Blues scale: is this accurate?
BestStudentViolins.com
scale consists of
the root (first note of the scale)
lowered (minor) 3rd (no 2nd scale step)
the 4th
lowered 5th
natural 5th
lowered 7th (no 6th step)
root (octave higher)
So, for example, a blues scale in C would be:
C E flat F Gflat G natural B flat C
A blues scale has seven notes and includes a flatted 3rd, 5th and 7th.
These three flatted notes are often referred to as "blue notes."
See:
Essentials of Music Theory: Complete Self-Study Course
http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/a/item.html?id=186635&item=5817807
BestStudentViolins.com
following:
This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
I really don't understand what he's talking about. But when I played
through Mark Levine's book, I didn't understand all the chord
analysis, either...
LJS
<SunMusicStri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
> following:
>
> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
To keep your friends opinion in a good light, I have to assume that he
is referring to more modern Jazz tunes that use the variations of the
Blues Scale that he says doesn't exist. He is right in that most of
the Jazz blues tunes don't follow this pure form. Like Bach, Mozart,
Beethoven et al, the Jazz composers elaborate on this.
You will hear it more authentically used in early Jazz recordings
starting around the early part of the 20th century and you will still
hear it on porches in Mississippi and I believe that B B King uses it
in a pretty original form in many of his recordings. If he is indeed
talking about blues proper, I don't know what he has been listening
to, but he should get out more. You can even hear a lot of original
blues scales as you listen to many of the melodic lines in the Rock
and Roll and Blues tunes in the 50s and 60s. Many authors have "touted
the minor pentatonic" because they listened to recordings and
transcribed them and that is what they came up with. Then the
variations came as people wanted to do something 'bluesy', but
slightly different.
>
> I really don't understand what he's talking about. But when I played
> through Mark Levine's book, I didn't understand all the chord
> analysis, either...
lol,
I don't like the way he presents things either, but it is all pretty
much straight theory. I like to focus more on the 1% that can help us
to use what ever we already know to create music and once we learn how
to do that, then we can learn the techniques to create our own 99%
rather than to spend time studying his 99%. It is, however, a good
book that will help a lot of people do certain things.
LJS
David Webber
"BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac92f971-6a70-43da...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
> following:
>
> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
This is essentially true, as I mentioned in different words in my earlier
post. The "blues scale" is a modern construct. (I'd be interested to
know how modern. It's possible it was never mentioned before the 1980s,
but if there is earlier documentation, I'd definitely be interested in it.)
It does provide a simple way of sounding "bluesy", but yes "actual blues
music" does not restrict itself to this palette of 6 notes. ("Blues"
itself, as a vocal folk art form, is generally believed to go back possibly
as far as around the 1860s but its origins are somewhat shrouded in
mystery.)
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
Danny Schorr
<da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>"BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ac92f971-6a70-43da...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
>> following:
>>
>> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
>> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
>> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
>> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
>> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
Bullshit.
>
>This is essentially true, as I mentioned in different words in my earlier
>post. The "blues scale" is a modern construct. (I'd be interested to
>know how modern. It's possible it was never mentioned before the 1980s,
>but if there is earlier documentation, I'd definitely be interested in it.)
You must be either kidding, or not looking hard enough.
>It does provide a simple way of sounding "bluesy", but yes "actual blues
>music" does not restrict itself to this palette of 6 notes.
No music really restricts itself to *any* palette of notes, if you take
expressiveness into consideration. But for a standard templete to bridge
from - yes, the blues DOES use these six notes.
Albert, BB, Freddie, Robert Johnson, Jimi, Jimmy (Page), Dylan, Muddy,
Duane (Allman), Buddy (Guy), Lennon/McCartney- when they did a blues tune,
Clapton, John Lee Hooker, Earl Hooker - the road goes on forever.
When the masters play the blues, they use this scale as a basis.
Tthere may be chromatic alterations, sure - usually the m3-M3
interpolation, and ^5-^-6 ^8 ( relative major/minor juxtapositioning) but
this IS what it is - the blues scale is REAL - and REALLY used IN PRACTICE.
On this planet, at least.
Danny
David Webber
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
news:4avp54p17a0va9ji6...@4ax.com...
>>"BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ac92f971-6a70-43da...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
>>> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
>>> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
>>> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
>>> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
>
> Bullshit.
>>This is essentially true, as I mentioned in different words in my earlier
>>post. The "blues scale" is a modern construct. (I'd be interested to
>>know how modern. It's possible it was never mentioned before the 1980s,
>>but if there is earlier documentation, I'd definitely be interested in
>>it.)
>
> You must be either kidding, or not looking hard enough.
Or expressing myself poorly.
>>It does provide a simple way of sounding "bluesy", but yes "actual blues
>>music" does not restrict itself to this palette of 6 notes.
>
> No music really restricts itself to *any* palette of notes, if you take
> expressiveness into consideration.
Agreed.
I think the root of our disagreement lies here: I am happy that the notes 1
b3 4 b5 5 b7 are indeed prominent in blues playing, but I don't hear the
other notes which are used as particularly subsidiary to these (or as being
extra to any equivalent of a tonal centre). For example, if a 2 or a 6
turns up, it isn't really possible (I would argue) to hear it as a chromatic
modification of a note which lies on the scale. And therefore it calls
into question exactly what you mean by "a blues scale". Even worse is the
concept of "*the* blues scale" as it is hardly possible to identify only
one.
And if you take the most bog-standard blues progression
I I I I7 IV7 IV7 I I V7 IV7 I I
there are notes in the harmonies which just don't occur in the "blues
scale". And for some blues, this blues scale might fit, and for others it
sounds just wrong. So it is not really possible to argue that it is any
form of basis for the blues.
> Albert, BB, Freddie, Robert Johnson, Jimi, Jimmy (Page), Dylan, Muddy,
> Duane (Allman), Buddy (Guy), Lennon/McCartney- when they did a blues
> tune,
> Clapton, John Lee Hooker, Earl Hooker - the road goes on forever.
> When the masters play the blues, they use this scale as a basis.
Again I would argue (in common possibly with Mr Violin's pianist friend)
that (especially earlier) blues singers didn't "use this scale as a basis"
but rather played blues the way they felt it and the notes of this scale
were prominent in their output. In any event, the flattened 7th and 3rd
were originally sung as flattened by rather less than a semitone. I don't
really hear this scale when I listen to Bessie Smith or Jelly Roll Morton
(for example).
> There may be chromatic alterations, sure - usually the m3-M3
> interpolation, and ^5-^-6 ^8 ( relative major/minor juxtapositioning) but
> this IS what it is - the blues scale is REAL - and REALLY used IN
> PRACTICE.
I am aware that it is really used in practice these days, but would argue
that if you start fom this set of 6 notes and work out from there, then your
playing is going to be rather derivative, until you free yourself from it.
I am not criticising - I use it myself as a shortcut to approaching various
solos (but not every blues solo) - but I am conscious of the need to play
what I feel, and my occasional better efforts, at least, go way beyond it.
As I say, I am not sure when someone first wrote down these 6 notes and
called it a "blues scale". I suspect it is rather recent. I'd be
interested in any documentation.
Danny Schorr
that's why I conceptualize it as the relative major pentatonic juxtaposed
with the "true" "minor" (those quotes are my caveats) blues scale. A truly
skilled blues guitarist knows how to make the transition between the two.
>
>And if you take the most bog-standard blues progression
>
> I I I I7 IV7 IV7 I I V7 IV7 I I
>
>there are notes in the harmonies which just don't occur in the "blues
>scale". And for some blues, this blues scale might fit, and for others it
>sounds just wrong. So it is not really possible to argue that it is any
>form of basis for the blues.
I don't know. whatever music I may elsewhere play in the course of mylife,
I consider myself a bluesman first and formost, and shall always be so IMO.
Enlighten me with some examples where thye blues scale "doesn't fit", with
the understanding that I am not interested in any "flaming" , just wanting
to know better where you are coming from.
>
>> Albert, BB, Freddie, Robert Johnson, Jimi, Jimmy (Page), Dylan, Muddy,
>> Duane (Allman), Buddy (Guy), Lennon/McCartney- when they did a blues
>> tune,
>> Clapton, John Lee Hooker, Earl Hooker - the road goes on forever.
>> When the masters play the blues, they use this scale as a basis.
>
>Again I would argue (in common possibly with Mr Violin's pianist friend)
>that (especially earlier) blues singers didn't "use this scale as a basis"
>but rather played blues the way they felt it and the notes of this scale
>were prominent in their output. In any event, the flattened 7th and 3rd
>were originally sung as flattened by rather less than a semitone. I don't
>really hear this scale when I listen to Bessie Smith or Jelly Roll Morton
>(for example).
I am not familiar with either Bessie's or Jelly Roll's output, actually.
I AM familiar with the early blues guitarists from, say, the late '20s -
early '30s upward, and their legacy regarding the more modern players
influenced by them, and I hear this scale as the basis of their expression.
Bessie and Jelly Roll were JAZZ, right? Not Blues.
So I would reckon that there is a "something other" that departs from
straight blues.
If you say those two flattened ^3 and ^7 by less than a semitone, I have no
choice but to take you at your word. I am not on a "first name basis" with
that music.
But It brings to mind, for me Robert Johnson, who altered all the degrees
he sang as a means of expression. there's a website somewhere which
actually shows in cents how much he deviated from the norm,expressively.
The starting point, though, was those six notes in contention.
>
>> There may be chromatic alterations, sure - usually the m3-M3
>> interpolation, and ^5-^-6 ^8 ( relative major/minor juxtapositioning) but
>> this IS what it is - the blues scale is REAL - and REALLY used IN
>> PRACTICE.
>
>I am aware that it is really used in practice these days, but would argue
>that if you start fom this set of 6 notes and work out from there, then your
>playing is going to be rather derivative,
deriviative of what? (just curious)
> until you free yourself from it.
>I am not criticising - I use it myself as a shortcut to approaching various
>solos (but not every blues solo) - but I am conscious of the need to play
>what I feel, and my occasional better efforts, at least, go way beyond it.
>
>As I say, I am not sure when someone first wrote down these 6 notes and
>called it a "blues scale". I suspect it is rather recent. I'd be
>interested in any documentation.
Again - the usuage precedes documentation. You can bet your bottom dollar
that Muddy Waters used these notes exclusively in the '50's, at least - the
people who noted it and cataloged it came after the fact.
Danny
>
>Dave
LJS
> This is essentially true, as I mentioned in different words in my earlier
> post. The "blues scale" is a modern construct. (I'd be interested to
> know how modern. It's possible it was never mentioned before the 1980s,
> but if there is earlier documentation, I'd definitely be interested in it.)
