C vs Csus2 chords

[Muffinhead]

I was looking at a couple of chord sheets for the song How Great is Our God. One has it in the key of C and the first few chords are C Am F. In another version, which is the official lyrics and chords by the songwriter Chris Tomlin, it is also in the key of C but the first few chords are Csus2, Am7, Fsus2.

My question is how or why would a songwriter choose cords like Csus2 instead of just a C chord. It seems to work either way, so why choose Csus2? Is it just a different voicing of the C chord? In the whole I II III IV V VI scheme of things, where do chords like Csus2, Am7 and Fsus2 fit in? And also what does sus mean?

Am I asking questions that are above my level of understanding?

[Earwitness]

Sus means suspended. It has to do with the "3rd" of a chord. If the third is changed down to a "2", then it's a sus2. So, a Csus2 is a C chord that substitutes a 2 (ie a D) for the regular 3rd, which usually would be an E. A sus4 just substitutes a 4th.

In the kind of song you are talking about, it really is just the voicing of a melody on top of the chord changes.

When I see a C-Am-F type of chord progression, I'm probably tossing out Am7s, Fmaj7s, Cmaj7s, Csus2s or whatever, just to make it more interesting or to embed a melody over the chord progression.

Lots of people, when they say, "C, Am, F" kind of imply that it will be jazzed up that way, and those are just the basic names of the chords involved.

BTW, as I like to say, I have no credentials!

[DupleMeter]

Also, despite the Csus2 notation, what Chris plays is C(add2).

Csus2 has the following notes in it: C D G

C(add2) has the following notes in it: C D E G

In simple terms a "sus" or suspended chord is a chord whose major/minor quality cannot be determined (has been suspended) because there is no 3rd in the chord. It has been replaced by another note. The 2 in the sus2 chord, though most typically a 4 when you simply see "sus" (the 4 is understood unless another scale degree is specified).

An "add2" chord is a way to add that same note without taking away the 3rd in th chord (the E in this case).

Also important to note is that many players incorrectly label an add2 as an add9. The reason they are not the same (even though a 9 is a 2 an octave higher, e.g. the same note) is because to call the 2 a 9 you have to have a 7 in the chord. (This is the theory stuff that made my head spin first year of music school).

Long story short a "true" add9 is simply a Dominant9 (e.g. C9), which is not the same. But when you see add9 you should translate that to an add2 in your head and just know they didn't want a 7 on the chord.

so

Cadd2: C D E G
Csus2: C D G
C9: C D E G Bb

FWIW - Tomlin is huge on the "add2" chords. He also likes to capo and play as if
he were in G a lot of the time. Keeping his 3rd & 4th fingers mostly glued down through the entire progression.


G Form
=|=|=0=0=|=|=
-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-1-|-|-|-|-
-2-|-|-|-3-4-

Gadd2 Form
=|=X=0=|=|=|=
-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-1-|-|-
-2-|-|-|-3-4-

Em Form
=0=|=|=0=|=|=
-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-1-2-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-3-4-

Cadd2 Form
=X=|=|=0=|=|=
-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-1-|-|-|-
-|-2-|-|-3-4-

[zhunter]

Right or wrong I heard add 9 many years before I ever heard anyone ever chart or mentioned add 2. And the 6/9 chord is a long used example of a non-dominant 9 chord not proceeded by "add". On guitar the point is mostly moot but I think add 9 and add 2 are both legit with two different meanings:

Add 2
C,D,E,G
Add 9
C,E,G,D

Real world most guitar players aren't stacking notes in chords this way most of the time and I think of add 9 and add 2 as interchangeable. Add the 7 and it either becomes ma9 or add b7 to get 9 (dominant) regardless of where the 9 (or 2) note comes from in the note stack.

hunter

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Also important to note is that many players incorrectly label an add2 as an add9. The reason they are not the same (even though a 9 is a 2 an octave higher, e.g. the same note) is because to call the 2 a 9 you have to have a 7 in the chord. (This is the theory stuff that made my head spin first year of music school).

Not quite true.
Yes, "9" means there's a 7 in the chord, but then "add9" means adding a 9 without a 7th.

