Seventh Mode of Harmonc Minor
Fiona Abrahami
it works for most people.
How do we name the modes of the Harmonic Minor scale, particularly the
seventh mode? I'm currently using:
1. Harmonic minor
2. Locrian nat6
3. Augmented (Ionian #5)
4. Dorian #4
5. Phrygian major
6. Lydian #2
7. Superlocrian dim7 or superlocrian bb7
But these are my own terms based on the similarities to, and variations
from, the major modes, are there "officially" recognised terms used in
academia?
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
There is no common name for the 7th mode of harm min.
"Superlocrian b7" is the closest I've come, but i don't expect anyone
else to understand what I'm talking about when I use that term.
Just calling it "7th mode of harm min" seems to work the best.
BTW
Superlocrian bb7 means that you take the 7th usually found in the
superlocrian scale and lower that twice. So B superlocrian bb7 would be:
B C D Eb F G Abb
I used to use scale names like "locrian nat6" too, trying to label the
exotic interval rather than labeling its relative alteration from the
original scale. But "locrian #6", the latter approach, is more common.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Jack Campin - bogus address
> seventh mode? I'm currently using:
> 1. Harmonic minor
Nihavent, nahawand
> 5. Phrygian major
Hijaz
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
Hans Aberg
> There is no common name for the 7th mode of harm min.
>
> "Superlocrian b7" is the closest I've come, but i don't expect anyone
> else to understand what I'm talking about when I use that term.
> Just calling it "7th mode of harm min" seems to work the best.
Scala
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/modename.html
mentions
1 2 1 2 2 1 3 Ultra Locrian, Mixolydian sharp 1
Hans Aberg
LJS
Hi,
I believe that it is mostly the RMT CPPers that object to calling
rotations modes. In modern theory I don't think that there is a
problem.
There are of course many variations. Here are the ones that I have
studied.
1. Aeolian n7 (Ior #7 depending on your persuasion) And of course
Harmonic Minor (but some would call this a KEY :-)
2. Locrian n6
3. Ionian#5
4. Dorian#4
5. Phrygian n3
6. Lydian#2
7 Altered bb7 some prefer Mixolydian #1, but that is a specialized
few!
Mine came from a course that I took in Modal Jazz Composition and
Harmony. As long as the term is descriptive enough for the people
using it, it really doesn't matter. There were many different opinions
in the class, mostly by those that wanted to show off or just postpone
serious study. In use, however, the way that the modes were treated
for harmonic considerations, the most clear and simple notation turned
out to be the use of: Parent Scale/bass (or root) note. Thus a
Phrygian n3 built on the C harmonic scale would be C harmonic/G or
Parent Scale C harmonic with a C root.
This is a very specialized notation that is not for use in a specific
style of modal atonality and is not intended for everyday use. Until
there would be a functional use of this concept (a tonal use of the
frequent changes of modality to relate to a specific key) there is no
use to use notation with RN. Thus C-harmonic/V would not have any real
meaning in this light.
LJS
LJS
> "Superlocrian b7" is the closest I've come, but i don't expect anyone
> else to understand what I'm talking about when I use that term.
> Just calling it "7th mode of harm min" seems to work the best.
Although I am glad that you agree with me that the names are not the
best way to refer to these "exotic" modes. I am however, a bit put off
by your statement that you expect that you are the only person in this
group that wold understand your names. I didn't realize that you
considered your level of understanding to be so far above everyone
else!
Joey Goldstein
I've seen scale names with #1 before.
I don't much like it.
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
> Fiona Abrahami wrote:
>> Ok, Ok, I know r.m.t.ers don't like calling rotations of scales modes,
>> but it works for most people.
>>
>> How do we name the modes of the Harmonic Minor scale, particularly the
>> seventh mode? I'm currently using:
>>
>> 1. Harmonic minor
>> 2. Locrian nat6
>> 3. Augmented (Ionian #5)
>> 4. Dorian #4
>> 5. Phrygian major
>> 6. Lydian #2
>> 7. Superlocrian dim7 or superlocrian bb7
>>
>> But these are my own terms based on the similarities to, and variations
>> from, the major modes, are there "officially" recognised terms used in
>> academia?
>
>
> "Superlocrian b7" is the closest I've come, but i don't expect anyone else
> to understand what I'm talking about when I use that term.
> Just calling it "7th mode of harm min" seems to work the best.
>
> BTW
> Superlocrian bb7 means that you take the 7th usually found in the
> superlocrian scale and lower that twice. So B superlocrian bb7 would be:
> B C D Eb F G Abb
>
> I used to use scale names like "locrian nat6" too, trying to label the
> exotic interval rather than labeling its relative alteration from the
> original scale. But "locrian #6", the latter approach, is more common.
Thanks for your response, and I hear what you are saying, but I do find it
more confusing to use terms that cancel a modification by using another
modification. Perhaps it's just my need to start with a single fixed
reference point rather than mny reference points that is the problem. To me,
names like Locrian are themselves shorthand for particular sequences of
modifications to the Ionian template which is the primary reference point
for all scalar sequences in Western music; Locrian is saying to me "modify
the template to root, b2, b3, 4, b5, b6, b7," and therefore the message I
get from the term Locrian #6 is "modify the template to root, b2, b3, 4, b5,
#6, b7" i.e. its not telling that the 6th note is sharpened from its flatted
position, but that the b6 is actually a #6 (which of course for locrian is
the same note as the b7).
In the past when we discussed Superlocrian (a.k.a. Altered or Locrian b4),
you argued that I was wrong to refer to the b4 as a b4 because it sounded
like major third from the root and that the sounding intervals were what the
scale was referring to, not the numerical sequence, thus you argued the
Altered scale was root, b2, #2, 3, b5, b6, b7 not root, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6,
b7, but here you arguing the opposite, here you are arguing that a natural 6
should be called a #6, which doesn't fit your sounding interval theory nor
at all.
I'm beginning to think a lot naming conventions (particularly from the jazz
world) just haven't been thought through properly, so I'll just have to use
my own names and justify them when necessary. :-)
Fiona
Fiona Abrahami
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ok, Ok, I know r.m.t.ers don't like calling rotations of scales modes,
>> but
>> it works for most people.
>>
>> How do we name the modes of the Harmonic Minor scale, particularly the
>> seventh mode? I'm currently using:
>>
>> 1. Harmonic minor
>> 2. Locrian nat6
>> 3. Augmented (Ionian #5)
>> 4. Dorian #4
>> 5. Phrygian major
>> 6. Lydian #2
>> 7. Superlocrian dim7 or superlocrian bb7
>>
>> But these are my own terms based on the similarities to, and variations
>> from, the major modes, are there "officially" recognised terms used in
>> academia?
>
> I believe that it is mostly the RMT CPPers that object to calling
> rotations modes. In modern theory I don't think that there is a
> problem.
You weren't around when r.m.t. went through mode/rotation hell a couple of
years ago. Bloody pointless!
> 7 Altered bb7 some prefer Mixolydian #1, but that is a specialized
> few!
Mixolydian #1, like Altered is Ionian #1? :-) Nah, I'm not buying into that.
Interesting factoid though, if you go through what I like to call the Minor
Additive Flat Cycle (gotta call it something) where you start with a plain
vanilla major scale and add flats through the minor modes on the same root,
Jazz Minor (1 flat), Dorian (2 flats), Aeolian (3 flats), Phrygian (4
flats), Locrian (5 flats), Superlocrian a.k.a. Altered, Locrian b4 (6
flats), all you have to do is drop the root down a semitone to start the
whole process again on a new root because Superlocrian is Ionian #1. :-)
Hours of fun on a rainy day.
Hmmm. Clearly I have too much time on my hands.
Fiona
LJS
<fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Ok, Ok, I know r.m.t.ers don't like calling rotations of scales modes,
> >> but
> >> it works for most people.
>
> >> How do we name the modes of the Harmonic Minor scale, particularly the
> >> seventh mode? I'm currently using:
>
> >> 1. Harmonic minor
> >> 2. Locrian nat6
> >> 3. Augmented (Ionian #5)
> >> 4. Dorian #4
> >> 5. Phrygian major
> >> 6. Lydian #2
> >> 7. Superlocrian dim7 or superlocrian bb7
>
> >> But these are my own terms based on the similarities to, and variations
> >> from, the major modes, are there "officially" recognised terms used in
> >> academia?
>
> > I believe that it is mostly the RMT CPPers that object to calling
> > rotations modes. In modern theory I don't think that there is a
> > problem.
>
> You weren't around when r.m.t. went through mode/rotation hell a couple of
> years ago. Bloody pointless!
>
> > 7 Altered bb7 some prefer Mixolydian #1, but that is a specialized
> > few!
>
> Mixolydian #1, like Altered is Ionian #1? :-) Nah, I'm not buying into that.
I didn't either. But I have seen it from time to time. I like the
Parent scale and starting note of the mode myself. Then there is no
confusion. It also facilitates playing in that mode which is important
if you are working with many different modes that change frequently.
We already know all the basic scales, so we can instantly go to the
correct mode with that information and not have to learn each one
separately. Maybe that doesn't bother one who has too much time on
their hands! lol
>
> Interesting factoid though, if you go through what I like to call the Minor
> Additive Flat Cycle (gotta call it something) where you start with a plain
> vanilla major scale and add flats through the minor modes on the same root,
> Jazz Minor (1 flat), Dorian (2 flats), Aeolian (3 flats), Phrygian (4
> flats), Locrian (5 flats), Superlocrian a.k.a. Altered, Locrian b4 (6
> flats), all you have to do is drop the root down a semitone to start the
> whole process again on a new root because Superlocrian is Ionian #1. :-)
> Hours of fun on a rainy day.
>
> Hmmm. Clearly I have too much time on my hands.
>
> Fiona
You mean like this:
C D E F G A B C Major
C D E F G A BbC Jazz Minor? Not Mixolydian?
C D EbF G A BbC Dorian
C D EbF G AbBbC Aeolean etc.
I just don't understand the 1b being called the jazz minor. I have
heard some refer to C D Eb G A B C or something like that as Jazz
Minor, but not the one I wrote above. That is simply a mixolydian.