Isn't it in Coker's writings long before this? It is also in textbooks
that I have used that were purchased in the 80's (I believe Silva
Burdette and other of that genre) and these books are certainly not
the leading edge of putting new information into books designed for
young school children. And then from personal experience, I know that
we used the term as well as the notes in college in the 60s. I don't
think that we were the only school that were so modern. I also seem to
remember reading, in my research of older blues posts in this group,
that someone though that it was from the Parker/Gillespie era in the
50's (maybe you remember who said something like that?) although I
have heard it in transcriptions of music long before that. The New
Orleans and Southern Louisiana and Mississippi musicians certainly use
it long before that. If everyone was using it, I would think that this
would constitute a construct or at least an abstract or general idea
inferred or derived from specific instances.
In any case, I suggest that you start with Coker and work backwards if
you want to find out who first wrote about these sets of notes. In
general, however, I have found that if you go to the source, the
actual musicians, and you actually analyze and play the music that you
get a much better perspective of what it is about rather than to rely
on researchers to write about their interpretations of something of
this nature. After all, isn't that one of the nice things about jazz
recordings. It gives us a real idea of the cumulation of the knowledge
of the musicians involved and it sets a point in time that can be
referenced for historians to analyze and then speculate about. (In
general I find that a lot of researchers have the same philosophy as
one of our right wing talk radio hosts that claims "I read the news
and tell you what you have to know so that you don't have to." and if
you ever heard his views, you would see that it does not always
reflect a clear and accurate picture of what is really happening!)
> It does provide a simple way of sounding "bluesy", but yes "actual blues
> music" does not restrict itself to this palette of 6 notes. ("Blues"
> itself, as a vocal folk art form, is generally believed to go back possibly
> as far as around the 1860s but its origins are somewhat shrouded in
> mystery.)
Neither does "sounding bluesy". If there were not variations, life
would be extremely static.
"Shrouded in Mystery" What an interesting way of looking at this!
LJS
Ben Crowell
> I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
> following:
>
> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
I had a community college jazz improvisation teacher who was a heck
of a good blues player, and he said essentially the same thing. He
called it the "white man's blues scale."
David Webber
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>...
> that's why I conceptualize it as the relative major pentatonic juxtaposed
> with the "true" "minor" (those quotes are my caveats) blues scale. A truly
> skilled blues guitarist knows how to make the transition between the two.
And in doing so - you're going beyond the "blues scale" essentially as a
necessity, rather than an optional add-on extra.
> Enlighten me with some examples where thye blues scale "doesn't fit", with
> the understanding that I am not interested in any "flaming" , just wanting
> to know better where you are coming from.
Well the last time I fell over it myself was a big band chart called
"Emancipation blues" - I think it was by Oliver Nelson. I had 36 bars for
myself in amongst other soloists, and the blues scale felt all wrong in
rehearsal. A more standard harmonic approach based on I IV7 and V7 chords
workd much better. I'll try and think of a more accessible example.
> In any event, the flattened 7th and 3rd
>>were originally sung as flattened by rather less than a semitone. I
>>don't
>>really hear this scale when I listen to Bessie Smith or Jelly Roll Morton
>>(for example).
>
> I am not familiar with either Bessie's or Jelly Roll's output, actually.
> I AM familiar with the early blues guitarists from, say, the late '20s -
> early '30s upward, and their legacy regarding the more modern players
> influenced by them, and I hear this scale as the basis of their
> expression.
>
> Bessie and Jelly Roll were JAZZ, right? Not Blues.
Bess Smith's soubriquet - not unearned - was "Empress of the Blues". She
was first and foremost a blues singer who sang with pianists, small
accompanying groups and jazz bands in the 1920s. If you're a "blues man"
you *really* need to listen to her.
Jelly Roll Morton claimed to be the originator of jazz - a claim which most
people take with a large grain of salt, as he was prone to hyperbole :-)
In many ways he was the first intellectual of jazz, making clear
distinctions between jazz, blues and ragtime. An his 1926 jazz recordings
with the red hot peppers are magnificent. However he was playing piano
around the South as early as 1904, (well before "jazz") and in those days
it was blues and ragtime. He was not at all at home with the strict metre
of written ragtime, but he was very much at home with the blues, and
composed quite a number of very fine blues. Including of course "Jelly
Roll Blues" :-) I was reminded of him because a week or so ago BBC Radio
4 put on a program about the making of his 1938 Library of Congress
Recordings, where he was interviewed for about 4 days about his early
career. He spent the entire interview playing the piano and talking over
it, and when asked played some of his earliest stuff. Spine tinglingly
poignant blues. The way he sang the blue notes has never been bettered.
:-) Again if you get any of Jelly Roll's piano solo stuff (as opposed to
the band recordings with the Red Hot Peppers) you may discover some real
blues which you like! it certainly presses all the right buttons with me -
even after I have been listening to it for decades :-)
> So I would reckon that there is a "something other" that departs from
> straight blues.
I don't think there ever was a "straight blues". I think anything straight
is an after-the-fact ad-hoc extraction :-)
> If you say those two flattened ^3 and ^7 by less than a semitone, I have
> no
> choice but to take you at your word. I am not on a "first name basis" with
> that music.
> But It brings to mind, for me Robert Johnson, who altered all the degrees
> he sang as a means of expression.
They all did.
> there's a website somewhere which
> actually shows in cents how much he deviated from the norm,expressively.
> The starting point, though, was those six notes in contention.
>>
>>> There may be chromatic alterations, sure - usually the m3-M3
>>> interpolation, and ^5-^-6 ^8 ( relative major/minor juxtapositioning)
>>> but
>>> this IS what it is - the blues scale is REAL - and REALLY used IN
>>> PRACTICE.
>>
>>I am aware that it is really used in practice these days, but would argue
>>that if you start fom this set of 6 notes and work out from there, then
>>your
>>playing is going to be rather derivative,
>
> deriviative of what? (just curious)
Derivative of the blues as played by the early masters.
>> until you free yourself from it.
>>I am not criticising - I use it myself as a shortcut to approaching
>>various
>>solos (but not every blues solo) - but I am conscious of the need to
>>play
>>what I feel, and my occasional better efforts, at least, go way beyond it.
>>
>>As I say, I am not sure when someone first wrote down these 6 notes and
>>called it a "blues scale". I suspect it is rather recent. I'd be
>>interested in any documentation.
>
> Again - the usuage precedes documentation. You can bet your bottom dollar
> that Muddy Waters used these notes exclusively in the '50's, at least
It's a while since I listened to him, probably time I did again, but I'd be
really quite surprised if he used those 6 notes exclusively in ny piece. I
reember him as being more imaginitive than that.
> - the
> people who noted it and cataloged it came after the fact.
I'm sure that's true, but I'm equally sure that it is only an approximation
to the music it was taken from. Nevertheless one which makes getting into
blues a lot easier when one is starting out.
David Webber
"Ben Crowell" <crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote in message
news:485d20dc$0$7102$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I think that summarises what I had in mind when I said I though it sounded
"derivative".
BestStudentViolins.com
engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
LJS
wrote:
> "Ben Crowell" <crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote in message
>
> news:485d20dc$0$7102$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > BestStudentViolins.com wrote:
> >> I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
> >> following:
>
> >> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
> >> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
> >> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
> >> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
> >> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
>
> > I had a community college jazz improvisation teacher who was a heck
> > of a good blues player, and he said essentially the same thing. He
> > called it the "white man's blues scale."
Let me count the ways!
What Community college jazz improvisation teacher? (in most cases, not
all, this phrase is an oxymoron and we have no way of knowing with out
more information.
"Heck of a good blues player" can mean a lot of things. With out even
some information as to who decides if he is indeed one heck of a
blues player and what the standards of this may be this is just too
subjective to have any merit.
"Said essentially the same thing" is not really very restrictive and
could mean anything. What exactly does this mean? We just don't know.
He called it the "White man's blues scale." Does this really need a
comment? I didn't realize that it is common knowledge that the blues
were so racial! I mean, it is acknowledged that the blues had its
roots in the slave community, but does "White man's Blues Scale" mean
that the Creoles, the Free men of color, the and the Blacks after
slavery are all "White Men" as it seems apparent that all of these
racial groups have adopted the blues and made it their own
irregardless of Race, Creed or Social Cast!
What a perfectly useless comment.
>
> I think that summarises what I had in mind when I said I though it sounded
> "derivative".
>
> Dave
And why does this being a summary of your view point not come as a
surprise! lol, I have to agree, however, that this statement does, in
fact, summarize your viewpoint to a "T". I have to commend you Dave,
not many people would be honest enough to admit to that in a public
forum!
LJS
LJS
<SunMusicStri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aren't the "blue notes" really the cracks between the piano keys,
> engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
Yes, they are. I have a posted this already, but sometimes there is a
lag in when they show up in the group as well as in certain news
readers. That is exactly true. All folk music and early choir music
sang a capella will naturally ease into the untempered P5ths and the
expanded thirds that were used before equal temperament. Similar in a
way to the music of North Africa and the Middle East with their
"quarter tone" scales, the Sub Saharan music often uses these "in the
crack" tones as well. When you play the C7 chord in the harmony and
the Eb in the melody as in the blues scale, this clash allows our ear
to imagine the tone that is actually sung by the blues singer. If you
listen to Bessie Smith, you will hear very clear examples of this as
well as with Billie Holiday. In a more complex setting, (in my opinion
more complex) Sarah Vaughn does this not only with the blues scales,
but with many different scales from all cultures of the world.
This is a fact that seems to evade many musicians. When you hear
performances by the above and thousands of other singers, if you
listen carefully, you will see that the singers with "feeling" or
"soul" (or interpretative blues style) will sing in the cracks for
expression of the style. Sometimes the pianist plays just what is
written and some times they will play fewer of these 'blue' notes so
as to stay out of conflict with the singer. Sometimes they don't. Then
when you hear the instrumental solos that come into play, many of the
horns will "bend" their notes to be more stylistic and expressive of
the emotion created by the singers. Some musicians and the nature of
some instruments make this difficult for some musicians (I have
noticed that classically trained musicians in general, and there are
exceptions, have a difficult time playing these notes the correct
amount "out of tune" and some just refuse to even listen to it because
of this!) to play so they may use the other ways of simulating the
true blue notes like the grace note of the Eb to Enat in C and other
techniques.
This is often misinterpreted by some as a NEW blues scale, where in
fact, it is more likely to be the "simulation" of the Blue Note rather
than using a different scale.
LJS
LJS
responses to others, they at least talk about specific things instead
of the nonsense that I see in his responses directly to me!
On Jun 21, 9:07 am, "David Webber" <d...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk>
wrote:
> "Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:4avp54p17a0va9ji6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >>"BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusicStri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ac92f971-6a70-43da...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
> >>> following:
>
> >>> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
> >>> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
> >>> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
> >>> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
> >>> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
>
> > Bullshit.
> >>This is essentially true, as I mentioned in different words in my earlier
> >>post. The "blues scale" is a modern construct. (I'd be interested to
> >>know how modern. It's possible it was never mentioned before the 1980s,
> >>but if there is earlier documentation, I'd definitely be interested in
> >>it.)
