Talk:Suspended chord

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music theory This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is all over the Internet, usually in a shortened form, at music sites and encyclopedia tyes of sites. How do we know who's ripping off whom? I looked into this because I was suspicious of the closing statment, "Contrast with sixth chord". That doesn't feel Wikipedian, it seems like something out of a textbook. It also sucks. Tell us why, don't just order us to go do it. This isn't Wikiversity. --63.25.105.14 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some audio examples. Hyacinth (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, this page is wrong: a suspended chord needs to be suspended from somewhere. Just stating "However, in modern usage, the term concerns only the notes played at a given time; in a suspended chord the added tone does not necessarily resolve, and is not necessarily "prepared" (i.e., held over) from the prior chord." doesn't necessarily make it so: it simply defines a x4th chord. (example- a C4th chord)

A suspended chord, by its definition, implies a suspension; i.e. the retained note is suspended from something. It doesn't just magically happen by itself.

Joe Gerardi (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be logical, but terms are not always used according to their origin. Hyacinth (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the term was originally used that way but now refers to chords where there is usually no preparation and not always a resolution though both are implied. This latter fact probably ought to be mentioned since it distinguishes sus chords from add2 and add4 chords. --

clipman 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The cited source says its correct. Hyacinth (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your cited source can say it is correct a myriad times but nevertheless it is incorrect. The first chord in the picture is from bottom to top G-A-C-F which can be seen as F/G if you consider F to be the root note, or a G7sus2/4 (albeit omiting the 3rd and 5th) if you consider G to be the root note.

Anyway, Gsus4 would comprise of G-C-D and G7sus4 of G-C-D-F, I am not quite sure what you mean by saying that Jazz ingnores the 7ths though. As far as I can tell 7ths are like oxygen for Jazz musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.214.167 (talk • contribs)

I would assume that "the fact they usually ignore 7ths" meant sevenths aren't counted (like when you tell someone what's in your living room, you don't usually count the oxygen in the air), not they are not used. Hyacinth (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyancinth, would you please address this criticism and take care to remove and/or replace the mentioned picture. It's clearly incorrect and anybody with a minimal amount of music theory knowledge can see this at first sight. If you still insist that your cited source says it's correct, it only shows that you don't have any understanding of music theory. In this case you should really ask yourself if you are qualified to work on articles about this particular field of music. Although I'd rather reach a consensus with you, I will remove the picture myself very soon if you continue to ignore this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.214.167 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per

edits 21:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

According to its description the image in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jazz_sus_chord.png is made by Hyancinth himself (using Sibelius, a music notation program), so it would be up to him to cite the sources for the claim that a Gsus chord comprises of the same notes as a G/F chord. The page for the image doesn't mention any sources, I don't see why I should provide sources to disprove something incorrect which doesn't cite sources itself. Therefore I would rather ask for a "Request for comment" by somebody who is familiar with music theory. In all fairness, I guess that if interpreted as G7sus2/4 (without the 3rd and 5th) F/G may possibly be used as a replacement for Gsus4 but it's not the same chord. PS: Just to avoid confusion, Gsus and Gsus4 are the same chord, it's only a different way to name it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.214.167 (talk • contribs)

So what did you mean when you said "Your cited source can say it is correct a myriad times but nevertheless it is incorrect." You acknowledged a source there, but now you're saying there isn't one? Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) and stop removing your sig when you forget. In order to have a useful discussion, we need to know who we're talking to.

edits 23:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This example has thoroughly confused me as a novice who came to this article looking to become informed. It seems incorrect from my very very limited understanding of sus chords, but I am not knowledgeable enough to confidently make that call. I came to this article hoping to become less unknowledgeable but this example has made my confusion worse. The image's caption in this article cites a source. Yet the image is Hyacinth's own original image. Although I do not have access to the cited book, I have a hard time believing that the book would actually say anything about Hyacinth's original image. (Not in citation given?) Further adding to confusion, the image's description in the Commons does not match the caption given in this article. Seeing as this example is confusing and controversial, I would suggest its removal regardless of whether it is technically correct or not. Surely somebody could find a different cite-able example that serves to demonstrate the concept more straightforwardly? --108.181.232.201 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, The so-called "suspended chord" in the example box is not a suspension at all. It's what would either be called a subdominant over a dominant (IV/V) or dominant 11 (V11) - according to the way the chord is laid out and resolved, it would act as a dominant chord in both pop and classical styles. I can imagine how confusing this might be for a beginning theorist to look at. I'll try to change it ASAP with a better example, but if anybody comes up with something first this problem should be solved quickly! I also agree with some of the commentary on here - the music theory articles on wikipedia are in need of serious, organic improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.108.27 (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the image is cited as is its explanation in the article? Hyacinth (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.216.120 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a suspended chord with both the second and the fourth? Hyacinth (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that needs to be taken out. Did somebody go through every song ever composed and count sus4 vs sus2. Seems silly--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At the very least in needs a citation. 'Far more common' suggests it's rare at least but I play sus2 all the time. --86.153.11.189 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many older books on classical music theory (e.g. Tchaikovsky's and Rimsky-Korsakov's) state that a suspension usually involves the fourth rather than the second. The use of the second (or ninth) on a large scale didn't start until the early 20th century, with the increasing popularity of musical impressionism, though earlier examples can of course be found here and there. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in the lead used to read, "The lack of a minor or a major third in the chord creates an open sound, which can suggest a minor or a major tonality." The dependent clause is wrong, and I removed it. The lack of a third suggests nothing. A missing third can't suggest a minor or major tonality because the third is what defines a minor or major tonality. It's like saying that the absence of the third suggests the presence of the third, which is painfully illogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.187.191 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was intended to read something like "the lack of a minor or a major third in the chord [...] can imply tonal ambiguity regarding the major or minor nature of the key". You are quite right that it's not correct the way you quote it. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what, where, and how does this article need to be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Cmsus2" graphical example on the right doesn't jive with the entry you have in your "Suspended second chord table" lower down on the left!

