In my bass lesson today, my teacher asked how I was with minor scales. I looked at him a little cockeyed and said, "I just think of them as whatever major scale from 2 to 2 or 6 to 6 or whatever." His response was that this approach can work well for single-line players, but when you're a bass player or otherwise, you're more about chords (and outlining them) than single lines. Hence, thinking of minor scales in terms of the chords they're based on will behoove the chordal-type player. He said he thinks of all minor scales as a major with whatever flatted notes. I thought this was remarkable, especially seeing as how one doesn't typically play chords on bass. Any thoughts?
Understanding major and minor scales and the relations between chords in a *key* is important if you want to understand music based on the major/minor key system.
The key of A minor is not the same thing as the key of C major even though they share the same key signature. There are chords that occur in A minor that do not occur in C major. As a bass player you might want to make yourself familiar with what it is that you should expect to see being in one key as opposed to the other.
Adam Gottschalk wrote:
> In my bass lesson today, my teacher asked how I was with minor scales. I > looked at him a little cockeyed and said, "I just think of them as > whatever major scale from 2 to 2 or 6 to 6 or whatever." His response > was that this approach can work well for single-line players, but when > you're a bass player or otherwise, you're more about chords (and > outlining them) than single lines. Hence, thinking of minor scales in > terms of the chords they're based on will behoove the chordal-type > player. He said he thinks of all minor scales as a major with whatever > flatted notes. I thought this was remarkable, especially seeing as how > one doesn't typically play chords on bass. Any thoughts?
In article <42E95E1E.C7C1E...@nowhere.net>, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Understanding major and minor scales and the relations between chords in > a *key* is important if you want to understand music based on the > major/minor key system.
> The key of A minor is not the same thing as the key of C major even > though they share the same key signature. There are chords that occur in > A minor that do not occur in C major. As a bass player you might want to > make yourself familiar with what it is that you should expect to see > being in one key as opposed to the other.
Ah, yes, thank you once again, Joey. He was trying to explain this to me quickly in the last minute. I hadn't really thought about it. So, for example, if you build 4-note chords off of each note in a scale, you'll get different chords if it's whatever minor key as opposed to a major key which is enharmonically the same? Is that almost right?
> In article <42E95E1E.C7C1E...@nowhere.net>, > Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > Understanding major and minor scales and the relations between chords in > > a *key* is important if you want to understand music based on the > > major/minor key system.
> > The key of A minor is not the same thing as the key of C major even > > though they share the same key signature. There are chords that occur in > > A minor that do not occur in C major. As a bass player you might want to > > make yourself familiar with what it is that you should expect to see > > being in one key as opposed to the other.
> Ah, yes, thank you once again, Joey. He was trying to explain this to me > quickly in the last minute. I hadn't really thought about it. So, for > example, if you build 4-note chords off of each note in a scale, you'll > get different chords if it's whatever minor key as opposed to a major > key which is enharmonically the same? Is that almost right?
It's right, to a point. But minor keys, traditionally, involve 3 min scales (nat min, harm min, and mel min), not just one as is the case in major keys.
So in minor keys there are several versions of the chord built on scale degree 2. IIdim (nat min, harm min) IIm (mel min)
Now that's no big deal for a bass player because both those chords are still built on the same root.
But consider the chord on scale degree 6. In nat and harm min this note is a min 6th above the tonic, but with mel min it's a maj 6th above the tonic. bVI VIdim These are both possible VI chords in minor.
In modern versions of key based music the dorian scale, the phrygian scale, and even the locrian scale might be borrowed from when in a minor key as well. This expands the minor key chordal palette even more.
Most theory courses teach the natural minor scale as being a scale in its own right, on an equal footing with the major scale. The harm min scale is taught as being a modification to the nat min scale. It's a "nat min scale with raised 7th degree". But if anybody asks a jazz guy what a #7 is, he'll scratch his head at first and then he'll most likely describe an augmented 7th interval.
Now, *I* find it best to just always think intervalically.
To me, nat min is 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7. To a classical guy it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of the nat min scale.
To me, harm min is 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 7. To a classical guy it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 #7 of the nat min scale.
To me, mel min is 1 2 b3 4 5 6 7 To a classical guy it's 1 2 3 4 5 #6 #7 of the nat min scale.
Believe it or not, there *are* indeed valid reasons why they approach it that way. But, by and large, I think that my way, the common way among jazz folks, is generally more useful for the things that jazz players do. But when we play in a minor key we need to be mindful of why we are using S6 instead of Sb6 and/or S7 instead of Sb7.
Bass players do play chords. One of there primary roles is to outlne the changes or chords. You can do that if you can't play chords. The notes of a chord do not have to be strummed or played together to be a chord.
To my ear, playing over a minor chord, every tone can work, depending on the context. For example, over a minor seven chord, a major seven sounds fine as a passing tone to the root, as does a flat 9. The two tones that seem the most "outside" to me are the 3 and the b6. Maybe that's why they call it a melodic minor; that b6 sounds unmelodic to my ear.
But on jazz bass, I have never understood what scales have to do with it, unless you are playing something like So What, the dorian noodle fest. Start with root 5 and their approach notes. Add chord tones as you gain confidence that you are doing so musically, ie you have a clue as to what the next chord is going to be. When you can swing doing that, the next step is getting comfortable doing stuff like playing non-root chord tones on the one. But don't overplay. Nobody hears the bass player unless he is screwing up.
"Adam Gottschalk" <a...@adamgottschalk.net> wrote: > In my bass lesson today, my teacher asked how I was with minor scales. I > looked at him a little cockeyed and said, "I just think of them as > whatever major scale from 2 to 2 or 6 to 6 or whatever." His response > was that this approach can work well for single-line players, but when > you're a bass player or otherwise, you're more about chords (and > outlining them) than single lines. Hence, thinking of minor scales in > terms of the chords they're based on will behoove the chordal-type > player.
I think it behooves anyone to know how each note in the set they are playing from relates to the chord. But it is perhaps especially important for bassists, for whom the actual chord tones play a very pivotal role in constructing lines. Thinking about Eb major or Ab major when playing a bass line over Fm7 is not going to lead you play lines that are truly indicative of Fm7. Note that I'm not saying you have to think about F dorian or aeolian; just that you need to know where the chord tones of Fm7 are within that set of notes, however you conceive of it. Thinking about chord tones first, then adding passing tones, is just as valid as thinking about any scales at all.
> He said he thinks of all minor scales as a major with whatever > flatted notes.
To some extent, I'd say I see *most* chords and scales in terms of how they differ from the major. Only when we get as far removed as the altered or diminished scales do I completely break from this.
--------------- Marc Sabatella m...@outsideshore.com
I just realized that the line of reasoning I've been going down in this thread is almost the complete opposite of what your teacher is telling you. My stuff has been more or less an expansion of your own stated approach. In reality, IMO, you need to be understand both. I.e. you need to understand how the notes you are playing operate/function/sound/whatever **both** *in the key* and *on the chord*.
Your teacher seems to be making the case that in your bass lines you have to outline the chords but stressing chord tones, especially the root, at important places in the time. He seems to be saying that rather than seeing the A nat minor scale as being the C scale starting on A you should be looking at it as a set of intervals starting on A with the intervalic formula 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7. This is especially useful when you are playing over an Am chord because you get a better feeling for how those notes sound in relation to the chord's root.
This is the whole point-of-view of the chord-scale theories that are presently being taught at places like Berklee, i.e. conceptualize your chord-scales as starting on the *root* of the chord-of-the-moment.
This is a viewpoint that treats the vertical relationships on the chord-of-the-moment as being the main focus as far as note choice is concerned. And it is a valid point of view. But the best musicians also take the horizontal considerations of how their note choices operate within the key into account as well. I.e. I think you need to be able to look at it both ways.
Certainly though, when you're first starting out trying to be being able to outline changes it is no secret that chord tones are where it's at.
Now, where I differ from your teacher's comments is this: When we say A nat min has an intervalic formual of 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 that is *somewhat* like saying it's an A major scale with b3 b6 and b7, but that's not what it *really* says. There is no need to invoke an A major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and name intervals. It's just a scale with A as tonic plus a maj 2nd, min 3rd, P4th, P5th, min 6th, and min 7th, all above the tonic.
If you *are* shaky in being able to calculate and name intervals, but you know how to spell your major scales, then this *trick* method of thinking of all other scales as being some form of a modification of a major scale can help get the job done. But none of these other scales are, in any way that matters, *really* alterations of any major scale.
This is sort of just semantics (or pedantics), but an important point IMO.
Adam Gottschalk wrote:
> In my bass lesson today, my teacher asked how I was with minor scales. I > looked at him a little cockeyed and said, "I just think of them as > whatever major scale from 2 to 2 or 6 to 6 or whatever." His response > was that this approach can work well for single-line players, but when > you're a bass player or otherwise, you're more about chords (and > outlining them) than single lines. Hence, thinking of minor scales in > terms of the chords they're based on will behoove the chordal-type > player. He said he thinks of all minor scales as a major with whatever > flatted notes. I thought this was remarkable, especially seeing as how > one doesn't typically play chords on bass. Any thoughts?
