Discussion in 'Playing and Technique' started by HHB, Oct 3, 2006.
anyone ever seen a 2 or 4 chord, is it just a sus or what? notated in a fake book as C2 or C4
Another way of notating Cadd9 - C E G D
thanks Old tele Man! doh, it's too easy LOL
the reason I dont think it's a 9 is that there are 9 and add 9 chords in the same piece, the 2 and 4 are in seperate pieces, I'd NEVER seen either so I think the Old T-man is onto something
I've seen it many ways, it depends on the style of music. In the jazz books I have seen a C4 chord is usually written as either C7sus4 or C11. Chords that are C2 are usually written as C/D which means cmajor with a D in the bass. If the 2 ends up as the 9th then it is Cmaj9 and not just C9, C9 would imply it is a dominant chord which it is not.
Roger that.......................do a web search for the C2 Chord and see what you get. Also most Chord Finder Software will show a C2 Chord as CEGD, which is the same as Cadd9.
It just may be one more way of notation for some.
I've always understood them to be short for 'sus2' and 'sus4' - i.e., C2 = C D G, C4 = C F G
i've never seen the use of c2 to suggest c/d
every instance of c2 i've seen has been to suggest a csus2 (1,2,5 or some inversion of that). i've seen it in a lot of church music and fusion. in a sus chord, the 'sus' note (2 or 4 typically) REPLACES the 3rd. cadd9 would NOT be the same because "add9" chords have a maj3 in them, the 9 (or 2) is added to the major triad. so i dunno what that software comes from, but i don't think it's right.
and i've never seen c4 but i'm guessing it just means csus4 (1,4,5)
I use Csus2 or 4 when the note is in the same octave as the root, sus also implies that you're substituting the 2 or 4 for the 3. add9 or 11 indicates to me the 2 or 4 in the second octave from the root and does not indicate any substitution for the 3.
That's where I'm at on it...
although, without an basic "family" designation...
a C2 could be a C9 which implies an extended Dominant chord.
Although, "2" doesn't really fall in anybodies "extended" formula's.
But, again it's ALL in the way the person who wrote it deciphers it, right or wrong.
No written music is perfect, so you need to rely on what you understand about music, and what you hear to determine what the writer is telling you.
This is true is theory but try to incorporate in reality... much more difficult at least on the guitar. Keyboards this is a different story, this is why I said what I did. If I was to play a C2 chord I would probably play the following:
D = 5th fret 5th string
G = 5th fret 4th string
C = 5th fret 3rd string
"This is true is theory but try to incorporate in reality... much more difficult at least on the guitar. Keyboards this is a different story, this is why I said what I did. If I was to play a C2 chord I would probably play the following:
D = 5th fret 5th string
G = 5th fret 4th string
C = 5th fret 3rd string"
At this point you would have played a D7sus. So no soup for you! All this chord stuff at it's core comes from baroque figured bass and most numerals are simply indicitave of intervals above the root. So to voice it that way would subvert the harmony. Maybe if you played that voicing two octaves up...but in that low register it wouldn't be so clear. C2 means root plus a tone above it. Add the fifth at will...Generally, the closer the intervals, the higher you should voice the chord. Lorne Lofsky in Toronto is great at this stuff!
that is primarily a D7sus(4), as stated elsewhere, and i recognize that from an inversion standpoint it could be a c2 but at the basic level on the guitar, far before you'd get to implementing and using inversions like this in real music, you'd be starting with a C root (particularly if the bass player is playing a C root and he's playing up high, your D will probably clash a bit). not bad if you WANT that, but it wouldn't be considered 'standard'. i wouldn't use it on a church gig for example!
so i'm not clear on what you're saying is so hard to implement, when one could argue what you present is really kind of advanced in concept.
99% of the time, and literally that often, virtually all of the guitarists i know would play
C - 3rd fret, 5th string
G - 5th fret, 4th string
C - 5th fret, 3rd string
D - 3rd fret, 2nd string
(G - 3rd fret, 1st string)
it's a standard bar(re) chord, all over the radio, etc.
or maybe if they needed it elsewhere
(C - 8th fret, 6th string)
C - 10th fret, 4th string
D - 7th fret, 3rd string
G - 8th fret, 2nd string
SOOOOO what i really would like to know from HHB.... give us an example.... what tune was it and what fakebook?
