This chord makes much more “sense” to guitarists. On guitar, when you play a basic e chord (EBEG#BE), the E///BE are open strings and the /BEG#// use fingers. A cool and simple trick is that you can then slide that shape up 1, 2, 3, 4 half steps, keeping the open strings open and everything still sounds great. And if you slide it up 2 half steps (as if playing an F# triad while keeping the open B and E strings) you get Rikkis number.
Nice chord, the sharp nine in the context of popular-rock idioms always sounds like a blue note to me as well. I hope you haven't run out of chords and more are coming!
Ha… as soon as I saw the title I knew exactly what chord it was going to be. I agree that it sounds great all at once but it would definitely be too jarring on its own amidst all of the other simpler chords. It's a great transition though. I did a mashup arrangement for my band of this with "Song for My Father" (of course), and since we don't have a keyboard player, I get to play this arpeggio on bass. Sounds cool no matter how you do it!
Thanks for the breakdown! I'd always meant to check out that little arp. I was sensing a dominant #9 situation , but that 13th had totally eluded me till now.
@@addyd.3140 Sure! I really like The Latin Side, A Family Affair (clarinet choir album), Just Me (solo piano), Blue Requiem, and Pacific Jazz - happy listening!
As a rather casual fan of Steely Dan, I always assumed Donald Fagen played the main keyboard parts. But that moment of a little extra harmonic complexity definitely adds to the pretzel-y logic of the song. Thanks for the revelations!
I always thought the same until I heard this Michael Omartian interview. I assumed most SD keyboard parts were played by Fagen. It does make it a bit pretzel-y, doesn't it?
It's interesting how you use the word "part" a lot (5 part, 3 part) ...more than others I have watched. Probably that comes from composer/conservatory where you may be thinking that each note is, or could be, a separate voice or instrument? Love Steely Dan, truly unique.
I think you’re right. I suppose I think of each note as a part if it’s Interrelated individual voices/instruments or just a held chord by a piano or guitar.
Excellent video. Consider using a de-esser on your voice and show a top-down of your fingers. More chords please! Can you try the opening to George Benson’s “Breezin’” please?
It's a b10, not a #9. They are not the same thing. Normally when you have a major and minor third type sound in a chord, it is a b10 chord. #9 is never really a chord tone. You can have lower neighbor tones and chromatic lines with a #9. But most #9's I see are really just b10's but people are so scared to call things in music what they really are. You even spell it as a b10 yet call it a #9. There are many things in music like this which people mislabel for "conveninece" but all it does in the end is darken people's understanding about music and reinforce the idea that music is essentially 12 equally tempered semitones per octave. This 12 tet system is only ever approximating true intonation, that is, Pythagorean just intonation, that is what is actually written on the page, not 12 tet.
Right - in just intonation the b10 and #9 aren't the same. But on an ET instrument like the piano in the example, they are the same because they sound the same, are they not? So true about being scared to label things as they are - I admit to an aversion to double flats and double sharps.
@@Keith_Horn The b10 and #9 are not even the same in ET, even though they are the same frequency. This is because 12 tet is merelly an approximation for Pythagorean just intonation (3 limit), or what I call true intonation. And while you can arrive at the same sounding chord with the notes misspelled, ones understanding of the theory is occluded with the misspelling. The spelling informs the tuning, and also the function. Taking note of this can really allow you to understand seemingly weird progressions that make no sense on the surface. So much confusion and desire for reform is there in music theory and notation because people do not understand that what they see on the page is Pythagorean just intonation, that is what is written down, and we approximate it on 12 tet instruments. Some may try and interpret the sheet music in 5 limit tuning or meantone, but this is not correct, even if it was the norm to do so for a few hundred years. 5 limit and meantone are relatively modern and are based on a misconception of what a major third is. This misconception leads to a completely incoherent tuning system which both sounds out of tune and grows increasingly incoherent the more you put them to the test against Pythagorean, listening melodically and harmonically at once for proper intonation. Double sharps and flats are only troublesome when you are on the piano or guitar and their layouts. With a better keyboard, there is no confusion or nusance to them at all. I deal in double accidentals and even beyond. I even invented single symbols for triple sharps and dboule and triple flats so they take up the same space as a single sharp or flat and remain just as legible if not more so, on the page. One of the main benefits to understand is the difference between a diatonic semitone, like between E anf F and B and C. And a chromatic semitone, like that between E and Eb and C and Cb. There are times where the music calls for a chromatic semitone (called an apotome) which is slightly wider than a 12 tet semitone at 113.685 cents, and other times a diatonic semitone (called a limma) is needed and called for which is smaller than a 12 tet semitone at 90.225 cents. 12 tet semitones are 100 cents. Many times we think all resolutions must be by limma, like the F in a G7 chord moving down to E in a C major chord. But then there are times where a note must resolve chromatically. Like in a G7(b10) chord which is usually and wrongly called as a #9. The reason it is a b10 is because the Bb, the b10, is an anticipation to the B natural in the following CM7 chord. There are these chromatic anticipation notes at certain resolutions and cadences, and are essentially blues notes. Where when you call it a sharp nine, the distinction can never be made between the 2 types of semitones, and so one cannot be as intentional when writing because that area of theory is obscured by the misspellings. You may write that and like the sound, but the inner workings are lost on you. Even in 12 tet the feeling is there because of the function even though there is no enharmonic distinction between the #9 and b10. When you actually play the chord progression with the b10 and then with the #9 in 3 limit tuning, you can hear how the b10 is cleaner and clearer and more clearly conveys what the music is trying to say. There is also the thing to note, how the b10 is a perfect 4th above the b7 instead of the augmented 3rd that is created with the #9. Augmented thirds do exist, diminished fourths do exist, and they sound differnt and function differently than P4ths and M3rds. All of this and much more is lost when spelling is ignored.
