Sus & Add chords and chord extensions

Phil_aka_Pip

viz said:

The more knowledge you have, the better a guitarist you will be. Checked for accuracy and approved.

I can hear Frankus typing his answer to that right now. He might agree with me if I said the knowledge could be good if you used it and practiced it, but I don't think that just having the knowledge and not doing anything with it would make you a better player. IMO having the knowledge gives you more options.

Clarky

 lil' note:

I added the notes regarding the sus chord to answer what is actually the most common question about them

"why are they called sus chords?"

the answer is generally "because they do not have a 3rd in them"

which [despite being a true fact regarding these chords] is actually the wrong answer..

frankus

Agreed, knowledge is always good.. however, I think the knowledge of how to apply that knowledge is worth a little bit more.

I also rate experience over acquired knowledge as the application and knowledge have to go hand in hand where as acquired knowledge rarely gives the why as well as the how.

Clarky

Frankus - a lil' thought

"what is music theory / the principles of harmony / etc actually for?"

the answer is simple

it's a system that provides us with the language to describe what we hear, and to communicate our ideas to each other

it really helps if this can be done without ambiguity or misunderstanding

will knowing all this stuff make you a better player or writer?

there's no promise, so maybe not

but knowledge = choice

and as a player and writer you can never have too much choice..

so indirectly, maybe it can

frankus

First off - lets do away with this strawman argument that Frankus is anti-theory, I'm not, but amongst guitarist I think there is an over-reliance on it and a conditional okayness whereby even as listeners guitarists will forgive the most awful musical schmaltz simply by the virtue of it not being the "wrong notes".

okay, now we've got the obvious out of the way; let's expound your lil' thought a lil'.

Except for the purpose of transposing, why would you need to describe a motif as intervals? (Excepting simple patterns of intervals)
Now because I'm not about catechism, I'll profer my opinion: the reason is to make it more portable - for conscious borrowing.

Note-blindness seems to be a flaw found most in guitarists too, it's all about the notes not the timing, not messing with a motif starting on different measures and stressing different elements of a motif - guitarists frequently seem to discount timing and space - ignoring them perhaps (just perhaps) because there's not a formalisation of acceptable behaviours.

I'd like to seperate this notion of writers of music from guitarists; I find it a little specious. There's a section in Creative Guitar where there are tips on sounding like other instruments... so much of this section is about aping the idiomatic note selection of players of those instrument - mimicry... this idiomatic note selection is ingrained in most instrumentalists including guitarists - so their writing is unconsciously or consciously constrained (written for the guitar or by the guitar).

As a guitarist - the need to communicate musical ideas is used when? Focussed jams to create a colaborative piece of music? Any more places?

As a writer - the need to communicate the musical ideas is used when? Establishing the performance of a new piece of music? Where else?

In my study of martial arts, there are two kinds of student - those that are shown and practice and experience and those that dabble, like to talk about how something might be used... of the two the latter is the poorer student getting frequently distracted by the written word (on many different subject) boring quickly on the superficially simple concept they've been presented with... not finding the precise meaning of small things but looking for a theme or rule that encapsulates, summarises and trivialises and I've changed the way I view martial arts and playing music and improvising based on that experience.

Ultimately "music theory" is a system of representation, like electronic schematics, pseudocode, bus timetables, etc. it can be used to describe impossibilities much like any other system of representation - the invisible pink unicorn, optical illusions that show that three dimensions can be greatly misrepresented in two... these things are quirky and fun provided you're aware of them - we've all had to work with people who've thought expressing their want simply meant achieving that goal should be equally simple - not so, and how painful is it leading that person to that conclusion.

So lets not over-simplify. You can have too much choice: Tantalus stuck between the food and drink needing both and not knowing which to choose, the stutterer who's left and right hemispheres both want to provide the word to describe a thing and the corpus callosum cannot decide which to accept... or the saying of Confucius - "the man who chases two rabbits catches neither".

These options need to have been internalised and incorporated into the person, not bolt-ons - and in teaching the "how" the imperative to learn isn't there... should your authority or admirable credentials be enough? At no point in this discussion of sus and adds - like so many theory discussions before are there examples - where a youtube clip of a favourite tune might negate the need for a thousand words - we'll share a thousand of our words instead - but it's not the largess I'm making it out to be .. just an oversight.