This does seem to be a good exercise to get used to the finger
patterns of the modes in all keys as well as a cycle of 5th exercise.
Talk later.
LJS
Fiona Abrahami
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Interesting factoid though, if you go through what I like to call the
>> Minor
>> Additive Flat Cycle (gotta call it something) where you start with a
>> plain
>> vanilla major scale and add flats through the minor modes on the same
>> root,
>> Jazz Minor (1 flat), Dorian (2 flats), Aeolian (3 flats), Phrygian (4
>> flats), Locrian (5 flats), Superlocrian a.k.a. Altered, Locrian b4 (6
>> flats), all you have to do is drop the root down a semitone to start the
>> whole process again on a new root because Superlocrian is Ionian #1. :-)
>> Hours of fun on a rainy day.
>>
>> Hmmm. Clearly I have too much time on my hands.
>
>
> C D E F G A B C Major
> C D E F G A BbC Jazz Minor? Not Mixolydian?
No, C D Eb F G A B C is the Jazz Minor, same as the upward melodic minor but
also used descending.
> C D EbF G A BbC Dorian
> C D EbF G AbBbC Aeolean etc.
>
> I just don't understand the 1b being called the jazz minor. I have
> heard some refer to C D Eb G A B C or something like that as Jazz
> Minor, but not the one I wrote above. That is simply a mixolydian.
Ah, I should have read down a bit, yup that's the jazz minor (I'm assuming
your missing fourth was a typo). The point here is minors, ergo, the flat
three basic requirement for minor scales.
> This does seem to be a good exercise to get used to the finger
> patterns of the modes in all keys as well as a cycle of 5th exercise.
This cycle doesn't include the various major (lydian and mixolydian) modes
though.
Fiona
LJS
<fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote
But I thought that you said to start with the Major Scale! So I added
the first flat, and that is where I got the C D E F G A Bb C. Did you
mean to say that you started with a minor scale or the Harmonic Minor
ascending? Did I misunderstand this:
> >> Minor Additive Flat Cycle (gotta call it something) where you start with a
> >> plain
> >> vanilla major scale and add flats through the minor modes on the same
> >> root,
I just added flats to the Vanilla Major Scale. Maybe I did not
understand this factoid! But what I did does work as a great exercise
to go thruough all the keys and the modes built on them. I guess it
would work for he Minor modes as well. I will have to check them out.
It should work for them all, its just too late now and I have several
gigs this weekend, may not be able to try it out until my busy next
week! I could use more free time on my hands! lol, or at least more
activities that actually bring in cash. Trying to get my house rebuilt
takes up a lot of time but no one pays me for that!
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Evidently you misunderstood what I was saying.
I've got no time right now, but see if you can find the thread again and
re-read it.
> I'm beginning to think a lot naming conventions (particularly from the jazz
> world) just haven't been thought through properly, so I'll just have to use
> my own names and justify them when necessary. :-)
>
>
> Fiona
>
>
Fiona Abrahami
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> Interesting factoid though, if you go through what I like to call the
>> >> Minor Additive Flat Cycle (gotta call it something) where you start
>> >> with a plain vanilla major scale and add flats through the minor
>> >> modes on the same root,
>> >> Jazz Minor (1 flat), Dorian (2 flats), Aeolian (3 flats), Phrygian (4
>> >> flats), Locrian (5 flats), Superlocrian a.k.a. Altered, Locrian b4 (6
>> >> flats), all you have to do is drop the root down a semitone to start
>> >> the
>> >> whole process again on a new root because Superlocrian is Ionian #1.
>> >> :-)
>> >> Hours of fun on a rainy day.
>>
>>
>> > C D E F G A B C Major
>> > C D E F G A BbC Jazz Minor? Not Mixolydian?
>>
>> No, C D Eb F G A B C is the Jazz Minor, same as the upward melodic minor
>> but
>> also used descending.
>>
>> > C D EbF G A BbC Dorian
>> > C D EbF G AbBbC Aeolean etc.
>>
>> > patterns of the modes in all keys as well as a cycle of 5th exercise.
>>
>> This cycle doesn't include the various major (lydian and mixolydian)
>> modes
>> though.
>
> the first flat, and that is where I got the C D E F G A Bb C. Did you
> mean to say that you started with a minor scale or the Harmonic Minor
> ascending? Did I misunderstand this:
>
> understand this factoid!
OK, I'll try again.
Start with a plain vanilla major scale, say C major:
C D E F G A B C
Then play the most basic minor scale on the same root, C jazz minor, it has
one flat:
C D Eb F G A B C
Then play a minor scale with two flats, there are two possible scales -
dorian or harmonic minor:
C D Eb F G A Bb C or
C D Eb F G Ab B C
Then the minor scale with three flats, aeolian:
C D Eb F G Ab Bb C
The four flats, phrygian:
C Db Eb F G Ab Bb C
Five flats, locrian:
C Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb C
Six flats, superlocrian:
C Bb Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb C
Now flatten the root and you are back to major, B major because C
superlocrian is enharmonic to B ionian with a #1 (if such a thing could
exist).
B C# D# E F# G# A# B
Repeat back to C major.
Got it now?
Fiona
Tom K.
"Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fsitds$9f6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> Then play the most basic minor scale on the same root, C jazz minor, it
> has one flat:
>
> C D Eb F G A B C
>
more universal "ascending melodic minor"?
Tom K.
Joey Goldstein
Hmm.
You see the min 6th of a regular locrian scale as somehow being a
modification of something?
It isn't. It's just a min 6th interval. It hasn't been "modified" from a
maj 6th interval. It's just what it is.
What *I'd* to have is a system of scale naming where the numerals and
accidentals describe the exact intervals in the scale, as well as
possible. That's why I used to favor "locrian nat 2" over "locrian #2".
By that method, when trying to deal with the 7th mode of harmonic minor,
we'd get "superlocrian dim 7th".
Still, the other way, at this point in time, appears to be the common
accepted parlance.
> Perhaps it's just my need to start with a single fixed
> reference point rather than mny reference points that is the problem. To me,
> names like Locrian are themselves shorthand for particular sequences of
> modifications to the Ionian template
There is no "ionian template". there are just intervallic formulas.
> which is the primary reference point
> for all scalar sequences in Western music;
Nope.
> Locrian is saying to me "modify
> the template to root, b2, b3, 4, b5, b6, b7,"
Nope.
That's just shorthand for:
"a min 2nd interval, a min 3rd interval, etc."
> and therefore the message I
> get from the term Locrian #6 is "modify the template to root, b2, b3, 4, b5,
> #6, b7" i.e. its not telling that the 6th note is sharpened from its flatted
> position, but that the b6 is actually a #6 (which of course for locrian is
> the same note as the b7).
I understand that it seems odd at first, and that this is because many
other more commonly used scale names (eg. mix b2 b6) involve alterations
to the scale-name-type that involve modifications of maj, min, and perf
intervals. But the "mixolydian b2 b6" means: take a mixolydian scale and
lower *its* 2nd and 6th degrees". Likewise, "locrian #2" is not
specifying an aug 2nd degree, it's saying "take a regular locrian scale
and raise *its* 6th degree".
It's like the classical way of looking at the minor scales. Harm min is
a nat min scale with raised 7th. Mel min is a nat min scale with raised
6th and 7th. Etc.
> In the past when we discussed Superlocrian (a.k.a. Altered or Locrian b4),
> you argued that I was wrong to refer to the b4 as a b4
I never said that.
When constructing the superlocrian scale the 4th degree is a b4
interval. Its intervallic formula is:
1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7
> because it sounded
> like major third from the root and that the sounding intervals were what the
> scale was referring to,
Because b4s sound like maj 3rds this scale is usually unsuitable in a
*chord-scale-relationship* with the tertian chord built on its 1st note,
which is a min7b5 chord.
The scale is more usable on dom7alt chords instead. When it is being
used as "the altered dominant scale" rather than as "the superlocrian
scale" *I* happen to think that it makes *more sense* to label this note
as the maj 3rd of the chord. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
b4 is more right actually. But 3 makes more sense.
> not the numerical sequence, thus you argued the
> Altered scale was root, b2, #2, 3, b5, b6, b7 not root, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6,
> b7,
If we're talking about the same thread I also gave several other ways of
spelling the scale.
> but here you arguing the opposite, here you are arguing that a natural 6
> should be called a #6, which doesn't fit your sounding interval theory nor
> at all.
See, above.
> I'm beginning to think a lot naming conventions (particularly from the jazz
> world) just haven't been thought through properly, so I'll just have to use
> my own names and justify them when necessary. :-)
>
>
> Fiona
>
>
Joey Goldstein
It's just another term for it. Takes up less space on the page.
And it is jazz musicians who seem to make the most use out of this scale.
LJS
Yes, I was just starting with the major and adding the flats in the
normal order. In the end this will also bring you around and you will
be doing your next series of scales on B as well.
Talk later.
LJS
> What *I'd* to have is a system of scale naming where the numerals and
> accidentals describe the exact intervals in the scale, as well as
> possible. That's why I used to favor "locrian nat 2" over "locrian #2".
> By that method, when trying to deal with the 7th mode of harmonic minor,
> we'd get "superlocrian dim 7th".
> Still, the other way, at this point in time, appears to be the common
> accepted parlance.
>
How does that work on the B locrian!
B locrian
B C D E F G A B
B locrian nat2
B Cnat D E F G A B
Yes, that works fine! lol
LJS
Fiona Abrahami
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
You mock, but think how you would express that scale as a chord;
Bm9b5(b13) - it's not a #9 it's a natural 9 as far as B is concerned.
Fiona
Fiona Abrahami
If we call it a b6, the flattness means something no? For it to be flatted,
or minored, the definition implies a modification.
> What *I'd* to have is a system of scale naming where the numerals and
> accidentals describe the exact intervals in the scale, as well as
> possible. That's why I used to favor "locrian nat 2" over "locrian #2".
What I'm really trying to get to is unified approach to chord structure and
scale names; it's that heptachord chord/scale thing again where if you
rearrange the scale you get the 13th chord. What I want to see is
consistency. So you play a locrian scale over a m7b5, but how do you express
that scale as a heptad - m7b5(b9, b13), but a locrian with a raised 2 is
going to be m9b5(b13) not m7b5(#9, b13). That's why, even though I hear what
you're saying, I'm still favouring the nat2 rather than #2.