This chord makes much more “sense” to guitarists.
On guitar, when you play a basic e chord (EBEG#BE), the E///BE are open strings and the /BEG#// use fingers. A cool and simple trick is that you can then slide that shape up 1, 2, 3, 4 half steps, keeping the open strings open and everything still sounds great.
And if you slide it up 2 half steps (as if playing an F# triad while keeping the open B and E strings) you get Rikkis number.
@@SteveFrench-hq1lo similar to the Hemispheres chord from Rush, right?
Keith - the algorithm just showed me this series of yours. What a fantastic idea for a series of videos! Best wishes to you.
Thanks! Glad you’re enjoying it.
Nice chord, the sharp nine in the context of popular-rock idioms always sounds like a blue note to me as well.
I hope you haven't run out of chords and more are coming!
I have a ton more chords to cover. More coming!
Ha… as soon as I saw the title I knew exactly what chord it was going to be. I agree that it sounds great all at once but it would definitely be too jarring on its own amidst all of the other simpler chords. It's a great transition though. I did a mashup arrangement for my band of this with "Song for My Father" (of course), and since we don't have a keyboard player, I get to play this arpeggio on bass. Sounds cool no matter how you do it!
Nice! Do you play it up the octave on bass or down low?
"I could talk about Clare Fisher all day" - yes please, clearing my schedule for that
The guy was a genius. I did a couple videos last year on Dancing Song. I'd like to do more.
Keith Horn "chord of the week" t-shirts with the "who dis?" and "mu cat" characters? Another great episode, thanks!
Thanks! Merch would be cool - I've considered the mu cat actually!
@@Keith_Horn mu cat, yes😎😉
Thanks for the breakdown! I'd always meant to check out that little arp. I was sensing a dominant #9 situation , but that 13th had totally eluded me till now.
Also, if you get a moment, could you recommend a few albums of your favorite of Clare Fischer's work? I'm checking out the Hi Lo's now, amazing.
Yeah that 13/b7 rub is a nice touch!
@@addyd.3140 Sure! I really like The Latin Side, A Family Affair (clarinet choir album), Just Me (solo piano), Blue Requiem, and Pacific Jazz - happy listening!
Also - if you his Hi-Los work, you might like Rockin' In Rhythm - all vocal jazz!
Horn’s analysis is great- does this harken back to Monk?
That would be fun to dig into. Is there a specific song you're thinking of?
Great episode, thanks. No exercises today! I guess that's ok, I never do them anyway...
Thanks! I'm phasing out the exercises section for now.
As a rather casual fan of Steely Dan, I always assumed Donald Fagen played the main keyboard parts.
But that moment of a little extra harmonic complexity definitely adds to the pretzel-y logic of the song. Thanks for the revelations!
I always thought the same until I heard this Michael Omartian interview. I assumed most SD keyboard parts were played by Fagen. It does make it a bit pretzel-y, doesn't it?
It's interesting how you use the word "part" a lot (5 part, 3 part) ...more than others I have watched. Probably that comes from composer/conservatory where you may be thinking that each note is, or could be, a separate voice or instrument? Love Steely Dan, truly unique.
I think you’re right. I suppose I think of each note as a part if it’s Interrelated individual voices/instruments or just a held chord by a piano or guitar.
It’s more of a broken chord because it’s an arpeggio. You could argue that it changes halfway to become a new chord.
Totally. Would you call the second half E7 add 4 maybe?
