Re: number of chords

[Tiffany Weisman]

I only meant the list as a starting point.

I disagree that you shouldn't use "redundant"
notation. Cadd9 is different from Cadd2 or Csus2. As
is C9sus4 and C11. A higher chord extension suggests a
different way of voicing the chord. The 2 in there
suggests that you want the 2 and 3 or 2 and 1
producing the major 2nd cluster sound. A higher chord
extension would suggest you seperate the voices more.

Likewise, it's important to distinguish between sus4
sus2 and add2 add4. The suspensions omit the 3rd. The
adds specifically want the 3rd. It may not be common
in standard jazz but the notation is still used.
Currently lilypond gives Csus2/add3 which is
redundant. It should simply be Cadd2. Likewise with
Csus2/sus4/add3. It should be Cadd2/add4.


--- David Raleigh Arnold <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> That is an interesting list.  I don't think you need
> C2 when
> Cadd9 could be done, and I don't understand how a
> list of
> jazz chords would not include any with more than one
> alteration.
> I'm going to try again to explain what
> "jazz chords" are supposed to be with a historical
> perspective.
> 
> In the forties, in NYC, there was a problem with
> illegible chord names
> in lead sheets, partly because sheet music
> publishers had been using -,
> +, and o's in chord names, which tended to make
> chord names
> unreadable. (A-9, A--9, Am-9, A-b9)  It mattered
> because they
> were writing bop, with many 5 note chords.
> 
> A more verbose way of writing chords developed, in
> which *only* the
> sharp and flat were used, and no other special
> symbols were permitted.
> Today most have fallen back to using not only the
> old -+o's but also
> adding the triangle.  They are all nasty in
> manuscript.  You could
> type jazz chords on an ordinary typewriter.
> 
> With the single exception of the dim=dim7 chord,
> chords were written
> so:
> 
> root [m] [farthest unaltered extension] [(list
> alterations in ascending
> order)] [add|omitNoteOrNumber]
> 
> Examples:
> 
> Em13(b5b9)
> Em13b5b9
> 
> Amadd9
> Comit3
> 
> In the unlikely event that you wanted the 11th in a
> 13th chord,
> you could write:
> 
> Em11(b5b9)add13
> 
> Later, with simpler chords sometimes in style, you
> had sheet music stuff
> come back, like Csus4 or C4 instead of C11, and the
> unnecessary 2
> sometimes instead of 9.  The C5 was new.  Also in
> the
> sixties, the bass note could be indicated with a
> slash, which was a very
> welcome innovation because it could make it
> unnecessary to provide a
> bass part.  The new practice of putting the bass
> note in lower case
> helps to prevent the slash/bass and slash
> repeat-beat from being
> confused.
> 
> The ultimate horror is to combine the usages for
> simple chords with 
> the old jazz chord system.  It's unnecessary.  It
> serves no purpose.
> It's a mess.  What improvement is C5add7 over
> C7omit5?  Use the
> short cuts for short cuts, not to introduce more
> unnecessary stuff.
> 
> That leaves only the C4 or Csus and C5 to add to the
> jazz chord list.
> You don't need stuff like C57 or C5add7 when you
> could C7omit3.  You
> don't need C9sus4 instead of C11, and C7sus4 is
> C11omit9, as if anyone
> would play the 3rd anyway.
> 
> The whole idea of jazz chords or any other sheet
> music chords is instant
> recognition.  It doesn't matter to the soloist what
> a chord *means*, he
> just has to work with it.  Using a flat thirteenth
> instead of a sharp
> fifth, for example, brings an unnecessary and
> unwelcome complexity to
> the chord names.  The player is either playing the
> chord, in which case
> he doesn't have to understand the logic of it, or
> soloing, in which case
> he will play many notes between the "suspension" and
> its resolution,
> rendering the distinction between a
> suspension-resolution and added
> note, and every other such analytical distinction,
> completely
> meaningless.  The person who wrote the tune doesn't
> have to read it.
> The system did not arise to teach any sort of chord
> analysis, and it
> should not be adapted or perverted to that purpose.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having a G7(b5) chord
> along with a csharp
> in the score, for example.
> 
> One who is fussy about where the 3rds and 5ths or
> the spelling of notes
> in chords should go should perhaps write out what he
> wants and forget
> chord names, or even use figured bass.  It certainly
> has nothing to do
> with jazz.
> 
> I know that I am in a minority, but I have seen
> sites on the net where
> chord names in jazz chord style, which I guess is
> conservative now, are
> still preferred.  I wouldn't mind having them
> available in lilypond, but
> for now, chords are markup only.  daveA
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com