Why is it called E9 chromatic and why sharps and not flats?

[Stuart Legg]

I got an email on this telling me I was all wet.

I haven't talked to the guy that came up with the copedent for E9 chromatic to hear exactly why he called it E9 chromatic and why he used sharps instead of flats.

So this is my take on it by applying the rules of notation.

Sharps and flats used correctly in notation is to go on the primus that you must have A through G in your scale regardless if they are sharp or flatted.

example: The A major scale A B C# D E F# G# A
If you used flats instead of sharps the scale would look like this: A B Db D E Gb Ab A and the C and F would be missing from your alphabet.

This is why the 1st string on the 10 string E9 is listed as F# instead of Gb and etc.
E9 is a dominant chord to the A major scale and the scale for E9 would look like this: E F# G# A B C# D E
The second string is tuned to D# hence the term E9 chromatic.

When your music alphabet has two of the same letters in it the additional letter is referred to as a (chromatic) as in the E9 chromatic scale E F# G# A B C# D (D#) E. In this case I can not call the extra D in my alphabet which in this case is D# chomatic an Eb chromatic simple because E is the tonic and to introduce another E to my alphabet in this case an Eb would tend to confuse which was the tonic.

Hence E9 chromatic using sharps in notation of copedent.

So what do you think?

[Earnest Bovine]

Right you are. Each letter of the alphabet is a line or space on the staff.

If you used flats instead of sharps the scale would look like this: A B Db D E Gb Ab A and the C and F would be missing from your alphabet.

And if you wrote a scale that way it wouldn't look like a scale, and it would be very difficult to read.

If you spelled a A major chord as A D-flat E, then it wouldn't look like a triad on the staff. And it would be hard to read.

[David Doggett]

Earnest has the reasoning for you. It has to do with written notation. The sharps and flats of the key signature are not written in the music. You must remember them from the key signature. Thus, in the key of E, the D# is written on the D line, but without a sharp sign. There can be only one scale note per line or space. If you used flats for the key signature, the E and Eb would be on the same space or line. You would have to write in the flat sign to differentiate them. By using the flat and sharp key conventions we have, that never happens. So you can write each scale note to its own line or space, and you don't have to write in the sharps or flats, except in the key signature. Only "accidentals" or chromatics require writing sharps or flats into the music. It is more efficient in terms of writing and printing and having the minimum clutter in the written music.

The fact that D# is a chromatic note in the A scale is irrelevant to naming the tuning in terms of the E scale. If you call it an E9 tuning, then D# is a diatonic scale note, not a chromatic. Those top two strings make it an E9 diatonic tuning, not a chromatic tuning. The D on the 9th string is a chromatic note. But it was there for 8-string E9, and it was not called a chromatic tuning then. Referring to it as an E9 chromatic tuning just because the top two diatonic notes were added was just plain wrong.

[Robert Harper]

David, are you saying it isn't a chromatic scale?
I read in the earlier post that the two "D" strings make it a Chromatic. Sory that leaves me a little confused

[David Doggett]

The tuning is named for the open strings, not what any of the pedals or levers do. If you tune your 2nd string to D instead of D# (as some players do), I guess you can call it a chromatic tuning. But it's kind of stretching it, since you only have one of the 5 potential chromatic notes.

Likewise, technically the 9th string D is a chromatic note, so I guess you could call E9 a chromatic tuning based on that. But historically it was never called a chromatic tuning when it was 8-string E9, regardless of that D on string 7. It began to be called a chromatic tuning as a sales pitch to differentiate 10-sting E9 from the old 8-string E9. The clear implication was that somehow adding the two diatonic strings (F# and D# on strings 1 and 2, the 2nd and 7th notes of the diatonic E scale) made it a chromatic tuning. They didn't. They made it a diatonic tuning.

It seems like somebody knew just enough theory to make a clever sales pitch, but not enough to get the terminology right.

And BTW, a 12-string "E9/B6" Universal is also a diatonic tuning. It doesn't even have the D, so there is not a single chromatic note in the open tuning. Technically it is not E9, a chord which requires a b7. It is E maj7 add 2, or maybe that should be Emaj7,9. But that's too cumbersome to ever stick, so we're destined to keep calling it E9/B6 because of the historical link to E9.

