Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Isn't Fsus2no3 redundant?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Isn't Fsus2no3 redundant?

    I ran across Fsus2no3 in a piece of music recently. I looked up the chord on chorderator.com but afterward I thought about it and realized a sus2 wouldn't have a 3rd anyway because the 2nd takes the palce of the 3rd. Am I missing something or is it just a screwy way of naming the chord?
    Official HCAG “Theory-Challenged Hack”
    Member of the IBANEZ ACOUSTIC ASSASSINS
    Proud Member of The Alvarez Alliance
    Person-2-Person on the Web

  • #2
    Ya that's screwy. No 3rd is implied.



    I have noticed often, that mistake and believe they are thinking of an add9 chord, which would normally have the 3rd of course so their (no third) would make sense.
    Originally Posted by GW348


    I just let the pee flow. The places I play, no one notices or have peed themselves too.




    RIP Wayne Murray

    **************** YOU CANCER!!

    Comment


    • #3
      When you think about it, chord naming conventions are screwy in general. In the absense of notation, knowing the name says nothing about the inversion, does it? Space those three notes differently, over a couple of differnt octaves and they could sound like any number of chords. The map isn't the terrain.

      Comment



      Working...
      X