>
> > You must be either kidding, or not looking hard enough.
>
> Or expressing myself poorly.
Ah, certainly a huge possibility!
>
> >>It does provide a simple way of sounding "bluesy", but yes "actual blues
> >>music" does not restrict itself to this palette of 6 notes.
>
> > No music really restricts itself to *any* palette of notes, if you take
> > expressiveness into consideration.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I think the root of our disagreement lies here: I am happy that the notes 1
> b3 4 b5 5 b7 are indeed prominent in blues playing, but I don't hear the
> other notes which are used as particularly subsidiary to these (or as being
> extra to any equivalent of a tonal centre). For example, if a 2 or a 6
> turns up, it isn't really possible (I would argue) to hear it as a chromatic
> modification of a note which lies on the scale. And therefore it calls
> into question exactly what you mean by "a blues scale". Even worse is the
> concept of "*the* blues scale" as it is hardly possible to identify only
> one.
>
> And if you take the most bog-standard blues progression
>
> I I I I7 IV7 IV7 I I V7 IV7 I I
>
> there are notes in the harmonies which just don't occur in the "blues
> scale". And for some blues, this blues scale might fit, and for others it
> sounds just wrong. So it is not really possible to argue that it is any
> form of basis for the blues.
Sorry, that logic is flawed. As explained in an earlier post, the
melody came first. The melody is the origin of the Blues scale. It
comes, and I believe that you even repeated this in one of your posts,
from the folk music of the early blacks. There was no harmony in the
original songs that was played by 12 tet instruments. Later when the
music was taken out of the fields and put into the more modern
instruments of the day, the PIANO or banjo created the harmony. The
piano needed to find a way to suggest the blues without retuning the
strings (or using someone inside the instrument to bend them lol) and
one of the techniques used was to play the major harmony with the
minor (blues) sonority in the melody. The singers, if you listen
carefully, will be singing in the cracks of the piano with the blues
notes. So when you pick and choose from these various concepts that
are at play, your logic is flawed as you are mixing apples, oranges,
pears, plums and many other flavors that we have not even discussed.
>
> > Albert, BB, Freddie, Robert Johnson, Jimi, Jimmy (Page), Dylan, Muddy,
> > Duane (Allman), Buddy (Guy), Lennon/McCartney- when they did a blues
> > tune,
> > Clapton, John Lee Hooker, Earl Hooker - the road goes on forever.
> > When the masters play the blues, they use this scale as a basis.
>
> Again I would argue (in common possibly with Mr Violin's pianist friend)
> that (especially earlier) blues singers didn't "use this scale as a basis"
> but rather played blues the way they felt it and the notes of this scale
> were prominent in their output. In any event, the flattened 7th and 3rd
> were originally sung as flattened by rather less than a semitone. I don't
> really hear this scale when I listen to Bessie Smith or Jelly Roll Morton
> (for example).
Then you should practice your listening skills. Unless you insist that
they use this one form and only that one form. The main problem with
your argument is that you insist that everything is black and white
and them by your personal arbitrary standards. I certainly hear the
scale in both of these and most other performers in this art form. Do
they also use embellishments? Of course. This is obvious to those that
listen and actually try to put it into perspective. Would you be just
as willing to say that Beethoven or Mozart didn't "use the major scale
as a basis" because they introduced modal interchange that had other
basis to express their ideas? Its the same thing, unless you claim
that the blues performers lack the sophistication to expand on the
basic blues and that they are not capable of using the same types and
techniques of these more classically trained composers.
>
> > There may be chromatic alterations, sure - usually the m3-M3
> > interpolation, and ^5-^-6 ^8 ( relative major/minor juxtapositioning) but
> > this IS what it is - the blues scale is REAL - and REALLY used IN
> > PRACTICE.
>
> I am aware that it is really used in practice these days, but would argue
> that if you start fom this set of 6 notes and work out from there, then your
> playing is going to be rather derivative, until you free yourself from it.
> I am not criticising - I use it myself as a shortcut to approaching various
> solos (but not every blues solo) - but I am conscious of the need to play
> what I feel, and my occasional better efforts, at least, go way beyond it.
By this same logic, then all music that used Major or minor scales
exclusively wold be rather derivative until one freed themselves from
it! Some would argue that if you were playing a blues solo, that going
beyond it would be the shortcut as to continue to make music without
the crutch of modal interchange (which will take the solo out of the
blues category if carried to its limits) is the real challenge. It is
much easier to switch to altered scales than to work with a smaller
set of notes and to continue to make it sound fresh and creative. I am
not criticizing as there are many valid ways to approach solos, but to
say that the long list of players that Danny posted play rather
derivative solos is to miss the beauty of the blues which is a valid
art form of its own.
>
> As I say, I am not sure when someone first wrote down these 6 notes and
> called it a "blues scale". I suspect it is rather recent. I'd be
> interested in any documentation.
The first writings were when the musicians played the music. The
second was when they wrote it for publication (this was usually done
by others that heard the beauty of the originals, and then years
afterward, someone got a research grand and put it into a book. If you
really want to understand it, go as closely to the source as you can.
LJS
LJS
> engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
Yes, they are. I have a posted this already, but sometimes there is a
Danny Schorr
<da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>news:hu3q54diuloqr72mn...@4ax.com...
>
>>...
>> that's why I conceptualize it as the relative major pentatonic juxtaposed
>> with the "true" "minor" (those quotes are my caveats) blues scale. A truly
>> skilled blues guitarist knows how to make the transition between the two.
>
>And in doing so - you're going beyond the "blues scale" essentially as a
>necessity, rather than an optional add-on extra.
No - it's an optional add-on. I could cite thousands of blues tunes which
*don't* use the relative major pentatonic. Basically, it's an incorporation
of US country music into the blues, originally by players who adopted the
regional influence.
>
>> Enlighten me with some examples where thye blues scale "doesn't fit", with
>> the understanding that I am not interested in any "flaming" , just wanting
>> to know better where you are coming from.
>
>Well the last time I fell over it myself was a big band chart called
>"Emancipation blues" - I think it was by Oliver Nelson. I had 36 bars for
>myself in amongst other soloists, and the blues scale felt all wrong in
>rehearsal. A more standard harmonic approach based on I IV7 and V7 chords
>workd much better. I'll try and think of a more accessible example.
Please do. Because if you play the blues scale over this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-aDm5Te8gI
it works just fine. Unless you are doing it wrong!
Hint: Albert King licks ALWAYS work.
>
>
>> In any event, the flattened 7th and 3rd
>>>were originally sung as flattened by rather less than a semitone. I
>>>don't
>>>really hear this scale when I listen to Bessie Smith or Jelly Roll Morton
>>>(for example).
>>
>> I am not familiar with either Bessie's or Jelly Roll's output, actually.
>> I AM familiar with the early blues guitarists from, say, the late '20s -
>> early '30s upward, and their legacy regarding the more modern players
>> influenced by them, and I hear this scale as the basis of their
>> expression.
>>
>> Bessie and Jelly Roll were JAZZ, right? Not Blues.
>
>Bess Smith's soubriquet - not unearned - was "Empress of the Blues". She
>was first and foremost a blues singer who sang with pianists, small
>accompanying groups and jazz bands in the 1920s. If you're a "blues man"
>you *really* need to listen to her.
OK - just did (thanks, Internet!). A bit too much vibrato for my taste, but
still very good. I've listened to "St Louis Blues", Nobody Loves You.."
and a third song, and I'm not hearing anything out of the ordinary
re: blues scales.
>
>Jelly Roll Morton claimed to be the originator of jazz - a claim which most
>people take with a large grain of salt, as he was prone to hyperbole :-)
>In many ways he was the first intellectual of jazz, making clear
>distinctions between jazz, blues and ragtime. An his 1926 jazz recordings
>with the red hot peppers are magnificent. However he was playing piano
>around the South as early as 1904, (well before "jazz") and in those days
>it was blues and ragtime. He was not at all at home with the strict metre
>of written ragtime, but he was very much at home with the blues, and
>composed quite a number of very fine blues. Including of course "Jelly
>Roll Blues" :-) I was reminded of him because a week or so ago BBC Radio
>4 put on a program about the making of his 1938 Library of Congress
>Recordings, where he was interviewed for about 4 days about his early
>career. He spent the entire interview playing the piano and talking over
>it, and when asked played some of his earliest stuff. Spine tinglingly
>poignant blues. The way he sang the blue notes has never been bettered.
>:-) Again if you get any of Jelly Roll's piano solo stuff (as opposed to
>the band recordings with the Red Hot Peppers) you may discover some real
>blues which you like! it certainly presses all the right buttons with me -
>even after I have been listening to it for decades :-)
>
>> So I would reckon that there is a "something other" that departs from
>> straight blues.
>
>I don't think there ever was a "straight blues". I think anything straight
>is an after-the-fact ad-hoc extraction :-)
Of course there is. it comes straight from the Mississippi Delta and then
extends north to Chicago (along with the players who migrated)and then fans
out to more regions as folks pick up on the sound.
>
>> If you say those two flattened ^3 and ^7 by less than a semitone, I have
>> no
>> choice but to take you at your word. I am not on a "first name basis" with
>> that music.
>> But It brings to mind, for me Robert Johnson, who altered all the degrees
>> he sang as a means of expression.
>
>They all did.
No- that is wrong. Plenty of blues players stuck to the blues scale, and
nothing else. BB King didn't stray vocally as much as RJ. Same for Louis
Jordan, Chuck Berry, Robert Plant, and a host of others too numerous for me
to list here. That statement is untenable.
>
>> there's a website somewhere which
>> actually shows in cents how much he deviated from the norm,expressively.
>> The starting point, though, was those six notes in contention.
>>>
>>>> There may be chromatic alterations, sure - usually the m3-M3
>>>> interpolation, and ^5-^-6 ^8 ( relative major/minor juxtapositioning)
>>>> but
>>>> this IS what it is - the blues scale is REAL - and REALLY used IN
>>>> PRACTICE.
>>>
>>>I am aware that it is really used in practice these days, but would argue
>>>that if you start fom this set of 6 notes and work out from there, then
>>>your
>>>playing is going to be rather derivative,
>>
>> deriviative of what? (just curious)
>
>Derivative of the blues as played by the early masters.
Hmmm....
Well, maybe you aren't aware that Jimi Hendrix was a master bluesman.
Deriviative of no one. And yet..and yet.. the earlier masters were what he
built his foundation on- without them, he would've be nothing.(or somewhat
different, at least)
But somehow he wasn't deriviative at all. so...- it's all in the hands of
the artist, isn't it?
>
>>> until you free yourself from it.
>>>I am not criticising - I use it myself as a shortcut to approaching
>>>various
>>>solos (but not every blues solo) - but I am conscious of the need to
>>>play
>>>what I feel, and my occasional better efforts, at least, go way beyond it.
