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)

Weirdly, could it be someone has actually confused Hendrix with Alexander Scriabin? You know, Mystic chord, Synesthesia and all? Unless, of course, it is actually true... Gingermint (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2009 (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)

Not sure where this conversation had originally gone on ("Hyacinth, you're saying..."), but computer servers is my vague black hole answer as to "what accounts for" the delay. To this day if I upload an image on wikicommons there is a delay before it displays correctly on Wikipedia, which I have read (I don't know much about computers) is 'due to their servers updating'.

I imagine its like your grocery list. You run out of milk and you know you should put it on the list but while your looking for a pen your partner takes the list and goes to the store. You forget about the original list by the time you find the pen and start a new one, you end up going to the store and suddenly your shelves are all "distorted" by being jam packed full of the wrong food rather than info. Even the next day when the servers have tried to sort out the info, they are still struggling; as you would be with your food (but more so since food rots worse than computer data, I imagine). Hyacinth (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2011 (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)

Find a reference supporting it. Looks like anything goes on pages like this. SteubenGlass (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2009 (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)

Yes, you are correct that "You Can't Do That" is an instance of the 7#9 chord. However, I am fairly certain that you are incorrect that it was the first instance in popular music. What about American musical theater and Tin Pan Alley, ie. The Great American Songbook? I can't think of a standard off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are a few.BassHistory (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2014 (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)

This article ignores me, and every knowledgeable musician I've known in 25 years of playing, and the authors of every non-beginner music book I've read in that time. SteubenGlass (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This chord IS often called the "Hendrix chord" by rock guitarists, but pretty-much only by them. For the rest of the world it's a 7#9. The particular voicing Hendrix liked is a guitar-friendly grip which omits the 5th and when played on an E doubles the root (standard guitar tuning). --DannyMuse (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2011 (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)

This is ridiculous, not to mention unencyclopedic. I've been an active musician for 25 years and never heard someone musically knowledgeable call a 7#9 a "Hendrix chord". Anyone who uses such a term - even the references given - is, by the term's very use, revealing themselves to be musicologically ignorant and/or unskilled. I can provide published references calling a Leslie speaker cabinet's effect a "juicy organ sound", so, shall we retitle the article on Leslies to "Juicy Organ Sound"? That's equivalent to what this article does. Hendrix was neither the first, last, orbest to use this chord in popular music - merely the only one to write a song using it that's both popular and easy enough for most beginning guitarists to learn. Steely Dan used this chord far more frequently than Hendrix did, they just didn't use it in any songs than a beginner could learn, and by the time you're proficient enough to begin tackling Steely Dan, you usually have learned proper terminology. As it stands, he title of this article promotes ignorance and incorrect terminology. If this chord must have its own article, it should be titled "Seven+Sharp Nine Chord" (or, if you want to be pedantic, "Augmented Ninth", although in my experience most people commonly use the less technically correct name.) Hyacinth above asks what the difference is between the Tristan Chord article and this one. The difference is vast. The term "Tristan Chord" is accepted by highly knowledgeable musicians and authoritative sources (and marked a revolution in fundamental understanding about the function of harmony.) Unless Hyacinth is making the argument that "Black Gold: The Lost Archives of Jimi Hendrix" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Rock Guitar Songs" are the authoritative equivalent of an Arnold Schoenberg treatise on harmony, the comparison is specious. And- Hendrix only even used it in like three frggin' songs for blog's sake! SteubenGlass (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I hadn't seen the conversation archive below when I posted this. This is a bad road for WP to go down. Of course you can find more sources saying it's called the "Hendrix chord" than not - because, why would a reputable source ever mention the phrase "Hendrix Chord" at all? I can assure you there are many more authoritative references that do not use this phrase than do, and the ones that do are mostly oriented at beginners and sacrifice precise language to help beginners along with something a little more memorable. When Arnold Schoenberg or the like writes a well-respected textbook explicitly stating that the 7#9 chord is not commonly known as a "Hendrix Chord", I will be back to correct this article. Of course, for the reason just given, that will never happen, but the truth is: 1.) this chord is not commonly known as a "Hendrix chord" among anybody but a small percentage of the musically illiterate and those selling books to them; and 2.) to say "it is known by guitarists as..." is untrue, as I am a guitarist and I do not know it that way; and ergo: Wikipedia now, and for the foreseeable future, contains at least one article that is misleading at best, and outright incorrect at worst. Looks like there are some flaws in WP's system after all. SteubenGlass (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FURTHER UPDATE: Upon consideration, the problem is this article is not describing the chord by what it is, it is describing it by what it is (occasionally) known as. The Tristan Chord is the Tristan Chord, but the 7#9 is only known as the "Hendrix Chord" (necessitating the use of quotes around it) - it it is a vernacular or slang term, and there should be some sort of explicit clarification of this. Unfortunately, that's original research on my part, I cannot find a reference saying specifically that, since references of high authoritative quality omit mentioning the term entirely, as mentioned twice above, so, uh, yyyyyeeeeah. There you go. I'm going to bed now. SteubenGlass (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WHOA NELLIE, I AM HOT TO TROT NOW: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Sorry, folks, we do need to reopen the conversation and rename this article... I only just now checked Wikipedia:Article title#Use common names of persons and things, which Hyacinth refers to in argument against using what is actually the chord's most common English-language name (7#9) as the title. That section says: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." The "Hendrix Chord" is by no means the most common English-language name of this chord! Argh!! It simply isn't. The overwhellllllllmmmmmmming majority of authoritative musical textbooks, and of musicians, simply do not call it that. Primarily, only a portion of a beginner subset of players of a single musical instrument, and the authors of books catering to that portion of that subset of players of that instrument, use this term. Note that there is not a single authoritative source among the references given for the term; instead citiations are references are to sources like Mel Bay (purveyor of breezy, informal beginner's music instruction) and "The Complete Idiot's Guide...". So, citing that guideline is another totally specious argument, and the proposal about renaming the article to bring it in compliance with that guideline needs to be reopened. Can anyone tell me how to do that? SteubenGlass (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AFTERWORD: I just did some quick research and discovered that if the case for the name of the chord being most commonly be referred to as "The Hendrix Chord" is strong, then an equally strongly or even more strongly supported case can be made that it is in fact most commonly referred to as "The Dreaded Hendrix Chord". No, I'm not going to seriously suggest that the article and title be changed to reflect that, at this time. But the article needs to be brought into compliance with Wikipedia:Article title#Use common names of persons and things, and if if "Hendrix Chord" continues to be supported more strongly than the factually more common names, I will indeed make the case that "The Dreaded Hendrix Chord" is an equally or more appropriate phrase than "The Hendrix Chord", by its own supporting arguments - and that case will stand. I have my supporting references at the ready. If truth will not out, then let it fail to do so with a spectacular descent into absurdity. SteubenGlass (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, because I'm new at this. It may be of interest that guitarist Rik Emmett of the Canadian band Triumph said in a CBC Radio interview that Hendrix was shown the "sharp nine" chord by jazz guitarist Barney Kessel.Goober'sPal (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For me, this is a voicing of a 17th chord, leaving out some notes (like the 9th). If used in blues, it is blues minor scale and blues major scale played together in 1 chord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.5.6 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another possible function of the chord is a double-diminished 9th chord. root - minor third, diminished fifth, diminished seventh, double-diminished nineth. (example: C-Eb-Gb-Bbb-Dbbb) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.5.6 (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dominant thirteenth chord: C E G B♭ D F A play^ⓘ.

