Came across this example in a published chart - Bob Brookmeyer’s Hello and Goodbye. I am wanting to use the voicing in my own score, and wanted to also use the same chord symbol for the rhythm section:
This is used instead of use E9,♯9 as that could be confusing from the performers perspective - is there only one 9th that’s sharp and the composer/copyist made an error?
This appears to be a great way to notate a non-standard voicing including both the unaltered/altered 9th chord tone. Is the only possibility here editing the default symbol for one of the chord qualities I am not using in my chart using the chord symbol library editor?
Here’s some more analysis of this for anyone interested:
The ♮9 and ♯9 are indeed present - 1st Soprano/2nd Trumpet for the former, and 1st Tenor/1st Trombone for the latter.
The ♭5 is also present in both the lead and 5th trumpet part, but not indicated in the chord symbol - likely due to the density of chords here. Adding another extension would make things even more difficult to decipher at tempo for the piano/guitar players. And rhythm section players will usually leave the 5th out when multiple extensions are present, as they usually imply poly chord fractions. In this case, the trumpets are playing an inversion of Dmaj7♯5 over top of the shell voicing.
This isn’t the correct terminology. I have never seen a flat 10 in a chord symbol. It is always notated as a sharp 9 with dominant qualities (or any sound with both a major and minor 3rd present - sometimes referred to as a “split third”.
Sorry, I meant to respond to this days ago, but noticed I had a bunch of errors in my post, and was going out the door, so just deleted it. This type of voicing is entirely within Brookmeyer’s harmonic language so definitely is not an error. As you point out, E7(#9, ♮9) is actually used in the Piano part, so that definitely seems to be the way he’s thinking of it.
One really cool thing about that voicing is that it contains two separate Tritone-Fourth voicings within it, where the top note of the first 3-note voicing becomes the bottom note of the second. Here’s the sax reduction:
If you’ve ever checked out Olivier Messiaen’s music, you’ll notice that he likes that voicing too. Here’s an example from his book The Technique of My Musical Language:
He takes the voicing here one note further than Brookmeyer and has a tritone at the top too, but it also contains two Tritone-Fourth voicings within it:
Thanks for the insight! I haven’t studied Messiaen very much but from what I have heard, he definitely had a pretty hip approach.
And the quote you replied to, I meant that may be the response of a rhythm section player if they encountered the symbol “E9#9” as opposed to Brookmeyer’s choice, which is very clear!