>>>
>>>As I say, I am not sure when someone first wrote down these 6 notes and
>>>called it a "blues scale". I suspect it is rather recent. I'd be
>>>interested in any documentation.
>>
>> Again - the usuage precedes documentation. You can bet your bottom dollar
>> that Muddy Waters used these notes exclusively in the '50's, at least
>
>It's a while since I listened to him, probably time I did again, but I'd be
>really quite surprised if he used those 6 notes exclusively in ny piece. I
>reember him as being more imaginitive than that.
One can be quite imaginitive even when 'limited' to a six note scale.
Check out the chess box set. But remember, as I said before - no true music
doesn't allow for expressive leeway.
>
>> - the
>> people who noted it and cataloged it came after the fact.
>
>I'm sure that's true, but I'm equally sure that it is only an approximation
>to the music it was taken from. Nevertheless one which makes getting into
>blues a lot easier when one is starting out.
Yes. That is what teachers do. Make music accesible.
Danny
>
>Dave
Danny Schorr
>Sorry to jump in on your post Danny, but when I read his answers in
>responses to others, they at least talk about specific things instead
>of the nonsense that I see in his responses directly to me!
Oh yeah - like I could stop a freight train ('Trane)
:-)
D.
David Webber
> Aren't the "blue notes" really the cracks between the piano keys,
> engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
Pianists sometimes attempted to mimic the blues feel by playing simultaneous
major and minor thirds.
Danny Schorr
>One can be quite imaginitive even when 'limited' to a six note scale.
Or five.
"Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please
He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me "...
Danny
David Webber
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:44:17 +0100, "David Webber"
> <da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>
>>And in doing so - you're going beyond the "blues scale" essentially as a
>>necessity, rather than an optional add-on extra.
>
> No - it's an optional add-on. I could cite thousands of blues tunes which
I am getting even more confirmed in my feeling that just playing a blues
scale is extremely limiting. Maybe I'm misinterreting it but you seem to me
to want to get by with just 6 notes. None of the blues I listen to does
that - it is all much more interesting.
>>Well the last time I fell over it myself was a big band chart called
>>"Emancipation blues" - I think it was by Oliver Nelson. I had 36 bars
>>for
>>myself in amongst other soloists, and the blues scale felt all wrong in
>>rehearsal. A more standard harmonic approach based on I IV7 and V7
>>chords
>>workd much better. I'll try and think of a more accessible example.
>
> Please do. Because if you play the blues scale over this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-aDm5Te8gI
>
> it works just fine.
It may for you, but, as I say, I found it a very unproductive and limiting
approach in this case. The harmonic approach to the changes worked much
better. [I am encouraged by that video though because I think, without
commenting on my ow contribution as I get very self-critical, we played it
much better.]
>>....
>>> - the
>>> people who noted it and cataloged it came after the fact.
>>
>>I'm sure that's true, but I'm equally sure that it is only an
>>approximation
>>to the music it was taken from. Nevertheless one which makes getting
>>into
>>blues a lot easier when one is starting out.
>
> Yes. That is what teachers do. Make music accesible.
Then we'll agree on that.
Danny Schorr
<da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>t may for you, but, as I say, I found it a very unproductive and limiting
>approach in this case. The harmonic approach to the changes worked much
>better.
Hi Dave,
Could you elaborate on that?
I just may learn something in the process. Thanks.
Danny
Danny Schorr
<da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>
>I am getting even more confirmed in my feeling that just playing a blues
>scale is extremely limiting. Maybe I'm misinterreting it but you seem to me
>to want to get by with just 6 notes. None of the blues I listen to does
>that - it is all much more interesting.
well, we are only talking about adding ^2 and ^6.
Gee, if the inclusion of these two notes is the difference between "much
more interesting"and not, then, yeah - I'd say you need to broaden your
horizons.
Note choice (set) is not nearly the only factor in what makes for musical
interst. Variation, contrast, loud/soft/ motivic development, rhythmic
displpacement, fast/slow, flurry/spacing of single tones sliding into a
note, expressive note production ( bending + more)...etc etc..
IMHO - the gamut of notes available is one of the LEAST important factors
in pulling of a solo that moves people.. But what do I know....
Danny
Steve Latham
>I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
> following:
>
> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
And he's right.
The "most common" version of a Blues Scale is 1 b3 4 b5 5 b7.
HOWEVER, just try and play a "blues scale" along with a T-Bone Walker (who I
believe is considered by most to be a blues musician) and you'll find that
he rarely sticks to just these notes.
More accurately, the thing we are seeing called a Blues Scale nowadays is
really a Minor Pentatonic with a Blue Note - something that's been much
touted in the guitar community for those wishing to learn pentatonic-based
blues influenced rock.
But most blues uses a scale more like:
1 2 b3 3 4 b5 5 6 b7
This is more like a Mixolydian Mode with an added b3 and b5 - two more blue
notes (the b7 being considered a blue note too).
I've seen this called "Major Blues Scale" or just "Blues Scale" as well.
Far too many blues tunes use Scale Degree 6 to ignore it. 2 (sometimes
considered as 9) is also extremely important (from T-Bone Walker to Stevie
Ray Vaughn).
But, this is not a "blues scale" either per se. I think it's better to say
there are blues scales (plural) of which some of the most common types are
X, Y, and Z. And of course, if you want to go there, you can discuss the
living, breathing nature of those scales and tones interchangeability and so
forth.
Best,
Steve
Steve Latham
> Aren't the "blue notes" really the cracks between the piano keys,
> engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
Yes - notes that don't "fit" into a 12tet tuning system. In a sense (and my
history is not accurate here) it seems that the melodies that were being
sung had a lot of African influence, and African music had a much broader
palette of tunings (like in Kalimba music where tunings vary from tribe to
tribe as I recall).
Our "blue notes" are our attempts to find close approximations to those
notes, mainly b3, b5 and b7, which on an instrument on piano must be played
as those notes.
I think the popularity of Slide Guitar in Blues is because of it's ability
to get "in between" those notes as well - so not only b3 but somewhere in
between 2 and b3, or b3 and 3, etc. Even on regular guitar bending to get to
these "out of tune" pitches is commonplace. Obviously instruments like
harmonica - whose notes can be bent - also became commonplace (and Diddly
Bows in early blues, etc.). Obviously they're all trying to emulate vocals
which can produce any pitch along a continuum.
Additionally, to western ears these "in between" notes probably added
poignancy to the "moaning" and "wailing" many early Spirituals and Field
Hollers seem to contain, making them all the more "bluesy" to our ears.
Steve
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>
>"BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ac92f971-6a70-43da...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
>> following:
>>
>> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no such
>> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
>> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
>> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
>> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fashion.
>
>And he's right.
And he's wrong (fixed that for you).
>
>The "most common" version of a Blues Scale is 1 b3 4 b5 5 b7.
>
>HOWEVER, just try and play a "blues scale" along with a T-Bone Walker (who I
>believe is considered by most to be a blues musician)
Most definitely - a very influential figure.
>and you'll find that
>he rarely sticks to just these notes.
But that's just him. Play a blues scale along with Jimmy Reed Or john Lee
Hooker, and you'll find that they do stick to these notes.
>
>More accurately, the thing we are seeing called a Blues Scale nowadays is
>really a Minor Pentatonic with a Blue Note - something that's been much
>touted in the guitar community for those wishing to learn pentatonic-based
>blues influenced rock.
>
>But most blues uses a scale more like:
>
>1 2 b3 3 4 b5 5 6 b7
>
>This is more like a Mixolydian Mode with an added b3 and b5 - two more blue
>notes (the b7 being considered a blue note too).
It's a pentatonic scale with chromatic filler notes between ^2 and ^3,
^4 and ^5
>
>I've seen this called "Major Blues Scale" or just "Blues Scale" as well.
>
>Far too many blues tunes use Scale Degree 6 to ignore it. 2 (sometimes
>considered as 9) is also extremely important (from T-Bone Walker to Stevie
>Ray Vaughn).
They use ^9 in their guitar playing, but NOT in their singing. ^6 does
occur in vocalizing.
>
>But, this is not a "blues scale" either per se. I think it's better to say
>there are blues scales (plural) of which some of the most common types are
>X, Y, and Z. And of course, if you want to go there, you can discuss the
>living, breathing nature of those scales and tones interchangeability and so
>forth.
Just as you can major/minor scales.
Danny
>
>Best,
>Steve
>
David Webber
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:NJj7k.166$cv5.26@trnddc01...
>
> "BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:054b9896-e849-48ac...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Aren't the "blue notes" really the cracks between the piano keys,
>> engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
>
> Yes - notes that don't "fit" into a 12tet tuning system. In a sense (and
> my history is not accurate here) it seems that the melodies that were
> being sung had a lot of African influence, and African music had a much
> broader palette of tunings (like in Kalimba music where tunings vary from
> tribe to tribe as I recall).
The flattened 3rd and 7th have been attributed to African influence on the
European scale. the semitone intervals sounded too narrow to the African
ear so they broadened thhem.
> Our "blue notes" are our attempts to find close approximations to those
> notes, mainly b3, b5 and b7, which on an instrument on piano must be
> played as those notes.
Again it doesn't help to be too centred on the piano here. Very few
instruments are unable to bend notes. Guitars do it by string bending, wind
and brass by embouchure. When someone starts to learn a saxophone, the
first thing you teach them is that it doesn't come with the right notes "out
of the box". You have to learn to play them in tune. Then when you learn
jazz or blues, it is very easy to learn to play them bent :-)
In a slightly diffent example of the same thing, ther are those who say that
the adoption of the accordian as a folk instrument completely messed up
Eastern European folk music, because it couldn't play the notes which were
customary in that music. Its popularity actually changed the music.
But the piano and the accordian are exceptions. Other instruments can and
do bend notes. [As examples on sax, listen to Johnny Hodges in the
Ellington numbers, "I got it bad and that aint good" or "Isfahan".]
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
David Webber
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
David Webber
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
> Could you elaborate on that?
I'll try.
If you go back to classical analysis there are "essential notes" (those on
the harmony) and "unessential notes" (not "inessential"!) which are the
others.
Unessential notes against the harmony occur in assorted ways including:
Passing notes: you move in steps up or down. the unessential notes you go
through are passing notes.
Auxiliary notes: you step off an essential note and back on to it.
Appoggiature: you hit an unessential note on a strong beat and move by step
onto an essential note.
Turns: go round essential notes.
[In these last two I am not talking about the decorative symbols used in
classical music but the sequence of notes which they imply, and they don't
just have to be short notes.]
I'll gloss over the choice between chromatic and diatonic unessential notes,
but obviously there are both.
It may see odd or "uncool" at first but all of this is still relevant in
jazz and blues playing :-) The upshot is that you can do almost anything
you like if you move in step and it can sound right - the unessential notes
fall into one category or another. But if you leap, and want to fit with
the harmonies, you should land on an essential note, or on a note one step
away and step off onto an essential note.
Jazz improvisation before the late 1940s very much followed these principles
but gradually increased the concept of essential notes where things like the
B in Cmaj7 started to become "essential" as opposed to what it would have
been in classical music.
A very good example is Bix Beiderbecke in the 20s: he was absolutely
brilliant but an awful lot of his solos just ask to be analysed in classical
terms. "Blue notes" were not "extra notes" but a way of bending certain
notes (especially vocally) to give a certain feel. You should be able to
hear this in the older generation of Blues performers - for example as I
mentioned Bessie Smith and Jelly Roll Morton. (The latter as you observed
was busily transforming blues into jazz but a lot of his early work was
essentially blues.)
It all changed in the late 40s - in jazz for example by Parker and
Gillespie. Their approach was much more easily thought of as "playing
scales against chords" and these days the jazz tutors are all about which
scales go with which chords. The chords are more complicated - eg G13 has
all the white notes of the piano, so the idea of landing on essential notes
is downplayed in favour of the scales vs chords approach. But as the
chords change, the scales played against them change.
In the jazz band we play all styles from the 20s to the modern day, but
because of what I have listened to most all my life, the older way comes
more naturally to me. But it doesn't "work" if I get a solo in a
thoroughly modem piece and I have to think modern.
I suspect that the same sort of revolution from a what I called a harmonic
approach to a scale approach happened around the same time in blues (jazz
and blues development by now being very much interrelated, even if both had
their different adherents). And somewhere along the line the idea of a
blues scale has risen to prominence. Of course in as much as blues
performers were/are often soloists, accompanying themselves on guitar, they
always had less to worry about in as far as fitting in with the rest of the
band is concerned. But I still hear the (albeit bent) "harmonic feel" of
early blues, and a "scales" feel in later examples.
Anyway the arrangement of background riffs in Emancipation Blues made the
harmonic approach fit much better for me - as I say I tried approaching it
from both directions in rehearsals. Sure I played minor thirds against the
major chords - major thirds would have sounded naff - but the E E E E A7 A7
E E B7 A7 E E structure was always uppermost in my mind, because the
background riffs were nailing it to the floor :-)
David Webber
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:40:20 +0100, "David Webber"
> <da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>I am getting even more confirmed in my feeling that just playing a blues
>>scale is extremely limiting. Maybe I'm misinterreting it but you seem to
>>me
>>to want to get by with just 6 notes. None of the blues I listen to does
>>that - it is all much more interesting.
>
>
> well, we are only talking about adding ^2 and ^6.
> Gee, if the inclusion of these two notes is the difference between "much
> more interesting"and not, then, yeah - I'd say you need to broaden your
I just gave them as examples. My horizons are indeed broader. And
"horizons" may be the best way of expressing it. The problem as I see it
is, if instead of saying "the b3 b5 and b7 were important in somebody's
work", you say "he played on a blues scale", then you are immediately
closing down the horizons. You may be able to extract a blues scale from
some of what he did, but it is only one way of looking at it, and, as you
seem to agree, looking at it also from other directions is desirable.
> Note choice (set) is not nearly the only factor in what makes for musical
> interst. Variation, contrast, loud/soft/ motivic development, rhythmic
> displpacement, fast/slow, flurry/spacing of single tones sliding into a
> note, expressive note production ( bending + more)...etc etc..
>
> IMHO - the gamut of notes available is one of the LEAST important factors
> in pulling of a solo that moves people.. But what do I know....
I completely with you that the gamut of notes used isn't the only important
factor, and that expression is crucial. Otherwise it would be sound and not
music.
David Webber
>...
> But most blues uses a scale more like:
>
> 1 2 b3 3 4 b5 5 6 b7
>
>....
Quite.
And add the odd b2 b6 and 7 for decoration and you have the lot :-) Bend
them all and you have more. :-)
> But, this is not a "blues scale" either per se. I think it's better to
> say...
> there are blues scales (plural) of which some of the most common types are
> X, Y, and Z. And of course, if you want to go there, you can discuss the
> living, breathing nature of those scales and tones interchangeability and
> so forth.
It might also be better to say that blues is not a scale at all, but a way
of approaching the music. Certain scales may help you learn to do that,
but should not be considered the be all and end all. As I have said, the
concept of "a blues scale" appears to be many decades younger than the
concept of "blues".
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
> Best,
> Steve
>
>
Danny Schorr
Dude, you need to cut that racist bullshit right now, quick. It's just this
sort of lowbrow mentality that was leveled against a monster musician named
Dave Brubeck which tried to complete disallow the public from truly
appeciating the man's superior musicality.
Ditto Bill Evans, although thankfully, time has rendered opinions such as
yours to be complete nonsense. The question of whether a white man can play
the blues has no place in our small segment of society known as
rec.music.theory.
I WOULD HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Danny
Danny Schorr
<da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>
>I just gave them as examples. My horizons are indeed broader. And
>"horizons" may be the best way of expressing it. The problem as I see it
>is, if instead of saying "the b3 b5 and b7 were important in somebody's
>work", you say "he played on a blues scale", then you are immediately
>closing down the horizons. You may be able to extract a blues scale from
>some of what he did, but it is only one way of looking at it, and, as you
>seem to agree, looking at it also from other directions is desirable.
I'm with you, to a point. And that point is music that DOES use the notes
of the blues scale exclusively. And 5 of them- not even the b5.
Voodoo Chile ( slight return) immediately comes to mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHstsGfHoNc
Danny
Danny Schorr
Also see "Come Together" , quoted earlier, which uses even less notes.
D.
David Webber
> And he's right.
>... The "most common" version of a Blues Scale is 1 b3 4 b5 5 b7.
>...
> But most blues uses a scale more like:
>
> 1 2 b3 3 4 b5 5 6 b7
> ...
An illustration of my problem with elevating the hexatonic blues scale too
much:
A lot of early blues would finish a chorus with the sequence of notes
b3 2 1
You can argue it is (by now) a cliché, but you can't argue it away. You
can possibly argue in some cases that the 2 is a passing note, but "scales"
contain passing notes - that's their point. Arguing too strictly in favour
of the hexatonic blues scale is like arguing that it cannot happen.
You can modify it to
b3 1 1
(which is perhaps to argue in favour of the 2 being a passing note) but I
find it difficult to believe that anyone who was capable of the latter
wasn't also occasionally capable of the former.
David Webber
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:40:12 -0700, Ben Crowell
> <crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
>
>>I had a community college jazz improvisation teacher who was a heck
>>of a good blues player, and he said essentially the same thing. He
>>called it the "white man's blues scale."
>
> Dude, you need to cut that racist bullshit right now, quick.
I realise that in the USA you can get very hot under the collar about this
sort of thing, for good historical reasons, but I think we can be grown up
enough to accept it as the obviously intended metaphor, without accusing
people of racism. My friends (both black and white) would smile at that.
> ....Dave Brubeck, ....Bill Evans, ...
And racially divisive slurs in jazz go a long way further back than that.
All the way back to the ODJB.
> although thankfully, time has rendered opinions such as
> yours to be complete nonsense.
Do be careful of your accusations. He didn't express an opinion.
> The question of whether a white man can play
> the blues has no place in our small segment of society known as
> rec.music.theory.
He didn't even touch on any such question.
Danny Schorr
>
>He didn't even touch on any such question.
>
>Dave
True enough. But I found the implications bothersome.
Danny
LJS
wrote:
There Dave. See you CAN post without making incomplete conclusions!
lol
LJS
LJS
wrote:
What an oleo of... of what. I can't even begin to address this mis
mash of unrelated, out of context and information and mixed principles
and contexts! All I can say is that if you are a student reading this,
then please take it with a grain of salt. If you use some of the terms
and names mentioned as a source to study, analyze them and study them
on your own and make your own conclusions. This is just too much to
endure! I think that you have reached the level of absurdity here that
if a student takes this at face value, then that student will not
learn music anyway, so I will let them fend for their selves. Sorry
students! I can only do so much.
On the other hand, if anyone wants an opinion on the merits of any
part of that above tirade, just write me. I will try to provide
questions and observations that will help you to glean some truth and
to make sense of some of the points that has been brought up. I don't
have time to go into this abundance of unrelated half observations.
LJS
LJS
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:44:50 +0100, "David Webber"
>
Dave,
If you read the posts, you will see that no one has said that blues
can not be more than the La Pentaton with the b5. This is a conclusion
that you jumped to all by your self. We all know that it is only a
starting point. This starting point, however, has been the result of
analyses of thousands of blues recordings by thousands of artists and
analysts and this is the common denominator that is shared by all
these efforts. If your experience is so limited that you can by any
stretch of the imagination think that any of these posts are trying to
limit the scope of the blues to this one scale, then maybe you should
try to find out why YOU seem to think that this limitation is inherent
in any of what has been said except in YOUR posts and in YOUR mind.
Maybe the symptom of your not being able to remember where you saw an
extremely unique chord symbol that is (as yet) not to be found by
anyone else is a symptom of a larger problem. Most would be inclined
to remember at least something about such a unique finding and this
collection of unrelated facts and half truths may be somehow related.
I don't know, all I can say is that your more recent posts have been a
fairly large departure from the earlier threads where you provided
much better information and you kept your observations and comments in
a much more clear perspective and your responses were either based on
something relevant or they were the response of someone that cared to
learn if his conclusions were on the right track or that you learned
something from the challenge. I see none of this in your responses to
me or anyone else in your more recent threads. I really don't know
how to account for the change in your more recent posts. As I read
them, and I re-read earlier posts in the archives, the more recent
ones just don't measure up to the Dave that I have seen in earlier
posts. I hope that it is just a phase and we can have the old Dave
back.
LJS
David Webber
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3790a29-f945-41d0...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> All I can say is that if you are a student reading this,
> then please take it with a grain of salt.
And whatever you do, do remember that Mr LJS's prime motivation here is not
music education but character assassination. I don't ask anyone to take my
word for anything. Just immerse yourself in the music of the different
periods, and read about it in the academic texts. You may come to a
different perspective from mine, but at least you'll have a basis for it.
Tom K.
"David Webber" <da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote in message
news:g3la44$604$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> A lot of early blues would finish a chorus with the sequence of notes
>
> b3 2 1
>
> You can argue it is (by now) a cliché, but you can't argue it away. You
> can possibly argue in some cases that the 2 is a passing note, but
> "scales" contain passing notes - that's their point. Arguing too
> strictly in favour of the hexatonic blues scale is like arguing that it
> cannot happen.
>
Or you can hear the ^2 as implying dominant harmony with the ^b3 as a
decoration (appoggiatura, passing tone, etc.) - a more CPP approach, to be
sure. Naturally, this would be highly dependant on context.
Tom K.
