Another Whatchamacallit Chord...

Kind of embarrassing, but I'm not sure what to call this chord:

1257

As in F G C E.

I was thinking Fmaj7(add9), but there's no 3rd. Is this one of those 2 chords? How about Fmaj7(add2)?

I know if it was just FGC I would call it F2, but since it has the major 7 as well, I'm confused...

F2maj7 could make sense, but I'm used to putting the tertial harmony first, i.e., 1357, with non-tertial notes afterwards, as in G7sus, etc.

BTW, I'm just using it in context of C F C G, where the F is the maj7(add9) flavor, and the G is a variation of Gsus or G7, sometimes both.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

delete.

Kind of embarrassing, but I'm not sure what to call this chord:

1257

As in F G C E.

I was thinking Fmaj7(add9), but there's no 3rd. Is this one of those 2 chords? How about Fmaj7(add2)?

I know if it was just FGC I would call it F2, but since it has the major 7 as well, I'm confused...

F2maj7 could make sense, but I'm used to putting the tertial harmony first, i.e., 1357, with non-tertial notes afterwards, as in G7sus, etc.

BTW, I'm just using it in context of C F C G, where the F is the maj7(add9) flavor, and the G is a variation of Gsus or G7, sometimes both.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Effectively Fmaj7(add9) and Fmaj7(add2) are effectively the same thing. The true theorists will name it the latter since the G is next to the root of F. The 3rd was left out purposefully and gives any soloing during that part more freedom. It could also be an inversion of Cadd4, but given the context of the other chords around it and how you listed the scale degrees, I would go with the F variation.

Since you appear to be in the Key of C I would regard it as a Cadd4.

It seems to be functioning as a IV chord.
You can call it an Fmaj9.
A third is not absolutely necessary for naming it, especially if it's functioning as a IV chord between a I and a IV - C and G chords respectively.

*Out of context or in another context a lot of guys will call that C/F, a 'C' triad - C E G - with F in the bass.

Most of the "true theorists" I run into call it add9 regardless of where the 2 falls in the octave. They seem to hate the 2 chord. I'd call that one Fsus2maj7 if it had to be an F something. C/F is more "theoretical" in my mind.

jbmando is right about the theorists not liking the add2 thing. The reason for that is because the 2 isn't in the series of triads -- 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13.

Theory or in this case nomenclature, follows practice. I've seen that voicing named as F2maj7, F2addE (as well as C/F). I personally find that cumbersome and awkward.
But 2 or sus2 or add2 is here to stay.
Composers and arrangers as diverse as John Williams to Wayne Shorter notate it and they have been for 30 years now.

For this particular chord, due to the fact that it's a IV chord, Fmaj9 or Fmaj9(no3) will suffice and wouldn't be confusing to another musician. Also, since it's a IV, if somebody played an A in there it wouldn't negatively impact the chord.

INtereting.....I'm not qualified to debate the theory, but playing it makes me want to call it a C/F. I don't 'hear' the movement to a IV chord. I hear the
sus4 for the C. IF the high E is changed to an F or if the A is used instead of the G, then I hear the IV chord....obviously....Fadd9...moving off of the C chord and then moving back to that I chord. Without that high F, I only hear a suspension of the I chord.
.
What if the bass player is hitting an F or an A note at some point that this guitar's chord is being played? That makes it a IV for me, too. The A makes for a movement back to the I, also. New song time.....

Doesn't matter, though....as long as everybody playing together plays together, right? And..as is usual...thanks to the OP for posing the question. I have another 'tune' going on because of picking up a guitar to 'hear' the question. FWIW, I am playing an Am7+6(??) with that same formation on the first 4 strings but with a low A. OR would that be a Fmaj9/A....or a Csus/A???
Oh...the theory...the theory.....

Seriously, I get a lot out of these questions and the replies form those of you who understand the theory. I am comoing up with some beautiful new--for me---sounds both on gutiar and piano--which I bang on for grins. The insight I get here is opening something up for me..... Sincere thanks to all.

Interesting.....playing it makes me want to call it a C/F. I don't 'hear' the movement to a IV chord. I hear the
sus4 for the C. IF the high E is changed to an F or if the A is used instead of the G, then I hear the IV chord....obviously....Fadd9...moving off of the C chord and then moving back to that I chord. Without that high F, I only hear a suspension of the I chord.
.


F is the lowest note in the OP's voicing - F G C E or XX3010
When you take away the 'adult' notes in the F and G chords you're left with C - F - C - G or I - IV - I - V ... pretty basic.
You can keep G C E on the high strings (a C triad in second inversion) and change the bass notes (C F C G) and the harmony would be stated. *C/G is a Gsus4.

