Extended chords naming

Axe_meister

Quick question. When naming extended chords why do we only name the 9th 11th 13th extensions and not the 10th 12th and 14th.
So an E7 with a minor 3rd added (Hendrix chord) is an E7#9 rather then an E7b10.
Also if I had an Em chord and added the major third on top would that not be an Em add10? But we write it as Em add b11. Is it because If the extension note is just a note from the Chord just and octave higher we might as well not give it a name. So we only take non fundamental chord intervals into account.
I would have thought on Piano it would be quite important, especially if you were to say miss out the third but add it on top

viz

Axe_meister said:

Quick question. When naming extended chords why do we only name the 9th 11th 13th extensions and not the 10th 12th and 14th.
So an E7 with a minor 3rd added (Hendrix chord) is an E7#9 rather then an E7b10.
Also if I had an Em chord and added the major third on top would that not be an Em add10? But we write it as Em add b11. Is it because If the extension note is just a note from the Chord just and octave higher we might as well not give it a name. So we only take non fundamental chord intervals into account.
I would have thought on Piano it would be quite important, especially if you were to say miss out the third but add it on top

Yep. It really annoys my classical brain, especially in the Hendrix chord example. In classical music, a teacher would always call the top of a Hendrix chord "a minor 10th" if referenced off the root, or more likely "a minor 3rd at the top", because that note's purpose in life is to provide that major/minor 3rd ambiguity that we love in blues and rock. It is completely NOT an augmented 2nd (or augmented 9th) which, as the 2nd degree of the scale, is very rare indeed; in fact, other than in specific intervals (like the gap between a a minor 2nd and a major 3rd that Yngwie loves so much), an augmented 2nd doesn't really exist. And calling things #9, b11 etc when they are minor 3rds and major 3rds just seems to me to be so unmusical.

However, I can see the value in it for people who want a standardised notation system. By only using the odd numbers, and referencing everything from the major scale, you can define all the notes, with everything below a major note as "flat" and everything above as "sharp".

As well as providing for every eventuality, it means you don't have to think about what the note's actually doing. The whole standard notation method works really well in that it describes the notes in any chord with a specific set of intervals, regardless of context - ie that the naming of a chord is identical across different contexts*. And that can be really helpful. You don't have to choose whether a note is an augmented 4th or a diminished 5th, you just say #11. You don't even need to reference notes off the minor scale if you're in a minor key (which is often ambiguous in jazz and blues anyway). I really need to twist my brain to get round that, because for me the tonality of the music is so fundamental to it, but I guess if you've started off by using the major scale as your standard, then the odd numbers system works really well.

I think also, that in piano for example, a tenth is a very specific and meaningful thing. It's an octave plus a 3rd. It's a stretch that every student remembers being able to achieve (I can play an 11th comfortably ) It's an interval that pianists instinctively use very often. So it seems very strange to call it a sharp 9th or a flat 11th. Exactly like you say in your last sentence. And on the other side of the coin, for a sus2, even if it's in a high register, when performing as a proper suspended 2nd, to be called a 9th, seems very strange. Same for a sus4. Because in classical music, those notes really were suspended. The rest of the chord would move on, and the 2nd or 4th would be hanging, or better, "left hanging", then it would resolve to the 3rd. If we call the added 2nd or 4th a 9th or an 11th, it implies (to a pianist) that it's an octave above. But with guitar, the octaves are not so clear. We have greater span in one hand than a single octave, and it's spread over many strings. So it's not so obvious where a note is within the octave (or above it). 


* Quick example of how context changes chord's functions, but the standard notation system can ignore that:

if you had the chord E G# B#, that would be E augmented, or E+, ie a root, a major 3rd and an augmented 5th. And it would be called that in any context.

However in the context of F minor, the notes are a root, a diminished 4th and a minor 6th. In other words, they're E Ab C. That matters to me because it tells me what the notes are actually doing. So I'd want to avoid calling it an E augmented chord.

