Double Bass #9 or b10?

[Wasnex]

a root followed by an extension number (7, 9, 11, or 13) included all previous extensions.

In general this is correct, although there are exceptions such as "add" or "sus" chords which have different rules.

There is difference a between "can be omitted" and "not present." While all chord tones are implied, there are definite avoid notes that the harmonic instruments would not typically play. These not only can be, but normally should be omitted. Also the players have discretion on how to voice chords and which notes to leave out. If you have guitar and piano, it's often necessary for them to work out voicings.

Also, if the chord symbol just has the root and 7, 9, 11, or 13, it a dominant shape. The unaltered dominant chord tones and extensions include: root, major 3, perfect 5, minor 7, major 9, perfect 11, major 13.

 

[longfinger]

For my ear, register matters.

For that Dom7(#9) voicing, bottom to top, R.3.b7.#9 then yeah, I do hear it as a dom7 chord with a sharp 9 on top, as that is the recognized name for that recognizable sound. The major 3rd overpowers the minor 3rd. Take the major 3rd away and we have a minor triad.

However, flip the "thirds" to be R b3, b7,3 and it sounds weird to me, as the lower voice makes it sound minor as it has more weight to it, the minor 9 interval clashes more than a major 7th, and the major 3rd just sounds like an out of harmony note. It does not belong.

On the ukulele though, because of the tuning, we can replace the minor 9 with a minor 2nd.
R, b3,3,b7
Then to me it sounds like a clash. Good for certain energy, but major/minor status is blurred.

With the voice, wind instruments and string instruments that can bend, the "Blue note" can use this ambiguity nicely.
For the quantized, discrete pitches of the piano, we have to play these two notes simultaneously and it sort of has a similar affect, but not really, it's different.


I think most of us here already know the theory of how the "major 3rd" in the"altered scale" is actually a diminished 4th, but just heard as a major 3rd, and the 3rd which is minor, gets labelled something else.

The ear goes where it goes... major scale is pretty strong.

 

[Lionel Albert]

Normally on such a chord like CM7#9

You play something that comes from the minor harmonic (E)

C D# E F# G A B C

So in that case (GM7#9)

G A# B C# D E F# G

But his proposition might come from something like a minor melodic with an augmented 4th

E F# G A# B C# D# E

Then a major 3rd is added (G#)

G G# A# B C# D# E F# G

No matter the spelling... splitting hairs ! But it's clearer for me !

 

[Bob_Ross]

a #9 sounds like a b10 to my ears and it always has, and I guess that's my point.

Even when the major 3rd is conspicuously voiced and played concurrently? Huh... I can't imagine not hearing a dominant 7th #9 chord as exactly that.

Slight Tangent: An atypically broad swath of the harmonic series is so prevalent in the sound of my Steinberger L-2 electric bass that if I play an open E string loudly enough while the rest of the band is playing an E-7 chord, it sounds like we're all playing an E7#9 chord!

 

[DoubleMIDI]

A raised (#) note means no unraised (perfect or major/minor) note.
As scales (in my understanding) and chords are basically the same with a different spacing and dropping some of the scale notes in chords, a #9 or #2 means no other 9/2 which results in a augmented second from root to #9/#2.

An 8-note scale is one note more than the seven basic notes (a to g), so the rule needs to be broken for this case. The question is only where and why. But it would be wrong to infer from eight note scales to seven note scales. Also 8-note scales are mostly artificial (“symmetric”) or a scale mix (8-note Spanish Phrygian) where notes are generally alternatively used in a melodical way.
The whole note scale is artificial as well but aspects could be used harmonically as a dominant. Other 6-note scales could easily extended to 7-note scales, so they are only subsets of them.

It seems that some are so grown up with the chord nomenclature that they aren’t able to question it regarding to theoretical correctness (or probably lack some theoretical understanding beyond the historical drill).
If we just understand chord symbols as a shorthand to which keys need to be be pressed and not to a hint of theoretical correctness, this is OK. It also explains why a fifth is only (explicitly) defined in the chord symbol if it deviates from the natural one, because in general the pure fifth is only played in pure triads and sus chords, not in more complex chords.

