Need help can't understand

[Groove Master]

It is all because of the Hendrix's chord on paper: E7(#9) LOL

 

[Fergie Fulton]

It is all because of the Hendrix's chord on paper: E7(#9) LOL

LOL, good point but different situation, that's another name for a dominant seven sharp nine, so what makes up the chord is standard, but the accidental thing is not, depending on how you read it the accidental notes can be a semitone out unless you know which way to read them.....and that opens up an area for mis-representation which really should not be there.

 

[Stick_Player]

I prefer the "new" way.

If an accidental is used, it is good for any note, at any octave.

Same as the the rule applied to the Key Signature. If the Key Signature has an F#, then ALL the F's are Sharp.

Let's have some consistency!

 

[Groove Master]

LOL, good point but different situation, that's another name for a dominant seven sharp nine, so what makes up the chord is standard, but the accidental thing is not, depending on how you read it the accidental notes can be a semitone out unless you know which way to read them.....and that opens up an area for mis-representation which really should not be there.

Well I think the confusion about the rule comes from that kind of voicing (E7#9) on paper imho

 

[Stick_Player]

Well I think the confusion about the rule comes from that kind of voicing (E7#9) on paper imho

The ol' X7 b10?

I remember seeing these, from time-to-time, in big band charts.

 

[Groove Master]

The ol' X7 b10?

I remember seeing these, from time-to-time, in big band charts.

Well from what I see here in Qc in arranging classes and pro charts, it is more the enharmonic version of the b10 (#9) but notated
as the minor third (Eb instead of D#) to focus on the Blue Note Eb. I guess it does depend on how the third is written more then anything else.

Notated jazz harmony need a certain form of standardization imo. Too many local calls LOL

 

[Fergie Fulton]

Well from what I see here in Qc in arranging classes and pro charts, it is more the enharmonic version of the b10 (#9) but notated
as the minor third (Eb instead of D#) to focus on the Blue Note Eb. I guess it does depend on how the third is written more then anything else.

Notated jazz harmony need a certain form of standardization imo. Too many local calls LOL

It's not how it is noted, that can be anyway, all the player has to be aware of is what it means.
Db or C# is the same pitch when en-harmonic, but just a different name, as said in jazz there are many names for the same thing but al least the player can have confidence where the usually mean the same thing to all.
In the "sharp debate" it is not.....it is two different things.
No one is disputing what the sharp or flat does, but having two lines of thought where in one example C# can be C depending on what way the composer learned, or what system they are using is just a layer of confusion that does not need to be there......should not be there.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Db or C# is the same pitch when en-harmonic, but just a different name...

I had my friends with absolute pitch telling me that they can hear the difference between C# and Db.
Go figure. Not with my less then perfect ears.

 

[TreySonagras]

I teach expiration dates. Sharps and flats in the key signature last for the whole song, unless a note has an accidental. Accidentals expire at the barline.

 

[INTP]

I had my friends with absolute pitch telling me that they can hear the difference between C# and Db.
Go figure. Not with my less then perfect ears.

Not on a tempered instrument (e.g. piano, guitar, fretted bass).

 

[Groove Master]

It's not how it is noted, that can be anyway, all the player has to be aware of is what it means.
Db or C# is the same pitch when en-harmonic, but just a different name, as said in jazz there are many names for the same thing but al least the player can have confidence where the usually mean the same thing to all.
In the "sharp debate" it is not.....it is two different things.
No one is disputing what the sharp or flat does, but having two lines of thought where in one example C# can be C depending on what way the composer learned, or what system they are using is just a layer of confusion that does not need to be there......should not be there.

I hear you Fergie.
But in my example of the E7(#9), we have the G# and then the altered note is a Fx(F double-sharp). Depending of what is written on the chart, it is much easier to write G as an enharmonic. Cautionary accidentals are your friend when this happens.
Like I said it would be good to standardise jazz notation once for all, don't you think?

