Re:Chords and what they mean

[Blöchl Bernhard]

Am 21.09.2015 08:14, schrieb address@hidden:

> ...  It's not the absence of the third; the third is not the
> thing that's being suspended.

You are correct. With removing the third you eliminate the character of 
the "chord" as major or minor to avoid clashes etc. to suspend ... And 
it is not a "chord" any longer but a necessary prerequisite for the 
technique of "suspension" as you described. (And may be one adds an 
additional tone for suspension...) But it has become synonyme for the 
technique of removing the third and everybody will interpret any "sus" 
with this implication irrespective of music theory.

> And so if we're using that definition of
> suspension, a chord with just the root and fifth, such as might be 
> written
> C5 , is not suspended.  I realize this is not necessarily the current
> usage of the term.

If c:sus is a simple way to get C5 and I like it better than c^3, why 
should not one use it? The syntax of Lilypond is "music notation for 
everyone" and not ( I think it is not planed to be ) a map of music 
theory. To map music theory you need "rule based programs" or the 
methods of "artificial intelligence" and do not forget that taste and 
theory of music will change.

And let me add: Why should not a 5 "chord" suspend in your sense or 
transit to a new tonality?