Re: Chord names broken since 2.16

[Amelie Zapf]

Dear Elaine,

> In terms of the latter musical context, the add9 is ambiguous, since it
> leaves open the question of whether the chord functions as a dominant or
> not.  Yes, we all understand that when you write add9 you don't want to
> hear a 7th.  But that does not mean that in the tonal musical context
> the 7th somehow disappears.  If a melodic player wanted to play a 7th
> while this chord occurs, even as a passing tone, which one would he or
> she choose?  This is why "add9" chords are virtually nonexistent in Jazz
> charts, since they do not  supply musicians what they need to know to do
> their job.

I beg to disagree. I don't think the reason add9 chords aren't very
common in jazz is because the symbol doesn't supply enough information.
Improvisers at any level should be able to infer where the 4th, 6th and
7th should be placed and play accordingly. I think the main reason is
that the major 9th is the chord addition that least discolors a major or
minor chord. Any add9 functions in the same way as a regular major or
minor, without any addition, it just sounds fuller and more
"interesting". This is why on piano, you encounter it frequently in pop
music and modern gospel, on guitar in rock (Jimi Hendrix's ballad
style!) or country music (think: open string voicings).

> The "X" note is not so much a part of the "chord" proper, but an
> artifact of the melody. 

I agree that add9 has no bearing on the chord's function, but do insist
it adds a specific, unique and readily recognizable sound. So there must
be a way to specify that sound if it's a crucial element of the composition.

Kind regards,

Amy