> By that method, when trying to deal with the 7th mode of harmonic minor,
> we'd get "superlocrian dim 7th".
That's the name I'm using for it, because it fits with the Dim7 chord; the
13th chord would be dim7(b9,b11,13).
>> Perhaps it's just my need to start with a single fixed reference point
>> rather than mny reference points that is the problem. To me, names like
>> Locrian are themselves shorthand for particular sequences of
>> modifications to the Ionian template
>
> There is no "ionian template". there are just intervallic formulas.
I know, I'm using Ionian as the basic intervallic formula, as it is where we
all start and it is the scale sequence most familiar to us.
>> Locrian is saying to me "modify the template to root, b2, b3, 4, b5, b6,
>> b7,"
>
> Nope.
What, you can read my mind?
> That's just shorthand for:
> "a min 2nd interval, a min 3rd interval, etc."
Same thing, different persepective.
>> In the past when we discussed Superlocrian (a.k.a. Altered or Locrian
>> b4), you argued that I was wrong to refer to the b4 as a b4
>
> I never said that.
> When constructing the superlocrian scale the 4th degree is a b4 interval.
> Its intervallic formula is:
> 1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7
Did you check what you actually wrote?
Fiona
LJS
<fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote
But a m9th above B would be a C and would normally be written with
either a "-9" or a "b9". We don't usually label intervals by nats as
that would require the knowledge of a key signature and thus would
imply a Classical approach and this wold not occur there as a B chord.
It would have to be a RN notated chord. This is why most of the Jazz
musicians I know prefer the - & + signs in the chord symbol. We will
have to see what the Jazz experts on extended notation (the guitar
players!) say as they are the only ones that usually care about them
anyway. lol
>
> Fiona
I don't think I was mocking you. It was a response to Joey that I
illustrated his example!
I will be interested as to how that notation will be interpreted!
Generally, when writing chord symbols, one does not normally think of
the Locrian mode. I would think that as notated, most would see the
Bm9 as B D F# A C# then lower the F# to Fnat and add the G and flat
it! This would give you a B D F# A C# (E) Gb which is not the chord.
As I understand the notation of the chords, you start with the
rootband then modify the intervals of the chord as needed or in this
case, B D F A C E G would be a Bm7-5(add -9 11 13) but I would simply
write "B locrian" or Dm7/B for simplicity, or Cmaj / (=OVER) Bm7b5.
These three all use chord symbols or terms that everyone can
understand.
Sorry, if I seemed to mock you, I certainly had no intention to do
that.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
You can look at it that way, if you must, but it's just shorthand for "a
minor 6th interval".
>> What *I'd* to have is a system of scale naming where the numerals and
>> accidentals describe the exact intervals in the scale, as well as
>> possible. That's why I used to favor "locrian nat 2" over "locrian #2".
>
> What I'm really trying to get to is unified approach to chord structure and
> scale names; it's that heptachord chord/scale thing again where if you
> rearrange the scale you get the 13th chord. What I want to see is
> consistency.
Good luck.
It's more important to me just to have other musicians I talk to know
what I'm talking about.
> So you play a locrian scale over a m7b5, but how do you express
> that scale as a heptad - m7b5(b9, b13), but a locrian with a raised 2 is
> going to be m9b5(b13) not m7b5(#9, b13). That's why, even though I hear what
> you're saying, I'm still favouring the nat2 rather than #2.
I favor "locrian natural 2" myself.
But most people say "locrian #2". I'm just trying to tell you why.
>> By that method, when trying to deal with the 7th mode of harmonic minor,
>> we'd get "superlocrian dim 7th".
>
> That's the name I'm using for it, because it fits with the Dim7 chord; the
> 13th chord would be dim7(b9,b11,13).
>
>>> Perhaps it's just my need to start with a single fixed reference point
>>> rather than mny reference points that is the problem. To me, names like
>>> Locrian are themselves shorthand for particular sequences of
>>> modifications to the Ionian template
>> There is no "ionian template". there are just intervallic formulas.
>
> I know, I'm using Ionian as the basic intervallic formula, as it is where we
> all start and it is the scale sequence most familiar to us.
>
>>> Locrian is saying to me "modify the template to root, b2, b3, 4, b5, b6,
>>> b7,"
>> Nope.
>
> What, you can read my mind?
>
>> That's just shorthand for:
>> "a min 2nd interval, a min 3rd interval, etc."
>
> Same thing, different persepective.
Nope. They're different things.
If you need to invoke the intervals in the major scale in order to
figure out the other possible intervals, then that's fine. But you
shouldn't have to, and you don't really have to. It is often convenient
(even practical) to think that way, especially for guitar players, but
it's not really what's going on.
>>> In the past when we discussed Superlocrian (a.k.a. Altered or Locrian
>>> b4), you argued that I was wrong to refer to the b4 as a b4
>> I never said that.
>> When constructing the superlocrian scale the 4th degree is a b4 interval.
>> Its intervallic formula is:
>> 1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7
>
> Did you check what you actually wrote?
What do you mean?
What you may not be seeing in my approach is that I see the superlocrian
scale and the altered dominant scale as being different *ideas*.
The "superlocrian scale" is a scale.
The "altered dominant scale" is a "chord-scale" and is part of a
"chord-scale relationship".
That's why I spell superlocrian 1 way *all the time*, and why I might
spell the altered dominant scale several different ways depending on how
I'm approaching the music.
Joey Goldstein
If you insist on going against the herd Fiona, then "locrian maj 2nd"
might be a better name than "locrian nat 2".
Joey Goldstein
> If you insist on going against the herd Fiona, then "locrian maj 2nd",
or "locrian maj 9th",
Fiona Abrahami
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> >> What *I'd* to have is a system of scale naming where the numerals and
>> >> accidentals describe the exact intervals in the scale, as well as
>> >> possible. That's why I used to favor "locrian nat 2" over "locrian
>> >> #2".
>> >> By that method, when trying to deal with the 7th mode of harmonic
>> >> minor,
>> >> we'd get "superlocrian dim 7th".
>> >> Still, the other way, at this point in time, appears to be the common
>> >> accepted parlance.
>>
>> > How does that work on the B locrian!
>>
>> > B locrian
>> > B C D E F G A B
>>
>> > B locrian nat2
>> > B Cnat D E F G A B
>>
>> > Yes, that works fine! lol
>>
>> You mock, but think how you would express that scale as a chord;
>> Bm9b5(b13) - it's not a #9 it's a natural 9 as far as B is concerned.
>
> But a m9th above B would be a C and would normally be written with
> either a "-9" or a "b9". We don't usually label intervals by nats as
> that would require the knowledge of a key signature and thus would
> imply a Classical approach and this wold not occur there as a B chord.
Just to clarify here that the locrian scale I'm talking about with a nat2
from B would be B C# D E F G A, thus the chord symbol would be Bm9b5(b13).
The 9th is therefore neither a -9 or #9.
> It would have to be a RN notated chord. This is why most of the Jazz
> musicians I know prefer the - & + signs in the chord symbol. We will
> have to see what the Jazz experts on extended notation (the guitar
> players!) say as they are the only ones that usually care about them
> anyway. lol
As a jazz guitarist (in my own mind :-), I personally dislike the plus and
minus symbols and prefer flats and sharps, and I think that is the standard
here in the UK. My main reason for disliking them is that the plus sign can
be confused with meaning just an augmented 5th.
> I don't think I was mocking you. It was a response to Joey that I
> illustrated his example!
I didn't think you were mocking me, but mocking the concept I was
forwarding.
> I will be interested as to how that notation will be interpreted!
> Generally, when writing chord symbols, one does not normally think of
> the Locrian mode. I would think that as notated, most would see the
> Bm9 as B D F# A C# then lower the F# to Fnat and add the G and flat
> it! This would give you a B D F# A C# (E) Gb which is not the chord.
You forgot your F natural in the recap, and the 13th of B is G# not G, so
when you flatten it becomes G not Gb. 11ths are generally not notated in
chord symbols unless modified, and are in fact often omitted unless
modified, they are nevertheless implied and can be played if the performer
so wishes.
There you have it: B D F A C# E G, a Locrian scale with a natural 9th (2nd)
rearranged as a chord.
> As I understand the notation of the chords, you start with the
> rootband then modify the intervals of the chord as needed or in this
> case, B D F A C E G would be a Bm7-5(add -9 11 13)
See above, the chord I was trying to writing a symbol for was the chord that
deconstructed to a Locrian nat2 scale. Sorry if this was unclear. And BTW
you would only use Add 9 if you were not including the 7th, otherwise it's
just a 9th, Thus B add9 would be B D# F# C#, but B9 would be B D# F# A C#.
> but I would simply
> write "B locrian" or Dm7/B for simplicity, or Cmaj / (=OVER) Bm7b5.
> These three all use chord symbols or terms that everyone can
> understand.
I'm not a fan of slash chords.
Fiona
LJS
That certainly makes a difference! I was of course using the one
printed above your post. And it is indeed a simple 9th. The G could be
mis-interpreted, but I think you have it right.
>
> > It would have to be a RN notated chord. This is why most of the Jazz
> > musicians I know prefer the - & + signs in the chord symbol. We will
> > have to see what the Jazz experts on extended notation (the guitar
> > players!) say as they are the only ones that usually care about them
> > anyway. lol
>
> As a jazz guitarist (in my own mind :-), I personally dislike the plus and
> minus symbols and prefer flats and sharps, and I think that is the standard
> here in the UK. My main reason for disliking them is that the plus sign can
> be confused with meaning just an augmented 5th.
I agree, but they are often used to eliminate the b or # as they can
be ambiguous on certain notes and the + or - simply means raised or
lowered. But even this has possible problems. Which makes Joey's
statement about trying to set a standard is laudable, but in Re: the
locrian #2, I think he has used over 6 different names for it and then
states that you misinterpreted his old statement because he was
looking at it a different way! (Maybe that was to emphasize the need
for a standard? ;-)
>
> > I don't think I was mocking you. It was a response to Joey that I
> > illustrated his example!