One of the problems with numeral chord note and scale note notation is that it is derived from the major scale as if it is the center of the musical world. Most of us are raised with this kind of music education, but major is NOT the center of the (musical) world.

I’m not a hard devotee of the Lydian chromatic concept, but the basic idea is correct. In scale note notation (derived from the major scale) we only use flats or naturals with the exception of the fourth that gets a sharp. That doesn’t seem very logical. In Lydian we only have flats which is a lot more logical. Or why not three sharps and three flats which would lead to Dorian as the basic scale. Both very logical as they both often substitute major and minor in our playing.

A lot of things evolved over time in the state of the previous understanding and keep unchanged even when it gets clear that the historical assumptions are only valid in a limited historical context.
It is close to impossible to change that as it gets sustained with early (and simplified) education.

One note: the naming of the medieval church modes were a misinterpretation of the earlier Greek modes with the same names. So we had a change here, but only because an error was made that nobody was able to correct at that time. So from a historical viewpoint we use wrong names for church mode scales until now. It is well known in musicology, but separated because it is clear which naming is valid for which period and correcting the wrong use during such a long time is impossible.

So it would be easiest to see the chord notation as a shorthand notation that is not theoretically correct (and can easily mislead if interpreted theoretically). So we should separate chord notation and theoretical correct notation of chord and scale notes. If we do not, a discussion like that doesn’t lead anywhere and just generates confusion and heavily stated personal opinions.
It is important to understand that and it even have shown me that now very clearly.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

A raised (#) note means no unraised (perfect or major/minor) note.
As scales (in my understanding) and chords are basically the same with a different spacing and dropping some of the scale notes in chords, a #9 or #2 means no other 9/2 which results in a augmented second from root to #9/#2.

An 8-note scale is one note more than the seven basic notes (a to g), so the rule needs to be broken for this case. The question is only where and why. But it would be wrong to infer from eight note scales to seven note scales. Also 8-note scales are mostly artificial (“symmetric”) or a scale mix (8-note Spanish Phrygian) where notes are generally alternatively used in a melodical way.
The whole note scale is artificial as well but aspects could be used harmonically as a dominant. Other 6-note scales could easily extended to 7-note scales, so they are only subsets of them.

It seems that some are so grown up with the chord nomenclature that they aren’t able to question it regarding to theoretical correctness (or probably lack some theoretical understanding beyond the historical drill).
If we just understand chord symbols as a shorthand to which keys need to be be pressed and not to a hint of theoretical correctness, this is OK. It also explains why a fifth is only (explicitly) defined in the chord symbol if it deviates from the natural one, because in general the pure fifth is only played in pure triads and sus chords, not in more complex chords.

One of the problems with numeral chord note and scale note notation is that it is derived from the major scale as if it is the center of the musical world. Most of us are raised with this kind of music education, but major is NOT the center of the (musical) world.

I’m not a hard devotee of the Lydian chromatic concept, but the basic idea is correct. In scale note notation (derived from the major scale) we only use flats or naturals with the exception of the fourth that gets a sharp. That doesn’t seem very logical. In Lydian we only have flats which is a lot more logical. Or why not three sharps and three flats which would lead to Dorian as the basic scale. Both very logical as they both often substitute major and minor in our playing.

A lot of things evolved over time in the state of the previous understanding and keep unchanged even when it gets clear that the historical assumptions are only valid in a limited historical context.
It is close to impossible to change that as it gets sustained with early (and simplified) education.

One note: the naming of the medieval church modes were a misinterpretation of the earlier Greek modes with the same names. So we had a change here, but only because an error was made that nobody was able to correct at that time. So from a historical viewpoint we use wrong names for church mode scales until now. It is well known in musicology, but separated because it is clear which naming is valid for which period and correcting the wrong use during such a long time is impossible.

So it would be easiest to see the chord notation as a shorthand notation that is not theoretically correct (and can easily mislead if interpreted theoretically). So we should separate chord notation and theoretical correct notation of chord and scale notes. If we do not, a discussion like that doesn’t lead anywhere and just generates confusion and heavily stated personal opinions.
It is important to understand that and it even have shown me that now very clearly.