> I just realized that the line of reasoning I've been going down in this > thread is almost the complete opposite of what your teacher is telling > you. My stuff has been more or less an expansion of your own stated > approach. In reality, IMO, you need to be understand both. I.e. you need > to understand how the notes you are playing > operate/function/sound/whatever **both** *in the key* and *on the chord*.
> Your teacher seems to be making the case that in your bass lines you > have to outline the chords but stressing chord tones,
> especially the > root, at important places in the time. He seems to be saying that rather > than seeing the A nat minor scale as being the C scale starting on A you > should be looking at it as a set of intervals starting on A with the > intervalic formula 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7. This is especially useful when you > are playing over an Am chord because you get a better feeling for how > those notes sound in relation to the chord's root.
> This is the whole point-of-view of the chord-scale theories that are > presently being taught at places like Berklee, i.e. conceptualize your > chord-scales as starting on the *root* of the chord-of-the-moment.
> This is a viewpoint that treats the vertical relationships on the > chord-of-the-moment as being the main focus as far as note choice is > concerned. And it is a valid point of view. But the best musicians also > take the horizontal considerations of how their note choices operate > within the key into account as well. I.e. I think you need to be able to > look at it both ways.
> Certainly though, when you're first starting out trying to be being able > to outline changes it is no secret that chord tones are where it's at.
> Now, where I differ from your teacher's comments is this: > When we say A nat min has an intervalic formual of > 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 > that is *somewhat* like saying it's an A major scale with b3 b6 and b7, > but that's not what it *really* says. There is no need to invoke an A > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and > name intervals. It's just a scale with A as tonic plus a maj 2nd, min > 3rd, P4th, P5th, min 6th, and min 7th, all above the tonic.
> If you *are* shaky in being able to calculate and name intervals, but > you know how to spell your major scales, then this *trick* method of > thinking of all other scales as being some form of a modification of a > major scale can help get the job done. But none of these other scales > are, in any way that matters, *really* alterations of any major scale.
> This is sort of just semantics (or pedantics), but an important point IMO.
> Adam Gottschalk wrote:
> > In my bass lesson today, my teacher asked how I was with minor scales. I > > looked at him a little cockeyed and said, "I just think of them as > > whatever major scale from 2 to 2 or 6 to 6 or whatever." His response > > was that this approach can work well for single-line players, but when > > you're a bass player or otherwise, you're more about chords (and > > outlining them) than single lines. Hence, thinking of minor scales in > > terms of the chords they're based on will behoove the chordal-type > > player. He said he thinks of all minor scales as a major with whatever > > flatted notes. I thought this was remarkable, especially seeing as how > > one doesn't typically play chords on bass. Any thoughts?
I agree with your teacher Adam. I think it is important to understand and address each chord (whether in single line solos or in a bass line). In my opinion, understanding intervals and chord tones is a big part of being able to play fluidly through a piece of music.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote: > This is a viewpoint that treats the vertical relationships on the > chord-of-the-moment as being the main focus as far as note choice is > concerned. And it is a valid point of view. But the best musicians also > take the horizontal considerations of how their note choices operate > within the key into account as well. I.e. I think you need to be able to > look at it both ways.
I agree, and this is a good summation of the dichotomy. But I would observe that being aware of the key rarely translates directly into the type of "parent scale" type of thinking that is often used in learning scales. For example, G7alt might be played over using the G altered scale, and many people will treat this as Ab melodic minor, since they are the same notes. But the key of Ab minor really has nothing to do with 99% of the occurences of G7alt - it's really cvoming from C or C minor. The "parent scale" of a given scale is not necessarily related to the actual key the chord is functioning within. Sure, it works out that way when dealing with a major key ii-V-I and thinking dorian, mixolydian, and major. But that's practically the *only* time it works out so simply.
> Now, where I differ from your teacher's comments is this: > When we say A nat min has an intervalic formual of > 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 > that is *somewhat* like saying it's an A major scale with b3 b6 and b7, > but that's not what it *really* says. There is no need to invoke an A > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and > name intervals.
I don't think there is any shame in using awareness of the major scale to help us find other scales. I don't think of it as any more of a "trick" than the idea of naming intervals. Considering there is so little real value in interval identification per se, and so much real value in awareness of major scales, the latter strikes me as a very synergistic way to go about learning other scales.
> But none of these other scales > are, in any way that matters, *really* alterations of any major scale.
True, but then, are they *really* just arbitrary collections of intervals, either?
--------------- Marc Sabatella m...@outsideshore.com
> > This is a viewpoint that treats the vertical relationships on the > > chord-of-the-moment as being the main focus as far as note choice is > > concerned. And it is a valid point of view. But the best musicians also > > take the horizontal considerations of how their note choices operate > > within the key into account as well. I.e. I think you need to be able to > > look at it both ways.
> I agree, and this is a good summation of the dichotomy. But I would observe > that being aware of the key rarely translates directly into the type of > "parent scale" type of thinking that is often used in learning scales. For > example, G7alt might be played over using the G altered scale, and many > people will treat this as Ab melodic minor, since they are the same notes. > But the key of Ab minor really has nothing to do with 99% of the occurences > of G7alt - it's really cvoming from C or C minor. The "parent scale" of a > given scale is not necessarily related to the actual key the chord is > functioning within. Sure, it works out that way when dealing with a major > key ii-V-I and thinking dorian, mixolydian, and major. But that's > practically the *only* time it works out so simply.
There is a sense of polytonality in using Ab mel min over G7. The fact that the same notes parse well in two keys at once (C mainor and Ab minor) is part of the attraction. Playing on G7 *as if* you *are* in Ab minor (via Ab nat min or harm min) can be sort of interesting too.
But in general, I agree. The chord-scale used on a particular chord may not have an obvious relationship to the key that is actually active. F mel min on Bb7 as bVII7 is another example. In no way are we in the key of F minor. The E nat in the scale is used to re-inforce the key of C major.
> > Now, where I differ from your teacher's comments is this: > > When we say A nat min has an intervalic formual of > > 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 > > that is *somewhat* like saying it's an A major scale with b3 b6 and b7, > > but that's not what it *really* says. There is no need to invoke an A > > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and > > name intervals.
> I don't think there is any shame in using awareness of the major scale to > help us find other scales.
I don't think I suggested that it was shameful. I'm suggesting that you should be mindful of what is really going on. That's all.
> I don't think of it as any more of a "trick" > than the idea of naming intervals.
How is naming intervals a trick? C-Bb is a min 7th interval *by definition*. I don't need to think of a min 7th as being an altered version of a maj 7th.
> Considering there is so little real > value in interval identification per se,
Of course there is. It's called basic musicianship.
> and so much real value in awareness > of major scales, the latter strikes me as a very synergistic way to go about > learning other scales.
Yes. It's a good trick.
> > But none of these other scales > > are, in any way that matters, *really* alterations of any major scale.
> True, but then, are they *really* just arbitrary collections of intervals, > either?
No. There is nothing arbitrary about it. Mixolydian is 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 *by definition*. Dom7 is 1 3 5 b7 *by definition*.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > There is no need to invoke an A > > > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > > > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and > > > name intervals.
> > I don't think there is any shame in using awareness of the major scale to > > help us find other scales.
> I don't think I suggested that it was shameful.
Well, saying that the only reason to do this is if you were "shaky" in interval naming certainly seems to give the technique a negative spin. I could just as easily say, "there is no need to invoke interval naming in order to arrive at this pitch collection, unless you are shaky in being able to find and alter your major scales". They are just two different ways of arriving at the set. And not actually all that different - saying the seventh note of mixolydian is a "minor seventh above the root" is practically the same as saying it is like the seventh note of the major scale but lowered a half step. It is almost certainly not an accident that the major intervals are so named because of their presence in the major scale. Any time you talk about naming intervals, you are invoking the major scale in the definition of the intervals. Whether you choose to be aware of it or not, minor seventh = seventh step of major scale lowered a half step.
> > I don't think of it as any more of a "trick" > > than the idea of naming intervals.
> How is naming intervals a trick?
Not in itself; I mean as a way of generating scales for improvisation. Finding the notes of the scale based on interval names really is no more fundamentally the right way to do it than finding them based on alterations to the major scale. See below.
> > Considering there is so little real > > value in interval identification per se,
> Of course there is. It's called basic musicianship.
I would limit my definition of "basic musicianship" to things that actually make one a better musician in some practical sense. Compared to knowledge of the major scales, interval naming is of extremely minor importance.
> > > But none of these other scales > > > are, in any way that matters, *really* alterations of any major scale.
> > True, but then, are they *really* just arbitrary collections of intervals, > > either?
> No. There is nothing arbitrary about it. > Mixolydian is 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 *by definition*.
Well, this is admittedly getting pretty nitpicky, but this is not really true. Historically, the most important aspect to the definition of any of the modes has more to do with which of a fixed set of diatonic notes you consider your final (tonic). The fact that you can then arrange this series of of notes to form an ascending pattern and then name the intervals above this tonic is more a *corollary* of this definition, just as the relationship between any such scale and the major scale is. Calculating the notes of a mode from a given tonic is not really what the definition of a mode is about, even though of course, armed with the *actual* definition of the mode, it can be done. But it can be done a number of different ways, none of which are any more the "definition" of the mode than any other. The definition *starts* with the pitch set and then identifies the tonic; it does not generate a pitch set given a tonic.