A C major triad with a D added tends to be called Cadd9 more often than Cadd2, in my experience.
The common shape you mention - x-3-2-0-3-3, or x-3-2-0-3-0 - is most often called "Cadd9", in my experience. I have no problem with that myself.
It makes no difference where in the chord the D is voiced, although usually it would be high in the chord.
I guess some people would like to use "Cadd2" if the D was low in the chord (with the E higher). Eg:
X-3-0-0-1-0 = "Cadd2"?

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Long story short a "true" add9 is simply a Dominant9 (e.g. C9), which is not the same. But when you see add9 you should translate that to an add2 in your head and just know they didn't want a 7 on the chord.

Precisely.

The way I understand it is that the "add9" symbol is based on the tertian stacking principle (1-3-5-7-9-11-13). So adding a D to a C chord must be the "9", because "2" doesn't appear in that system. However, the normal chord shorthand just refers to the last number added to the stack. "9" means 1-3-5-7-9. So if we want to omit the 7, then we need to modify the shorthand, by using the word "add".
(BTW, I realise the "7" in question is a minor 7th or b7, because that's another part of the shorthand. A major 7th requires the word "maj".)

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

so

Cadd2: C D E G
Csus2: C D G
C9: C D E G Bb

Exactly.
To follow the stacking order principle:
"C9" = 1-3-5-7-9 = C E G Bb D.
"Cadd9" (more common symbol than "Cadd2") = C E G - D, or C D E G
"Csus2" = C D G, or C G D

Chord symbols don't specify voicing in practice, however (note order bottom to top), so the notes can go in any order. Except a 9th would never go in the bass - because that would make it a different chord.

With sus chords, it's important that specified root note is in the bass, otherwise the chord becomes ambiguous.
C D G or C G D (C in bass) = Csus2
G C D or G D C (G in bass) = Gsus4
D C G or D G C (D in bass) = partial D7sus4 (but still perhaps Gsus4)

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Not quite true.
Yes, "9" means there's a 7 in the chord, but then "add9" means adding a 9 without a 7th.

A C major triad with a D added tends to be called Cadd9 more often than Cadd2, in my experience.
The common shape you mention - x-3-2-0-3-3, or x-3-2-0-3-0 - is most often called "Cadd9", in my experience. I have no problem with that myself.
It makes no difference where in the chord the D is voiced, although usually it would be high in the chord.
I guess some people would like to use "Cadd2" if the D was low in the chord (with the E higher). Eg:
X-3-0-0-1-0 = "Cadd2"?

Precisely.

The way I understand it is that the "add9" symbol is based on the tertian stacking principle (1-3-5-7-9-11-13). So adding a D to a C chord must be the "9", because "2" doesn't appear in that system. However, the normal chord shorthand just refers to the last number added to the stack. "9" means 1-3-5-7-9. So if we want to omit the 7, then we need to modify the shorthand, by using the word "add".
(BTW, I realise the "7" in question is a minor 7th or b7, because that's another part of the shorthand. A major 7th requires the word "maj".)
Exactly.
To follow the stacking order principle:
"C9" = 1-3-5-7-9 = C E G Bb D.
"Cadd9" (more common symbol than "Cadd2") = C E G - D, or C D E G
"Csus2" = C D G, or C G D

Chord symbols don't specify voicing in practice, however (note order bottom to top), so the notes can go in any order. Except a 9th would never go in the bass - because that would make it a different chord.

With sus chords, it's important that specified root note is in the bass, otherwise the chord becomes ambiguous.
C D G or C G D (C in bass) = Csus2
G C D or G D C (G in bass) = Gsus4
D C G or D G C (D in bass) = partial D7sus4 (but still perhaps Gsus4)

I am aware that it's commonly called add9, and when you see that just know that it's always wrong Much like people like to say "you can't have your cake and eat it too". The fact is you can very well have your cake & eat it. That is a logical progression of events (I have the cake, then I eat the cake). The real saying is "you can't eat your cake and have it too", but almost no one says it properly. We still know what they mean. That's how you have to view the add9 chords. They are wrongly named, but you know what they mean.

