Is it D# or Eb for E9th Tuning???

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 17 Dec 2006 3:01 pm

~[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 01:17 PM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 17 Dec 2006 7:17 pm

I think many of these ideas add to my earlier point, which was that the key depends on the context of use, and the notes of the tuning chord in isolation aren't everything. The older "Standard C6" - low to high, C,F,A,C,E,G,A,C,E,G - can be looked at functionally as either a C6sus4 or as an Fmaj9. So even if we argue that, by convention, an open tuning's home chord must define the key signature, it can't be unambiguously defined. Many if not most chords have multiple interpretations.

I also think Paul's point about viewing the notes as a series of intervals, rather than a chord, is particularly important. I also think his AB pedals-down interpretation of the E9 neck is equally valid. Context of use of a tuning is not always obvious, IMO.

Ultimately, notes are physical signals with mathematically-defined fundamental frequencies, and any interpretation made is just that - an interpretation according to some theory of how they function in a given musical context. Just like in mathematics, there are a great many ways of describing relationships between them.

I also don't think there is a truly universal chord-naming convention. There are schools of thought, and within those schools of thought, there is accepted semantics. Some say a C13 must have 1,3,5,b7,9,11,13 and 1,b7,3,13 is a C7 13 or C7 add 13. But I think most guitar writers call the latter a C13 - the rule being that just the b7 must be present to be called an extended dominant chord. Some writers feel the need to specify Fmaj9 over C, while others are happy with simply Fmaj9 to denote its function, and don't attempt to make a one-to-one correspondence to its exact voicing. Neither is absolutely "right" or "wrong", but depend on the context of use and conventions employed.

In any field I've seen where there are complex relationships like this that need to be expressed in a simple way, a shorthand naming convention results. Math, physics, engineering, and computer science also share this. When nomenclature gets complex and confusing, it's a good idea to clarify the conventions used so everybody is on the same page. IMO, this is not some kind of kludge, resorted to by "hacks". Practically any technical paper in math, science, or engineering requires this. Why is this not reasonable in music? The problem is that there are so many ways that people can and do name things that one often needs to clarify.

IMO, semantic rigidity and refusal to see others view of things is a big obstacle to breaking down barriers between disciplines or schools of thought. Cliques become wedded to their own conventions, and believe that everybody else must adhere to their view of it. I hear a lot of "my XXXX is better than your XXXX". I don't think this is healthy - but unfortunately is common in all the fields I mentioned, including music.

All IMO, of course.

Franklin · Post by **Franklin** » 17 Dec 2006 8:10 pm

Dave, I'm with you.

I think we should say one neck is tuned to an "E" and the other neck to a "C".

The violin, Mandolin, guitar, and most stringed instruments don't use a chord name as their signature. Our tunings offer different intervals around a tonal center.

Paul

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 17 Dec 2006 10:08 pm

I’m not sure what Dave M’s point is, unless it is that some clarification of terminology is necessary, but we shouldn’t be too rigid. I guess I would agree with that.

As for Paul’s point (and, man, I don't often disagree with him), the violin family, mandolins, and guitars really are tuned to intervals rather than chords. The carefully chosen circle of 4th or circle of 5th intervals they use instead of chords help them avoid ET/JI conflicts on their open strings. But it seems to me steel guitar is fundamentally different. Almost all steel tunings are designed to be chords. That’s why we have those pesky 3rds that cause all the tuning arguments. But many steel tunings add something beyond a simple chord. It makes a big difference whether the added stuff makes it a 6th or 7th tuning, etc. – to the point that people have multiple neck instruments so they can have more than one of those tunings. And just based on those extra strings, the tunings are associated with whole different genres of music. So those extras beyond the simple chord really do help identify the tuning. Some might call it overkill, but I don’t think it would be a bad idea to call the E9 an E9/A6 neck, at least in instruction materials. And the C6 could be called a C6/F maj 9 neck. I don’t think you have to specify every string; but hearing the basic chord names from the start might help some beginners to understand what they have under their hands. The universal is really an E9/A6/B6/E maj 9 neck. The fact that both modes have a type of E9 neck is actually a key simplifying insight into the tuning that is not obvious to people who don’t play a uni. On C6, when you change your grip to the F maj 9 mode, it’s a whole new neck. But on a uni, from B6 you just go back to the old familiar E9 neck, which has simply become a maj 9 rather than a dominant 9. The uni actually doesn’t have the b7, so is really what one might call an E sus 2 neck; or considering the D# string, it is an E maj 9. But the lever that gives the 7th is such an integral part of the tuning that staying with E9 makes sense. As Dave M. says, lets not be ridiculously rigid.

