Another Whatchamacallit Chord...

[JayFreddy]

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!

[tedro]

delete.

[bikeracr]

Originally Posted by JayFreddy

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.

[chezdeluxe]

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

[klasaine]

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.

[jbmando]

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.

[raito]

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.

[klasaine]

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.

[Wally]

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.

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by Wally

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.

[Wally]

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.

[klasaine]

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.

[Wally]

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?

[jbmando]

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!!!

[Wally]

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.

[klasaine]

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.

[Wally]

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

[klasaine]

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

[jmiles]

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!

[Seasicksailor]

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