What is this chord called?

[larm]

C major, playing C D F G at the same time

Using my head I find that "Csus4add9" or ah-ehm Csus2sus4 and Csus2add11 would say the same?

An online chord finder http://www.ocmusic.com/vpc.htm says it's called C9sus4 .. does the sus4 at the end mean that E -> F instead?

If so, would C7sus2 be C,D,G,B then? or is sus2 never used like that?

[Enrico Expresso]

Sometimes it's even only called Csus, I think...

[larm]

Thanks.. hmm managed to find a site that says it's called Csus2/4 so apparently the / does not mean the 4 is the bass

And forget about the C9sus4 .. I was only looking at the white keys and missed the black Bb

I'm such a

[james0tucson]

C major, playing C D F G at the same time

Using my head I find that "Csus4add9" or ah-ehm Csus2sus4 and Csus2add11 would say the same?

You can call it all of those in isolation. As part of a larger harmonic context, it may have a better defined identity. You say you're in C Major; I'd call it C C sus 4 *only if* the 4 voice resolves.

What's the first chord in "Perpetual Change" by Yes? Anybody have a book that names that?

[tw0k1ngs]

Dm7sus4 1st inversion... or (on a limb) G7sus4 2nd inversion.

Played by itself there is no way in hell it could ever relate to a C chord.

[BosseJo]

Dm11/C

[AdInfinitum]

I'm not sure the first chord in Perpetual Change has the "F" in it, just a Gsus4. I tend to call those sus2sus4 chords. The C9sus4 would be if the D is played an octave up, not in the block chord.

[BERFAB]

Dm7sus4 1st inversion... or (on a limb) G7sus4 2nd inversion.

Played by itself there is no way in hell it could ever relate to a C chord.

+1

[Sascha Franck]

Why wouldn't this chord relate fine to a C root?
Play it and resolve both the D and the F to an E (so it becomes a 3 part voicing only) and the movement is *absolutely* common (you can even keep the D).

And well, it's no Dmin7sus4 - that chord doesn't exist in chord namings. If at all, it'd be a Dmin11 (with the seven not needed to be indexed as additional option notes above an octave not indexed "add" will require the 7th to be present). Sus4 is only used for major and dominant chords.

However, the proper naming for the chord is Csus4add9. The F makes up for the sus4 (properly replacing the third) and there's a 9th added. Easy.
Without the F it'd be a C2 (some say sus2 as it's also replacing the third), unfortunately you'll often find this labeled as "Cadd9(no3rd)".

Of course, this chord could be analysed using any of the contained notes as the root.
So it could as well be:
- Dmin11 (as mentioned already)
- F6sus2 (3rd replaced by 2nd)
- G7sus4 (actually the most obvious choice as it'd take the least movement from a plain seventh chord to get there)

But as said, there's no reason why this chord couldn't relate to a C as the root.

[larm]

thanks guys! learning lots of necessary stuff here

[BERFAB]

Sascha -
Thing is, I actually use this chord as a substitution all the time. And a fair amount in C. Just not for the C chord. I think of it as Dm or Gsus leading to F or thereabouts.

Not sure if I'm getting this across, but I think you get the idea.

I also personally think that C9 is a bit ugly except in only the briefest of transitions, but only IMHO.

Cheers
-B

[JumpingJackFlash]

For anyone who cares, this is also set 4-23(12) in Set Theoretic Analysis.

Also, a reminder that there is some guidance for different chords in my post on Scales, Modes and Chords.

[tw0k1ngs]

Why wouldn't this chord relate fine to a C root?
Play it and resolve both the D and the F to an E (so it becomes a 3 part voicing only) and the movement is *absolutely* common (you can even keep the D).

And well, it's no Dmin7sus4 - that chord doesn't exist in chord namings. If at all, it'd be a Dmin11 (with the seven not needed to be indexed as additional option notes above an octave not indexed "add" will require the 7th to be present). Sus4 is only used for major and dominant chords.

However, the proper naming for the chord is Csus4add9. The F makes up for the sus4 (properly replacing the third) and there's a 9th added. Easy.
Without the F it'd be a C2 (some say sus2 as it's also replacing the third), unfortunately you'll often find this labeled as "Cadd9(no3rd)".

Of course, this chord could be analysed using any of the contained notes as the root.
So it could as well be:
- Dmin11 (as mentioned already)
- F6sus2 (3rd replaced by 2nd)
- G7sus4 (actually the most obvious choice as it'd take the least movement from a plain seventh chord to get there)

But as said, there's no reason why this chord couldn't relate to a C as the root.