Of course, a lot of steel beginners don't know enough theory for the neck names to help them much. But when you learn almost any other instrument, you learn basic theory right from the start, along with learning to play. That might not be bad for steel beginners; but you'd also need to learn to play by ear right from the start. Come to think of it, that would be a good idea for all instruments. It's mighty sad all the people out there who can play piano or violin reading music, but can't play diddly by ear.

Oh yeah, and for what it's worth, looking at E9 as an A6 neck, the note between D and E might be considered a b5 in terms of chords; but since A is a sharp key, it's going to be written as D#.
[This message was edited by David Doggett on 17 December 2006 at 10:18 PM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 17 Dec 2006 10:17 pm

I like calling them E9th and C6th.

John McGann says that the melodic minor scale changes depending on whether you're ascending or descending "in classical music". Frankly, I don't believe it. For example, the 1st measure of Bach's "Prelude and Fugue in Dm" (BWV 851) is a bunch of descending triplets, going down to a C#. In measure 18 of the same piece there's a scale run from Bb down to C#. I just opened the Bach book to this page at random. I didn't even have to turn the page to find an example. The up-or-down rule just doesn't hold water.

In pop music, when I play in Am there are G notes in the melody, but when the chords go to E7 (the V chord) it changes to a G#. It doesn't matter if the melody is going up or down. The 7th tone of the scale changes depending on the context (chord) beneath it, not on the direction of the melody.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 17 Dec 2006 10:28 pm

I agree with b0b on that. The ascending/descending thing is just something done when students are learning the scale, so they can see it can be either way. In actual music, it is according to what the harmonic context is, not whether you are ascending or descending.

Now to get back to the original question. After realizing that on E9 both the keys of E and A are sharp keys, I started thinking about the C6 neck alternately viewed as an F maj 9 neck. Well, F is a flat key, so what is C? I actually had to go look at some piano books to find out. And guess what? In the key of C, the accidentals are written as both flats and sharps. I guess it depends on the harmonic context somehow. Who knew?

basilh · Post by **basilh** » 18 Dec 2006 2:23 am

These may also be viable names for the two tunings :-
E9(maj7)
and Bbmaj9add6 (minus root)
Seasons greetings to those who celebrate it.

------------------

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 18 Dec 2006 3:14 am

There have been a few hundred years of classical music
since Bach codified the fugue
and the liturgical music he excelled in.

In his day the flat 5 was a punishable offence...
in some quarters.

The inclusion of ethnic musics as basis for classical composistion,
had caused a widening of theory convention
of considerable extent after Bach's time.

Pagannini's inclusion of romany gypsy music is an example.
But lets not for get Listz and Bartok.

I have heard Herb Pomeroy's Big band,
and if he says it's like John says,
that's good enough for me.
The man KNOWS arranging.

P Gleespen · Post by **P Gleespen** » 18 Dec 2006 7:03 am

For example, the 1st measure of Bach's "Prelude and Fugue in Dm" (BWV 851) is a bunch of descending triplets, going down to a C#. In measure 18 of the same piece there's a scale run from Bb down to C#.

He must not be using the melodic minor scale then.

It's okay to doubt the practical application/use of the melodic minor scale, but it IS still a scale. It does exist. It wouldn't hurt to play it up and down the neck with a metronome.

...speaking of which...again, I find myself at my computer instead of practicing. I am lame. Lame I say!

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 18 Dec 2006 7:54 am

$[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 01:17 PM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 18 Dec 2006 9:20 am

It's okay to doubt the practical application/use of the melodic minor scale, but it IS still a scale. It does exist. It wouldn't hurt to play it up and down the neck with a metronome.

My point is that it's two scales. It wouldn't hurt to play them both up and down the neck with a metronome, or to swap the ascending/descending "rule" when practicing them.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Dec 2006 10:25 am

Let me try to summarize what I what I was saying in my earlier posts, and also perhaps add something.

I view musical notation as a type of mathematical mapping between the physical notes and an interpretation of those notes in some musical context. I can't help this - I am basically an applied mathematician by trade. But I don't think this is at all inconsistent with the the practical reality of musical notation. I imagine that most musical scholars aren't thinking math, but that doesn't mean it can't be interpreted that way.

Mathematics is, to me, about describing objects and the relationships between them. Different styles of mathematical analysis put different structure and names on the same objects. But why would anybody want to view things differently? It sure would be a lot "easier" if everybody could agree on a single "standard and consistent" way to view everything, right?

