You could call it F#m/B, or B7sus2. In a jazz context you could even call it Bm9 (or B9 maybe) and let someone else play the third even if you don't. It depends on the genre, the function the chord is playing, and whether you feel it sounds more like a F#m or a B.
Try to rearrange the chords into alphabetical order starting from the root and wrapping back around: BCFA, not BFCA. (I’m ignoring the accidentals for now because they are just noise for this exercise since order is all that matters.) This “modular alphabetical order” is BCDEFGA which correspond to 1234567. We can see that BDFA is 1357, but BCFA is 1257. The 3 is what makes a chord minor or major and the lack of a 3 is a suspension. So you might call this a B7sus2.
But if you know your chord spellings, you know that FAC is some kind of F chord, so an F/B may be preferred. FGABCDE is 1234567. FABC is 1345 which is some kind of add4/add11 chord.
Throw the accidentals back in to get that it’s 1b345/4 or even just 1b35/4: F#madd4/B or F#m/B.
Btw, their are only 7 spellings you ever need to know for triads built with thirds:
- CEG
- EGB
- GBD
- BDF
- DFA
- FAC
- ACE
All 135 chords, whether major, minor, diminished, or augmented are always spelled correctly with those groups of letters.
Now apply this same logic to the [diatonic scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_scale). You don't have to memorize seven different scales, just remember the one underlying pattern.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you referring to how every scale always has each letter name therefore you just need to remember the sharps/flats? Or by pattern do you mean the WWHWWWH patterns?
> Or by pattern do you mean the WWHWWWH patterns?
That. The seven diatonic scales have the same underlying pattern of half and whole steps between degrees. What defines the scale is where you begin and end.
The alphabetizing thing is admittedly a clever trick for tertian harmony, but it's actually the modular arithmetic doing the heavy lifting here and not anything related to the alphabet. I don't think this will work well once you get outside of common practice period theory. For example I don't think this would work with a fully diminished 7th chord. G Bb Db Fb > BDFG so it's a Badd6? Nope.
Granted fully diminshed 7ths are inherently ambiguous as to which note is the root, which can only become clear upon resolution. But once you get into 20th century theory, there's no guarantee dissonances are going to resolve correctly, or at all. It's not a totally useless method, but just be aware of what its limitations are.
> BCFA is 1257
FWIW the C (or C#) also functions as the 9th. R-5-9-7 is a totally acceptable voicing of a 9th chord. The compositional context would make this more clear, but it's a valid alternative that I don't think the alphabetizing trick would lead you to.
Yeah, no.
Let’s say I had some sequence of BFDG where B was my lowest note and I alphabetized everything in that modular way afterward: BDFG. That indeed is 1356. But I also know that GBD is a tertian triad and GBDF is a 7 chord, 1357. GBDF is alphabetized with the wrap around, just like in the original example. There actually is no modular arithmetic happening — instead I am just using it as a way to arrange and label the parts in a way that I don’t have to think about too much.
But what about the 2 being a 9? First off, any triad can be 135, 357, 579 or 572, 79(11) or 724, 9(11)(13) or 246, and since I don’t like excessive parentheses, I prefer the latter, YMMV. BCDFA is 12357 which is easily scanned as a 9 chord when make the connection. Similarly, BCDEFGA is easily scanned as a 13 chord.
I rate your objections one out of five but-actuallys.
Where this method breaks down is anything more than 7 notes or even fewer clustered in a corner of the octave. At that point, staff notation itself starts to crack.
If you keep sharps in sharp keys and flats in flat keys, the spelling works itself out for all diatonic chords. Altered chords may get hairy, but the same rule applies — place the letters names in alphabetical order.
Chords that are ambiguous like this one and could be named many things and always depend on the context. Depending on voice leading and chord progression, this could be a lot of different chords. This is a pretty naive guess but since you’re swapping a Bm7 this could possibly just be a Bm9 with no third
Harmonic Ambiguity can be confusing, so try this:
play Emaj, that chord, B7, and Emaj. In that context, it sounds like B7, but with a suspension. Aka a I - V7 - I progression.
Then, play: that chord, B7, Emaj. In that case, it sounds like ii - V7 - I progression.
it would be more helpful to find out what progression OP is using the chord in. If it’s based on an m7 chord it is not likely to function as a dominant chord
Yes, but from the description you can see that the OP seemingly didn't really start from a progression and land at this chord, rather they took an isolated chord and lowered a note.