I say this not to insist that it we need to keep this in mind or anything like that, but simply to observe that yes, really, calculating a scale as a series of intervals above a tonic really is just as much a "trick" as calculating it based on deviation from the major scale. And among the various "tricks" available, I don't want to see any students discouraged from using what I consider to be the most musically useful such trick.
--------------- Marc Sabatella m...@outsideshore.com
> > > > There is no need to invoke an A > > > > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > > > > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate > and > > > > name intervals.
> > > I don't think there is any shame in using awareness of the major scale > to > > > help us find other scales.
> > I don't think I suggested that it was shameful.
> Well, saying that the only reason to do this is if you were "shaky" in > interval naming certainly seems to give the technique a negative spin.
I did put a negative spin on it. I do put a negative spin on it. I think it is wrong thinking to think this way and I say so. It is a fine trick. I use it myself everyday. I teach this trick every day. It translates particularly well to the guitar fretboard when position playing in well understood. Looking at a fingering for some non-major-scale *as if* it is a modification of a major scale fingering is a good trick. Looking at a grip for some non-maj7th-chord *as if* it is a modification of a grip for a maj7th chord is a good trick. Looking at a fingering for some non-maj7th-arpeggio *as if* it is a modification of a fingering for a maj7th arpeggio is a good trick. The operative concept is *as if*. This has nothing to do with shame. It has to do with clear concepts.
> I > could just as easily say, "there is no need to invoke interval naming in > order to arrive at this pitch collection,
Of course there is. To construct any pitch collection that is defined by an intervalic formula all one needs is that intervalic formula and a knowledge of intervals.
> unless you are shaky in being able > to find and alter your major scales".
Yes. These two aspects of basic musicianship go hand in hand. Someone who has trouble spelling major scales will probably have trouble spelling intervals too, and visa versa. This does not affect my argument. (I guess we're arguing now.)
> They are just two different ways of > arriving at the set. And not actually all that different - saying the > seventh note of mixolydian is a "minor seventh above the root" is > practically the same as saying it is like the seventh note of the major > scale but lowered a half step.
"Practically the same" but not *the same*.
> It is almost certainly not an accident that > the major intervals are so named because of their presence in the major > scale.
Nonesense. Long before the major scale existed there were maj 2nds and min 2nds, maj 3rds and min 3rds, etc., etc.
Within the 7 tone scale that is derived from a series of 6 P5th intervals, the *"diatonic scale"*, there are two types of 2nd interval. One is larger than the other. That's why it's called a maj 2nd. It has NOTHING to do with the major scale as being some sort of an a priori construct. NOTHING.
> Any time you talk about naming intervals, you are invoking the major > scale in the definition of the intervals. Whether you choose to be aware of > it or not, minor seventh = seventh step of major scale lowered a half step.
Oy.
> > > I don't think of it as any more of a "trick" > > > than the idea of naming intervals.
> > How is naming intervals a trick?
> Not in itself; I mean as a way of generating scales for improvisation. > Finding the notes of the scale based on interval names really is no more > fundamentally the right way to do it than finding them based on alterations > to the major scale.
In the chord-scale theory, as it is taught at places like Berklee, we are involved with studying the vertical relationships of certain notes *above the root of the chord*. We organize the more useful pitch collections into scales, scales in which the root is the generative tone with the other notes in the pitch collection being a fixed, pre-determined, interval above that root. The definition of any chord-scale *is* the intervalic formula. The intervalic formula is all that is needed to construct said scale. All that is needed to compute the intervals involved is a knowledge of intervals. Period.
One way we gain a better knowledge of intervals is by becoming intimate with the intervals found in the major scale (and visa versa) because we use the major scale so often in Tonal music. But this does not mean that a min 7th interval is an alteration of the type of 7th found between S1 and S7 of a major scale. The definition of a maj 7th interval has *nothing* to do with that.
> See below.
> > > Considering there is so little real > > > value in interval identification per se,
> > Of course there is. It's called basic musicianship.
> I would limit my definition of "basic musicianship" to things that actually > make one a better musician in some practical sense. Compared to knowledge > of the major scales, interval naming is of extremely minor importance.
Sorry Marc, but that's bullshit. A knowledge of intervals should be intimately involved in the act of gaining knowledge of major scales.
Historically, intervals came first. The scales we use today are collections of intervals that were discovered in ancient times. That's the chronology. The present day naming system for intervals is based on the diatonic scale, not the major scale. The major scale is a relatively recent development compared to the diatonic scale.
Note: The sound that we call a "perfect 5th" is meaningless unless we are talking about a tonal system based on a 7 tone scale. Before it was called a Perf 5th it was called a diapente by the Greeks.
The genesis of the diatonic 7 tone scale involved a process of stacking diapentes, 6 of them. If call the generative tone F then the other tones in our series could be named as follows: F C G D A E B If we transpose these tones such that they all lie within a single octave we'd have: F G A B C D E and we could have something close to a circle by topping it off with another note an octave above our generative tone F G A B C D E F. This tone set is known as the diatonic scale. It is not the "f diatonic scale" or the "G diatonic scale", etc. It is just "THE diatonic scale". It has no single tonic. it has the potential for 7 possible tonics.
Within the diatonic scale there are 2 types of 2nds (i.e. notes that are adjacent to one another). One is bigger than the other. This is called a "major 2nd". The smaller 2nd is called a "minor 2nd". There are maj 2nds between F-G, G-A, A-B, C-D, and D-E. There are min 2nds between E-F and B-C. Etc., etc., etc., etc.
These interval names have absolutely nothing to do with the major scale. It's the other way around. The major scale has to do with these intervals.
Get it?
Or is this is going to be yet another one of those things where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.
> > > > But none of these other scales > > > > are, in any way that matters, *really* alterations of any major scale.
> > > True, but then, are they *really* just arbitrary collections of > intervals, > > > either?
> > No. There is nothing arbitrary about it. > > Mixolydian is 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 *by definition*.
> Well, this is admittedly getting pretty nitpicky,
It is? How do *you* define the mixolydian scale? (Not the mixolydian mode, which is a whole other topic weighted down with all sorts of Medieval conceptual baggage.)
> but this is not really > true. Historically, the most important aspect to the definition of any of > the modes has more to do with which of a fixed set of diatonic notes you > consider your final (tonic).
I thought we were talking about chord-scales for jazz improvisation, not Medieval modal techniques.
> The fact that you can then arrange this series > of of notes to form an ascending pattern and then name the intervals above > this tonic is more a *corollary* of this definition,
It is *THE concept* as far as chord-scale theory is concerned. The fact that these chord-scales can also be seen as resembling the Ecclesiastical modes and/or the Medieval modes is the corollary as far as jazz theory is concerned.
> just as the > relationship between any such scale and the major scale is. Calculating the > notes of a mode from a given tonic is not really what the definition of a > mode is about, even though of course, armed with the *actual* definition of > the mode, it can be done.
You're talking about "modes". I'm talking about chord-scales that can also be seen *as if* they are modes. There's a difference.
> But it can be done a number of different ways, > none of which are any more the "definition" of the mode than any other. The > definition *starts* with the pitch set and then identifies the tonic; it > does not generate a pitch set given a tonic.
Chord-scale theory is about the *chord*. When calculating intervals above a chord's root there is, or there should be, no need to invoke any major scale, unless perhaps it is a major chord on which you will be utilizing a major scale.
> I say this not to insist that it we need to keep this in mind or anything > like that, but simply to observe that yes, really, calculating a scale as a > series of intervals above a tonic really is just as much a "trick" as > calculating it based on deviation from the major scale. And among the > various "tricks" available, I don't want to see any students discouraged > from using what I consider to be the most musically useful such trick.
I am not discouraging people from using the this trick. It's a good trick. I'm just trying to let them know what is really going on. I get students telling me that "Dorian is a major scale with b3 and b7." And that's just plain wrong thinking. Dorian *is like* a major scale with b3 and b7, but it's not "a major scale" in any sense that makes any sense.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote: > > I > > could just as easily say, "there is no need to invoke interval naming in > > order to arrive at this pitch collection,
> Of course there is.
No, there isn't. you have obviously chosen to do it that way, but I and a number of other musicians are living, breathing proof that there is no *need* to do so.
> > unless you are shaky in being able > > to find and alter your major scales".
> Yes. These two aspects of basic musicianship go hand in hand. > Someone who has trouble spelling major scales will probably have trouble > spelling intervals too, and visa versa.
I don't find that to be true at all. I know lots of people who know their major scales intimately but are nowhere near as comfortable with interval spelling. Some of them don't know the interval names at all. Others, like me, know them and can always spell them correctly if asked but cannot always find them on our instrument quickly enough in real time for this to be of much practical benefit, do "fairly well" at hearing them but can still mistake a major for a minor sixth or even a fourth for a fifth when played in isolation, etc.
> This does not affect my argument. (I guess we're arguing now.)
Sure, why not. It's a pointless one, of course, but those are the best kind - doesn't matter who wins.
> > They are just two different ways of > > arriving at the set. And not actually all that different - saying the > > seventh note of mixolydian is a "minor seventh above the root" is > > practically the same as saying it is like the seventh note of the major > > scale but lowered a half step.
> "Practically the same" but not *the same*.
True, but the similarity just underscores how pointless the argument is, in case anyone doubted. It would be like someone trying to make spaghetti, finding a recipe that called for boiling 4 quarts of water, and using an empty quart milk jug to measure out the four quarts. Sure, unless there is a calibrated line visible on the jug, you won't be getting a precise quart. But you'll be getting an amount pretty closely - and not coincidentally - related to the quart. And considering the level of precision the job actually requires - having enough water for the pasta to boil - it's more than good enough.
> > It is almost certainly not an accident that > > the major intervals are so named because of their presence in the major > > scale.
> Nonesense. > Long before the major scale existed there were maj 2nds and min 2nds, > maj 3rds and min 3rds, etc., etc.
> Within the 7 tone scale that is derived from a series of 6 P5th > intervals, the *"diatonic scale"*, there are two types of 2nd interval. > One is larger than the other. That's why it's called a maj 2nd. It has > NOTHING to do with the major scale as being some sort of an a priori > construct. NOTHING.
I'd like a citation for that claim. Clearly, the intervals themselves have always existed - but then, so has the major scale. I'm interested to know when and how the *name* major second came into existence. You may well be right about this - I've never seen any discussion of this topic before. But it won't change my basic point, which is that learning a scale as a collection of intervals is in no way better than learning it as a variation of the major scale.
> In the chord-scale theory, as it is taught at places like Berklee
Berklee did not invent the modes. They merely teach some tricks for using them. Just because they expressed a preference for the trick you prefer doesn't make it any less of a trick than the trick I prefer. As you seem to be aware, the modes themselves have a long and glorious history. You even describe a part of it which discussing the generation of the diatonic scale as a series of fifths arranged into a single octave. And note that this has nothing to do with *either* of the tricks we are debating.
> > I would limit my definition of "basic musicianship" to things that actually > > make one a better musician in some practical sense. Compared to knowledge > > of the major scales, interval naming is of extremely minor importance.
> Sorry Marc, but that's bullshit. A knowledge of intervals should be > intimately involved in the act of gaining knowledge of major scales.
"Should" according to you, perhaps. But given the thouands of musicians who have managed to learn their scales and become fantastic musicians without being particularly good with intervals, my point is proven - it is of minor importance in practice.
> Within the diatonic scale there are 2 types of 2nds (i.e. notes that are > adjacent to one another). One is bigger than the other. This is called a > "major 2nd". The smaller 2nd is called a "minor 2nd". There are maj 2nds > between F-G, G-A, A-B, C-D, and D-E. There are min 2nds between E-F and > B-C. Etc., etc., etc., etc.
> These interval names have absolutely nothing to do with the major scale.
I note you mention the Greek name for the fifth, but not the seconds. Are you saying they literally translate as major and minor second? If so, I will gladly consider myself corrected on this point.
> > Well, this is admittedly getting pretty nitpicky,
> It is? > How do *you* define the mixolydian scale? > (Not the mixolydian mode, which is a whole other topic weighted down > with all sorts of Medieval conceptual baggage.)
If you choose to make this distinction, then I would answer by saying I *don't* choose to define the mixolydian scale at all. All I care to do is define the set of notes that work over an unaltered dominant seventh chord. And that can be done either by defining a set of intervals, or by making note of how it deviates from the notes of the major scale, or by saying "it's the same notes as the mixolydian mode, which in turn is derived...". None of these are really any better or worse than the other. Even the last, which is the one I had been calling the true definition, is a bit beside the point, because as you've just made clear to me by insisting on a distinction between "scale" and "mode", *neither* is really relevant.
> > but this is not really > > true. Historically, the most important aspect to the definition of any of > > the modes has more to do with which of a fixed set of diatonic notes you > > consider your final (tonic).
> I thought we were talking about chord-scales for jazz improvisation, not > Medieval modal techniques.
Chord-scales are a recently invented term for a particular "trick" one can use when improvising. Arguing about exactly how a recently invented trick should be defined, and whether one way of generating the notes to use in performing that trick are more of a trick than another way of generating the notes to use in performing that trick, is finally getting into an area even I find too ridiculous to debate.
> > The fact that you can then arrange this series > > of of notes to form an ascending pattern and then name the intervals above > > this tonic is more a *corollary* of this definition,
> It is *THE concept* as far as chord-scale theory is concerned.
As far as it put into words and taught to you, perhaps. The theory is concerned with the notes sets themselves, not how you find it most convenient to describe them.
> The fact that these chord-scales can also be seen as resembling the > Ecclesiastical modes and/or the Medieval modes is the corollary as far > as jazz theory is concerned.
That much I agree with. But I'm also saying that listing these note sets as intervals above a root is also just corrollary.
> I am not discouraging people from using the this trick. It's a good > trick. I'm just trying to let them know what is really going on. I get > students telling me that "Dorian is a major scale with b3 and b7." And > that's just plain wrong thinking. Dorian *is like* a major scale with b3 > and b7, but it's not "a major scale" in any sense that makes any sense.
When one says "a major scale *with*...", one is already acknowledging that. Adding the word "like" just to make this acknowledgement explicit is certainly your prerogative, but it isn't grammatically necessary in order to express the meaning.
--------------- Marc Sabatella m...@outsideshore.com
> > > I > > > could just as easily say, "there is no need to invoke interval naming in > > > order to arrive at this pitch collection,
> > Of course there is.
> No, there isn't. you have obviously chosen to do it that way, but I and a > number of other musicians are living, breathing proof that there is no > *need* to do so.
Nobody needs to do anything. What they do do speaks for itself.
> > > unless you are shaky in being able > > > to find and alter your major scales".
> > Yes. These two aspects of basic musicianship go hand in hand. > > Someone who has trouble spelling major scales will probably have trouble > > spelling intervals too, and visa versa.
> I don't find that to be true at all. I know lots of people who know their > major scales intimately but are nowhere near as comfortable with interval > spelling.
Can they write their major scales in standard notation with the correct spelling? If the answer is yes, then they do know something about interval naming. If the answer is no, then they have some work to do, assuming that not being ignorant of basic musical skills that most serious musicians possess is important to them. If the answer is yes, but they don't know how to spell the other intervals then they are still ignorant, perhaps willfully so, but still ignorant.
Wes Montgomery, by his own account, was fairly ignorant about lots of things to do with music. But he managed to make incredible music just the same so we tend to not hold this against him. Some folks see this type of ignorance as a plus. I don't. I think that Wes might have been, probably would have been, even heavier if he'd known more about certain aspects of music.
You seem to be advocating a type of willful ignorance. I'm not for that.
But in jazz, being able to play is its own reward. If you don't know shit about technical matters but you can play then you're just a great player who also happens to be ignorant about certain things musical. I think it would be hard to find a great writer who was completely ignorant of grammar but music, especially jazz, apparently works differently. It's still ignorance though.
I'm ignorant of Medieval modal compositional techniques. I stay this way willfully. If I really wanted to know this stuff I would study it. If I'm finding that not knowing this stuff is affecting my musical goals in a negative way then I'll probably go study it. It's not hard to find. There's books about it all over the place.
To the extent that chord-scale theory makes any sense, and is of any practical use to jazz musicians, it is about being aware of how *intervals* sound and function vertically *above the root of the chord-of-the-moment*. That's what makes this theory/technique different from the ones used prior to its existence. The biggest part of learning to use the theory is learning the *intervals in relation to the root*. Anyway you can learn the intervals is fine with me. But some ways involve greater levels of willfull ignorance. I'm not for that.
> Some of them don't know the interval names at all. Others, like > me, know them and can always spell them correctly if asked but cannot always > find them on our instrument quickly enough in real time for this to be of > much practical benefit, do "fairly well" at hearing them but can still > mistake a major for a minor sixth or even a fourth for a fifth when played > in isolation, etc.
> > This does not affect my argument. (I guess we're arguing now.)
> Sure, why not. It's a pointless one, of course, but those are the best > kind - doesn't matter who wins.
> > > They are just two different ways of > > > arriving at the set. And not actually all that different - saying the > > > seventh note of mixolydian is a "minor seventh above the root" is > > > practically the same as saying it is like the seventh note of the major > > > scale but lowered a half step.
> > "Practically the same" but not *the same*.
> True,
There. That's all I'm saying. You seem to agree with me. Good. I win.
> but the similarity just underscores how pointless the argument is,
Well you started the argument, not me.
> in > case anyone doubted. It would be like someone trying to make spaghetti, > finding a recipe that called for boiling 4 quarts of water, and using an > empty quart milk jug to measure out the four quarts. Sure, unless there is > a calibrated line visible on the jug, you won't be getting a precise quart. > But you'll be getting an amount pretty closely - and not coincidentally - > related to the quart. And considering the level of precision the job > actually requires - having enough water for the pasta to boil - it's more > than good enough.
That's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be trying to make your spaghetti in a quart of milk. But that's still a bad analogy. Can't think of a good analogy.
> > > It is almost certainly not an accident that > > > the major intervals are so named because of their presence in the major > > > scale.
> > Nonesense. > > Long before the major scale existed there were maj 2nds and min 2nds, > > maj 3rds and min 3rds, etc., etc.
> > Within the 7 tone scale that is derived from a series of 6 P5th > > intervals, the *"diatonic scale"*, there are two types of 2nd interval. > > One is larger than the other. That's why it's called a maj 2nd. It has > > NOTHING to do with the major scale as being some sort of an a priori > > construct. NOTHING.
> Clearly, the intervals themselves have > always existed - but then, so has the major scale. I'm interested to know > when and how the *name* major second came into existence.
As soon as a musical system involving a 7 tone scale came into existence. The rest is just *obvious*. It should also be obvious that there was a time before the 7 tone scale was conceived of, let alone used for any music making.
> You may well be > right about this - I've never seen any discussion of this topic before. But > it won't change my basic point, which is that learning a scale as a > collection of intervals is in no way better than learning it as a variation > of the major scale.
I never said it was "better". That's a value judgement. I'm saying that if you're thinking clearly that's what's really going on.
> > In the chord-scale theory, as it is taught at places like Berklee
> Berklee did not invent the modes. They merely teach some tricks for using > them. Just because they expressed a preference for the trick you prefer > doesn't make it any less of a trick than the trick I prefer.
Perhaps we're discussing different theories then? I'm talking about the theory that examines the vertical relationships of melodic note choices above the root of a chord. One of the way these notes are examined is according to the distance of the melody note (aka the *interval*) from the root of the chord.
What theory are *you* talking about?
> As you seem to > be aware, the modes themselves have a long and glorious history. You even > describe a part of it which discussing the generation of the diatonic scale > as a series of fifths arranged into a single octave. And note that this has > nothing to do with *either* of the tricks we are debating.
Of course it does. You're saying that the major scale came first and that all intervals are some modification of the major scale. That's just wrong. Look it up.
> > > I would limit my definition of "basic musicianship" to things that > actually > > > make one a better musician in some practical sense. Compared to > knowledge > > > of the major scales, interval naming is of extremely minor importance.
> > Sorry Marc, but that's bullshit. A knowledge of intervals should be > > intimately involved in the act of gaining knowledge of major scales.
> "Should" according to you, perhaps. But given the thouands of musicians who > have managed to learn their scales and become fantastic musicians without > being particularly good with intervals, my point is proven - it is of minor > importance in practice.
Yeah. Your point is proven. Gimme a break.
> > Within the diatonic scale there are 2 types of 2nds (i.e. notes that are > > adjacent to one another). One is bigger than the other. This is called a > > "major 2nd". The smaller 2nd is called a "minor 2nd". There are maj 2nds > > between F-G, G-A, A-B, C-D, and D-E. There are min 2nds between E-F and > > B-C. Etc., etc., etc., etc.
> > These interval names have absolutely nothing to do with the major scale.
> I note you mention the Greek name for the fifth, but not the seconds. Are > you saying they literally translate as major and minor second? If so, I > will gladly consider myself corrected on this point.
Look..... If you've got a scale with 7 tones that repeats an octave above the 1st tone then you have a system where it makes sense to call adjacent tones "2nds". The word "octave" is meaningless too btw unless you pre-suppose such a 7 tone scale. The language that you say "2nds" in doesn't matter one wit. If you merely call them "adjacent tones" it dosen't matter one wit. Once the diatonic scale was invented it was observed that there are two types of adjacent tones, one larger and one smaller. Whether we call them "major 2nds" and "minor 2nds" or "big adjacent tones" and "small adjacent tones" in whatever language doesn't matter. The point is that the concept of two sizes of adjacent intervals existed eons, possibly millenia, before the concept of the "major scale". The major scale came into existence sometime just prior to Bach. This is recent history. The diatonic scale has been around for many centuries longer than that.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote: > > I know lots of people who know their > > major scales intimately but are nowhere near as comfortable with interval > > spelling.
> Can they write their major scales in standard notation with the correct spelling? > If the answer is yes, then they do know something about interval naming.
Well, yes, but knwoing "something" about it isn't the same as being able to use the info in real time to help them make note choices for improvisation.
> You seem to be advocating a type of willful ignorance.
Not at all. I'm just for spending the bulk of one's time learning the things that matter most, rather than those that matter less. A little bit of time getting the basics of intevals is fine, so you can produce readable charts and communicate meaningfully with other musicians. But the amount of time it might take to be able to actual use this info during improvisation to derive the note sets to use in improvisation - that's a considerable amount of extra time above and beyond this, and I believe that time could be better spent elsewhere, since there are other equally effective ways of deriving these note sets.
> To the extent that chord-scale theory makes any sense, and is of any > practical use to jazz musicians, it is about being aware of how > *intervals* sound and function vertically *above the root of the > chord-of-the-moment*.
That's partially true. There is also a not negligible horizontal component - the intervals between scale tones.
> > in > > case anyone doubted. It would be like someone trying to make spaghetti, > > finding a recipe that called for boiling 4 quarts of water, and using an > > empty quart milk jug to measure out the four quarts. Sure, unless there is > > a calibrated line visible on the jug, you won't be getting a precise quart. > > But you'll be getting an amount pretty closely - and not coincidentally - > > related to the quart. And considering the level of precision the job > > actually requires - having enough water for the pasta to boil - it's more > > than good enough.
> That's a bad analogy. > A better analogy would be trying to make your spaghetti in a quart of
milk.
Since that doens't produce the same results as boiling it water, it's not much an analogy at all. My analogy is quite apt - both methods produce precisely the same results, but one allows you to say to you are doing it the "right" way, and one allows others to accuse you of engaging in "willful ignorance".
I did. Try it yourself. There are very few occurences of the words "major" or "minor" in there, and none of them are in a context that gives any evidence at all to your you claim that the terminology predates the major scale. In fact, the only place it refers in the places where it refers to the derivation of the terminology at all, it seems pretty clear that the words "major" and "minor" are pretty recent inventions:
"The third of this scale is what we now call a minor third" - why say "what we now call" if that was the original name?
and
"an interval called ditone (major third)" - again, why introudce the distinction between the names if not to emphasize the latter is a modern term not used in the original?
Something else occurs to me - even if it turns out that "major" and "minor" to describe intervals predates the use of those terms to describe scales, then one could still ask if the naming of the *scales* was not a consequence of the naming of the *intervals*. That is, the major scale might have been so-called because it featured major intervals.
Again, I really don't know one way or another, but then, it seems quite clear that you don't either - you are just *acting* as if you know this for a fact. The reality is, we are both just speculating, and I think my hypotheses seem at least as plausible as yours.
> It should also be obvious that there was a time before the 7 tone scale > was conceived of, let alone used for any music making.
Yes, but it is not obvious during this time, anyone would have had any reason for naming intervals in the way you describe. The idea that there are two thirds (one bigger than the other) is something you see only when you start constructing scales like this.
> Perhaps we're discussing different theories then?
I'm disucssing the one that helps one play changes by suggesting note possibilities to use over various chords.
> You're saying that the major scale came first and that all intervals are > some modification of the major scale.
I've never said anything remotely like that. Try responding to what I actually write instead what you imagine me to be meaning.
> > I note you mention the Greek name for the fifth, but not the seconds. Are > > you saying they literally translate as major and minor second? If so, I > > will gladly consider myself corrected on this point.
> Look.....
I looked at your speculation, and it's plausible. So is mine. Without some real research, I see no way to resolve this particular point.
> Once the diatonic scale was invented it was observed that there are two > types of adjacent tones, one larger and one smaller. Whether we call > them "major 2nds" and "minor 2nds" or "big adjacent tones" and "small > adjacent tones" in whatever language doesn't matter.
Of course it matters, if you're going to insist that there is any sort of fundamental difference between calculating a minor seventh your favorite way versus "seventh of the major scale lowered a half step". In actuality, they are both corollaries of the same basic physical / mathematical relationships, and couldn't possible be unrelated any more than two twins could.
> The point is that > the concept of two sizes of adjacent intervals existed eons, possibly > millenia, before the concept of the "major scale". The major scale came > into existence sometime just prior to Bach. This is recent history. The > diatonic scale has been around for many centuries longer than that.
And the diatonic scale is indeed the parent of both of these twins.
> > If you choose to make this distinction, then I would answer by saying I > > *don't* choose to define the mixolydian scale at all.
> Well good luck trying recognize one when you hear one then.
That's still quite easy to do - it's the notes of the pitch set we are talking about, arranged in ascending order starting with the root. I can hear that without having to determine if that seventh I heard was defined as a minor seventh above the root or as the seventh of a major scale lowered a half step. It's the same ntoe and sounds the same either way, so recognition doesn't require making some arbitrary choice between these two ways of describing the thing.
> > All I care to do is > > define the set of notes that work over an unaltered dominant seventh chord.
> That's the same thing as defining the scale.
Apparently not, because you say that a scale can only be defined in terms of intervals above the root. That's a definition I'm not familair with, but I'm willing to accept at face value, if you'll accept that the term "set of notes" can be defined in any of a variety of different ways.
> The process, in the theory that *I'm* talking about involves building a > scale *from the chord's root* according to a prescribed *intervalic*
formula.
Clearly. And the process *I'm* talking about is playing jazz.
> > And that can be done either by defining a set of intervals, or by making > > note of how it
> When you say "it" you mean "a set of intervals".
No, I mean the note set.
> > deviates from the notes of the major scale,
> Yes, that's a helpful trick.
As is defining the notes of the set in terms of intervals above the root. Except that trick isn't really quite as useful, in my opinion.
> But "Fred" is defined as a particular set of *intervals* above the root > of the dom7 chord.
Still wrong. You describe it that way, but nothing you've said is even close to evidence that this is more fundamental than any other way of describing it.
> Actually one is "better' than the other if we define "better" as meaning > involving the "most clear thinking" or "not muddied by logical
inconsistencies".
True. But given that both of our descriptions are clear and consistent, there is no better between them.
> > Arguing about exactly how a recently invented trick > > should be defined, and whether one way of generating the notes to use in > > performing that trick are more of a trick than another way of generating the > > notes to use in performing that trick, is finally getting into an area even > > I find too ridiculous to debate.
> Well thank God for that. > Why did you start in the 1st place?
Feel free to imagine that I did. As far as I am concerned, this started by your inflammatory claim:
> There is no need to invoke an A > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and > name intervals.
This is insulting to a number of fine musicians and misleading to a bunch of potentially fine musicians in the making.
> The theory that I'm talking about is concerned with the vertical > relationships created by your note set on the chord-of-the-moment.
The theory I'm talking about is the one that allows you to make melodies over chords.
> > That much I agree with. But I'm also saying that listing these note sets as > > intervals above a root is also just corrollary.
> Not to my theory. That *is* the theory that I'm talking about.
Then I guess my theory is just more fundamental than yours. Does that mean I win?
> > When one says "a major scale *with*...", one is already acknowledging that.
> No they're not. > If they say "as if" beforehand then they're acknowledging it.
Mayber you impose such arbitreary restrictions on your own speech, but the language doesn't
...
> > > in > > > case anyone doubted. It would be like someone trying to make spaghetti, > > > finding a recipe that called for boiling 4 quarts of water, and using > an > > > empty quart milk jug to measure out the four quarts. Sure, unless there > is > > > a calibrated line visible on the jug, you won't be getting a precise > quart. > > > But you'll be getting an amount pretty closely - and not > coincidentally - > > > related to the quart. And considering the level of precision the job > > > actually requires - having enough water for the pasta to boil - it's > more > > > than good enough.
> > That's a bad analogy. > > A better analogy would be trying to make your spaghetti in a quart of > milk.
> Since that doens't produce the same results as boiling it water, it's not > much an analogy at all. My analogy is quite apt - both methods produce > precisely the same results, but one allows you to say to you are doing it > the "right" way, and one allows others to accuse you of engaging in "willful > ignorance".
OK. A better analogy. "A car *is like* a small truck." "A car is a small truck."
The 2nd statement is just wrong.
"G mixolydian *is like* G major with a lowered 7th." "G mixolydian is a G major scale with lowered 7th."
> I did. Try it yourself. There are very few occurences of the words "major" > or "minor" in there,
There does not have to be for my argument to be valid.
> and none of them are in a context that gives any > evidence at all to your you claim that the terminology predates the major > scale.
I'm not saying the terminology pre-dates the major scale, even though it is my understanding that it does. I'm saying the *intervals* predate the scale. Scales are comprised of intervals. That's what scales they are, conglomerations of intervals in a particularized pitch collection. A pitch collection defined by the intervals it contains.
Before the 7 tone scale there was a 4 stringed instrument called a tetrachord. The tetrachord's outer strings were tuned to, what we now call, a perfect 4th interval. Various sizes of *intervals* were experimented with for the inner two strings, some wide some less wide. The smaller intervals observed when the diatonic scale was finally invented were proportionally very similar to the smaller intervals observed on tetrachords. The intervals came first. The names for the intervals, that we use today, are geared to describe the intervals used in a 7 tone scale system. Even if we admit that *a 7 tone scale* (NOT the major scale) must exist first in order to bring about the actual terms we use today to describe the intervals in that scale, this does not negate the FACT that the *intervals came first*. You can't have a scale until you have intervals with which to create said scale. The names you give to the intervals, for the purposes of this discussion, are irrelevant.
Within the diatonic scale there are min 7th intervals between: D-C, E-D, G-F, A-G, and B-A. Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're saying.
> > It should also be obvious that there was a time before the 7 tone scale > > was conceived of, let alone used for any music making.
> Yes, but it is not obvious during this time, anyone would have had any > reason for naming intervals in the way you describe. The idea that there > are two thirds (one bigger than the other) is something you see only when > you start constructing scales like this.
The *intervals* came first. The names we give to the intervals change depending on the way we are using them, the type of scale system, etc. "Maj 3rd" could mean something totally different to musicians working in 21 tone equal temperament depending on the names they ascribed to the notes in that scale.
> > You're saying that the major scale came first and that all intervals are > > some modification of the major scale.
> I've never said anything remotely like that.
Well it sure seems like that's what you're saying. It follows that that is the way you are thinking from everything else you are saying.
> Try responding to what I > actually write instead what you imagine me to be meaning.
OK. I won't respond to what I think you mean. Gimme a break. If that's not what you mean then maybe try expessing what you mean better.
> > > I note you mention the Greek name for the fifth, but not the seconds. > Are > > > you saying they literally translate as major and minor second? If so, I > > > will gladly consider myself corrected on this point.
> > Look.....
> I looked at your speculation, and it's plausible. So is mine. Without some > real research, I see no way to resolve this particular point.
> > Once the diatonic scale was invented it was observed that there are two > > types of adjacent tones, one larger and one smaller. Whether we call > > them "major 2nds" and "minor 2nds" or "big adjacent tones" and "small > > adjacent tones" in whatever language doesn't matter.
> Of course it matters, if you're going to insist that there is any sort of > fundamental difference between calculating a minor seventh your favorite way > versus "seventh of the major scale lowered a half step".
I calculate a min 7th according to the definition of what "minor 7th interval" means. It has nothing to do with any major scale whose tonic is the lower note of the interval. Nothing.
> > > Arguing about exactly how a recently invented trick > > > should be defined, and whether one way of generating the notes to use in > > > performing that trick are more of a trick than another way of generating > the > > > notes to use in performing that trick, is finally getting into an area > even > > > I find too ridiculous to debate.
> > Well thank God for that. > > Why did you start in the 1st place?
> Feel free to imagine that I did. As far as I am concerned, this started by > your inflammatory claim:
> > There is no need to invoke an A > > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and > > name intervals.
I honestly had no idea that anybody would, or could, ever take that statement as being "inflammatory", even if they disagreed with it. I'm sorry *you* feel that way. I'm sorry that *you* are inflamed.
> This is insulting to a number of fine musicians and misleading to a bunch of > potentially fine musicians in the making.
Bullshit. Let them speak up for themselves. This is insulting to you for some reason, and I have no idea why.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote: > > Since that doens't produce the same results as boiling it water, it's not > > much an analogy at all. My analogy is quite apt - both methods produce > > precisely the same results, but one allows you to say to you are doing it > > the "right" way, and one allows others to accuse you of engaging in "willful > > ignorance".
> OK. A better analogy. > "A car *is like* a small truck." > "A car is a small truck."
And indeed, a car is *not* a small truck. But why is that distinction worth making? Because there are real life practical situations in which the difference is relevant. Whereas the difference you are obsessing regarding intervals over *has* no practical ramifications whatsoever. Hence, the analogy fails.
> > I did. Try it yourself. There are very few occurences of the words "major" > > or "minor" in there,
> There does not have to be for my argument to be valid.
This is the exact quote I asked you to defend:
"That's why it's called a maj 2nd. It has NOTHING to do with the major scale".
In other words, you were quite specifically saying the *name* major second had nothing to do with the major scale. The article you referenced in no way supports this claim.
> Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with > lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're
saying.
Well, I personally wouldn't choose to use this manner of speech in this instance, but yes, this statement is absolutely true and grammatically correct as is, without inserting the word "like".
> > > It should also be obvious that there was a time before the 7 tone scale > > > was conceived of, let alone used for any music making.
> > Yes, but it is not obvious during this time, anyone would have had any > > reason for naming intervals in the way you describe. The idea that there > > are two thirds (one bigger than the other) is something you see only when > > you start constructing scales like this.
> The *intervals* came first.
Again, I see no sense in which this is true. Intervals and scales are both just acoustic phenomena that have been around literally forever. The need to name them in this way would have come at roughly the same time - when someone took the overtone series and tried arranging the notes into a scale.
> > > You're saying that the major scale came first and that all intervals are > > > some modification of the major scale.
> > I've never said anything remotely like that.
> Well it sure seems like that's what you're saying. It follows that that > is the way you are thinking from everything else you are saying.
No, it doesn't. Feel free to provide a quote of where I've said that. I think it is pretty plainly obvious that both intervals and major scales have been around literally forever. It's the *naming* of these that is more recent. And I do suspect, but cannot prove, that the naming of the intervals that we use is related to the naming of the scales that we use. You have specifically denied this, but have yet to provide even a shred of evidence of this - just a web site that doesn't address the topic *at all*.
> > Of course it matters, if you're going to insist that there is any sort of > > fundamental difference between calculating a minor seventh your favorite way > > versus "seventh of the major scale lowered a half step".