I think the reason people tend not to do this is that different structure and names often reveal different "hidden truths" about the underlying objects. I don't care what field it is - if one is looking for patterns, the way one looks at the problem often determines the patterns one sees. To see a lot of different patterns, it is sometimes useful or even necessary to look at it from different points of view.

In music, these hidden truths are different patterns of relationship between notes. Looking at things one way may reveal one useful pattern more easily, and taking a different view may reveal a different pattern more easily. The patterns are there - the musical theory and notation are purely a framework to help a human understand them.

So I don't think that it's any more incorrect to view the function of the note one-half-step below E on an E9 PSG as depending on which key one is playing in than it is incorrect to view it as the major 7th of the home key of the tuning, E. Nor is it incorrect to view it functionally, based on what the lever does. It depends on what pattern you're trying to see.

I don't even suggest that there is anything wrong with viewing it in a rigid way - if it helps someone see the patterns they find interesting, great. But don't ridicule others for viewing it differently. They may see something you don't.

I tend to view E9 PSG more as isolated groups of intervals, as Paul suggests, than as a whole big chord. I don't think most players ever play the entire 10-string chord in any musical context, but parse it up into smaller groups of intervals and deal with bits at a time. To me, the fact that it can be interpreted as a certain type of E chord is interesting, but not particularly critical except when used as a position-playing guide. But it's not the only way to look at that either.

I think most guitar players who even concern themselves with this kind of thing view the standard guitar home tuning as Emin11 (or Emin7 add 11, if you prefer). But one can also interpret it as G6 add 9, and use that interpretation to glean slide guitar parts without moving to an open tuning. Using the 5th string as a root, one could view it as A11 over E. But I don't think any of these are particularly critical for guitar players, again except as a position-playing guide.

Naturally, all IMO, as always.

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 18 Dec 2006 2:22 pm

§ª[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 12:26 PM.]

C. Christofferson · Post by **C. Christofferson** » 18 Dec 2006 3:04 pm

The use of different scale tones isnt just a matter of making different sounds but of making sounds which affect the emotions of the listener. Back when i was rigorously practicing the jazz scale i mentioned earlier, i Did play it in all its possible combinations but came to find that the thickest emotionally moving content happened when it was played according to the ascending/descending 'rule'. In other words, the rule is just a byproduct of what moves the listener the most, not the other way around..? [This message was edited by C. Christofferson on 19 December 2006 at 10:51 PM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Dec 2006 3:39 pm

John - first, no offense taken from anything you said. I did have a bit of an issue with the dunce cap and goofball comment that you did not make, but it's not a big deal. I honestly don't think anybody meant offense with their comments, and didn't even take them as directed to me - but I don't think even light-hearted ridicule of non-music-theory oriented players is a good idea on this forum. But that is just my opinion - there ain't no law ag'in it unless b0b says there is.

I also agree that it's important to have a common and fully expressive language to communicate, and I greatly respect your expertise on this. If I ever decided to spend some time at Berklee, I know I would need to do it "the Berklee way", the same as I had to deal with systems theory "the Yale way" when I was there studying that. But even these two fine places don't have a corner on the market in expertise or understanding, IMO.

I hope it is completely clear from my posts - right from the first page - that I think non-theory-oriented players can benefit from learning music theory, and that I agree that it's a good idea to use some type of standardized nomenclature in context. I didn't argue against using D# or setting the musical context any way someone desires. I only persisted when one convention was presented as, essentially, the one and true "correct" or "professional" way to look at it, that any other way is necessarily an "incorrect" or "unprofessional" approach, with the implication that anybody who didn't see it that way was ignorant, a dunce, or a goofball.

I sure hope we can put this one to bed. One thing I believe I strongly agree with John about - if you don't know basic music theory and how to hear musical notes in that context, it's pretty hard to figure out what you should play in a song without robotically playing what someone else tells you to. If there's any possible good to come of this thread, it would be to convince anyone who thinks music theory is useless that, no matter what approach you use to develop that knowledge, it's good for you.