Almost ANY fancy chord progression or voicing can be boiled down to something really simple (as a friend of mine likes to say, [I]"it's all either blues, rhythm changes or modal" - and that's basically true).

*When I see in pop music any type of I - IV prog that's not just straight ahead R&R - something a little mellower or more R&B - I can almost guarantee you that a maj7 or maj9 (with or w/o a 2) will sound great. The maj7 and the 2 are very diatonic to the key - in the OP's case, a G and an E.

My bad, Klasaine....I forgot that the F was the low note there.

Klasaine wrote: "*C/G is a Gsus4." How is that? IF one were to call that a G chord, wouldn't it be something like a Gsus4+6? How does the E fit into a Gsus4? Still trying to learn I am.

No, 'my' bad. I should have said ...

With the E it is a G6sus4 (usually written as just G6sus).
*It might be a regional thing but when a chord just has 'sus' written (with no other #) it's implied it's a sus4. Right or wrong - that's what we play out here.

My main point in my last post was that it's very common to have the I triad ringing on top and have the bass notes change. If the chord/bass prog is diatonic the sustaining (pedal'd, held, etc.) triad will 99% of the time sound really good. The secondary point is that guys (me) get lazy with writing out every extension on a chord all the time. In the OP's context I see the main chord prog - C F C G - and add extensions from there (if musically appropriate). Sus, 6th, maj7, maj9 ... experience and taste dictates what'll work and you go from there.

THanks again, Klasaine. I wanted to write 'sus' but added the 4 just so that Iknew it was understood....my lack of training in theory caused me to be tentative on that.
I first came across this kind of chord when I was banging out Elton John's 'Your Song' on piano back in '70-'71....reading the chord blocks above the staff music---which I didn't read well back then and can't read much better now. They named that chord Eb/Bb. In that siutation, to my ear I heard a I chord with the 5th below it ..it 'resolves' to the true Eb before the line moves on. With what you have said, I now want to go play the song and hear if I still 'hear' a I chord or a V chord. That 'resolve' might be a key, ,eh?

Ken, FWIW, I have always played in the East and it was always like that here. I'm not a session guy or anything, but in the hand written charts we'd do sus always meant a triad without the 3 and with the 4. With the popularization of the idea of putting the second in with the triad, and/or replacing the 3 with the 2, we have to indicate whether a sus is sus2 or sus4. Doesn't really matter what you call it in a chart as long as the players play what the composer or arranger wants. I blame CCM for this confusion, BTW!!!

LOL....I just got the 'CCM' thing, JB. Aren't they totally taken with the 'sus2' chord. AT my aunt's funeral, the young music minister played an old hymn in the key of E. He had to have that high B droniing on throughout all of the 3 chords. That meant that on the V chord, he had a sus4 ringing out. I sat there waiting for it to resove to the 'straight' V chord before returning to the I....but there was no way he was gonna let that B2 (as they write it) resolve to a B. That unresolved sustained 4th on the V chord ruined the entire song, imo.
Many younger CCM players don't know what chord they are playing when they do this....and they don't know how to play say a C chord versus a C2.
I soemtimes ask them to play a C....and they play a Csus2, C2, C+9.....but never a C.

Ok, as a jew that took me a second - lol! And I've played tons of CCM. And you might be right. Though NN has culpability.

How to name sus chords, for pop and jazz, is a long standing debate and discussion.
Generally when I see plain old sus, I 'assume' four replaces three.
sus2 = two replaces three
add9 = triad with the 9th (no 7, no 6 - it's not a dominant chord)
add2 = the 2 is somewhere in the middle of the chord, a 'real' 2 next to the major third.
2 = usually the same as sus2 which I voice 1 5 1 2 (I call it the Andy Summers chord)

*Wally - be careful about ever writing a plus (+) sign. In general practice for a lot of players the + sign means augmented, as in raised (sharped). And usually it just implies raised/sharp 5. G+ is common notation for a G chord with a D# in it - G augmented chord, usually functioning as dominant.

A G+6 could mean G w/a raised 6th (enharmonically the same as the b7 - F).
Or a Gaug (G+5) with a natural 6th. Not a very pretty chord.
If I saw G+6 written on a chart I'd immediately ask about it of if I was really sight reading on a gig I'd - pray a little - and play the root and third of a G chord.

Right you are, Ken. I'll make a good ntoe of that one.

There's a lot of 'shorthand' for chord writing ... that can be confusing and problematic.
For example: + and # signs are interchangeable and so are - and b signs.
G7#5b9 is sometimes written G7+5-9 (usually the alt or ext notes are written in a stack next to the primary chord name).