I personally think a person can groove with one note, any one of the twelve in any bar of music and that is something they discover for themselves over time - Great!! 1 down 11 to go. Whereas conventional teaching will show you 12 notes, 12 keys, a stupid number of scales and/or modes and ways of detemining whether other people will think what you're playing sounds right - and that is how many guitar teachers make their living - getting individuals to supress their opinion until they've learn a load of that then they can go about reconnecting their playing to what they want to hear... which is the polar opposite of how we learnt to talk which in turn informed the way we write

Clarky

what I'm thinking is much simpler

I'm with the band in a writing situation, we're messing with ideas, the key player says "how about playing that E7 in 1st invertion".. we try it because we understand what he's talking about..

and likewise, when writing I can choose to use a "sus4" chord in isolation like a jazzer..

or I can use it in a classical sense with prep and resolution

the principle thing here is knowing that they exist.. and more importantly, knowing how diffierent they sound.. now you have choice..

frankus

Clarky said:

what I'm thinking is much simpler

I'm with the band in a writing situation, we're messing with ideas, the key player says "how about playing that E7 in 1st invertion".. we try it because we understand what he's talking about..

and likewise, when writing I can choose to use a "sus4" chord in isolation like a jazzer..

or I can use it in a classical sense with prep and resolution

the principle thing here is knowing that they exist.. and more importantly, knowing how diffierent they sound.. now you have choice..

Here's the thing. I wrote a lot, I included the scenarios you've said - so given that you're saying what you have to say is much simpler - do I assume you've read everything I've written but not understood it OR looked at it as an impenetrable block of wordy prose experience has shown you is unrewarding?

In the past I might have been out to change minds (in this instance you preconceptions) but now, not so. I'm merely flagging you don't appear to have digested all parts of what I've written.

viz

You're all right, yeah? Theory can be useful, it's not necessary, and it's not sufficient.

Clarky

also.. I could be listening to a piece of music with a friend [from a CD or live etc].. and we could hear something that we think sounds amazing

of course we'd want to talk about it.. figure out what it was.. and want to understand it so maybe we could recreate it and experiment with it..

to learn music you need to learn the music of those that came before.. learn by example..

and a little knowledge that helps inwardly digest and comprehend all this won't hurt..

Clarky

viz said:

You're all right, yeah? Theory can be useful, it's not necessary, and it's not sufficient.

it's also too inconsistent, and can be badly applied and for the wrong reasons..

frankus

Clarky said:

also.. I could be listening to a piece of music with a friend [from a CD or live etc].. and we could hear something that we think sounds amazing

of course we'd want to talk about it.. figure out what it was.. and want to understand it so maybe we could recreate it and experiment with it..

to learn music you need to learn the music of those that came before.. learn by example..

and a little knowledge that helps inwardly digest and comprehend all this won't hurt..

Um, none of it will hurt, who's ever said it would? Not me.

I don't think deconstructionism increases enjoyment - what's being relished at that point is not the music but your own ability to perceive the music - a different thing, no less valid as what moves us is personal; but less a component of the music and more a component of your own psyche.

Phil_aka_Pip

Stone me I'm beginning to wish I hadn't rattled Frankus's cage. I can see what he's saying and I quite agree that theory is not sufficient, but I'm reluctant to agree that it's not necessary. In absolute terms, no it isn't because we've all heard people who are wonderful musicians who couldn't describe what they play in theoretical terms. But for lesser mortals like me, I need it as a tool to describe and analyse music, and I think my understanding of music would be a lot poorer for not having it.

viz

This is a really interesting thread, spesh frankus's last point. I'm trying to separate my enjoyment of music from my enjoyment of deconstructing a piece. I'm not sure the latter is about enjoying "myself" rather than the music. It's certainly a different enjoyment, it's more cerebral, intellectual, but I think it's still about the music.

Clarky

Frankus - that's not what I'm getting at..

it's more like "oh my god what was that / how did he do that.?? I wanna be able to do that.."

then you go figure it out...

and if you really get your head aruond it, you can also figure out how to do it in any key..

so your musical savvy just grew a bit

the theory side shouldn't ever be a means to an end.. but it certainly helps to comprehend new things.. especially the first time you encounter them..

if folk are thinking of music theory as a set of confining rules then they are seriously missing the point

frankus

Clarky said:

Frankus - that's not what I'm getting at..

what isn't?

