What Are These Chords Called?

[GuitarToneFreak]

I've been using these chords for a while because they sound incredible, but I have no idea what they're called - if they have a name. Here's an example,

e
B
G 9
D 7
A 5
E

The way I see it is, it's an A chord with a D root, but that doesn't seem "right", it seems like there should be more to it than that.

Also, I was wondering what this chord would be called. Basically, if I have a D chord with a G root, what would that be called?

e 0
B 3
G 2
D 0
A 0
E 3

I leave the little e open, I don't know if that changes the potential name or not.

And then as you go down the root, from G to F#, to E - what is that called? Is it just a chord with a descending or no root?

Thanks for any help guys, as always I appreciate it

[Malikon]

first chord is D9

You've got a root (D), a 5th (A), and a 9 (E)

the second one I'd probably call Dsus2/G.

Changing the G to F# or E I'd probably write Dsus2/F# or Dsus2/E

[huw]

Well everything can change depending on context, of course (and if there are other instruments playing etc)...

Originally Posted by Malikon

first chord is D9

You've got a root (D), a 5th (A), and a 9 (E)...

D9 would be DF#ACE - ie what we have here is missing the 3rd & the 7th. With just the DA&E that's a Dsus2.

...the second one I'd probably call Dsus2/G.

Or you could also call it a G6sus2. Depends on context

...Changing the G to F#... I'd probably write Dsus2/F#...

This is an odd one: having the F# there (the 3rd of D) completes the D major triad & means that technically it's Dadd9(1st inversion), but your way is a heck of a lot easier to read!

[Malikon]

yeah I go for simplicity.

The D9 he listed is like the 'power chord' variety, because it will work with distortion. Even diads I end up giving chord names to. If you play a root E and a minor 3rd G, I'll still think of it as Em even though there's no B involved.

so,...yeah. I just like to keep it simple. Overthinking just complicates things and gets people confused.

[River]

GTF, you may find this site helpful: Guitar Chord Finder

It identifies most of the weird shit I come up with, and shows the alternative chord names. Jamming with jazz and highly advanced players, I find the alternative, context-based names very helpful. Turns out I can usually play along with their advanced chords from Hell with a little three-finger triad I learned as something else.

Regards that Dsus2/Asus4 - how fookin' long are your fingers, anyway? I can't play that form worth shit.

[Eric Smith]

I call that 1st one a hell of a stretch and the 2nd one D2sus/G.

[GuitarToneFreak]

Originally Posted by Malikon

yeah I go for simplicity.

The D9 he listed is like the 'power chord' variety, because it will work with distortion. Even diads I end up giving chord names to. If you play a root E and a minor 3rd G, I'll still think of it as Em even though there's no B involved.

so,...yeah. I just like to keep it simple. Overthinking just complicates things and gets people confused.

Yeah, it definitely works with distortion - and sounds great at that. Lots of cool sounds to be had by moving that position around on the neck.

So, the one I listed is D9, is that universal? So if I move down to C as my root, or move to F# as the root, those would be C9 and F#9 respectively?

Originally Posted by River

GTF, you may find this site helpful: Guitar Chord Finder

It identifies most of the weird shit I come up with, and shows the alternative chord names. Jamming with jazz and highly advanced players, I find the alternative, context-based names very helpful. Turns out I can usually play along with their advanced chords from Hell with a little three-finger triad I learned as something else.

Regards that Dsus2/Asus4 - how fookin' long are your fingers, anyway? I can't play that form worth shit.

Cool site River, thanks!

Long enough I guess It took a lot of practice though, a LOT of practice. When I was first learning them I tried to go too fast, and my pinkie (used to fret the G string in my example) wouldn't make it to the needed fret. I've gotten better, but I still can't go too fast, but I'm getting faster

Lots and lots of hand cramping, like anything with the guitar it doesn't come easy, but I'm glad I learned it - the sounds are incredible

[Malikon]

Originally Posted by GuitarToneFreak

Yeah, it definitely works with distortion - and sounds great at that. Lots of cool sounds to be had by moving that position around on the neck.