"One note: the naming of the medieval church modes were a misinterpretation of the earlier Greek modes with the same names."
So do you have a link to a resource on the earlier Greek modes, or could you explain what they were and how they differ, i.e. what was misinterpreted?

 

[DoubleMIDI]

It was a wrong relation between scale and scale name.
I don’t know the exact relationship but as far as I can remember they probably were shifted by one note like greek phrygian was medieval dorian.
They tried to derive the Greek modes from the description of their emotional characteristics named in literature and … failed.

I might check my music encyclopedias for it tomorrow, but, as far as I can remember, the smaller one where I found the hint (about 46 years ago) was a bit imprecise.
If I don’t find something useful I can try to contact a composer/musicologist in Athens, but had no contact to him for some decades.

 

[Zach Gaston]

There's a lot of deep stuff here, and I don't really have much to add. Sound is sound, so how you hear it is just that. #9 makes the most sense to me so as to preserve the 3rd, which is where my head goes when thinking of chords.

I feel that this is one of those places where the place I land is that theory is all a bunch of opinions, and if you can express yourself properly, the "rules" don't matter.

For example, people have mentioned the function (including the interesting excerpt from the book), but to me the #9 isn't a functional thing. Obviously, the underlying dominant chord may be functional, but the #9 is mainly a color on top, not really adding anything to the function. In terms of voice leading, it may very well disappear in the next chord.

If someone wrote a b10 chord, I'd have questions, but ultimately, I'd do my best to make the music I need to make.

Despite my slight dismissal in my second paragraph, this has been a very fascinating thread to read.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

It might depend on the scale used.
In 8-note spanish phrygian (mix of phrygian and fifth mode of harmonic minor) it is definitely a b10 as the major third is only used in the lower notes and in melodic soli the b10 is mostly used instead.

We are not used to read b10 notation, so it feels strange to us and takes a bit more time to understand when you read the chart. But distinguishing between theoretically correct notation can be helpful for improvising.

Many have opinion, some have arguments and few the better arguments. The better ones have a good chance to be correct, but we never can be sure if there aren’t better ones.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

It was a wrong relation between scale and scale name.
I don’t know the exact relationship but as far as I can remember they probably were shifted by one note like greek phrygian was medieval dorian.
They tried to derive the Greek modes from the description of their emotional characteristics named in literature and … failed.

I might check my music encyclopedias for it tomorrow, but, as far as I can remember, the smaller one where I found the hint (about 46 years ago) was a bit imprecise.
If I don’t find something useful I can try to contact a composer/musicologist in Athens, but had no contact to him for some decades.

thanks, it's an interesting topic.

 

[longfinger]

It might depend on the scale used.
In 8-note spanish phrygian (mix of phrygian and fifth mode of harmonic minor) it is definitely a b10 as the major third is only used in the lower notes and in melodic soli the b10 is mostly used instead.

We are not used to read b10 notation, so it feels strange to us and takes a bit more time to understand when you read the chart. But distinguishing between theoretically correct notation can be helpful for improvising.

Many have opinion, some have arguments and few the better arguments. The better ones have a good chance to be correct, but we never can be sure if there aren’t better ones.

From the common scale chord point of view (7th mode of melodic minor), the Theoretically correct notation would be either:

minor seventh b5 chord with a b11. : min7(b5)(b11)

or
diminished-minor seventh , b11 : ø7(b11)

or
half-diminished-minor seventh b11 : ø7(b11)


But the normal musical ear hears the b11 as a major 3rd, especially when in the lower register, so it gets relabelled and the minor 3rd gets a #9 name,

ø7(b11) could be the right one to use, if the b11 is some kind of passing or neighbouring note in the upper register that doesn't sound or operate like a lower structure chord tone. But IMO likely best to not include the b11 in the chord name if it's not a structural chord tone.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

From the common scale chord point of view (7th mode of melodic minor), the Theoretically correct notation would be either:

minor seventh b5 chord with a b11. : min7(b5)(b11)

or
diminished-minor seventh , b11 : ø7(b11)

or
half-diminished-minor seventh b11 : ø7(b11)


But the normal musical ear hears the b11 as a major 3rd, especially when in the lower register, so it gets relabelled and the minor 3rd gets a #9 name,

ø7(b11) could be the right one to use, if the b11 is some kind of passing or neighbouring note in the upper register that doesn't sound or operate like a lower structure chord tone. But IMO likely best to not include the b11 in the chord name if it's not a structural chord tone.