There can't be a 17th chord, or anything higher than a thirteenth chord. Given scale degrees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 one may construct a tertian chord using the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, and finally the 1st again. (C, D, E, F, G, A, B♭, and C = C-E-G-B♭-D-F-A and C). Hyacinth (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Why stop at 13? Keep going up in thirds and you can get higher chords. If you for instance play root, 9th, b3th, 5th, b7th and on top of that an augmented root, the augmented root is a #15th. If, however, the 9th was omitted, the #15th takes the function of the b9th, making it a 9th chord. The problem lies in notation of this augmented 15th chord. It is common to call this a m7-9add9 chord. Same thing with any chord that contains both the b3th and 3th. I call this a 17th chord, while you might call it a major with #9th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.5.6 (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You can have scale degrees above a 13th. The higher scale degree numbers imply the presence of lower scale degrees. A 13th is the same as a 6th, yet we call it a 13th, because it implies the 7th below is present. (C-E-G-Bb-A - please let's not argue inversions). So, should I have a chord that throws a D ABOVE the A (the 13th scale degree) in the preceeding chord/example, then it is a 16th, not a 9th. Otherwise we should call a 13th a 6th.... And of course we all know that a "6th" chord is a misnomer for a minor 7 (at least to some) C6=CEGA Am7=ACEG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjobill427 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2012

I question why you would chose to call the augmented root a #15 when it is two octaves above the tonic, but then prefer to call it a b9 in the octave below. Would not the upper note be a b16 instead of an augmented tonic (#15)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjobill427 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2012

CM13, first inversion = e13(♭9), 2nd inversion = G13 (Play^ⓘ).

Why don't you call it the 101th? Hyacinth (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason you call a 2nd a 9th, unless the 2nd takes the function of the 3th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.129.117 (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See suspended chord vs added tone chord. Hyacinth (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I get the distinction between suspended and added tones. Seems like the mixed 3th chord is the proper term for my 17th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.129.117 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is often referred to as 'The Hendrix Chord'. Some rock guitarists may know it as such, but don't know it's formally known as E7#9 by jazz snobs who detest the term.67.169.93.56 (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2012 (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 <script type="text/javascript" src="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>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 got it wrong (11 v 9 degrees) attests this not being a routine calc. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to insist that you know what fingerings and positions Hendrix used, which, without a source, is WP:OR. Hyacinth (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly! To do this calculation, you need to know what fingerings he used, and neither you nor I nor any source provided thusfar has that answer. Clearly, this is OR.Yilloslime ^T_C 20:01, 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)

Okay, perhaps "the claim" currently implies that "the sequence" "implies" the chromatic scale. Factually and objectively, 11 notes is most of the chromatic scale, and I believe we could rephrase "the claim" to simply point that out rather imply whatever subjective bit may be read into it now. Hyacinth (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, since the claim doesn't use multiple sources how does WP:SYN apply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyacinth (talk • contribs) 13:16, 21 August 2009

