 'm' implies the relationship to the third. To carry your system to its logical extension, that chord would be called Gmajor(m7) or some other such nonsense.

Sorry, I'm not buying your 'simplification'. And I stand by what I said - you've drained the harmonic information, because the proper name of a chord does not depend on the chord tones, but on the chord tones in relationship to the progression. A perfect example is my earlier reference to C6 and Am7 - the proper name for the chord depends on the progression, not the notes.

Ok, thats cool if you don't "buy" it.....I'm not selling it anyway.......

For you to say that a certain group of tones is unlikely to occur is kinda funny though.........especially in modern music (like Metal)

I still think the flat terminology is more confusing ........

I also disagree with you in that a chord is not named after the "chord tones" which is the intervals it contains. It most certainly is and with your C6 and Am7 analogy it still is, but the name of the chord changes based on the harmonic function of those tones that make up that chord. It can be a C6 or an Am7 depending on the harmonic context you take it out of. But once you take it out of context and analize as a C6 or an Am7 then you are naming it with some sort of reference as to the intervals it contains. If you weren't, then where does the number 6 come from or even the m7?

Again I am not selling anything and you don't have to 'buy" it.....if anything what I am saying will only reinforce what you believe and maybe some one else will learn something new from our discussion of it.

Well, go ahead and find it funny - but you STILL haven't shown me any example of those tones with an E root within a progression.

I did not say the notes are not likely to occur. I said they are not likely to occur with an E-root (not E-bass, but E-root) within a harmonic progression.

You're dead wrong on the naming of chords. One more time, more slowly:

A chord name does not depend on the notes, but on the role of the chord within the progression.

The name we choose for a chord in isolation is not randomly assigned. It is based on our experience encountering the chord within music.

We call the notes A-C-E-G by the name Am7, because that arrangment of notes conforms to the tertian rules of harmony - and because it conforms to the harmony rules, we will frequently see it used within a progression.

These notes may also be identified as C6. In isolation, these tones are not identified as C6. That's because C6 does not conform to the tertian system. Any reference to these tones as C6 within a theory text occur in only two circumstances:

1. Discussion of the chord within a progression, where C is clearly identified as the root... which means it's no longer in isolation

2. Discussion of chord extensions, in which case the C major triad has already been identified as the fundamental harmony

So while the label C6 may be properly used in certain circumstances, it is not accepted as the 'default' name for the chord. Instead, we discover (through context in progression) that the Am7 label does not convey the desired harmonic information in some circumstances, and we change the label to C6 to include that information.

Stepping outside of theory texts, you can find isolated references to a C6 chord - in chord dictionaries, method books, and the like. And here you can discover the truth of my statement: when you DO see the label C6 used in isolation, you are envisioning these tones in the role of a major chord - as an extension of the tonic C triad. The choice of name does more than identify the notes; it tells you something about its place within a harmonic progression.

If your view was accurate - that chords are simply names that come from a given set of tones - not only would you find the label C6 just as common as the label Am7, but you'd also see other labels... like G6sus4add9(no 5th).

Oh, and metal is not 'modern' music in terms of theory. Most of it conforms to 17th century theory conventions... with a lot of 16th century melodic ideas - why do you think folks talk about 'neo-classical' in metal?

so you would rather follow a more confusing system? Is that what you are trying to say?
Please also understand that what I propose is also a learning experience.
Not exactly - I'd rather follow a more confusing system that I already know. To be blunt, I don't find your system to be less confusing either, it's adding information to explain why a chord is constructed as it is - but do we need that to play it?

The other thing to note is that it's not good enough for your system to be equal or even slightly better than the current one. To outweigh the disadvantages of switching over, it would have to be a lot better. That was my point with the miles vs kilometers - there are advantages to using kms, but the country is not willing to undertake the effort of switching.

Noat boat Ok you can keep disagreeing with me because I most certainly disagree with you. You are the one that uses the term "flat" in a chord which is confusing to beginners and they will attempt to flat a flat by using your method.

In "Metal" or any other type of modern music "funk" "pop" or "rock" any thing can happen... you can even combine elements of classical music and call it "neo classical"....which is kind of a misnomer anyway because you could call it "neo-Baroque" or "neo-Romantic" depending on the period you are most influence by.

anyway I've had enough...

ChordsAndScales.co.uk I see what you are saying and I kind of agree ........but knowing both systems will make you smarter:)

Yes, anything can happen... but does it happen?

I'm still waiting for an example.

I don't think you have one.

And if you don't have one, the 'sus2m' is just a mental game with no pracitical use.

Learning things that can't be used will not make you smarter.

I could play AS AN EXAMPLE in an open position

CEGB (C Maj)
EBF (ESusm2)
EBG ( E minor)
AEACE (A minor)
DADF (D minor)
FACE (F Maj7)
CEGB (C Maj)

and if you use the EBF as a sort of pick up chord/grace note-ish to the EBG it gives a cool effect.

-------

But It just goes to show you that Fretsource was able to see that there is a chord in the subdominant position that can have the tones of a Root, Aug4, and P5 and you can't call it a Sus4 chord....I agree.....so what do you call it? If we were to call it a Sus#4 that is confusing because someone could inadvertanly try to sharp the already augmented 4th......I believe that is more confusing than just saying it's a SusAug4 or something similar like Sus+4 with the + being a symbol for Aug.

I think you have misinterpreted my point, which was that even the term "sus Aug4" isn't acceptable - because the "aug" contradicts the "sus". The sound of the chord in a C major tonality is more strongly dominant than subdominant due to the tritone on the leading note. So I wouldn't call it F anything - at least not in the key of C major.

Another point I want to make (as you said you welcome discussion on this subject) is that, suppose I adopted your system and wrote a song using your chord names. How will anyone know what they mean? They will be left wondering if a Bm dim 5 is any different to a Bmb5. Of course, if everyone adopted your system, they would know that they're the same - but how long would that take? - and I dread to think of the widespread confusion when half the world's musicians use it and the other half haven't yet heard of it or refuse to adopt it - an ironic state of affairs, when its primary purpose was to reduce confusion.
Ok - I'm overstating the case to make a point - most of us would be able to deduce that they mean the same thing.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of your system, it's worth noting that if a highly logical language such as Esperanto is still languishing in relative obscurity after over a hundred years, it just illustrates that such fundamental changes happen by evolution, not revolution. If replacing the term "b" in chord names with the terms "min" and "dim" offered any real advantage, I think 'natural selection' would have seen to it already.

good points Fretsource I think that is relatively what Chordsandscales.co.uk was saying . As far as Sus+4 I don't think it does contradict because it's a suspended interval of an aumented 4th.

As far as replacing "b" in chord names with min or dim.........in order to fully understand the intervals involved you have to do that mentally anyway, all I'm saying is eliminate that step by calling it what it is.

But your'e probably right no one in their right mind would want to do as I suggest.

Forget I said anything guys.
Sorry to upset anyone.
All roads still lead to Rome :D

Shred: Your avatar image is in a password protected area, it pops up a login box every time it loads...

Sorry to upset anyone.

No apologies necessary, Shred. These are exactly the kinds of thought provoking discussions that I love about this place. :)