True.

That scale (commonly known as altered scale) has more in common with the whole note scale than any other. So the major second of the WNS is split up to a HT above and below. It becomes a 7-note scale that way and functionally the diminished fourth is indeed recognized as a major third, but in my opinion the connection to the WNS is stronger than to any other one.
Melodically it still acts as a diminished fourth, specially in an ascending line.

 

[Papageno]

That scale (commonly known as altered scale) has more in common with the whole note scale than any other. So the major second of the WNS is split up to a HT above and below. It becomes a 7-note scale that way and functionally the diminished fourth is indeed recognized as a major third, but in my opinion the connection to the WNS is stronger than to any other one.
Melodically it still acts as a diminished fourth, specially in an ascending line.

That's an interesting point. The diminished 4th of the altered scale can be heard either as such (dim 4th) or as an enharmonic major 3rd, depending upon how we shape the melodic line:
- if we play a scalar line, (say C Db Eb Fb Gb, etc., on a C7alt chord), as you point out, then Eb is heard as a minor 3rd and Fb is really heard as a dim 4th.
- if however, we play a line outlining the C7 harmony, (say, C Bb C E Eb E etc...), then E is heard as the major 3rd, while the minor 3rd Eb is heard as a neighbor tone.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

It was a wrong relation between scale and scale name.
I don’t know the exact relationship but as far as I can remember they probably were shifted by one note like greek phrygian was medieval dorian.
They tried to derive the Greek modes from the description of their emotional characteristics named in literature and … failed.

I might check my music encyclopedias for it tomorrow, but, as far as I can remember, the smaller one where I found the hint (about 46 years ago) was a bit imprecise.
If I don’t find something useful I can try to contact a composer/musicologist in Athens, but had no contact to him for some decades.

In Ancient Greek theory the modes are defined downwards, so they start at the octave and go down.

Greek. - medieval/modern

Lydian - ionian/major
Phrygian - dorian
Dorian - phrygian
Hyperdorian/Mixolydian - —/locrian
Hypolydian - lydian
Hyperlydian/Hypophrygian - mixolydian
Hyperphrygian/Hypodorian - aeolian/natural minor

Hyper- means fifth above,
Hypo- means fifth below.

The modern locrian mode didn’t exist during the medieval as it contains the forbidden diminished fifth (devils interval) from the root.

BTW, pentatonic string instruments fill in the non-existing notes by shortening the lower sounding string with a finger and also detuning strings for a transposed mode.

I‘m not very familiar with ancient Greek music theory, so better read an music encyclopedia article about it yourself. It is different to the use in music since the (European) medieval.

The excerpt at the top is from the german “Guido Adler: Handbuch der Musikgeschichte, Band 1, Berlin-Wilmersdorf 1930”. The Article is well written, even though it is a bit old.
Sorry, I don’t own English music encyclopedias.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

View attachment 7183037

In Ancient Greek theory the modes are defined downwards, so they start at the octave and go down.

Greek. - medieval/modern

Lydian - ionian/major
Phrygian - dorian
Dorian - phrygian
Hyperdorian/Mixolydian - —/locrian
Hypolydian - lydian
Hyperlydian/Hypophrygian - mixolydian
Hyperphrygian/Hypodorian - aeolian/natural minor

Hyper- means fifth above,
Hypo- means fifth below.

The modern locrian mode didn’t exist during the medieval as it contains the forbidden diminished fifth (devils interval) from the root.

BTW, pentatonic string instruments fill in the non-existing notes by shortening the lower sounding string with a finger and also detuning strings for a transposed mode.