I hear what you're saying. But what you're describing is still sort of a C5/add9 kind of sound. Big and open sounding. The appeal of the 2 chord is the close voicing. Think country sounds with the "rolling" thirds or a lot of the popcorn picking from the 80's and that is that sound. Steely Dan's proverbial Mu chords...or the opening chord stabs in "Oh Sheila".
i admit i forgot to mention the even more basic open string voicing
C - 3rd fret, 5th string
D string open
G string open
C - 1st fret, 2nd string
but C5/add9? i dunno... can you spell out what you mean by a c2? maybe we're not talking about the same thing. 1,2,5; 1,5,2; 5,1,2, right? btw on a guitar, 1s and 5s as in my examples being doubled doesn't change the quality or description of a chord last time i checked (e.g. barre chords-- an A can have 3 As and still be an A. how many you use is up to your judgement, not to chord symbol notation, unless the music specifies, and then would be written out probably in "note" notation). by the same standards, i think we are allowed to not play the root if they or the music deems it unnecessary or counterproductive.... so be careful of taking my voicings so literally. they were meant to illuminate that a c(sus)2 is easy enough to implement and that there are far more 'regular' voicings of it than D-G-C
i know a lot of guitarists (and pianists) and we don't sit around using C5/add9 refer to the voicings i spelled out above. in fact, no one i know refers to any of these chords as C5/add9. if i saw that, i'd be thinking the stacked fifth voicing that you see arpeggiated in 'message in a bottle' or in some heavy modern rock stuff, but certainly not to refer to the ones i showed above.
to you, is this common notation or chord vocabulary? is this used in some circles a lot? because in mine, it's not.
p.s. what is the popcorn picking of the 80s? just curious.
p.p.s. i still want to hear about an example of c2 and c4 from HHB's experience. context is everything.
By popcorn I mean a lot of that muted melodic picked stuff that you hear on a lot of rnb/pop from the 80s. (Sort of like Message in A Bottle-oddly enough...) By voicing, say, 1-2-5 (in C) and picking in a muted fashion (add chorus and compression) and voila, instant 80s cheese. By doing this on 3 adjacent strings rather than by playing melodically, your can just sort of sit in the groove nicely. You also have a vertical musical option immediately at your fingertips rather than having to change up to play a chord. And I maintain that this sort of specificity is important. I agree that as far as function goes, 1,2,5 etc can be voiced any way you want and in any register especially with regards to melody and when improvising. But the idea of C2 as a voicing is pretty specific with regards to register. That's what 2 is. A tone above the root. Put it up the octave and it becomes a ninth. Put it anywhere higher and it also serves as a ninth as far as I'm concerned. C5add9 is not the most common voicing name i suppose. It's as accurate as i can be with regards to register and harmonic content, though.http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/icons/icon7.gif
Wow. I really made great use of that emoticon.
i like cheese, especially french ones, and 5 year old gouda is pretty killing.
in my experience, the system of defining intervals is one thing and then real world chord notation is another thing. why is there no chord called a c10? i don't know, but there isn't one in any circle i know of. in fact, i just never hear people mention 10ths in regular working musician conversation. you've got your 2nds, 3rds, 4ths, 5th, 6ths, 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, 13ths and it pretty much stops there. why? i dunno. it just is.
my point is, all this stuff is a language and there is a certain amount of lingua franca. it's not a strict mathematical system such as how you are using it, especially not with chord notation. maybe in day one of music theory class, but not in the real world. i see you did say that you maintain that it should be that way, but i only raise these points because the purpose of this thread was to answer a question that pertains to the lingua franca, not what we as individuals think something ought to be called. this is really important, because we use this language to communicate with one another musically, and it's rife with inconsistencies and variations. hell, i never really got why you have cmaj7 and cmin7 but then c7 is dominant. why didn't anyone decide to have it be cdom7? do i know why? no. do i care? no, not that i know what the language is and can 'speak' it. but it's like expecting french or english to be perfectly consistent and specific like esperanto.
yes, the emoticon usage was genius
I'm just waiting for HHB to let us know what the song/context of this C2 was. Then we can finally put to rest the original question. As for musical nomenclature, I take the term "C2" to mean C-D, and C4 as C-F. I suppose I think in terms of perfect theory-based names, not in terms of what the author is meaning. Just my .02.
Again, C2 is Csus2. C4 is Csus4. Frank Zappa used "2" chords all over the place. "C4" is the primary way Brazilians write "Csus4" in my own experience, it's less common here in the states but not unheard of.