D7(#11) means to add a #11. We don’t need to see D7(add#11). Even Dorico agrees with this. If you don’t know a voicing for this chord, play a D7 or a D9. Both are going to sound fine. The rules I describe come from my own personal experience composing and arranging for LA recording sessions. If “add” is easier for you to read, you should use it. For me, D7(#11) is easier to read. If my software forced me to write “D7(add#11)” I’d want to change it.
I’ve been doing this a long time and I’ve never had a problem in my charts. If I came across a D9(13), I’d just play a D9 on guitar. I’m not sophisticated enough to voice this entire chord on guitar. Maybe you are. The point is, you don’t have to, and in most cases, you shouldn’t even try. You play what you know. The pianist will play the entire chord because it’s possible and easy.
Thanks, that’s all I want --The ability to write chords the way I see fit without needless graphic editing. BTW, my principal instruments are piano, guitar, bass and trumpet – in that order.
Not to beat a dead horse here: But attached is a simple example of, in my opinion, Dorico’s unnecessary use of the word “add” forced into a chord symbol. These chord symbols were entered manually into the popover, and Dorico inserted the word “add” into two of them. For the record, I do not believe the word ‘add’ is required in these two chord symbols. Also note that Dorico doesn’t seem to follow any consistent rules when stacking tensions. hi-lo, lo-hi? My feeling is that Dorico’s default chord symbol behavior needs to be taught a few more rules, specifically when and where to use the word ‘add’, and the logical stacking of tensions, i.e. chose an order and be consistent. The tension stacking order (as shown) was enforced by Dorico, not me. Note how the b13 is placed above the #11 in one case, and immediately following that chord the natural 13 is placed below the #11. This progression is much harder to read than it needs to be, and yet this is the “enforced” representation of these chord symbols in Dorico. In other words, regardless of how I type them into the popover, Dorico gives me these results.
But attached is a simple example of, in my opinion, Dorico’s unnecessary use of the word “add” forced into a chord symbol … (billscores)
In my way of thinking, the ‘add’ in your example is needed (see the discussion above), but and that’s more important: Dorico shouldn’t by no means interfere with your way of thinking about chords. And in the issue of stacking tensions your completely right.
As for the Brandt/Roehmer system, I’ve only seen it mentioned in the series of fake books published by Sher. I don’t know anyone who uses it. Their book has been out of print since the 1970s.
I think their system has some merit, but I also strongly disagree with it in some cases. For example, for a half-diminished chord, their symbol uses seven characters to convey what could be easily expressed with one: mi7(b5) vs. ø.
Hello, I have the same problem. When there are a lot of chord symbol in a staff the “add” it takes up too much space.
I also wish I could eliminate the automaticly “add” for a easier to read.
Moreover, for example, when I want play CDEG in chord, I would like the chance to write chord symbol C2, because the 7 there Is not present.
I have to respectfully disagree with that… C(add2) is what that chord should be called. C2 is Csus2, CDG with the 3rd omitted. That’s why Dorico wouldn’t offer that as an option. The other chord alterations in this thread are different—they are extensions of the triad.
However, this would be solved by allowing any customized chords to apply to all roots, which would give users complete control over their appearance.
Also late to the party, but here’s one aspect that has been missed entirely by now:
Dorico does not “get it right” on #11 or b9 and “fails” on 13 for arbitrary reasons. Dorico use the logic described by someone before, but one important aspect was missing:
Any non-altered option as the first number after the root includes all lower options and the seventh - usually the minor seventh, the indication “maj” calls for a major seventh. En exception is made on major or dominant chords with 13 as the highest option - here the 11th usually is treated as an avoid note and therefore left out.
C9 = C E G Bb D
Cmaj9 = C E G B D
C13 = C E G Bb D A
If however the highest option is altered it can not be written directly after the root, here the highest unaltered option will be taken, an the altered option will be placed behind:
C9b13 = C E (G) Bb D Ab
If we have a higher unaltered option (usually 13) and one or more of the lower tensions are altered, they are written after the unaltered option:
C13#11 = C E G Bb d F# A
If we have a low unaltered option (9) or only a seventh, each further option is considered a single addition not including other notes, but as unaltered options are easier to notate as the first number after the root instead of the 7, only altered tensions are notated that way, as they must go at the end anyway.
So the reason why Dorico turns C7(13) into C7 (add13) while C7(#9) stays untouched is simply because in this paradigm C7(#9) is a valid chord symbol, whereas C7(13) needs clarification.
It only happens so that both symbols would be valid in your system, which is obviously not the system dorico uses.
same here:
I’d like to write a Eb2 chord which is really often used in more modern jazz-compositions.
And yes there is a difference between Eb2 and Eb9, cause an Eb9 implements that you could also add a 6 in the chord but I don’t want a 6. I want Eb F G Bb.
Hey Leo,
please believe me: I scrolled up and down the Engraving Options at least 15 times and I didn’t see it. Really !
I’m so sorry. Thanx for helping !
But I understand that you want to play Eb F G Bb. That is not an Eb2. Eb2 is the same as Ebsus2 and it is Eb F Bb without the third (G). What you want to play is an Eb triad with a F, so an Ebadd2. See what dankreider pointed out on the first post of this second page and the options for suspended second chords that pianoleo shows in the picture.
I respectfully disagree. I write Eb2 to mean Eb. F. G. Bb. I’ve never had problems writing it for others and that is what is expected from others when I’m playing. If I want Eb, F, Bb with definitely no G, the safe way of writing that is Bbsus/Eb
All this debate just convinces me that 17th century composers were very wise not to have invented the notion of “chords” at all. Figured bass doesn’t have any of these issues - just count the intervals from the bottom note, and job done
But between writing Ebsus2 (Eb F Bb) and Bbsus/Eb I must say I prefer the former way. For harmonic analysis is clearer to me too that an Eb chord was intended and not a Bb, at least in a Jazz context. And my understanding is at least that Ebsus2 and Eb2 are synonyms. I understand that you do not handle it this way, though. Regarding omit3, I would use this form in complexer forms of chords, but not in something like a triad with 2 and no 3, what for me is clearly a sus2.
I agree with Steve: in Ebsus2 you miss the 3rd, which you have in Eb2…I agree that Ebadd2 and Eb2 is the same, but not Ebsus2 and Eb2…but hey…no use in discussing that too much. As long as everybody knows what to play, it’s fine
Oh, come on, it is a beautiful cold Winter Sunday morning here, I want to discuss!
Bei dir aber Sommer und Nachmittag, ich vermute. Zeit sich zu bewegen und zu spielen…
It would be good if chord symbols were standardised… But when anyone tries it, I don’t like some and continue to use what I’m used to…therein lies the problem. In big band music, every other chart has its own way…
…but Bbsus/Eb looks much better though 