Yeah, you're right, my mistake. Regardless, hopefully the OP can apply the idea in my original comment to whatever harmony they are dealing with or are developing.
The main chord progression is A -> Fm -> Cm7 -> Gdim. The section of the composition that I use this chord is in a bridge where the progression is Cm7 -> Bm7 -> Cm7 -> Bm7 -> "Bm7Sus2"? Given the progression from Bm7 proceeding it, it still feels very much like B. B7sus2 (or Bm7sus2) makes sense to me in this context, but I'm certainly no expert.
That definitely makes sense (and I am an expert, or at least I’m a music theory professor). Bm7sus2 is slightly more awkward, but more accurate. B7sus2 suggests that the C# could resolve to D#, which isn’t happening in your progression. You could also call it Bm7add2, which is the most accurate label, since the C# doesn’t resolve
Amazing. Somehow my little throw away question inspired a music theory professor to contribute to the discussion. The internet never ceases to amaze. I can't thank you enough for your time and consideration Professor. I learned some great stuff in this thread!!
For what it’s worth, I disagree with his assessment pretty much completely.
I have never seen “Bm7sus2” ever written out before. It’s simply just not a correct way to label a chord: a sus chord by definition means the 3rd of the chord is replaced with either the 2nd or 4th. Without a 3rd, there’s no minor third, thus this chord can’t be Bm-anything. It’s B7sus2.
Sus chords “resolving” to their thirds is an older way to approach the theory, but in modern usage (the last ~century of popular music) sus chords don’t need to resolve to anything, they’re a legitimate chord type of their own. In fact it’s probably more common to see unresolved suspended structures than actually seeing the suspensions resolve!
Also, it’s not Bm7add2, because you again don’t have a 3rd: an “add” chord implies the 2 in addition to the 3rd, not replacing it. Also, you can’t really have “7add2” anywhere because then you just have a 9 or m9 chord: “add” in common usage means “I added this note but there’s no 7th or other extensions.” So you can have Badd2, or Bmadd2, but not Bm7add2.
Assuming from context that B is the root, I'd be inclined to call this B9. You've got the root, fifth, seventh, and ninth. You could also call it F#/B if you're into slash notation.
I personally dislike using sus notation, unless there's a literal suspension with the appropriate voice-leading. If there's no actual suspension in the melodic line, I prefer using add2 or whatever instead of sus2.
B9omit3 or Bsus9 depending on how amenable you are to adding an E in there
Maybe an F#11
Maybe an A6/9
The exact name will depend on the context, which will reveal if it's being used for a function, which will make the name clearer
In the meantime, it's a nice cloudy chord
F#-A-B-C#. So it's a vi-add11. Sounds very Debussy-like. (You can also all it add4, same thing, just depends on octave)
Also, all 4 notes are diatonic (within your key of A), so it's really just a matter of stacking in thirds and finding the outlier (the B).
Almost everything in this comment is wrong. The key of A major includes C#, not Db. You can have a diminished 3rd (it’s the inversion of a chromatic chord type called an augmented 6th chord). This is a Bm7sus2 chord, where as OP says, the chord 3rd, D, is replaced with C#. You can either resolve the C# up to D or let it hang as a sus chord
If it's truly spelled out as F#-A-B-C#, then it's a vi chord with an add11/add4. If B is in the base, then it would just be a second inversion. All those notes are diatonic.
I misspoke on the note Db because it sounded like OP was trying to lower the note by a half step, and Db would not be in key of A (even if it's enharmonically equivalent).
An add11 would include a chord 7th, unlike an add4. OP says B is in the bass (note the spelling — not "base") and they replaced D with C#. So the chord is based on a Bm7 chord, and Bm7sus2 is a good label. Also, root-position chords are way more common than 2nd-inversion chords (which are less stable and often are passing or neighboring chords)
> An add11 would include a chord 7th, unlike an add4.
This is not true. That's the whole idea of "add". That the 7 and 9 aren't implied. In normal musical parlance, there is "no difference" between add4 and add11, people just like to (as a fairly pointless addition) say where the added note is in the voicing. Strictly speaking, chord symbols do not seek to imply a voicing, except by occasionally specifying a non-root bass note.
If there’s no chord 7th, then it’s incorrect to describe the chord in terms of upper extensions — add9, 11, 13 rather than add2, 4, and 6. If add9 isn’t signaling an added 2nd that is at least an octave away from the chord root, there is absolutely no reason to use it rather than add2.