(I don't dare correct this myself, since I'm tired of "the Wiki community" erasing corrections I make, and putting them right back to the original error. Very frustrating.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.235.222 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on what part does not jive? --64.198.141.194 (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cmsus2 image File:Sus_chord.png shows CDG, Suspended chord#Suspended second chord table Csus2 entry lists CDG. Same thing, no problem. Hyacinth (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the reasoning behind the absence, presence, or placement of commas within or without of quotations? Hyacinth (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a style guide for punctuation and quotations: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside. Am I misunderstanding your question? --dbolton (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: There is no such thing as a Cmsus2 chord. This is an oxymoron. It's either Cm (C-Eb-G), Csus2 (C-D-G) or Cmadd9 (C-D-Eb-G). The image on the right side needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.235.58 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2012‎

Do you have a source for your assertion? The image showing the difference between a Cmsus2 and a Cmadd9 is sourced. See:

WP:CITE. Hyacinth (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you have access to the journal to see if they actually use the term "Cmsus2"? It does seem unusual (not something I've seen in published music). --dbolton (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting someone made up the content in this article, or that someone made up the cited article? Hyacinth (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He asked you a simple question; your attempting to dodge it suggests exactly that. Are you suggesting that it's ok to cite a source to which you do not have access? (In which case, you wouldn't be citing, at all.)108.197.96.98 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new stub has been made for a so-called "

Why merge here? Hyacinth (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a suspended chord that doesn't appear to merit a whole article to itself, and this is the suspended chord article? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources for the terminology either. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: after we move this and about a dozen of other particular chord stub article wannabes, we must think about bigger umbrellas for such topics. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by User:Zmckowen (not by me). Hyacinth (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to call the section References. There is no reason to swear at people. Though you describe my reverting as "edit warring" it does not meet the definition. There is no reason for hyperbole. Hyacinth (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a tendency to revert "just because" – that is not swearing, it is a statement of facts. Wikipedia goes by common practice, just as any other encyclopedia. In the vast majority of articles, this section is called "References" and so I renamed it, along with the rest of my copyedit. Please explain why you so insist on keeping the unusual heading "Sources". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it curious that a WP administrator is unfamiliar with

WP:REF, which states in more than one place, "This section is placed at or near the bottom of the article and is usually titled 'Notes' or 'References'." The guidelines nowhere suggest that the section is to be entitled "Sources." It even says, "General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a 'References' section."108.197.96.98 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't agree with that although I don't consider myself as a full fledged musical theorist. I just feel the Bsus4 is perfectly resolving into the E minor. Specially when the band comes in. Anyone agree? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I couldn't find verifying material. RobGuitarTeacher (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notes in a Bsus4 would be B, E, and F#. The song is in E minor, so we would expect the Bsus4 to resolve to a B major chord (i.e. the suspended E to resolve to a D#). Since the next chord is actually an E minor, the E in the Bsus4 does not resolve. By modern standards, the chord change isn't really dissonant, and I think that's probably what you're thinking about by saying it is perfectly resolving, but strictly speaking it isn't a resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.161.135 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the "jazz sus chord" section, the definition in the first sentence includes the phrase "on the fifth scale degree of the key". Does this add anything to the definition, and is it even accurate? Ejb11235 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SUS4 SUS2 AMGONUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.214.172 (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the chord given in the example can be interpreted as a G9sus4, it's much more realistic to me to analyze this as F/G. Same with the Wagner and the Bruckner. The pedal tones aren't intended to be roots of these chords, it's just supposed to be an underlying dissonance as the chords shift above it and finally resolve back to consonance. Fraktol (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]