The rule in theory is that you cannot call an interval by its upper stricture name (9, 11 or 13) unless there is a 7 present in the chord. When there is no 7 the first octave names are used (2, 4 or 6). It really doesn't matter how you voice it, it's all a question of whether or not you have a 7th present (or if there's an assumed 7, like in the case of a V chord in certain genres).

This is the exact reason you can have a C6 that is different from a C13.

C6: C E G A
C13: C E G A Bb

The rules in music theory are pretty exact on these things. For those who want to get more into it, I recommend checking out the online courses offered by Berklee College of Music. I have not taken the online courses, but I got my degree at Berklee and their theory classes are solid.

Hope that helps.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I am aware that it's commonly called add9, and when you see that just know that it's always wrong

I know what you mean, but you can't fight convention!
It's not about logic or rationality - or rather it is, but it's a different kind of logic.
The logic of "add9" is - or at least seems to be - as I explained. It's a "9th chord that's not a proper 9th" - "oops there's no 7th, so how do we differentiate it from a proper 9th?"
Your very reasonable form of logic is to see the D as the "2", so why not just say "add2"? Very sensible!
But in the tertian form of chord building and naming "2" "does not compute", as it were. If the logic is to select notes from the 1-3-5-7-9-11-13 series, then D can only be "9".
Of course I realise that chord symbols "6" and "sus4" already break that logic. [see below]
But our task is to deal with convention as we find it.

There are some chord symbols that still seem to be up for grabs - not yet set in one common usage. E.g., the use of plain "2", as in "C2" - wtf does that mean? sus2 or add2?

Likewise, "add4" or "add11" - there's the same argument there that there is about "add2" and "add9". In my experience, "add9" has been settled through common practice (albeit in a way you might not like ), but "add4" and "add11" seem to still be fighting it out - perhaps because it's a less common chord form than add2/9. Good luck with sticking up for" add4"! (That would be my choice too, although I really don't mind either way.)

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The rule in theory is that you cannot call an interval by its upper stricture name (9, 11 or 13) unless there is a 7 present in the chord.

Can you give a source for that rule, phrased in that way?
I know that 9 11 and 13 always assume the presence of the 7, because the shorthand principle is just to name the last interval added to the stack - because that's the most common scenario - in traditional harmony, that is.
Hence the clumsy use of "add" to indicate the rarer occasions when the 7th is not present. I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying that's the symbol that has become common practice. And theory is nothing if not "common practice".

I wasn't aware there was any "cannot" about the rule. Music theory is not about prescription, it's about description. Nobody sat down and dictated the rules about chord symbol language. It's a system that's evolved through practical usage. Hence the occasional glitches and inconsistencies.

In fact, in rock it's more common for the 7th to be absent.... the chord naming shorthand is still based in classical/jazz practice, where 7ths are more common than extended chords. If "rock chord theory" was to be written down, we'd surely be coming up with new principles, a new shorthand. E.g., "C" would mean a power chord, if we take power chords as the standard rock form. "C3" would then mean a major triad, "Cm3" a minor one? CEGD would be called "C9", and C-E-G-Bb-D would be called C79, or something. Logical, right?

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

When there is no 7 the first octave names are used (2, 4 or 6). It really doesn't matter how you voice it, it's all a question of whether or not you have a 7th present (or if there's an assumed 7, like in the case of a V chord in certain genres).

This is the exact reason you can have a C6 that is different from a C13.

C6: C E G A
C13: C E G A Bb

Right.
And of course we call it "C6" and not "Cadd6".
So there's inconsistency there. But again, it's about common usage. "6" chords are common, and there's no risk of a plain "C6" being confused with anything else.
If we wanted a sensible logical shorthand, we'd call C D E G or C E G D "C2", following the "C6" principle, right? So why not recommend "C2" instead of the clumsier "Cadd2"?
And "C4" instead of "Cadd4"?
We can always add "sus" when the 3rd is omitted.

I'm sure between us we can write a whole new more logical system of chord naming....

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The rules in music theory are pretty exact on these things.

"pretty" maybe, but not 100%. Maybe 95-99% when it comes to chord naming conventions.