Excellent video. Consider using a de-esser on your voice and show a top-down of your fingers. More chords please! Can you try the opening to George Benson’s “Breezin’” please?
Good call on the de-esser. I've considered a top down keyboard shot, actually. Thanks for the recommendation - I'll check out the opening to Breezin!
🎉🎉🎉🎉
I used a D+ 6/9 which sounded cool one note at a time but all together sounded awful.
Interesting! Did you spell it D-F#-A#-B-E?
Yes, it did take me awhile to figure out a chord name because I was thinking Bb instead of A#.
@@robertbeaman5761 Seems like D+6/9 works as a good label for that chord.
Not really a chord but arpeggio don’t ya think?
Right - it is an arpeggio. Not a strict vertical chord. More of a chord implication I suppose.
It's a b10, not a #9. They are not the same thing. Normally when you have a major and minor third type sound in a chord, it is a b10 chord. #9 is never really a chord tone. You can have lower neighbor tones and chromatic lines with a #9. But most #9's I see are really just b10's but people are so scared to call things in music what they really are. You even spell it as a b10 yet call it a #9. There are many things in music like this which people mislabel for "conveninece" but all it does in the end is darken people's understanding about music and reinforce the idea that music is essentially 12 equally tempered semitones per octave. This 12 tet system is only ever approximating true intonation, that is, Pythagorean just intonation, that is what is actually written on the page, not 12 tet.
Right - in just intonation the b10 and #9 aren't the same. But on an ET instrument like the piano in the example, they are the same because they sound the same, are they not? So true about being scared to label things as they are - I admit to an aversion to double flats and double sharps.
@@Keith_Horn The b10 and #9 are not even the same in ET, even though they are the same frequency. This is because 12 tet is merelly an approximation for Pythagorean just intonation (3 limit), or what I call true intonation. And while you can arrive at the same sounding chord with the notes misspelled, ones understanding of the theory is occluded with the misspelling. The spelling informs the tuning, and also the function. Taking note of this can really allow you to understand seemingly weird progressions that make no sense on the surface. So much confusion and desire for reform is there in music theory and notation because people do not understand that what they see on the page is Pythagorean just intonation, that is what is written down, and we approximate it on 12 tet instruments. Some may try and interpret the sheet music in 5 limit tuning or meantone, but this is not correct, even if it was the norm to do so for a few hundred years. 5 limit and meantone are relatively modern and are based on a misconception of what a major third is. This misconception leads to a completely incoherent tuning system which both sounds out of tune and grows increasingly incoherent the more you put them to the test against Pythagorean, listening melodically and harmonically at once for proper intonation.
Double sharps and flats are only troublesome when you are on the piano or guitar and their layouts. With a better keyboard, there is no confusion or nusance to them at all. I deal in double accidentals and even beyond. I even invented single symbols for triple sharps and dboule and triple flats so they take up the same space as a single sharp or flat and remain just as legible if not more so, on the page.
One of the main benefits to understand is the difference between a diatonic semitone, like between E anf F and B and C. And a chromatic semitone, like that between E and Eb and C and Cb. There are times where the music calls for a chromatic semitone (called an apotome) which is slightly wider than a 12 tet semitone at 113.685 cents, and other times a diatonic semitone (called a limma) is needed and called for which is smaller than a 12 tet semitone at 90.225 cents. 12 tet semitones are 100 cents.
Many times we think all resolutions must be by limma, like the F in a G7 chord moving down to E in a C major chord. But then there are times where a note must resolve chromatically. Like in a G7(b10) chord which is usually and wrongly called as a #9. The reason it is a b10 is because the Bb, the b10, is an anticipation to the B natural in the following CM7 chord. There are these chromatic anticipation notes at certain resolutions and cadences, and are essentially blues notes. Where when you call it a sharp nine, the distinction can never be made between the 2 types of semitones, and so one cannot be as intentional when writing because that area of theory is obscured by the misspellings. You may write that and like the sound, but the inner workings are lost on you. Even in 12 tet the feeling is there because of the function even though there is no enharmonic distinction between the #9 and b10. When you actually play the chord progression with the b10 and then with the #9 in 3 limit tuning, you can hear how the b10 is cleaner and clearer and more clearly conveys what the music is trying to say. There is also the thing to note, how the b10 is a perfect 4th above the b7 instead of the augmented 3rd that is created with the #9. Augmented thirds do exist, diminished fourths do exist, and they sound differnt and function differently than P4ths and M3rds. All of this and much more is lost when spelling is ignored.
@@RememberGodHolyBible Wow 113.685 cents and 90.225 cents is a huge difference. This is amazing stuff. Thanks so much for the detailed explanation.
@@Keith_Horn My pleasure.