Hendrix chord

Joe Monzo informs:

> Jerry, I think you missed a loooooooong discussion Paul Erlich
> and I (and a few others here and there) had almost two years
> ago about the 'Hendrix Chord'. You might be interested
> enough to wade thru the whole thing; thankfully, Drew Skyfyre
> has put it online at
> http://members.xoom.com/drew_skyfyre/xe/Hendrix.html
>
>
> I got so into it that I began writing a piece around it;
> my webpage on that is at
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/hendrix/hendrix.htm
>
> but the coolest part of my piece, so far, is the last
> minute or so of the MIDI link on my 'List of Works' page
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/hendrix/hendrix.mid
> - the piece is still 'under construction'.

I will put this on my to-do list, Joe. Right now I'm trying to figure how to
mount this mp3 I have ready to share regarding the "high third." I do
appreciate the information and I'm sure I'll enjoy the trip when I get a
breather. (I'm not sure why I even got into that discussion. I should know
by now that it simply leads to _more discussion. I guess I love it too
much.)
>
> Paul also feels that the 6:7 'sharp 9th' is the most appropriate
> for the 'Hendrix chord'; much of his argument was based
> on the mechanics of guitar-playing, and I had to agree with
> him on that, but 16:19 is still my favorite 'sharp 9th' in
> this chord, giving 16:20:24:28:38 for the whole pentad.

Sounds like a good one. But is it alright with you if I call this 6:7 a
"flat 3" instead of a "sharp nine"? :-)

Jerry

Jerry wrote,

>Sounds like a good one. But is it alright with you if I call this 6:7 a
>"flat 3" instead of a "sharp nine"? :-)

"Sharp ninth" is used in 12-tET jazz theory because the regular (major)
"tenth"="third" remains a valid choice over this chord, while the regular
(major) "ninth"="second" is not (unless you're John Scofield; then it's
cool). However, the _minor_ "ninth"="second" does often occur over this
scale (when the diminished scale is used), so the logic of jazz nomenclature
is not perfect.

And, in meantone temperament and thus Fokker's notation, an augmented sixth
is very close to 6:7 (as close as you like, depending on the exact variety
of meantone).

I wrote,

>an augmented sixth
>is very close to 6:7

I meant an augmented second. Sorry!