It wouldn't relate because it would theoretically sound nothing like a C chord in modern tuning and modern convention. Just because the C is on the bottom doesn't mean that fundamental frequency has "pitched" our ear. In fact, our ear is MORE lead (through environment) by a recognized interval of a major or minor third, therefore it trumps any bass frequency. If there were an E or Eb in the chord, I would agree, some form of C. (and dominants are irrelevant, since they practically exist on two planes at the exact same time, only "decided" by human prejudice)

Also if you want to be picky, then when speaking in terms of a solitary chord, a sus shouldn't EVER be mentioned, as sus implies somewhat of a resolution, and in a chord completely taken out of context, a suspension is literally/theoretically impossible.

Calling it a Sus4 with minor is theoretically fine. To argue over semantics in a field of infinity (we created notes, they did not create themselves) is futile (hence the fundamental theory of the enharmonic)... there won't ever be a "name"... its just about how well you can convey the idea. Need more evidence? Ask Scriabin.

[Sascha Franck]

It wouldn't relate because it would theoretically sound nothing like a C chord in modern tuning and modern convention.

http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/temp/CDFG.mp3

Does that in *any* way *not* sound like your typical Csus -> C movement?
If so, you must have strange ears.
And well, you could put a D, F or G below it in the bass and it would always sound entirely different - which is pretty much enough of a "prove" that C *is* a valid option as the root for this chord.

Also if you want to be picky, then when speaking in terms of a solitary chord, a sus shouldn't EVER be mentioned, as sus implies somewhat of a resolution, and in a chord completely taken out of context, a suspension is literally/theoretically impossible.

Might be in classical music, but for modern stuff that's nonsense. Listen to the entire "Manchild" album of Herbie Hancock and you'll see. It's full of sus4 chords being used as "stable" tonic chords. At least there's no resolution happening, so they're the most stable chord type available on a large part of that album.

Calling it a Sus4 with minor is theoretically fine.

No. Especially theoretically it's plain wrong, nothing else.
The index "sus" in chord naming theory implies the third to be replaced, usually by the 4th, sometimes by the 2nd (even if that replacement isn't exactly a proper suspension).
A minor chord has the min3 in it, so the "sus" is pointless. A minor chord with a 4th in it is either called min11 or min/add11. No exceptions.
And in case you'd ever read some lead sheets (which is a large part of what I have to do for my income), you would as well know *how* tough it is to read nonsense chord namings, such as min/sus, min/4 and the likes. That's why there's such conventions, to make work easier. And the "sus" to not be used for minor chords is one of those conventions.

[tw0k1ngs]

It wouldn't relate because it would theoretically sound nothing like a C chord in modern tuning and modern convention.

http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/temp/CDFG.mp3

Does that in *any* way *not* sound like your typical Csus -> C movement?
If so, you must have strange ears.
And well, you could put a D, F or G below it in the bass and it would always sound entirely different - which is pretty much enough of a "prove" that C *is* a valid option as the root for this chord.

Also if you want to be picky, then when speaking in terms of a solitary chord, a sus shouldn't EVER be mentioned, as sus implies somewhat of a resolution, and in a chord completely taken out of context, a suspension is literally/theoretically impossible.

Might be in classical music, but for modern stuff that's nonsense. Listen to the entire "Manchild" album of Herbie Hancock and you'll see. It's full of sus4 chords being used as "stable" tonic chords. At least there's no resolution happening, so they're the most stable chord type available on a large part of that album.

Calling it a Sus4 with minor is theoretically fine.

No. Especially theoretically it's plain wrong, nothing else.
The index "sus" in chord naming theory implies the third to be replaced, usually by the 4th, sometimes by the 2nd (even if that replacement isn't exactly a proper suspension).
A minor chord has the min3 in it, so the "sus" is pointless. A minor chord with a 4th in it is either called min11 or min/add11. No exceptions.
And in case you'd ever read some lead sheets (which is a large part of what I have to do for my income), you would as well know *how* tough it is to read nonsense chord namings, such as min/sus, min/4 and the likes. That's why there's such conventions, to make work easier. And the "sus" to not be used for minor chords is one of those conventions.

Not really, sounds much more like a D resolving to an E with practically NO TRACE of an F. Sus4? Please. If anything you are MODELING the resolution of a sus2.