Carl Witthoft
"David Webber" <da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
> "BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:054b9896-e849-48ac...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Aren't the "blue notes" really the cracks between the piano keys,
> > engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
>
> Pianists sometimes attempted to mimic the blues feel by playing simultaneous
> major and minor thirds.
>
> Dave
Ummm... I don't think "the blues" requires "blue notes," or vice
versa. For example, a number of Monk tunes aren't particularly 'blues'
but they have 'blue notes'.
--
Team EM to the rescue! http://www.team-em.com
David Webber
"Tom K." <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vKmdnXRHWOiJ-cPV...@comcast.com...
Absolutely.
My description of it as a "passing note" was to try and put it into the
context of the hexatonic blues scale - where it won't easily fit. It isn't
really that much of a surprise in CPP terms, even though its "blue note
character" gives it its own special feel.
Danny Schorr
<da...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>news:q12r54prv4c2tbdvp...@4ax.com...
I'm forced here to quote Nigel Tufnel:
"I've been working with this for about half an hour, and can't figure out
exactly... I don't even know where to start".
>
>> Could you elaborate on that?
>
>I'll try.
>
>If you go back to classical analysis there are "essential notes" (those on
>the harmony) and "unessential notes" (not "inessential"!) which are the
>others.
>
>Unessential notes against the harmony occur in assorted ways including:
>
>Passing notes: you move in steps up or down. the unessential notes you go
>through are passing notes.
>
>Auxiliary notes: you step off an essential note and back on to it.
>
>Appoggiature: you hit an unessential note on a strong beat and move by step
>onto an essential note.
>
>Turns: go round essential notes.
>
>[In these last two I am not talking about the decorative symbols used in
>classical music but the sequence of notes which they imply, and they don't
>just have to be short notes.]
>
>I'll gloss over the choice between chromatic and diatonic unessential notes,
>but obviously there are both.
Do you actually overthink in this manner when you play? It's such a
convoluted approach. Obviously, this line of thinking only sees the blues
scale as a subset of major/minor, with notes missing. Blues players don't
subscribe to that view, in general.
>
>It may see odd or "uncool" at first but all of this is still relevant in
>jazz and blues playing :-) The upshot is that you can do almost anything
>you like if you move in step and it can sound right - the unessential notes
>fall into one category or another. But if you leap, and want to fit with
>the harmonies, you should land on an essential note, or on a note one step
>away and step off onto an essential note.
>
>Jazz improvisation before the late 1940s very much followed these principles
>but gradually increased the concept of essential notes where things like the
>B in Cmaj7 started to become "essential" as opposed to what it would have
>been in classical music.
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>
>A very good example is Bix Beiderbecke in the 20s: he was absolutely
>brilliant but an awful lot of his solos just ask to be analysed in classical
>terms. "Blue notes" were not "extra notes" but a way of bending certain
>notes (especially vocally) to give a certain feel.
Were? Still Are!
> You should be able to
>hear this in the older generation of Blues performers - for example as I
>mentioned Bessie Smith and Jelly Roll Morton. (The latter as you observed
>was busily transforming blues into jazz but a lot of his early work was
>essentially blues.)
]
The modern player who wants to improvise on the blues scale shouldn't HAVE
to continually reference everything back to a few major pioneers who's
importance is arbitrarily defined. Am I saying there is NO value in a
backwards glance to those who came before? Not at all. Of course there
would be something to be gained. But early pioneers are not SACRED. You
could gain just as much by looking at anyone who has mastered his craft.
Or something......as I said at the top, I find this post to be so confused
an explanation I don't know where to start.
>
>It all changed in the late 40s - in jazz for example by Parker and
>Gillespie. Their approach was much more easily thought of as "playing
>scales against chords" and these days the jazz tutors are all about which
>scales go with which chords. The chords are more complicated - eg G13 has
>all the white notes of the piano, so the idea of landing on essential notes
>is downplayed in favour of the scales vs chords approach. But as the
>chords change, the scales played against them change.
Irrelevant.
>
>In the jazz band we play all styles from the 20s to the modern day, but
>because of what I have listened to most all my life, the older way comes
>more naturally to me. But it doesn't "work" if I get a solo in a
>thoroughly modem piece and I have to think modern.
Don't think - listen.
>
>I suspect that the same sort of revolution from a what I called a harmonic
>approach to a scale approach happened around the same time in blues (jazz
>and blues development by now being very much interrelated, even if both had
>their different adherents). And somewhere along the line the idea of a
>blues scale has risen to prominence. Of course in as much as blues
>performers were/are often soloists, accompanying themselves on guitar, they
>always had less to worry about in as far as fitting in with the rest of the
>band is concerned. But I still hear the (albeit bent) "harmonic feel" of
>early blues, and a "scales" feel in later examples.
>
>Anyway the arrangement of background riffs in Emancipation Blues made the
>harmonic approach fit much better for me - as I say I tried approaching it
>from both directions in rehearsals. Sure I played minor thirds against the
>major chords - major thirds would have sounded naff - but the E E E E A7 A7
>E E B7 A7 E E structure was always uppermost in my mind, because the
>background riffs were nailing it to the floor :-)
I really don't understand, then. With such a solid grounding, I can't see
how using the blues scale wouldn't work. What instrument were you playing?
Maybe a clarinet wouldn't work as well as a Sax. (then again, maybe it
would)
I know you play many instruments - which one did you use for the gig?
>
>Dave
Tom K.
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> Don't think - listen.
The two are simply the opposing sides of the same coin.
Tom K.
Tom K.
>> decoration (appoggiatura, passing tone, etc.) - a more CPP approach, to
>> be sure. Naturally, this would be highly dependant on context.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> My description of it as a "passing note" was to try and put it into the
> context of the hexatonic blues scale - where it won't easily fit. It
> isn't really that much of a surprise in CPP terms, even though its "blue
> note character" gives it its own special feel.
>
If you get the chance, listen to Ray Charles' recording of the Henry Glover
tune, Drown In My Own Tears (ca. 1956). In his key of Db, the vocal
pick-ups are Bb - Fb to a downbeat Db - with the Bb and Fb harmonized by
dominant (#5) and the Db by tonic. While harmonically, the 5th of the V+
chord should be spelled as E natural, the melodic Fb is really a "blue" 6th
substituting for the chord 5th, Eb due to it's resolution down to tonic.
Tom K.
Steve Latham
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> But that's just him. Play a blues scale along with Jimmy Reed Or john Lee
> Hooker, and you'll find that they do stick to these notes.
But B.B. King, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eric Clapton, etc. etc. etc.
There are times when T-Bone would stick to just those notes as well Danny,
but I think we're understanding that as a "subset" of a larger set rather
than a separate scale - though the concept of switching modes/scales
mid-phrase is not impossible obviously.
>
> It's a pentatonic scale with chromatic filler notes between ^2 and ^3,
> ^4 and ^5
>>
I don't like "Pentatonic". There's Pentatonic Major:
1 2 3 5 6
and Pentatonic Minor
1 b3 4 5 b7
C D E G A
How is
C D Eb E F Gb G A Bb Pentatonic with filler notes?
I can see the Eb between D and E of a Major Pentatonic, but there's no 4 in
a Major Pentatonic.
One might see a blues scale as a combination of Major and Minor pentatonic:
C D E G A
C D Eb G Bb
which yeilds:
C D Eb E G A Bb.
Of course that doesn't contain the b5 or scale degree 4. And it's not really
informative to think of it as superimposed pentatonics.
>
> They use ^9 in their guitar playing, but NOT in their singing.
Really?
^6 does
> occur in vocalizing.
>>
>>But, this is not a "blues scale" either per se. I think it's better to say
>>there are blues scales (plural) of which some of the most common types are
>>X, Y, and Z. And of course, if you want to go there, you can discuss the
>>living, breathing nature of those scales and tones interchangeability and
>>so
>>forth.
>
> Just as you can major/minor scales.
Exactly.
Steve
Steve Latham
>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4Bj7k.165$cv5.10@trnddc01...
>
>
>>...
>> But most blues uses a scale more like:
>>
>> 1 2 b3 3 4 b5 5 6 b7
>>
>>....
>
>
> Quite.
I'll take that as confirmation :-)
>
> And add the odd b2 b6 and 7 for decoration and you have the lot :-) Bend
> them all and you have more. :-)
7 is an interesting one to me but one of my favorites is the little tag
heard often, but especially known from the end of "Rock Around the Clock" -
A - G - Gb - F - E E F# G# A.
b7, 6, b6 and 7 all in the same riff :-)
>
> It might also be better to say that blues is not a scale at all, but a way
> of approaching the music. Certain scales may help you learn to do that,
> but should not be considered the be all and end all. As I have said,
> the concept of "a blues scale" appears to be many decades younger than the
> concept of "blues".
>
And by extension (and in agreement with Danny), same is true for Bebop
scales, and as we've discussed, Major and minor scales (among other things).
Music doesn't "come from" scales - scales are merely a representation of the
"main" notes in a piece of music (though of course scales can be
reverse-engineered to become "constructional" devices).
Steve
Steve Latham
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> Dude, you need to cut that racist bullshit right now, quick.
Yikes Danny - I think he was just quoting one of his professors/colleagues -
I didn't take it as any kind of racial epithet or anything.
Dude, you've been a little tense lately. Did you switch to decaf?
Best,
Steve
Steve Latham
Or, could the b3 REALLY be a #9 so it's a Dominant V7#9?
b3-2 over a V7 chord reminds me a lot of the movement of viio7 - V6/5.
Steve
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>
>"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>news:mhur54hn0c4uqqj6a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> But that's just him. Play a blues scale along with Jimmy Reed Or john Lee
>> Hooker, and you'll find that they do stick to these notes.
>
>But B.B. King, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eric Clapton, etc. etc. etc.
>
>There are times when T-Bone would stick to just those notes as well Danny,
>but I think we're understanding that as a "subset" of a larger set rather
>than a separate scale - though the concept of switching modes/scales
>mid-phrase is not impossible obviously.
>
Crossroads. I know you've heard it a million times. EC starts out in the
major pentatonic - A,B,C#,E,F# - for his first few phrases. then he ramps
it up by switching to the true A minor pentatonic - A,C,D,E,G for the
follw-through on his first solo. The second solo is all A blues scale -
A,C,D,E,G.
I have a hard time conceptualizing this as anything but a change of scale.
If you want to view it as all one big gamut of notes, fine, but the actual
playing clearly shows the artist switching between the use of two scales.
>
>>
>> It's a pentatonic scale with chromatic filler notes between ^2 and ^3,
>> ^4 and ^5
>>>
>
>I don't like "Pentatonic". There's Pentatonic Major:
>1 2 3 5 6
>and Pentatonic Minor
>1 b3 4 5 b7
>
>C D E G A
>
>How is
>C D Eb E F Gb G A Bb Pentatonic with filler notes?
>
>I can see the Eb between D and E of a Major Pentatonic, but there's no 4 in
>a Major Pentatonic.