Clarky

frankus said:

Clarky said:

what I'm thinking is much simpler

I'm with the band in a writing situation, we're messing with ideas, the key player says "how about playing that E7 in 1st invertion".. we try it because we understand what he's talking about..

and likewise, when writing I can choose to use a "sus4" chord in isolation like a jazzer..

or I can use it in a classical sense with prep and resolution

the principle thing here is knowing that they exist.. and more importantly, knowing how diffierent they sound.. now you have choice..

Here's the thing. I wrote a lot, I included the scenarios you've said - so given that you're saying what you have to say is much simpler - do I assume you've read everything I've written but not understood it OR looked at it as an impenetrable block of wordy prose experience has shown you is unrewarding?

In the past I might have been out to change minds (in this instance you preconceptions) but now, not so. I'm merely flagging you don't appear to have digested all parts of what I've written.

I read all of what you wrote.. I guess I've not fully caught your point of view as you intended it to be understood..

Clarky

frankus said:

I don't think deconstructionism increases enjoyment - what's being relished at that point is not the music but your own ability to perceive the music - a different thing, no less valid as what moves us is personal; but less a component of the music and more a component of your own psyche.

this.. its not about increasing enjoyment.. or relishing your own ability.. or being able to publically bask in the smugness of ones own cleverness be being able to out-theory his mate, in front of his bird..

it's just about "ahhh.. that's what's happening.. I like that.. I'd like to experiment with that.. maybe this experimentation will lead me to some new and exciting places"

the theoretical side of music is simply and aid to comprehension.. nothing more

mike_l

viz said:

You're all right, yeah? Theory can be useful, it's not necessary, and it's not sufficient.

Funnily, the teacher I had focused on theory a little too much, and not quite enough on actually playing...

frankus

Clarky, in your example you and your friend are revelling in your geekdom (don't expect me to judge you harshly for that) - it's fun to do.

It can also be a distraction, or coping mechanism from the feelings the music is evoking for whatever reason.

I've certainly known both... and also laid down and just enjoyed my hair standing on end (Sea and Sinbad's Ship). Of all the experiences the one I'd prefer to target is the last, I think that's being in the moment, as soon as the brain is involved pop! out of the moment.

This might be contributing to my non-musician status

Clarky

frankus said:

Clarky, in your example you and your friend are revelling in your geekdom (don't expect me to judge you harshly for that) - it's fun to do.

It can also be a distraction, or coping mechanism from the feelings the music is evoking for whatever reason.

I've certainly known both... and also laid down and just enjoyed my hair standing on end (Sea and Sinbad's Ship). Of all the experiences the one I'd prefer to target is the last, I think that's being in the moment, as soon as the brain is involved pop! out of the moment.

This might be contributing to my non-musician status

you are sooooo wide of the mark here it's unbelievable

I [like many musicians] listen to music with two different perspectives..

one, like everyone is simply to be the audience.. to be entertained..

the other is as a musician.. and one trying to be a creative one..

when I hear something that has a profound impact on me.. I want to know what it is.. how it works...

I want to understand it so I can add it to my creative tool kit..

it's not geeky.. it's simply 'jeez.. I love that.. I need to know how to do it"

when I first heard the 2nd movement of Sonata Moonlight, the 4th chord sent shivers down my spine..

I needed to know what it was and why it did that...

knowing the chord in isolation was not enough.. because it don't tell you how to use it..

at a later time, having figured out that is was a major triad on the flattened super tonic in 1st inversion, I worked out that is was behaving as a substitution for chord IV.. and a staggeringly beautiful one at that...

since then I've written pieces of music [rock music] that contain this chord in it's original and correct context...

many years later [when I was at Uni] in a lecture, this chord came up again.. and they told me its name..

a Neapolitan 6th

and having understood it and spend a lot of time experimenting with it.. 

more to the point, having understood it's impact on the mood of the music and so how to use it to great effect, just made me adore this chord all the more..

this was never geekdom being revelled in.

it was simply a desire to understand something that amazed me, well enough so that I could use it to generate specific moods within in my own compositions...