Available Tensions, Order of Tensions, Etc.

[JayFreddy]

I don't remember this stuff as well as I thought I did... Trying to relearn it for posterity's sake.

First, Available Tension by chord type:

Major chords (includes both major 6 and major 7): 9,#11, 13
Minor chords (includes both minor 6 and minor 7): 9, 11, 13
Minor 7 (b5): 11 only

Dominant: b9, 9, #9, 11, #11, b13, 13 (all)
Diminished: b9, 9, #9, 11, #11, b13, 13 (all)
Augmented: b9, 9, #9, 11, #11, b13, 13 (all)

I've heard people say the 11th is NOT available on dominant 7s because it creates a 1/2 step interval against the 3rd of the chord, but I'm not 100% clear on this. Sometimes that 1/2 step clash sounds good on a dominant 7, IMHO.

Second, Order of Tensions...

When writing down a chord symbol, do the unaltered tensions always go first with the altered tensions after? E.g., A7 (13, b9, #11) Or are they written sequentially, with the lowest value always to the left and the highest to the right? E.g., A7 (b9,#11, 13).

I imagine there could be more than one "correct" way to look at these, but I'd like to hear how you guys do it. Thanks in advance!

[klasaine]

I don't like to use the term 'tension' for 9, #11 and 13 - as they're not TENSE. Even the #11 (#4 or #11 exists naturally in the natural harmonic overtone series and therefore it's not really an 'altered' tone - that's why it sounds so good over major chords). I use the term extension and most folks that I know call it that too. I'll concede that I may be technically wrong about this.

The tensions are non-harmonic tones: b5, b9, #5, #9 generally on dominant type chords. And yes, extensions before tensions. Ex; A13b9 or Am11b5.

3rd and 4th together is a potentially GREAT sound but relatively recent as to usage in a functioning dominant 7th chord. The 11th is absolutely available but it still usually replaces the major 3rd. Refer to the previous 'cowboy chord' thread.

[warmingtone]

Could be an interesting thread...

I too have a problem with the word tension...over extension...I don't recall even hearing it in this sense but as K says above, some colors are not "tense" and there may even be a sense that tensions need to resolve instead of being a color unto themselves.

I've always considered an 11th to be in addition to the 3rd (as opposed to a suspended chord that replaces the third) as in simply adding in extensions b7,9,11...

Also, I consider an 11th to be typically above the triad, so if the chord has the notes together, say... x-5-4-0-3-5 I'd see and hear this as a Dadd4 rather than an 11th (also because no 7 or 9 included)...perhaps x-5-4-5-3-3 is more an 11th (though the 9th isn't in it) but some chords like this may need to be specified if crucial to an arrangement...

In case people reading this are new to the idea, the convention with extensions are is that the 7th is dominant (b7) except where indicated as a Maj7th on extended chords.

I appreciate the idea of the harmonic series and some extensions drawing on that, but I'd still call it altered...altered from the key naming and major scale system of understanding these things...#11,b9, etc are all altered to me and avoids some confusion to call them that, everything has it's own quality...they are 'chromatic extensions' or alterations perhaps.

A lot of things are context too, there are definitely 'families' of colors that if applied consistently will give a certain sound of flavor and there is even some fashion to these things...you rarely hear or want to hear just one altered chord jammed into a progression without at least a bit of compatible color in the other chords or some ostinato, voice leading or melodic reason for it.

[JayFreddy]

Didn't mean to run everyone off straight out of the gate!

Thank you for your replies and clarification. I like the idea of "extensions" instead of "tensions" too, but so long as the rest of the world still calls them "tensions", that's what I'll call them too.

What would you call this chord?

x-5-4-0-3-0

I've been calling it Dadd9,11. I guess you makes more sense to call it Dadd4,11.

How about this one?

x-12-12-12-10-9

I've been calling it A7add11. Again, like the first chord, it probably makes more sense to call it A7add4.

Berklee harmony says neither chords exist, but I hear them both fairly often, and they sound good to me. Either Berklee harmony is wrong, I didn't understand what the teachers were trying to teach me, or both.