>
>One might see a blues scale as a combination of Major and Minor pentatonic:
>C D E G A
>C D Eb G Bb
>
>which yeilds:
>C D Eb E G A Bb.
>
Yes, I was aware I made an error there and you caught it.
I was thinking of Monk's "straight, No Chaser" and erred.
>Of course that doesn't contain the b5 or scale degree 4. And it's not really
>informative to think of it as superimposed pentatonics.
>
>
>>
>> They use ^9 in their guitar playing, but NOT in their singing.
>
>Really?
As far as I can tell, yes.Though I have not done a controlled study of the
problem, of course :-)
>
>^6 does
>> occur in vocalizing.
>
>>>
>>>But, this is not a "blues scale" either per se. I think it's better to say
>>>there are blues scales (plural) of which some of the most common types are
>>>X, Y, and Z. And of course, if you want to go there, you can discuss the
>>>living, breathing nature of those scales and tones interchangeability and
>>>so
>>>forth.
>>
>> Just as you can major/minor scales.
>
>Exactly.
hey - two music theorists agree on something. Alert the media!
Danny
>
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>
LOL - no I've never drank coffe in my life - maybe I should start :-0
Apologies to the dude who said that- I was actually remembering a long
series of letters in Guitar Player magazine way back when after a 'scholar'
wrote an opinion piece on how the white man could never truly play the
blues, and over reacted, thinking I might be seeing the same here..
Again, I apologize.
Danny
>
Steve Latham
"Carl Witthoft" <ca...@witthoft.com> wrote in message
news:carl-0ED0C1.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
I certainly agree that blue notes can be used in "non-blues" tunes. But,
"the blues" without blue notes is kind of like Country Music without a
vocalist with a "country accent" (or southern drawl, etc.) - loses
something.
Steve
Steve Latham
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> Crossroads. I know you've heard it a million times. EC starts out in the
> major pentatonic - A,B,C#,E,F# - for his first few phrases. then he ramps
> it up by switching to the true A minor pentatonic - A,C,D,E,G for the
> follw-through on his first solo. The second solo is all A blues scale -
> A,C,D,E,G.
Wait, you just called A pentatonic and A blues scale the same thing.
I think the "white man's blues scale" was meant to point out a subtle
distinction here - though we know Clapton is well schooled the 60s rockers
who had some blues influence also - especially in Britain - seem to have
just as much influences from Isles music, Amercian Country music (with blues
influences too) and even Hymns/Anthems. They seem to have "pentatonicized"
the blues scales such that C Eb F Gb G Bb was the "go to" "blues scale" for
them and for the people who later analyzed their works. Countless guitarists
are taught daily that "if you learn the pentatonic you can play anything" -
and as a result, we end up with a lot of guitarists playing "just"
pentatonic minor over progressions - look at the "riff" bands of the 70s
like Skynyrd - but even the Page licks in Zep.
I think the "white man's blues scale" comment is meant to be understood as
"this is not true blues, but these Elngish bloke's interpretation of it".
That's not to denegrate what Clapton and company did (obviously they helped
Americans rediscover many of our forgotten blues artists) but I think we can
say that they were "influenced", not necessarily trying to promote a
"historically accurate" performance practice.
C D E G A to me is Pentatonic Major
C Eb F G Bb is Pentatonic Minor
C Eb F Gb G Bb is a "blues influenced Pentatonic Minor", or at best, a
"Pentatonic-based Blues Scale" (Dave I think used Hexatonic but Hexatonic
frequently refers to C D E F G A C - pentatonic with added 4).
In a sense, we could call it a "blues scale for dummies" - at least in the
way it's taught to and approached by many guitarists.
And again, that's not to say that Major, Minor, Pentatonic Major, Pentatonic
Minor, or the Pentatonic-based Blues Scale aren't used in blues music, they
certainly are.
But I think you agree - if not on 9/2 then at least on the inclusion of 6
that ANY thing we're going to call a blues scale should at least include 6.
C (D) Eb E F Gb G A Bb.
If you take out the 6, and the b3-3 pair, you really don't have a blues
scale anymore, simply a "blues-inflected" scale.
You might not have 6 in a phrase, but that doesn't mean it's not in the
scale. We don't say the scale to "Ode to Joy" is C D E F G just because it
never touches A or B for a couple of phrases!
> I have a hard time conceptualizing this as anything but a change of scale.
> If you want to view it as all one big gamut of notes, fine, but the actual
> playing clearly shows the artist switching between the use of two scales.
Agreed - but this is a special case - this is not "blues" - it's Eric
Clapton's interpretation. I think you'll agree that the Robert Johnson
version is substantially different.
After all, really, we're all playing the entire chromatic collective - it's
just a matter of what notes we're focusing on. Major scales focus on 0 2 4 5
7 9 11 with other notes thrown in for flavor or functional reasons. Blues
scales tend to focus on 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10. Major melodies do not need to
include all 7 tones, and blues melodies do not need to include all 9 tones.
And in modern contexts we are free to include whole tone scales, diminished
scales, and pentatonic scales. But I don't think it's fair to call a
pentatonic with an added note a "blues" scale any more than calling a Major
scale with an occaisional #4 as some kind of Lydian/Ionian hybrid (though
I'm sure some jazz theorists try).
[snip]
>
> As far as I can tell, yes.Though I have not done a controlled study of
> the
> problem, of course :-)
I think we could probably find plenty of blues that have at least 2, if not
9. As Tom pointed out, b3-2-1 is a common melodic cadence and the harmony
being V makes the 2 the "important" note and the b3 more decorative in a
sense.
hold on... I'm looking at west End Blues from King Oliver, 1928 - In Eb - we
want an F in the melody (it's a vocal) - bar 9, bar 16 (as a b3-2-1
cadence) - same thing happens in 27 and 28 - 3-2-1-b7 - b3-2-1. The final
melodic cadence is b3-3-5-2-1
>
> hey - two music theorists agree on something. Alert the media!
>
Well, I think we also need to separate our guitarist selves from our blues
selves, our theoretician selves and classical selves. Yes, Clapton is using
two different Pentatonics in a blues-rock (which is what the genre is called
after all) context. In other tunes (Hideaway) he uses a "more strict"
blues-based approach like the originator (Freddie King in this case IIRC).
Yes, guitarists are frequently taught that a minor pentatonic with an added
b5 is "the" Blues Scale - but we have to remember it's partly for
pedagogical simplicity, and partly to help us better tackle the
guitar-oriented rock that most of us desired to play.
But historically speaking, if we are to "narrow down" a set of notes that
are "most important" in blues music, we will likely find a pattern more
closely resembling C D Eb E F Gb G A Bb with variables. And teaching that to
a student - use b3 over the IV chord but 3 over the I chord is bound to
cause too much confusion, from which we can't get no relief.
Steve
Steve Latham
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:46:09 GMT, "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>>news:am8s54pchjbht5r9t...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Dude, you need to cut that racist bullshit right now, quick.
>>
>>Yikes Danny - I think he was just quoting one of his
>>professors/colleagues -
>>I didn't take it as any kind of racial epithet or anything.
>>
>>Dude, you've been a little tense lately. Did you switch to decaf?
>>
>>Best,
>>Steve
>
> LOL - no I've never drank coffe in my life - maybe I should start :-0
I highly recommend Mountain Dew.
>
> Apologies to the dude who said that- I was actually remembering a long
> series of letters in Guitar Player magazine way back when after a
> 'scholar'
> wrote an opinion piece on how the white man could never truly play the
> blues, and over reacted, thinking I might be seeing the same here..
>
> Again, I apologize.
>
Yes, it's too late, white men have played, and participated in the blues, as
have many other races. I've got the I might lose my house if I don't pay my
mortgage blues. I know that's not as bad as the I don't even have a house
cause I can't get a loan blues, or the You're both lucky you can walk blues,
but we all have our struggles.
Steve
Tom K.
Maybe I missed something, Steve - but wouldn't the b3/#9 would be a Tonic
7#9 (or I7 M/m) as we were talking about scale degree B3?
> b3-2 over a V7 chord reminds me a lot of the movement of viio7 - V6/5.
Which would be ^b6 - 5, no? ^b3 - 2 reminds me more of viio7/V - V.
Tom K.
> Steve
>
Danny Schorr
wrote:
[snip]
Very nice post, Steve - well thought out and thought provoking. Thanks.
I would point out one very small issue concerning "Hideaway" .
I considered referencing that tune, but decided that this song in
particular was even MORE clear-cut as far as the distinction between the
relative major/minor pentatonics than "Crossroads". Give it another listen
- maybe perhaps you will agree with me.
Danny
LJS
> C D E G A to me is Pentatonic Major
> C Eb F G Bb is Pentatonic Minor
> C Eb F Gb G Bb is a "blues influenced Pentatonic Minor", or at best, a
> "Pentatonic-based Blues Scale" (Dave I think used Hexatonic but Hexatonic
> frequently refers to C D E F G A C - pentatonic with added 4).
>
> In a sense, we could call it a "blues scale for dummies" - at least in the
> way it's taught to and approached by many guitarists.
Or, we could call it what it is. The common denominator of the blues
that has been determined by analysis of all the early blues that we
know about. It is not a mode for dummies, it is the mode that most
clearly defines the basic scale that is altered or changed to produce
the "other blues scales". Look at what every one is saying, "its not
the blues scale because some has added this note" or "someone else
added these notes" or they inserted a 2^ in the cadence and statements
about all the OTHER blues scales. Even in this thread, they have all
been compared to this La Pentaton with the added #4/b5 ! Doesn't that
in itself say something? These 6 notes are the BASIC blues scale. This
does not make its use derivative, or "White" or British or Jazz or
anything else. It is only the BASIC scale that will instantly produce
music that will sound like blues in the hands of even the most novice
students. It would take a very good musician to create a melody with
this scale that did not cause someone to say "That sounds bluesy!"
It is basic. It is nothing more or less. There are many scales that
can also be bluesy, but they are not common to the wide array that
these BASIC 6 notes are so they are not the BASIC blues scale, they
are all judged, even by ourselves, as comparisons of this BASIC
scale.
LJS
LJS
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c3790a29-f945-41d0...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 22, 3:13 am, "David Webber" <d...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > All I can say is that if you are a student reading this,
> > then please take it with a grain of salt.
>
> And whatever you do, do remember that Mr LJS's prime motivation here is not
> music education but character assassination.
Challenging your comments is not character assassination. Your
comments that simply state that what I say is not true without any
reason and then your derogatory comments does qualify as character
assassination. As any worth while reader can plainly see.