>
> I didn't think you were mocking me, but mocking the concept I was
> forwarding.
>
> > I will be interested as to how that notation will be interpreted!
> > Generally, when writing chord symbols, one does not normally think of
> > the Locrian mode. I would think that as notated, most would see the
> > Bm9 as B D F# A C# then lower the F# to Fnat and add the G and flat
> > it! This would give you a B D F# A C# (E) Gb which is not the chord.
>
> You forgot your F natural in the recap, and the 13th of B is G# not G, so
> when you flatten it becomes G not Gb. 11ths are generally not notated in
> chord symbols unless modified, and are in fact often omitted unless
> modified, they are nevertheless implied and can be played if the performer
> so wishes.
Thanks for the editing. (And in my haste, I even remember seeing that
the Gb and the F# was the same notes and I still missed it!!!)
>
> There you have it: B D F A C# E G, a Locrian scale with a natural 9th (2nd)
> rearranged as a chord.
>
> > As I understand the notation of the chords, you start with the
> > rootband then modify the intervals of the chord as needed or in this
> > case, B D F A C E G would be a Bm7-5(add -9 11 13)
>
> See above, the chord I was trying to writing a symbol for was the chord that
> deconstructed to a Locrian nat2 scale. Sorry if this was unclear. And BTW
> you would only use Add 9 if you were not including the 7th, otherwise it's
> just a 9th, Thus B add9 would be B D# F# C#, but B9 would be B D# F# A C#.
Yes, of course this was based on the basic B locrian as well as the
first time
> > but I would simply
> > write "B locrian" or Dm7/B for simplicity, or Cmaj / (=OVER) Bm7b5.
> > These three all use chord symbols or terms that everyone can
> > understand.
So this would read: B Locrian #2 OR Bmin11b5b13 (or something like
that) OR Bdim7 / C#dim
>
> I'm not a fan of slash chords.
They do have their uses in some styles of music. They do give all the
notes to the chords, however, and if they are expressing a V chord,
they give a lot of useful information and even on any chord they give
the EXACT notes that are to be used.
>
> Fiona
LJS
Joey Goldstein
What do you have against the 11th?
Bm7b5(9,11,b13) is the chord symbol that best expresses the locrian #2
scale.
> The 9th is therefore neither a -9 or #9.
>
>> It would have to be a RN notated chord. This is why most of the Jazz
>> musicians I know prefer the - & + signs in the chord symbol. We will
>> have to see what the Jazz experts on extended notation (the guitar
>> players!) say as they are the only ones that usually care about them
>> anyway. lol
>
> As a jazz guitarist (in my own mind :-), I personally dislike the plus and
> minus symbols and prefer flats and sharps,
*Most* jazz musicians don't like to see + and - symbols in the way that
altered tensions are denoted.
+ should only be used to indicate an augmented chord and it should only
follow the root text. eg. C+, C+7, C+(maj7), etc.
- should only be used to indicate a minor chord. Eg. C-, C-7, etc.
Chord symbols like C7+9, etc. are a pain. And I know that people still
use them, and I know what to play when I see them, but those people
should stop.
> and I think that is the standard
> here in the UK. My main reason for disliking them is that the plus sign can
> be confused with meaning just an augmented 5th.
>
>> I don't think I was mocking you. It was a response to Joey that I
>> illustrated his example!
>
> I didn't think you were mocking me, but mocking the concept I was
> forwarding.
>
>> I will be interested as to how that notation will be interpreted!
>> Generally, when writing chord symbols, one does not normally think of
>> the Locrian mode. I would think that as notated, most would see the
>> Bm9 as B D F# A C# then lower the F# to Fnat and add the G and flat
>> it! This would give you a B D F# A C# (E) Gb which is not the chord.
>
> You forgot your F natural in the recap, and the 13th of B is G# not G, so
> when you flatten it becomes G not Gb.
> 11ths are generally not notated in
> chord symbols unless modified,
Who told you that?
> and are in fact often omitted unless
> modified, they are nevertheless implied and can be played if the performer
> so wishes.
I think you're confusing certain aspects of certain types of chord
symbol shorthand. I'm talking about chord symbols like "C13", "Cm13", etc.
And a musician, voicing a chord from a chord symbol, *always* has the
option of omitting *any* note implied by that chord symbol (as well as
the option to add notes).
Depending on who you talk to these types of chord symbols can mean a
whole range of things.
Eg.
C13 might mean:
C7(9,11,13)
C7(9,#11,13)
with the 5th the 9th and the 11th being optional. But ultimately, even
the 3rd and 7th can be omitted in certain situations. Even the 13th
might be omitted. but if a writer has written "C13" on the page the bare
minimum he's really asking for is C E Bb A.
If you definitely want an 11th in a chord you should say so in the chord
symbol. If you definitely want a 9th in the chord symbol you should say so.
If it's up to the player how he/she wants to color the chord, then a
simple 7th-chord chord symbol is sufficient, eg C7.
> There you have it: B D F A C# E G, a Locrian scale with a natural 9th (2nd)
> rearranged as a chord.
>
>> As I understand the notation of the chords, you start with the
>> rootband then modify the intervals of the chord as needed or in this
>> case, B D F A C E G would be a Bm7-5(add -9 11 13)
>
> See above, the chord I was trying to writing a symbol for was the chord that
> deconstructed to a Locrian nat2 scale. Sorry if this was unclear. And BTW
> you would only use Add 9 if you were not including the 7th, otherwise it's
> just a 9th, Thus B add9 would be B D# F# C#, but B9 would be B D# F# A C#.
>
>> but I would simply
>> write "B locrian" or Dm7/B for simplicity, or Cmaj / (=OVER) Bm7b5.
>> These three all use chord symbols or terms that everyone can
>> understand.
>
> I'm not a fan of slash chords.
Maybe not. But
Bm7(9,11,b13) = Dm(maj7)(9,11)/B = A7/Bdim = C#dim/Bm7b5
which IMO is good stuff to know.
Joey Goldstein
> Fiona Abrahami wrote:
>> 11ths are generally not notated in chord symbols unless modified,
>
> Who told you that?
>
>> and are in fact often omitted unless modified, they are nevertheless
>> implied and can be played if the performer so wishes.
>
> I think you're confusing certain aspects of certain types of chord
> symbol shorthand. I'm talking about chord symbols like "C13", "Cm13", etc.
> And a musician, voicing a chord from a chord symbol, *always* has the
> option of omitting *any* note implied by that chord symbol (as well as
> the option to add notes).
>
> Depending on who you talk to these types of chord symbols can mean a
> whole range of things.
> Eg.
> C13 might mean:
> C7(9,11,13)
> C7(9,#11,13)
> with the 5th the 9th and the 11th being optional. But ultimately, even
> the 3rd and 7th can be omitted in certain situations. Even the 13th
> might be omitted. but if a writer has written "C13" on the page the bare
> minimum he's really asking for is C E Bb A.
>
> If you definitely want an 11th in a chord you should say so in the chord
> symbol. If you definitely want a 9th in the chord symbol you should say so.
> If it's up to the player how he/she wants to color the chord, then a
> simple 7th-chord chord symbol is sufficient, eg C7.
And the point that I wanted to make and forgot to, is that that type of
shorthand "13th-chord" chord symbol doesn't parse well when the 13th is
flat.
C13 works, to some degree.
Cb13 or C(b13) or sim does not work.
The shorthand 11th-chord chord symbol doesn't parse when the 11th is
altered either.
C11 works, to some degree, even though most people really play C7sus4 or
C9sus4 when they see it.
but C#11 or C(#11) or sim doesn't parse.
Same for shorthand chord symbols for 9th-chords.
They don't work when the 9th is altered.
So your idea that the chord symbol "Bm9b5(b13)" somehow implies that the
11th is also present doesn't really hold up.
You might have more of a case that "Bm11b5" implies that the maj 9th is
implied. But then again it might mean that the min 9th is implied.
So, if you really want there to be no confusion at all, my advice is to
stay away from these types of shorthand chord symbols. Just spell out
all the extensions you want present.
Bm7b5(9,11,b13)
Note: I've been using commas between tensions in chord symbols like
these, but that's only because I'm using ascii text in this medium.
Normally the commas are not needed.
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
> Fiona Abrahami wrote:
>> "LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> What *I'd* to have is a system of scale naming where the numerals and
>>>> accidentals describe the exact intervals in the scale, as well as
>>>> possible. That's why I used to favor "locrian nat 2" over "locrian #2".
>>>> By that method, when trying to deal with the 7th mode of harmonic
>>>> minor,
>>>> we'd get "superlocrian dim 7th".
>>>> Still, the other way, at this point in time, appears to be the common
>>>> accepted parlance.
>>>>
>>> How does that work on the B locrian!
>>>
>>> B locrian
>>> B C D E F G A B
>>>
>>> B locrian nat2
>>> B Cnat D E F G A B
>>>
>>> Yes, that works fine! lol
>>
>> You mock, but think how you would express that scale as a chord;
>> Bm9b5(b13) - it's not a #9 it's a natural 9 as far as B is concerned.
>
> might be a better name than "locrian nat 2".
You don't know the half of it, all my life I've been swimming against the
tide :-) but, Locrian maj2, yeah, I like that.
Thanks for the input.
Fiona
Fiona Abrahami
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > It would have to be a RN notated chord. This is why most of the Jazz
>> > musicians I know prefer the - & + signs in the chord symbol. We will
>> > have to see what the Jazz experts on extended notation (the guitar
>> > players!) say as they are the only ones that usually care about them
>> > anyway. lol
>>
>> As a jazz guitarist (in my own mind :-), I personally dislike the plus
>> and
>> minus symbols and prefer flats and sharps, and I think that is the
>> standard
>> here in the UK. My main reason for disliking them is that the plus sign
>> can
>> be confused with meaning just an augmented 5th.