[jazztele]

again, i go back to the idea of when i write charts, i care less about what the precedent is music theory wise and more about giving instructions to the player. rarely do i want a specific voicing, but if i do, i write it in.

if i want the general "sound" of these chords, but want to offer some freedom to the player, i'd call the first a D4(add9) and the second an A11, as i hear it working as a dominant...

try this line...

Em9 12 x 12 12 12 14

A11: x 12 12 12 10 9

D6/9: 10 x 9 9 10 10

(i like all the 12th fret notes as harmonics, too)

but then i'd probably be wrong!...again, if i wanted it that specific, i'd write it in...

[Tim Bowen]

Agree on the general distinction between tension and extension.

If we were all pianists playing in linear fashion with the potential to produce ten notes simultaneously, we'd likely have these discussions far less often than we do. But if we're talking guitar, we can throw that range of options out the window quite quickly. Because naming voicings can be difficult in a cut and dry sense with the physicalities often associated with our rather "guitaristc" instrument, it's often far easier to play the sounds we're looking for than to come up with a title that absolutely, quickly, and definitively identifies the "chord" (or perhaps more accurately "collection of notes") that we seek. As such, writing chord charts for guitar (sans specifically indicating voicing) can be tricky to say the least.

Most of us would probably agree on the following:

* Within strict definition, an extension is an interval above the ocatve.

* "Naming" a chord is highly dependent upon a number of considerations, including intervals, extensions, tensions as related to the actual or perceived root of the chord (function within the overall progression or cadence), the interval chosen within the bass register (and additionally, whether such interval represents a naturally occurring interval within inversions of said chord, vs. functioning as part of an ascending or descending line cliche', at which point it becomes difficult not to embrace use of slash chord nomenclature).

* As for voicing in a predictably linear fashion on guitar - (not that all pianists choose voicings as such, it's just a far less challenging physical proposition) - it's difficult for most of us, less so for an Allan Holdsworth or a Tal Farlow.


Throw all that into the mix and it sometimes becomes difficult for guitarists to write chord charts. Remove a couple of strings (a la mandolin) and it becomes further challenging to "name" chords.

What would you call this chord?

x-5-4-0-3-0

I like D4(9), but who knows what folks are calling it. I'd shy away from the 11 thing moreso because no 7th is included than because the interval in question isn't above the octave.

How about this one?

x-12-12-12-10-9

I've been calling it A7add11. Again, like the first chord, it probably makes more sense to call it A7add4.

I'd call that A11 pretty quickly. Even though the 3rd is voiced on top and the 4/11 sits lower within the voicing, the chord contains a root (and octave), a 3rd, and a b7, and as jazztele said, it's functioning as a dominant chord. Think about the differences beween what constitutes a Cadd9, a CM9, and a C9, both in terms of strict chord spelling, and implication/context, as both viewpoints are valid, based on the situation at hand.

I've always considered an 11th to be in addition to the 3rd (as opposed to a suspended chord that replaces the third) as in simply adding in extensions b7,9,11...

The 11th is absolutely available but it still usually replaces the major 3rd.

For me, the inclusion of a 3rd within an 11 chord is more academic than it is integral. Then again, I might have a different spin if I were a pianist by trade. Default choice between calling something a 4 or 11 has more to do with whether there's a 7 involved, for me personally. If I see C11 (a dominant chord in my world) on a chart, I'm liable to go for a couple of garden variety grips:

-3-
-3-
-3-
-3-
-3-
-X-

-X-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-X-
-8-

-8-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-X-
-X-

-10-
-11-
-10-
-10-
-10-
--X-


A couple of things that are apparent with my 'go to' grabs:

* The function of the 7 is more integral (for my applications) than is the 3.

* Some of the grips look suspiciously like Bb/C or Bb(9) chords.

[tgfmike]

Originally Posted by JayFreddy

I like the idea of "extensions" instead of "tensions"

+1

[warmingtone]

I've never formerly heard of "tensions' as a technical term...again 'extensions of chords' has fairly clear protocols...but tensions, never really heard of it. Is there a source for this term?

x-5-4-0-3-0

which I mentioned from a previous thread I would call an Dadd4add2

The problem with the 'new' terms of D4 or D2 seems to imply a suspended chord...as in sus2 or sus4 in which the modality (maj or minor) is suspended by the replacement of the third by a scale tone a step above or below the third. There really is no need for a new term unless it is clearer, and I'm not clearer for it.