So, the one I listed is D9, is that universal? So if I move down to C as my root, or move to F# as the root, those would be C9 and F#9 respectively?

I would consider them so, yes. Others may argue however. I see/hear a root/5th/and a 9. To me that makes it a 9 chord. Some might write it a different way, like D5add9, or something. Like I said I just keep it simple personally. I see root/5th/9, so I'd think of it as D9. Though technically D5add9 would be more accurate.

Look up 'Every Breath You Take' by The Police if you really want to give your hand a workout playing those chords.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Malikon

I would consider them so, yes. Others may argue however. I see/hear a root/5th/and a 9. To me that makes it a 9 chord. Some might write it a different way, like D5add9, or something. Like I said I just keep it simple personally. I see root/5th/9, so I'd think of it as D9. Though technically D5add9 would be more accurate.

See huw's post above.
root-5th-9th is known conventionally as Dsus2.
"D9" is a full D7 chord with 9th added.

IOW, there are accepted conventions for these things, we don't all call them as we like .

Originally Posted by Malikon

Look up 'Every Breath You Take' by The Police if you really want to give your hand a workout playing those chords.

Yes! The second chord, F#madd9, is the worst:

----
----
-2--
-6--
-4--
-2--

"madd9", btw, not "sus2", because the b3 of the chord is included. (All the chords in that song have 9ths added - most are major, and are slightly easier, but the basic 1-5-9 form is the same.)

He plays pure sus2s in Message in a Bottle - four of them, moving pretty swiftly up and down the neck. You get a brief view at 0:39 here:

Police 2007 - Message In A Bottle - YouTube

Police 2007 - Message In A Bottle - YouTube

(and he misses one of them shortly afterwards... the boy needs more practice... he did them perfectly as a younger man.)

[Malikon]

Originally Posted by JonR

IOW, there are accepted conventions for these things, we don't all call them as we like .

I do. You should hear some of my purple chords, or the orange ones, ... the orange ones are sweet.

In reality every chord seems to have multiple names, and people calling them different things. I say D5add9 as power chords, you say Dsus2.

Same chord, same outcome.


Chords are funny, lots of people look at the same chord and see 2 different things, even when they're both correct, (Is it G6? or Em/G?) Kinda the same thing really.

It's why I usually tend to avoid these threads. It always turns into a pissing match over naming conventions.

Theory is flexible. Sadly most guitarists are not. (and the ones who actually went to school to study theory are the most rigid of the bunch. Because they paid for that education,...and damnit.....it's gonna mean something!)

I get into argument/discussions with theory guys all the time (here in Chicago, in person). Because they're completely inflexible.

For example:

I believe the bass should play the root note of a chord,...it's the root after all, and it's a bass,...bass plays root.

But I know guys that will always substitute inversions. (Say over A, they're going to play C#) My argument? "It's an A chord, play an A!"

Their argument? "C# is part of A"

*(sigh)

Yes,...it is,....but it sounds BAD!!! What's the point of playing if you're going to intellectualize everything and make it sound BAD?? Ears trump brain every time.

Complicated rarely improves a song.

So like I said earlier,...I keep it all simple.

I like simple.

Simple rocks, and shakes asses.

I like watching girls shake ass,........so,...I keep it simple.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Malikon

I do. You should hear some of my purple chords, or the orange ones, ... the orange ones are sweet.

In reality every chord seems to have multiple names, and people calling them different things. I say D5add9 as power chords, you say Dsus2.

There's nothing wrong with your names, except you're in a tiny minority. The vast majority (not just me ) say Dsus2. That's reason enough for using the latter name in a forum like this. (I wouldn't want to stop you from using a name you prefer - that makes more sense to you - in private! Your name may be more logical in absolute terms, but that's not really the point.)

Naming chords ought to be about avoiding confusion as much as possible. If we see "D9" in a chord chart we need to know what to play. We need to know what the writer is likely to have meant. That means going with convention. If he meant Dsus2, and we end up playing D9, the fault is his, not ours.

