[Peter Oxford]

Most of the confusion hereabouts appears to stem from lack of clarity in the original posters question.

Guitarists refer to the top string as the highest in pitch. The original poster seemed to think that the physical position of the string from the ground up as the guitar is played defined which was top.

Something any Guitar tuition book on the planet would have clarified. Invest in one.




It is clearly, either an E/A (A Bass) Chord or an A Maj9th.




The composer would choose which to name it, depending on the overall musical context, (especially what the bass is doing relative to the other instruments) and it should be clear from the musical arrangement, which it would actually be.




But there are some good things to grasp in this thread if you want to.

The first thing is that how we understand such details, has evolved over the years.

And what we understand would depend upon what we were taught and how those that taught us were taught themselves, and so on.




Imagine a time when no Internet Google search existed, no Tuition DVD’s, few if any Books, and everything, even the work of specialists teachers and Musical Colleges, was much more individual and different, and quite separate both within any given country but most especially, from country to country. Around the world, some of these very profound differences in musical notation still remain.




Many, many decades ago, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people would have been clearly taught that any two or more notes sounded simultaneously formed a Chord.

Today, the relationship of Intervals are normally taught first, which gives us an underlying grasp of how the names of chords come about, before we learn about chords, and this is then followed by the common and then the more complex compound names of chords.

And so, two notes are known as and referred to as intervals, and three or more notes are a chord, (in my day three note chords would have been called a triad), because the additional note gives more information and clearer and greater clues about the nature and character of what is the composer’s overall intent, harmonically speaking.




To my mind, this difference, is essentially about teaching, and the flow of introducing ideas, to aid the understanding of the student, rather than any thing else of import.




The second thing is that although chords can exist in isolation, it is true to say that in most forms of Western music, they are used in progression.

In other words, we need to understand how they relate to one another.

This becomes all the more important when, and as, the chords we are using are made up of a larger number of notes.

We need to distinguish 'close' and 'open' harmonies (as with triads), chords where notes are repeated at different pitches, and chords where 'extra' notes are included (i.e. 7th, 9th, etc.).

As we increase the number of different notes we find that the same arrangement of notes can be 'named' in more than one way and there are also many more 'inversions' possible.

It is for this reason that the musical context is everything, and that composers and musical arrangers alike, should choose chord names that precisely define that. Alas, it is often the case that they don’t, as not all modern recorded composers are properly trained in musical theory.




For my self, it is clear that some chord names have been changed over the years, (greatly to my lament) and that the advent of the internet has caused such changes. Today, in my opinion, some have become more complex and difficult to understand, where as, if the tenants of strict musical theory had properly been applied, they would have remained far more simple to understand and remember.

Thus, as we have already seen, the key (no pun intended) to good understanding of the name of chords, is a proper appreciation of the root and the nature of intervals.




I prefer to clearly keep root chord names properly relative to the key in which the piece is written in and properly relative to the interval. Though such will seem obvious, put as it is, there are none the less, glaring instances of what I regard as the unintuitive use of chord names one encounters from time to time.


Such misuse has come about via the internet where misinformation is rife, and the work of very well intentioned individuals that lack formal training in musical form and theory. Though it is fair to point out that many chords could have quite different names, quite correctly.





If the key is predominated by flats, I gravitate towards thinking in term of flats, and choose chord names especially for complex compound chords that reflect that. If the piece is dominated by sharps, I do the opposite. In other words as the musician works through the piece, he doesn’t suddenly need to throw his thinking into an entirely different mode, untimely presented with a chord name that reflects a different musical situation.

The question here is not whether the name of the chord is correct from an arbitrary technical point of view. It might well be so.

The essential salient point is, does it make musical sense in the context of the harmonic progression taking place?

You see, if it doesn’t, then it interrupts and impedes the logical progression of thought of the player.

This is my dispute with a lot of what I regard as unintuitive usage.

The question is not whether something is right so much.

As will it help or impede the player.





The third point to make is this.

Working Musicians understanding of these matters commonly differ from that of Musical Theorists.

For the working musician, every day practical chord notation can be much simpler because far, far fewer chord patterns are met with in real life than can be imagined by the fevered mind of an academic theorist.

The performer may wish to be free to indulge in melodic and harmonic extemporisation and for this reason, jazz notation for instance, is not prescriptive, rather it is descriptive of general ideas that might arise from the shape of a melody or from a series of chord progression around which a composition is based.

So, many of the arguments that arise around the precise names of an actual chord can be properly understood, once you make this vital distinction in your mind.

The real point to make is that it is incumbent upon the Composer or Arranger to serve the musician well, and to provide him with absolute clarity in well presented notation removing ambiguity where a specific sequence is required.





My way, in musical arranging is as follows, and though I do not present it as all defining, I trust it may help someone along the way.

Even if I created a 32 Stave Master Score, for a project, and each player gets their individual part, I commonly, also create a 3 Stave Score, which forms a quick and easy to read, but fairly comprehensive and highly illustrative overall view of every thing that is going on, especially for Rhythm Section Players and significant others.

This may include descriptive notes about other major parts, kick ins and fills and even production effects, and so on, in addition to their own clearly written part. In other words right from the start, before ever a note is played, they have a clear understanding of their precise role and a firm grasp of the overall musical context within which they will need to perform.

Elite Session Players are extremely talented indeed, and as soon as they get a clear idea of what precisely is required of them, they can usually provide you with a better part than you could have ever written yourself, on the first or second take.

Some are great sight readers, whilst others are not. Providing the information they require in the form most acceptable to them then, is important, for the clarity and the form in which the information is transmitted needs to be intuitive to them. This is why one might provide a written description with a notated part.

I like to give them a ‘bird’s eye view’ or if you like ‘a vision’ of what the finished product will be like.





It’s worth contemplating for a moment, that in a great many cases, Session players are forced to perform (with very much expected of them) in situations where they have only the slimmest of grasps on what is actually required of them prior to the down beat, and an even slimmer grasp of how that will relate to everything else.

That they are able to deliver a usable performance under such circumstances is ample testament to their very considerable talents. But what great music they could have delivered we do not need to imagine, as it can be clearly heard on outstanding sessions where their redoubtable talents have been primed with proper preparation.




Although this takes some trouble to do, I have found it usually helps everyone, whatever their job is, and of course, ultimately it helps me too.

You see the human Ear and Brain is only capable of absorbing so much at a time, and distilling the elements of a highly complex piece to its primary essentials, helps greatly in all matters of good mix and balance.

Its worth contemplating that Conductors, Musical Arrangers, Balance (or Mix) Engineers, Producers and Mastering Engineers are all pre-eminently concerned with presenting properly balanced sound.




In other words, I see a Conductor, Musical Arranger, or a Producers role primarily as being that of a ‘Servant’ rather than that of a ‘Master’.

They are their to facilitate, to clarify, make everything easy however difficult it might be, to create a highly creative situation, an atmosphere in which everything possible has been done, to optimise and provide the very best possible opportunity for the Artists to perform absolutely ideally.

Make no mistake. This is what all real Artist’s really want them selves, to perform at their best.

That many are frustrated and hindered from doing so, by the very people that engage them is deep salient and substantial food for soul searching reflection.

Proper preparation is always well appreciated and heartily commented upon by working musicians in my experience. In fact it nearly always provokes strongly hilarious comment regarding the ridiculously ill prepared situations, they sometimes have to encounter, in what forms the daily fare of their work.

Proper Preparation Precedes Pre-eminently Powerful Performance.

Above all, the names of the chords should make sense.

Musical coherence in form and context.



As the original poster has eminently exposed.

Without clarity and understanding.

Confusion can only result.






P