(I suspect it comes from the D5 thing for power chords...but it does not indicate to me if there is or isn't a third)

For instance, the chord above adds to the root and third (D and F#) the 4th tone (G) in the same octave...so an add4...not a sus4 or a D4 as I understand what is being proposed or is at least clear. It also adds the 9th or 2nd degree...to me I associate it more with the second, so again it would be an Dadd2, mainly because of the more common x-x-0-2-3-0 form of the Dsus2 chord perhaps. One could argue that it is a 9th being more than an octave above the root...but that too could be argued for the more common Dsus2 above as well.

But really these are just "names" and such discussions a little pedantic, the main thing is can you get your message across.

Chords like... x-12-12-12-10-9

adding extensions below the 'triad' (the third is on top if considered an A chord)...so again an add4, not any kind of 11th. But then, such things should always be taken in context and the way blocks of harmony are used, the naming is secondary to the purpose. We previously noted the 'so what' quartal harmony example x-5-5-5-6-5 , the 4th is included in the lower part of the harmony a long with the third above...I'd see it then as clearly and Dm7add4, not any kind of 11th.

It's a nice sounding chord...if berklee suggest that it doesn't exist, they are doing a serious disservice...but i am skeptical that they would suggest that any combination of notes couldn't possibly exist...obviously that's nonsense...

a tricky one to finger, a variation might be x-12-12-12-14-(12) and similar to the 'so what' chord in major form...similar sound in some ways that comes from stacked 4th and the add4 sound, same name might be appropriate, so chord names are not specific.

Really with things like this, and where there are so many extensions...it's just far easier to notate, tab or draw a chord box of exactly what is intended for the arrangement...chord names alone and are kind of inappropriate and will often take more work and be less specific. I'm anticipating these kinds of chords as some kind of chord melody of highly specific arrangement that would include melody or voice leading components as JT's example might indicate.

...

A couple of other considerations...

JT makes an interesting point about hearing a chord as a dominant. Even the extension system presumes a dominant 7th...this might be a presumption especially with voicings so high in the register...especially combined with the following...

The context may well include the rest of the music and instrumentation going on. The bass in particular.

A simple and common example may be to play x-x-10-9-8-7. Most will read this as a Cmaj7...if it were played x-0-10-9-8-7 they would read it as an Am9 (includes the b7 of course)...but even if that guitar doesn't play the A, someone may well be playing the lower A, say the bass player and this alone will determine the voicing as an Am9 even if there are no A's in the voicing at all!

...

Those Bb/C kinds of dominant 11ths, gospel sounds, or however you describe them...well, call them what you will. I tend to look at some of this stuff from a voice leading angle, and typically I hear as a kind of suspended sound where the third isn't present...in a broader context an elaboration of the V chord very often...so that the 4th or 11th tone will resolve into the next harmony or version of the V chord. Or, it is a particular sound. (A typical use can be found in the song "reason to believe" by hardin (recorded by rod stewart and others) in a pop context...but I imagine it could pop up anywhere and be a color chord unto itself as in the 'steely dan' sound I guess).

Again, only names and many of these chords will have similar qualities regardless of the voicings and may sound perfectly fine in an arrangement...it's what works after all. Anything that specific is better spelled out explicitly...remember that the 'chord naming' conventions are just a short hand, they were never intended to be that specific.

Regardless of the keyboard player potentially having the ability to play all the notes, this is very rarely the case and some notes are expendable, especially if playing with other instruments. The third is generally an important tone in voice leading and sound of chords, a chord that has the third and 4th present sounds radically different to me than one that suspends the third or just has the third absence.

But it also depends on what the context is and the intention of the writer or transcriber. Putting a name on something for the sake of it, or to be specific about intention and requirements as an arranger and/or composer. In that context, with a lot of music, chord symbols are difficult to derive intention, tab is little better...you need progression and context and complete arrangements to really make sense of it, and if you have that, chord names become redundant!