 (actually it's more like an inverted C chord with the Ab as a minor 6th, but that's another matter)

viz

Lol. I just searched the forum for E7b10. Seems to be a particular bugbear of mine

sev112

@viz  multiple wiz for that if I could, extremely helpful

I understand theory quite well, although with 2,4,6, and to a certain extent 9 I automatically know where they are on the fretboard for the main chords I play, and I understand what they do in the scale and the theory behind it

But much much less so with 11 and 13 which aren’t intuitively automatic to me - I.e. even in C major I would have to count up the second octave to work out what they are!  And I don’t easily know where they are on the fretboard in relation to my chords

your simple explanation is brilliant - I would never have thought that 9 is a sus2, nor that 11 is a sus4, or that 13 is a 6, all just an octave up.

and I now understand that chords on guitars don’t work in the same was a piano!

One question, do you only get extended chords (i.e. the 9, 11, 13s etc) only if you have the 1, 3, 5 and 7 below them too?
E.g.a  commonly played chord (xx0230) which I call Dsus2 - the top open E string is actually the 9, but the chord isn’t D9 because there is no (min)7 played in the chord, so and just because it is a guitar and not a piano we can only call it Dsus2, because we don’t have enough information to know whether the chord is major or minor ?

 

viz

Cheers! As always, difficult to put things across in a forum and I’m not known for my conciseness. 

So, in classical music you’d call that sus2 too, but not because it’s lacking a 7th, but because it’s a suspension from the 3 (which you wouldn’t call a 10). You only really call a major 3rd a 10th when it has nothing between the root and the 10th - ie you use a 10th to describe the largeness of the interval. Otherwise it’s a 3rd. So when all the notes are jumbled up and crammed in, and there’s a 2 instead of a 3, and you don’t particularly want to highlight that it’s far above all the other notes, it’s a sus2, not a 9th. 

Yes to your first question - a 9th has to have a 7th in it (I believe). 

sev112

So would x54233 be a D9 - I don’t think it can be now looking at it as it still doesn’t have that C or C# in it.

extending chords in the opposite direction question
what is the G in a Cmajor called in 332010 ?  I know in guitar speak we call it a slash chord, I.e C/G, but what is it in classical theory ?

viz

sev112 said:

extending chords in the opposite direction question
what is the G in a Cmajor called in 332010 ?  I know in guitar speak we call it a slash chord, I.e C/G, but what is it in classical theory ?

2nd inversion. 

1st inversion is when the 3rd’s on the bottom; 2nd inversion is when it’s the 5th; 3rd inversion is when the 7th is on the bottom (usually only for dominant chords). 

For example, in the classic V-I cadence from B7 to E:

56444x to 476454 is:

B (3rd inversion) to E (1st inversion)

octatonic

As always Viz nails it.

I see 7#9 as a bit of a hang over from days where rock musicians had a degree of classical and jazz training but not necessarily comprehensive training. 

We also harmonise with 3rds for the most part and it is useful to consider a chord as it relates to its harmonic function.
Hendrix turned it on its head (although it wasn’t he who did it first) by using 7#9 as a way of introducing dissonance without it being part of a leading harmonic function.

It entered common parlance and here we are.

viz

octatonic said:

I see 7#9 as a bit of a hang over from days where rock musicians had a degree of classical and jazz training but not necessarily comprehensive training. 

We also harmonise with 3rds for the most part and it is useful to consider a chord as it relates to its harmonic function.
Hendrix turned it on its head (although it wasn’t he who did it first) by using 7#9 as a way of introducing dissonance without it being part of a leading harmonic function.

It entered common parlance and here we are.

Exactly! When that was used before, it was often in dominant position, in readiness for a cadence up a 4th to the tonic. 

Hendrix liked to “major” ( ) on it as the tonic. Gosh he loved that sound on the tonic. He also loved that high minor 3rd note in minor pieces too - like the F#m7 in Foxey Lady. I probably would want to emphasise that top note when notating the opening chord - like F#m7(with the minor 3rd on top!). Don’t know how that’s achieved in standard notation. But not F#7#9, or F#7#9 (no 3)! 

octatonic

viz said:

octatonic said:

I see 7#9 as a bit of a hang over from days where rock musicians had a degree of classical and jazz training but not necessarily comprehensive training. 

We also harmonise with 3rds for the most part and it is useful to consider a chord as it relates to its harmonic function.
Hendrix turned it on its head (although it wasn’t he who did it first) by using 7#9 as a way of introducing dissonance without it being part of a leading harmonic function.

It entered common parlance and here we are.

Exactly! When that was used before, it was often in dominant position, in readiness for a cadence up a 4th to the tonic. 