One source says he played these chords (x). You claim it's a routine calculation (and therefore doesn't require a source) to count up 11 degrees of the scale (y). You then say x + y = an implied chromatic scale. That's a synthesis: x + y = z. QED. But let's not get lost in the minutia whether it technically constitutes SYN or whether the calculation involved is routine or not. It's obvious that your conclusion that the chord sequence implies a chromatic scale is just that: your own novel conclusion, one that's not supported by any references, and one that is disputed by at least one user (i.e. me). Without a source, it's OR, plain and simple. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

synthesis: x + y = z? I thought that was routine calculation. 2 + 2 = 4, for example.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyacinth (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 August 2009

As I've already said,[2] the adding part is the easy part. The non-routine part is figuring out how many new notes are included in each chord.Yilloslime ^T_C 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of the uninvolved editors who have commented so far at the OR noticeboard thread agree that this is OR, so I'm removing it. Please find consensus (or a source) before reinstating it. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"prior to his solo career in 1966"

Just a minor point. It wasn't really a solo career in the strictest of senses, that is to say it wasn't really a solo career at all. Granted, the band was built around, and indeed for, Jimi, but it was a band nonetheless. Can this please be reworded to something approximating "prior to becoming a recognised musical artist in his own right with the inception of The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1966." Thanks, The Coj (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First use in "On Your Toes", as early as 1936?

The Rodgers/Hart musical On Your Toes uses this chord in its title song. Maybe someone with access to the score could verify this? (For example, Overture, bars 26 and 30)... -- megA (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling it hendrix chord is insulting to real musicians.

This page should be called 7#9. Should we rename the Gsus4 chord the beatles chord because they used it in a song? how retarded. Only a complete moron would call a 7#9 the hendrix chord. This page is why I can't stand most so called musicians.--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, the list of reasons for moving a page at Help:Moving a page#Reasons for moving a page include "The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject or it is overprecise". They do not include being personally insulted and personally insulting a page, its editors, and/or "so called musicians". Hyacinth (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I find it strange I didn't point out that your terminology ("retarded") is highly insulting and lacks any respect.

It seems more realistic, smart, and perceptive, to use what may or may not be inspirational terminology such as "Hendrix chord" than to be a discouraging jackass all the time for no reason.

Lastly, note that just cause I have a last name, doesn't mean my friends can't call me by my first, or the other way around. Some people think the more ways we have of talking about things the better, not the less the better. Hyacinth (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The chord example should be F double sharp ("FX"), not G natural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.138.6 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice

Nice article, guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.93.68 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Hendrix Chord" is one specific voicing, without a 5th

There is no 5th in the "Hendrix chord". Therefore, the musical examples do not reflect actual practice. In practice, the Hendrix chord is just one particular voicing of a 7#9. "Hendrix chord" is not exactly synonymous with "7#9."BassHistory (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

♯, #, vs sharp

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Accidentals, accidentals in articles are required to be either the template, Template:Music/doc, or the words. Thus C♯, C-sharp or C sharp, rather than C# or C-#. Presumably the template should be used unless there is a reason not to. I propose the number of times the word is used in articles and books covering this subject and the number of non-'experts' involved may be a reason.

Anyone else care, have any thoughts, a vote? Hyacinth (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First use in Scott Joplin's Sunflower Slow Drag?

I noticed an early use of the augmented 9th chord in a Scott Joplin rag published in 1901. (C-sharp in the right hand over B-flat, D, A-flat in the left.)

--Bill 71.191.176.113 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that would still require a citation even though it seems clearly apparent in the notation, it would get tagged as WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. See: WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). Hyacinth (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Feuilles Mortes

Checking the cited source the quote is found on p.172 and p.174 mentions a "major ninth chord" and a "ninth chord" but not a dominant 7♯9 chord or augmented ninth chord. Hyacinth (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The first two chords in the piece (referred to in Bruhn) are perhaps not the most clear example of augmented ninth chords because they can be heard in two different ways depending on the location of the root. However, there is a much more obvious example in measures 15 and 16, where the chords are unmistakably augmented ninth chords, C#-F-G#-B-E and D#-G-A#-C#-F#, and the root is clearly identified by being the lowest note. This is not pointed out in Bruhn, but perhaps Debussy's music itself can be cited? 76.21.115.14 (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are describing is original synthesis at best, if not your own analysis. The Debussy passage is interesting, but it looks like it has to go. Just because you can find something spelled enharmonically doesn't mean it counts as a certain type of chord.BassHistory (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed: Uncited

• The Spencer Davis Group's 1967 song "I'm a Man"

Hendrix's contemporaries:

• the Beatles' "Taxman", and "The Word"
• "I Feel Free" from Cream's debut album Fresh Cream; both songs predate the release of "Purple Haze"
• the opening of "Kid Charlemagne" from the Steely Dan album The Royal Scam
• a soft D7♯9 chord is used by Pink Floyd in their song "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" (for example, it can be heard just before Roger Waters starts to sing "remember when you were young, you shone like the sun")
• prominent featuring in the song "Junkie Slip" by The Clash from the album Sandinista!
• Wes Montgomery's album, The Incredible Jazz Guitar of Wes Montgomery, in the piece "Four on Six"
• throughout Muse's "Hyper Music"

Present in:

• Led Zeppelin cover version of the Ben E. King song "We're Gonna Groove"
• "Siva" by The Smashing Pumpkins
• AC/DC song "Shoot To Thrill" off of their Back In Black album

I removed the above as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• but guitarist Billy Butler’s use of the chord in Bill Doggett’s "Hold It" (1958) proved so memorable that musicians began referring to it as the "Hold It" chord.
• The chord is employed in the John Coltrane jazz standard "Blue Train".
• The chord appears on Miles Davis's "Miles Runs the Voodoo Down", from the rock-influenced Bitches Brew.
• The chord is present in the Mötley Crüe song "Dr. Feelgood" off the same title album during the main riff.
• It is used during the outro to Alice In Chains song "Would?".