[athief]

...wow. This thread makes me feel dumb. Thank you for making it at least readable to us philistines, lol. Theory stuff like this has the tendency to dive straight into technicalities that are difficult to learn from or follow in passing.

[JayFreddy]

Originally Posted by jazztele

...i'd call the first a D4(add9) and the second an A11, as i hear it working as a dominant...

try this line...

Em9 12 x 12 12 12 14

A11: x 12 12 12 10 9

D6/9: 10 x 9 9 10 10

(i like all the 12th fret notes as harmonics, too)

That's a lot like how I use it... Em6 A11 Dmaj6#11

Originally Posted by Tim Bowen

For me, the inclusion of a 3rd within an 11 chord is more academic than it is integral. Then again, I might have a different spin if I were a pianist by trade.

Really interesting observation. I agree, but I had never thought of it like that before.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

I've never formerly heard of "tensions' as a technical term...again 'extensions of chords' has fairly clear protocols...but tensions, never really heard of it. Is there a source for this term?

That's how they taught it at Berklee back in the mid 80's, i.e., "T9, T11, and T13." Not sure if that's still how they do it. Here's the closest thing to documentation I could find:

"Tensions are notes that are part of a chord, but are not chord tones (1 3 5 7)."

[klasaine]

I'm fairly certain that they do still refer to 9,11 and 13 as T9, T11 and T13 (T for tension) ... which is probably the only thing I take issue with at Berklee. But, whatever - they definitely have their finger on the pulse of what is 'happening' as far as modern harmony usage is concerned. And I think that, T9, T11, etc. is primarily used as a teaching tool - a label more than anything else that's used in the larger ensemble arranging and part writing classes.

In the states there are still a few 'west coast/east coast' nomenclature differences. Tim mentioned footballs versus diamonds for whole notes. As warmingtone indicated - it's a little pedantic to worry too much about that stuff.
I've been reading 'D2' on professionally copied charts since the 80's but it's certainly not universal in it's interpretation.

As to the D chord in question - ? That's a tough one to name properly and yet unconfusingly. Especially for a non-guitar player. Personally, I'd just notate it on the staff. For myself, as a 'reminder' ... D9sus w/3.
This is a great illustration as to why knowing a little bit of standard notation is beneficial. Just stack the chord on the staff - no questions.
(For me, and dare I say on the west coast in general, a 'sus' is always sus4 unless otherwise indicated. I'm not saying it's correct or even preferred - just most common.)

[warmingtone]

What a strange place the USA can be to the outside world...respelling english, standard wire gauges only standard to the states...hmmm

Didn't mean to put you no the spot, but berklee is only one music school and does have a "method" and in that their own terminology...not something that everyone would know or that the world at large would find standard. I mean, I understand the idea of extra notes providing 'tension' to the structure, but the 'word' tension may just as easily, like the word suspension, suggest some kind of resolution or sense of tension...where in fact that is clearly not the case. In doing so, they only provide confusion.

Like D2...I am still not sure...is this a sus2 (no third) or add2 (including third) chord????

Given that there are two clear terms for this distinction, why create yet another...weird!

...

Notation of course is so much more specific, both to write things and to get a visual on what you are trying to do. A lot of people approach harmony like lego blocks of sound. The chord naming thing and even chord formula can feed into this idea as well.

Standard grips can help and are the usual approach guitarists take, but the more advanced players see these things in the context or awareness of sound and progression and voice leading.

Em9 12 x 12 12 12 14

A11: x 12 12 12 10 9

D6/9: 10 x 9 9 10 10

JT's ii-V-I shows this clearly...so that a lovely chord (though unusual and slightly awkward to play) has a clear meaning.

I played guitar and such for a long while, but the bulk of my 'theory' work came through academic study away from the guitar...so when I see things like this I admire the use of the note D through the whole progression...as the 7th of the Em, the 4th or 11th in the A7 and the root of the I chord it's working towards.

I see the strength of the leading tone C#-D in the top voice to bring it on home, but allow for the ambiguity of the 6/9 voicing that avoids the third in the I chord.