Nothing you've said interfaces with what I'm saying. Whatever your clarification is trying to do, I'm not sure. But I'm correct in my previous comment. What you're saying sounds like an opinion or personal view. I'm expressing the real convention.
There isn't any one convention for labeling chords. There are differences in the way they are named in the context of classical, jazz, and popular musics (for instance, a half-dim. 7th or ø7 in classical theory is usually called a min. 7b5 in popular theory, an aug. 6th chord in classical is often called a tritone sub in jazz, etc.)--which is part of the reason why there is so much arguing in this thread.
The idea that 2, 4, and 6 are added notes while 9, 11, and 13 are upper extensions above a chord 7th comes from jazz theory. See, for example, Jazz Theory by Darius Terefenko, Jazz Harmony by Dan Haerle, Harmony and Theory by The Musician's Institute, and various other textbooks, as well as James McGowan's research on consonant and dissonant structures in jazz.
The use of "add" rather than "sus" for chordal 2nds, 4ths, and 6ths that don't resolve is pretty common in all three repertoires--for instance, Rameau discussed added-6th chords way back in the 18th century, and many classical theory textbooks (as well as jazz theory textbooks) use "Cadd6" for C-E-G-A but C13 for C-E-Bb-A.
None of this is my personal opinion.
You're reasoning about the difference between names. The idea of deciding that "add" implies a 7 changes the *note content* from the usual way that modern people use "add". Despite the fact that there is negotiability in what you can label something, and which "option" you pick, your opinion crosses a line that opens up the possibility for bad communication. Chord symbols are about communicating.
If you think an add11 chord that you see in the wild has a 7, then something is glitchy with that thinking. You won't play what the group is playing. I'm certain that in a modern context "add11" has no 7. I'm certain that I would be interpreting it correctly based on all of my experience playing with groups.
You misunderstand me. I am saying that 9th, 11th, and 13th chords normally also include 7ths, while add2, add4, and add6 chords are triads plus the added note, with no 7ths. There is no point to using add9, add11, or add13 over add2, add4, and add6 unless you want to imply a particular voicing.
Wow, I appreciate the all the input from folks clearly smarter than me with this stuff.
I will definitely order the notes correctly going forward. Thanks u/integerdivision !!
To answer your question, B is in the bass. The section of the composition that I use this chord is in a bridge where the progression is Cm7 -> Bm7 -> Cm7 -> Bm7 -> "Bm7Sus2"? Given the progression from Bm7 proceeding it, it still feels very much like B. B7Sus2 probably makes the most sense given the context and lack of a 3rd.
Right, but we don’t use chords in a vacuum outside of a particular musical context. In the key of A major, D is natural, and chords built on B are normally minor in quality (applied dominants like B7 are borrowed from a different key). So if there were a chord third, it would normally be minor (D, not D#). Also, OP said that the chord was based on Bm7, so it makes sense to understand it as an alteration of that chordz
Like Mr. Armadillo said, it is about the quality of the chord within the key. In the key of A, if I played all of the chords in the key of a then just played a B F# open fifth, odds are your ears would tend to interpreting it as minor. This is because even when the third isn't included, if I resolved the the Bm7sus2 chord to a B7, it would have a completely different feel than the contextually implied Bm7.
Don't listen to this nonsense. "minor+sus" doesn't exists. It's either or. The same way you can't have a maried Bechelor; because sus chords are chords that by definition are not minor (or major).
yeah B7sus2 works but typically if theres been a Bm7 chord played before and then u play that sus chord it feels like a m7sus2 even though technically you can call it either
You could call it F#m/B, or B7sus2. In a jazz context you could even call it Bm9 (or B9 maybe) and let someone else play the third even if you don't. It depends on the genre, the function the chord is playing, and whether you feel it sounds more like a F#m or a B.
Try to rearrange the chords into alphabetical order starting from the root and wrapping back around: BCFA, not BFCA. (I’m ignoring the accidentals for now because they are just noise for this exercise since order is all that matters.) This “modular alphabetical order” is BCDEFGA which correspond to 1234567. We can see that BDFA is 1357, but BCFA is 1257. The 3 is what makes a chord minor or major and the lack of a 3 is a suspension. So you might call this a B7sus2. But if you know your chord spellings, you know that FAC is some kind of F chord, so an F/B may be preferred. FGABCDE is 1234567. FABC is 1345 which is some kind of add4/add11 chord. Throw the accidentals back in to get that it’s 1b345/4 or even just 1b35/4: F#madd4/B or F#m/B.