[Robert Harper]

Thanks, I have spen a little time trying to figure this out and it absolutely made no sense. Now I know it is a sales gimmik. I wonder why they didn't say "So easy a gekco could do it Thanks

[Dave Mudgett]

Of course, Earnest is correct on the sharps and flats - it depends entirely on the key signature you're in. If you're reading music in a sharp key signature like G, D, A, E, or B, then you write the sharped version of each note. If it's a flat key signature like F, Bb, Eb, Ab, or Db, then you write the flatted version of each note.

The rationale for this approach is simply Occam's Razor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor - in short, use the simplest description that describes everything correctly. But it not universally adhered to - there is music written in the more complex key signature - for example, from the Wikipedia entry on key signatures:

The key signatures with seven flats and seven sharps are rarely used because they have simpler enharmonic equivalents. For example, the key of C♯ major (seven sharps) is more simply represented as D♭ major (five flats). For modern practical purposes these keys are the same, because C♯ and D♭ are the same note. Pieces are written in these "extreme" sharp or flat keys, however: for example, Bach's Prelude and Fugue No. 3 from Book 1 of The Well-Tempered Clavier BWV 848 is in C♯ major. The modern musical Seussical by Flaherty and Ahrens also has several songs written in these more difficult keys.

But there is yet another point here: If you were playing a written song in the key of F, then you would write the open string notes using the flatted versions, not the sharped versions. Again - it depends entirely on the key signature you're reading from, not the name of the chord. If there's no key signature involved, I see no reason why you can't use either approach with impunity.

On "Why is it called E9 chromatic?", I just say, "Here we go again." To avoid beating this into the ground, I simply refer to this recent thread on the same subject - http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1430909

These are all conventions that groups of musicians use to communicate with each other. It is absurd to think that all musicians use the same conventions - even mathematicians and scientists differ on notational conventions, depending on what area of math or science they work in. Similarly, different groups of musicians use different conventions. There is no "universal" language for any communication problem. Different languages convey various aspects of what they're describing differently, and there may be advantages or disadvantages to different approaches.

Let me ask you this - is English a "better" language than Italian, French, Gaelic, Mandarin, or Sanskrit - or vice versa? What do you mean by "better"? For many people, one is better because it's the only language they understand, but there are a lot more ways to look at it than this.

[Ronnie Boettcher]

All I can say is that when I was being taught music theory, when you write music, or spell notes, you have to use the correct note, or letter of the note, to make the music correct. In a scale, no matter what the key it is in, you have to use the notes and letters in sequence. A B C D E F G etc. Even if you are playing in a key like C#. You have 7 sharps. You still spell it as C# D# E# F# G# A# B#. If something is written in more than 7#'s, you will have some that are written in double sharps. It is not practical, but in theory, it is. Like instead of a key of D#, You would write the song in the key of Eb. I know pedal steelers use the #'s, and b's, to represent the pedals or levers, but it is not musically written correctly. All this does, is gives you a passing grade, in music theory classes. Hope I didn't confuse anyone. Ronnie

[David Doggett]

While it's true that in discussing scales or writing music notation you use sharps if it is a sharp key and flats if it is a flat key. But I'm not so sure that applies in naming chords. In chord names, the 3b, 5b and 7b always seem to be labeled as flats. You don't see #2, #4 and #6 used in the chord name, even if the key is a sharp key, or the scale starting on the root of the chord is in a sharp key. Am I right about that? If so, then consider that steel guitar tunings are named according to the chord they make. In that case, you could conceivably call it Bb as a b5 in an E chord rather than call it A#, even though the key of E is a sharp key. Is that right?

[Dave Mudgett]

But I'm not so sure that applies in naming chords. In chord names, the 3b, 5b and 7b always seem to be labeled as flats. You don't see #2, #4 and #6 used in the chord name, even if the key is a sharp key, or the scale starting on the root of the chord is in a sharp key.

Well, not exactly. One certainly sees #9, #11, and #13, which are exactly the same note letters.

Or - if one was starting with, e.g., a major chord with a sus2 and now raise the 2 a half-tone, I see nothing wrong with notating it as major chord add 2#. For example, suppose you had a chord voicing, top-to-bottom 3, 5, 2, and wanted to raise the 2 a half-tone. On the other hand, if one was starting from a 3 and moving down a half-tone, of course it would be reasonable to call it b3. I, personally, would find it easier to follow a chord chart that notated the leading voice like this. To me, usage matters. YMMV.

When one talks about extended dominant chords, both b9 and #9 are used routinely. In chord-melody playing, a common progression to move from 7#9 to dom9 to 7b9, with #9, 9, and b9 as the leading voice - I see that notated frequently. If you were to follow this absolutely rigid thinking of, "I must always write the chords using sharps (or flats)", this would be wrong.

I know pedal steelers use the #'s, and b's, to represent the pedals or levers, but it is not musically written correctly.

Unless one is talking in the context of a key signature, I don't see what difference it makes. If one assumes that the key signature is E, of course this is reasonable. But one is not always playing in the key of E - if one is playing in a flatted key, then the E-lever is lowering E to Eb.

I don't think there's anything written in stone about this. To me, it's about getting across the idea of what's important about the chord or pedal/lever movement - whatever that takes. If you're reading western-annotated music, follow its rules. But there is no one-to-one invertible mapping between that and chord names or pedal/lever names.

My opinions.

[Alan Brookes]

Disregarding its usage in the steel guitar world, a diatonic scale is one with just the notes of the scale, and a chromatic scale is one with all the notes. For instance, if you bought a chromatic harmonica in the key of C the notes would be C D E F G A B. By pushing the button you would get C# D# F# G# and A#. Looking at it another way, all the white keys on a piano constitute a diatonic scale in the key of C or Amin. Include the black keys and you have a chromatic scale.

Here's a Hummel I built. It has a diatonic scale.

[Edward Meisse]

I haven't read through here as closely and carefully as I might have. But has anyone mentioned yet that the key of E is 4#s? The notes in question are F#, C#, G# and D#. The reason that it is a sharp key has been mentioned. It is in order to use all the letters of the scale. For the sake of simplicity and uniformity, we avoid mixing sharps and flats whenever possible. Therefore, anything that has to do with the key of E will be referred to as # and not as b even with accidentals.

[KENNY KRUPNICK]

In the key signature for the key of "E" there are 4 sharps, "F C G D".

[David Doggett]

I agree with Dave M. on this. Yes, E is a sharp key. So if you are talking about the notes of the E diatonic scale, four of them are sharps. But it is perfectly acceptable to label a chord "E7 b5," in the key of E or any other key. And as Dave says, you can have b9, 9 or #9 chords in any key, whether it is a sharp key or flat key. So naming scale notes, and naming chord notes are not exactly the same thing. And you can look at an open chord steel guitar tuning from the standpoint of a scale or a chord.

[Rick Winfield]

E sesquinquinquetone add b7 ?
Chromatic sounds sellable.
lol
Rick

[Ronnie Boettcher]

This is getting silly. How many steel guitarists actually read music when they play? Or can actually read music. If your playing in a jam, or gig, and someone says lets do this song, in the key of whatever. Excluding the drummer, we all go to that key and play it. Basic I-IV-V and some go to II, and then some. But all your triads are either the 1-3-5, 3-5-1, or 5-1-3, of the chord that's being played. To make a minor, augmented, dim, you still use the basic triad, and go from there. Steel guitar is the only instrument you can alter the notes by pushing pedals, or levers, and keep the bar on the same fret. I have played many places, where players have no musical background. Just my 2 cents again.

[Dave Mudgett]

Ronnie - I agree that most steel players don't need to worry about tuning or lever names. We all know what is meant by "E9 chromatic", and it doesn't matter a whit whether we say the E-lever lowers E to Eb or D#.

But I probably disagree that most steel players don't need to know about anything more than simple triads of whatever type, and I'm sure many of us work with very knowledgeable musicians. There are some fine musicians on this board. My opinion.

[Larry Bell]

IMHO, this boils down to a couple of things

* Machismo
"I don't read music enough fer it ta hurt my playing"
Sometimes pride, ignorance and attitude obscure the truth

* Communication
"Awww -- you know what I mean, that OFF CHORD"
There is a standard vocabulary of music. Many steel players don't speak that language. If they did musicians in many other styles of music may recognize the steel guitar as a legitimate instrument.

The 'E9 Chromatic' thing is just a quirk -- like 'jumbo shrimp'. It is true, however, that chromatic and diatonic are the same for degrees of the scale that are half-tones apart. For example, in the EMajor diatonic scale, between the 7th and 8th/1st scale tones IS CHROMATIC. Perhaps the D# and E notes on 2 and 4 might have resulted in the 'chromatic' designation. I rarely hear any steel player refer to the E9 Chromatic tuning anyway -- 99.99% just say E9.

