On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Kieren MacMillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hi all, > > On Jan 26, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine < > ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote: > > why I personally prefer the sus7 notation (besides economy with no lack > of clarity) > > I disagree about the lack of clarity: > > From C7sus4, I infer that we have a C7 chord (i.e., dominant 7th) > Precisely my point: we DON'T have a dominant chord here. The starting assumption is wrong. Sus chords do not function as dominant chords. Neither in terms of their character of having a tritone that "wants" to resolve (which is why you can say that chords like aug7 and 7b5 are still "dominant", even though they are likewise not identical) nor in terms of their function. Which is to say, sus chords traditionally prepare a dominant chord, making them serve a subdominant function. > From Csus7, I infer that we have a C chord (i.e., triad) with a suspension > at the 7th (which suggests a resolution to the 6rd, if it resolves at all). > In this sense, the only ambiguity is that you imagine "sus" to be a modifier of what comes after it, rather than as a description of a chord type. Consider every other chord type: maj, min, aug, dim, half-dim. In all cases, syntactically the chord type symbol modifies the root, which comes before it, not the extensions/alterations that come after. Yet, when this symbol is "sus", you want to say that the sus modifies what comes after it. Why the discrepancy? I suppose this highlights why I advocate for a lexical difference between the chord type and extensions. The default format of putting both the chord type and the extensions in a single string of superscript confuses what should be two distinct sets of information. (Also, what is wrong with interpreting that the 7th resolve to a 6th? That seems pretty coherent.) > Although Gould (frustratingly!) has essentially nothing to say about > chords, I think her philosophy regarding subito dynamics (use “p sub.” and > not “sub p.”) applies well: since the vast majority of us read music > (including chord symbols) from left to right, and it’s more important to > play (e.g.,) an unaltered C7 than a C sus triad without the 7th, it’s > better to describe the full shape of the chord first > Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about this. IMHO, it is far, far, *far* worse to play a C major triad when a C7sus4 is specified than to play a Csus4 and omit the 7th. The absence or presence of the seventh does not affect the chord quality (it does not affect its function) whereas playing the 3rd instead of the 4th changes it from a dominant function to more like a subdominant function. I agree with the analogy, but interpret it the other way: the equivalent of "p" (the type of dynamic) is the chord type, which in this case is "sus", and the modifier "sub." has an equivalent to the extensions (in this case "7"). All the best, David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com self-immolation.info skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