But mostly I can see how this A11 or A7add4 or whatever you may like to call it, works with the sound of these extended chord voicings in progression, not as simple blocks of sound named and often used without any context.

...

It's interesting how harmonics work in chords like this, by playing the notes on the twelfth fret this way, it can be argued that all these notes sound an octave higher and so radically change the tone cluster...it's an interesting effect.

[Tim Bowen]

Originally Posted by warmingtone

What a strange place the USA can be to the outside world...respelling english, standard wire gauges only standard to the states...hmmm

Well, it broke my heart when the decades-old comprehensive Sears Craftsman tool set that I inherited from my father didn't always work with some of the newer automobiles that I attempted to work on. Something about metric conversion... same with dealing with various aspects of graphic arts measurement "standards" within that industry.

The song remains the same. Adapt, convert, assimilate, re-tool, re-think, or be left out of the loop. It's difficult to understand language within a circle of influence unless one is also willing to be open to colloquialism.

You're right though, Americans are weirdos. All people are weirdos.

[klasaine]

General consensus out here after asking at all my gigs and rehearsals for a week:

D2 = root, 2nd and fifth (not necessarily in any specific order).
Dsus2 = same as above. Takes longer to write than D2.
Dadd2 = triad with added 2nd.
Dadd9 = triad with added 9th.
D4 = no concensus. Too new. Quartal or sus4 chord. Must ask leader/artist.

*Dsus4 with a major 3rd ... 'usually' Dsus w/3

[warmingtone]

That's pretty much as I would understand it K, I could see that D2 could be a little confusing to the uninitiated but would expect that D4 to follow the same principle...sus chords, no third.

I really don't like the w/3 notation...a simple add4 as in add2 or add9 or addX should suffice and be clear enough. It really isn't a lot to add, these notes are added to a triad rather than the extensions naming...so a D9 would of course imply the b7 and 9th anyway and be shorter for those kinds of chords.

It would be easy enough to make up one's own shorthand versions, they might even be more specific. Say a braketed not is added, none bracketed a normal extension...

so say D7(11) be the triad plus the b7 and 11th, no ninth...D11 = b7,9 and 11
a D7(4) being a D triad plus the 4th in the lower octave added to it, perhaps implying quartal like harmony.

But to be specific, nothing is going to beat actually writing out the notes in some way...even if on guitar the voicing as we tend to do here of x-5-5-5-7-5 for say D7add4

These chords are very common these days as a contemporary sound and I use the added chords/sounds a lot, almost as a default I suppose. The do sound different from your extended 7th chords as they don't imply the same kind of functional potential...more of a color tone and serve to make the chord sound a little more ambiguous in many ways (especially if the third is replaced or the 2nd and or 4th are present around it).

[JayFreddy]

Originally Posted by klasaine

General consensus out here after asking at all my gigs and rehearsals for a week:

D2 = root, 2nd and fifth (not necessarily in any specific order).
Dsus2 = same as above. Takes longer to write than D2.
Dadd2 = triad with added 2nd.
Dadd9 = triad with added 9th.
D4 = no concensus. Too new. Quartal or sus4 chord. Must ask leader/artist.

*Dsus4 with a major 3rd ... 'usually' Dsus w/3

Thanks for taking the time consider this. That's what I would have answered too. I still think there's a grey area concerning the 2nd vs. the 9th, or the 4th vs. the 11th. I.e., an interval might be a 4th in relation to the chord as it's voiced on guitar, but still sound like an 11th in context with what the rest of the band is playing.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

That's pretty much as I would understand it K, I could see that D2 could be a little confusing to the uninitiated but would expect that D4 to follow the same principle...sus chords, no third.

I really don't like the w/3 notation...a simple add4 as in add2 or add9 or addX should suffice and be clear enough. It really isn't a lot to add, these notes are added to a triad rather than the extensions naming...so a D9 would of course imply the b7 and 9th anyway and be shorter for those kinds of chords.

I agree 100%. Strongly leaning in that direction myself.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

It would be easy enough to make up one's own shorthand versions, they might even be more specific. Say a bracketed note is added, none bracketed a normal extension...

so say D7(11) be the triad plus the b7 and 11th, no ninth...D11 = b7,9 and 11
a D7(4) being a D triad plus the 4th in the lower octave added to it, perhaps implying quartal like harmony.