[David Doggett]

Well, Larry has raised an interesting issue that may or may not be worth a new thread. Will cleaning up some of the musically illiterate country steel jargon help promote the instrument to the rest of the music world? I'm not sure it will as much as simply playing a variety of types of music well on the instrument. Action will speak louder than words. Also, I'm not sure we can change the momentum of the vocabulary from the past. And, it's intimidating and presumptious, to say the least, to attempt to correct the informal colloquial language that comes from old timers who can play rings around us (at least speaking for myself).

But possibly correcting, or at least explaining, the language quirks can be useful teaching moments. It's true the "chromatic" term is not used much in sales pitches anymore. But in learning the instrument, neophytes continue to run into the term during formal and informal instruction and lick-swapping sessions. If asked about it by puzzled neophytes, I just say it's a colloquial misnomer, and that those top two strings are not necessarily chromatic, but are notes of the scale that were missing from the original open chord tuning. Their positioning up there keeps them from cluttering up the open chord grips, and allows scale runs without cross-picking. Then just a simple demonstration of how they are used and how it sounds clears the whole thing up way better than a terminology discussion. But that's not so easily done here on the internet.

Likewise, we are stuck with the almost universal misuse of the term "temper" among guitarists and steelers. They mostly think the Equal Temper (ET) they get from a tuner is untempered, and when they adjust that to Just Intonation (JI) by ear, then they are tempering. Which of course technically is exactly backwards. ET is tempered, and JI is not. I doubt we will ever fix that mistake, and we might as well get use to the new meaning of "tempering" to simply mean a manual tuning adjustment of any kind, whether you are tempering JI to ET, or "tempering" what a meter says back to JI. But, as with the "chromatic strings" misnomer, explaining the true technical meaning of the terms can help neophytes come to understand what the difference between JI and ET is all about. And again, demonstrating the different sounds while watching a tuning meter clears the whole thing up much better than a verbal or written explanation.

[Stuart Legg]

Who ever named this tuning could have called it Emaj9 chromatic; E F# G# A B C# D# E with 4 #s the key of E and the (D) would have to be the chromatic.
But they chose E9 chromatic instead; E F# G# A B C# D E with 3 #s the mixolydian (or dominant) mode/ scale of the major key of A with the chromatic note being the D#.
Of course you could also call it a Bmin7 chromatic; B C# D E F# G# A B key of A with D# the chromatic or a B7 chromatic B C# D# E F# G# A B key of E with D as the chromatic and etc through all the modes.
My point here is that they chose E9 chromatic and you have to except the notation that goes with it or change the name to something that fits your notation.
We're talking music notation here not playing music.

[Larry Bressington]

As far as i know, MR 'Buddy emmons ' devised the 'Chromatic' E9th, so we need to take out the ' 'ignorance equasion'
'Buddy Emmons' was a monster at 20 years old in jazz, so it was not a 'mistake' for the name 'Chromatic'
He was not a 'hillbilly' with no knowledge, and i dont beleive in the ' HILLBILLY' theory!
IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE!!

I beleive in this;
Buddy Emmons' sat down at a 'steel' one day after adding the two new strings to the top, 'F# AND D#'
When he analysed the setting, as most 'jazzers' do and 'Buddy 'being a jazzer by heart, he came to realise that the 'CHROMATIC SCALE' a very powerful tool in 'Jazz' was easily placed upon in the E9th position
[open or 12th fret] and tuning, and could be utilized in Jazz music,[ even doing away with C6th was his thoughts of the day, remember how he was always pushing a single tuning there for a while] fret 12 with his copedant of the day, with slight deviation could find every note within 1-2 fret moves and be called 'E chromatic', However technically, 'chromatic' never has a home!
But.... we call it E chromatic if it starts and ends on E note!
A phenominom of that day, compared to 'non pedal'

Lets devise the 10 string, eventhough it was called 'Chromatic with an 8 string.

10th string; B open,
half pedal C, full pedal C#,
9th string; D,
8th string; lowered D# , released E, 8th raised F,
7th string;F#, raised G and so on and on!!
Its a 'chromatic' idea!!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OPEN TUNING!!

It's almost possible with strings 1 and 2 in place to strike a 'chromatic scale' depending upon copedant with little or no deviation of the bar!
It is not a ' chromatic' tuning, it's a 'Chromatic' 'idea' Scalelick!!

