silly question maybe but what is this chord?

Been using it lately but don't know its name

E-0
B-0
G-2
D-1
A-2
E-x

Notes: B D# A B E.
Chords are named by the degrees of the major scale of the root, so all the numbers in the chord refer to degrees of the B major scale, assuming B is the root.
If B is the root, this is a B7(4). Here is why: B(4) because the 3rd is there so it isn't a sus4; 7 because the flat 7th (A) is in there.

It would be B11.

If its called 11 it's assumed that the third is in the chord (the d#). Then the E on top is the 11th.

If the 9th is omitted, it is supposed to be called an "added tone" chord. B7add11 is more common, but I have started seeing (4) chords in the charts I come across, so I went with 7(4). Usually not an 11th without the 9. I was told in this forum that position in the octave of the chord tones is not a criterion for what degree to call the note. A 2 next to the 3 can still be called an add9, for example. IMO, that open high E is still a 4 in his chord.

If its called 11 it's assumed that the third is in the chord (the d#).
Maybe in the land of Lincoln but not in this part of the country. Only for minor 11.
I get where you're coming from and it may be a slight misrepresentation of 'actual' chord nomenclature but when I see an A11 on a chart I 'assume' it does not have the M3rd in there.
A G B D is the standard voicing.
Or, as it's most commonly notated - voiced as a G/A (or Em7/A): A D G B.

Though yes, in strict tertian harmony, an 11th chord should have a 3rd, 5th, 7th (natural or flatted) and 9th as well as the 11th - in modern practice it rarely (if ever) has all that. I've never encountered anyone that plays a written or charted 11 chord with the major 3rd and the 4th - too much of a rub for standard harmony/ears. I was always taught that with major and dominant chords the 4th or 11th supplants the M3. Writing '11' is maybe shorthand but pretty well accepted I think(?). If they want the 'rub' they write either 11w/3 or sus4w/3 or add4 or sometimes even just 4 (as jb mentioned). In 38 years of reading charts I've never been instructed differently.

*minor 11ths are a different story as there's no 'rub' between a m3 and the 4th.

**I have seen 17th written (ex; A17 ) - which implies a M3 way on top as well as all the other extensions below it including a 4th (or 11th).

***back to the OP ... I'd call that a B7add4.

****personally I love the sound of the M3 and the 4 together ... although if not used judiciously it can lose one a gig pretty quickly ... unless your band is called the birds of fire or the inner mounting flames.

I'd call it a B7(add4), because it's a B7 with an added fourth.

As a side comment, the fifth is missing from your voicing but that is common, perfect fifths are not crucial to define many chord voicings. Minor and major triads both have perfect fifths in them so the fifth interval does not define them like the major versus minor third does. With guitars many of the voicings for extended chords like ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths omit the perfect fifth.

At first glance I would call that a B11. However, I do agree that if I was reading a chart and saw a B11 chord I would go ahead and omit the 3rd.

I think you will find that most people would actually play a B7sus4 if they read a B11 on a chart.

I'd just go ahead using it and forget about it, hasn't hurt not knowing what it was all these years. Next thing you know, your mind will just let go from all that thinking.

If I read B11 on a chart I would play A/B: 7x765x We do agree that this chord is not a sus4, because the third is not omitted, right? I would play a B7sus4 797977, which isn't B11, IME, because the 9th is missing.

I'd just go ahead using it and forget about it, hasn't hurt not knowing what it was all these years. Next thing you know, your mind will just let go from all that thinking.

Except that this is the theory forum, and such information is pertinent and adds to one's depth of musical knowledge, which can't be a bad thing.

^^^ +1,000 ^^^

Well thanx for the responses seems like I can go away from this with a chord name...kinda. afraid I don't fully understand your reasoning though my grasp of theory is very minimal. Perhaps you can suggest a good site to start learning?

Since you asked. Start at post #4. (http://www.tdpri.com/forum/tab-tips-theory-technique/257931-double-stop-chart-i-made.html)

I'd call it a B7add4 - if I was going to be a strict-a*s I'd call it a B7(add11)

If I was in a particularly silly mood I'd call it a B7sus11 (add3)

B11? If we were following strict tertian structures - maybe but there is no 9th....

Chord nomenclature is easily enforced on piano - on guitar you have to think a bit more laterally....

Thanx Il give that a good read, is there a good way to digest it all?

B7add4...or add 11...nothing very "
Quartal" sounding about it.

Thanx Il give that a good read, is there a good way to digest it all?

Slowly. Stick with each post until you get it.

Point of clarification: I do not make a distinction between "add4" and (4) for the purposes of naming a chord. I have started to see (4) on some CCM charts I have used so I figured it was the latest trend in naming a chord in which the 4th is added to the triad, or at least in which the 3rd and 4th are both present. This is why I said it is a B7(4), but that means the same thing as B7add4. In any case I still would not call it B11 without the C#. "Add11" is perfectly clear too, to my way of thinking.

I have been slowly working through that topic and gotta say its been helping alot. Still along way to go but im planing to buy a workbook to help further. :)

I think only one poster pointed this out, but - unless I am horribly wrong - it should depend on what the root is.
So, it could be any of these:

B (something something added something to suspend something over something with a something)

or

D# (something something added something to suspend something over something with a something)

or

A (something something added something to suspend something over something with a something)

or

E (something something added something to suspend something over something with a something)

I'd just go ahead using it and forget about it, hasn't hurt not knowing what it was all these years. Next thing you know, your mind will just let go from all that thinking.

So the role you've assigned yourself as a participant on the 'Theory' forum is to tell people to not bother learning theory. Cool.

So the role you've assigned yourself as a participant on the 'Theory' forum is to tell people to not bother learning theory. Cool.

I would hope they were 'at least' half joking! :-) The fact that are here does not suggest you are right.

I would hope they were 'at least' half joking! :-) The fact that are here does not suggest you are right.

You might be surprised to know that this sort of comment is posted quite often in this theory forum and the people who post them are usually being sincere. Maybe Toto was kidding but based on personal experience I don't think so.

If that's the case, he doesn't know what he's missing. I only know enough to appreciate what I am missing. :-)

If that's the case, he doesn't know what he's missing. I only know enough to appreciate what I am missing. :-)

Then you're in the right place.:mrgreen:

Yeah, if you hang out at this part of the forum long enough you'll see that almost EVERY thread inquiring about naming a chord or improvising over a chord, etc. will have at least one response telling the OP (and the rest us) to 'not worry about it and just play'.

And it goes without saying that those posters solo as well as Jimi and Wes and of course write songs as good as Bob Dylan and Billy Strayhorn.


*Sometimes even better is when a guy posts an actual music/technical question in Bad Dog.