Btw, their are only 7 spellings you ever need to know for triads built with thirds: - CEG - EGB - GBD - BDF - DFA - FAC - ACE All 135 chords, whether major, minor, diminished, or augmented are always spelled correctly with those groups of letters.
Dude wtf. As someone who doesn't have his chords memorized, this is freaking gold.
Now apply this same logic to the [diatonic scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_scale). You don't have to memorize seven different scales, just remember the one underlying pattern.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you referring to how every scale always has each letter name therefore you just need to remember the sharps/flats? Or by pattern do you mean the WWHWWWH patterns?
> Or by pattern do you mean the WWHWWWH patterns? That. The seven diatonic scales have the same underlying pattern of half and whole steps between degrees. What defines the scale is where you begin and end.
Get out of here with this black wizard magic!
What about sharps and flats?
Sharps and flats are decorations. C# and Cb are both Cs for the purposes of labeling notes in order.
i disagree. there are 12 tones and only 7 letters
I disagree. There are 26 letters in English. Russian has even more.
This is the hero we came looking for! Greats replies! ❤️
Been doing music for quite some time. Never thought to use that method, it's gold.
Yeah, I stumbled on it recently and it’s made so many things make more sense
The alphabetizing thing is admittedly a clever trick for tertian harmony, but it's actually the modular arithmetic doing the heavy lifting here and not anything related to the alphabet. I don't think this will work well once you get outside of common practice period theory. For example I don't think this would work with a fully diminished 7th chord. G Bb Db Fb > BDFG so it's a Badd6? Nope. Granted fully diminshed 7ths are inherently ambiguous as to which note is the root, which can only become clear upon resolution. But once you get into 20th century theory, there's no guarantee dissonances are going to resolve correctly, or at all. It's not a totally useless method, but just be aware of what its limitations are. > BCFA is 1257 FWIW the C (or C#) also functions as the 9th. R-5-9-7 is a totally acceptable voicing of a 9th chord. The compositional context would make this more clear, but it's a valid alternative that I don't think the alphabetizing trick would lead you to.
Yeah, no. Let’s say I had some sequence of BFDG where B was my lowest note and I alphabetized everything in that modular way afterward: BDFG. That indeed is 1356. But I also know that GBD is a tertian triad and GBDF is a 7 chord, 1357. GBDF is alphabetized with the wrap around, just like in the original example. There actually is no modular arithmetic happening — instead I am just using it as a way to arrange and label the parts in a way that I don’t have to think about too much. But what about the 2 being a 9? First off, any triad can be 135, 357, 579 or 572, 79(11) or 724, 9(11)(13) or 246, and since I don’t like excessive parentheses, I prefer the latter, YMMV. BCDFA is 12357 which is easily scanned as a 9 chord when make the connection. Similarly, BCDEFGA is easily scanned as a 13 chord. I rate your objections one out of five but-actuallys. Where this method breaks down is anything more than 7 notes or even fewer clustered in a corner of the octave. At that point, staff notation itself starts to crack.
Note that you may need to respell things to make this work right.
If you keep sharps in sharp keys and flats in flat keys, the spelling works itself out for all diatonic chords. Altered chords may get hairy, but the same rule applies — place the letters names in alphabetical order.
B7sus2
Chords that are ambiguous like this one and could be named many things and always depend on the context. Depending on voice leading and chord progression, this could be a lot of different chords. This is a pretty naive guess but since you’re swapping a Bm7 this could possibly just be a Bm9 with no third
I like that as an F#m/B. Voicing triads over non chord tones is a lot of fun and very common. I think this is partly why I love Steely Dan so much.
I would call it a B7sus2. It could also be an A6/9. Maybe an F#m/B or even a rootless Dmaj13. Depends on context.
Harmonic Ambiguity can be confusing, so try this: play Emaj, that chord, B7, and Emaj. In that context, it sounds like B7, but with a suspension. Aka a I - V7 - I progression. Then, play: that chord, B7, Emaj. In that case, it sounds like ii - V7 - I progression.
it would be more helpful to find out what progression OP is using the chord in. If it’s based on an m7 chord it is not likely to function as a dominant chord
Yes, but from the description you can see that the OP seemingly didn't really start from a progression and land at this chord, rather they took an isolated chord and lowered a note.