It seems to me that it's still somewhat up in the air, as different usage conventions are still fighting it out, seeing as the music we're discussing is still evolving, still alive. Theory is always playing catch up.

I agree it's more settled than some seem to think - they'll point to breaks in convention as if that's an excuse for us to call things anything we like (which is missing the point, of course).
But general usage seems to have fallen on the "add9" side rather than the "add2" side (let alone the "2" side...). Theorists who don't like it are probably fighting a losing battle...

[stanron]

This is probably too simple but when I see 'add' I think interval not combination of notes. So add9 means add the ninth note from the root.

Also strict numbering from root has never been mandatory in guitar voicing. It's more a piano thing. Think of Dsus4. From the root it should be Dsus11 but it's never called that. In the same way add9 on guitar could just as well be add2.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by stanron

This is probably too simple but when I see 'add' I think interval not combination of notes. So add9 means add the ninth note from the root.

Also strict numbering from root has never been mandatory in guitar voicing. It's more a piano thing.

Not really. Chord symbols don't specify voicing, whether they're for piano or guitar. They just specify the notes to be included - spelled as if for a close-voiced root position tertian stack, just for a consistent principle.
Of course, a pianist has much more flexibility over voicing than a guitarist does, but that's a different issue.

Originally Posted by stanron

Think of Dsus4. From the root it should be Dsus11

Not necessarily. Why wouldn't it be the 4th from the root?

Originally Posted by stanron

but it's never called that.

Well, I can see that "sus11" ought to cover it, if there's a 7th in the chord, and if we follow the principle of chord extension shorthand that "11" implies a 7th.
But in practice it's called D7sus4. And in jazz at least it's more likely to be abbreviated to "D7sus", the 4 (or 11) being assumed.
Practical convention breaks with theoretical consistency yet again...

Originally Posted by stanron

In the same way add9 on guitar could just as well be add2.

Right. But there's an obvious difference between a perfect theoretical consistency of chord symbol "grammar", if you like, and actual practical usage.

C2, Cadd2, and Cadd9 are all valid terms for the chord in question (because we accept the notes can go in any order). We could support any one of them with some kind of logic.
But the fact is Cadd9 has become the common choice, most of the time.

[jim1960]

Music is a language and languages aren't always stagnant. As languages have dialects, perhaps so does music. And as some people may use "ain't" instead of "isn't" or "aren't," some will say "Cadd9" instead of "Cadd2." As long as we understand the intention, it's good.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Muffinhead

…My question is how or why would a songwriter choose cords like Csus2 instead of just a C chord.

Hi Mh

Internationally famous writers/players often develop strumming 'hooks', write songs around them, and then record them. I just listen to the recordings and emulate the sound/feel they are putting out there. Sometimes artists will have multiple (different versions) of recordings.

Don't get caught up in the exact knock-off of the original (unless you have a professional orchestra, choir and full rock band at your disposal). The original by the way, has a cute little hook comprised of playing the C for two down beats and lifting fingers 1-2 for the third down stroke, and replacing them for the fourth down stroke.

On the 'official recording', the guitarist plays something similar for both the Am and F chords. So the fingerings of the chords are centered around those lift-n-replace fingerings.

Don't try to analyze the chords by theory. Just listen to the recordings with a guitar in your hand. It's less work, and more fun.

Transcribers are sometimes handed the writer's version of the chord chart, but then they crank out the official charts, lyric sheets, scores etc for the songs. Often transcribers are keyboard players not guitarists and they analyze what they hear and label the charts. Charts are getting better now (versus even 5 years back).

Of course you can play How Great Is Our God as | C | Am | F |. Or you can dress it up, change the key, the tempo. I think it's the musician's jobs to translate it for each congregation to interpret it in their style.

The reason players/writers use these types of chords is uniqueness, variety, how they nest with other chords in the progression, and personal preference. That way every third song doesn't end up sounding like every third song.

I encourage you to try some of the unique chords. They can be a lot of fun.

