6th Chords: Is it just me...

[Toxikator]

Ah, but that's where we disagree. I don't think "understanding" something is at all necessary to creating it... in fact, any musician who DOESN'T study theory is creating without understanding, which is many.

[Adaerus]

You could analyze it as CM, C6, Asus4 (1inv), Dm... or you could just call it CM, Am (1inv), Dm with a retardation in the middle voice. Just because D E and A sound at the same time doesn't mean they constitute some kind of chord.

That is exactly what I think and I feel that the terminology is wrong,
But since they have been used so much they become a dialect of music terminology.

Logically the C6 should be A6 because that's how you'll see in harmony an inversion (I6/3 or just I6 and the second inversion is I6/4).

The so called suspended chord is a new entity since it is formed by 4ths or 5ths stacked on top of each other, as opposed to triads, then flipped to form a first inversion.
In classical harmony you can suspend (or delay) any element within a chord. So to create a suspension you'd need to bring the chord element right after. Moreover, suspension deals more with the horizontal aspect of music (leading the voices) than with the vertical (harmony) aspect. On the so-called suspended chord there's nothing suspended, the chord is self-contained.
The suspended chord comes from the V7 I progression where, say the 7th is on top but you don't bring 3rd in I right away. You keep the 7th of V a while longer and then you bring the 3rd of I.

BTW. The G A Bb A G best would be described in Fmaj context as a V7 with passing note A. Although A could be part of C E A (III6) it is not strong enough to impose itself for the III6 function. Therefore A's role is purely melodic, as a passage, to smooth the transition between G and Bb. If you wanted to have an A minor chord in there A should have been on the stronger parts of the beat. Try starting the pattern G A Bb A G on the up beat so that first A falls at the beginning of the measure. You'll be forced to use an Amin (or a chord with A). In that case G could be part of a chord from the previous measure but Bb is purely melodic.

[Toxikator]

Indeed. It's an accented Passing Tone as far as I'm concerned.

[krank]

Ah, but that's where we disagree. I don't think "understanding" something is at all necessary to creating it... in fact, any musician who DOESN'T study theory is creating without understanding, which is many.

You seem to define 'understanding' as purely analytical understanding, which I think is too limited. The very fact that there is no set agreement on how to conduct advanced functional analysis (take Wagner's 'Tristan' chord as an example) points to its limited use. It's like studying syntax to interpret a certain text - fruitful to some extent, then it becomes tedious.

[Km7]

Yes, you can view them in such a way.
Don't forget that theory explains what our ears already know. And it is the language for the mind, the logic. Because there is logic in music - its functioning is determined by the laws of acoustics and perception. Whether one perceives that or not is another topic. There are many possibilities and viewpoints to analyze something (the Tristan chord is a nice example) and personally, in such processes I mainly use my own intelligence and the approach that seems best to me in the particular situation. Whether Walter Piston, for example, uses it and agrees with it, is another topic and doesn't change my choice.

[peejunk]

I don't mind extended harmony but come on. You can't possibly expect to reanalzye and reclassify every chord as having a different harmonic function based solely on which note is in the bass?

But you must have experienced how important is the bass note to establishing a harmonic function of a chord in context of a piece. More so in contemporary music, and I think of pop and dance music as clear example how due to sheer volume and power of lower tones they simply assert themselves as determinators of tonality and harmony.

Just because two notes are sounded together doesn't mean that we need to reclassify our harmonic structure to include some ridiculous extended chord.

Consider the progression
C C D D
E E E F
G A A A

You could analyze it as CM, C6, Asus4 (1inv), Dm... or you could just call it CM, Am (1inv), Dm with a retardation in the middle voice. Just because D E and A sound at the same time doesn't mean they constitute some kind of chord.

Actually the origin of your (English) word chord is the latin word accord which just means "together". So yes it actually does mean that, in it's originating, pre-functional-diatonic-harmony sense. As for which chord they constitute, that bit is contextual but also individual -- it's perception after all.

Saying, for example, that a melody played over some chord (or chords) effectively alters them may or may not be theoretically correct depending on the theory book you have in front of you, but perceptively is perfectly plausible. YMMV and all.

[Sascha Franck]

Hm. How do they function, then, if not as 7th chords?

