|
When I chart out a G7sus4 with note labels, some of the charts show chords with only three tones ... 1,4,b7 ... while other charts show an extra fourth tone labeled as a five in parentheses. Example: (5) I thought the G7sus4 was ALWAYS constructed with four tones. I don't know what the parentheses around the 5 indicate, and I don't understand why the five is not always present in every chart. Does anyone know why? Here's a link to the exact page I was looking at: |
|
The G7 chords also lack the absolute presence of the 5, so I don't think it's the sus4 aspect of the chord that provokes writers to make the 5 optional. I think the 7th chords find their distinction in the flat 7. So, if somebody claimed to be playing a G7 without the F, then that would probably stand out. I'm with you on the assumption that 7 chords by definition should have 4 tones, but again, guitarists know that it's all about the sound--so ty it with and without the 5 and see which fits best. (There's probably somebody on here with the technical explanation, but you're sure to hear multiple explanations that contradict.) Peace. |
|
The parenthesis around the 5th indicate that the tone is optional in this chord. Many musicians consider the 5th to be optional in 7th chords. That's why some of the chord shapes don't have a 5th. 1
There's your answer, Kevin. Accept now for entry into our prize-drawing contest! (Prize winner gets an answer to his question.)
(10 May '10, 12:09)
Mark C
|
|
Personally, I don't like the 5 in 7sus4 chords. The 1-4-b7 has a certain feel to it. I think it's the fact that it contains two unbroken perfect fourths, which are complemented by the whole tone dissonance between the b7 and the octave. When you put the 5 in, it breaks up the second perfect fourth. I think this works a lot better as a sus4add9 chord (G7sus4=Csus4add9). The two sound pretty similar, but if you substitute one for the other, it changes the feel of a progression entirely. |
