On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Well, I *did* suggest "G5 (add 2)" as an alternative to Gsus2, which I think is a little clearer than "G2 (add5)" because it's based on a standard chord symbol ("G5"), but the result is the same.
As for the chord's "real" name, I have to admit I really don't care about such issues. IMO, the "real" name is the symbol that's actually on the part. If all the parts say "Gsus2" than that's the "real" name, regardless of what the player might or might not be thinking. If you play in a scene where "G2 (add 5)" or whatever is used instead of "Gsus2", then *that* is the "real" name for the chord in that musical community.
One of the reasons I like G2 for A-D-G (or any of the inversions thereof) is that it indicates an acoustic root for a stack of 4ths. If I am trying to write a progression based on a three-note stack of 4ths, but with a foreign bass note, there is no easy way to notate it without a quick-to-read symbol like G2. Triads over foreign bass notes are easy to notate, like
A/D Bb/A A/D
instead of
Dmaj9(omit3) A7(b13b9sus4) Dmaj9(omit3)
but how compact would a comparable progression with 4th stacks be?
Eb2/Ab Db2/Bb C2
compared with
Ebsus2/Ab Dbsus2/Bb Csus2
which I suppose could be written functionally as
Ab6/9 Bbm11 Cadd9
for blowing purposes, but there is so much space saved with the first method, plus it's airier without the 3rds.
Christopher
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