>
> I agree, but they are often used to eliminate the b or # as they can
> be ambiguous on certain notes and the + or - simply means raised or
> lowered. But even this has possible problems. Which makes Joey's
> statement about trying to set a standard is laudable, but in Re: the
> locrian #2, I think he has used over 6 different names for it and then
> states that you misinterpreted his old statement because he was
> looking at it a different way! (Maybe that was to emphasize the need
> for a standard? ;-)
Joey, in another post has suggested Locrian maj 2nd, this I think is the
best solution presented so far, and I, for one, am going to go with this
from now on - of course it means re-writing a whole bunch of courseware
documentation, but it's a good solution methinks. It ticks all the boxes, it
gets rid of the confusion of sharps, naturals and flats in modal context and
relates more directly with the relevant scale-chord(s).
Fiona
LJS
He had so many names for it I thought one had to fit in there
someplace! lol
But yes, that seems to be a good way of describing it as there is only
one alteration and this would be clear in any key. It works much
better than 'nat'. B C# D E F G A B hmm. I just noticed that this
could also be an Aeolean Dim5 (or Aeolean b5) ? Anyway, the only thing
I don't like about it is that it necessitates either writing out the
Maj, Min, Dim or Aug interval that is affected OR one has to create a
symbol that means the same thing. With one alteration, that is not so
bad, but with modes built on the Melodic Minor #5 gets to be rather
wordy and not so clear (maube?) like the Lydian #3 #5 or C D E# F# G#
A B C. Lydian Aug3 Aug5 or for another example: the Aeolian Dim5
Maj7. I don't know if I like it on these sets. If the author simply
states that b=lowered a half step and # = raised a half step then
everything comes clear again and we don't have to really change
anything. I like this better than + and - as a ++ or a -- are strange
to see (did that come out as two minus signs?) but a bb or a ## (or
X) is pretty clear.
LJS
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> Fiona Abrahami wrote:
>
>>> 11ths are generally not notated in chord symbols unless modified,
>>
>> Who told you that?
One of my teachers, I forget which.
>>> and are in fact often omitted unless modified, they are nevertheless
>>> implied and can be played if the performer so wishes.
>>
>> I think you're confusing certain aspects of certain types of chord symbol
>> shorthand. I'm talking about chord symbols like "C13", "Cm13", etc.
>> And a musician, voicing a chord from a chord symbol, *always* has the
>> option of omitting *any* note implied by that chord symbol (as well as
>> the option to add notes).
>>
>> Depending on who you talk to these types of chord symbols can mean a
>> whole range of things.
>> Eg.
>> C13 might mean:
>> C7(9,11,13)
>> C7(9,#11,13)
Er, no. No way does C13 include #11, some creative jazz types might play a
#11 instead of the natural 11, but they are taking a liberty when they do
and relying on the fact that unless one of the other musicians plays the
straight 11th it will sound good, the chord symbol itself doesn't imply
anything other than a natural 11.
>> with the 5th the 9th and the 11th being optional. But ultimately, even
>> the 3rd and 7th can be omitted in certain situations. Even the 13th might
>> be omitted. but if a writer has written "C13" on the page the bare
>> minimum he's really asking for is C E Bb A.
>>
>> If you definitely want an 11th in a chord you should say so in the chord
>> symbol.
I agree, and am not saying otherwise.
> And the point that I wanted to make and forgot to, is that that type of
> shorthand "13th-chord" chord symbol doesn't parse well when the 13th is
> flat.
> C13 works, to some degree.
> Cb13 or C(b13) or sim does not work.
>
> The shorthand 11th-chord chord symbol doesn't parse when the 11th is
> altered either.
> C11 works, to some degree, even though most people really play C7sus4 or
> C9sus4 when they see it.
> but C#11 or C(#11) or sim doesn't parse.
>
> Same for shorthand chord symbols for 9th-chords.
> They don't work when the 9th is altered.
>
> So your idea that the chord symbol "Bm9b5(b13)" somehow implies that the
> 11th is also present doesn't really hold up.
Sorry, I beg to differ, and for the record I say it also implies that the
fifth is to be present. Of course, people are always free to disregard
whatever they want, you can't control the muse, but nevertheless, I stand by
my assertion that one only needs to write the altered degrees. What holds
for simple triads, holds for higher tensions: C implies a natural 3rd and a
natural fifth, if you want an alteration you name it and the unaltered note
is implied, thus Cm still a natural fifth, Caug has an unaltered third, etc.
The exception is on the seventh where C7 says b7 but Cmaj7 says natural
seven, but even so with C7 and Cmaj7 you know that unaltered 3rds and 5ths
are implied. Likewise, for C13 you know that with the exception of the 7th
all the other notes (if you choose to play them) will be unaltered; 3rd,
5th, 9th, 11th, and 13th are all unaltered. And that's how I was taught, the
minimum is easiest to read, so unless a note is altered we don't state it
unless we specifically want it.
> You might have more of a case that "Bm11b5" implies that the maj 9th is
> implied. But then again it might mean that the min 9th is implied.
Nah, I don't know anyone who would read Bm11b5 as implying a b9. And I
certainly wouldn't employ them.
> So, if you really want there to be no confusion at all, my advice is to
> stay away from these types of shorthand chord symbols. Just spell out all
> the extensions you want present.
> Bm7b5(9,11,b13)
Yeah, I'll agree there is certainly no doubt with that, but the 9 and 11 are
redundant and only serve to muddy the waters by making the musician process
more information. In technical communication circles, and what you are
trying to communicate here is technical information, writers talk about
writing as little as possible, but as much as necessary, in other words all
the salient information must be provided in the smallest digestible chunk.
> Note: I've been using commas between tensions in chord symbols like these,
> but that's only because I'm using ascii text in this medium. Normally the
> commas are not needed.
But they do help.
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
Fiona. I've been playing music professionally and teaching jazz at the
college level for a long time now.
Consider that when you poo poo my advice.
>>> with the 5th the 9th and the 11th being optional. But ultimately, even
>>> the 3rd and 7th can be omitted in certain situations. Even the 13th might
>>> be omitted. but if a writer has written "C13" on the page the bare
>>> minimum he's really asking for is C E Bb A.
>>>
>>> If you definitely want an 11th in a chord you should say so in the chord
>>> symbol.
>
> I agree, and am not saying otherwise.
>
>> And the point that I wanted to make and forgot to, is that that type of
>> shorthand "13th-chord" chord symbol doesn't parse well when the 13th is
>> flat.
>> C13 works, to some degree.
>> Cb13 or C(b13) or sim does not work.
>>
>> The shorthand 11th-chord chord symbol doesn't parse when the 11th is
>> altered either.
>> C11 works, to some degree, even though most people really play C7sus4 or
>> C9sus4 when they see it.
>> but C#11 or C(#11) or sim doesn't parse.
>>
>> Same for shorthand chord symbols for 9th-chords.
>> They don't work when the 9th is altered.
>>
>> So your idea that the chord symbol "Bm9b5(b13)" somehow implies that the
>> 11th is also present doesn't really hold up.
>
> Sorry, I beg to differ,
Suit yourself.
But what I'm telling you is true.
> and for the record I say it also implies that the
> fifth is to be present.
Any note that is implied in the chord symbol is optional in the actual
voicing of the chord. And there is no P11th implied in that chord symbol.
On the other hand, players also *add* notes to chord voicings all the
time that are not implied by the chord symbol.
> Of course, people are always free to disregard
> whatever they want, you can't control the muse, but nevertheless, I stand by
> my assertion that one only needs to write the altered degrees.
But that just doesn't hold up under scrutiny, for the reasons that I've
been trying to explain to you.
Oh well.
> What holds
> for simple triads, holds for higher tensions: C implies a natural 3rd and a
> natural fifth,
There is no such thing as "natural" interval. Intervals are either
"major", "minor", "augmented", "diminished", or doubly/triply/etc.
"augmented" or "diminished".
The term "natural" when applied to music usually means a note that
corresponds to one of the white keys on the piano (except for Fb, E#, B#
and Cb).
When discussing a note that is a member of some major scale in some
major key we use the term "diatonic to" or just "diatonic", not "major".
In minor keys it can get a little bit blurry, because the maj 6th and
maj 7th above the tonic are also considered to be "diatonic to" the key.
Non diatonic notes in a key are called "chromatic notes".
> if you want an alteration you name it and the unaltered note
> is implied, thus Cm still a natural fifth,
There is no "alteration" involved in the creation of a minor triad.
Minor triads consist of a root tone, a tone in a min 3rd relationship
above the root, and a tone in a P5th relationship above the root.
Min 3rds have are not "altered" versions of maj 3rds. Min 3rds are
simply what they are, an interval type.
> Caug has an unaltered third, etc.
No it doesn't.
It has a major 3rd.
> The exception is on the seventh where C7 says b7 but Cmaj7 says natural
> seven,
There are many more exceptions to chord symbol notation than you seem to
be aware of or seem to be willing to accept.
It is not a self-consistent logical system even though there are lots of
people like you who would like that to be true. Still, it works, and we
all seem to get by. The important thing is to understand what sounds to
play when you see a given chord symbol.
And if I saw "Bm9b5(b13)" the last note I would be thinking about
including in t5he chord voicing would be the P11th above the root.
> but even so with C7 and Cmaj7 you know that unaltered 3rds and 5ths
> are implied.
Nothing is "altered" in a C7 chord.
C7 is the V7 chord in the key of F. Bb is a diatonic note.
C7 as the I7 chord in a blues has one note in it that is chromatic to
the key. It's not "altered".
> Likewise, for C13 you know that with the exception of the 7th
> all the other notes (if you choose to play them) will be unaltered; 3rd,
> 5th, 9th, 11th, and 13th are all unaltered. And that's how I was taught, the
> minimum is easiest to read, so unless a note is altered we don't state it
> unless we specifically want it.
On any extended 7th chord that has a major triad at its core the "norm",
when adding an 11th to it, is a an aug 11th.
When encountering the chord symbol, "C13", if a musician is going to add
any 11th at all to his voicing it will normally be the aug 11th, not the
P11th. Adding the P11th to a 13th chord would be an extremely rare
occurence in tonal music.
>> You might have more of a case that "Bm11b5" implies that the maj 9th is
>> implied. But then again it might mean that the min 9th is implied.
>
> Nah, I don't know anyone who would read Bm11b5 as implying a b9. And I
> certainly wouldn't employ them.
If it implies any 9th being present at all, it would have to be the min
9th, because the min 9th is almost always the diatonic note in any
instance of most min7b5 chords.
