Scales v. Modes
Adam Gottschalk
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?
glen
Adam
Listen to what the people you like to listen to do on the changes you
have to play on.
Then listen to it again without your musician head on.
Then do your version of it.
I'll say that last bit again.
Then do your version of it.
g
Joey Goldstein
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.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
ott...@hotmail.com
Bg
Adam Gottschalk
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?
Joey Goldstein
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.
Curt Sheller
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.
Curt Sheller
www.CurtSheller.com
dunlop212
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.
Marc Sabatella
> 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
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Joey Goldstein
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.
--
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> 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,
"by stressing chord tones" not "but"
sorry
geekg...@aol.com
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.
--Eric Elias
Marc Sabatella
> 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?
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "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.
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*.
Marc Sabatella
> > > 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.
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "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 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.
Marc Sabatella
> > 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.
> > > 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.)
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.
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "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.
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.
>
> I'd like a citation for that claim.
Try this for starters:
<http://www.midicode.com/tunings/greek.shtml>
> 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.
> > > > 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.)
>
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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".
I win.
> deviates from the notes of the major scale,
Yes, that's a helpful trick.
> or by saying
> "it's the same notes as the mixolydian mode,
Right. Another helpful coincidence. A useful mnemonic. Faster than
saying "it's the 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 scale" or "the major scaqle with b7".
Some folks just call it the "dom7 scale". some call it "Fred". Whatever
floats your boat.
But "Fred" is defined as a particular set of *intervals* above the root
of the dom7 chord.
> 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.
Actually one is "better' than the other if we define "better" as meaning
involving the "most clear thinking" or "not muddied by logical inconsistencies".
> > > 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.
Agreed.
> 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?
> > > 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 theory that I'm talking about is concerned with the vertical
relationships created by your note set on the chord-of-the-moment.
"Vertical relationships" are called "intervals". Even if we are talking
about a vertical relationship between two notes in the chord-scale that
doesn't involve the root (like the way that b13 can clash with the P5th)
we're still talking about intervals. Period.
What theory are *you* talking about?
> > 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.
Not to my theory. That *is* the theory that I'm talking about.
Otherwise the answer to "What scale goes with an unaltered dom7?" is:
The major scale from the 4th of the chord.
not
The mixolydian scale (defined as 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 ... shorthand for
*interval* names) from the chord's *root*.
> > 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.
No they're not.
If they say "as if" beforehand then they're acknowledging it.
> 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.
No. It's just important for clear thinking.
Marc Sabatella
> > 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'd like a citation for that claim.
>
> Try this for starters:
> <http://www.midicode.com/tunings/greek.shtml>
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 require it, and most people know better than to expect it.
> > 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.
>
> No. It's just important for clear thinking.
Perhaps it helps you think clearly to add unnecessary words to your sppech,
but most of us can think clearly without them.
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > 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."
The 2nd statement is wrong.
> > > I'd like a citation for that claim.
> >
> > Try this for starters:
> > <http://www.midicode.com/tunings/greek.shtml>
>
> 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.
'Bye.
Marc Sabatella
> > 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".
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "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 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.
> > > 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".
Okey dokey. Ta ta.
Joey Goldstein
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.
Peace.
Marc Sabatella
> 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.
Marc Sabatella
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.
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> and
> the site you mentioned that supposedly backed you up make no mention of it?
That site was meant only to supply corroboration that the word
"diapente" had been used to describe the sound of, and the freq ratio
of, what we now call a "perfect 5th interval" prior to terminology of
the present era and the recent past.
Describing this sound as a "fifth" (in any language, ancient or modern)
makes no sense until after the time when man had invented a scale
consisting of at least 5 notes containing this particular sound as one
of its intervals.
If you need further proof than the mere logic that I have been trying to
persuade you with that the major scale has not existed forever then YOU
look it up. This IS common knowledge. The burden of proof is on YOU.
The raw material for the creation of scales and of the tuning systems
used for scales is the interval. It is not the other way around.
I've really got nothing more to discuss about this with you.
I found that site by doing a simple search on Google. You can start your
research by doing the same.
Here's some other sites you can check out:
<http://www.midicode.com/tunings/index.shtml>
<http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth.html>
I hope you understand that the Pythagorean and Medieval music being
discussed at the above link was being created centuries before the idea
of a major key and thus the major scale were ever conceived of. The
diatonic scale was in full use though during these times. But I notice
that Margo is using words like "2nd" and "3rd", etc. to describe the
intervals in these ancient scales. Perhaps she is doing this to keep
things familiar to modern readers. Perhaps she is doing this because the
ancient Greek names trnaslate to the "2nd" and "3rd" etc. I'm not sure.
But the concept of 2 adjacent tones or two tones separated by a step or
more is just a way that the qualities of these scales, scales that
existed millenia before the major scale, can be described.
Perhaps you are equating the diatonic scale and the major scale. If so,
then you would be wrong. The major scale is merely one particular way
that the diatonic scale has been used through the eons. Much more of
your argument(s) would work if it was the diatonic scale for which you
were making these claims. But the major key system, which is what the
major scale gets its name from, is a farily recent development.
<http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/misc/modality.html>
<http://www.greenwych.ca/contents.htm>
<http://www.greenwych.ca/evidence.htm>
<http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=4833&mode=toc>
<http://bama.ua.edu/~danderso/diss/tablcont.htm>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music>
<http://home22.inet.tele.dk/hightower/scales.htm>
<http://home22.inet.tele.dk/hightower/scales2.htm>
Marc Sabatella
> If you need further proof than the mere logic that I have been trying to
> persuade you with that the major scale has not existed forever then YOU
> look it up. This IS common knowledge.
If people commonly believe that in physical impossibilities, that is their
problem. There is absolutely no way the major scale can ever have not
existed. *This* is true common sense.
> The raw material for the creation of scales and of the tuning systems
> used for scales is the interval.
No, both are simply our ways of arranging and attaching names to simple
mathematical relationships - namely, the overtone series. *That* is the raw
material for both intervals and scales.
> Perhaps you are equating the diatonic scale and the major scale. If so,
> then you would be wrong.
Absolutely not. I have been extremely careful to refer to one when I mean
one and to the other when I mean the other. Both have existed as long as
the universe, and there is simply no web site in the world thast could
possibly convince any rational person otherwise. Integer ratios did not
srping into being only when humans came onto the earth to start considering
them.
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> Integer ratios did not
> srping into being only when humans came onto the earth to start considering
> them.
Of course they did. And the things that humans have built with these
*conceptual constructs of the human mind*, like intervals and scales,
did not exist until they were invented *at some point in time* by humans
or beings with a similar consciousness.
pmfan57
harmonic ratios are concerned. I agree with you about almost all of
what followed.
Thanks for those great links. I used read about Zarlino and his
defense of the ancient practice vs. the new practice of Monteverdi et
al. As you have pointed out, the early Baroque guys invented
techniques that were only categorized and named by the French theorists
half a century later.
As to modes vs. scales. When playing using modes, you usually just use
it as a pitch collection in your actual solos. When composing modally,
of course, the actual letter name of the mode means more since you will
resolve somewhat to the modal "tonic." I remember some of the Bach's
chorales are in a "church" mode (at least one is in Dorian, I think).
I like the way those sound.
paul
Max Smith
walking bass, and if you write out and analyze his lines, you'll find
that there's a lot more going on than roots and fifths, even though
root and fifths are a prominent element of his playing. Lots of his
bass playing contemporaries and descendants do the same.
The sixth and seventh scale tones get a lot of use in walking patterns
and if the key is minor (not a minor chord in a major key) the quality
of those sixths and sevenths is important and can vary, so a bassist
(and guitarists) should know his natural, harmonic, and melodic minor
scales - and how they relate to the diatonic chord progressions in a
*minor* key.
Listen to Charlie Parker play "The Bird" (it's in a minor key) and
you'll hear a lot of harmonic and melodic minor scale elements
throughout. The natural minor scale (relative major) just doesn't cut
it in that context.
Max S.
Max Smith
A lot of talk about scales focuses on an out of context view of chords
as individual entities or as parts of brief diatonic progressions
(ii-V7). This may be a necessary part of breaking things down so the
can be better digested, but I think we often lose sight of an important
aim - one that used to be absolutely required of jazz musicians - to
*know* tunes.
