Well that was not so much a desired result but a fact of life that intonation/temperament people went about solving in various ways. JS Bach in the 18th c. had a hand in developing 'well-temperament', with outcomes such as 24 preludes and fugues, one for each key. 'The Well-Tempered Clavier demonstrates the ability of a single instrument in tempered tuning to play in all 24 keys without having to be tuned to new fundamentals.'

IE., I don't think he desired to compromise every quality of key, but in 1722 he wasn't about preserving the more out keys' problems I assure you.

Really?

<Equal temperament in the Baroque era

From 1450 to about 1800 plucked instrument players (lutenists and guitarists) generally favored equal temperament,[15]>

^"Lutes, Viols, Temperaments" Mark Lindley ISBN 978-0-521-28883-5

Funny, I was about to say something about the use value of theory from the aspect of observing models and experience with them vs top-down theory from abstraction.

I don't think the idea of ignoring instrumental practice is going to serve you so well in the end frankly. If you won't shape a performance with your hand, in real time, perfecting the effect, in time from left to right, for real, you *will* miss something very valuable about music, how it lives and breathes.

@ Kevin: by the 'late Romantic' period, which certainly preceded the 20th c., the practice of distant modulations was prevalent enough to absolutely demand that the standard was equal temperament for the practice of it.
While it is true that strings for one produce other effects as a matter of course, this was certainly the system in place and was for Beethoven prior to that.

We have a winner.

I believe this. I have some background on an honest instrument, the Oboe I learned music on, and am currently procrastinating proper piano practice. My hope is that as I grow with piano, I'll get familiar with the a player's approach to theory, and the topical problem will subside.
But that's kinda far down the road.



Me no understand.

I grew to understand theory in my own way from listening, trying to work out chords on pre internet isolation etc. And I know how I refer to things is 'right', for me, though it may be wrong for others. My approach is very much focussed around the sound of intervals and melodies over differing chords etc, and I don't claim that it would suffice for advanced theoretical stuff.
Here's an example: The Hendrix chord, a 7th with a sharp 9, eg E7#9. I once described this on a forum as a major and a minor chord at the same time, but was shot down as that is a theoretical impossibility I think. I think the deal is that in notation you can't have a major and minor 3rd at the same time, Trying to define those intervals in that way won't work. BUT, to my ears, I hear the minor 3rd, and the major 3rd, playing concurrently, and no rule will stop me hearing that as a major/minor combo chord. I know what a 9th sounds like, and its not that, so my brain doesn't cope with it on a conceptual level. A flat 9, that's fine. But calling that note a sharp 9 is kind of a ridiculous workaround in my brain.

It was intended as a compliment.

You have a function sense of theory you are moving in a direction you want to go and you aren't afraid of practice/hard work. It strikes me that you've worked harder then I when it comes to understanding theory even though I may know a bit more about the idiosyncrasies of style when it comes to theories. The big thing is you are not a quitter and when you don't know you aren't afraid to ask until you do. And for those things I tip my hat to you.

Well, gracias, amigo.



I hate to be critical, but I'm not following you; I'm unsure of the relevance of what you just described to the thread topic.

In regards to your notion of 'right for you:' Note that music theory isn't ever meant as a catalogue of possibility, nor is it meant to codify correct and incorrect music(since such a thing does not exist).

Instead, music theory is a formalized means of creating some commonality between musicians who practice the art. It's meant to help multiple musicians work together and communicate, or to give a framework of learning common, effective tricks in the art.

It's similar to the concept of formally recognized, popular spoken language. And in the same way that you can speak a language wrong, it's possible to misuse music theory. The fact that what you do works just fine for your music's sonic results in a good and pleasant way is great, and your ideas should be used. But to try to convey it in terms of music theory, as you appear to, undermines a vast section of the purpose of music theory: communication and commonality.

Therefore, I don't think you should portray your ideas within the context of music theory. It could frustrate people who rely on it as their means of precise communication. If someone told you your chord is impossible, it's not like you shattered formal theory with groundbreaking ideas. Rather, you spoke something in a manner that is unclear, described incorrectly, while it is highly, highly likely that there is a way to accurately describe what you did within the system of theory, if you were to discover it.

Sorry for ranting. My original post was made out of frustration for possibly this exact kind of thing. Really, you probably know theory better than I do, but it struck a chord.

*If my rant is misplaced and ill-informed, feel free to talk some sense into me.

@simon
7#9 chords were around long before hendrix and are based around the superlocrian mode
The superlocrian mode is starts from the seventh degree of the melodic minor scale.

You'll notice hendix doesn't play the 5th of the chord... because it's altered.
So the
F melodic minor scale is
FGG#(Ab)BbCDE
If you start on the seventh degree you get.
E-F-G-G#-Bb-C-D-E

oh. right then.

It seems you have a completely different understanding of music theory. Maybe you just proved your own point.
I will always describe that chord I mentioned as being major AND minor as that's what it is. Calling it a sharp 9th in an effort to fit it into a codified way of transmitting information denies the experience of the ear. This seemed relevant to me in a conversation of the theory of music. Forgive me if I was wrong there. Perhaps if you played a guitar you'd get it, perhaps not. However, whether you get what I'm saying, I know I'm not wrong to think of the chord this way, but I apologise if my thoughts subverted the foundations of music as you know it. won't happen again.

Ok maybe my illustration was too basic to be used in this thread, but I'll clarify it a little more. If i play 3 notes, low to high, E, D, G... its an Em7. No 5th I know but that doesn't matter here. The G is a minor 3rd, it gives the chord it's minor sound. If I then add a G# so my chord is E, G#, D, G, how does my top G note suddenly not become a minor 3rd? It's impossible, sonically, if i define a minor 3rd as a kind of sound. It would be as logical/illogical to call that chord an Em7b4.
I understand for NOTATION purposes it must be considered something other than both a major and minor 3rd, but in terms of sound, that's what it is.
Maybe it annoys you that I used note names rather than talking numerically, but talking numerically I couldn't state this argument. I'd have to define the chord as I VII iii III or something, which would get a good smirk I'm sure. It's something you hear when you play a chord. And how you describe such a thing seems to have EVERYTHING to do with theory, and the communication of musical thoughts and concepts, and the differing ways people's brain process these rather strange things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLGzCD0qmFA

If you can't hear a major/minor clash in there then our brains definitely work very differently.

You are correct it has both a minor third and a major third, But in jazz it's mostly treated as an "altered dominant" More to do that it has a b5 and a #5 and a b9 and a #9


I used to be a straight ahead rocker. Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd.
You don't need to know much to any theory to play most popular rock all you need to do is play it. It's just memorization when you are performing covers. Thinking about things is optional. A lot of rockers had the "Jimmy moment" when they heard/saw the 7#9 and it lead them into learning more about jazz which spawned the jazz/rock or fusion movement. Not me per say.
I'd listen to jazz and say what the freak are they *jazzers" doing that doesn't make sense. That was when I had my epiphany there's more to this whole music theory stuff then I think I know.

Styles have idiosyncrasies, characteristics which make them unique to the styles themselves. It's not just rhythm. On occasion you do have a exception to stylistic rules like,,,the Jimmy Chord in Rock. Or the G7b13 In Stray Cat Strut.

The "codified way" does have something to do with the way that it sounds in certain contexts. You're right that in a rock context it is only a "blues" chord that implies major and minor tonality at the same time, but in a jazz context the #9 is used to imply a specific voice leading arrangement, implying both the major 7th of the I chord as well as the minor 7th of the I chord, permitting the player to use diminished scales or the superlocrian mode. In a tune like Purple Haze it's clear that Hendrix is using that chord to throw a little spice onto a dominant chord that isn't really even functioning as a dominant, whereas in a tune like Blue Bossa in C minor, using a G7(#9) as the dominant after a Dm7(b5) drives you straight into the arms of that C minor in a very harmonically rich way, suggesting, as I said earlier, that you can think in terms of a few different scales with different voice leading possibilities.

In other words, there is a functional, practical, and very "hearing" oriented reason that has everything to do with how you hear the chord that makes some people call it a Hendrix chord and just think of it as a shape on the fretboard and that makes other people call it a 7(#9) chord and think of it as a voice-leading opportunity. Context is king here.

Context always rules 'theory'. (I think the term 'theory' promotes bullshit guesses too often, ie., when people bypass hearing it in the first place, for instance in place of <what does the melody determine about the harmony>...)

it's funny, the first 'master class' I had for composers someone brought up the matter of the chord, -7#9 and the professor/whatever said there is no such thing, 'that's a major/minor'. Which was him showing his own ignorance [of jazz practice, and/or rock/funk practice]. Around this time I decided not to pursue compositional study academically.

However, in Foxy Lady it does not function as a 'dominant seventh/sharp nine'. It's the I chord. It does have the major and minor third.

I remember Fuji showing me it when I was 15. It was something I didn't get from trying to cop it off the record, a mystery chord - my hand didn't know it, for one.

In minor it's not so unusual as an extension for V7, particularly #9-b9 moving down to the fifth of the i voice-leading wise.
actually in modern music it's done, there is not a necessary problem displaying say G# snd G with a natural sign in the same chord for such a case. as to your other point, I guess people with less 'theory' could be put off by that notation.

what this has to do with the use of it by Jimi Hendrix is a mystery except to you. I think that unnecessarily complicates a basic situation.

NB, *is/are* based in... states absolutely the chord derived from that scale, instead of observing a coincidence. It makes what could be a true statement into an untrue one.

Hendrix didn't play the fifth because he didn't find any use for it there I reckon. It is the object what it is.
What evidence is there for an altered fifth? The non-evident 'superlocrian', your 'altered fifth' follows that. It's illogical.