So what i'm saying is that this form of short-hand chord symbol is too
ambiguous and fraught with the problems that you and I are presently
dealing with.
Experienced players, when they see "Bm11b5" won't add any 9th at all,
generally.
Experienced writers will just write Bm7b5(11) or Bm7b5(9,11) depending
on what they want to hear.
Experienced players, when they see "C13" won't add any 11th at all.
Experienced writers will just write C7(13) or C799,13) or C7(9,#11,13),
etc., depending on what they want to hear.
Some of these short-hand chord symbols are less ambiguous and/or
confusing than others.
Eg. C13b9 = C E G Bb Db A
These chord symbols pop-up fairly regularly mainly because they take up
a bit less room on the page (eg. than C7(b9,13)) and because most people
know enough to not screw them up by also adding some sort of 11th.
Still, IMO, it's wiser to avoid using these short-hand chord symbols as
much as possible.
>> So, if you really want there to be no confusion at all, my advice is to
>> stay away from these types of shorthand chord symbols. Just spell out all
>> the extensions you want present.
>> Bm7b5(9,11,b13)
>
> Yeah, I'll agree there is certainly no doubt with that, but the 9 and 11 are
> redundant and only serve to muddy the waters by making the musician process
> more information. In technical communication circles, and what you are
> trying to communicate here is technical information, writers talk about
> writing as little as possible, but as much as necessary, in other words all
> the salient information must be provided in the smallest digestible chunk.
>
>> Note: I've been using commas between tensions in chord symbols like these,
>> but that's only because I'm using ascii text in this medium. Normally the
>> commas are not needed.
>
> But they do help.
In real chord symbols the tensions would usually be stacked vertically,
something like this:
13
#11
C7 9
Pairing up tensions along the horizontal axis is only done when space is
running out. But even then, with hand drawn chord symbols, or even
those doen with a good font, the commas are not normally used.
A single pair of parentheses are usually wrapped around the entire mass
of tensions, for clarity's sake. Sort of like this, but not really:
|13 |
|#11|
C7|9 |
Joey Goldstein
notions of "chords of the 13th" or "13th chords" with the short hand
chord symbols used in jazz/pop chord symbol notation such as "C13" and
"Cm13". And yes, the concepts involved do overlap, but they are not
exactly the same.
In classical Tonal analysis a "chord of the 13th" can be built on any
scale degree of the key.
A 13th chord built on I will be a 7-tone tertian stack using only the
diatonic notes of the key.
In C, the 13th chord built on I would be:
C E G B D F A
I'm not 100% sure what the analytical symbol for this chord would be,
but I think it's just "I13".
(Note: This sonority would never have been used within a piece of
classical music.)
The jazz/pop chord symbol for this would not be "Cmaj13". It would be
"Cmaj7(9,11,13)". Any jazz/pop musician who includes a P11th in his/her
voicing when he/she encounters the chord symbol "Cmaj13" will not get
very many people to play with him/her.
To the people who know how to read chord symbols, "Cmaj13" means C E G B
D A, not C E G B D F A.
In C, the 13th chord built on ii would be:
D F A C E G B
I'm not 100% sure what the analytical symbol for this chord would be,
but I think it's "ii13".
Here, one of the potential the jazz/pop chord symbols does indeed
coincide with the classical analytical symbol. One of the possible
jazz/pop chord symbols for this sound is "Dm13", but I often prefer to
see "Dm7(9,11,13)", for clarity's sake.
In C, the 13th chord built on iii would be:
E G B D F A C
I'm not 100% sure what the analytical symbol for this chord would be,
but I think it's "iii13".
(Note: This sonority would never have been used within a piece of
classical music.)
The jazz/pop chord symbol for this sound would not be "Em13", of course.
It would be "Em7(b9,11,b13)", but you're not likely to find a composer
who requests that particular sound from you.
In C, the 13th chord built on IV would be:
F A C E G B D
I'm not 100% sure what the analytical symbol for this chord would be,
but I think it's "IV13".
The jazz/pop chord symbol for this would not be "Fmaj13", although a
jazz player might decide to use a #11 when encountering this chord
symbol anyway. But "Fmaj13" means F A C E G D, not F A C E G B D. So,
the best chord symbol for this sound is "Fmaj7(9,#11,13)".
In C, the 13th chord built on V would be:
G B D F A C E
The classical analytical symbol for this is "V13".
(Note: This sonority would never have been used within a piece of
classical music.)
The jazz/pop chord symbol for this sound would not be "G13". To a
jazz/pop musician "G13" means G B D F A E, not G B D F A C E.
The correct chord symbol for V13 in C would be "G7(9,11,13)", but you're
not likely to have this sound requested very often.
In C, the 13th chord built on vi would be:
A C E G B D F
I'm not 100% sure what the analytical symbol for this chord would be,
but I think it's "vi13".
(Note: This sonority would never have been used within a piece of
classical music.)
The chord symbol for this sound would be "Am7(9,11,b13)", but you're not
likely to have this sound requested very often.
In C, the 13th chord built on vii would be:
B D F A C E G
I'm not 100% sure what the analytical symbol for this chord would be,
but I think it's "viiØ13".
(Note: This sonority would never have been used within a piece of
classical music.)
The chord symbol for this sound would be "Bm7b5(b9,11,b13)" [not "BØ13"
or "Bm7(b13)" or whatever], but you're not likely to have this sound
requested very often.
Get it?
tinyurl.com/2hj395
Write / Compose and *MOST* importantly, *PLAY* more...this whole scene
gets progressively more icky...
>
mvm
>
I've posted a bunch of "under the fingers"stuff on the Major scale
modes and Melodic Minor scale modes in
alt.guitar as well as alt.guitar.amps
>
http://tinyurl.com/32j32m
>
http://tinyurl.com/2hj395
LJS
>notions of "chords of the 13th" or "13th chords" with the short hand
>chord symbols used in jazz/pop chord symbol notation such as "C13" and
>"Cm13". And yes, the concepts involved do overlap, but they are not
>exactly the same.
>In classical Tonal analysis a "chord of the 13th" can be built on any
>scale degree of the key.
>A 13th chord built on I will be a 7-tone tertian stack using only the
>diatonic notes of the key.
>In C, the 13th chord built on I would be:
>C E G B D F A
>I'm not 100% sure what the analytical symbol for this chord would be,
>but I think it's just "I13".
>(Note: This sonority would never have been used within a piece of
>classical music.)
[I have clipped the rest as it is the same info rotated to each note
of the scale.(and some say that my responses are long!;-) ]
You see Joey, this is just not true. You might make a note that this
structure would not generally be used in music of the Classical
Period, but modern classical music is quite likely to have chords of
the 13th in their structure.
Even with my extremely limited library I can give you two examples of
13th chords in classical literature. One is the Bloch "Violin Sonata
No.1" written in 1920 and another is the Ravel "Piano Concerto in G"
written in 1931.
In classical music, the notation would depend on the context of the
piece. As you may or may not realize, classical notation is usually
written in a score and is not improvisational except in certain
circumstances. Thus they are usually written out with the voicing that
is desired by the composer. The numeric notation would only be used by
the analyst and then only as an aid to understanding or teaching of
the music. Thus this would be guided by the nature of the composition.
If the piece were tonal and the chord is built on all tonal steps, it
would follow the same rules as any normal functional notation and be
notated as an x13 chord if the analyst were CPP bent or if it were
pertinent, then it would be notated with the appropriate numbers to
indicate the inversion. This would be rather complicated and would
probably ONLY be used if it served some important and specific
purpose!
If on the other hand, there were alterations, as in the examples that
I have cited above, the chord would be notated with the alterations to
the chord as they applied to the key. In these instances that might be
V13+11 or #11. (although this is indicated by the key signature, I
would have to see the whole score to be sure of the context. If there
were notes omitted they would be modified with "noX". There are not
special ways of doing it as the functions of the symbols are different
in classical music and jazz. Classical notation would be designed for
function and the jazz notation is more to spell the chord for
performance.
This functional representation is only as common as it would be used
in compositions and would vary with their use. They may not use the
Roman Numerals in classical music unless it was used in a functional
context. If on the other hand, the classical music was jazz based in
concept, the standard jazz notations would most likely be used.
Since in previous posts concerning TTS vs. Aug6th chords, you seemed
to indicate that the chord notes rather than the function or voicing
of the chords are important and thus the enharmonic spelling of the
Aug6 is rather unnecessary, I will point out an example in
Beethoven's 9th Symphony. In the last movement, there is a sonority
that is spelled D F A C# E G Bb (or a C# E G Bb D F A depending on the
bass note and I don't recall this at this time). Using your logic,
this would be a Dmin13 maj7, 9, 11 b13 or something of that nature.
But since classical music notates chords as to their function, this
would be handled in a manner more attune to its context. In this
instance, although it could be spelled as a 13th chord, it is rather
obvious that it is a superimposition of the i and the viio7 chord by
its resolution. (Dmin and C#dim7). This is an example shows that this
"chord" did exist in the CPP but it was not a functional chord as such
but a superimposition. (I suppose that if you wanted to, however, you
could use it as a 13th by saying that it was a Dmin13 that was
borrowed from the parallel harmonic minor mode and then resolved back
to the parallel Dmin but this would not really tell you what is going
on in the music! ;-)
LJS
tinyurl.com/2hj395
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Doors Ph.D. ;-) mvm
>
http://tinyurl.com/2hj395
Joey Goldstein
>> You see Joey, this is just not true. You might make a note that this
>> structure would not generally be used in music of the Classical
>> Period, but modern classical music is quite likely to have chords of
>> the 13th in their structure.
I wasn't talking about modern music from the classical tradition.
I was talking about classical music.
And what I said *IS* true, you boob.
LJS
You just have not manners at all. Actually, you may have meant musical
of the classical tradition, but you SAID classical music, NOT the
Classical Period. And then, I guess you stopped before I gave the
Beethoven example just in case! Although you did have an absolutely
true statement in there and that was that you really didn't know how
classical musicians notated the 13th chord. But then you somehow
managed to continue anyway and explain it in spite of that.
I guess the "kill file" isn't working so well! Good to hear from you.
(Too bad you still can't control that jr high school yard mouth of
yours. Keep working on it, at least you managed to avoid the
profanity!)
LJS
The point is, Joey, that you were giving "information" that was pure
speculation.
tinyurl.com/2hj395
stewie3128
<fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Ok, Ok, I know r.m.t.ers don't like calling rotations of scales modes, but
> it works for most people.
>
> How do we name the modes of the Harmonic Minor scale, particularly the
> seventh mode? I'm currently using:
>
> 1. Harmonic minor
> 2. Locrian nat6
> 3. Augmented (Ionian #5)
> 4. Dorian #4
> 5. Phrygian major
> 6. Lydian #2
> 7. Superlocrian dim7 or superlocrian bb7
>
> But these are my own terms based on the similarities to, and variations
> from, the major modes, are there "officially" recognised terms used in
> academia?
>
David Baker's really in to doing this at Indiana University. "Locrian
#2" and things like that.
tinyurl.com/2hj395
Given the few self-volunteered scores in alt.guitar:
19 = 10% > 'average'
23 = 33.1% > 'average'
25 = 39.9% > 'average'
26 = 45.2% > 'average'
Now find a few other points and work the full curve out...
Hint...it would appear that you're roughly 100% "> than average" if
you can score 35.
The fact is, success in life is more about EQ, not IQ (and those
measurements are often ludicrous. Intelligence is a true spectrum of
abilities and capacities. The very brightest lights are multiply
gifted across the spectrum of any general category you choose.
Alternatively, if one is outrageously gifted in only one color or
frequency of the spectrum, it's fairly common to see that she / he
can
be relatively grey if not black in other areas...clasic, -the
savant).
>
:-) mvm
>
http://tinyurl.com/32j32m
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
Yeah, I got it before, but thanks anyway for the recap.
However, I disagree on a number of points, and while I accept that a lot of
this stuff has become stuck in the tradition (mostly by compounding of
error, and a desire for exclusivity - "gotta keep the mystique to keep our
jobs" kinda thing), it doesn't mean the traditional usage is either best or
accurate. And I for one don't bow to tradition as being infallible, or as
the only right and proper way. It's not something I feel we need to be
precious about. Yes, those who came before were giants of their art, but
remember, they too were experimenting and feeling their way through
uncharted soundscapes. Pushing the aural envelopes. The charts they produced
to help them navigate back to the same sonic place were often vague and full
of errors, being knocked up on the fly without much deep thought, but
although they were like trails of breadcrumbs they served the purpose for
the time, getting the artist back to that same place, in order to go beyond.
They were giants, true, but their legacy is sloppy and messy, leaving those
who come after them a quandary; do we tidy up their mess and clean up what
can be cleaned up, or do we just run the same obstacle course and add to the
chaos, leaving behind us more mess than before?
There are those who are happy to just repeat what has been done before, to
rely on the maps and charts of the great explorers of yore. Fine let them
accept what is fed to them, let them soak up unchallenged tradition like a
sponge, they will become experts in their chosen styles, able to read any
chart like a bebopist or the 40s, a cool cat of the 50s, a hard bopite of
the 60s, a fusionist of the 70s, or a smoothy of the 80s. They will know
which form fits which symbol, and they will be satisfied with that. They are
bureaucrats and librarians. Their improvisation consists of learned licks
filed in the right places and applied to the right context: "fill in this
form for a Dm7b5, this one for Abmaj7#11". They are not explorers, and they
will never take you beyond the horizon of what has already been done. They
will not push any envelopes because they are not curious about what is over
the horizon, in fact getting too close to edge is a risk they are not
willing to take. They are flat-earth explorers who like to be home by
tea-time. Don't be like them, Joey, dare to be different.
OK, rant over... almost.
Before I address the issues raised by your post let me explain why I am so
interested in 13ths. My musical explorations are pulling in two different
directions (damn those huskies... mush!), dissonance, chromaticism and
intervallic structures on the atonal side of things, and 13th structures
(both tertiary and quartal) on the diatonic/modal side (rootless quartal
13ths are wondrous things). Naturally, I'm also trying to bring all these
things together.
The reason 13th structures fascinate me so much is because of their holistic
nature, they are, if you like "the key," they represent the home scale, all
the modes, and all the possible chords of the diatonic key centre in one
simple package - where you need a minimum of three triads (as used in
classical and western folk traditions), or two tetrads (as used in jazz,
blues, funk, soul, reggae etc.), you only need one heptad (13th structure)
to harmonize a diatonic melody. The implications of this simple fact are
fascinating, all diatonic 13th structures of the home key are inversions of
each other, enabling harmonic motion can be reduced to near zero, a mere
wash of colour, or alternatively, harmonic motion can be created by voicings
or alterations to single notes implying key changes. 13th structures are the
unifying feature that prove to me the musical world is not flat but
spherical.
So back to your post...
Cmaj13, you are right, most jazz performers would drop the 11th out (and
probably the 5th too). And if they did play an 11th it would be a #11, but
that of course would imply a tonicization to G major. However,
theoretically, ignoring jazz tradition, Cmaj13 would correctly imply the
inclusion of the 11th, F natural, and in a modal context it is not
considered an avoid note so it could certainly be included. As for your
Cmaj7(9,11,13), I've never seen such a thing, and I've never heard of people
including, in brackets, notes that are unaltered that can be implied by a
simpler notation - it's redundant. Perhaps you can bring a source from the
literature to support this.
Dm13, agreed, although again I've never seen Dm7(9,11,13). Another point on
this formula, even if you do like to see all this redundancy, why include
both 7 and 9 when you know already that Dm9 includes a b7, just as you know
Dmaj9 includes a maj7? Do you like making things harder for yourself? Even
if you insist on having the 11th stated, surely you can understand that
Dm9(11,13) has fewer bits of data to process.
Em7(b9,11,b13), I disagree, the most succinct form of the 13th chord on the
iii degree would be Em11(b9,b13), although I do accept that guitarists have
tendency to read an 11th chord as a sus4, there is no need for other
musicians to sink to their level. :-) Em11(b9,b13) implies a b7, the 11th is
stated and the alterations noted, what more do you need? As for your
statement "you're not likely to find a composer who requests that particular
sound from you" that may be so in traditional literature, but from a
compositional point of view, I find that a perfectly acceptable/usable
sound, particularly when voiced with the b9 on top. I guess you must be just
a performer, not a composer.
Maj13(#11) is well documented in the literature as the standard model for
the 13th chord built on the IV. I can't imagine why you would think any
different.
G13, again standard model for a dominant 13th, but again you are confusing
practice with meaning, G13 *means* G B D F A C E but is usually played in
practice as G B D F A E. While we're on the dominant 13 this would be a good
place to discuss why full 13th structures are not used as much as they could
be in jazz, a big thing in creating "the jazz sound" is the process of
functional harmony, particularly in standards based jazz (modal jazz is
somewhat different), and it seems to me that functional harmony doesn't work
when composing with 13ths. And the V13 demonstrates why. The function of a
V7 relies on the unstable tritone of its 3rd and 7th (the leading tone and
'unstable' fourth of the home key) wanting to resolve to the tonic and 3rd
of the V-I cadence, the V13 doesn't drive to the resolution because the
tonic and 3rd of the key are already present in the 13th structure as the
11th and 13th, dropping the 11th helps but the presence of the 13th/3rd
still weakens the drive to resolve. Nevertheless, the dominant 13th does
still seem to be the most common occurrence of 13ths in traditional jazz
literature. (Although this may be primarily in the context of secondary
dominants, I'll have to do some research on that.)
As for the vi and vii degrees of C, I'd say not Am7(9,11,b13) and
Bm7b5(b9,11,b13), but Am11(b13) and Bm11b5(b9, b13).
Anyhow, here's Bm11b5(b9,b13), Em11(b9, b13) and Cmaj13 voiced as rootless
quartal stacks followed by their roots just to show that despite not being
common in the traditional literature, they are perfectly usable sounds for
composition, and if you are ever hired to perform my music you *will* be
expected to be able to play them :-))
http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?pid=1108301&T=5155
HTH :-)
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
>> (Note: This sonority would never have been used within a piece of
>> classical music.)
Oh well.
I tried.
LJS
Fiona Abrahami wrote:
> Sorry to take so long getting back on this, but Pessah got in the way...
> Yeah, I got it before, but thanks anyway for the recap.
>
> However, I disagree on a number of points, and while I accept that a lot of
> this stuff has become stuck in the tradition (mostly by compounding of
> error, and a desire for exclusivity - "gotta keep the mystique to keep our
> jobs" kinda thing), it doesn't mean the traditional usage is either best or
> accurate. And I for one don't bow to tradition as being infallible, or as
> the only right and proper way. It's not something I feel we need to be
> precious about. Yes, those who came before were giants of their art, but
> remember, they too were experimenting and feeling their way through
> uncharted soundscapes. Pushing the aural envelopes. The charts they produced
> to help them navigate back to the same sonic place were often vague and full
> of errors, being knocked up on the fly without much deep thought, but
> although they were like trails of breadcrumbs they served the purpose for
> the time, getting the artist back to that same place, in order to go beyond.
> They were giants, true, but their legacy is sloppy and messy, leaving those
> who come after them a quandary; do we tidy up their mess and clean up what
> can be cleaned up, or do we just run the same obstacle course and add to the
> chaos, leaving behind us more mess than before?
I agree entirely! Once something has been played, it is then
"traditional".
>
> There are those who are happy to just repeat what has been done before, to
> rely on the maps and charts of the great explorers of yore. Fine let them
> accept what is fed to them, let them soak up unchallenged tradition like a
> sponge, they will become experts in their chosen styles, able to read any
> chart like a bebopist or the 40s, a cool cat of the 50s, a hard bopite of
> the 60s, a fusionist of the 70s, or a smoothy of the 80s. They will know
> which form fits which symbol, and they will be satisfied with that. They are
> bureaucrats and librarians. Their improvisation consists of learned licks
> filed in the right places and applied to the right context: "fill in this
> form for a Dm7b5, this one for Abmaj7#11". They are not explorers, and they
> will never take you beyond the horizon of what has already been done. They
> will not push any envelopes because they are not curious about what is over
> the horizon, in fact getting too close to edge is a risk they are not
> willing to take. They are flat-earth explorers who like to be home by
> tea-time. Don't be like them, Joey, dare to be different.
