Name That Chord

[Falcon15]

What do you call an Fmajor with an added G note? (FACG)

[5th Element]

I call it Fadd9.

[Bluemonk]

Originally Posted by 5th Element

I call it Fadd9.

And you are correct.

[patrickgm60]

Or F2, aka Fadd2

[CosmicOsmo]

Originally Posted by patrickgm60

Or F2, aka Fadd2

Funny how naming chords works, you'll get different names depending on who you're talking to. I personally notice a lot of guys in the P&W and pop/country scenes using the "2" nomenclature, whereas most everyone else seems to use add9. I think a lot of this comes down to the reality that this nomenclature is all a shorthand, and people who use those chords the most (which tend to be in the aforementioned genres) find it quicker to write "2" than "add9". This is also likely the reason jazz players have so many shorthand ways of writing extended chords, i.e. C-7 for a minor seventh, or F∆9 instead of Fmaj9.

As long as your intended audience understands what you're trying to say, it's all good!

[DupleMeter]

If you're being "technically correct" you cannot use the 9 nomenclature without a 7 already in the chord. The theory rule basically states that you "can't use upper structure naming (9, 11, 13) without the presence of the 7th degree".

So F(add2) is technically correct, but F(add9) is universally accepted...though maybe you'll hear from some know-it-all jerk about how it should be a "2" and not a "9" because there's no "7".

So basic naming follows rules like:
F A C G = F(add2) or F(add9)
F G C = F(sus2)
F A C E G = Fmaj9
F A C Eb G = F9

I hope that all makes sense.

[Falcon15]

Thanks to all who replied!

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

If you're being "technically correct" you cannot use the 9 nomenclature without a 7 already in the chord. The theory rule basically states that you "can't use upper structure naming (9, 11, 13) without the presence of the 7th degree".

True.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

So F(add2) is technically correct, but F(add9) is universally accepted...

Well, F(add9) is - arguably - more technically correct, because the word "add" recognises the above principle, by indicating that this chord is an exception to the rule. It has the 9th added, but lacks the 7th. No need to change 9 to 2, just use "add".

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

though maybe you'll hear from some know-it-all jerk about how it should be a "2" and not a "9" because there's no "7".

Yes, there is a logic there, because when we add a 6th to a triad, we don't call it "add13", as the "add9" principle would suggest. We just call it "6". So (those people would say) why not "2"?

And of course, in contrast to the common acceptance of "add9", when we add the 11th without a 7th, that seems to be called "add4" at least as often as "add11". And not just "4".

I.e., these principles are not wholly consistent, because they've evolved through practical usage (keeping the shortest symbols for the most common chord types and extensions), not through some logically designed system.

Hence "add2" is as acceptable as "add9". Some of the conventions are variable.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

So basic naming follows rules like:
F A C G = F(add2) or F(add9)
F G C = F(sus2)
F A C E G = Fmaj9
F A C Eb G = F9

Yes. The one we should rule out (although it's not uncommon) is "F2", because it's not clear whether that means Fsus2 or Fadd2.
Again, logic would suggest it means Fadd2 (following the "F6" principle), but it's still potentially ambiguous.
Likewise "F4" - not often seen, but it does appear. Fadd4 or Fsus4?

[patrickgm60]

F2 is not the same as Fsus2. a 2 chord is a major chord with a 2 added, not a 2 replacing the 3. If the chart's not too crowded, including the "add" doesn't hurt.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by patrickgm60

F2 is not the same as Fsus2. a 2 chord is a major chord with a 2 added, not a 2 replacing the 3. If the chart's not too crowded, including the "add" doesn't hurt.

I agree. I would always assume anyone who wrote "F2" meant Fadd2, but seeing as it's a non-standard symbol, can we always trust the writer?
I mean I know F2 is not supposed to be the same as Fsus2, but some people think "F9" means F(add9) or that Fmaj7 means the same as F7....

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by JonPR

True.
Well, F(add9) is - arguably - more technically correct, because the word "add" recognises the above principle, by indicating that this chord is an exception to the rule. It has the 9th added, but lacks the 7th. No need to change 9 to 2, just use "add".
Yes, there is a logic there, because when we add a 6th to a triad, we don't call it "add13", as the "add9" principle would suggest. We just call it "6". So (those people would say) why not "2"?

And of course, in contrast to the common acceptance of "add9", when we add the 11th without a 7th, that seems to be called "add4" at least as often as "add11". And not just "4".

I.e., these principles are not wholly consistent, because they've evolved through practical usage (keeping the shortest symbols for the most common chord types and extensions), not through some logically designed system.

Hence "add2" is as acceptable as "add9". Some of the conventions are variable.
Yes. The one we should rule out (although it's not uncommon) is "F2", because it's not clear whether that means Fsus2 or Fadd2.
Again, logic would suggest it means Fadd2 (following the "F6" principle), but it's still potentially ambiguous.
Likewise "F4" - not often seen, but it does appear. Fadd4 or Fsus4?

The 'add' is used to distinguish it from a 'sus' - which is why you 'll never see it with a 6. You can't have a sus6 chord. You can, however, have a sus2. I suspect some of the impetus for calling the add2 and add9 probably came by way of trying to distance it from a sus chord in the first place. add2 and sus2 are 2 very different sounding chords.

