9 and Add9

Reviving an old thread, thanks to the 'search' function.

Many of the lead sheets or chord charts I'm given contain "2" chords - C2, G2, etc. Not "sus2", just 2. Are these the same as "add9" chords and, if so, why the different naming convention? Is it specific to the octave in which the 2 (9) is added to the basic triad? EXAMPLE

And what the heck is a "sus7" chord?

Reviving an old thread, thanks to the 'search' function.

Many of the lead sheets or chord charts I'm given contain "2" chords - C2 or G2, etc. Not "sus2", just 2. Are these the same as "add9" chords and, if so, why the different naming convention? Is it specific to the octave in which the 2 (9) is added to the basic triad? EXAMPLE

And what the heck is a "sus7" chord?

C2, C add2 and C add9 are the same. They consist of the same scale notes, 1 3 5 & 9 (or 2). Most chord names have arisen as descriptions based on the scale notes they contain and most names have stuck and become widely accepted. Not all though, so variations are found, such as add2 and add9.
To confuse things further, some people prefer to make distinctions such as using C2 or C add2 to indicate that the 2 (D) is in the same octave as the lowest root and use C add9 to show there is at least an octave difference between them - but that's not widely recognised as it would mean that, if you invert the chord or rearrange the notes in a certain way, the name would have to change from 2 to 9 or vice versa, and that doesn't happen in chord terminology. Voicing doesn't usually affect how a chord is named (except sometimes slash chords and power chords)

As for the sus 7 chord, or 7 sus as in the example you posted (B 7 sus). It's just a seventh chord with a suspended 4th note replacing the third. (1 4 5 b7 or B E F# A). You can play it as X24252

Thanks for that Fretsource! Very helpful information about the 2s, add2s and add9s.

For clarification, in the example, I was referring to the "Asus7" shown in the progression at the end of the pre-chorus. However, I've found another chart for that song which shows a x02030 diagram for the Asus7 chord, so it's really A7sus as you suggest.

Cheers!

C2 vs Csus2 vs Cadd2/9 is widely debated for sure...

To put another take on it, I've generally seen C2 as meaning something different from Cadd2/add9 (mostly in praise and worship charts, since that's about the only place I use commercial arrangements).

I've seen x35535 (CGCDG) written both as C2 and Csus2

with x32033 (CEGDG) written as Cadd2 or Cadd9

That is, C2/Csus2 the 2 replaces the 3 (D replacing E), and Cadd2/Cadd9 includes both the 3 (E) and the 2 or 9 (D).

Not saying it's correct, but how I've seen it in the context of the charts I use.

C2 vs Csus2 vs Cadd2/9 is widely debated for sure...

To put another take on it, I've generally seen C2 as meaning something different from Cadd2/add9 (mostly in praise and worship charts, since that's about the only place I use commercial arrangements).

I've seen x35535 (CGCDG) written both as C2 and Csus2

with x32033 (CEGDG) written as Cadd2 or Cadd9

That is, C2/Csus2 the 2 replaces the 3 (D replacing E), and Cadd2/Cadd9 includes both the 3 (E) and the 2 or 9 (D).

Not saying it's correct, but how I've seen it in the context of the charts I use.

And I have seen x32033 (CEGDG) written as C2, but not too often.

Been following this thread with interest......and while I understand Noteboat's point about sus2's - from what I understand, there are no sus 2's, only inversions of sus4, ie Dsus2 = Asus4......isn't there are time when the real musicians have to give in to popular terminology? I mean , for instance, if I see a tab sheet and it says Dsus2 (the particular instance I'm thinking of is Neil Young's "The Needle and The Damage Done") I think, hmm, Dsus2.....

E A D G B E
x x 0 2 3 0

NOT

E A D G B E
x 0 2 2 3 0......

OK, technically they're the same chord, but they sound totally different when played - in TNATDD, you play D Dsus4 and Dsus2 - it's a lot easier to read and play than D, Dsus, and Asus4butnotthenormalvoicingofAsus4aninversion......

Is this a case where we guitarists are ahead of the world?

To put it another way - Dsus2 is a different voicing of Asus4 - but if I see Dsus2 on a tab sheet, I see a certain voicing - I really don't think "Asus4" and look to play that chord......

Or am I missing something? As far as I'm aware, there's no way to differentiate between different voicings of a chord using either tab or standard notation....not that I'm well up on the latter....or is there?

Tom - Noteboat - please don't think I'm having a go at you here, you're one of the most helpful people on this or any other site - I just think sus2's are one example where the real musicians - like yourself - should give in gracefully to the common herd - including me - and bite the bullet and bow to common usage......the Oxford English Dictionary is updated each year, and some of the terminology teenagers use that anyone with a grasp of and a feel for the English Language would be horrified by is usually included.....

And with the proliferation of mobile phones - text messages - and chat rooms - text speak - it won't be long before anyone under 50 or so fails to recognise what teenagers are saying altogether......

I've said my two pennorth.....for what it's worth.....I honestly believe that sus2's should be recognised as a valid chord.... feel free to disagree.....

:D :D :D

Vic

Doug - thanks for that additional info. And I thought I had it all figured out! But yeah, it's the P&W lead sheets that really seem to muck things up. :)

Vic - I'm with you!

