#1
Hi everyone, I've got what I think is a simple question for some of you but it has been bothering me for some time.

-----------------------7-------
------------------6-9---------
---------------7--------------
----------6-9-----------------
--7-8-7----------------------
-------------------------------

And this resolve perfectly to a Am chord

The question is; how do we name this chord ?

I know it's E something and it has a b9, but other then that, what is the correct way to name the chord ?

Thank you for your answer and don't look at the grammar, english is not my first language.
Quote by RazorTheAwesome
Lol at Bender

Quote by So-Cal

Quote by theguitarist

I got to warn you for spam though...

Quote by Shredoftheday
Nicely put good sir

I witnessed Night Of The Pear 2
#3
Names for chords and arpeggios are a funny thing. For some reason most of the guitarists I know have no idea how to name chords and stuff. From what I've been taught, this is how I would analyze it:

the notes you're using there are (in order) E + F + E + G# + B + D + F + G# + B, which is basically:

E + F + G# + B + D
1 + b2 + 3 + 5 + b7

I'd say it's an E7(b2) or E7(b9). The tricky part is that the F note is in both octaves, acting as a b2 and a b9. Which isn't a very common (depending on what style of music you listen to I guess). So I suppose E7(b9) would be a more appropriate name because the F is in both octaves.

Hope that helps.
#4
Quote by wakytabaki
Names for chords and arpeggios are a funny thing. For some reason most of the guitarists I know have no idea how to name chords and stuff. From what I've been taught, this is how I would analyze it:

the notes you're using there are (in order) E + F + E + G# + B + D + F + G# + B, which is basically:

E + F + G# + B + D
1 + b2 + 3 + 5 + b7

I'd say it's an E7(b2) or E7(b9). The tricky part is that the F note is in both octaves, acting as a b2 and a b9. Which isn't a very common (depending on what style of music you listen to I guess). So I suppose E7(b9) would be a more appropriate name because the F is in both octaves.

Hope that helps.

Yeah thank you it helps alot
I hate writing music and not knowing the name of the cord to put on the top of the measure.
Quote by RazorTheAwesome
Lol at Bender

Quote by So-Cal

Quote by theguitarist

I got to warn you for spam though...

Quote by Shredoftheday
Nicely put good sir

I witnessed Night Of The Pear 2
#6
Quote by wakytabaki
I'd say it's an E7(b2) or E7(b9). The tricky part is that the F note is in both octaves, acting as a b2 and a b9. Which isn't a very common (depending on what style of music you listen to I guess). So I suppose E7(b9) would be a more appropriate name because the F is in both octaves.
I'm gonna go ahead and put this out there: No matter what octave the F is in it still functions as a b9. The octave is irrelevant in comparison to its function. An F is an F. The reason it's called a b9 is its use as an extension note (you know the whole deal about tertian harmony/extension chords?) to a seventh chord. You build extension chords in thirds (1 3 5 7 9 11 13). Now, if there was more context, maybe the F was functioning as a b2, but as far as this little context suggests, it's a b9.

Hope that cleared some stuff up.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
#7
yep. E7b9. by its nature, it would resolve perfectly to an Amaj or Am chord, so that fits perfectly into the puzzle, too.

as food said, i don't see it functioning as a b2 in this context. to be honest, to have a note function as a b2 in harmony is comparatively rare - b9s are far more common.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#8
I agree. If there was no F note in the second octave, there would be alot of dissonance because of the F in the first octave. In which case I would refer to it as a b2, because it wouldn't be giving the same "sound" as a b9. And being only in the first octave, it would literally make it a flattened second degree, there would be no type of 9th degree being used. But having the F in the second octave overrides this, making it a b9.
Last edited by wakytabaki at Jul 15, 2010,
#9
Quote by wakytabaki
I agree. If there was no F note in the second octave, there would be alot of dissonance because of the F in the first octave. In which case I would refer to it as a b2, because it wouldn't be giving the same "sound" as a b9. And being only in the first octave, it would literally make it a flattened second degree, there would be no type of 9th degree being used. But having the F in the second octave overrides this, making it a b9.
Eh not necessarily. I'd still call it a b9.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
#10
Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, but a chord that is 1 + 2 + 5 it's called a sus2, not a sus9. And a 1 + 4 + 5 is called a sus4, not a sus11. And a 1 + 3 + 5 + 9 is called an add9, not an add 2. This is because of the octave the notes are in.

So the way I look at it, it should be named the degree in which octave it's in, unless it's giving the "sound" of a different octave.

Know what I mean?
#11
Quote by wakytabaki
Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, but a chord that is 1 + 2 + 5 it's called a sus2, not a sus9. And a 1 + 4 + 5 is called a sus4, not a sus11. And a 1 + 3 + 5 + 9 is called an add9, not an add 2. This is because of the octave the notes are in.

So the way I look at it, it should be named the degree in which octave it's in, unless it's giving the "sound" of a different octave.

Know what I mean?


I can see your logic here, but I'd have to go with Food. With sus2 and sus4 the context says you are altering the triad by raising or lowering the third. With any triad that you build on top of (i.e. none of the original notes are altered) the function of the added 2nd or 4th changes...and I don't have the knowledge to explain why...I guess it is standard nomenclature.
#12
Quote by Myshadow46_2
I can see your logic here, but I'd have to go with Food. With sus2 and sus4 the context says you are altering the triad by raising or lowering the third. With any triad that you build on top of (i.e. none of the original notes are altered) the function of the added 2nd or 4th changes...and I don't have the knowledge to explain why...I guess it is standard nomenclature.



I think you are saying basically the same thing I was...

I'm saying that the name of a chord is determined by it's composition and the function of it's composition. So, applied to the chord we were discussing earlier, a chord made up of 1+b2+3+5+b7+b9 is technically a 7(b9)add b2, however because of the b9 being in there, the b2 is somewhat lost and the chord fulfills the tonality of a 7(b9). Therefore I would call it 7(b9), even though the direct composition of the chord is 7(b9)add b2.

What I was saying about the sus2 and sus4 chords, is that the octave of the notes is releveant. The notes used in a sus2 or sus4 are 1+2+5 or 1+4+5. These chords are named after the same octave that it's notes are in. They aren't called sus9 and sus11 (because a 2 equals a 9 in the second octave and the 4 equals an 11 in the second octave). So to call a chord that is 1 + b2 + + 3 + 5 + b7 + b9 a 7(b9) would be technically incorrect, although acceptable because the b2 "sound" is lost amongst the b9.

That's just the way I've been taught... Hope that made sense lol
#13
Quote by wakytabaki

I'm saying that the name of a chord is determined by it's composition and the function of it's composition. So, applied to the chord we were discussing earlier, a chord made up of 1+b2+3+5+b7+b9 is technically a 7(b9)add b2, however because of the b9 being in there, the b2 is somewhat lost and the chord fulfills the tonality of a 7(b9). Therefore I would call it 7(b9), even though the direct composition of the chord is 7(b9)add b2.


The chord is 7b9. In no circumstances would you call it 7b2. What if the bass is playing the root note and octave lower, Are you going to call it 7b17? no.

Quote by wakytabaki
What I was saying about the sus2 and sus4 chords, is that the octave of the notes is releveant.


No it isn't.
Last edited by griffRG7321 at Jul 18, 2010,
#14
Quote by griffRG7321
The chord is 7b9. In no circumstances would you call it 7b2. What if the bass is playing the root note and octave lower, Are you going to call it 7b17? no.

No it isn't.
Exactly.

Say you have a chord built on C. You start off with a perfect fifth (G) above it, then the D above that. The D isn't a 9 because it's an octave above the root. It's a 2 because it functions as a 2 as in a sus2 chord. You would never call C G D a Cadd9, because there's no E. Likewise, you would never call C D E G a Csus2, because there is an E.

This is the same principle as a triple stop power chord (root five octave). It's not a triad but rather a dyad, because 8 is technically just 1. You don't have 1 5 8, you have 1 5 1.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
Last edited by food1010 at Jul 18, 2010,
#15
Quote by griffRG7321
The chord is 7b9. In no circumstances would you call it 7b2. What if the bass is playing the root note and octave lower, Are you going to call it 7b17? no.


...a seventeenth is a compound third. you mean a sixteenth?
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#16
Quote by AeolianWolf
...a seventeenth is a compound third. you mean a sixteenth?


I couldn't give a monkeys Was just trying to get my point across.
#17
Quote by griffRG7321
I couldn't give a monkeys Was just trying to get my point across.


monkeys is a plural noun, and therefore requires an indefinite article reflecting that.

brb purple haze by jimi page
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#18
Quote by food1010
Exactly.

Say you have a chord built on C. You start off with a perfect fifth (G) above it, then the D above that. The D isn't a 9 because it's an octave above the root. It's a 2 because it functions as a 2 as in a sus2 chord. You would never call C G D a Cadd9, because there's no E. Likewise, you would never call C D E G a Csus2, because there is an E.

This is the same principle as a triple stop power chord (root five octave). It's not a triad but rather a dyad, because 8 is technically just 1. You don't have 1 5 8, you have 1 5 1.



What I'm saying is very similar. I'm saying that the function of the notes in the chord is more important than the octave of the notes in the chord.

I just realised that in the example we originally looked at we had E+F+E+G#+B+D+F+G#+B, which I equated to E+F+G#+B+D. I took out the wrong F note, it should be E+G#+B+D+F, making it an E7(b9).

But what I was saying previously is that if the chord used the notes E+F+G#+B+D in that order, the F is technically a b2 because of the octave it is in, however if it functions as a b9, then I would name the chord 7b9. But the F in that octave is literally a flattened 2nd degree.
#19
Quote by wakytabaki
But what I was saying previously is that if the chord used the notes E+F+G#+B+D in that order, the F is technically a b2 because of the octave it is in, however if it functions as a b9, then I would name the chord 7b9. But the F in that octave is literally a flattened 2nd degree.


right. but what you were saying previously was wrong.

octaves are not relevant in nomenclature. it IS a minor second interval, but if you consider the whole thing as a chord then there is no trace of a b2. it is extremely obvious that the F functions as a b9 in this case. there is no "wrong F note". an F is an F. so the chord is an E7b9.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#20
Yeh that's what I was trying to say. The F, even in the lower octave, functions as a b9. Sorry for the confusion lol!

On a side note, what is "nomenclature"?
#21
Quote by wakytabaki
Yeh that's what I was trying to say. The F, even in the lower octave, functions as a b9. Sorry for the confusion lol!

On a side note, what is "nomenclature"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nomenclature

Basically just another word for "naming."
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea