Talk:Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord

Jazz

You should mention that this chord is most prevalent in jazz. One common example is the turnaround in Freddie Freeloader by Miles Davis.

Synaesthesia

I never saw anything about Hendrix having synaesthesia before. This may have been invented by an over-imaginative journalist because of his talk about 'auras' and the lyrics of 'Bold as Love'. One gossipy newspaper article does not a fact make.217.44.176.159 (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed: "As Jimi was a synaesthete [1] {Fact|date=December 2007} < !--need a more authoritative citation for this statement -->, he saw this chord as a 'purple haze'; thus it is played under the word "purple" in the song." {dubious}" Hyacinth (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chord graphic

What's going on with the big graphic in the middle of the article? It clearly is based on G and when you click on it shows a different graphic built on F, but, Hyacinth, you're saying the graphic will catch up? How does that work? I've never uploaded a graphic; are you saying there's a delay? What accounts for it? McTavidge (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyacinth, you said, "We'll say it's a G," suggesting that you've compromised or something. It is a G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.41.253 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blues scale represented by the chord

What pentatonic blues scale goes G A#(Bb) B D F and skips the C? McTavidge (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See Hexatonic scale. Hyacinth (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the article on the hexatonic scale, specifically the part about the blues scale (seemed the only part that was relevant). Here it is:

Blues scale Main articles: Blue note and Twelve bar blues The blues scale is the minor pentatonic scale plus the #4 or b5 degree[1][2][3], however, since blues notes (or blue notes) are alternate inflections, strictly speaking there can be no one blues scale[4]. As named in contemporary jazz theory its use will be based upon the key and not the immediate chord[2], unlike some chords use in jazz.

The "blues scale" may also be a diatonic scale with lowered third, fifth, and seventh degrees[5] and blues practice is derived from the "conjuction of 'African scales' and the diatonic western scales"[6]. Steven Smith argues that ""to assign blues notes to a 'blues scale' is a momentous mistake, then, after all, unless we alter the meaning of 'scale'" [7].

I must be missing it, but where does this article cover my question? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.41.253 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Which blues scale includes the notes of the Hendrix chord? None, since there is no blues scale, or the only blues scale, since there is only one. "Steven Smith argues that ""to assign blues notes to a 'blues scale' is a momentous mistake, then, after all, unless we alter the meaning of 'scale'". Hyacinth (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? If there's no blues "scale" (as, you point out, Steven Smith argues), then the quotation doesn't make a lot of sense -- it takes as a given that such a thing does exist ("the whole of the blues scale") and then proceeds to say that the chord represents every degree of it. And yet when pressed, you say there is no such thing as a blues scale or that the 4th degree of it is optional.McTavidge (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Different scholars, authors, and artists have different opinions. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hyacinth (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you not see how something can evoke another thing without exactly resembling it? Hyacinth (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a testy response. You've been less than forthcoming on the rationale for this quotation -- cryptic, I'd say -- and now it's capital offense to ask you to explain. McTavidge (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Somtimes things vaguely remind people of things. Sometimes things exactly resemble things. Hyacinth (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Pink Floyd chord"?

This is only tangential, but as long as we're naming whole chords after individual artists . . . Does anyone out there think it's semi-appropriate to refer to the E minor ninth chord as the "Pink Floyd chord"? See Paint Box (song) for an incomplete list of all the prominent occurances of Em9 or Em(add9) in the Floyd's body of work. Basically, every album from DSOTM on, until Roger Waters left (if you count "Dogs", which is in D minor, due to downtuning) has an Em9, and not just in passing, but emphatically.

Incidentally, the Floyd did use the Hendrix chord in "Corporal Clegg" and several other songs, but that's just a coincidence, not relevant to my question.
--63.25.117.132 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sound Sample

How about a sound sample? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"the whole of the blues scale condensed into a single chord"

This article states:

"In essence," one author has written, the Hendrix chord is "the whole of the blues scale condensed into a single chord,"[3] this being possible because one version of the blues scale is pentatonic, or five notes, and the Hendrix chord is five notes: [depiction of G7#9]"

Is this quote being used out of context? Does the author literally mean, as this article currently contends, that the chord is a concatenation of the blues scale? I don't think so much sence since:

1. What's generally understood to be the "blues scale" has 6 notes, a 9th chord has 5, and as played by Hendrix, the "Hendrix cord" has only 4;
2. A blues scale in G would be G Bb C C# D F, but a Hendrix chord on G is G Bb B D F
3. A convincing argument could be made that the chord is the "essence" of the Bebop scale (G A Bb B C D E F), but that's not what the quote actually says.

In short, I suspect this quote is being misused, leading to unnecessary confusion. Yilloslime (t) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the (probably) improper literal interpretation of the quote, and attendant music theorizing. Yilloslime (t) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First use of augmented 9th chord in pop music was by the Beatles in 1964

Just as the Beatles had the first recorded use of guitar feedback (the opening of I Feel Fine), they also have the first recorded use in pop music (as opposed to jazz or classical) of the augmented 9th chord.

It occurs in the climactic line of "You Can't Do That" (1964):

Because I told you before Oh, you can't do that

The sound of the E7sharp9 chord there is glaringly obvious.

But, yes, Hendrix popularized it, as did Steppenwolf in Born To Be Wild (1968), a year after Purple Haze and Foxy Lady (1967, three years after the Beatles' You Can't Do That).

I can't make plain tildes on my Spanish-language keyboard, so here are four ññññ's.

Brian Cobb, brianallancobb@hotmail.com

I don't know how to correctly edit Wikipedia (my Bible), but I hope somebody will correct the erroneous information about Hendrix being the FIRST user of the augmented 9th chord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.99.94 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix? chord

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because "some" authors and persons consider this to be the Hendrix chord. That does NOT make it so. This chord predates Hendrix and is used by many who have likely never heard him play. This is just Hendrix spam. This is an wholly biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.38.69 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to place a {{weasel}} tag after "some". However, just because a name doesn't make sense doesn't mean that it isn't. If not the Hendrix chord what is the chord called? Who do you feel this article ignores? Hyacinth (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

-The first poster is right. It's called a 7#9 and has been used in music way before Hendrix was born. Just because he used it in one or two pop songs doesn't make it his. His use isn't particularly groundbreaking either. Any actual musician will refer to it as a 7#9, although since many guitarists are not knowledgeable in theory, they will refer to it as the Hendrix chord, unaware of the proper name and harmonic function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.168.163 (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it makes you angry that many people choose to call it a different name than you do. However, as the article's many sources show, many "real" musicians do call it the "Hendrix chord". There are many ways of naming chords (for example, one could argue that its true name is 0 3 4 7 10). Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Hyacinth (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering I am both a musician and a musical educator, I have played with many different people in many different settings. If you are to be understood in a musical setting, you can't use nicknames. Like I said, the only appropriate place for this article is in the main article on Hendrix and/or the song it occurs in. No need to have a separate article on it. Should I call quartal voicings McCoy Tyner chords? He was the first jazz musician to extensively feature them in his improvisations. I still wouldn't dedicate a separate article on them. I would put the fact that his use of quartal voicings was groundbraking, but I would put it in the McCoy Tyner main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.168.163 (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that not calling quartal chords "McCoy Tyner chords" would be appropriate on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Article titles#Use common names of persons and things, since that is not, I assume, commonly done. Hyacinth (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no definite line of "common"-ness, so I could by all means make an article on it. It would be pointless though, just like this article. Do I really need a paragraph telling me how many different times he uses it in different songs? Wow, he uses it with a D root note, then C! Oh my god! That's like pointing out when someone plays C major, then D major. Big deal. Pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.168.163 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed no "definite" line. However, in some cases there is a very clear one. I don't think I may find one source which refers to the "Tyner chord". Hyacinth (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this article should not exist. Most of its proponents are just Hendrix fan boys and have no idea of the history, theory, or use of the chord. If anything, there should be a small description of the chord in the article on the song it appears in, if it indeed is the "first" pop song the 7#9 appears in (which i highly doubt, many string arrangements in pop songs, especially older ones use the harmony of the sharp 9). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.168.163 (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you oppose the other chords with names on Wikipidia such as the Tristan chord? If the authors are so ignorant, please tell us who or what do you feel this article is overlooking. Hyacinth (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are indeed correct to doubt that it is the "'first' pop song the 7#9 appears in" and if you have read the article you may remember that it does not claim that anywhere and in fact states that, "Though the augmented 9th dominant chord was a favorite of Jimi Hendrix, it was not his exclusively and had been used as far back as the bebop era of the 1940s." Hyacinth (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should end at the conclusion of the first paragraph, which says all that seems necessary to identify what was, after all, a perfectly common chord long before Hendrix ever used it. Fenneck (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move to dominant 7 sharp 9 chord

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that the title "dominant 7 sharp 9 chord" would better fit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view given that other people have used the chord ("sharp" rather than # per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)). However, I believe that the article title should stay at "Hendrix chord" per Wikipedia:Article title#Use common names of persons and things. Furthermore, "dominant 7 sharp 9 chord" does not resemble any other chord article title and the existence of other chord articles titled after pieces or people though they where used elsewhere by others means that the NPOV argument above needs to be clarified. Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix chord as common name:

often referred to as the "Hendrix chord" since Jimi frequently used #9 chords in his compositions

— Capone, Phil (2006). Guitar Chord Bible: Over 500 Illustrated Chords for Rock, Blues, Soul, Country, Jazz, and Classical, p.24. ISBN 0785820833. Emphasis mine.

the 7#9 chord - which guitarists refer to as "the Hendrix chord"

— Roby, Steven (2002). Black Gold: The Lost Archives of Jimi Hendrix, p.32. ISBN 082307854X.

commonly referred to as the "Hendrix chord" by many

— Maione, John (2004). Mel Bay Jazz Chords for Rock Guitarists, p.23. ISBN 0786668741. Emphasis mine.

On the other hand:

what "rock kids" used to call the Jimi Hendrix chord

— Munro, Doug (2001). Jazz Guitar: Bebop and Beyond, p.58. ISBN 0757982816. Emphasis mine.