I‘m not very familiar with ancient Greek music theory, so better read an music encyclopedia article about it yourself. It is different to the use in music since the (European) medieval.

The excerpt at the top is from the german “Guido Adler: Handbuch der Musikgeschichte, Band 1, Berlin-Wilmersdorf 1930”. The Article is well written, even though it is a bit old.
Sorry, I don’t own English music encyclopedias.

This is interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[damonsmith]

Did anyone already say that reason it is called an 11 that the 4 is not already in the chord? If possible, it is best to add an interval name that is not there. Calling it a 10b is not ideal, because the voicings are improvised and the 3rd that is already there can end up in the same octave as the added #4.

 

[Papageno]

Calling it a 10b is not ideal, because the voicings are improvised and the 3rd that is already there can end up in the same octave as the added #4.

I'm not sure about what you mean concerning #4...

The chord being discussed here is: G B F Bb (root, 3, 7, b10, the 5th is omitted).

It is found for example in Blue Bossa (bar 6). The chord is G7 and the melody note on the down beat is Bb (not A#). The melody line is F Eb D C Bb Ab G F Eb. It would make no sense to use the enharmonic spelling A# instead of Bb.

So the Bb must be played on the top of the chord, and is effectively a b10 (the major 3rd (B) should be in a lower octave in the voicing). So the chord spelling G7b10 gives an accurate description of what is going on harmonically. (using the enharmonic spelling G7#9 is indeed very frequent but does not describe properly the harmony).

 

[JBarz]

Jeremy-bot thinks this is a tired circular argument that is 100% dependent on context and perspective. People can see things differently and still all be ‘correct’…

I remind you:

What's in a name? That which we call a #9
By any other name would sound as sweet

 

[damonsmith]

I'm not sure about what you mean concerning #4...

The chord being discussed here is: G B F Bb (root, 3, 7, b10, the 5th is omitted).

It is found for example in Blue Bossa (bar 6). The chord is G7 and the melody note on the down beat is Bb (not A#). The melody line is F Eb D C Bb Ab G F Eb. It would make no sense to use the enharmonic spelling A# instead of Bb.

So the Bb must be played on the top of the chord, and is effectively a b10 (the major 3rd (B) should be in a lower octave in the voicing). So the chord spelling G7b10 gives an accurate description of what is going on harmonically. (using the enharmonic spelling G7#9 is indeed very frequent but does not describe properly the harmony).

I understand that. The point being, once the notes are given it is common to re-voice them. Therefore, it is better to have a #4/#9 (Bb/A#) & leave the 3/10 (B) as is. b10 only makes sense if you are in fact replacing the 10, which is not what is happening, the 3rd is still the rightful 10 even if it is not being voiced in that octave . Having two 3/10s clouds the issue and should be avoided for that reason.

 

[Papageno]

I understand that. The point being, once the notes are given it is common to re-voice them. Therefore, it is better to have a #4/#9 (Bb/A#) & leave the 3/10 (B) as is. b10 only makes sense if you are in fact replacing the 10, which is not what is happening, the 3rd is still the rightful 10 even if it is not being voiced in that octave . Having two 3/10s clouds the issue and should be avoided for that reason.

I still don't get why you keep mentioning the #4 and what point you intend to make about it: for G7 chord, the #4 (or#11) would be C#, which is not the note we were discussing here.

Concerning the coexistence of the major and minor 3rds, yes this is precisely what is happening. We have both a minor 3rd (Bb) which has a melodic role and a major 3rd (B) which gas an harmonic role (it is needed to give the G7 its dominant function). This happens all the time in minor tunes when (like in the Blue Bossa example I gave above) the melody sticks to the natural minor scale (C natural minor), even on the dominant chord (G7). The use of the natural minor scale is very frequent in a descending melodic line.

The coexistence 2 different 3rds is possible because they are voiced in different octaves (in order to avoid dissonant b2 and harmonic ambiguity) and so naturally the minor 3rd appears as a melodic b10 above the the harmonic 3.

I don't think this is something that should bother us, as it is just a musical fact (and it sounds good).