The 'add' nomenclature doesn't really make the add9 more correct, for the exact reason you state. No intended 7th in the chord. You're not supposed to give the upper structure names to 2, 4 & 6 without the 7 present. So, I'm not with you on that one.

You also hit on another issue - compound tensions can be referred to as 'add': e.g. Bb9(add13). This is typically in older music. More recent music will simply have Bb9(13). In really early jazz charts everything above the 7 was an 'add' so you'd even get Bb7(add9) or F7(add13).

The 'add2' vs 'add9' thing is really not a big deal. i actually take much bigger issue when people use a straight line fraction for alternate bass, like:

A
—
C#

the reason being, in the jazz community that is a compound chord (a C# triad & and A triad played at the same time). While the slash would be the proper way to notate the alternate bass/inversion, like: A/C#

The big issue with notation is to be as clear as possible while also being as quickly readable as possible. Avoid confusion and the poor slob playing your chart will have an exponentially higher chance of playing what you wanted in the first place.

[patrickgm60]

I realize I should probably avoid these threads; most of my chart reading is from jazz piano days. (I was never that good, AND it's tricky as all get-out.)

Mostly handwritten symbols (circles, pluses, phis), big M for Maj, small "m" for minor, "-" for minor... Some charts don't even have room for "add."

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The 'add' is used to distinguish it from a 'sus' - which is why you 'll never see it with a 6.

OK, that's an angle I hadn't thought of!
But you don't see "sus9" do you? So "add9" doesn't work as a distinction from that.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

You can't have a sus6 chord. You can, however, have a sus2. I suspect some of the impetus for calling the add2 and add9 probably came by way of trying to distance it from a sus chord in the first place. add2 and sus2 are 2 very different sounding chords.

True. I'd be totally with you if "add2" were the common form.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The 'add' nomenclature doesn't really make the add9 more correct, for the exact reason you state. No intended 7th in the chord. You're not supposed to give the upper structure names to 2, 4 & 6 without the 7 present. So, I'm not with you on that one.

Well, the trouble is, there is no "supposed" about it.
I agree with you that "add2" makes the best sense - given the "absent 7" principle, as well as the distinction from "sus2" - but chord symbol terminology evolved from practical shorthand, not from some authoritative logical diktat. It's a mixture of common practice with loose adherence to some form of logic - rather like any language.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

You also hit on another issue - compound tensions can be referred to as 'add': e.g. Bb9(add13). This is typically in older music. More recent music will simply have Bb9(13).

Surely "Bb13" is the modern convention? The 9 would be assumed, or optional. I don't recall seeing "9(13)" very much - if at all.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

In really early jazz charts everything above the 7 was an 'add' so you'd even get Bb7(add9) or F7(add13).

OK, I haven't seen those myself. I can believe it, as those upper extensions would be have been rare back then.

You do still sometimes see someone writing a 13 chord as "7/6" or something similar, as if to make sure the 9 and 11 are excluded.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The 'add2' vs 'add9' thing is really not a big deal. i actually take much bigger issue when people use a straight line fraction for alternate bass, like:

A
—
C#

the reason being, in the jazz community that is a compound chord (a C# triad & and A triad played at the same time). While the slash would be the proper way to notate the alternate bass/inversion, like: A/C#

Sure - not only in the jazz community! As you say, the straight line fraction means a polychord (or should). Anyone who writes a slash chord like that deserves all they get...

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The big issue with notation is to be as clear as possible while also being as quickly readable as possible. Avoid confusion and the poor slob playing your chart will have an exponentially higher chance of playing what you wanted in the first place.

Quite!

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by patrickgm60

I realize I should probably avoid these threads; most of my chart reading is from jazz piano days. (I was never that good, AND it's tricky as all get-out.)

Mostly handwritten symbols (circles, pluses, phis), big M for Maj, small "m" for minor, "-" for minor... Some charts don't even have room for "add."

Yes, "big M for Maj, small m for minor" is crazy when handwriting. I've not seen it myself in handwritten charts, but given the kind of lazy handwriting that's common it would probably have me scratching my head and trying to guess it from context.

I do find it amusing when jazz musicians use "-" for minor. What, it's just too much effort (maaan...) to write an "m"? (Like, "less is more" I guess?)

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by patrickgm60

I realize I should probably avoid these threads; most of my chart reading is from jazz piano days. (I was never that good, AND it's tricky as all get-out.)

Mostly handwritten symbols (circles, pluses, phis), big M for Maj, small "m" for minor, "-" for minor... Some charts don't even have room for "add."

Too true about the spacing on some charts

In college we were forbidden using the M = maj & m = min because when writing fast a capital 'M' and a small 'm' can look very similar so we were forced to use the dash for minor, e.g. B-7 for a Bmin7. So anytime there was an 'M' it was for 'maj' and never 'min'. Much easier to grade tests that way

I continued that for a while, but I think it's easier to read Bm7 and Bmaj7 on a chart when sight reading so I resorted to those. The guys who do my sessions seem to agree.