> I calculate a min 7th according to the definition of what "minor 7th > interval" means. It has nothing to do with any major scale whose tonic > is the lower note of the interval. Nothing.
Of course it does. They are both corollaries of the same acoustic phenomena. Maybe you don't see the relationship, but it's pretty plain to me.
But in any event, if you're going to obsess about distinctions like this, it is worth noting that the fact that the "mixolydian scale" contains a minor seventh above the root is not actually the reaosn it works well over dominant seventh chords. It is the fact that it contains a note that is the same note as the seventh of chord. So it is more funamentally true to define the note set in terms of the *chord*. And of course, the chord traditionally is defined in terms of a major scales - but not the scale built on the root of the chord. So if you want to get technical, this is what it is *really* about.
> > > There is no need to invoke an A > > > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > > > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate and > > > name intervals.
> I honestly had no idea that anybody would, or could, ever take that > statement as being "inflammatory", even if they disagreed with it.
You shouldn't go around saying people who do things differentlky that you so are "shaky" without expecting some fallout.
> > This is insulting to a number of fine musicians and misleading to a bunch of > > potentially fine musicians in the making.
> Bullshit. Let them speak up for themselves. > This is insulting to you for some reason, and I have no idea why.
Becuase I'm a musician who calculate my note choices differently than you do, and I don't appreciate being told it is because I am "shaky".
--------------- Marc Sabatella m...@outsideshore.com
> > > Since that doens't produce the same results as boiling it water, it's > not > > > much an analogy at all. My analogy is quite apt - both methods produce > > > precisely the same results, but one allows you to say to you are doing > it > > > the "right" way, and one allows others to accuse you of engaging in > "willful > > > ignorance".
> > OK. A better analogy. > > "A car *is like* a small truck." > > "A car is a small truck."
> And indeed, a car is *not* a small truck. But why is that distinction worth > making? Because there are real life practical situations in which the > difference is relevant. Whereas the difference you are obsessing regarding > intervals over *has* no practical ramifications whatsoever. Hence, the > analogy fails.
I never said it was a good analogy, just better than the previous one.
> > > I did. Try it yourself. There are very few occurences of the words > "major" > > > or "minor" in there,
> > There does not have to be for my argument to be valid.
> This is the exact quote I asked you to defend:
> "That's why it's called a maj 2nd. It has NOTHING to do with the major > scale".
> In other words, you were quite specifically saying the *name* major second > had nothing to do with the major scale.
It doesn't.
> The article you referenced in no > way supports this claim.
Then do your own Goddamned research. Once you do you're going to see that I'm right and that you're just being ignorant, evidently willfully.
> > Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with > > lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're > saying.
> Well, I personally wouldn't choose to use this manner of speech in this > instance, but yes, this statement is absolutely true and grammatically > correct as is, without inserting the word "like".
Well then it's time to go read some books, 'cause you're wrong. The fact that D-C is a min 7th interval has absolutely NOTHING to do with the D major scale.
> > > > It should also be obvious that there was a time before the 7 tone > scale > > > > was conceived of, let alone used for any music making.
> > > Yes, but it is not obvious during this time, anyone would have had any > > > reason for naming intervals in the way you describe. The idea that > there > > > are two thirds (one bigger than the other) is something you see only > when > > > you start constructing scales like this.
> > The *intervals* came first.
> Again, I see no sense in which this is true. Intervals and scales are both > just acoustic phenomena that have been around literally forever.
Nonesense. Look it up.
> The need > to name them in this way would have come at roughly the same time - when > someone took the overtone series and tried arranging the notes into a scale.
The need to name things according to a 7 tone scale system encompassing a single "octave" came about with the advent of the diatonic scale. This was millenia before the major scale was a gleam in anybody's eye. Look it up.
Even what became known as the Ionian mode in Medieval times (don't know the name of this scale prior to that) was hardly ever used for music making throughout the history of Western music. Comments I've seen elsewhere have lead me to believe that what we now call "dorian" was the most used mode of the diatonic scale for much of Western music's pre-Tonality (the major/minor key system) history. Ionian became popular just prior to Bach's time, so popular in fact that a whole concept, that of a key, became built around it. Because ionian was related to the idea of the "major key" [a type of tonal center delineated by a central tone or "tonic" and a major triad (a triad with one of the big thirds) associated with that tonic] it became known as the "major scale".
> > > > You're saying that the major scale came first and that all intervals > are > > > > some modification of the major scale.
> > > I've never said anything remotely like that.
> > Well it sure seems like that's what you're saying. It follows that that > > is the way you are thinking from everything else you are saying.
> No, it doesn't. Feel free to provide a quote of where I've said that.
<Begin Snip>
> > Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with > > lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're > saying.
> Well, I personally wouldn't choose to use this manner of speech in this > instance, but yes, this statement is absolutely true and grammatically > correct as is, without inserting the word "like".
<End Snip>
In other words you are saying this: "D-C is a D major scale with lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted".
This is only the most recent time you've made such a statement. I need not supply any more quotes. Your entire argument is predicated on this idea that the major scale is some a priori entity on which all other intervals are based. You are dead wrong about this. Look it up.
> I > think it is pretty plainly obvious that both intervals and major scales have > been around literally forever.
Absolute nonsense. Look it up. You're living in a dream world.
> It's the *naming* of these that is more > recent. And I do suspect, but cannot prove, that the naming of the > intervals that we use is related to the naming of the scales that we use.
Why not read some books on the subject or ask some college music theory majors. Try visiting rec.music.theory and ask some of the music theory PH.D's over there. This is not hidden esoteric knowledge. By not looking into this you remain willfully ignorant.
> You have specifically denied this, but have yet to provide even a shred of > evidence of this - just a web site that doesn't address the topic *at all*.
You have not even supplied a web site that supposrts your claims. Yet you claim to be speaking for thousands of musicians. Go figure.
> > > Of course it matters, if you're going to insist that there is any sort > of > > > fundamental difference between calculating a minor seventh your favorite > way > > > versus "seventh of the major scale lowered a half step".
> > I calculate a min 7th according to the definition of what "minor 7th > > interval" means. It has nothing to do with any major scale whose tonic > > is the lower note of the interval. Nothing.
> Of course it does. They are both corollaries of the same acoustic > phenomena. Maybe you don't see the relationship, but it's pretty plain to > me.
In a world where the major scale was some a priori ethereal substance supplied to us by God before man first ever attempted to make music you might have a point. But that's a dream world. The real world and the real history of music was nothing like that. You're dreamin' buddy.
> But in any event, if you're going to obsess about distinctions like this,
I'm not obsessed with this. *YOU ARE*. My first comment on all of this was: "This is sort of just semantics (or pedantics), but an important point IMO."
> it > is worth noting that the fact that the "mixolydian scale" contains a minor > seventh above the root
The mixolydian scale is defined as a set of intervals above a tonic (not a root, scales don't have roots, chords have roots) following the intervalic pattern: tonic, maj 2nd, maj 3rd, P4th, P5th, maj 6th, min 7th. 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 for short. When used in a chord-scale relationship with a G7 chord this scale contains a min 7th above the root. A dominant 7th chord is defined as a chord built according to the following intervalic formula: Root, maj 3rd, P5th, min 7th. It is no secret then why a mixolydian scale is such a strong choice as a chord-scale for a dom7 chord.
> is not actually the reaosn it works well over > dominant seventh chords.
The reason it works well over a dom7 chord is because the intervals in the scale are complimentary to the intervals in the chord. This has NOTHING to do with some major scale whose tonic is the root of the chord. *NOTHING*. You and Albert Silverman are the only two people I have ever encountered who believe this to be true.
> It is the fact that it contains a note that is the > same note as the seventh of chord. So it is more funamentally true to > define the note set in terms of the *chord*.
The chord is defined by an intervalic formula too. All chord types are. Or is "G7 a Gmaj7 chord with a flatted 7th"? If yes, then why is its chord symbol "G7" rather than "Gmaj7b7"? Perhaps you prefer the latter.
> And of course, the chord > traditionally is defined in terms of a major scales -
Nonsense. A chord's type (maj, min, dim, etc.) is defined by its intervalic formula. A chord's function within a key is labeled according to its position within that key in relation to the tonic of the key.
> but not the scale > built on the root of the chord. So if you want to get technical, this is > what it is *really* about.
That's what Tonal harmonic analysis is about. It's not what scale construction and chord construction is about.
> > > > There is no need to invoke an A > > > > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that > > > > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate > and > > > > name intervals.
> > I honestly had no idea that anybody would, or could, ever take that > > statement as being "inflammatory", even if they disagreed with it.
> You shouldn't go around saying people who do things differentlky that you so > are "shaky" without expecting some fallout.
Well had I realized that you were so shaky in this area I may have treaded more lightly. Sorry.
OK. Look. I apologize for the tone of that last post. That was uncalled for.
I'm quite happy Marc, to concede what, I think is, your main point, namely that statements like the following 2 statements are for all intents and purposes equivalent.
1. G mixolydian is a scale described by the intervalic pattern 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 above a starting note G (a "tonic" for want of any better word).
2. G mixolydian is the same as the G major scale with flatted 7th.
Whatever floats our boat and gets the job done is fine by me.