Naturally, as always, and I hope for the last time on this thread, IMO.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 18 Dec 2006 10:02 pm

Dave, my humble apologies if I offended you with the picture I posted. That was Not directed at you or at anyone specific. It was Not meant to be critical. It was my failed attempt at comedy. It was a general statement about this post. That confused steel player and his words were supposed to represent the confusion that surrounds pedal steel nomenclature: how to label pitch changes, sharps, flats, in what context, over what chord, tuning, etc. It was not meant to be critical of anyone’s way of thinking. I deleted it. It’s not the first time my attempts at comedy have gotten me into hot water! Dave, I have always enjoyed reading your posts on many topics: vintage guitars, amps, electronics, music history, etc... I’ve learned a lot! I have great respect for your knowledge of music, and I enjoyed meeting you a while back when you visited our store in Northampton.

[This message was edited by Doug Beaumier on 18 December 2006 at 10:10 PM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Dec 2006 11:24 pm

Doug - I should have taken that comment offline - sorry. As I said, I never thought you directed that at me or anybody in particular. Believe me, no offense taken. My concern was more the way the whole thread evolved and how easy it would be to take even a light-hearted joke like this the wrong way in this context.

My favorite line on this is from Johnny Carson - "Man, with this crowd, I need to diagram my jokes."

One of these days, I'll get back to Western Mass to visit my family. Hope to see you when I do.

Mitch Ellis · Post by **Mitch Ellis** » 18 Dec 2006 11:52 pm

I was going to disperse my infinite knowledge and wisdom on augmented, deminished, sharps, flats, B9th's deminished with a suspended 7th, and other simple matterts, such a playing "wild wood flower" on a harp using a polished hound's tooth, but Paul and Dave are pretty much in the ball park. I think I'll let them have this thread.

Mitch

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 19 Dec 2006 8:31 am

¥ø¨®¬ƒ©øƒ¨ç?ß´[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 12:28 PM.]

John McGann · Post by **John McGann** » 19 Dec 2006 12:35 pm

Yep, Mitch, it was just me a-showin' off a bunch of book learnin' that's got nothin' to do with nothin' anyhow. Yessee, I think I'm smarter than everyone else, so I just do these thangs to remind everybody.

Wasn't tryin' to shed any light on the subject or nothin' like that.

I'll withdraw all the show-off stuff that's just a bunch of augmentated demolished chords anyways, so y'all can keep pickin'.

Ain't no money in it anyhow (like they say about the banj*rr, no money above the 5th fret).

'night, y'all!

[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 01:21 PM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 19 Dec 2006 10:07 pm

John I ALWAYS appreciate your knowlegable posts.
You correct my theory gaps regularly.

And having seen you play and played with you,
I KNOW for a fact about your APPLIED usage of
music theory. Top shelf.

Some may disagree with your conventions, I don't.
But in my expirence of playing MANY genres of music,
I have rarely had even slight reason to even question your theory observations.

Ernie Pollock · Post by **Ernie Pollock** » 20 Dec 2006 10:05 am

You can call it R and it would still be the same note Eb or D#, no sence gettin in a huff about this sort of things, my first horn teacher told me that its "what comes out of the end of your horn, that counts", I believed him then, and I still believe now - gee, just play the note!!

Ernie

------------------

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 20 Dec 2006 11:22 am

You can call it R and it would still be the same note Eb or D#

wouldn't that be L (lower)? R would be 'raise'!

just kidding. Maybe we should call it the Q lever. X is already taken.

------------------
My Site - Instruction

C. Christofferson · Post by **C. Christofferson** » 20 Dec 2006 12:49 pm

...Just killing time while my lunch settles in, you dont have to pay it no nevermind. The only thing i can think of that ive never heard a discussion or a dissagreement over, much less a war over, is what to call our planet. But then comes a planet thriving with different languages. Do we (english speaking) call a person who speaks Japanese incorrect? No, the phenomenon is simply accepted as the way it is. Both languages though vastly different are 'correct' and convey the same concepts. Language is basically a conditioned thing and most of us have been conditioned by our personal music teachers with differing dialects. If we could all be good translators (and im not saying we're not) then we could all get cushy jobs at the U.N.[This message was edited by C. Christofferson on 20 December 2006 at 12:51 PM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 20 Dec 2006 1:36 pm

Do we (english speaking) call a person who speaks Japanese incorrect?

Long as they just do it amongst themselves, no problem. But we English speakers often act as if everybody across the world should understand English. Naturally, of course, we're correct - it's the "universal world language", right?

{I'm following Johnny Carson's adage from above to diagram my jokes - that's a joke, folks - lest we get into an off-topic discussion about "English as a universal world language".)

I agree with you on the idea of different musical dialects. But there is often significant bias against people who use different dialects - regional language, professional lingo, you name it. I've seen it over and over.

Birds of a feather. Sometimes it's hard to fight.