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I hear you Fergie.
But in my example of the E7(#9), we have the G# and then the altered note is a Fx(F double-sharp). Depending of what is written on the chart, it is much easier to write G as an enharmonic. Cautionary accidentals are your friend when this happens.
Like I said it would be good to standardise jazz notation once for all, don't you think?

Yes standardised would be great.....but as Bill eluded to "who's standard"?........French Bow or German Bow, floating thumb or fixed thumb, pick or fingers etc etc.....camps will always form and so divides will always be there.....but we can dream.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I had my friends with absolute pitch telling me that they can hear the difference between C# and Db.
Go figure. Not with my less then perfect ears.

I can't tell either but it is the case. If we wouldn't use the well tempered tuning system, you would need a different bass for all the different keys because some notes will be slightly different

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I hear you Fergie.
But in my example of the E7(#9), we have the G# and then the altered note is a Fx(F double-sharp). Depending of what is written on the chart, it is much easier to write G as an enharmonic. Cautionary accidentals are your friend when this happens.
Like I said it would be good to standardise jazz notation once for all, don't you think?

as an ex-classical musician it would make a lot more sense to have F## than G in this situation just because you can't have G and G# in E7(#9) scale.

 

[Stick_Player]

as an ex-classical musician it would make a lot more sense to have F## than G in this situation just because you can't have G and G# in E7(#9) scale.

Not only that, "FX" is the Augmented Ninth, not G.

There are THREE practical choices for the Ninth (from the root of E):

Minor Ninth = F
Major Ninth = F#
Augmented Ninth = FX

Theoretically there is:

Diminished Ninth = Fb

One of the Scales paired with the X7(#9) Chord (i.e., Chord/Scale Theory) is the Half-Step/Whole-Step Scale.

Example:

Chord: E7(#9) - E, G#, B, D, FX

Scale: E, F, FX, G#, A#, B, C#, D, E

This Scale works over an E7(b9), as well.

 

[Groove Master]

as an ex-classical musician it would make a lot more sense to have F## than G in this situation just because you can't have G and G# in E7(#9) scale.

????
Then what is happening if you put also the b9 (F)? Can't have two F in the same chord???

Talk to any musician from blues players to Jazz musicians to music educators and 99% of them will say and prefer G as Fx, even if we all know that the theory tell us the other way. It just makes more sense with that Blues chord. Blues harmony is something very different then classical harmony by defying all the rules imposed by classical.



Like for a diminished chord, it is also very acceptable and prefered to mix flats, sharps end enharmonics in them because of the plurality that exist into the arpeggios. It just makes more sense and less tiring for the brain and the eyes

 

[Stick_Player]

????
Then what is happening if you put also the b9 (F)? Can't have two F in the same chord???

Talk to any musician from blues players to Jazz musicians to music educators and 99% of them will say and prefer G as Fx, even if we all know that the theory tell us the other way. It just makes more sense with that Blues chord. Blues harmony is something very different then classical harmony by defying all the rules imposed by classical.



Like for a diminished chord, it is also very acceptable and prefered to mix flats, sharps end enharmonics in them because of the plurality that exist into the arpeggios. It just makes more sense and less tiring for the brain and the eyes

Then use the "b10" label: E7(b10)

 

[Groove Master]

Then use the "b10" label: E7(b10)

E7b10 is not an acceptable chord notation and I,m fine with enharmonic spellings

 

[Febs]

The ol' X7 b10?

I remember seeing these, from time-to-time, in big band charts.

I've been playing in big bands since 1983. My band has been around for 19 years, and has over 700 charts in its library. I've never seen a chord notated as X7b10.

 

[Stick_Player]

E7b10 is not an acceptable chord notation and I,m fine with enharmonic spellings

I didn't make the above example.

I've been playing in big bands since 1983. My band has been around for 19 years, and has over 700 charts in its library. I've never seen a chord notated as X7b10.

I've been playing longer than you (for what it's worth), and I HAVE seen X7b10 chord labeling.

There was a thread on TB about this X7(b10) label, years ago.

While I agree, it's "not correct", it does exist and it does exemplify the Minor Third over a Dominant Seventh.