Another note - my version of Finale (2003) won't accept something like Dsus2 by default, but will accept D2, so that's what I use when I write my own charts. I've come to accept D2 and Dsus2 as the same thing...

Vic, Slej: Me too :)

I can't see the logic in labelling a sus2 as an inverted sus4/sus of some other root, especially as we don't do the same with C6 and Am7 and other examples (I mean 'everyday' logic, not 'theory' logic - it's obviously going to be beneficial to know that they're the same notes). When you have a progression or embelishment like Dsus4, D, Dsus2, D it's just plain misleading to throw Asus4 in there :)

Vic,

Lately I've been seeing 'sus2' and '2' on more and more charts. So I'll concede that it's entered the guitar lexicon... but is it time to give in to the herd?

For guidance, I look to the herd experts - the lemmings :)

Words have meaning only when they're agreed upon by two people. If I use the word entiendo in a sentance, it won't mean anything to you unless you know it's Spanish for 'I understand'. If you do know that, I've communicated.

Words get created when somebody makes up a term to describe something, and others agree on what it means. If there's no word to describe a technique, somebody names it 'pinch harmonic', and it catches on - it's in the lexicon. All musicians make up terms that are instrument specific... you wouldn't ask your drummer to do a pinch harmonic cymbal crash; harp players won't ask you to read Salzedo accidentals, and violinists won't tell you a phrase needs to be played con legno. As long as the term stays within your instrument, no big deal.

The problem with coining terms for ideas happens when we make up a term out of ignorance - not realizing that everyone who plays other instruments already has a name for the idea.

The chord names guitarists create fall into that category, because chords already HAVE names. Tell a guitarist your progression goes F-A#-Bb6sus2add9(no fifth), and they can probably play it, especially if they've used the internet a lot for learning. Tell those names to a pianist, and they'll think you're completely uneducated, and they'll be right - the rest of the musical world calls it F-Bb-C7.

So the objection I have to guitarist-created names is that it's not a matter of 'giving in' - it's a practical matter that I don't want to be limited to communicating only with other guitarists. If you say 'Cadd2' or 'Asus6' I'll know what you mean.

But I can also translate those terms into something meaningful for non-guitarist musicians.

I have no problem with speaking lemming. I just don't fancy the swim that results from speaking lemming exclusively.

Now that I can understand, but (yeah, you knew that was coming, didntcha?) doesn't the naming of a sus4 establish the rules from which sus2 gets it's meaning, ie a removal of the third? Similar to the way you know what an Cadd11 is if you know the rules explaining the difference between a Cadd9 and a C9?

Now that I can understand, but (yeah, you knew that was coming, didntcha?) doesn't the naming of a sus4 establish the rules from which sus2 gets it's meaning, ie a removal of the third? Similar to the way you know what an Cadd11 is if you know the rules explaining the difference between a Cadd9 and a C9?

No.

Suspensions aren't chords. Suspensions happen outside of the harmony. They happen over a 3 chord progression where one tone is held over (suspended) from the first chord, and then that tone is resolved in the 3rd chord.

A suspension does not mean "remove a third."

You can not technically play a Csus2 by itself.

The very idea that a suspension exist as a chord independent of the surrounding harmonic structure is something that happens because guitarist have been taught for so long to think in terms of chord shapes rather than in terms of musical theory.

Now, the idea is actually moving into more mainstream circles, largely due to the huge number of add9 chords without thirds that appear in lots of modern jazz. But it's an idea that is in desperate need of a name other than "suspension" since that concept already exists and requires a three chord progression.

However, it is a sign of how hard it is becoming to have a conversation around the idea that someone as well versed in theory as Noteboat (who I'm sure knows the definition of a suspension quite well) starts talking about suspended chords.

So a sus2 is technically an 'add9(no third)', and a sus4 is only a sus4 in the correct context, else it's an 'add11(no third)'?

So a sus2 is technically an 'add9(no third)', and a sus4 is only a sus4 in the correct context, else it's an 'add11(no third)'?

A suspension requires a three chord progression. Without that, what you have is not technically a suspension, but a voicing of an add9 where the 3rd is removed, yes.

A suspension requires a three chord progression. Without that, what you have is not technically a suspension, but a voicing of an add9 where the 3rd is removed, yes.

As Kingpatzer says, a true classical suspension is a three stage process, involving preparation, suspension and resolution. In countless pop and rock songs, though, what we commonly see written as a sus chord, whether sus, sus 4 or sus 2, is not a suspended chord at all but is a form of embellishment known as an appogiatura (lit. leaning note). It's a dissonant 'grace note' added to a chord in place of one of the chord members after which it's usually followed by the stepwise resolution to the missing chord note.

In that context, chords labeled sus 2 are as valid as those labeled sus 4 as neither of them are actually sus anything. They are in most cases simply dissonant grace notes following their conventional resolutions. i.e., the 4th wants to fall to the missing third and the 2nd wants to rise to the missing third. (or fall to the missing root as the case may be).

That's their most common usage. They usually change too fast to be considered as genuine harmonies in their own right. In rarer cases where they ARE dwelt upon and played as true harmonies and with no guarantee of any approaching resolution, then they are described as Kingpatzer says - added chords with missing bits.

But we guitarists call them sus chords so loudly and insistently that I think many other instrumentalists have given up protesting and are beginning to accept them as real chords too. :lol: