Re: Chord names broken since 2.16

[Jan Kohnert]

Hi,

(all examples in C major for reading purposes, and German notation, so 
h(German)=b(English), and b(German)=(b-flat(English))

Am , schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi all,
>
> > add9 is different from sus2, as add11 is different from sus4
>
> Really? In the musical theatre world, "add9” rarely (if ever) appears;
> the preferred notation is “add2” (which, as a side benefit, makes
> sight reading things like “C9” even faster and less error-prone).

you might be true in this special case, but I (in my personal view) 
consider this to be inconsistent. And that is why:
Csus2 = <c d g>
Cadd9 = <c e g d>
Csus4 = <c f g>
Cadd11 = <c e g f>

You see, there's a different meaning in the chords, since there's 
another musicional intention behind it: either I want the 3rd (whether 
minor or major) to be played (regardless of the instrumentalist beeing 
able to play it (again: Guitarist)), or not. And the chords sound 
different, as they should… :)

I confess, the only two chords I can imagine right now beeing displayed 
with an "add" is "add9" and "add11" in cases (like Jazz notation), when 
someone reading C9 or C11 assumes the chord is C7/9 or C7/9/11, 
respectivly. But again, this is only my personal experience, YMMV.

And this is also, why I introduced the example C13 vs. C6: For C13 I 
whould read C7/9/13, whereas a C6 whould just be a plain C with an added 
6th. If one needs more complicated stuff, like #9, b13 a.s.o. I'd 
emphasize to write and print that special one down; Realbook-Style…

> > Nothing I ever saw displayed Cadd6add9
>
> +1
>
> I have started to write things like “add6,9” for multi-adds.

I never saw that, but ok… I'd write that as C6/9 to be able to 
distiguish between a plain C9 (read as C7/9). I've never seen that "add" 
stuff in other cases than I said earlier. Could you provide an example 
for such a notation? I would be very interested in seeing such a 
notation.

> > The best solution is probably to have different defaults, but in any 
> > way: if chords are intented musically different, they should display 
> > in different ways…
>
> **All other things being equal**, I would concur. However, I’ve found
> (through much trial and error, in both jazz and musical theatre pit
> orchestra contexts) that the chord symbols should always err on the
> side of sight-readable if the “theoretically correct” version requires
> any second thought.

Agreed. I'd suggest a notation where one can select different defaults, 
varying by the the intended musicians to read the score. What I've seen 
so far is (not a complete list, of course):

Version 1:
C = <c e g>
Csus2 = <c d g>
Csus4 = <c f g>
C6 = <c e g a>
C7 = <c e g b>
C7/9 = <c e g b d>
C6/9 = <c e g a d>
C9 = <c e g d>
C7/#9 = <c e g b dis>
C7/9/11 = <c e g b d f>
C11 = <c e g f>
C7/9/13 = <c e g b d a>
C7/#9/b13 = <c e g b dis as>

Version 2:
C = <c e g>
Csus2 = <c d g>
Csus4 = <c f g>
C6 = <c e g a>
C7 = <c e g b>
C9 = <c e g b d>
C6/9 = <c e g a d>
Cadd9 = <c e g d>
C7/#9 = <c e g b dis>
C11 = <c e g b d f>
Cadd11 = <c e g f>
C13 = <c e g b d a>
C7/#9/b13 = <c e g b dis as>

Version 3:
[please continue]

Version 2 whould probably be read more quickly and correct by Jazz 
musicians, version 1 is more "correct" for a non-expert, but harder to 
read (since notated more complicated) for everyone else. I'd be 
interested in version 3, or 4, or…

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Jan Kohnert