Hyacinth (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A Rose is a rose ... or 7#9 vs. Augmented Ninth

While it is true that the INTERVAL between the top note of the "Hendrix Chord" and the bass (in Purple Haze) is indeed an "augmented ninth", this is not the most clear name for this CHORD. Admittedly, these things are hardly standard, but in general practice the term "augmented" when used in reference to a CHORD generally refers to the 5th of the chord. See the Chord Table at the bottom of the article for confirmation, where for both triads and seventh chords the term "augmented" always refers to the 5th of the chord. - --DannyMuse (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article is this relevant? Hyacinth (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere any longer. This article previously had several instances of referring to the 7#9 sonority by the confusing and inaccurate term "Augmented Ninth chord". So I edited the article to correct this and added appropriate citations. (I also corrected similar problems in related articles - see for example Augmented seventh chord). Again, the designation of "Augmented Ninth" is only correct when referring to the INTERVAL between the top note of the "Hendrix Chord" and the bass. In common practice, when the term "augmented" is used in reference to an entire CHORD, it refers to the 5th of the chord, which ironically is absent from the particular "Hendrix chord" voicing of the 7#9 chord which this article discusses. --DannyMuse (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Other uses - citation really needed?

Is it really necessary to have a citation for every mention of every song that uses it? I mean, the 7#9 is a very distinctive chord and easily recognizable by ear. IMHO, just listening to the song is enough citation. I would guess that most people interested in the Hendrix chord already know its characteristic sound.

IMO, if there's a citation, by all means, use it, but please remove all those [citation needed] where there aren't. The [citation needed] after every sentence makes it look very messy and it's just very distracting and annoying.

Sorry for not logging in, wp doesn't let me use my login from the nl wp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.232.148.201 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CITE. Hyacinth (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it, but I still think they aren't needed (WP:MINREF). They are not direct quotations, I don't think they're likely to be challenged, and they are not contentious material about living persons. 83.232.148.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Actually, they are all already challenged, thus the "citation needed" templates. Hyacinth (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, guess they're needed then. I still find them distracting. Thanks. 83.232.148.201 (talk)

Some people also feel this is way to avoid list or example cruft or whatever you might call it. Hyacinth (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather get rid of the "[citation needed] cruft" :) 83.232.148.201 (talk)

Proposal to merge

This article, as it stands, is problematic for a couple of reasons.

First, and most importantly, google searches on terms like "blues sharp nine" and "dominant sharp nine chord" yield this page as a first hit. This is problematic because it is misleading to novices, and deeply frustrating to more advanced musicians or theorists who might have reason to search such terms. Such searches should lead to serious, reasoned articles on dominant chords, altered chords, the altered scale (melodic minor), etc., with perhaps a brief section on Hendrix's specific use of the chord. The article itself states that it is "colloquially referred to as the Hendrix chord." So a serious search leads to an article on a colloquialism.

Second, this page currently appears highly biased, essentially arguing that the 7#9 chord should be called the "Hendrix Chord." The so-called "Hendrix chord" is actually a specific voicing (omitting the fifth), in a particular key (E), with the root doubled, and used as the tonic, on a specific instrument, of the 7#9. It is the "Purple Haze" chord that people (and this page) are colloquially referring to. The 7#9 chord was widely used before Hendrix, continued to be widely used by others during his career, and is still in common use today. It is a tonality worthy of discussion within a much broader context than that of this page as it stands.

Proposed articles that this be merged with or made a section of: Altered_scale or Dominant_(music)

Short of that, this page is in serious need of revision, with the Header being changed to the name of the chord and a neutral, informed discussion of the tonality and its many uses.

Thanks, JFdove (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not that there is an argument that the chord 'should be called' the 'Hendrix Chord'. No. The argument is the chord is actually referred as such. Don't shoot the messenger!

Tonality is the key center or "tonic". Thus, dom7#9 cannot be a tonality, as no key is implied. Dom7#9 is a dominant chord (or "sonority") with a #9 'tension tone'. Interesting situations where it can be used include secondary dominant, tritone substitute, even VII7#9->I).