Hendrix liked to “major” ( ) on it as the tonic. Gosh he loved that sound on the tonic. He also loved that high minor 3rd note in minor pieces too - like the F#m7 in Foxey Lady. I probably would want to emphasise that top note when notating the opening chord - like F#m7(with the minor 3rd on top!). Don’t know how that’s achieved in standard notation. But not F#7#9, or F#7#9 (no 3)! 

It is a great sound- rich, raw, complex and simple all at once.
It has still not lost its potency despite being somewhat of a rock cliche.

Having the #9 on top is key though, there is a great 'insta-jazz' chord progression with chromatic descending top note that can be played by playing the following:

E7#9, E9, A13, A7 b13, D7#9, D9, G13, G7b13, C7#9, C9 and so on.

Top notes descend like this:

G, F#, F#, F, F E, E, Eb etc

viz

Love it. Reminds me ever so slightly of Rachmaninov - 37:30 - :35

https://youtu.be/D5mxU_7BTRA

tanihhiavlt

When I think of E7#9 I think of people like Eric Kershaw, Mickey Baker or even Joe Pass (of course Joe would have called it an E dominant chord and have done with) - it's a dance-band chord. That is a strong voicings that sound cohesive among other instruments. Mickey Baker had around 21 in his book, doubtless he knew more, Kershaw around 60-70 in his book... Adrian Ingram said of Wes Montgomery "he knew about 80 voicings but he new every single application of them". 

In those bands the guitar was a rhythm element, basically punctuating the harmonisation of the brass section, echoing what they played, it'd only replaced the banjo in the 30s, and whilst Charlie Christian had recorded Solo Flight that was still not the normal role of a guitar.. So the chord names are more likely to be decided by the harmonisation in the brass section on where the top line is being resolved to (its a dominant after all) than any harmonic holism IMO

So a #9 might resolve to the third of the VI chord, or the 6th of the I chord - and bare in mind, major 7 chords were considered edgy in dance music, most major chords were played as major 6ths ... the #9 sounds restless cos it's moving to a dwell point (a chord tone) - to label it as part of the chord tones would (to me) imply a static intention.

Hendrix cut his teeth in the dance-halls touring with the Isley Brothers, Curtis Knight and Little Richard. The chord would have been a passing chord and he'd have enjoyed the dissonance. 

So, that's my take on this stuff  

viz

As always, a beautifully, music-first response from @tanihhiavlt.

Coincidentally I was listening to a record of Rachmaninov’s transcriptions this evening, and he uses a 7b10 chord in his transcription of Tchaikovsky’s lullaby, his (Tchaikovsky’s) Opus 16 #1, and it’s fucking delicious. You could even say it's almost an altered chord, because it also contains the Cb, the minor 6th, near the top of the chord (although it as a perfect 5th near the bottom, not a diminished 5th). Rachmaninov made lots of juicy sounds, some of which sound very jazzy. Maybe he influenced some jazzers, who knows. He was definitely influenced by jazz though, especially after he left Russia in 1917.

(In the original, Tchaikovsky didn’t use this chord, he ended the piece slightly earlier before the coda.)

Here is an actual recording of Sergei Rachmaninov playing this piece. The chord is at 3:46. 

https://youtu.be/915M0d-ex9U

Amazing to hear the man playing the piano. Listen to that repeated major 3rd in the middle of the chord. What hands he had. I attempted the chord, but fucked up the doubled major 3rd.

https://youtu.be/7y837EQE5Zo

viz

Hope this isn’t too boring but I was searching for the earliest example of a 7#9 I could find, and I think it’s Tallis’s O Sacrum Convivium, at 0:35, where the tenor sings the low minor 3rd, and the trebles sing the major 3rd above (after a lovely sus4).

https://youtu.be/QGgK02bwF9s

So the chord’s slightly upside down, in that the minor 3rd is an octave below the major 3rd, but I’m pretty sure this is where Hendrix got the idea from  


https://i.imgur.com/xVgN7zN.jpg

Tallis wrote this in ’75. 

tanihhiavlt

1575?  

viz

tanihhiavlt said:

1575?  

That’s the one

Brad

viz said:

You only really call a major 3rd a 10th when it has nothing between the root and the 10th - ie you use a 10th to describe the largeness of the interval. Otherwise it’s a 3rd. 