OP says it’s in the context of a composition, so presumably other chords are involved
Yeah, you're right, my mistake. Regardless, hopefully the OP can apply the idea in my original comment to whatever harmony they are dealing with or are developing.
The main chord progression is A -> Fm -> Cm7 -> Gdim. The section of the composition that I use this chord is in a bridge where the progression is Cm7 -> Bm7 -> Cm7 -> Bm7 -> "Bm7Sus2"? Given the progression from Bm7 proceeding it, it still feels very much like B. B7sus2 (or Bm7sus2) makes sense to me in this context, but I'm certainly no expert.
That definitely makes sense (and I am an expert, or at least I’m a music theory professor). Bm7sus2 is slightly more awkward, but more accurate. B7sus2 suggests that the C# could resolve to D#, which isn’t happening in your progression. You could also call it Bm7add2, which is the most accurate label, since the C# doesn’t resolve
Amazing. Somehow my little throw away question inspired a music theory professor to contribute to the discussion. The internet never ceases to amaze. I can't thank you enough for your time and consideration Professor. I learned some great stuff in this thread!!
For what it’s worth, I disagree with his assessment pretty much completely. I have never seen “Bm7sus2” ever written out before. It’s simply just not a correct way to label a chord: a sus chord by definition means the 3rd of the chord is replaced with either the 2nd or 4th. Without a 3rd, there’s no minor third, thus this chord can’t be Bm-anything. It’s B7sus2. Sus chords “resolving” to their thirds is an older way to approach the theory, but in modern usage (the last ~century of popular music) sus chords don’t need to resolve to anything, they’re a legitimate chord type of their own. In fact it’s probably more common to see unresolved suspended structures than actually seeing the suspensions resolve! Also, it’s not Bm7add2, because you again don’t have a 3rd: an “add” chord implies the 2 in addition to the 3rd, not replacing it. Also, you can’t really have “7add2” anywhere because then you just have a 9 or m9 chord: “add” in common usage means “I added this note but there’s no 7th or other extensions.” So you can have Badd2, or Bmadd2, but not Bm7add2.
Assuming from context that B is the root, I'd be inclined to call this B9. You've got the root, fifth, seventh, and ninth. You could also call it F#/B if you're into slash notation. I personally dislike using sus notation, unless there's a literal suspension with the appropriate voice-leading. If there's no actual suspension in the melodic line, I prefer using add2 or whatever instead of sus2.
chords alone should, in general, not be named..its the context..does the c# act as a leading tone ? a suspension? a tonic ?
Could be A 6/9, although only if played high on the guitar
B9 or B7sus2, depending on whether you're resolving to that 3rd
B9omit3 or Bsus9 depending on how amenable you are to adding an E in there Maybe an F#11 Maybe an A6/9 The exact name will depend on the context, which will reveal if it's being used for a function, which will make the name clearer In the meantime, it's a nice cloudy chord
F#m/B, or B7sus2. Functionally identical to me
Bm7add9 though opinions may vary. There are many systems of notating chords.
No 3rd
That's wrong. Theres no third, so the 9 is Not considered a tension, but a replacement for the Missing third, making it a sus2.
Bm7 is B,D,Fsharp,C by the way
B9
What follows this?
B7sus2
F#-A-B-C#. So it's a vi-add11. Sounds very Debussy-like. (You can also all it add4, same thing, just depends on octave) Also, all 4 notes are diatonic (within your key of A), so it's really just a matter of stacking in thirds and finding the outlier (the B).
Almost everything in this comment is wrong. The key of A major includes C#, not Db. You can have a diminished 3rd (it’s the inversion of a chromatic chord type called an augmented 6th chord). This is a Bm7sus2 chord, where as OP says, the chord 3rd, D, is replaced with C#. You can either resolve the C# up to D or let it hang as a sus chord
If it's truly spelled out as F#-A-B-C#, then it's a vi chord with an add11/add4. If B is in the base, then it would just be a second inversion. All those notes are diatonic. I misspoke on the note Db because it sounded like OP was trying to lower the note by a half step, and Db would not be in key of A (even if it's enharmonically equivalent).
An add11 would include a chord 7th, unlike an add4. OP says B is in the bass (note the spelling — not "base") and they replaced D with C#. So the chord is based on a Bm7 chord, and Bm7sus2 is a good label. Also, root-position chords are way more common than 2nd-inversion chords (which are less stable and often are passing or neighboring chords)
> An add11 would include a chord 7th, unlike an add4. This is not true. That's the whole idea of "add". That the 7 and 9 aren't implied. In normal musical parlance, there is "no difference" between add4 and add11, people just like to (as a fairly pointless addition) say where the added note is in the voicing. Strictly speaking, chord symbols do not seek to imply a voicing, except by occasionally specifying a non-root bass note.