As has been said, they often work fine as tonic chords.
An example: While, note-wise, a G6 contains the same notes as an Emin7, it simply doesn't function as that in, say, a II-V-I progression in G.

And as for the reasons of using it, here's a very simple one: If you work in a 4-part chord context (so all chords more or less "have to" contain 4 notes) and need a major tonic chord while the top note would be the root, you usually simply wouldn't use a maj7 chord as the j7 would clash with the (root) top note. That's the most common thing when using 6th chords in a jazz/pop context.

Similar things apply to minor chords. Besides being used as a tonic chord in a lot of more or less "jazzy" settings, you may find a min6th chord often being used in a (more or less standard) progression such as I-I7-IV-IVm. To keep the IVm a bit closer to the original key, you'd often use a minmaj7 or min6.

In both those examples, it wouldn't make much sense to describe the 6th chord as an inversion of either a min7 or min7b5 as their actual root wouldn't be a third lower.

IMO, the main advance of knowing about the two chords being identical from their note content is a more practical one. Once you know all the "shapes" (inversions and instrument-dependent fingering patterns) of a min7 chord, you also know all the shapes of a maj6 chord build on the minor third. The same goes for the min7b5 chord becoming a min6 chord, if related to the root a minor third above.
But then, these things apply to a whole lot of things, such as a C triad nicely working as an Amin7, assuming some other instrument (or your left hand for the matter) playing an A root.

[Km7]

Yes, as peejunk said, the bass note is the most important. It is the basis. This is a natural acoustical law, it comes from the overtone series and we recognize it. Just as with the overtone series, the lowest note (the bass note) is the basis, the most important, and the upper notes are build in more or less agreement with it; they have more or less coincidence with the overtones of the bass note. That's why the 6/4 chord sounds tense, unstable and dissonant... and the root is found in a week position - not in the bass; the chord is inverted. We usually prefer to double the bass note in a 6/4 chord, otherwise we would accentuate on a less stable factor.

[Toxikator]

Sascha: Okay, I get it, I think... though I like the sound of the Maj7.

Varadin: The bass note is important to sound quality, but not to function, if traditional harmony has anything to say about it.

On occasion, the 2nd inversion of a chord is considered to have slightly different functions (mostly in the context of cadences, since inverting a chord weakens its gravity toward the resolving chord). But that's not true of ALL inversions.

[Sascha Franck]

Sascha: Okay, I get it, I think... though I like the sound of the Maj7.

Yeah, but if you play a root on top of it, it'll almost always clash with the j7, resulting in either a b2 or b9 interval. Sure, you may like this, but in traditional arranging, you'd rather avoid them.

[Toxikator]

I like the way it voices, TBH. I play them like B-C-E a lot of the time.

[Sascha Franck]

I like the way it voices, TBH. I play them like B-C-E a lot of the time.

That's an entirely different thing though. "Rules" usually say that minor seconds between the inner voices are fine (so G-B-C-E is working nicely as a Cmaj7), still fine on quite some occasions between the lower voices (on a piano B-C-E-G is sounding quite good as well, for a horn section it might not work), but most of the times it sucks when the root is the top note (E-G-B-C most likely wouldn't please you all that much), so you often reach for the 6th instead of the 7th (E-G-A-C) to harmonize it in a 4-part setting.
Of course, breaking any of these rules is perfectly fine with me, but talking from a more or less traditional point of view, this is what things are most often treated like.

[Km7]

The bass note has a big weight and influence on the chord's function and tendencies and I explained why this is so. As I said, there are different approaches, different theorists and you may choose how to look at those things, but I am talking from more acoustical viewpoint and I have choosen to not overlook these natural things.
Some books describe the 6/4 chord as a chord which posseses dominant quality and non-chord tones. Why this chord is there in cadences? Because when we put the fifth in the bass, it has a big weight and starts to create dominant sound, starts to accentuate the dominant degree and function, plus less harmonic stability. Then we usually continue to V. So, this is very logical progression with increasing tension and desire for resolution: IV-Ic-V-I.

[Toxikator]

Indeed. the nature of the dominant (acoustically, the ratio between the basic tone and the strength of the 5th) is such that chords with a fifth on the bottom have a tendency to function differently. However, back to the original context, the 6-m7 relationship is one of first inversion (third on the bottom), which traditionally does little to change function.

[donkey tugger]

Jaath eh?