+ = sharp/raised
- = flat/lowered

I'm reminded of Gatton's DVD, was it "Telemaster?" He comes right out and says, "I'm an ear player," coming right out and saying he doesn't know the theoretical names for all the stuff he plays. Then he plays, and fries your brain! I'm kinda the same way, as a 6-string player, and a pedal steeler, I know tons of theory, but can't give any of it names without sitting down and really analyzing it. If you know how to use something, who cares what the name is? Why even worry about it? Spend that wasted time practicing!

jmiles, I would disagree (but not very strongly). I see your point and it is in essence valid. But I find that this helps me organise things in my head... even something as trivial as proper names (which include a lot of info in them anyway). My aim now is to try to transfer my little theory knowledge on the fretboard. I cannot do that properly without being flexible in how I view theory. The more alternative ways something is presented to me, the more it becomes my own and I can manipulate it. This 'freedom to manipulate' needs to be transferred to the fretboard. But it needs to be solid before it happens.

I read this again and I appreciate it's not very clear. If it's any consolation, I know what I mean! :-P

Would Gatton have been any less talented had he learned theory terminology? This is a non-argument, especially in the Theory section, ESPECIALLY when the OP asked what it was called.

Would Gatton have been any less talented had he learned theory terminology? This is a non-argument, especially in the Theory section, ESPECIALLY when the OP asked what it was called.

Perhaps all those names would push out all the motor skills out of his brain! Perhaps that's what really happened to Jerry Garcia in 1986 when he fell into a coma. It may have been after a theory lesson. When he snapped out of it, he had to re-learn how to place his fingers on the fretboard!

Are you willing to take the responsibility? My whole family will come after you if my brain explodes!!

Thank you all!

It seems to be functioning as a IV chord...

...a lot of guys will call that C/F, a 'C' triad - C E G - with F in the bass.I like the name C/F, short and sweet. It sounds more like an F to me than a C, but C/F is a definite contender.

For this particular chord, due to the fact that it's a IV chord, Fmaj9 or Fmaj9(no3) will suffice and wouldn't be confusing to another musician. Also, since it's a IV, if somebody played an A in there it wouldn't negatively impact the chord.Thank you. I think I used to call it Fmaj9(no3), but had forgotten that's what I used to call it. But I'm warming up to F2maj7.

Oh...the theory...the theory.....The insight I get here is opening something up for me..... Sincere thanks to all.LOL! Me too! :cool: :smile:

Ken, FWIW, I have always played in the East and it was always like that here. I'm not a session guy or anything, but in the hand written charts we'd do sus always meant a triad without the 3 and with the 4. That was my understanding too. Sus = 145.

With the popularization of the idea of putting the second in with the triad, and/or replacing the 3 with the 2, we have to indicate whether a sus is sus2 or sus4.I hear you, but my understanding from music school (over twenty years ago... doh! lol) was that you could only call it a sus2 if it resolved down to the root. If it didn't resolve and had no 7th, it was an add9. However, lately I've been seeing more chords where it's just 125. I like the idea of calling these chords "2" as in, "F2" (FGC)... However, I don't recall it being done that way back at Berklee when I was there. I'm probably mis-remembering too. :rolleyes:

Doesn't really matter what you call it in a chart as long as the players play what the composer or arranger wants. I blame CCM for this confusion, BTW!!!Who/what's CCM? As a gentile/goim, it's taking me more than a second... :razz::lol: And I'm equally lost with NN... :oops:

How to name sus chords, for pop and jazz, is a long standing debate and discussion.
Generally when I see plain old sus, I 'assume' four replaces three.
sus2 = two replaces three
add9 = triad with the 9th (no 7, no 6 - it's not a dominant chord)
add2 = the 2 is somewhere in the middle of the chord, a 'real' 2 next to the major third.
2 = usually the same as sus2 which I voice 1 5 1 2 (I call it the Andy Summers chord)

*Wally - be careful about ever writing a plus (+) sign. In general practice for a lot of players the + sign means augmented, as in raised (sharped). And usually it just implies raised/sharp 5. G+ is common notation for a G chord with a D# in it - G augmented chord, usually functioning as dominant.+1... I mean, plus one! :razz: :lol:

G+7 means G augmented 7, not G major 7.

If you know how to use something, who cares what the name is? Why even worry about it? Because it's in a Guy Clark tune that I transcribed for a student who can't read manuscript, and he asked me what I would call it. I told him Fmaj7(add9), but also told him to be careful tossing big chord names like that around in mixed company... (you never know when there might be a pedal steeler lurking in the crowd!) :wink:

I find that this helps me organise things in my head... even something as trivial as proper names (which include a lot of info in them anyway). +1.