Kind of lost me on this part.

Why not just say D7add11 for the dom7th plus the 11th with no 9th?

Originally Posted by warmingtone

But to be specific, nothing is going to beat actually writing out the notes in some way...even if on guitar the voicing as we tend to do here of x-5-5-5-7-5 for say D7add4

Again, sorry if I seem thick, but I'm not clear with this.

[warmingtone]

Kind of lost me on this part.

Why not just say D7add11 for the dom7th plus the 11th with no 9th?

Well that works too, but it is longer than using brackets to specify the specific extensions. Basically, bracketed numbers add to whatever is specified...D7 indicating triad with b7 (11) suggesting the 11th added. Just saves putting the word "add" in everywhere.

For instance that previously mentions Dadd4add2... x-5-4-0-3-0 ... could name it D(4)(2)

...

Again, sorry if I seem thick, but I'm not clear with this.

Well...once your labels are getting that long or you want a specific sound, nothing beats specifying exactly how it is played or sounds...

I was thinking of the chord discussed... A11: x 12 12 12 10 9

not everyone would think to be playing it up there. I'd still call it an A7add4, but as discussed, this could be played a number of ways...if just A11 many might play x-12-12-12-12-12 even if understood to be that high up the fret board. The same "name" might give you x-12-12-12-14-12...

All these things are similar, but if the arrangement is calling for a particular sound, register or voice leading, the best way to be specific is to actually write out the notes...

...

Chord names are a kind of short hand, it can give some clues as to what is being intended by an arranger or composer and perhaps something about function for analysis, but it really isn't that specific compared to notating in TAB or Standard.

...

Yes, I do think that is an interesting point about a chord name within a band arrangement, but generally one can't take all that into account unless you are the arranger/composer. Again, there are limitations to this kind of naming of a collection of notes...if writing out parts, it can only add to confusion perhaps.

[JayFreddy]

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Basically, bracketed numbers add to whatever is specified...D7 indicating triad with b7 (11) suggesting the 11th added. Just saves putting the word "add" in everywhere.

For instance that previously mentions Dadd4add2... x-5-4-0-3-0 ... could name it D(4)(2)

Interesting. How about both? "add" for the first one, and brackets for any additionals?

E.g.,

Dadd4... x5403x

Dadd4(9)...x54030

When using more than one tension/extention in the brackets, I'd be inclined to use commas to label them...

I.e., Dadd4 (9,13).

[warmingtone]

No...I wouldn't mix them if they mean the same thing!?!

Maybe D(2,4) or D(4,9)...

For that chord though, I do hear it as an add2 as explained earlier, not an add9, but it could be debated either way, perhaps I could be convinced of the 9th-y-ness of that high e thing.

But the only places I use such chords (and I like that thing a lot) is where I want a drone or in fingerpicking a "melody chord" (as someone used to call it that I knew) where the arpeggio-ed picking makes a melody.

I have a bunch of such chords that I can apply to things to make a certain "sound"...naming them seems a little superfluous...either they are part of an arrangement or the artists discretion...if I were teaching it, it would need to be written out...if what I played were worthy of copying (like I had a record) then I think a transcription that only indicated chord names would simply confuse.

These 'added' tones are generally "colour", they are not active in the way of 3rds and sevenths in a functional way. They can work well in a voice leading kind of thing perhaps, but then you need to know the horizontal movements between chords in a progression to get a handle on that really.

[Joe-Bob]

JayFreddy,

While it's not exactly what you were asking, there is indeed a type of musical analysis that rates various chords according to the degree of dissonance in each. Primarily aimed at serial and post-modern music, and although limited in it's scope, it can be interesting and informative nonetheless.

Look up Hindemith Analysis. It's somewhat obscure, and certainly not taught at the U of NT College of Music. (IMHO--this is because of a political difference between theorists rather than a value judgement.) Hindemith was a theorist, teacher and composer, and while he tried to compose atonal music, he was not always successful at achieving atonality.