sus chords

[brekehan]

I am trying to learn music theory by analyzing some songs.

The song is Heavy Weight by Infected Mushroom. I'm just looking at the beginning.

It plays an arpegio in an E5 to Esus2 or Bsus4 form.
E,B,E,B,E,F#,E,B

Going back to elementary school, I'd say, "Hey that's in the key of G Major!" because it has an F#.
But I don't think its as easy as that. I doesn't have an Ionian sound at all.

Now if things are coming together and I understand modes. I could say, this is a key of G Major, but its root is the E, which is the 6th, and that would make the scale this E Minor. Right?

What can you say about a sus2 or sus4 chord appearing?
I don't know shit about how or when sus chords are used. Gimmie info about sus chords as they apply to theory.

My chord wheel says, if you are in B chord should be a Bm7. What makes sus4 ok to use and when?
Obviously, "if it sounds good", but is there theory behind it?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Going back to elementary school, I'd say, "Hey that's in the key of G Major!" because it has an F#.

G major is not the only key to have an F# in it, you also have its relative minor, E minor. - Perhaps this is more appropriate?

I doesn't have an Ionian sound at all.

Ionian is a mode, major is a key; don't mix them up.

I don't know shit about how or when sus chords are used. Gimmie info about sus chords as they apply to theory.

Ok, I'll try and keep things relatively short and simple for now; you should get a good harmony book for detailed information (this is good).

Sus is short for suspension, a type of non-harmony note and an accented dissonance.

Traditionally (as in, classically), the suspension is first "prepared" by having the note in the same part of the previous chord. Afterwards, it normally "resolves" downwards by diatonic step.

In a sus4 chord for example, it means the fourth is the suspended note. This has a certain tendency to resolves down to the third (and these can be compound intervals too, i.e. an octave-plus-a-fourth to an octave-plus-a-third). The third is the note of resolution and is not normally heard at the same time as the suspended note - so in effect, the fourth temporarily replaces the third.

For example: C major chord is C-E-G.
If we change that to Csus4, the fourth above C (which is F) replaces the third (E), so you have C-F-G instead.

This fourth above the bass was considered dissonant, so in order to "resolve" it, it needed to fall down a diatonic step (so the F falls to an E).

Here, the F is the suspended note, and the E is the resolution. As said above, the suspension would traditionally be prepared by having the note F in the previous chord. So the part goes F-F-E.

In modern styles of music, suspensions are not always prepared or resolved.

[MadBrain]

Now if things are coming together and I understand modes. I could say, this is a key of G Major, but its root is the E, which is the 6th, and that would make the scale this E Minor. Right?

Right. Normally I go the other way around: find the root -> it's E -> is the 3rd major(happy) or minor(sad)? -> sad -> E minor. Then if I want to know the exact type of minor I listen to the 6th and 7th (min6min7 = natural minor; min6maj7 = harmonic minor; maj6maj7 = melodic minor; maj6min7 = dorian mode).

What can you say about a sus2 or sus4 chord appearing?
I don't know shit about how or when sus chords are used. Gimmie info about sus chords as they apply to theory.

My chord wheel says, if you are in B chord should be a Bm7. What makes sus4 ok to use and when?
Obviously, "if it sounds good", but is there theory behind it?

The sus4 is most commonly used in contexts where you can use the dominant 7th chord. For instance, in E minor, you can use B7, so Bsus4 also makes sense (you can chain them together: Bsus4, B7).

[JumpingJackFlash]

...Then if I want to know the exact type of minor I listen to the 6th and 7th (min6min7 = natural minor; min6maj7 = harmonic minor; maj6maj7 = melodic minor; maj6min7 = dorian mode).

If you're talking keys, then simply "minor" is sufficient since it includes both versions of sixth and seventh.
"Melodic minor" and "harmonic minor" are scales, and music isn't written according to scales (that is, no classical composer ever sat down and said "I'm writing this piece in the harmonic minor", it just doesn't work that way).

[MadBrain]

...Then if I want to know the exact type of minor I listen to the 6th and 7th (min6min7 = natural minor; min6maj7 = harmonic minor; maj6maj7 = melodic minor; maj6min7 = dorian mode).

If you're talking keys, then simply "minor" is sufficient since it includes both versions of sixth and seventh.
"Melodic minor" and "harmonic minor" are scales, and music isn't written according to scales (that is, no classical composer ever sat down and said "I'm writing this piece in the harmonic minor", it just doesn't work that way).

Right.

[brekehan]

Good info man. Thanks for the great reply!

[jancivil]

...Then if I want to know the exact type of minor I listen to the 6th and 7th (min6min7 = natural minor; min6maj7 = harmonic minor; maj6maj7 = melodic minor; maj6min7 = dorian mode).