IOW, there are conventions, it isn't a free for all. There's a well understood system of chord symbol language. Not always as logical as it might be (because it's evolved out of common practices, it wasn't designed by some music theory authority), but it is all pretty much universally accepted.

Originally Posted by Malikon

Chords are funny, lots of people look at the same chord and see 2 different things, even when they're both correct, (Is it G6? or Em/G?) Kinda the same thing really.

Right, but those two names - which are part of convention - convey the same set of notes. So no problem there.
Likewise, there is no problem with "D5add9", if you want to use that - it's perfectly descriptive (arguably better than Dsus2). But most people will squint at that name and say "ah, he means Dsus2 - but OK I see what he's getting at".
("Dsus2" refers more to the derivation of the chord from a triad, which might be voiced a few ways; "D5add9" refers to this specific 1-5-9 voicing. Chord symbols traditionally do not have to specify voicing, although it's obviously quite useful if they can sometimes.)
What would cause a problem is naming it "D9", because that symbol is well known as standing for a different chord.

Originally Posted by Malikon

It's why I usually tend to avoid these threads. It always turns into a pissing match over naming conventions.

It's not a pissing match, unless you want to piss into the wind...

Originally Posted by Malikon

Theory is flexible.

No it isn't. Not proper theory.
Anybody can invent their own theory if they want (to make sense of music in their own heads), but when it comes to communicating with other musicians - one of the main purposes of theory - we need a common language. Otherwise what's the point?
You're speaking English here, and using good grammar and spelling. If you made up your own spelling and grammar - or even your own language - who's going to understand you?

Originally Posted by Malikon

Sadly most guitarists are not. (and the ones who actually went to school to study theory are the most rigid of the bunch. Because they paid for that education,...and damnit.....it's gonna mean something!)

I didn't pay for any education. I learned all this from playing, looking at songbooks, etc. It's not hard to pick up the conventions.
If you want to make your own music on your own terms, that's fine. You can even pull some like minds around you and share your own theory terms. But - as you may well agree - there's no point joining a theory discussion here if you're going to bring your own language. It doesn't really help anyone. It makes you sound ignorant - no offence, because I'm sure (musically at least) you're not.

Originally Posted by Malikon

I get into argument/discussions with theory guys all the time (here in Chicago, in person). Because they're completely inflexible.

Because they like to go with standard terminology, and don't see the point of your personal language?

Originally Posted by Malikon

For example:

I believe the bass should play the root note of a chord,...it's the root after all, and it's a bass,...bass plays root.

That's a very narrow view. I'm not surprised you get into arguments... (It also, unfortunately. makes you sound ignorant. You haven't listened to much bass playing if you think they always play roots... I mean, you have a right to "believe" they should, in your opinion. But it's no good telling a bassist that, without some kind of explanation for your belief. Saying "it's the root after all" is not an explanation.

Originally Posted by Malikon

But I know guys that will always substitute inversions.

"Always"? Really?

Originally Posted by Malikon

(Say over A, they're going to play C#) My argument? "It's an A chord, play an A!"

Their argument? "C# is part of A"

*(sigh)

Yes,...it is,....but it sounds BAD!!! What's the point of playing if you're going to intellectualize everything and make it sound BAD?? Ears trump brain every time.

Sure they do. But there's plenty of times when a C# bass on an A chord sounds better than the root. Maybe that's what they're thinking.
I know lots of bass players - and I'm sometimes one myself - and we all know when it's a good idea to play the root (which is most of the time), and when it might be a better idea to play a C#. And we wouldn't think much of anyone who suggests the root should ALWAYS be played, as a fixed rule.
Of course, if you're the composer, or arranger, you have a right to insist on what bass note you want! But not because there's some general rule.

At the same time, if a bassist thinks C# is a good idea, he should be polite enough to explain why he thinks so. Bassists know the role of bass better than other musicians, and you should respect that; even so, if you're in charge and it's not the sound you want...