I believe I was taught to call it Fmaj7(add9) or Fmaj9(no3). I don't hear the 3rd, and I personally think the 3rd changes it...

If the 2 is replacing the 3rd, I'm thinking F2maj7 might be my new name for it. It's short, easy to read, and extremely accurate, at least in terms of what I'm hearing.

I read this again and I appreciate it's not very clear. If it's any consolation, I know what I mean! :-P:mrgreen: :lol:

Would Gatton have been any less talented had he learned theory terminology? This is a non-argument, especially in the Theory section, ESPECIALLY when the OP asked what it was called.That too. Thanks you guys. Now I don't feel so silly for not being quite sure what to call it... :oops: :smile:

If you're serious, CCM = Contemporary Christian Music. NN, I've no clue, although I looked it up and found a couple I'm pretty sure aren't what Ken was referring to:

Nicola Naidenov (http://nnmusic.org/home/)
Noisy Neighbors (http://www.nnband.com/)

For better or for worse, unlike Danny Gatton (one of my fave axe slingers), I make my living reading, interpreting and sometimes literally writing down music. I HAVE to know what they're called. Alas I'm not fortunate enough to be a solo artist. I'm also still alive ... oops!:shock:

Jerry knew lots of theory and how to read music. No fear of his head exploding from that.

A sus2 does not have to resolve anymore (but I prefer to just call it a '2' chord to alleviate any confusion). Yes, you learned it doesn't have to resolve at Berklee.

NN = nashville numbers ... which I'm not disparaging at all.
Non-resolving sus chords (4 or 2) are a relatively new phenomenon. It'll be a while until the nomenclature is universally standardized and accepted.

Of course it's Nashville Numbers. D'uh! Yep, it's pretty useful at a jam. Can't believe I didn't pick up on that.

if anyone wants to hear nashville numbers disparaged though, i'm here all day.;-)

jmiles wrote: "If you know how to use something, who cares what the name is? Why even worry about it? Spend that wasted time practicing!"

HEre are my thoughts on that one...and I'll reinforce it with the latest exchange of information I had with someone who had no understanding at all of theory. A customer picked up his guitar after a set-up. AS he tried the guitar out, we got to talking. He could hit a lick, but when I asked him what an interesting thing he was doing actually was, he had no explanation...no idea what it was he was doing in what key. I didn't hold that against him, but that led us to some discussion of 'theory'...scales and chords. This is when his 'weakness' was unveiled. He told me that when he is trying to play with someone else, he really had no idea as to how to use his facility on the fingerboard in order to make music with the other person. In short, if he was told that the song was in Aminor, he had no idea as to what to do in order to play with that person on that song. He had to fumble along until he found notes that fit the song. That, imho, is a hard way to try to make music with someone. IT would be much easier if he understood that when someone gave him a key, he could very quickly understand the baiss for the song. He has spent a lot of time practicing certain songs and certain techniques, but he doesn't have any idea what he is doing or how to integrate his playing with others....despite being rhythmic and having a good ear. This person needs to come to understand theory on some level. ....he needs to learn the language of music to some extent so that he can sit and play with others. I was amazed that he played fairly well by himself but knew absolutely nothing about what he was doing....or how to play with someone else.
I am going to think that jmiles' theory was integrated into this playing long ago and that he no longer has to be concious of it. He knows where his hands or the bar goes...what certain chord changessound like and what to expect musically....what pedals or levels to hit on that steel to change to certain chords. The knowledge has been established and your use of that information is now rather intuitive, right, Jmiles? When someone calls out a song in a certain key, you know exactly where to go and what you are going to do there. You learned it long ago.

There are a very few folks who can 'know nothing' in the formal sense and yet sit and play with anyone on any song. Miles DAvis said Hendrix was such a rare person. These very few people are so gifted that they don't need the 'written language'.....play them the song and if they don't fall in with you while they are hearing it the first time, they will play it back for you after hearing it one time. RAre folks..... Mozart supposedly heard a conto\emporaries symphony for the first tiem the first time it was performedin public. He went home and wrote the complete score out for the entire orchestra. He went back to hear a second performance to 'check' his work! Very rare gift there..


Theory in its most basic sense is merely a language that helps us to communicate how we want to make music with each other. This language also allows the music to be written out so it can more easily be disseminated to others who might want to play the music. IN short, theory is the writtten language of music. Understanding a bit of it is necessary, imho. YMMV

Update: I showed my student this thread today... He laughed out loud! :lol:

Now he knows I was serious when I said be careful tossing around big chord names... (especially around pedal steelers!) :wink: