V7b9 chords: #5 or natural 5

[Faber]

probably a stupid question, but

 

when the real/fake book notate a V7 chord in a minor ii-V-i as a V7b9, should 5 of that chord be altered? That is, should I automatically assume that a V7#5b9 is implied, or is the fact that the #5 isn't written out a sign that I should play the chord with a regular 5?

 

The specific tune that brought this question up is Stella By Starlight, but I've noticed the same "problem" with other songs as well

[gennation]

Well, it could be though of 7alt, but if used with a natural 5 you can built a Dim7 chord within the 7b9 chord.

 

Think of the b7, M3, 5, and b9 together, they build a dim7 chord. So, playing wise you can lay a dim7 arp over the 7b9 chord.

 

Follow the melody though, it might help you determine the answer.

[Jed]

As Genn said, you could but it's not altered by default. I typically think dim7 built of the 3rd of the V7b9 as Genn mentioned.

 

On the other hand, for a II-7b5 - V7b9 the 13th would often be flat as well since the V's b13 is the tonic's b3. So you can still get the same sound as a #5 over the V7b9.

 

cheers.

[Faber]

Thanks. So, if I understand you correctly, I can play it with either a natural or sharp 5, if the melody doesn't indicate either? Then it's basically up to my judgement (assuming that I have one )

[Jed]

Thanks. So, if I understand you correctly, I can play it with either a natural or sharp 5, if the melody doesn't indicate either? Then it's basically up to my judgement (assuming that I have one )

 

I'd think of it a bit differntly:

 

If the lead sheets calls out a V7b9 - what the transcriber heard was 1 3 5 b7 b9.

 

Now if you hear something different, then by all means play based on what you hear. Chord extensions are often about carrying a particular note across multiple chords or about introducing more tension > resolution opportunities.

 

Try it both ways and let your ear decide what works best. Keep in mind on a different day you may hear a different line and so may decide to change the alteration of the extensions from day to day. Sorry, no hard and fast rules apply.

[Faber]

I'd think of it a bit differntly: If the lead sheets calls out a V7b9 - what the transcriber heard was 1 3 5 b7 b9. Now if you hear something different, then by all means play based on what you hear. Chord extensions are often about carrying a particular note across multiple chords or about introducing more tension > resolution opportunities. Try it both ways and let your ear decide what works best. Keep in mind on a different day you may hear a different line and so may decide to change the alteration of the extensions from day to day. Sorry, no hard and fast rules apply.

 

OK, this makes sense. I need it spelled out sometimes

Thank

[SeattleRuss]

Jed wrote:

 

If the lead sheets calls out a V7b9 - what the transcriber heard was 1 3 5 b7 b9.

 

 

Jazz guitar voicings of altered dominants either contain b5, #5 or no 5th at all. You will rarely if ever see an altered dom. that contains a natural 5th.

[gennation]

 

Jazz guitar voicings of altered dominants either contain b5, #5 or no 5th at all. You will rarely if ever see an altered dom. that contains a natural 5th.

 

 

But, when this is the case you normally see it written as 7alt, or with all the particular alterations the transcriber wants you to use, like 7b9.

 

So, in practice and application it's good you go with what the writer wrote, THEN see if changes are appropriate. But in most cases, the chord on the chart is correct as written. So, in the case of 7b9, the 5th would stay natural or it could be omitted, but you might lose a little of the complete dim7 sound in some voicings.

[jonfinn]

 

probably a stupid question, but when the real/fake book notate a V7 chord in a minor ii-V-i as a V7b9, should 5 of that chord be altered? That is, should I automatically assume that a V7#5b9 is implied, or is the fact that the #5 isn't written out a sign that I should play the chord with a regular 5? The specific tune that brought this question up is Stella By Starlight, but I've noticed the same "problem" with other songs as well

 

 

Is it possible that you're confusing b13 and #5? If it's b13, then either nat. 5 or #5 (which the enh. of b13) will work. If it's really #5, then nat. 5 will sound funny.

 

that help?

[SeattleRuss]

gennation wrote:

 

But, when this is the case you normally see it written as 7alt, or with all the particular alterations the transcriber wants you to use, like 7b9. So, in practice and application it's good you go with what the writer wrote, THEN see if changes are appropriate. But in most cases, the chord on the chart is correct as written. So, in the case of 7b9, the 5th would stay natural or it could be omitted, but you might lose a little of the complete dim7 sound in some voicings.

 

 

Well....I don't know Mike.....lol! Maybe we're talking about different things here - I'm talking about comping behind a soloist.

 

All I know is that from my experience, on the bandstand and from talking with other guitarists, it's kind of an unwritten rule that when comping behind a soloist, when playing a dominant chord that contains an altered 9th but no b5 or #5, you never play the natural 5th.

 

For one reason, when you do, it puts more restrictions on the soloist. Really gets in the way of what I may or may not want to play. For this reason, I sometimes comp with just the 3rd and 7th....very considerate of the soloist.

 

Another reason is that by including the natural 5th in chord like that is it tends to "tonicize" the chord, i.e., almost reinforces the root sound too much.

 

 

As guitarist, we often have to omit notes due to the restrictions / limitations of out lack of fingers and fretboard real estate. Generally speaking, the 5th is the first to go.

 

There've been a few discussion about this over at rmmgj.....

[gennation]

 

gennation wrote: Well....I don't know Mike.....lol! Maybe we're talking about different things here - I'm talking about comping behind a soloist. All I know is that from my experience, on the bandstand and from talking with other guitarists, it's kind of an unwritten rule that when comping behind a soloist, when playing a dominant chord that contains an altered 9th but no b5 or #5, you never play the natural 5th. For one reason, when you do, it puts more restrictions on the soloist. Really gets in the way of what I may or may not want to play. For this reason, I sometimes comp with just the 3rd and 7th....very considerate of the soloist. Another reason is that by including the natural 5th in chord like that is it tends to "tonicize" the chord, i.e., almost reinforces the root sound too much. As guitarist, we often have to omit notes due to the restrictions / limitations of out lack of fingers and fretboard real estate. Generally speaking, the 5th is the first to go. There've been a few discussion about this over at rmmgj.....

 

 

I see what you're saying for comp'ing.

[jonfinn]

 

gennation wrote: Well....I don't know Mike.....lol! Maybe we're talking about different things here - I'm talking about comping behind a soloist. All I know is that from my experience, on the bandstand and from talking with other guitarists, it's kind of an unwritten rule that when comping behind a soloist, when playing a dominant chord that contains an altered 9th but no b5 or #5, you never play the natural 5th. For one reason, when you do, it puts more restrictions on the soloist. Really gets in the way of what I may or may not want to play. For this reason, I sometimes comp with just the 3rd and 7th....very considerate of the soloist. Another reason is that by including the natural 5th in chord like that is it tends to "tonicize" the chord, i.e., almost reinforces the root sound too much. As guitarist, we often have to omit notes due to the restrictions / limitations of out lack of fingers and fretboard real estate. Generally speaking, the 5th is the first to go. There've been a few discussion about this over at rmmgj.....

 

 

Well, yeah. I've had to play a ton of jazz gigs over the last coupla years (funny to me being a guy who grew up on power chords!).....

 

Lately, I've been playing around with different voicings that are based on triads for a different effect.

 

ex:

D13b9 = Bmajor triad over a D bass note like this:

 

-x-

-12-

-11-

-13-

-x-

-10-

 

That voicing has no 7th, but in certain situations really works well.

 

Another example is D7b9b5=Abmajor triad over a D bass note like this:

 

-x-

-9-

-8-

-10-

-x-

-10-

 

That one has no 3rd but again, I use it a lot because it works well in conveying the overall sound.

 

Once you get used to the idea that six string guitar can't always play every note in every chord, you discover that playing portions of the chord creates different textures too!

 

Cool!!!

[SeattleRuss]

jonfinn wrote:

 

Well, yeah. I've had to play a ton of jazz gigs over the last coupla years (funny to me being a guy who grew up on power chords!)..... Lately, I've been playing around with different voicings that are based on triads for a different effect. ex: D13b9 = Bmajor triad over a D bass note like this: -x- -12- -11- -13- -x- -10- That voicing has no 7th, but in certain situations really works well. Another example is D7b9b5=Abmajor triad over a D bass note like this: -x- -9- -8- -10- -x- -10- That one has no 3rd but again, I use it a lot because it works well in conveying the overall sound. Once you get used to the idea that six string guitar can't always play every note in every chord, you discover that playing portions of the chord creates different textures too! Cool!!!

 

 

Nice voicings Jon!

 

For 7b9, I've usually been omitting the root and playing the b9 on the hight E string:

 

D13b9

 

-11-

-12-

-11-

-10-

- x-

- x-

 

Youre voicing with the triad probably works well for solo guitar, i.e. no bass player....

 

BTW - not to derail here but.....

 

Just checked out your website and......I remember YOU! LOL!

 

In fact, you wrote an article in one of the guitar mags, probably GP, quite a few years back, having to do with performance anxiety that I thought was incredibly well written. Belated kudos for that! I'd dig it out of the closet right now but I'd need one of those miner's hats with the flashlight on top, a cornacopia of safety apparatii......plus everytime I pull out those boxes of old GPs, I go on such a nostalgia trip, losing hours of my life!

 

Anyway - good to see you here man!

[jonfinn]

 

wrote: Nice voicings Jon! For 7b9, I've usually been omitting the root and playing the b9 on the hight E string: D7b9 -11- -12- -11- -10- - x- - x- Youre voicing with the triad probably works well for solo guitar, i.e. no bass player.... BTW - not to derail here but..... Just checked out your website and......I remember YOU! LOL! In fact, you wrote an article in one of the guitar mags, probably GP, quite a few years back, having to do with performance anxiety that I thought was incredibly well written. Belated kudos for that! I'd dig it out of the closet right now but I'd need one of those miner's hats with the flashlight on top, a cornacopia of safety apparatii......plus everytime I pull out those boxes of old GPs, I go on such a nostalgia trip, losing hours of my life! Anyway - good to see you here man!

 

Thanks! Actually, it was Guitar Magazine (formerly Guitar for the Practicing Musician). That was a big chunk of my life. I stopped doing it because i was spending FAR more time writing than practicing and gigging. I've learned great respect for those who do that for a living.

 

Cool! Lotta good information here!

[astring]

I'd drop the 5

[SeattleRuss]

 

I'd drop the 5

 

 

Like a hot rock!

 

It's funny....I was just checking out what would happen if you took your most commonly used voicing of E7#9 (known as the "Hendrix Chord" to some), and added the natural 5th, which would be difficult if not impossible to finger, unless you drop the root, and in doing so, you end up with a Bb13b9 chord, which sounds very very different from the original....