Hope this contributes to the discussion…

[Paraclete]

Sorry, but I just have to laugh at this whole thread. Add2 add9(sans7), theory mumbojumbo (and yes, I had formal music training, so I get the theory stuff)... But on my church worship team, we just refer to it as "worship C", and everyone knows what it means, because Tomlin (and many others) pretty much glues his finger at the third fret B and E strings.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I know what you mean, but you can't fight convention!
It's not about logic or rationality - or rather it is, but it's a different kind of logic.
The logic of "add9" is - or at least seems to be - as I explained. It's a "9th chord that's not a proper 9th" - "oops there's no 7th, so how do we differentiate it from a proper 9th?"
Your very reasonable form of logic is to see the D as the "2", so why not just say "add2"? Very sensible!
But in the tertian form of chord building and naming "2" "does not compute", as it were. If the logic is to select notes from the 1-3-5-7-9-11-13 series, then D can only be "9".
Of course I realise that chord symbols "6" and "sus4" already break that logic. [see below]
But our task is to deal with convention as we find it.

Well, except that it's just plain wrong to anyone who studied music theory. Keep reading, it'll make sense.

Originally Posted by JonPR

There are some chord symbols that still seem to be up for grabs - not yet set in one common usage. E.g., the use of plain "2", as in "C2" - wtf does that mean? sus2 or add2?

That's because it was made up by someone who didn't realize it's not a chord at all (there are no 2 chords it has to be add or sus). Type G2 as a chord symbol into Sibelius and watch it substitute G(add2) to gently remind you you're trying to write something that is musically wrong.

Originally Posted by JonPR

Likewise, "add4" or "add11" - there's the same argument there that there is about "add2" and "add9". In my experience, "add9" has been settled through common practice (albeit in a way you might not like ), but "add4" and "add11" seem to still be fighting it out - perhaps because it's a less common chord form than add2/9. Good luck with sticking up for" add4"! (That would be my choice too, although I really don't mind either way.)

I don't think I've ever seen an add4, but yes I suppose we're up against the same naming conventions here as well.

Originally Posted by JonPR

Can you give a source for that rule, phrased in that way?

All my theory textbooks from Berklee College of Music.

Originally Posted by JonPR

I know that 9 11 and 13 always assume the presence of the 7, because the shorthand principle is just to name the last interval added to the stack - because that's the most common scenario - in traditional harmony, that is.
Hence the clumsy use of "add" to indicate the rarer occasions when the 7th is not present. I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying that's the symbol that has become common practice. And theory is nothing if not "common practice".

I wasn't aware there was any "cannot" about the rule. Music theory is not about prescription, it's about description. Nobody sat down and dictated the rules about chord symbol language. It's a system that's evolved through practical usage. Hence the occasional glitches and inconsistencies.

Actually, people did sit down and write the rules. Some of which are to never be broken, like the most sacred harmony rule of "no parallel 5ths or octaves". It all started with J.S. Bach and what we label "Traditional Harmony & Counterpoint" which evolved into the contemporary "Functional Theory" we have today.

Then those people wrote books and then taught all those rules to unsuspecting college students who had to then identify these things in published music to prove they understood what they were learning.

Furthermore, the rules in this case are rules of clear notation. They exist because musicians need to know quickly what the composer/arranger meant. In the NY area, if you go in to do a studio session or play a broadway or off-broadway pit band you won't see add9 on the chart, they are always notated add2...at least in my experience.

Originally Posted by JonPR

In fact, in rock it's more common for the 7th to be absent.... the chord naming shorthand is still based in classical/jazz practice, where 7ths are more common than extended chords. If "rock chord theory" was to be written down, we'd surely be coming up with new principles, a new shorthand. E.g., "C" would mean a power chord, if we take power chords as the standard rock form. "C3" would then mean a major triad, "Cm3" a minor one? CEGD would be called "C9", and C-E-G-Bb-D would be called C79, or something. Logical, right?

Actually, rock theory isn't that far removed. There is a notation for power chords. C5 or C(omit3) are both accepted standard notation for power chords (which aren't really "chords per se, but open 5ths...but that's another theory lesson). And no, it's still the same 9 and add2 nomenclature. Rock is a derivative of blues/jazz (on the classic rock side) and classical (on the metal/prog rock side). So they borrow heavily from their roots.