(I suspect, in fact, you're thinking of a particular style of rock music where the bass does normally play little else but roots, at least on beat 1. I imagine a lot of bassists don't like to be that inhibited, and I'd sympathise with you in that case - there are times when over-imaginative bassists can be a PITA . When I'm on bass, I have no problem restricting myself to roots if I can tell that gives the best sound for the song.)

Originally Posted by Malikon

Complicated rarely improves a song.

Agreed. (But a C# bass on an A chord may not be "too complicated".)

[Malikon]

I do not have a 'personal language' despite your insistence to the contrary.

You say, "Your name may be more logical in absolute terms, but that's not really the point."

well, yeah actually it is.

In post #8 I made the point that it's really a D5add9, but that others would probably argue about it. So notice that before you ever commented, I told the OP exactly to the letter what chord he was playing.

In post #9 you started with what I was expecting, which is why I usually avoid these threads ....


Tell anyone to play a Dsus2, and they're going to have an octave of the root, or octaves of the 5th. They're going to play it at the 2nd position (open) or 5th position (barred). Which is not what the composer/OP wants them to play. Tell them to play D5add9, and they're going to play what the OP originally wrote. But still, you're arguing semantics. What notes are Dsus2? D,A,E. What notes are D5add9? D,A,E. You're correct in that in post #2 I should've elaborated further instead of just saying D9, which would imply there is an F# in there. I should've just said D5add9 in the original post #2 instead of post #8, but instead was trying to quickly answer the mans question. That was my fault for being lazy.

Also I did not say the bass should 'always' play the root, but the majority of the time? Yes. If the majority of the time the bassist is playing the 3rd because he thinks he's clever, he's not holding down the root of the chord, he's making the song sound bad. (which I have been through with 'clever' bassists that know some theory.) I'm very familiar with bass and have been playing it as long as guitar (with fingers, not a pick) and am pretty fluid in most bass styles.

But I see the pissing has officially begun and so will now take my leave. Before I go I will say though, "You're right! Oh my god all these years I've been wrong!" Because judging from past experiences that's just what you wish to hear and will most likely pursue some tiring argument until you feel you've bested me. Good show ol' chap. You Win!

Enjoy your theory and I will continue to enjoy making "logical in absolute terms" music.

Good day.

[GhostToMost]

Originally Posted by River

GTF, you may find this site helpful: Guitar Chord Finder

It identifies most of the weird shit I come up with, and shows the alternative chord names. Jamming with jazz and highly advanced players, I find the alternative, context-based names very helpful. Turns out I can usually play along with their advanced chords from Hell with a little three-finger triad I learned as something else.

Regards that Dsus2/Asus4 - how fookin' long are your fingers, anyway? I can't play that form worth shit.

Outstanding, River. I "come up" with a ton of strange formations as well. Usually from just screwing around. Nice to now what the hell they are.

[Sinster]

Originally Posted by Malikon

Theory is flexible. :

+1

and just theory..

[River]

(Clash of the Titans. Get it? I learn more from watching you guys go at it than, well, pretty much anything else.)

[River]

Originally Posted by GhostToMost

Outstanding, River. I "come up" with a ton of strange formations as well. Usually from just screwing around. Nice to now what the hell they are.

It is, because it allows you to swim with the big fish using only two or three fingers and half a wrist/forearm. It don't get no better than that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by River

It is, because it allows you to swim with the big fish using only two or three fingers and half a wrist/forearm. It don't get no better than that.

One thing I love doing is paring down those encyclopedia chords down to a 3 and a 7. That will tell you 95% of what you need to know about tonality in almost every progression.

********

Also, I play Dsus2:

0-------
----3---
----2---
0-------
x-------
x-------

Does that make me the Evil Imperator Overlord?

Please?

[Boppy]

Gosh, Thump.
Your avatar is horrifying.
Can you use one of these instead?