Hyacinth (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that this topic is notable enough for an article. But if it is notable, it is probably notable because enough people ("rock kids"?) got excited about Jimi Hendrix using it, and thus named it such. So I oppose the move proposal and suggest it be kept here, at Hendrix chord, unless it is deleted. It would not be right to have an article about every obscure chord in existence. Sure, one could write an essays about the historical and current use of various chords, but I think that would be original research. 81.98.251.134 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability. What makes you think this topic isn't notable? Hyacinth (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose move, in terms of WP:NC Hendrix chord is the clear winner. (And as for notability, the mind boggles... but then, last night I was talking to a couple of professional musicians who hadn't heard of Eric Clapton.) Article does need some major cleanup work in other areas, a lead section for a start. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - per WP:NC DigitalC (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sharped

The correct term is 'sharped', not 'sharpened'. 99.232.90.74 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct term is augmented, not sharped. Hyacinth (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

tonic pedal etc.

I'm not trying to be dickish or pick a fight but I find this sentence highly problematic: "When performing "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" live Hendrix later used the sharpened ninth not only on the tonic pedal, E, but also on C and D as well[4] which would give eleven notes, almost the full chromatic scale, rather than only five." Firstly, the way the sentence is written it's hard (for me at least) to figure out what its trying to say. What do we mean by "tonic pedal E"? Did he play E7#9 and D7#9 and C7#9 chords? Or was it E7#9, D7#9/E, and C7#9/E? I suspect it was the later, but that's only b/c I play guitar and know that the lowest string is an E, and know that you can slide 7#9 form up and down the neck while letting the E string drone. If this is in fact what Hendrix was doing, let's reword the sentence to make that clear. If it's something else, then whatever it is needs to be explained more clearly.

The second clause of the sentence--which is uncited and therefore appears to beWP:OR--is also confusing to me. It seems to say he's playing an 11 note chord, something that's impossible to do on a 6-string instrument. Maybe it should say that it "implies almost the full chromatic scale". And assuming that we are talking about Hendrix sliding the chord form around while droning on the low E (to give the progression the E7#9, D7#9/E, and C7#9/E) then that only gives 9 different notes, since the 5ths aren't voiced in the Hendrix fingering. The first chord would be E E G# D G, the next would be E D F# C F, and the last E C E Bb Eb--that's only 9 different notes, not 11 as the text says/said. If you throw in the 5th--which Hendrix doesn't actually play--then that adds B and A, and you get to 11, but this is getting into serious WP:OR. Finally, just playing these chords in the same song--even one right after another--doesn't necessarily mean that they function to imply a chromatic (or any other kind of) scale, and in this case I don't think they do. So I've removed that clause. If there's a reference that backs up this business about chromatic scales, then let's use it and I'll stand corrected, but otherwise this stuff needs to go. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally used a talk page to talk to someone, rather than an edit summary (which is for summarizing one's edit). I'm also glad that you decided to make an argument for something rather than a bald assertion. In response, I don't believe counting, which you finally managed to do, is WP:OR. Hyacinth (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a source saying which form of the chord Hendrix played? Hyacinth (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the other way around: the burden is on you to provide a source for this 11 notes chromatic scale business. Please see WP:OR. (And you might also want to review WP:OWN while you're at it too.) Yilloslime ^T_C 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this "business" does not advance a position and is a routine calculation, perhaps you should see WP:OR. If you still feel it applies then, please, tell me which part.

In the future, if you really don't wish to pick a fight perhaps when a sentence obviously does make sense to you but you disagree with it, you should say that you disagree with it, not that it doesn't make sense. Hyacinth (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I said that it didn't make sense to me, but I think might mean XYZ, and if, in fact it, does mean XYZ, then it's wrong. And it is not a routine calculation--certainly not as simple as calculating someone's age from their birthdate (the specific example given at routine calculation)--and it clearly advances a novel conclusion, namely that the chord sequence implies a chromatic scale. Seems like textbook WP:OR to me, which is why I figured removing it with the edit summary "rm original research/poorly worded idea" would suffice. But I also don't think that we're going to agree on this, so I'm going to start a thread on this issue at Wikipedia:OR/N. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "tell me which part" of WP:OR you feel applies (not which part of this "business" WP:OR applies to). Hyacinth (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:OR/N here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Possible_original_music_theorizing_at_Hendrix_chord. To answer your question, the calculation of how many degrees of the scale are played and how many are implied is OR (think it's a bit too complicated to qualify as a routine calculation), and the idea that the sequence implies a chromatic scale is--IMHO--a novel conclusion/synthesis. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How would addition fail to qualify as a routine calculation? Hyacinth (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding--sure that part is routine. Knowing which notes are in which chords--that part is not so routine. That fact that the article originally had wrong (11 v 9 degrees) attests this not being a routine calc. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How does the claim that, in your words, "the sequence implies a chromatic scale" promote a position and what position does it promote? Hyacinth (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It promotes the position that a chromatic scale is implied. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)