BTW, I am a certified music teacher, I have taught from pre-school
music thru and including college music, I have been awarded
assistantships, I am qualified to teach in the Kodaly system as well
as in the IB program. I have taught on 4 continents and my assignments
have included Instrumental of all levels, general music, theory, choir
and workshops both on applied music and music theory. I have appeared
at conferences giving workshops on teaching improvisation to the HS
student and how to create a Jazz program in a school program. Oh, yes,
I even had marching bands on a few occasions and have taught and
arranged for several marching units. have studied the music accessible
in all of these areas that I have taught as with learned local
musicians and my students have always been successful in their
studies. What exactly is your musical teaching claim to fame? And
what gives you liberty to make such an undocumented statement as you
have above.
>I don't ask anyone to take my
> word for anything. Just immerse yourself in the music of the different
> periods, and read about it in the academic texts. You may come to a
> different perspective from mine, but at least you'll have a basis for it.
>
> Dave
This is also a rephrase of my earlier statement. Please, do question
me and question Dave. And of course do your own research as I had
mentioned in the statements that he snipped. Please do this. This is
all I have asked all along. I have had several students from this
group do just that and I correspond with them on a fairly regular
basis. I try to follow my Nepali Guru's motto that is simply "If you
are here to learn, then I am here to teach!" All you need is the
proper attitude toward learning. My advice to students is to keep an
open mind, ask questions and don't tolerate bull shit answers. If the
answer doesn't make sense, ask the teacher. If he can't answer it,
look for another teacher as you do your own research and analysis.
A history teacher will tell you what he has found. He will give you
answers with qualifications for the holes that exist in historical
accounting and he will be careful to try to point out to you what is
documented, the validity of the documentation and why he came to his
conclusions on these particular accounts of what had happened. When
the teacher starts to give you answers that are quite what you asked,
start to be skeptical and don't abandon your original question. If
upon your having to re ask your question you still get answers to
other questions that do not address what you are asking, then your
skepticism is probably correct. A good teacher knows what he knows but
the important quality is that the good teacher also knows what he
doesn't know. That is the key. When the student asks a question that
the teacher can not support with fact or simple logic, then it is the
teacher's responsibility to tell the student, "I don't know for sure,
but my best guess, according to these accepted fact are..." It is not
the sign of a good teacher to just make up something that he can not
support.
If you are looking for a theory or composition teacher then he should
not really have to "teach" you anything, He should be able to
interview you and tell by your responses and your work what
preparation you have, what you know and what information you need to
know to reach your goals. He then will find a way (exercises or
listening or what ever) to prepare you for the next step that will
produce results and after you have been prepared, he will know how to
Present (or explain) to you what you have already discovered by
following his process. We do not learn best by being "told" the way it
is. We learn by doing and the good teacher can break down the
components necessary that will lead you to you own discovery of what
you want to know. In this manner, you will not be a clone of your
teacher, but you will benefit from his/her experience and knowledge to
find your own voice in composing, improvising or analysis. Anything
short of this may be useful until you find a real teacher, but if you
do find one that can guide you this way, you will almost instantly
understand what I am talking about.
When you hear someone making personal statements as does Dave and a
few others that you may run into here, beware. A good teacher is
secure enough with his knowledge that he will NEVER, yes NEVER get
upset if you need clarification of a point or if you question the
reasoning behind what you are teaching. These are all signs of someone
that has dabbled into a subject and thinks that he has mastered them
when in reality, he relly has not paid the necessary dues on the
subject to know what is important or what the steps are to reach your
goal.
So please, question me, question Dave, question EVERYONE. You can't
get the answers if you don't pose the questions and don't settle for
half answers. A real teacher will somehow find the time to give you a
true and correct answer that will stand up to scrutiny. That is what
we do.
LJS
LJS
> In article <g3jp70$ljt$2$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "David Webber" <d...@musical-dot-demon-dot-co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusicStri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:054b9896-e849-48ac...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Aren't the "blue notes" really the cracks between the piano keys,
> > > engendered by an attempt to mimic vocal music?
>
> > Pianists sometimes attempted to mimic the blues feel by playing simultaneous
> > major and minor thirds.
>
> > Dave
>
> Ummm... I don't think "the blues" requires "blue notes," or vice
> versa. For example, a number of Monk tunes aren't particularly 'blues'
> but they have 'blue notes'.
>
> --
> Team EM to the rescue! http://www.team-em.com
Hi Carl, I think that you are correct on principle, but you may be
bumped by some because of commonly accepted (or not!) definitions.
Monk, for example, may use the blues form and or blue notes or many
different concepts in his music. His music is, as I see it, very
unique and he is more of a 20th century composer that happens to be
working in the Jazz idiom. He will mix concepts from Jazz, blues,
classical composers and anywhere his mind seems to go and come up with
unique and beautifully written music. Non of which will generally fall
into any one specific category.
LJS
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Dude, you need to cut that racist bullshit right now, quick. It's just this
>sort of lowbrow mentality that was leveled against a monster musician named
>Dave Brubeck which tried to complete disallow the public from truly
>appeciating the man's superior musicality.
> Ditto Bill Evans, although thankfully, time has rendered opinions such as
>yours to be complete nonsense.
That poster was quoting what his college improvisation teacher told him.
So, there's no need to attack him as a racist. While I can see how the
"white man's blues scale" quip might ruffle some feathers, I understand
its intent. Generally speaking, blues musicians think melodically rather
than in terms of pitch classes, which is why endless noodling on the
blues scale can sound inauthentic. Rather than play random combinations
of pentatonic scales, blues musicians tend to decide what to bend,
sharpen or flatten based on melodic and even emotional concerns. It has
nothing to do with race as such, although there was a historical time
during which blacks were unfortunately much closer to near constant
blues than they should have been.
>The question of whether a white man can play
>the blues has no place in our small segment of society known as
>rec.music.theory.
>I WOULD HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one thus far has broached that question. In fact, I'd say that most
black musicians today have worked especially hard to erase the blues
pathos from their collective memory, which, IMO, has stripped black
culture of one of its most enduring legacies.
That said, any music can be reduced to a series of moves and an
underlying logic behind decisions regarding which moves to make at which
times. The blues scale as a construct is a misapplication of the
principle of logical derivation. True, blues musicians often used
pentatonic scales. In that sense, the blues scale is a code to making
some right moves in the blues. However, the aesthetic choices blues
musicians make regarding when and how to use those pitches is most of
what gives the blues its characteristic sound. Plenty of other musics
around the world use pentatonic scales, yet they don't sound like blues.
So, if the blues scale were truly unique to the blues, playing it up and
down should theoretically make music sound bluesy, which it definitely
does not.
Orlando
Steve Latham
>
>
> Maybe I missed something, Steve - but wouldn't the b3/#9 would be a Tonic
> 7#9 (or I7 M/m) as we were talking about scale degree B3?
>
Oops - major brain fart - yes - Tonic 7#9 - which is not where the 7#9s
usually occur! - well, except in Purple Haze :-)
Steve
Steve Latham
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
Ok, it's possible I could be getting mixed up with Sittin on Top of the
World or something else - I still get titles and tunes mixed up in the
Cream/Bluesbreakers/Yardbirds days.
Steve
David Webber
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" <of...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.22c8c0a1c...@news.verizon.net...
Good post!
Dave
David Webber
"Carl Witthoft" <ca...@witthoft.com> wrote in message
news:carl-0ED0C1.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> Ummm... I don't think "the blues" requires "blue notes," or vice
> versa. For example, a number of Monk tunes aren't particularly 'blues'
> but they have 'blue notes'.
I agree - within limits. I'd be interested in an example of blues with no
blue notes. I'm casting my mind back to various jazz recordings of "Basin
St Blues" but off hand I'm not sure :-) Even if there's (say) a jazz
recording in blues form without blue notes, I'm not sure if your true blues
fraternity would accept it. :-)
But blue notes have indeed spread into jazz way beyond blues, so the vice
versa is certainly true.
Carl Witthoft
<16a07194-942e-404a...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
LJS <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
No argument here :-). Thanks for the comments.
Carl
LJS
wrote:
> "Carl Witthoft" <c...@witthoft.com> wrote in message
Basin Street Blues is not a blues tune. It takes more than a title.
The changes are not even close nor is the form.
LJS
David Webber
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fece0666-4337-464d...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Basin Street Blues is not a blues tune. It takes more than a title.
> The changes are not even close nor is the form.
A "purist" may say not, but in fact blues was never limited to a 12 bar
form, nor to the simple I IV V changes of the simplest blues. The blues
feel is sometimes less easily defined than that. I feel it as a blues and
I am far from alone.
Still, I won't argue, but rather observe, that in trying to think of a blues
performance without blue notes, it is possible I was looking for pieces with
more complex changes than the simple I IV V, because IV7 automatically
introduces a blue note, and a I IV V blues would, I would guess, be rather
dull without blue notes.
LJS
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Too late Dave, you have already argued it. You can say observe after
you have argued but you are still saying that a 16 bar A A' melody
that is diatonic except for one augmented 5^ note that is part of a
Secondary dominant that is part of a classical CPP progression of I
III7 VI7 II7 V7 I with a few simple enhancements is a blues, and
maybe YOUR friends will call it a blues, but the only connection to
this tune and the blues is the title.
Further into your argument (oh, I mean "observation") your did not do
what you say that you intended to do ( or what you intended to observe
as that statement doesn't really make sense) as this tune neither has
any blues notes nor is it dull. That dull statement in it self about
blues being dull with out blue notes is I guess "observing" that you
either think that Basin Street is dull, because it doesn't have any
blue notes or maybe you mean because it doesn't have any IV chords
or... Well I have to admit that I really don't know what your are
either arguing or observing. This tune as an example of non blue note
blues tunes is truly a non sequitur. And then that statement about
being dull gives me some problems. Musicians make the music exciting
or dull, not the genre.
I know that some of my post doesn't make full sense, and that is
because I really can't put my finger on what you are trying to claim!
You added BLUES PERFORMANCE in this reply, but in the post that I
responded you said only BLUES and then gave an example of a TUNE and
not a performance.
Is this spinning to shift away from your mistake of supplying Basin ST
Blues as a blues tune? or is it misquoting the post to show you in a
more favorable light.
Is the changing of the definition of Arguing to mean Observing suppose
to be anything but a cop out? or what?
Is calling me a "purist" supposed to prove that Basin St is a Blues
tune in any sense?
If your original intention was that you were looking for blues tune
that did not use I IV V (a rather odd approach to show how a blues
tune might be conceived without a blue note, ( did you ever think or
not using the m7th? in the harmony? or of using a maj7 or in some way
or fashion having SOME connection to the blues with your example?
Basin St has no connection to the blues for purists or anyone else!
Well, if a blues player plays it, he may add blue notes, but then that
is not what you were claiming now is it?
And the dull statement is made to reference to something that you have
not produced, so it is really rather baseless.
All and all, I know this is a different context, but it does say a lot
about your posts in the other thread. Especially about how you simply
quote my posts and respond and how you never spin, misquote or change
the context. I thought that was a particularly funny post. I just have
not had time to "parse" some of your earlier posts where you really
out right change everything! You are truly a piece of work.
LJS