The thinking that E7#9 implies an altered scale is wrong. The altered scale can be a good option, but it is certainly not the only option. Other options include various "souped-up" blues scales, the half-step whole-step scale or (symmetric-diminished scale), or other scales that feature both a major and minor third (whether enharmonically) such as phrygian b4, phrygian dominant with an added #2 as a passing or neighbor tone, or Spanish 8 tone (Gambale uses this).Xkit (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you start on those sections of altered scale and Dominant (music)? That seems a lot easier than starting from scratch, and once those are established the argument for merging this article would actually exist. Hyacinth (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No. This article could do well with a section for Harmonic Function, possibly with a subsections of "Uses" "Scales" and "Interpretation". But not by me! (See my user page for why I refuse to contribute). Xkit (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the best way to clear up the confusion would be to move/rename the article to something like "Dominant7 sharp9 chord" (or something like that) and start from scratch, with the existing material as a section in a more objective, neutral page. There is a lot of misinformation on the page as it exists now. For instance, the introductory files represent the chord with a natural 5th. This in not how Hendrix used the chord (he omitted the 5th), and it's not how the chord is commonly voiced--and by commonly I mean you would be hard pressed to find an example in any form of popular music (broadly defined) where the natural 5th is included (unless the #9 is used as a passing tone in a bluesy riff/progression.) The reason for this is that the chord is derived from/related to the seventh mode of the melodic minor scale (the "altered scale"), which does not have a 5th, but rather a #4 (#11), and a b6 (b13). These intervals are sometimes referred to as b5 and #5, respectively. It also includes a b9 and a #9 (scale-wise, b2 and #2) and a major 3rd.

Any accurate representation of the Hendrix chord omits the 5th, so File:Hendrix chord.png needs to be edited or removed. File:Hendrix chord scale.png is also incorrect, since the scale derived from the chord includes the erroneous fifth. Same goes for File:Dominant seventh raised ninth vs dominant seventh split third chord.png, which also needs further clarification: the two chords are enharmonically equivalent--they are actually the same chord, just notated differently (why is that file even on the page? How is it relevant?) Further, any representation of a 7#9 chord that includes a natural 5th needs good citations to back up it's inclusion, along with an explanation that it is the exception, not the rule, since "Eb7#9" in a chart means "Eb ALT, include the #9", and ALT means "the altered scale is the implied tonality." Preferable to deleting the files in question would be if their author(s) could amend them. Sorry for being so long-winded, but this stuff is non-trivial to me, and probably to others.

Thanks, JFdove (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source which asserts or argues that "7♯9" means "altered scale"? Hyacinth (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is totally problematic. I propose that about 20% of the material be retained in a single section within Altered chord, which should also be merged with Altered seventh chord. This page is basically referring to the use of a sharp 9th chord within the context of the blues (or blues-rock). Further, its crazy for Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord to have an entire article, while Dominant seventh flat ninth chord is covered in every music theory text. This entire article should basically be reduced to a footnote in the general topic of "the dominant seventh chord in the blues", which is what this article really talking about.BassHistory (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Expert help/rename

In light of the recurring concerns voiced throughout the history of this page, it is in dire need of an overhaul. First, an objective, neutral discussion of the general function and role of the tonality (dominant, altered, etc.) Second, the colloquial "Hendrix chord" appellation properly contextualized. Third, accuracy. Fourth, quality of sources. Finally, the page needs to be renamed/moved so that relevant searches lead to an appropriately informative and edifying article. In this editors view, this page should be about the 7#9 chord, or about the ALT chord, with "Hendrix chord" as a subsection.

Thanks, JFdove (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tried repeatedly in the past to do this with limited success. For some reason that defies logic and a sense of proportion, several editors INSIST on focusing on Jimi Hendrix' singular use of this particular harmonic device in the song Purple Haze. In fact, his use of the chord was unconventional. That in itself is notable, but by definition, an unconventional or unusual usage of a particular harmonic device should hardly be put forth as the main focal point of the article.

In short, this chord is usually used in the same way as any other dominant chord: V goes to I/i or deceptively to some other chord. The notable thing would be the altered 9th. Again, the thing that should be highlighted would be how the altered tone (the #9) is typically resolved. (Chromatically altered tones usually resolve by 1/2 step in the same direction as their inflection in the context of the musical passage).

After such a discussion it would be appropriate to discuss historically important examples and/or notable exceptions of the chord. Also, a lot of the way the chord is discussed in the current article completely ignores the fact that harmony arises in musical textures as the result of the interplay of multiple musical lines. In other words, this particular sonority could result from a chromatic alteration of just one part (vocal or instrumental) against the harmonic background of a simple dominant chord.

One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit articles. One of the greatest weaknesses of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit articles. I have a B.A. in Music Education in the U.S. I have been a musician for 30 years, and music educator for over 20 and currently direct several high school bands and teach college level AP Music Theory classes. And yet when I try to correct glaring errors in articles like this I find that I have to fight a constant barrage of no doubt well meaning individuals that don't fully grasp music theory and are more interested in promoting their fan-based agenda because they know one or two significant uses of a musical concept and yet are ignorant of the the much larger and more important way that idea has been used and is used in countless musical compositions over decades or even centuries in diverse and often remotely related styles. Hence the insistence of some to want to refer to this extremely flexible harmonic device by the term "The Hendrix Chord" when in reality that term is only used by rock guitarists to refer to one particular voicing of it, and even then in a non-conventional usage. - DannyMuse (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would add that Hendrix was not even the first one to use the 7#9 chord as a tonic. I'm sure that there are countless examples probably going back to the ragtime era of non-functioning dominant tonic chords voiced with sharped ninths. The flat 7th and flat 3rd are just blue notes, there was nothing ground breaking about Hendrix using that chord in 1968. I spent about 30 seconds in iTunes and found another example of Bud Powell using a sharp 9 chord for I on a 1953 recording of "Bag's Groove". This page isn't serious and should probably be merged into a very short section within Altered chord called something like "Sharped 9th Chord in the Blues"BassHistory (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This and many other related articles are using confused definitions of the word "chord". A chord is a musical sensation build from components as: pitches, intervals and sounds like attack and distortion (leading to emphasis on certain overtones). The mentioned guitar chord {E E G# d e g} has the pitches E, G, G# and D. In one octave this is 0-3-4-10 and in two octaves 0-4-10-15 (chromatic pitchnumbers). The latter may be abbreviated as "7#9-5" which is not the same as "7#9". Furthermore the actual Purple Haze Chord {E E G# d e g} is not a classical thirds chord and therefore can only get full credits by notation in intervals: 12+4+6+2+3 making it a tritonus chord (the 6). Those are issues any studied musician should realize if rereading their textbooks written by Hindemith, Forte, De Leeuw and many others.

But so far for theory, the actual chords as played by Jimmy Hendrix get there musical sensation maybe for the greatest part from the distortion leading to overtones. Maybe they could better be analysed as power chords? Surely classical analyses based on thirds is not appropriate.

Now 12+4+6+2+3 can be named Purple Haze Chord which is more consistent than Hendrix Chord. Just like Elektra Chord, Tristan Chord and others. After all, it is the use in actual music that counts! By naming it by composer, there are so many "Bach chords" ... ... ... -- RhodoEn (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this train chime an example?

I have been hearing these chimes on Union Pacific locos and found documentation at http://atsf.railfan.net/airhorns/k5lla.html. According to the author, the Nathan K5LLA sounds C, D#, F#, G# and B, which I believe constitutes a (enharmonic) G##9 chord. 108.200.48.254 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You COULD call this a G#7 #9 chord (or an Ab7 #9) in first inversion (the 3rd of the chord is in the bass). But then you'd need to respell it changing the lowest "C" to a "B#". Alternately, the enharmonic Ab7 #9 would be spelled: C, Eb, Gb, Ab, B and would likely be notated in pop charts as "Ab7 #9/C". Still, while it would have that sonority, it's not a dominant chord unless it resolves as dominant chords do.

No doubt the reason it's effective as a train horn is the dissonance without resolution. Very jazzy! - DannyMuse (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, has to be B# instead of C. In production the bells are so sloppy that they are lucky to come very close to either. Does the chord have to resolve to be considered dominant? I know that's how the dominant seventh is traditionally used, but I thought "dominant" refers to the V scale degree.108.200.48.254 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring / cleanup

As many people have pointed out, this article focuses only on some musical styles from a certain period. Music existed well before 1960, and all the harmonic devices used in Pop and Rock music were already invented. Remember WP:WEIGHT. Thus, the article must cover Classical, Jazz, and Pop/rock music, and not favour only one of them. First, I'm going to restructure the article without actually modifying the contents, then, I'll add some referenced stuff and remove OR.--Fauban 18:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How does the structure give undue weight (to something)? Hyacinth (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe WP:WEIGHT wasn't the exact Wikipedia policy, but I think my point was clear: The article focused almost exclusively on pop/rock music, as if they had "invented" the chord. This chord belongs to many musical styles and periods, and all must be covered equally, without favoring any of them. I think the restructuring I've done is a good thing.--Fauban 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying your point was clear doesn't make it clear. There are few cases where changing the structure of an article can change the emphasis. If an article only talks about the color yellow, switching around paragraphs or changing headings doesn't make it talk about the color blue. Hyacinth (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. In an acticle about the color yellow, dark yellow shouldn't have preference over the other shades. There shouldn't be a very big section about it and then smaller ones saying that the other shades are derived from it. The page is no longer called Hendrix chord, now it's called Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord. Focusing exclusively in Hendrix's work isn't a good idea, other views should be included. I mean, if we can add referenced information saying that this chord appears in many other genres, then the article must reflect this fact (maybe I didn't say clearly that I was going to expand the article after restructuring it). I've read like 10 jazz harmony treatises, and none of them makes any reference to Jimi Hendrix, and I think jazz and classical have the same "dignity" as rock music. Cheers!--Fauban 09:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Fauban is right, the issue is: "The page is no longer called Hendrix chord, now it's called Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord." As I tried to explain earlier (21:24, 17 August 2012) Hendrix' { E E G# d e g } is a chord with his own musical "rights" with 3x E (root), no B (5th), a tritone and a second. Changing the title of the page suggests that the Purple Haze chord is "simply 7#9" which it is not.

There is a gradual distinction between a theoretical and a practical chord. Whether or not you call the latter "a chord" (and write an article about it ...) is just a matter of opinion. I think you should call a chord-in-musical-practice a distinct "chord" as Paul Hindemith did in his "Unterweisung" (1937: long before rock music!). If so, 7#9 can be seen as a notation for a certain pitch set. Playing this like { E G# B D G } - as a block chord - is musically not very interesting. The way the pitch set 7#9-5 is used by Hendrix and many others is real music. Each with his own "rights" and possible articles or sections within. Of course we will call both 7#9 and { E E G# d e g } "chords" but it may clearify things to think of 7#9 more specificly as a pitch set, "the stuff an actual chord is made of".

So, somebody changed the title of this article in such a way that it no longer covers the original subject, no wonder the confusion! Please split the article in two, one titled 'Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord' and the other 'Purple Haze chord'. Otherwise the confusion will go on forever.

As for the hierarchy of articles: 'Purple Haze chord' is a subset of 'Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord'. In my opinion Elektra chord, Psalms chord, Purple Haze chord and so on need to be seperate articles (strange enough this is done for the chords in "serious" music and not for chords in "rock" music; what Fauban calls "dignity" should work the other way around too). Either all musical chords are sections in a few theoretical articles (which will be unpractical long, as it is now, but the chord and the relation theory/practice is at least searchable) or - easier - each one is a separate article referencing the theory article and vice/versa. -- RhodoEn (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think here there's a confusion between chord and voicing. Using the narrowest definitions, if I'm not mistaken, a chord is a collection of different pitches (in this case EG#BDG), without a defined order. A voicing makes reference to the vertical arrangement and possible doublings of the notes of the chord. Thus, while usually being called a chord, the Hendrix chord should be described as a distinctive voicing of the G7#9 chord. Calling it chord would be what in math is called abuse of language; however, Hendrix and many other rock/pop musicians lack much music theory knowledge, so they tend to use inexact terminology.

Also, I'd like to ask if there's "proof" that what is called Hendrix chord is always voiced in exactly the same way. I know some gitarists that always use the same voicing for a chord (e.g. G minor has always the same voicing and inversion regardless of the existence of a more comfortable voicing following voice leading), but that doesn't make that voicing "better" over others.

Then, I'd like to point that: how many pop/rock musicians that used the G7#9 chord borrowed it from Jimi Hendrix, and how many from previous styles? The Beatles seem not to have taken it from Hendrix, thus, they didn't use the "Hendrix chord" because they might have used a different or variable voicing. If that was true for many other musicians it turns out that the Hendrix chord, described as an invariable voicing, hasn't been used by so many people. In general, a couple of treatises I have say that the "identity" of the chord comes from the pitches it contains, and that many voicings have the same general effect.

Another thing is that Wikipedia has redirects, so if somebody is looking for "Hendrix chord", he'll find it. About other chords you mention, the Elektra chord is a chord, not a voicing; while I've never agreed in the Psalms chord being a separate article (from minor chord). Thanks.--Fauban 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In general, the identity of a chord depends on pitches and intervals both. Which is the most "important for identity" differs from case to case and from musician to musician. For Hindemith (Unterweisung) and many others it is the voicing, described by intervals, that makes the actual impact of the chord. For those musicians Purple Haze is not the same chord as 7#9 and definitely not as 7#9-5 (another pitch set). 7#9 played as { D E G G# B } doesn't make much sense (although some avantgarde composer may have a different opinion ...). Even in formal classical theory there is a clear distinction between { C E G } (root) and { G C E } (6/4).

I don't think the confusion is between chord and voicing but about the definition of both. That's why I wrote "gradual distinction". Of course { C G E } is a voicing of { C E G }. But to call { E E G# D E G } a voicing of { E G# B D G } is something else.

I have difficulty with your statement about abuse and lack of music theory. You are not implying that the definition of "chord" by Hindemith (Unterweisung), De Leeuw (Music of the 20th century) and many other important treatises are abusing and inexact?

Correct me if I'm wrong but both the Strauss / Elektra chord and the Hendrix / Purple Haze chord are voicings of the same pitch set? -- RhodoEn (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you may know, omitting the fifth of a seventh (or ninth) chord is something usual, and it's metioned in many treatises in many styles; while the doubling of the root barely deserves any mention. You won't find a separate article about a dominant seventh chord without a fifth (e.g. G B F). This voicing in particular is far from being an original Hendrix creation, I've seen it in Art Tatum's transcriptions since the 1930's, while it also appears in Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue and Piano Concerto in F (only to give some examples).

Besides, you'll agree that we're here talking about a dominant seventh chord, but enhanced with an extra note (see the article: dominant 7th + blue note). This chord has a dominant "form", but I may be used as V or not. As you may know, since the apparition of bules music, dominant chords can also be used over other scale degrees without losing their functional identity (e.g. you can do I-IV-I-V-I all in dominant 7th chords). Thus, Hendrix wouln't be innovating by using it over scale degrees other than V.

About your alternative definitons (Hindemith, etc.), I don't have these books, but if we treat any possible pitch combination as a singular entity, there are almost infinite possibilities (if you want I can pick the calculator and do the math), and we won't be creating an article for each one. I think Wikipedia will be using the more widespread definitions. If you want, you can create articles about De Leew's theories. Besides, we're talking about an unambigously tonal context, so atonal analysis are not expected.

Apart from this, what you say about the Elektra chord being the same pitch set, it's true, but there are other things. Yes, they're the same notes, but the arrangement is very different from a normal dominant chord. Besides, in that article they're discussing its function and nature, which, unlike this chord, is much more ambiguous. The concept of any voicing and inversion retaining the original character of the original chord spaced in thirds is only partial, specially if changing the inversion. Treatisis distinguish between Ami7 and Cma6, and when voicing a full G9 chord, you can't put all the notes randomly! (first, the G and A must not be in contact, while the 4th inversion is forbidden by some theorists).

Finally, the Beatles called the chord "great ham-fisted jazz chord". Should we create a separate article with that name? Objectively speaking, It's not a secret that many rock/pop musicians and fans are completely unaware of the music composed before 1960, so when they hear something new to them, they become surprised and excited, and believe that that sound had never been used before, thus giving it a different, new name. But that's why there Wikipedia has redirects.--Fauban 12:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the nice discussion in the first place. I will rest my case with the idea of restructuring those wiki pages. But I go on creating elsewhere a chord catalog about AND beyond the classical-thirds-theory. The treatise by Hindemith you can read in english as pdf on wiki:Hindemith. His idea of the importance of intervals as basis for analysis of chords gave me a much more universal view listening and playing music. Classical analysis is undoubtly the tool for classical music. But it is not entirely convenient for music before or after that short era. Nor for music in other culteres (the greater part of the world ...) nor for those who think there are iron walls between tonal/atonal, classic/modern, serious/pop etc. Bach wrote some pretty atonal notes but does it in such a 'natural' way that classical analysts (I worked with them) are able to overhear those passages. On the other hand, even Schönberg could be pretty tonal from time to time. Frank Zappa had great knowledge of e.g. Strawinsky's music. Etc. Etc. To all those thinking of music in separate iron boxes: Music is art, not mathematics.

A few points:

- there are 359 pitch sets in equally tempered 12 tone with 2 to 12 pitches/notes/tones

- about 150 are known as chords and/or modi

- there are infinite interval series, reducing them to pitch sets is useful to get grip on there relations (Elektra / Purple Haze!)

- in doing so, nobody has to learn anymore that C6 = Am7/C, it's just in the scheme (allthough not in wiki ...)

- if intervals are the main issue with chord, there is no such thing as an "inversion"

- ommiting 3rd, 5th or 7th give raise to other intervals, therefore changing musical impact; otherwise it would be pretty useless.

- "great ham-fisted jazz chord" I like that! no separate article please but a section title would be nice (just like Purple Haze ...)

RhodoEn (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Hyacinth: will you please stop editing other peoples comments? I thought Wikipedia is about writing and editing articles and reading peoples comments. If this goes on, I am out. -- RhodoEn (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You should take your own advice. Sign your comments, and don't put them in the middle of other people's comments. If you can't refrain from editing other people's comments that way, maybe you should leave. (If you're going to talk to me about things other than this article you should probably use my talk page.) Hyacinth (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The chord does not appear in the Beatles' "Michelle"

I've consulted a leadsheet and a written piano score, and I can't see it anywehere, not even implyed. I'll remove this song.--Fauban 14:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hyacinth, the chord does not appear in Michelle. I mean, it's very clear in "Taxman" (3rd bar), but in "Michelle" the chord is not even implyed (e.g. through blue notes, and this song isn't bluesy at all). I have the piano/organ complete songbook (I think it's the official one), and I have consulted leadsheets; and it's absolutely nowhere. There is a book with 6-7 transcriptions (The Beatles for Jazz Piano) which has this chord (or I guess so), but that's not the original harmonization at all. The reference must be alluding only "Taxman" and "the Word", and maybe later somebody else added "Michelle". Thank you. P.S. I've consulted an Amazon partial preview of the book, and there's a subchapter titled Exotic intensifiers: sharpened 9th and flattened 9th where the only mentioned song for a 7#9 chord is "Be mine".--Fauban 15:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Scales"

It could be argued that "any scale can go over any chord", but that isn't really a useful approach for learning/teaching. So, what we should show here are patterns of use. The current chart is totally wrong (for example, Dorian is not an appropriate scale for a V7 chord in a minor key. I'm deleting the "Scales" box entirely, because it is so rife with errors it has the potential to mislead thousands of music students. We should come to a consensus here on the talk page, and then add something. I suggest a mainstream source, such as Jamey Aebersold, Mark Levine (musician) or something from Berklee Press. Cheers.BassHistory (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214023754/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/the-magazine/arts/365466/shiver-down-the-backbone.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/arts/365466/shiver-down-the-backbone.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominant seventh sharp ninth chord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425013723/http://www.fender.com/news/index.php?display_article=500 to http://www.fender.com/news/index.php?display_article=500

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Links in the lead

So, to me, it seem like the lead should link to topics such as the domiant, the seventh chord, the major third, the root, and enharmonic. But I don't want to upset people by being so disrespectful and ignoring process on a website that tells me to be bold a take risks. So instead of creating those links I humbly ask y'all who happen to read this before I die if I should or may add those links. See: MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Hyacinth (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tags

This article is tagged ridiculously with {{cleanup-rewrite|date=February 2012}}, with no reason given. It is tagged with {{missing information|broader, general context and use of the chord|date=February 2012}} whose description of improvement is that the article provide context, which is presumed for all articles. It is tagged with {{expert-subject|date=February 2012|Music|talk=Expert help/rename}} yet no alternative name for the article is suggested, nor is there any information besides "Expert help", which is redundant give the tag. As such, these tag should either be removed or should be added to so that they make sense rather than being useless. It bothers me a little that I even have to discuss the improvement of tags meant to improve the article; it seems very postmodern. Hyacinth (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)