If we look back at what was a 'standard E9' back in the day we can see that 'buddy' raised his F#'s to G along with E to F and that all helped in the 'Chromatic' idea that he had, he was nailing it with 'pedals' and 'knee's 'and did not have to move the bar.
Hence the 'Chromatic Tuning!

The E9 'chromatic' is not named after it's 'open tuning' it's named after it's 'convenient scale' a 'Jazz' Standard scale, known heavily to all 'jazzers 'and 'classicals' because of it's use of every tone common to those styles.
When i learned 'classical' guitar in 'England' it was the 'Chromatic' scale that was constantly pushed because of it's 12 tones,and one was entised to step out of diatonic key for 'release' and 'tension' and 'Buddy emmons' was from the same school!
We can argue this forever but... Only our 'Buddy' knows!!!

That's my story and i'm sticking to it,
I love you brothers right or wrong!!

[David Doggett]

Well, if you want to consider all the pedals and levers, yeah, it's a chromatic setup, or what today we would call a chromatic copedent, although many of us don't have a full chromatic scale at a single fret. But then, pretty much any pedal steel would then be chromatic. And if a single chromatic note (such as D in an E tuning) makes it a chromatic tuning, then the old E9 lap steel tuning was chromatic even before Bud Isaacs added pedals to it.

Traditionally, lap steel tunings have been named for the chord the open strings make. That's so someone would know what each of the open strings is tuned to, irrespective of the fact you can always get a full chromatic scale by moving the bar around. The notes or chord of the open strings was still a good thing to know back in the formative years of pedal steel before E9 and C6 became so standard. And it was then, and still is useful to know what the open strings are tuned to, irrespective of what you can get with the pedals and levers, or by moving the bar around.

Steel guitar is sort of unique in being tuned to an open chord rather than a scale, whether diatonic or chromatic. Most other modern instruments, such as keyboards and horns are fully chromatic. Harps were diatonic until pedals were added, which gave the full chromatic scale. Simple harmonicas are diatonic. The chromatic harmonica gives a full chromatic scale. So it is a little strange to call an instrument chromatic, if you can't get the full chromatic scale. Certainly having a single chromatic note, as 8-string E9 does, would not signify a chromatic instrument to someone use to instruments with a full chromatic scale.

So I think some people are sort of over thinking this, especially when you consider that lap steel E9 and 8-string E9 pedal steel were not called chromatic as far as we can tell so far in this discussion. The simplest (Occam's razor) and most obvious reasoning would seem to be that Buddy Emmons was simply thinking of scale notes when he added the high F# (there was already a middle F# in E9) and D#, both of which are simply diatonic scale notes of the key of E. BE started out as a country steeler, and was still playing country on E9, and Western Swing on C6 at the time he added those strings. I would have to hear it straight from him (or somebody who knew him at the time) before I would believe that he and Shot Jackson were thinking of a Mixolydian jazz mode when they started adding the top two strings to Sho-Bud 10-string E9 necks. Although BE played jazz as well as anyone ever has on pedal steel, that was not until years later (and on C6), although who knows when he first started fooling with jazz.

So to me, it seems sort of revisionist to resort to modern jazz modal thinking to speculate on the thinking of country steelers 50 years ago when those two strings were added. I could easily believe BE was thinking of chromatic possibilities back then for the whole copedent for both E9 and C6. I just find it a bit of a stretch to believe he was thinking of the Mixolydian mode when he added D# and a second F# to E9, when both notes can more easily be explained as diatonic scale notes for the country music he was playing at the time.

[Larry Bell]

So I think some people are sort of over thinking this

You said a mouthfull there, bubba.

[Stuart Legg]

Larry Bressington, that is interesting to know that Buddy invented the tuning with the idea of achieving a chromatic scale.
Buddy named it a chromatic E9 and not just Chromatic.
It appears that the E9 references the open tuning which is an E9 chord with an added note (D#) and from there proceeded with pedals and knee levers to achieve a chromatic scale.
I fail to see how my notation logic is not in agreement with this even though I had no idea his original intent.

[David Doggett]

...even though I had no idea his original intent.

And neither does Larry Bressington (unless he has an inside track to BE he hasn't mentioned), nor do I. So far we are all speculating. It just seems convoluted to me to think Buddy and Shot were thinking of D# as chromatic to the key of A in E Mixolydian mode, when it is so much more simple and direct to think of it as a diatonic note of the E scale.