If you're talking keys, then simply "minor" is sufficient since it includes both versions of sixth and seventh.
"Melodic minor" and "harmonic minor" are scales, and music isn't written according to scales (that is, no classical composer ever sat down and said "I'm writing this piece in the harmonic minor", it just doesn't work that way).

I have to deconstruct that: since no classical composer ever 'sat down and said "I'm writing this piece in the harmonic minor", music is never written according to scales. IE: music is always classical music. No, worse, you have actually read the mind of all classical composers to the extent that it just isn't done.

The thing you chose, 'harmonic minor' has this whole modal character so it's not the best choice for asserting that nobody proceeds from scalar basis. For instance below I offer an Arabic conception of Satie's Gnossienne 1. Two main things happen there (I'm going to take it down half a tone from the original for simplicity): He takes an E harmonic minor and puts it to an A minor 'i'. So we have a scale: A B C D# E F# G. The character of that, vis a vis modal music is really strikingly obvious. As to harmony, it moves from i to iv, nothing much to report there, rather folk-music and rather a modal way to be.

Then there is a second section where he uses G# rather than G. The tune is


Scale being A B C D# E F# G#. It looks like he's thinking of scales to me. Yet I would say this is more of modal thinking. Maybe he isn't a 'classical composer' but I would hate to limit 'what a composer ever did' to your definition like that.

To the OP: you can disregard any of his proscriptions you like. Are you interested in getting a classical sound with the Esus2 (or differently approached, Bsus4)? What music are you interested in where you encountered this?

Maybe you've heard this, maybe not. The characteristic sound of this style is the 2 chord ['sus2'], that is, rather than a third, a second.



this is the basis:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187 ... e_Meat.pdf

Also, people can proceed from a scale as well as any other idea.

[Jdudeo]

I'd say the heavyweight arpeggio is based on a E5add9 shape, it feels strange to me to say something is sus2 or sus4 unless the 2 or 4 is between the root and fifth. If the 2 is on top I'd call it a 9.

Also, looking at the function of the melody/chord helps. As other people have said, sus chords are usually used to build tension for a resolution, this heavyweight arpeggio is a riff on its own and isn't really leading into anything so I wouldn't say it's a sus.

As for deriving the key/scale from this melody I'd say it's a waste of time, just look at what notes come in the rest of the song. I covered this song on guitar with an accordionist a good few years ago and seem to remember it being in E minor.

[jancivil]

You're saying it isn't a sus because it goes outside of a functional notion of suspension. Well, in lead sheets, fake books, and all over the place in common parlance it simply denotes a 4 or 2 in place of a 3rd. That is I think unnecessarily restrictive/conservative just to talk about the name of a thing. I just showed a style where instead of triads there are 'sus2s' (Zappa called them '2 chords') decorating lines in parallel.

Also, typically 'add _' means there is a third present so I would discourage calling a 2 chord aka sus2 'add9' (or 'add2' for that matter).

[Jdudeo]

This is sort of a grey area but I wouldn't say add9 implies that there's a 3rd it's just more often the case that there's a 3rd, IMO the 5add9 chord is a well documented and common sound and if the 2's place in the chord had absolutely no importance to the naming then why do we not call it a sus9 or a add2? And why does something like the mu chord end up with a separate naming? Might as well just call it a add9 since the notes are the same right?

IMO if I wrote C5add9 on a chart I would want a comper to put the 9 on top and not play a Csus2, and definitely not a C5/D (not that I have something against 9s being in the bass). The notes might be the same but to a lot of people it's a completely different sound.

[MadBrain]

While C5/D is obviously a different chord (possibly a mislabeled D7sus4), I think chord symbols should not indicate voicings, and Csus2 vs C5add9 are different voicings of the same thing.

For me, "2" and "9" are the same (same for "4" vs "11" and "6" vs "13"), and I think the higher numbers (9th, 11th, 13th) are simply used because of tradition and the idea that chords are made out of stacked 3rds (which is IMHO not quite "true" - it does work, but it gives suboptimal voicings such as the C E G Bb voicing of C7).

[jancivil]

Csus2 vs C5add9 are different voicings of the same thing.

I agree with this. I do think 'add _' implies if not indicates a third is present, that is my experience. Per the supposed 'gray area', I would never say 'add 2' to indicate 2 instead of 3 (if only because 'add' ≠ 'replaces').

[jancivil]

I can see the argument for stating 9 in preference to 2, depending, but we're getting into an area of such specificity I think you may want to write out the part.

[Jdudeo]

I think the arpeggiated sequence we're originally talking about would sound very different if it was arpeggiated with the 9 in the middle rather than on the top..

[Jdudeo]

By the way this is me and my friend's cover of Heavyweight we did a few years ago, my playing is horrible but luckily we got a few views when IM posted it on their facebook page