Originally Posted by JonPR

Right.
And of course we call it "C6" and not "Cadd6".
So there's inconsistency there. But again, it's about common usage. "6" chords are common, and there's no risk of a plain "C6" being confused with anything else.
If we wanted a sensible logical shorthand, we'd call C D E G or C E G D "C2", following the "C6" principle, right? So why not recommend "C2" instead of the clumsier "Cadd2"?
And "C4" instead of "Cadd4"?
We can always add "sus" when the 3rd is omitted.

No. Again, a little basic theory helps understand this. The 6 is never a suspended interval, so therefore there is no reason to specify sus vs. add. The 6 is simply that. So, it' not inconsistency - it's simply acknowledging that this is a simpler concept to convey. You never question whether the 5 is still in the chord when you have a 6 or a 13. You do when you see a 2 (or a 4 as you pointed out, I just don't have a real world example of that one).

Take the 7. There is no add7. But what many don't realize is that when you see a chord, like C7, it is understood that you know it is a Dominant 7. That is the whole reason you must specify when you want a Major 7 (Cmaj7). We don't write Cdom7, because the rules tell us that it is a dom7 unless otherwise specified.

The whole idea is that the rules help us convey what we mean musically in a repeatable & universally understood way. The 2nd goal of these rules is to keep things as simple as possible (which having multiple names for the same chord structure certainly doesn't do).

Originally Posted by JonPR

I'm sure between us we can write a whole new more logical system of chord naming....
"pretty" maybe, but not 100%. Maybe 95-99% when it comes to chord naming conventions.

It seems to me that it's still somewhat up in the air, as different usage conventions are still fighting it out, seeing as the music we're discussing is still evolving, still alive. Theory is always playing catch up.

In some ways, but it is mostly a symptom that the majority of rock/pop/contemporary musicians are simply untrained, especially in solid theory basics. They make things up to convey what they want without understanding that rules exist that could help them be clearer.

Originally Posted by JonPR

I agree it's more settled than some seem to think - they'll point to breaks in convention as if that's an excuse for us to call things anything we like (which is missing the point, of course).
But general usage seems to have fallen on the "add9" side rather than the "add2" side (let alone the "2" side...). Theorists who don't like it are probably fighting a losing battle...

I get it, a lot of people write add9. I admitted that already. In then end it doesn't really matter. It's cool. I just wanted to clarify that it isn't really correct notation. And with that bit of knowledge you may do what you will. It won't change the world one iota. And I suppose that makes this whole discussion a moot point

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Paraclete

...because Tomlin (and many others) pretty much glues his finger at the third fret B and E strings.

Yes! I learned to do the Emin7 that way from him. I was like "genius! I hardly have to even move to play these songs!"

Chris readily admits that he is a simple guitar player. But it seems to have worked well for him

[Earwitness]

I suppose I have learned something from this dialogue. It quite reminds me of the back and forth over English grammar (or even pronunciation, sometimes). Since I made some effort along the way to learn the "rules" and logic of grammar, I find it elegant and effective to use them (in writing), and wish others would.

However, then there is this whole school of thought that language is evolving and our notions of what is "correct" must be adjusted to what people are actually saying out there. There are the two different approaches to dictionaries, too: one that is more "prescriptive" to what is "right," and one that is "descriptive" of what is being said in the populace.

Since I am more the "prescriptive" type, I cringe when a dictionary suddenly accepts as correct a usage that has been incorrect for generations, just because the current generation hasn't learned what is correct. On the other hand, I suppose that if I went to a foreign country, a dictionary that told me what people actually said would be more useful.

Funny that I was the first person to respond to the OP, and I essentially told him--amateur to amateur--that it was basically just a C Am F G progression with melody notes that Chris Tomlin was throwing on top, just to make it more interesting, and that when I play a song like that, I just toss notes on top but still think of it as the basic chords. (Actually, I play that song in G.) I am almost certain that Chris Tomlin would describe it that way, not describing any subtleties of going from minor chords to sus chords or whatever.

BTW, Tomlin does have a writing credit on that song, but so does Ed Cash, who, if you never heard of him, has a credit on almost everything ever made in contemporary Christian music. A bit of an exaggeration, but not much. Scroll down to the credits at the end of this article!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Cash