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Malikon

In post #8 I made the point that it's really a D5add9, but that others would probably argue about it.

Well, I agreed that "D5add9" describes this particular voicing (shape) perfectly.

My main disagreement was with your other choice of "D9" (which huw also pointed out was incorrect).

My only other disagreement was that D5add9 was an unorthodox symbol. The orthodox symbol is Dsus2. That's only "better" because it's conventional. Because a shared language is what we want, even if it is flawed. (We understand the flaws.)

Originally Posted by Malikon

Tell anyone to play a Dsus2, and they're going to have an octave of the root, or octaves of the 5th. They're going to play it at the 2nd position (open) or 5th position (barred). Which is not what the composer/OP wants them to play.

Well, you're making various assumptions here.

Conventional chord symbol language - for better or worse - is not designed to tell us what voicing to play. It's only supposed to tell us what notes we need. "Dsus2" tells us we need the notes D, A and E, and it's up to us what kind of shape we play. I'd probably go with this:

-0-
-3-
-2-
-0-
-x-
-x-

That has an additional D not present in the OP's 1-5-9 voicing. This is not a big deal, in any practical situation. It's not going to sound wrong. It's the same chord, to all intents and purposes.

Originally Posted by Malikon

Tell them to play D5add9, and they're going to play what the OP originally wrote.

Not necessarily. D5add9 could easily describe the chord I just posted. How would we know only a 1-5-9 voicing was required, with only one of each note?

Originally Posted by Malikon

But still, you're arguing semantics. What notes are Dsus2? D,A,E. What notes are D5add9? D,A,E.

Precisely! So in what way is D5add9 better?

See I'm actually changing my mind here! I first thought D5add9 described the voicing in question better, but actually it doesn't.
Of course the difference is between "2" and "9", and the latter does imply a higher note; but then most people who understand conventional symbols know that "2" can be - and usually is - voiced high in the chord.

Originally Posted by Malikon

You're correct in that in post #2 I should've elaborated further instead of just saying D9, which would imply there is an F# in there

And a C

Originally Posted by Malikon

. I should've just said D5add9 in the original post #2 instead of post #8, but instead was trying to quickly answer the mans question. That was my fault for being lazy.

OK. Sorry to harangue you at such length!

Originally Posted by Malikon

Also I did not say the bass should 'always' play the root, but the majority of the time? Yes.

Actually no. Here's the actual sentence:

I believe the bass should play the root note of a chord,...it's the root after all, and it's a bass,...bass plays root.

OK, you didn't say "always" - but neither did you say "majority of the time". In the absence of any qualification, it looks like it means "always". (I realise now you didn't mean to say that, but you see how it can be misread.)

Originally Posted by Malikon

If the majority of the time the bassist is playing the 3rd because he thinks he's clever, he's not holding down the root of the chord, he's making the song sound bad.

If that's really the case, I agree with you.
I just find it hard to believe any bassist would do that the "majority" of the time.

Originally Posted by Malikon

(which I have been through with 'clever' bassists that know some theory.) I'm very familiar with bass and have been playing it as long as guitar (with fingers, not a pick) and am pretty fluid in most bass styles.

But I see the pissing has officially begun and so will now take my leave. Before I go I will say though, "You're right! Oh my god all these years I've been wrong!" Because judging from past experiences that's just what you wish to hear and will most likely pursue some tiring argument until you feel you've bested me. Good show ol' chap. You Win!

Enjoy your theory and I will continue to enjoy making "logical in absolute terms" music.

Good day.

Oh. So it looks like you won't be reading this after all.
But if you are...
I don't like upsetting people (really), I'm only making a case for careful use of terminology. That's because I know from experience how much time is wasted (and people needlessly confused - and even upset sometimes) by words being used carelessly.
I realise my pedantry may seem at odds with the informal nature of this forum!
I apologise if I've seemed argumentative. This isn't about "winning".
You know exactly what you mean. So do I. We don't always type the clearest expressions of what we mean to say.

[Malikon]

agreed.

no hard feelings.