But most of your criticisms of my little sub-points, i.e. the ideas that I was drawing upon to strengthen my own position, seem seriously misdirected to me. This notion that the major scale has existed forever. That's just wrong. This notion that the major scale existed before the intervals that make up the major scale. That's just wrong. This notion that any interval not found in the major scale, where the tonic is the lower note (i.e. maj 2nds, maj 3rds, P4ths, P5ths, maj 6ths, and maj 7ths), is in some essential way a modification of an interval that is in the major scale. That's just wrong. Etc. etc. etc.
These notions are all seriously flawed and IMO you need to do some research into these areas before making these types of claims.
I'm sorry if your reputation, prestige, pride, or whatever, is somehow dented by me thinking intervalically, but that's how I think. I never could have imagined that you or anyone else could ever feel that way. I'm sure your way makes more sense to you, but my way makes more sense to me.
And I do think that your way is a little bit misdirected, but just a little bit. I am no authority on any of this. But then again, neither are you. Why it is that me thinking differently than you should upset you this way I will never know.
> I'm quite happy Marc, to concede what, I think is, your main point, > namely that statements like the following 2 statements are for all > intents and purposes equivalent.
> 1. G mixolydian is a scale described by the intervalic pattern > 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 > above a starting note G (a "tonic" for want of any better word).
> 2. G mixolydian is the same as the G major scale with flatted 7th.
> Whatever floats our boat and gets the job done is fine by me.
Me too.
> But most of your criticisms of my little sub-points, i.e. the ideas that > I was drawing upon to strengthen my own position, seem seriously > misdirected to me. > This notion that the major scale has existed forever. That's just wrong.
No, it isn't. Integers didn't suddenly spring into existence within the last few millenia, nor did ratios between them, nor did the specific ratios that define the major scale. The only thing that recent was our recognizing that the sounds of notes in these relationships is pleasing enough to be worth putting a name to.
> This notion that any interval not found in the major scale, where the > tonic is the lower note (i.e. maj 2nds, maj 3rds, P4ths, P5ths, maj > 6ths, and maj 7ths), is in some essential way a modification of an > interval that is in the major scale. That's just wrong.
Again, no it isn't. Both follow very directly from the same mathematical relationships. The math involved isn't even anything above the junior high school level: integers, ratios, fractions, multiplication, and division.
> I'm sorry if your reputation, prestige, pride, or whatever, is somehow > dented by me thinking intervalically, but that's how I think.
I never said that. What is insulting, and just plain wrong, is saying that anyone who doesn't choose to think the way you do is because they are shaky.
> And I do think that your way is a little bit misdirected, but just a > little bit. I am no authority on any of this. But then again, neither > are you.
> I never said it was a good analogy, just better than the previous one.
Except that the other had had no flaws, and yours does.
> > In other words, you were quite specifically saying the *name* major second > > had nothing to do with the major scale.
> It doesn't.
And this is the point I am asking you to prove.
> do your own Goddamned research
I'm simply speculating that it seems likely there is a connection. You are the one making the claim that there is definitely no relationship. The burden of proof is on you here.
> > > Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with > > > lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're > > saying.
> > Well, I personally wouldn't choose to use this manner of speech in this > > instance, but yes, this statement is absolutely true and grammatically > > correct as is, without inserting the word "like".
> Well then it's time to go read some books, 'cause you're wrong. > The fact that D-C is a min 7th interval has absolutely NOTHING to do > with the D major scale.
Depends, I suppose on what it means for one to have something to do with the other. But in the end, that is irrelevant, because the statement to which I was responding is simply a description, not a statement about what has to do with what. And as a description, it is 100% accurate, even if - as I said before - it isn't one I'd personally use.
> > Again, I see no sense in which this is true. Intervals and scales are both > > just acoustic phenomena that have been around literally forever.
> Nonesense. Look it up.
There is nothing to look up. Are you honestly claiming there exists a book somewhere in the world that is going to authoritatively state that there once existed a time when intervals did not exist? And you accuse *me* of nonsense?
> > The need > > to name them in this way would have come at roughly the same time - when > > someone took the overtone series and tried arranging the notes into a scale.
> The need to name things according to a 7 tone scale system encompassing > a single "octave" came about with the advent of the diatonic scale. > This was millenia before the major scale was a gleam in anybody's eye. > Look it up.
No need, because I've never claimed otherwise. The statements to which i responding were specifically about "seven note scales", not the major scale.
> > > > > You're saying that the major scale came first and that all intervals > > are > > > > > some modification of the major scale.
> > > > I've never said anything remotely like that.
> > > Well it sure seems like that's what you're saying. It follows that that > > > is the way you are thinking from everything else you are saying.
> > No, it doesn't. Feel free to provide a quote of where I've said that.
> <Begin Snip>
> > > Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with > > > lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're > > saying.
> > Well, I personally wouldn't choose to use this manner of speech in this > > instance, but yes, this statement is absolutely true and grammatically > > correct as is, without inserting the word "like".
> <End Snip>
Where in the above do you see anything that even the world's worst English speaker would interpret as "the major scale came first"?
> In other words you are saying this: > "D-C is a D major scale with lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted".
Yes, that is a completely accurate description, albeit not one that I'd personally use.
> This is only the most recent time you've made such a statement. I need > not supply any more quotes. Your entire argument is predicated on this > idea that the major scale is some a priori entity on which all other > intervals are based. You are dead wrong about this.
No, you are dead wrong in your insistence that I have ever claimed anything of the sort. Never happened, never will.
> > I > > think it is pretty plainly obvious that both intervals and major scales have > > been around literally forever.
> Absolute nonsense. Look it up. You're living in a dream world.
Only in your dreams could there *ever* have been a time before intervals or the major scale. They are as old as the atoms of the universe. If you seriously doubt this, then it is *you* who needs to do some research into the nature of our physical universe.
> > And I do suspect, but cannot prove, that the naming of the > > intervals that we use is related to the naming of the scales that we use.
> Why not read some books on the subject or ask some college music theory
majors.
Well, I *have* read numerous books on the subject, and none have ever answered the question that I can recall. As for asking college music theory majors - if any are reading, feel free to respond.
> This is not hidden esoteric knowledge.
If it is so obvious, then why do the texts I have make no mention of it, and the site you mentioned that supposedly backed you up make no mention of it? Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong. But you are being awfully arrogant in insisting that you are correct and I am ignorant without providing a shred of evidence.
> You have not even supplied a web site that supposrts your claims.
Because I have no claims - just a speculation. Speculations don't need support to be valid speculations.
> Yet you claim to be speaking for thousands of musicians.
In this matter? When I have ever said that?
> > > I calculate a min 7th according to the definition of what "minor 7th > > > interval" means. It has nothing to do with any major scale whose tonic > > > is the lower note of the interval. Nothing.
> > Of course it does. They are both corollaries of the same acoustic > > phenomena. Maybe you don't see the relationship, but it's pretty plain to > > me.
> In a world where the major scale was some a priori ethereal substance > supplied to us by God before man first ever attempted to make music you > might have a point. But that's a dream world.
No, it isn't. The frequency ratios that describe the major scale as well as all the intervals cannot possible have ever not existed during the life of this universe. That would be complete nonsense. Maybe before the big bang it would possible to entertain the thought that these relationships would have been meaningless, but even that would just be speculation.
And in this real physical world, a minor seventh is described by a particular ratio of frequencies (or wavelengths, take your pick), as so do the various tones of the major scale. These mathematical relationships have *never* not held during the lifetime of this universe.
> The mixolydian scale is defined as a set of intervals above a tonic (not > a root, scales don't have roots, chords have roots)
It's also common usage to refer to roots of scales. I specifically used this here to avoid the term "tonic" given I was also making reference reference to a different major scale in which the "tonic" of the mixolydian scale in question was the "dominant" of the major scale, and I didn't wish to cause confusion.
> The reason it works well over a dom7 chord is because the intervals in > the scale are complimentary to the intervals in the chord. This has > NOTHING to do with some major scale whose tonic is the root of the > chord. *NOTHING*.
I'm sorry you are unable to see the relationship. Again, both are pretty obvious consequences of the same mathematical relationships, but maybe you just don't know enough math to understand what I'm talking about here.
> You and Albert Silverman are the only two people I > have ever encountered who believe this to be true.
Interesting. I'm sure his thoughts on the matter are entirely different than mine; I can't recall ever having agreed with him on anything before.
> > And of course, the chord > > traditionally is defined in terms of a major scales -
> Nonsense. > A chord's type (maj, min, dim, etc.) is defined by its intervalic formula.
These are not mutually exclusive. People didn't sit around with no major scales in sight and say, "hey, let's come up with a name for the following intervallic pattern". They noticed the patterns that *actually occurred* within the major scale and decided they needed naming. And yes, by the time we got around to naming chords in this way, we almost certainly would have been using the major scale.
> > You shouldn't go around saying people who do things differentlky that you so > > are "shaky" without expecting some fallout.
> Well had I realized that you were so shaky in this area I may have > treaded more lightly. Sorry.
Funny. For the record, I am *not* shaky. I choose to do things the way I do, and recommend others do, because I believe it is a *better* way of doing of things. Not because I am shaky. So your initial claim - that the only reason to do so was if one was shaky - is not only insulting, it is just plain wrong.
--------------- Marc Sabatella m...@outsideshore.com