Yes, it may be very helpful for you to know the complete breakdown of
every single chord in a tune, but lots of guys who say the couldn't or
didn't do that (Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery) sound better that a thousand
GIT and Berklee grads - no offense meant. Those guys - Pass, Kessel,
Wes - learned tunes - they had a repertoire of tunes (and general
progressions - blues, rhythm changes) that they owned. They didn't just
blow scales and their modes over the key centers of stuff they picked
out of the "Real Book"- they played solos that contained motifs and
melodic, harmonic and rhythmic elements that related to *that* specific
tune that they owned in their head, heart and fingers.
I am not saying it's bad to learn theory and fingering patterns, etc.
It's just that we get lost in them. Then we play the "head" of the tune
(if we can remember it) and plunge headlong into the changes as though
they had no relation to the tune - just a collection of chords, or at
best, key centers to blow my licks over.
Learning the melodic minor scale fingering patterns is one thing, but
the important thing is to use it make musical ideas that fit a tune
that *you* do - a tune you're going to be intimate with - a tune you're
going to live with and own.
Max S.
Adam Gottschalk
"Max Smith" <sixstr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Those guys - Pass, Kessel,
> Wes - learned tunes - they had a repertoire of tunes (and general
> progressions - blues, rhythm changes) that they owned. They didn't just
> blow scales and their modes over the key centers of stuff they picked
> out of the "Real Book"- they played solos that contained motifs and
> melodic, harmonic and rhythmic elements that related to *that* specific
> tune that they owned in their head, heart and fingers.
I echo your statements. All the theoretical understanding in the world
doesn't do you a lick of good if you can't play a blues by yourself with
feeling and good time. My bass teacher drove this home to me
(indirectly) when the first few lessons, all he wanted to do was to
trade the bass back and forth doing choruses of blues. Each time, his
chorus would be smooth and deep and spot on, and he'd hand me the bass
back saying, "Okay? Your turn." He didn't say much if anything about
"the blues" and whether he wanted to hear 1-4-5 or jazz blues or what.
It was all about feel, and really owning/meaning what you were playing.
And never making a mistake. Never. At first that's a daunting
proposition, but once you realize that your task can be pretty darn
simple, whoever you are, it's not so bad. On bass, be able to play
quarter notes for hours and hours without ever once missing a beat.
Easy. Just quarter notes, and the pitches are hardly even important
(give or take). My teacher's funny; he says things like, "So, learn to
live with quarter notes. People like bass players who do quarter notes
and never screw them up."
Max Smith
Max S.
Joey Goldstein
that radio waves have existed since the beginning of time. But a Marconi
had to come along and invent the radio, and radio stations have most
certainly not existed since the beginning of time.
pmfan57
themselves in the harmonic series that eminates from natural
instruments, such as any length of pipe. Natural horns when blown into
can produce the bugle call notes, for example, without the need for
stops or valves or holes or whatever. Where is the anologue to that in
radio waves?
Joey Goldstein
pmfan57 wrote:
>
> It's not the same thing. The ratios in music long manifested
> themselves in the harmonic series that eminates from natural
> instruments, such as any length of pipe. Natural horns when blown into
> can produce the bugle call notes, for example, without the need for
> stops or valves or holes or whatever. Where is the anologue to that in
> radio waves?
Are you now saying that Man too has existed since the beginning of time?
Paul Kirk
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> pmfan57 wrote:
>
>>It's not the same thing. The ratios in music long manifested
>>themselves in the harmonic series that eminates from natural
>>instruments, such as any length of pipe. Natural horns when blown into
>>can produce the bugle call notes, for example, without the need for
>>stops or valves or holes or whatever. Where is the anologue to that in
>>radio waves?
>
>
> Are you now saying that Man too has existed since the beginning of time?
Here in america we're told by our leaders that he existed since about 6
days after the begining of time. I'm not sure what the consequences are
for harmonic ratios, though.
PK
Adam Gottschalk
"Max Smith" <sixstr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I like your teacher already... what's his name?
>
> Max S.
>
Dan Schulte, here in Portland, Oregon, who, happily, will playing with a
sextet (!) in a house-concert here at my loft at the end of the month.
pmfan57
Anyway, every howling of the wind through caves and reeds makes sounds
the physics of which can be described by the various principles first
recognized by Pythagoras. It was there before humans described the
physics of it. On most of the subject of this thread I'm with you; but
it would appear you can't accept even the slightest disagreement.
Joey Goldstein
pmfan57 wrote:
>
> This thread has existed since the beginning of time.
lol
> Anyway, every howling of the wind through caves and reeds makes sounds
Sounds. Not major scales.
> the physics of which can be described by the various principles first
> recognized by Pythagoras.
Right. It was Pythagoras and/or men of his ilk that recognized a way to
describe the observed physical phenomena. And people like this organized
ways to control these types of phenomena in order to make art. Art does
not come out of nowhere until a man makes it so.
> It was there before humans described the
> physics of it. On most of the subject of this thread I'm with you; but
> it would appear you can't accept even the slightest disagreement.
I can accept disagreements that make sense. Particularly if they make
sense to me.
Your points so far don't particularly make sense. Major scales have
existed forever? That's your position? Gimme a break. I'm all for being
poetic about things but that's just f...... nonsense.
_ya_wanna@mail.com jeffbonny
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Sounds. Not major scales.
That in any context is a disturbing posture.
Chickenhead
Most of our citizens don't care; we're a primitive bunch.
Ooga Booga!
> Paul Kirk" <no...@noplace.net> wrote in message
news:b4bKe.978$FV1...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
pmfan57
just think the Harmonic series--you know, the notes a bugle can play,
are there before man. I said nothing about major scales, which are
clearly man made. That was Sabetella that talked about major scales.
That's why I said I agreed with you about most of the thread.
Go back and reread exactly what I said and come back and agree or
disagree, but don't attribute ideas of others to me.
Joe
Joey Goldstein
Mine? How so?
Joey Goldstein
pmfan57 wrote:
>
> Listen, Joey; you are confused. I agreed with you on major scales. I
> just think the Harmonic series--you know, the notes a bugle can play,
> are there before man. I said nothing about major scales, which are
> clearly man made.
Then we are in agreement.
> That was Sabetella that talked about major scales.
> That's why I said I agreed with you about most of the thread.
>
> Go back and reread exactly what I said and come back and agree or
> disagree, but don't attribute ideas of others to me.
So what it *is* that one point of mine that you disagree with then?
Ah ... This...
> > Integer ratios did not
> > srping into being only when humans came onto the earth to start considering
> > them.
>
> Of course they did. And the things that humans have built with these
> *conceptual constructs of the human mind*, like intervals and scales,
> did not exist until they were invented *at some point in time* by humans
> or beings with a similar consciousness.
What I meant is that while the phenomena that caused what we humans now
call the harmonic series to exist have (apparently) existed forever it
was not until the advent of modern humans (as opposed to earlier
hominids) that this aspect of Nature was interpreted and exploited in
such a way as to make pleasurable music for mankind.
Radio frequencies have also existed since the beginning of the Universe
in exactly the same way that the harmonic ratios have existed forever.
The exploitation of radio waves by Man had to wait until Man's
intelligence was evolved enough to first recognize their existence and
then conjure up a way to use them for something. The exploitation of the
harmonic by Man simply happened earlier in Man's development. Art and
science used to be the same thing.
Music comes out of Man's mind. Sounds are not interpreted as music until
a consciousness (and Man is the only conscious being we know of at
present that is also known to appreciate music) inclined to hear music
senses said sounds with his/her sense organs (or imagines the music in
their mind as in the case of the deaf Beethoven). The sounds themselves
are not the music. Man makes music. Not nature.
pmfan57
before Einstein. The wind produces sound that obeys the laws relating
to acoustic and harmonics even before people figured out those
relationships. Apples fell to earth even before Newton.
You seemed to be saying the integer relationships themselves didn't
exist before man. Some things men discover; other things men invent.
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> So what it *is* that one point of mine that you disagree with then?
>
> Ah ... This...
>
> > > Integer ratios did not
> > > srping into being only when humans came onto the earth to start considering
> > > them.
> >
> > Of course they did. And the things that humans have built with these
> > *conceptual constructs of the human mind*, like intervals and scales,
> > did not exist until they were invented *at some point in time* by humans
> > or beings with a similar consciousness.
>
> What I meant is that while the phenomena that caused what we humans now
> call the harmonic series to exist have (apparently) existed forever it
> was not until the advent of modern humans (as opposed to earlier
> hominids) that this aspect of Nature was interpreted and exploited in
> such a way as to make pleasurable music for mankind.
What I also meant is that in order for these phenomema to be interpreted
by Man a "integer ratios" Man first had to come up with the idea of
integer ratios (presumably as a way of making sense of these types of
phenomena). So, while the phenomena themselves may have existed forever
a useful interpretation of these phenomena by Man, for Man's own
purposes, has not existed forever.