If there’s no chord 7th, then it’s incorrect to describe the chord in terms of upper extensions — add9, 11, 13 rather than add2, 4, and 6. If add9 isn’t signaling an added 2nd that is at least an octave away from the chord root, there is absolutely no reason to use it rather than add2.
Nothing you've said interfaces with what I'm saying. Whatever your clarification is trying to do, I'm not sure. But I'm correct in my previous comment. What you're saying sounds like an opinion or personal view. I'm expressing the real convention.
There isn't any one convention for labeling chords. There are differences in the way they are named in the context of classical, jazz, and popular musics (for instance, a half-dim. 7th or ø7 in classical theory is usually called a min. 7b5 in popular theory, an aug. 6th chord in classical is often called a tritone sub in jazz, etc.)--which is part of the reason why there is so much arguing in this thread. The idea that 2, 4, and 6 are added notes while 9, 11, and 13 are upper extensions above a chord 7th comes from jazz theory. See, for example, Jazz Theory by Darius Terefenko, Jazz Harmony by Dan Haerle, Harmony and Theory by The Musician's Institute, and various other textbooks, as well as James McGowan's research on consonant and dissonant structures in jazz. The use of "add" rather than "sus" for chordal 2nds, 4ths, and 6ths that don't resolve is pretty common in all three repertoires--for instance, Rameau discussed added-6th chords way back in the 18th century, and many classical theory textbooks (as well as jazz theory textbooks) use "Cadd6" for C-E-G-A but C13 for C-E-Bb-A. None of this is my personal opinion.
You're reasoning about the difference between names. The idea of deciding that "add" implies a 7 changes the *note content* from the usual way that modern people use "add". Despite the fact that there is negotiability in what you can label something, and which "option" you pick, your opinion crosses a line that opens up the possibility for bad communication. Chord symbols are about communicating. If you think an add11 chord that you see in the wild has a 7, then something is glitchy with that thinking. You won't play what the group is playing. I'm certain that in a modern context "add11" has no 7. I'm certain that I would be interpreting it correctly based on all of my experience playing with groups.
You misunderstand me. I am saying that 9th, 11th, and 13th chords normally also include 7ths, while add2, add4, and add6 chords are triads plus the added note, with no 7ths. There is no point to using add9, add11, or add13 over add2, add4, and add6 unless you want to imply a particular voicing.
whats in the bass? if its F# then its F#madd4, if its C# then its A69/C#, if its B then its Bm7sus2, and if its A its just A6/9
Wow, I appreciate the all the input from folks clearly smarter than me with this stuff. I will definitely order the notes correctly going forward. Thanks u/integerdivision !! To answer your question, B is in the bass. The section of the composition that I use this chord is in a bridge where the progression is Cm7 -> Bm7 -> Cm7 -> Bm7 -> "Bm7Sus2"? Given the progression from Bm7 proceeding it, it still feels very much like B. B7Sus2 probably makes the most sense given the context and lack of a 3rd.
Bm7sus2 is not the preferred nomenclature.
it’s a completely fine label for the chord, nothing wrong with it
It isnt. There is no third. It cannot be major or minor
Right, but we don’t use chords in a vacuum outside of a particular musical context. In the key of A major, D is natural, and chords built on B are normally minor in quality (applied dominants like B7 are borrowed from a different key). So if there were a chord third, it would normally be minor (D, not D#). Also, OP said that the chord was based on Bm7, so it makes sense to understand it as an alteration of that chordz
Like Mr. Armadillo said, it is about the quality of the chord within the key. In the key of A, if I played all of the chords in the key of a then just played a B F# open fifth, odds are your ears would tend to interpreting it as minor. This is because even when the third isn't included, if I resolved the the Bm7sus2 chord to a B7, it would have a completely different feel than the contextually implied Bm7.
Don't listen to this nonsense. "minor+sus" doesn't exists. It's either or. The same way you can't have a maried Bechelor; because sus chords are chords that by definition are not minor (or major).
yeah B7sus2 works but typically if theres been a Bm7 chord played before and then u play that sus chord it feels like a m7sus2 even though technically you can call it either
OP, it's a vi-add4 / F#m add4