Quite right… which is why we call it 7#9 and not 7b10 because there are things in between the root and b10 interval, notably a major 3rd 

For me, as we know it today it probably stems from the bebop era and how soloists (in particular Charlie Parker) approached improvising. As the chords often deviated from the key centre and went by so quickly, the soloists would generally play out of each chord, or pairs of related chords. I could be wrong here, but it’s my understanding (sure it was from the Miles Davis autobiography??) that Parker was one of the first to specifically incorporate improvising with extensions. 

@Axe_meister It’s too big a subject for here, but I guess the key is to understand the basics of what are extensions and the rules for naming extensions. 

Extensions are the result of continuing to stack 3rds on top of 7th chords, resulting in:

1  3  5  7  9  11 13 
C E G  B  D  F  A

A problem here is that the 9, 11 and 13 also happen to be the 2, 4 and 6 when within an octave. 

So when do you call it a 2nd or a 9th for example? Well, there are some “rules” to get to grips with (although these rules are often bent, or may clash with those steeped in a classical education or even appear to contradict themselves!)

Let’s take a sus chord. @viz expertly explained it in the classical traditions. But if we have a sus2 chord in a rock or jazz context, we call it that because we have replaced the 3rd of a maj or min triad with the 2nd. However we’d call it a 9, when that note is added to a maj or min triad:

Triad - 1   3  5
           C  E  G

Sus2 - 1   2   5
           C   D  G

add9 - 1   3  5   9
           C  E  G  D 

The above is the case for sus4 chords too.

Sus4 - 1  4   5
           C  F  G

I’ve often seen add2 instead of add9 and even simply 2 or 4 instead of sus2/sus4.

Things get a little tricker when it comes to 7th chords and including extensions and in particular altering those extensions such as in a 7#9 chord. 

7#9 is an Altered Dominant. An Alt Dom is anything where the 5th, 9th, 11th and 13th have been changed in some way (certain rules for if it’s up or down depending on the chord type). 

Generally speaking, a 9th is placed above a 7th chord. So the structure for the Dom7 is already in place. 9ths can be lowered or raised (just like 5ths). It just so happens that raising a 9th also makes it a b10. But we already have a maj 3rd in the chord and as the maj 3 is a “stronger” sound, that takes priority. But we also call it #9 because we have altered the 9th to create tension going back to the home chord. The fact we can vamp happily on said chord doesn’t change that fact.  

But the way the extensions are named facilitates easier recognition in the heat of the moment IMO. 

Is C7b10#12 easier to wrap ones head around compared to C7#9#5? Or just plain old C7Alt? 

Not for me…. Using 10ths 12ths and 14ths just adds more needless complications to me.  

Admittedly it’s not fool proof, but for me it’s the clearest way of approaching things. 

I must say, I’ve never done across b11 and I’d have to think about what I’d call your Em with an added Maj3 on top  

 

viz

Yeah I think it’s a very efficient and well worked out system especially for people who don’t want to use sheet music or relate things to traditional harmony or whatever. And I do like it for that reason. But I think the fact that I don’t really name chords like that, personally, plus the lack of functional meaning, or even the counter-functional implications behind the terms, is what prevents it from sitting comfortably with me. 

Damn you for spotting my deliberate Easter egg so quickly @Brad. I had a feeling I wasn’t going to get away with it. 

Brad

viz said:

Yeah I think it’s a very efficient and well worked out system especially for people who don’t want to use sheet music or relate things to traditional harmony or whatever. And I do like it for that reason. But I think the fact that I don’t really name chords like that, personally, plus the lack of functional meaning, or even the counter-functional implications behind the terms, is what prevents it from sitting comfortably with me. 

Damn you for spotting my deliberate Easter egg so quickly @Brad. I had a feeling I wasn’t going to get away with it. 

That’s totally understandable from your perspective, growing up with a (formal?) classical education.  

Haha ah man, it was an open goal I had to go for

ArchtopDave

I'm sure that @viz and @Brad would agree that, whilst some of us enjoy discussion of the finer points of Music Theory, that the underlying value of Music Theory terminology and common usage is as one of the avenues of communication with one's fellow musicians.

viz

That’s what it’s there for, yep, it’s a language!