The "major scale" is a construct of Man's imagination. It does not exist
in Nature until there is a Man who recognizes certain types of natural
sounds as such.
Five Sharp
begin with.
#####
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:1123691124.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> The "major scale" is a construct of Man's imagination. It does not exist
> in Nature until there is a Man who recognizes certain types of natural
> sounds as such.
And while the raw material for the major scale has existed for
millennia, in the form of the diatonic scale, the "major scale" itself
has only been around for a few hundred years.
"Major scale" means more of a manner in which a diatonic scale is to be
used than it does an actual scale in and of itself.
"Ionian" has been around a lot longer than the major scale, although it
was never very popular.
But "ionian", although it uses the same intervallic formula as the major
scale, is a different idea, a different concept, a different way of
music making, from the major scale.
The meaning of "major scale" is dependant on the concept of the "major
key system". And the major key system is a mere baby in terms of the
history of Western music. Calling a scale a "major scale" in the absense
of any relation to a major key is, for the most part, meaningless.
Sounds similar to ionian may be found in other cultures too. But that
does not make them equivalent to ionian, let alone to the major scale.
Joey Goldstein
pmfan57 wrote:
>
> The ratios were there, just as E=MC Squared was the law of the universe
> before Einstein. The wind produces sound that obeys the laws relating
> to acoustic and harmonics even before people figured out those
> relationships. Apples fell to earth even before Newton.
>
> You seemed to be saying the integer relationships themselves didn't
> exist before man.
The relationships existed. The integers themselves didn't.
> Some things men discover; other things men invent.
E=MC squared is something invented by Einstein.
It is an attempt to describe certain observed natural phenomena in a
particular way that is particularly particular to Man. I don't think
that this formula is particulary useful to monkeys.
It is very successful at describing and predicting some things and not
so successful at describing or predicting others. That's why it's called
a theory and not a fact.
Newton's laws were considered to be "truth" until Einstein came along
and proved some of them wrong. Someone else will come along eventually
and show us where Einstein got it wrong too. Scientists are in the
mapping business. They attempt to map out the outlines of what we see in
the Universe so that we, like Columbus, can go off and conquer new areas
of the World. Until we have the entire Universe mapped out, from the
tiniest particle to the largest galaxy, our maps will always be subject
to modifications.
There are things in the Universe that we have not yet discovered. When
we do that's when *we* will *invent the concepts* with which to describe
them, concepts that are particular to our kind, mankind.
Joey Goldstein
--
unknowngu...@comcast.net
all over it, but I can't let this whopper slide by:
"Newton's laws were considered to be "truth" until Einstein came along
and proved some of them wrong."
Wrong!!!
Newton got it right. He was an astonishingly brilliant man. He
explained all physical phenomena that could be observed at the time. A
few hundred years later, Einstein showed that you could push even
further in the limits of very small or very fast objects (which were
not known to exist in Newton's day).
To say that Einstein proved Newton wrong is to say that Coltrane proved
Louis Armstrong wrong, and they both proved Bach wrong.
Give it up guys. This whole thing has turned into a really dumb
argument.
Joey Goldstein
unknowngu...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> This argument is spinning way out of control. It has "avoid" written
> all over it, but I can't let this whopper slide by:
>
> "Newton's laws were considered to be "truth" until Einstein came along
> and proved some of them wrong."
>
> Wrong!!!
>
> Newton got it right. He was an astonishingly brilliant man. He
> explained all physical phenomena that could be observed at the time. A
> few hundred years later, Einstein showed that you could push even
> further in the limits of very small or very fast objects (which were
> not known to exist in Newton's day).
Einstein proved that certain things that Newton said were absolute were
actually relative. He did not prove all of Newton wrong just some of
Newton wrong but wrong he was.
> To say that Einstein proved Newton wrong is to say that Coltrane proved
> Louis Armstrong wrong, and they both proved Bach wrong.
Bad analogy. Art and science different spheres of human endeavor. There
is no "right" or "wrong" in art. There is in science.
> Give it up guys. This whole thing has turned into a really dumb
> argument.
On the contrary, it was always a really dumb argument. And it's getting dumber.
Adam Gottschalk
unknowngu...@comcast.net wrote:
> "Newton's laws were considered to be "truth" until Einstein came along
> and proved some of them wrong."
>
> Wrong!!!
Indeed this thread as veered; still it contains some fascinating
balderdash and truth both. The above comes from someone who apparently
never took college Physics. Newton was definitely wrong. Einstein's
proposal that objects move as they do because time-space is curved
proved a theory able to map empirical phenomena much more closely than
anything Newton proposed. Others have gone on to come up with even
better descriptions since Einstein. An apple does not fall to the ground
_because_ of "gravity"; there is no such "law". There is gravitational
attraction and repulsion of masses and such like, but not the simplistic
"gravity" the Newton envisioned. Things to fall to earth in free fall at
a predicatable and constant rate--dependent on the known (through
empirical evidence) measure of the "force of gravity". But they don't
fall like that because there is some Law of Gravity. All we have is
theories as to why they fall like that. Many of those theories are
simply too difficult for most minds to grasp--I've yet to meet a soul
who has convinced me that they would be able to perceive a curvature to
space time, or that they really even understand what that means.
On the subject of how long "ordered sounds" have existed, I must touch
on "the music of the spheres". It has be known for some time that
planets and stars in their orbits and spins emit perceivable pitches
according to their motion. These are pitches which appear all through
nature on this planet too. There are in fact people who can "hear a
person's overtone series" and are able to diagnose medical conditions on
the basis of what tones they hear are missing. No lie. More than one
human can do this.
unknowngu...@comcast.net
were actually relative. He did not prove all of Newton wrong just some
of Newton wrong but wrong he was."
Not true. Newton developed a set of laws to explain all known (at the
time) natural phenomena within a given reference frame.
Einstein recognized that those laws would look different to an observer
in a different reference frame (e.g. one moving at the speed of light).
Yet, he realized that the laws of physics must actually be the same in
all reference frames.
One of the things that guided Einstein was that his relativistic
calculations had to reduce exactly to Newton's laws in the limit of low
velocities and long wavelengths. In other words, if you grind through
all of Einstein's calculation, you find that the expression relating
the force applied to a body with mass M to its accelaration is F = Ma,
which is exactly Newton's law describing the same thing. That was
Einstein's point: that although time or length measurements would
change under relativistic conditions, Newton's law would still apply if
the those changes were taken into account.
Einstein would be the last person in the world to claim that Newton was
wrong in any sense.
"There is no "right" or "wrong" in art. There is in science."
That's true, which is why it's insane to let what started as a bullshit
semantic argument to bleed over into science.
Let it go.
As far as the differences between art and science, there are many.
However, there's a quote (by Newton, coincidentally) that I think
really does point out a great similarity between great innovators in
both:
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
pmfan57
(attraction really) at a distance, apparently instantanously. He only
had mathematical models to describe it. Einstein explain how it
worked, and provided even more accurate and comprehensive models that
hold up even at extremes. For everday rockets and mechanical
engineering (but not for semiconductors or vacuum tubes of course)
Newtons stuff is just as good.
unknowngu...@comcast.net
but I'll just say this.
The calculations that allow NASA to launch a projectile into space,
link up with a moving target, and return to precise target on Earth, a
translating, rotating and revolving body, have very little to do with
Einstein or curved spacetime. They are based on Newton, wrong as he
may have been.
Joey Goldstein
How anyone can explain Einstein relatively well (pun intended) and then
seriously (you were serious weren't you?) call on the "music of the
spheres" in the same breath is beyond me.
Just curious though. Through what medium can the pitches emitted by the
planets and stars be heard? Usually sound requires air, water, etc.,
i.e. some medium through which to travel. The vacuum, even though it is
not total, of outer space does not seem particularly well suited as a
medium for sound. The sparse spattering of particles that inhabit empty
space are not really close enough to each other to transmit sound by
vibrating against each other, are they?
People who can hear another person's overtone series? Nice.
Are you kidding?
Joey Goldstein
in the Universe.
Einstein proved him wrong, that time was relative.
Newton insisted on a steady state Universe that had always existed in
the same essential form as it does now.
Einstein opend up the door to the possibilities that the Universe might
expand forever, or not.
Einstein's theories suggested that the Universe might have begun in a
Big Bang. The notion of a Big Bang would have been anathema to Newton.
On these last points the jury is still out but most folks have their
money on Einstein.
--
Joey Goldstein
Of course. Most of Newton works. Nobody is debating that.
But to the extent that he was wrong it was Einstein who has pointed this out.
Marc Sabatella
> Harmonic ratios have existed since the begining of time in the same way
> that radio waves have existed since the beginning of time. But a Marconi
> had to come along and invent the radio, and radio stations have most
> certainly not existed since the beginning of time.
A radio isn't directly built from radio waves, nor are radio stations, so
the analogy doesn't work so well. But perhaps it suggests one that does.
Mathematical ratios have been around since the beginning of time. "Musical
pitches" are sounds that are deliberately generated by man that have certain
properties governed by these ratios. We can take musical pitches and make
intervals or scales out of them, among other things, and some of the
properties of these intervals and scales will in turn be derived from those
of the mathematical ratios than governed the creation of the pitches.
Similarly, iron has been around since the beginning of time. "Steel" is an
alloy deliberately generated by man that has certain properties derived from
those of iron. We can take steel and pound it into flat sheets or pour it
into cylindrical molds, among other things.
Arguing about whether intervals are defined in terms of scales or vice versa
is like arguing about whether sheet metal is defined in terms of cylindrical
bars or vice versa. Both are just ways you can form steel, itself a
man-made alloy of iron. The properties of the steel sheets or bars are very
much the properties of iron, since that is the primary component of the
steel. Similarly, both intervals and scales are things you can do with
musical pitches, themselves man-made sounds governed by mathematical ratios.
And the properties of these intervals and scales are very much the
properties of these mathematical ratios, since that is the primary
determinant of the relationship between musical pitches.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Adam Gottschalk
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> How anyone can explain Einstein relatively well (pun intended) and then
> seriously (you were serious weren't you?) call on the "music of the
> spheres" in the same breath is beyond me.
>
> Just curious though. Through what medium can the pitches emitted by the
> planets and stars be heard? Usually sound requires air, water, etc.,
> i.e. some medium through which to travel. The vacuum, even though it is
> not total, of outer space does not seem particularly well suited as a
> medium for sound. The sparse spattering of particles that inhabit empty
> space are not really close enough to each other to transmit sound by
> vibrating against each other, are they?
>
> People who can hear another person's overtone series? Nice.
> Are you kidding?
Because the sounds emitted by planets are physical, their waves can be
measured.
Not kidding at all about hearing a person's sounds. I used to have some
links, though I suspect Google would turn up a fair amount. I actually
talked to such a woman once, when I was going out with a girl who was
going deaf. She told me she met with a person and was able to determine
which tone was missing, then give them a tape with her singing that
pitch which they could listen to at will as therapy. She said she had
anecdotal evidence that it worked in many cases.
Have you heard of medical intuitives? There are quite a few around these
days. These are people who, with no medical training at all (generally),
are able simply to talk to someone (even over the phone) and know
exactly what medical condtion they have. My therapist has a good friend
who is such a woman. As her powers of perception have increased, she has
become almost totally unable to function in the everyday world. She has
100% correct record. Never missed once. She talks to someone, then calls
up their doctor and says things like, "In the left part of her heart,
there this spot which opens and closes...", "Yes, that might be the
ventricle.", "Well, it's broken."
It is my contention that, since intuitives only need to hear the
person's voice, there is something in--or not in-- the sound of their
voice which is being perceived and illucidating physical problems.
I really get my scientist friends wringing their hands of me when I
start saying that there is evidence that "life" as we know it may in
fact go so far "down" as the cellular level. "The Secret Life of
Plants", from 1973, pretty much proves it, and I haven't even looked
into any research that's been done along the same lines since.
juru...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
From: "Max Smith" <sixstringj...@sbcglobal.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 9 Aug 2005 11:52:34 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 9 2005 11:52 am
Subject: Re: Scales v. Modes
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Something else should be said, too, I think.
A lot of talk about scales focuses on an out of context view of chords
as individual entities or as parts of brief diatonic progressions
(ii-V7). This may be a necessary part of breaking things down so the
can be better digested, but I think we often lose sight of an important
aim - one that used to be absolutely required of jazz musicians - to
*know* tunes.
I agree, but I think you can go even farther than that, and just
'know' where ALL the chords in all the tunes are by sound and interval
from the tonic. That gets you a leg up on tunes you don't really
'know'.
Since the same interval from the tonic in any key in any song will be
the same couple of choices for chords regardless of song, (3 will be a
minor or a dominant, b3 will be a 7#11 chord or a minor, 2 will be a
minor or a dominant, b2 will be a m7b5 or a dom7#11, etc.) it's best to
just get the whole enchilada out of the way, get to know them all by
sound since there aren't that many, and the only thing you have to deal
with after that is modulation. It just makes things simpler with fewer
things to keep straight or sorted out.
Anyway, that approach works best for me and has for some time.
Clif Kuplen
unknowngu...@comcast.net
observers in the Universe."
It does unless either the observer or observee(?) is moving at a
relativistic velocity.
"Einstein proved him wrong, that time was relative."
Through thought experiments ("gedanken") Einstein showed that in the
limits of relativistic velocities, time dilation would occur. Proof
came much later with experiments done by others (Einstein was strictly
a theorist).
Much of the rest of your post (the "suggested" and "opened up the door"
stuff) refers to inferences made by others long after Einstein's
original work. And I don't know about the "Newton would have insisted"
stuff. I'm not sure that he was too concerned about the distant future
or the distant past.
Look, I'm not pushing Newton over Einstein or anything like that.
These might be the 2 most brilliant men that ever lived. But Newton
doesn't have to be wrong for Einstein to be right. Newton was able to
encapsulate every aspect of physical behavior that was known to man in
his day (before electricity or even the nature of atoms were known).
He was a very empirical guy, that looked at what was around him and
managed to explain it remarkably well. He covered mechanics, optics
and thermodynamics and invent calculus in his spare time. He was also
the first to recognize that the mechanics of celestial bodies were
goverened by the same force of attraction (gravity) as everyday
objects.
Einstein was able to dream up things that hadn't yet come to pass, yet
he extended known physical law based solely on his thoughts. But he
was very mindful of the fact that Newton worked well to describe
everyday physical phenomena, and that any extension he dreamed up had
to agree with Newton under those circumstances.
The thing I'm taking issue with is the idea that Newton's work was
"wrong". It wasn't. It was incomplete. Einstein extended it (to the
relativistic domain) and thus, made it more complete.
You may not like the Satchmo / Trane analogy, but I do. Satchmo may
sound dated, but not wrong.
It's bad enough having stupid music arguments on a jazz guitar forum.
having a really stupid physics argument on the same forum is more than
I can handle.
I'm done.
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Harmonic ratios have existed since the begining of time in the same way
> > that radio waves have existed since the beginning of time. But a Marconi
> > had to come along and invent the radio, and radio stations have most
> > certainly not existed since the beginning of time.
>
> A radio isn't directly built from radio waves, nor are radio stations, so
> the analogy doesn't work so well.
Instruments on which humans make music (includiong the human voice) are
not constructed from frequency ratios either. The nature of freq ratios
is a guiding consideration in instrument construction as well as in the
playing of said instrument, but they do not make the instrument
directly. So I don't really see your point.
> But perhaps it suggests one that does.
>
> Mathematical ratios have been around since the beginning of time.
No. The phenomena that Man interprets as mathematical ratios may have
been around since the beginning of time. At present no-one has yet
talked to any witnesses who were around at the beginning of time, but
there's lots of circumstantial evidence. <g>
These phenomena were not interpreted by Man as mathematical ratios until
man had the developed the smarts to be able to think that way. Whether
or not some other form of sentient being has the same concept, that of a
mathematical ratio, remains to be seen as well. It may be that Man has
his own unique lens on the Universe owing to his particular sensory
organs and brain physiology. House flys have a whole different way of
experiencing the Universe than Man.
> "Musical
> pitches" are sounds that are deliberately generated by man that have certain
> properties governed by these ratios.
Agreed.
Actually, individual pitches themselves have very little to do with
mathematical ratios. Unless you mean vibrations per second. 440hZ:1sec.
Of course the timbre of a musical instrument making a pitched sound is
closely related to the freq ratios of the audible harmonics of the
fundamental pitch.
At any rate....
> We can take musical pitches and make
> intervals or scales out of them, among other things,
Agreed.
> and some of the
> properties of these intervals and scales will in turn be derived from those
> of the mathematical ratios than governed the creation of the pitches.
Agreed.
Some properties will, some will not.
> Similarly, iron has been around since the beginning of time.
Not true, by most respected contemporary theories. Iron is created in
the explosion of a star (super nova) after many milions, even billions,
of years of cooking inside the star's core. But go ahead.
> "Steel" is an
> alloy deliberately generated by man that has certain properties derived from
> those of iron.
Agreed.
> We can take steel and pound it into flat sheets or pour it
> into cylindrical molds, among other things.
True.
> Arguing about whether intervals are defined in terms of scales or vice versa
Well, perhaps I should not have used the word "defined".
Scales are "created" by selecting intervals, based on certain criteria,
and putting them together in a predetermined pattern.
The opposite of this is not a pure isomorphic mapping, but it is partly
true and I have conceded this already.
I.e. That intervals are created by selecting scales and taking them apart.
Certainly, the name we give a particular interval, relative to some
scale in which we are using said interval as a component, can be
governed by the qualities (such as number of scale tones) of the scale.
But the interval itself, the ratio, the sound, whatever, came first *as
a component* of the scale. It can be named anything we want after we
decide how we want to use it.
> is like arguing about whether sheet metal is defined in terms of cylindrical
> bars or vice versa.
Sheet metal is most certainly not defined in terms of metal bars.
Sheet metal is defined in terms of its charcteristics, namely that it is
a sheet of metal. Metal bars are something else entirely. One way that
sheet metal might be created is by taking cylindrical bars of metal and
pounding them into sheets, but sheet metal is not defined by metal bars.
Your argument should be that if we melt a sheet of metal we can make a
bar of metal and if we stretch a bar of metal we can create a sheet of
metal, that both are essentially metal. That someone could start with
either and create the other.
And that is the point that I have already conceded earlier.
G mixolydian can be constructed by using the following intervals 1 2 3 4
5 6 b7 starting on G.
and
G mixolydian can be constructed by taking a G major scale and with
flattening its 7th degree.
are essentially equivalent statements in the same way that:
Sheet metal can be created by flattening a metal cylinder.
and
Sheet metal can be constructed by .....
Actually it's still not a really a good analogy.
Sheet metal is not a component of a metal cylinder (or visa versa) in
the way that an interval is a component of a scale.
If
x + y = z
and
a - b = z
then we have two perfectly useful ways of creating z.
That's more like what's happening, IMO, with intervals and scale construction.
> Both are just ways you can form steel, itself a
> man-made alloy of iron. The properties of the steel sheets or bars are very
> much the properties of iron, since that is the primary component of the
> steel.
Some of the properties are the same, some are wildly different. I don't
see how this really relates.
> Similarly, both intervals and scales are things you can do with
> musical pitches,
True statement IMO, but I don't really see that the word "similarly" applies.
> themselves man-made sounds governed by mathematical ratios.
> And the properties of these intervals and scales are very much the
> properties of these mathematical ratios, since that is the primary
> determinant of the relationship between musical pitches.
Hmm. For me, with music, the properties of a sound created by 2 or more
pitches at this or that freq ratio has more to do with my experience of
the sound than it has to do with mathematics of any sort. Certain
aspects of my sensory and emotional reaction to these sounds can
possibly be seen in retrospect, after scientific analysis, to be
governed by certain mathematical properties of the selected ratios. But
again, I don't see the relevance.
So. While I am happy to admit that, in today's musical world, various
types of scales can be constructed by either stacking intervals in a
particular pre-determined way or by altering the intervals of a major
scale in a particular pre-determined way, you will not get me to agree
that scales came first and that the components of scales, namely
intervals, came second. At least not with any of the arguments thus far presented.
ji...@jimmybruno.com
post Clif
<juru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123706612.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Joey Goldstein
Adam Gottschalk wrote:
>
> In article <42FA54C2...@nowhere.net>,
> Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > How anyone can explain Einstein relatively well (pun intended) and then
> > seriously (you were serious weren't you?) call on the "music of the
> > spheres" in the same breath is beyond me.
> >
> > Just curious though. Through what medium can the pitches emitted by the
> > planets and stars be heard? Usually sound requires air, water, etc.,
> > i.e. some medium through which to travel. The vacuum, even though it is
> > not total, of outer space does not seem particularly well suited as a
> > medium for sound. The sparse spattering of particles that inhabit empty
> > space are not really close enough to each other to transmit sound by
> > vibrating against each other, are they?
> >
> > People who can hear another person's overtone series? Nice.
> > Are you kidding?
>
> Because the sounds emitted by planets are physical, their waves can be
> measured.
Not all waves are sounds. Sound requires a medium.
Maybe the planets are emitting light waves.
Is that what you mean?
I don't believe that light has much interesting stuff going on regarding
a harmonic series in the way that sound does. Eg. I don't think the
notion of chords of light is really of much importance to man. But I
could be wrong.
> Not kidding at all about hearing a person's sounds.
Pitty.
> I used to have some
> links, though I suspect Google would turn up a fair amount. I actually
> talked to such a woman once, when I was going out with a girl who was
> going deaf. She told me she met with a person and was able to determine
> which tone was missing, then give them a tape with her singing that
> pitch which they could listen to at will as therapy. She said she had
> anecdotal evidence that it worked in many cases.
>
> Have you heard of medical intuitives? There are quite a few around these
> days. These are people who, with no medical training at all (generally),
> are able simply to talk to someone (even over the phone) and know
> exactly what medical condtion they have. My therapist has a good friend
> who is such a woman. As her powers of perception have increased, she has
> become almost totally unable to function in the everyday world. She has
> 100% correct record. Never missed once. She talks to someone, then calls
> up their doctor and says things like, "In the left part of her heart,
> there this spot which opens and closes...", "Yes, that might be the
> ventricle.", "Well, it's broken."
>
> It is my contention that, since intuitives only need to hear the
> person's voice, there is something in--or not in-- the sound of their
> voice which is being perceived and illucidating physical problems.
Oy.
> I really get my scientist friends wringing their hands of me when I
> start saying that there is evidence that "life" as we know it may in
> fact go so far "down" as the cellular level.
Er...um.. Yes, cells are alive. That's pretty common knowledge, among
scientists too. Makes me wonder what type of scientists you've been
talking to.
> "The Secret Life of
> Plants", from 1973, pretty much proves it,
Proves what? That plants are alive? That needed proof?
That plants have a type of consciousness? That's an interesting notion.
Certainly they have a certain type of awareness of their surroundings.
They have to in order vto survive. But consciousness is a whole other
thing amd I think we all would have heard by now of any definitive
studies that have proved this.
> and I haven't even looked
> into any research that's been done along the same lines since.
One of my pet theories is that humans are actually the most unevolved
species on the planet. That all other species have evolved in a way that
simply bypassed all our basest qualities. Maybe dinosaurs were even more
intelligent at some point in their evolution than man is now and they
decided to abandon all that and evolve into become birds instead.
I'll have a tough time proving it though.
Joey Goldstein
denigrating Newton's work. He proved many more wrongs of his
predecessors than Einstein has of him. But the fact remains, that if you
believe that Einstein's theories describe the Universe as it is, and
most of the best physicists in the world today do believe this, then
certain aspects of Newton's theories are wrong. Plain and simple.
There may come a time when some other physicist comes along and his
theories will show that Einstein's theories were wrong about certain
things, and that Newton was more on track. Maybe our present data is
flawed and we really do live in a steady-state, unchanging Universe
where time is the same for all observers. I doubt it. But that's the
beauty of science. The scientific community changes its position based
on the actual data not on any belief system ... except the belief in the
scientific system. <g>
But for right now Newton just happens to appear to be a little bit wrong
about this and that. Just a little but wrong nonetheless.
> It's bad enough having stupid music arguments on a jazz guitar forum.
Where else should we have them?
> having a really stupid physics argument on the same forum is more than
> I can handle.
>
> I'm done.
Suit yourself.
unknowngu...@comcast.net
position based
on the actual data not on any belief system ... except the belief in
the
scientific system. <g> "
Thanks for straightening me out on that Joey. I always wondered how
that worked.<g^2>
Joey Goldstein
unknowngu...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> "...that's the beauty of science. The scientific community changes its
> position based
> on the actual data not on any belief system ... except the belief in
> the
> scientific system. <g> "
>
> Thanks for straightening me out on that Joey.
You're welcome?
> I always wondered how
> that worked.<g^2>
--
Adam Gottschalk
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > I really get my scientist friends wringing their hands of me when I
> > start saying that there is evidence that "life" as we know it may in
> > fact go so far "down" as the cellular level.
>
> Er...um.. Yes, cells are alive. That's pretty common knowledge, among
> scientists too. Makes me wonder what type of scientists you've been
> talking to.
>
> > "The Secret Life of
> > Plants", from 1973, pretty much proves it,
>
> Proves what? That plants are alive? That needed proof?
> That plants have a type of consciousness? That's an interesting notion.
> Certainly they have a certain type of awareness of their surroundings.
> They have to in order vto survive. But consciousness is a whole other
> thing amd I think we all would have heard by now of any definitive
> studies that have proved this.
They scientifically proved that plants are able to differentiate readily
and "intelligently" between macropscopic (eg, human) entities. For
example, over and over they showed that plants could "remember" which
human out of a group had killed their neighbor.
No, their studies did not prove that consciousness goes down to the
cellular level, but they made initial steps down that road. That's the
thing about radical scientific notions (even facts)--people in the main
refuse to accept them, or blackball the proponent of whatever notion is
in question. I know I don't need to go through a list of scientist's who
were executed or excommunicated because the church and those in power
refused to accept their findings as anything other than evil. The name
'Galileo' will suffice, especially considering the Newton/Einstein talk.
The doctor's involved in the studies I've mentioned which were written
up in "The Secret Life of Plants" did in fact prove that plants have
consciousness, of that there is no question. What is/would be in
question is what we mean exactly by "consciousness". The only reason you
haven't heard of "The Secret Life of Plants" is because it's
scientifically heretical. Not because it's not truth.
Joey Goldstein
lol
And I have heard of it, if only through Stevie Wonder's album of the
same name.
I take Stevie very seriously, but I don't think I'd take the notions
that this book appears to be promoting seriously.
Maybe I'll check it out sometime though. I enjoyed van Danniken's
Chariots Of The Gods. Thanks for the tip.
unknowngu...@comcast.net
Adam Gottschalk
unknowngu...@comcast.net wrote:
> The above comes from someone who took college Physics?
>
And Calculus. And Engineering. And Micro-Economics. And Environmental
Toxicology & Agroecology. All the while wasting my time messing around
on guitar when I should I _should_ have gotten serious and started
studying things of _real_ import, like jazz-bass performance. Well, live
and learn.
Marc Sabatella
> > A radio isn't directly built from radio waves, nor are radio stations,
so
> > the analogy doesn't work so well.
>
> Instruments on which humans make music (includiong the human voice) are
> not constructed from frequency ratios either. The nature of freq ratios
> is a guiding consideration in instrument construction as well as in the
> playing of said instrument, but they do not make the instrument
> directly. So I don't really see your point.
Radios might be akin to musical instruments, but we weren't talking about
instruments. What we are really trying to construct an analogy for are
"intervals" and "scales". These are not physical apparati. And that is why
the radio analogy has no bearing on the discussion.
> > Mathematical ratios have been around since the beginning of time.
>
> No. The phenomena that Man interprets as mathematical ratios may have
> been around since the beginning of time.
And the ratios have to. It could not possibly be any other way. You might
as well say gravity didn't exist before man was around to notice apples
falling from trees.
> > Arguing about whether intervals are defined in terms of scales or vice
versa
>
> Well, perhaps I should not have used the word "defined".
> Scales are "created" by selecting intervals, based on certain criteria,
> and putting them together in a predetermined pattern.
> The opposite of this is not a pure isomorphic mapping, but it is partly
> true and I have conceded this already.
True, and in which case, I could consider this matter closed, except...
> But the interval itself, the ratio, the sound, whatever, came first *as
> a component* of the scale.
This is the part that makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you mean, man had
to play an interval bvefore he could play a scale, true, but I don't see how
this is relevant to anything, especially considering that, as you have
already observed, these intervals don't come into being if we look at the
overtone scale directly, but only if we rearrange its pitches to form a
diatonic scale. So in that sense, the scale could be said to have come
first, if one had some reason tyo care which came first. Fortunately, I
don't, because I know both concepts are simply natural expressions of more
funamental concepts.
> Actually it's still not a really a good analogy.
>
> Sheet metal is not a component of a metal cylinder (or visa versa) in
> the way that an interval is a component of a scale.
True, but that's part of the point - I don't think the intervals you
describe are fundamental component of a scale in the same way you do. It's
possible to take a scale an deonctruct it that way, but it's also possible
to deconstruct the scale in other ways (such as by talking about the
sequence of whole and half steps, or deviations from some other known
scale). As long as you preserve its fundamental properties, it shouldn't
matter how you deconstruct it
> > Both are just ways you can form steel, itself a
> > man-made alloy of iron. The properties of the steel sheets or bars are
very
> > much the properties of iron, since that is the primary component of the
> > steel.
>
> Some of the properties are the same, some are wildly different.
True. I think when I wrote that, I was going somewhere different with it.
I'm not sure we need the iron/steel distinction here. Maybe better would be
to deal with iron directly, which can also be formed into sheets or bars.
> > And the properties of these intervals and scales are very much the
> > properties of these mathematical ratios, since that is the primary
> > determinant of the relationship between musical pitches.
>
> Hmm. For me, with music, the properties of a sound created by 2 or more
> pitches at this or that freq ratio has more to do with my experience of
> the sound than it has to do with mathematics of any sort.
This is one reason I tried to stick with really simple and basic things like
sheets and bars rather than using cars and boats as I initially conisdered.
There's just way too much else going on by the time we get to that level.
With sheets and bars, the connection to the steel, and hence to the iron, is
more direct and less colored by the human experience. I believe the same to
be true of things as basic as intervals and scales, but if you try to extent
the discussion to "music" in general, it definitely breaks down for this
reason - I am most definitely not trying to say that music in general is
just a byproduct of mathematics.
> you will not get me to agree
> that scales came first and that the components of scales, namely
> intervals, came second.
I'm not trying to get you to agree to that. I'm trying to get you to agree
that there is no sense is which this determination has any importance.
But, FWIW, you pretty much already argued convincingly that these were
simultaneous "inventions" a while back, in observing that the intervals we
see as, eg, major and minor sixths only rise out of the overtone series if
we take the pitches and rearrange them to form a diatonic scale.
Joey Goldstein
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > > A radio isn't directly built from radio waves, nor are radio stations,
> so
> > > the analogy doesn't work so well.
> >
> > Instruments on which humans make music (includiong the human voice) are
> > not constructed from frequency ratios either. The nature of freq ratios
> > is a guiding consideration in instrument construction as well as in the
> > playing of said instrument, but they do not make the instrument
> > directly. So I don't really see your point.
>
> Radios might be akin to musical instruments, but we weren't talking about
> instruments. What we are really trying to construct an analogy for are
> "intervals" and "scales". These are not physical apparati. And that is why
> the radio analogy has no bearing on the discussion.
>
> > > Mathematical ratios have been around since the beginning of time.
> >
> > No. The phenomena that Man interprets as mathematical ratios may have
> > been around since the beginning of time.
>
> And the ratios have to.
No. Ratios are something invented by the mind of Man to help him make
sense of what he senses around himself.
> It could not possibly be any other way. You might
> as well say gravity didn't exist before man was around to notice apples
> falling from trees.
Gravity, is a concept used to attempt to describe an objective
phenomenon. It is not the phenomenon itself. It is something invented by
man to help him understand the world he sees around him. The effects of
what we try to describe with the word "gravity" may have been around
"forever" (a term which itself may be meaningless) but there is no way
at present to prove this.
> > > Arguing about whether intervals are defined in terms of scales or vice
> versa
> >
> > Well, perhaps I should not have used the word "defined".
> > Scales are "created" by selecting intervals, based on certain criteria,
> > and putting them together in a predetermined pattern.
> > The opposite of this is not a pure isomorphic mapping, but it is partly
> > true and I have conceded this already.
>
> True, and in which case, I could consider this matter closed, except...
>
> > But the interval itself, the ratio, the sound, whatever, came first *as
> > a component* of the scale.
>
> This is the part that makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you mean, man had
> to play an interval bvefore he could play a scale, true,
Ta da!
> but I don't see how
> this is relevant to anything,
Well that's the difference between the way you look at things and the
way I look at things, I guess.
> especially considering that, as you have
> already observed, these intervals don't come into being if we look at the
> overtone scale directly,
Some of them do. Not all of them. And this depends on what scale and
what tuning system we are talking about. Scales and tuning systems are Man-made.
> but only if we rearrange its pitches to form a
> diatonic scale.
Show me how *you* rearrange the notes of the overtone series to get a
diatonic scale.
> So in that sense, the scale could be said to have come
> first,
Yes. The overtone scale (NOT the diatonic scale) probably was the first
scale-type-thing that Man discovered. Indian music relies much more
heavily on overtone scales than Western music ever has.
> if one had some reason tyo care which came first. Fortunately, I
> don't, because I know both concepts are simply natural expressions of more
> funamental concepts.
>
> > Actually it's still not a really a good analogy.
> >
> > Sheet metal is not a component of a metal cylinder (or visa versa) in
> > the way that an interval is a component of a scale.
>
> True, but that's part of the point - I don't think the intervals you
> describe are fundamental component of a scale in the same way you do.
Well I hope that if you think about it a bit more you might come around
to my point of view. <g>
> It's
> possible to take a scale an deonctruct it that way, but it's also possible
> to deconstruct the scale in other ways (such as by talking about the
> sequence of whole and half steps,
"Whole step" and "half step" are terms used to describe *intervals*.
> or deviations from some other known
> scale).
Whether you care to acknowledge it or not when you alter a known scale
in the manner that you are talking about you are altering the
*intervals* of that scale. When you lower the *7th* degree of G major
major here's what you are doing. You start with a *maj 7th interval*
above G and you alter it to become a *min 7th interval* above G. Sheesh.
> As long as you preserve its fundamental properties, it shouldn't
> matter how you deconstruct it
And what you are left with, after whatever operation you decide to use,
is a set of intervals.
Well you won't get me to agree to that either.
> But, FWIW, you pretty much already argued convincingly that these were
> simultaneous "inventions" a while back, in observing that the intervals we
> see as, eg, major and minor sixths only rise out of the overtone series if
> we take the pitches and rearrange them to form a diatonic scale.
Show me how you re-arrange the overtone series to get a diatonic scale please.
The closest I get is a lydian b7 scale, unless I start using really high
partial numbers.
And I would have to use partial numbers in the upper stratosphere of the
overtone series to come anywhere near to the exact proportions of the
intervals used in the 12 tone equally tempered scale.
Would you at least admit that 12 tone equal temperamnet has not existed
"forever", that it is a Man-made (recently) collection of very specific intervals?
juru...@aol.com
post Clif
Wow, thanks!
Clif
pmfan57
I don't suppose you'd like to chime in on the Newton vs. Einstein
aspect of this thread????
Joe
ji...@jimmybruno.com
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123793932....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marc Sabatella
> Gravity, is a concept used to attempt to describe an objective
> phenomenon. It is not the phenomenon itself. It is something invented by
> man to help him understand the world he sees around him.
This is a distinction that has no relevance for me. Gravity is gravity.
Ratios are ratios. And intervals are intervals. There is no benefit I can
see to considered gravity as it existed before man versus gravity as it
existed after man, ratios as they existed before man versus ratios as they
existed after man, or intervals as they existed before man versus intervals
as they existed after man.
> > especially considering that, as you have
> > already observed, these intervals don't come into being if we look at
the
> > overtone scale directly,
>
> Some of them do. Not all of them. And this depends on what scale and
> what tuning system we are talking about.
True, but I don't think it helps your claim to say that some intervals
therefore predate scales even if others don't, because then you are stuck
trying to define various scales in terms of only those intervals that
existed before any scales.
> Scales and tuning systems are Man-made.
Any given performance of the scale is. The scale itself is a simple fact,
like gravity.
> > but only if we rearrange its pitches to form a
> > diatonic scale.
>
> Show me how *you* rearrange the notes of the overtone series to get a
> diatonic scale.
I wrote imprecisely. I should have referred to the rearrangement pitches
drawn from several different overtone series, each built on tones drawn from
the last.
> Yes. The overtone scale (NOT the diatonic scale)
You'll have to explain that distinction. It's not one I'm familiar with.
> > It's
> > possible to take a scale an deonctruct it that way, but it's also
possible
> > to deconstruct the scale in other ways (such as by talking about the
> > sequence of whole and half steps,
>
> "Whole step" and "half step" are terms used to describe *intervals*.
Right, but not intervals above the root. If you choose to define a scale in
terms of intervals above the tonic, then the step sequence is a corollary,
as is the deviation between the scale and the major scale. But if you
choose to define the scale in terms of the step sequence, then the series of
intervals above the tonic is a corollary, as is, again, the deviation
between the scale and the major scale. And if you choose to define the
scale in terms of the deviation from the major, then the
interval-above-tonic and step sequence are both corollaries. Saying that
one of these is "right" and the others aren't is what I am saying is
pointless. They are equivalent.
> Whether you care to acknowledge it or not when you alter a known scale
> in the manner that you are talking about you are altering the
> *intervals* of that scale.
Of course. You're also altering the step sequence. It's all the same
ratios you're dealing with, so I remain unimpressed by attempts to say that
one instantiation of those ratios is more fundamental than another.
> > I'm trying to get you to agree
> > that there is no sense is which this determination has any importance.
>
> Well you won't get me to agree to that either.
Well, you have yet to suggest a difference that even in some alternate
universe would have any importance whatsoever.
> And I would have to use partial numbers in the upper stratosphere of the
> overtone series to come anywhere near to the exact proportions of the
> intervals used in the 12 tone equally tempered scale.
> Would you at least admit that 12 tone equal temperamnet has not existed
> "forever", that it is a Man-made (recently) collection of very specific
intervals?
These ratios have existed forever just as any others have. Use of any of
these ratios to define scales or intervals is moe recent, of course, but the
important thing is, the ratios predate any of them. So saying that one is
fundamental and defined in temrs of the other is just BS. Both are defined
in terms of the more ancient concept - the mathematics.
unknowngu...@comcast.net
You've demonstrated that in addition to being extremely talented,
you're very smart.
I gotta get me one of them 10 foot poles too.
Joey Goldstein
Obviously we disagree.
--
ji...@jimmybruno.com
caught my eye.
I know this is NOT what you are talking about but I think tonal centers have
a "tonal" gravity. If you play Gm7 C7 in your ear(at least in mine) is an F.
It's there whether or not the tune goes there or not.
What do you think about this concept
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:42FBEB0F...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
"jbru...@comcast.net" wrote:
>
> Joey, I haven't been following this thread that close but the gravity idea
> caught my eye.
> I know this is NOT what you are talking about but I think tonal centers have
> a "tonal" gravity. If you play Gm7 C7 in your ear(at least in mine) is an F.
> It's there whether or not the tune goes there or not.
> What do you think about this concept
Well, yes, but that is a different topic from the stuff I'm talking
about which is the feeling, sometimes strong sometimes weak, that many
chords (but not all) have roots and the acoustical reasons that this
feeling may come about.
You're talking about the feeling of a tonic, a final resting tone, in
Tonal music (music that utilizes the maj/min key system) and modern
music that is not attempting to be atonal (in which a central tone of
rest is avoided).
It's interesting too that George Russell uses the term "tonal gravity"
throughout his own theoretical ideas. I never really understood what it
meant to him though but it is different than what you are talking about.
For me, when I start thinking about things that can be described by
"tonal gravity" it's more or less a feeling that certain subsets of the
12 tone equal tempered scale have a place together and apart from the
the remaining notes. I.e. Some notes just feel like they should be
together. The reasons why usually have to do with tonics and roots
though. It's all interrelated.
So I guess the answer is no then?
That you've never run across the idea of acoustical roots of intervals
or of chords?
It's strange to me that almost nobody has been exposed to this idea,
especially since I'm finding it so illuminating in my own studies.
The real serious theory guys, the Ph.D types, have tried to tell me that
the theory (originating in Rameau and Hindemith I believe) has been
disproved and is out of favour. But I never really understood or agreed
with their proofs! <g> And the theory, as I understand it has really
helped me to get a handle on lots of things I didn't have a handle on
before, even it it's wrong. <g>
unknowngu...@comcast.net
to the relationship between diatonic scales and the overtone series, a
discussion music history and finally, a WWF-style Steel Cage Death
Match between Newton and Einstein (let us never speak of this again -
please).
Last night I pulled a book off my shelf that I read about 35 years ago
and haven't looked at since - "The Craft of Musical Composition" by
Paul Hindemeth (I think Joey mentioned Hindemeth somewhere along the
way - probably supporting Einstein, that cheap slut). Seriously, if
you're not familiar with it, it's an incredible book.
Thumbing through it, in the chapter on melody near the end of the book,
Hindemeth talks about using the major scale and its modes as a source
for creating melody as opposed to the chromatic scale. He makes an
interesting point about the relation of each to the overtone series.
He points out that the chromatic scale is more directly derived from
the overtone scale than the major scale, which requires some
"adjustment", and that in many respects, the chromatic scale is a more
natural source for melody.
(It was late and I may have garbled or oversimplified his reasoning - I
can post the exact paragraph later if anyone is interested).
I'm not sure how this relates to the original discussion
(understandable, since I can't remember what the original discussion
was), but figured I'd pass it along anyhow.
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?
Keith Freeman
-Keith
Music samples, tips, Portable Changes at
http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
E-mail: keith DOT freeman AT wanadoo DOT nl
Joey Goldstein
derived from the overtones of a single fundamental, would not contain
the same intervals as any of the popular temperaments that have been
used for music making by Western composers, especially if you look to
the various tunings of the various diatonic scales that western
composers have used.
But in the upper regions of the overtone series the pitch of the
partials gets closer and closer together eventually approximating the
chromatic scale.
Here is the overtone series of C up to the 24th partial:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
C C G C E G Bb C D E F# G Ab/A Bb B
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
C C# D Eb E F F# ?? G
First of all we need to realize that the note letter-name system is
always an approximation. "E" means different frequencies in different
tunings and tuning standards. In 12 TET at A=440 "E" is a different
sound than it is in a just intonation in A major at A=440. The note that
I'm calling "Bb" in the overtone series of C is a significantly
different sound (I think it's lower) from any "Bb" that has been used in
any popular temperament that I am aware of, except perhaps for some
Indian rags. Still, the note names are applied to the overtones because
they are proportionally similar in sound to the notes we have used, and
named, in our music making over the eons. Also, the 13th partial of C is
a note somewhere between Ab and A in most tuning systems. Usually it is
listed as A though.
So, in the area of the overtone series where we see step-wise motion
similar to that of a diatonic scale (the area between the 7th partial
through the 16th partial) we don't actually get a full diatonic scale.
The first "familiar" 7 note scale that emerges is Bb lydian augmented.
Bb C D E F# G A
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
The first familar scale that emerges whose tonic is the fundamental, C,
is C lydian b7.
C D E F# G A Bb
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
The first fully diatonic scale that emerges from the series is what we
now call the C lydian scale, but it involves one non contiguous partial:
C D E F# G A B C
8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16
The first "major scale" that emerges is not built on the fundamental, it
is G major:
G A B C D E F# G
12 13 15 16 18 20 22 24
So, a G major scale tuned to pure overtone intervals would have an
acoustical root on C, not G.
So, I'm not sure, but Hindemith may have been pointing out some of these
commonalities and differences between the overtone scale and the scales
actually used by Western composers.
That s a very good book. There's two of them aren't there? But I found
it very hard reading for my poor little brain. I got pretty much all i
know (or think I know) about this stuff from Gordon delamont's book
Modern Harmonic Technique, Vol 1. I think he got it from Hindemith and
just distilled the stuff that contemporary writers and players need to
know about.
--
unknowngu...@comcast.net
Yeah Joey, there are 2 books. I believe the one I have is volume 2. I
don't remember how or why, but I got it when I was a teenager when
thinking seriously about music was quite new to me, and that book
opened my eyes for the very first time to the origins of musical sound.
It was (is) complicated, and I doubt that I really understood much,
but just getting exposed to those ideas and realizing that there was
more to the world than blues licks was a huge, huge step for me.
That's interesting about the 2 Lydian scales being the "most natural"
scales to fall out of the overtone series. I didn't realize that.
I think that Hindemith was making a similar point to what was said
earlier in the thread - that the major scales, although useful, are an
artifact of western creation, and that there are other equally valid
and potentially useful structures that can be extracted from the
naturally occurring overtone series (if you like that then I probably
shouldn't mention that in the next paragraph he goes on to point out
that the pentatonic scale is quite "natural" but relatively useless -
he was probably a buddy of that hack Einstein <gr>).
Like I said, I just took a quick glance at Hindemith last night...just
enough to realize that it's about time to take another stab at it.
Joey Goldstein
has extracted from the series is the perf 5th. And the Western scale
system, through guys like Pythagoras, has evolved by stacking this most
harmonious of harmonious intervals in order to find even more pleasing
tonal combinations.
The pentatonic scale is found in virtually all cultures, I think, in one
form or another.
It can be constructed by stacking 4 P5th intervals and transposing the
resulting pitches so that they span a single octave only.
I.e.
C G D A E
becomes
C D E G A C
As far as I know, it is only in the West and in India that the idea to
go beyond 4 P5ths was explored. There are Indian rags that are based off
of a sound very similar to out Ionian scale as well as the various
"modes" of our diatonic scale. In the West the diatonic scale appears to
have evolved by stacking 6 P5ths rather than just 4.
F C G D A E B
becomes
F G A B C D E F
Presmuably one reason this was attractive to musicians is because at the
7 note level we almost get something like a full circle. i.e. E is very
close to F.
The stacking of 5ths can be extended to an infinite number but the
circle will never fully close.
At 21 P5ths we get something similar to our present day notions of the
chromatic scale:
Fb Cb Gb Db Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E B F# C# G# D# A# E# B#
The scale of 21 pure 5ths points the way towards a music that can be
based on diatonicism but with occassional chromatic enhancement as well
as modulation to other diatonic tone sets. Western music has always been
based on diatonicism, except perhaps in prehistoric times and modern times.
But in a diatonic scale of pure 5ths, while the octaves and 5ths and
4ths and 9ths and 2nds sound nice, the 3rds and 6ths sound sort of sour.
Centuries of tempering (detuning) the intervals in the Pythagorean
diatonic scale ensued so that more and more of its potential interval
combinations were less sour. The results of these experimentation are
just intonations as well as our contemporary abomination (just kidding)
the equally tempered scale. Tuning systems in which 3rds sounded better
than Pythagorean tuning were essential to the advent of harmony, and
harmonic progression a purely Western notion.
And that's everything I know (or think I know) about everything. God how
I can babble on. I have no idea why I'm writing this stuff now. ....
Oh yeah. I wanted to say that i don't really see the pentatonic scale as
being any more "natural" as far as the overtone series is concerned. It
is certainly more common across the various cultures though.
The pentatonic scale built on the fundamental occurs within the
following partials:
8 9 10 12 13
and a pure 13th partial sounds quite flat to our notions of a maj 6th interval.
Still the pentatonic scale, or sim, is more readily extracted from the
series than the diatonic scale is. Maybe that's what Hindemith was
getting at. Maybe not.
--
edi...@rcn.com
places that in some forms of Georgian folk music the fundamental
interval is the 5th rather than the octave. I have, from time to time,
tried to locate recorded examples of this but I have gotten nowhere.
Joey Goldstein
the terms you are looking for are "dominant" and "finalis".
The "finalis" is the last note of a chant and is the tone from which the
mode gets its name.
This is a very similar (although also very different) idea as the
"tonic" in Tonal music (i.e. music based on major and minor keys rather
than on the Medieval the modal system).
The "tonic" is the central tone from which no further resolution is
required or felt to be required in Tonal (with a capital "T") music. We
usually know it as the 1st tone of the major or minor scale on which a
piece of Tonal music is based on.
The "dominant" is a tone that dominates the motive feeling (the forward
motion towards the finalis) of a modal piece. Tonal music also uses the
term "dominant" to describe something similar in relation to the tonic.
Some modal compositional strategies may have looked to us like A
Aeolian, with lines originating on A's, until the finalis was arrived
at, on D, where we then can see the piece as having been in D dorian. I
believe there may have been dominant-finalis strategies in Medieval
modal music where the 2 tones were a 3rd apart, rather than a 5th-4th.
Again, I'm *really* sketchy on the modal practices of Medieval music so
this might all be bullshit. But I think I'm somewhat close. At any rate,
Medieval modal practices were part of a totaly different paradigm and
used totally different terminology from the way we jazz musicians today
think about and discuss "modes".
"Fundamental" is a term that is used in reference to music as a
description of a tone that is the generative tone of an overtone series.
Sometimes the acoustical root of a chord or of an interval is referred
to as the fundamental of the chord or of the interval. Sometimes the
word "fundamental" might be used to describe other things in music too,
but never a note within a scale (unless that note is being discussed as
the generative tone of an overtone series).
"Octave" describes two tones that are 8 steps apart within a 7 tone
diatonic scale system. Octaves share the same letter name, and are
called "octaves", for this reason.
Octaves also can be seen as being 13 semitones apart in the 12 tone
equally tempered scale system.
Octaves also have the quality that their frequencies, vibrations per
second, are exact mulitiples of one another. Eg, A = 55, 110, 220, 440, etc.
--