>
> OK, rant over... almost.
>
> The reason 13th structures fascinate me so much is because of their holistic
> nature, they are, if you like "the key," they represent the home scale, all
> the modes, and all the possible chords of the diatonic key centre in one
> simple package - where you need a minimum of three triads (as used in
> classical and western folk traditions), or two tetrads (as used in jazz,
> blues, funk, soul, reggae etc.), you only need one heptad (13th structure)
> to harmonize a diatonic melody. The implications of this simple fact are
> fascinating, all diatonic 13th structures of the home key are inversions of
> each other, enabling harmonic motion can be reduced to near zero, a mere
> wash of colour, or alternatively, harmonic motion can be created by voicings
> or alterations to single notes implying key changes. 13th structures are the
> unifying feature that prove to me the musical world is not flat but
> spherical.
>
You are, of course, not alone with your fascination with these
structures.
>
> Anyhow, here's Bm11b5(b9,b13), Em11(b9, b13) and Cmaj13 voiced as rootless
> quartal stacks followed by their roots just to show that despite not being
> common in the traditional literature, they are perfectly usable sounds for
> composition, and if you are ever hired to perform my music you *will* be
> expected to be able to play them :-))
> http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?pid=1108301&T=5155
> Fiona
Hi Fiona,
The more I read your reasons about this interest, the more I think
that you would enjoy
"Modal Jazz Composition & Harmony" by Ron Miller.
This book organizes what you are saying in several different ways. It
is a book that basically is a result of analysis of many Modal Jazz
compositions and the styles of the composers (and performers) that use
this approach. I don't agree with everything that Miller says and I am
not a big fan of his own compositions, but his organization of the
principles are very well done. When you notate a 13th chord, you are
in effect defining a scale and if you consider it a Tonic structure,
you are stating the bass note and a mode and the 13th chord is but one
way to define these two elements.
One of the many ways to look at his approach is to have a bass note
and a parent scale. This is the simplest way that I know to define it.
This is another way to say here is the mode that is being used here.
The parent scale is the basic scale and it has 7 rotations. The bass
note defines which rotation is being used. The vertical structures are
often voiced in quartal arrangements but they are not limited to this
voicing. They may also be quintal, seconds, or mixtures of intervals.
He defines some patterns that he has discovered concerning the tones
that most completely define the mode and these tones are the ones that
are the most important to include so as to give the characteristic
sound of that particular mode
That is the short version. If you are interested, let me know and I
can elaborate on it a bit. I won't go into more detail now since I
don't know if you are interested but will be happy to go into it and
answer questions (as best I can) as to how this approach is used and
what it means
LJS
Fiona Abrahami
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote
Thanks for listening, this Miller book looks interesting, I'll see if I can
get hold of a copy. Maybe you can elaborate more late, I kinda busy right
now.
Fiona
Fiona Abrahami
>>
>>> It occurs to me, Fiona, that you might be mixing up classical theory
>>> notions of "chords of the 13th" or "13th chords" with the short hand
>>> chord
>>> symbols used in jazz/pop chord symbol notation such as "C13" and "Cm13".
>>> And yes, the concepts involved do overlap, but they are not exactly the
>>> same.
>
> Oh well.
> I tried.
Never mind, Joey, don't worry, no one's going to accuse you of being
openminded.
For what it's worth, my opinions here are not based purely on my
misunderstandings (although you may think that), and I do have on what to
rely: regarding 13th structure Dave Liebman in his seminal work "A Chromatic
Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody" uses the root symbols G13(no 11),
C13(#11), indicating that he doesn't accept your assumption that the 11th of
a 13th chord is automatically dropped-out, or that if it is played it is
played sharp, because if he agreed he would not need to use these symbols.
Also, you recently poo-pooed my use of Locrian nat2, and the idea of
comparing modal scales to a major scale template. Again this was not my own
invention, but based on Andy Jaffe's text in his book "Jazz Harmony" where
he says (p.20) "whether a note is raised or lowered it is always labelled in
reference to the major scale based on its root." He then goes on to call the
6th mode of melodic minor Locrian natural 9.
Have you "tried" with them too?
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
It's not a question of being open minded Fiona.
I've played more bizarre music in my life than you are ever likely to.
I'm open to all sorts of things.
It's a question of being clear minded for me.
That's all.
> For what it's worth, my opinions here are not based purely on my
> misunderstandings (although you may think that), and I do have on what to
> rely: regarding 13th structure Dave Liebman in his seminal work "A Chromatic
> Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody" uses the root symbols G13(no 11),
> C13(#11), indicating that he doesn't accept your assumption that the 11th of
> a 13th chord is automatically dropped-out, or that if it is played it is
> played sharp, because if he agreed he would not need to use these symbols.
>
> Also, you recently poo-pooed my use of Locrian nat2, and the idea of
> comparing modal scales to a major scale template. Again this was not my own
> invention, but based on Andy Jaffe's text in his book "Jazz Harmony" where
> he says (p.20) "whether a note is raised or lowered it is always labelled in
> reference to the major scale based on its root." He then goes on to call the
> 6th mode of melodic minor Locrian natural 9.
>
> Have you "tried" with them too?
When I have time I'll try to get around to them too.
antal...@gmail.com
Yeah Fiona, I read what Joey said and it all makes sense to me. It all
matches up with what all my other teachers at Mohawk teach me. I'm
pretty such the entire school of jazz masters is correct and you are
wrong.
antal...@gmail.com
OH and
?? LOL. What are you trying to do, change the way guitarists should
read chords based on how you like to see them?
Fiona Abrahami
<antal...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> ?? LOL. What are you trying to do, change the way guitarists should
> read chords based on how you like to see them?
What have guitarists got to do with it? The question was about the
conceptual aspects of 13th structures in all contexts, I never mentioned
guitar - this is a theory newsgroup, not a guitar group.
Fiona
Fiona Abrahami
<antal...@gmail.com> wrote
> Yeah Fiona, I read what Joey said and it all makes sense to me. It all
> matches up with what all my other teachers at Mohawk teach me. I'm
> pretty such the entire school of jazz masters is correct and you are
> wrong.
Jazz? What's jazz got to do with it? You miss the point entirely.
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
>
> Yeah Fiona, I read what Joey said and it all makes sense to me. It all
> matches up with what all my other teachers at Mohawk teach me. I'm
> pretty such the entire school of jazz masters is correct and you are
> wrong.
Well it's not as simple as being right or wrong on a lot of the stuff
she and I have been talking about.
It's more a case of common parlance among musicians in the jazz
community. If you want people to understand what you're saying, it's a
good idea to use the same language and terminology that they use.
Joey Goldstein
Well, while I agree that guitar has nothing to do with this discussion,
jazz has everything to do with it.
We're discussing chord symbols. And chord symbols are only used by
people who have to improvise. They were developed by jazz musicians, for
jazz musicians. Nowadays, lots of other types of improvising musicians
use them too. But they are a device of the jazz world.
My main criticisms of your thinking are based on that it looks to me
like you're mixing jazz notions of chord construction based on chord
symbols with classical notions of the harmonic analysis of pre-composed
chords. The two are related, but they are *not* isomorphic to one another.
Joey Goldstein
Well now I'm not sure if you're trying to support me or Fiona.
I'm the guy who doesn't like the vagaries of the types of short-hand
chord symbols like "Dm13".
I'm the one advocating spelling out exactly which extensions you want so
that there is more clarity, less confusion. The only problem is that the
chord symbol may take up more room on the page.
And like I said earlier (3 times now I think), the commas wouldn't be
there. The extensions would be piled up vertically one on top of the
other in a smaller script than the script used for the root.
But with a short-hand chord symbol like Dm13 there is not really much
confusion as to what the chord construction should be.
Most people, including me, would use "Dm13" rather than "Dm7(9,11,13)".
[Of course if I only wanted the 13 and not the 9 and 11, I'd have to
write "Dm7(13)", which is still "a 13th chord". So this notion that
*all* 13th chords are supposed to include 9 and 11 is just wrong.]
The problems inherent with this form of short-hand chord symbol creep in
with other chords, not m13 chords.
Examples:
• G13 does *not* contain an 11th.
• Cmaj13 does *not* contain an 11th.
• G11 does not contain a 3rd.
• Hopefully you'll see Cmaj11 on any chart.
• There is no short-hand chord symbol for what a classical musician
would label as iii13 (if he ever encountered it). The best we can do, in
C, is Em11(b9,b13) (as you use below) or Em7(b9,11,b13).
Etc., etc., etc.
For the best list of short-hand chord symbols commonly used in the jazz
community and the harmonic structures associated have a look in the
front sections of any of the fake books from Sher Publishing (The New
Real Book - Vols 1-3, The Standards Real Book, etc.).
Like I said....
I know what to play (usually) when I see one of these short-hand chord
symbols, but *I'd* rather see all the extensions spelled out. I'm in the
minority on this.
> Another
> point on
> this formula, even if you do like to see all this redundancy, why
> include
> both 7 and 9 when you know already that Dm9 includes a b7, just as you
> know
> Dmaj9 includes a maj7? Do you like making things harder for yourself?
See above.
> Even
> if you insist on having the 11th stated, surely you can understand
> that
> Dm9(11,13) has fewer bits of data to process.
See above.
> Em7(b9,11,b13), I disagree, the most succinct form of the 13th chord
> on the
> iii degree would be Em11(b9,b13),
See above.
> although I do accept that guitarists
> have
> tendency to read an 11th chord as a sus4, there is no need for other
> musicians to sink to their level. :-)
"11th chords" are the stuff of music theory books and are the domain of
classical harmonic analysis.
I11 and V11 *do* contain maj 3rds above their respective roots.
But the types of short-hand *CHORD SYMBOLS* we are discussing are
something else.
*Most musicians* (this has nothing to do with guitar players), who know
what they are doing, will play a C9sus4 chord when they encounter the
short-hand chord symbol "C11".
> Em11(b9,b13) implies a b7, the
> 11th is
> stated and the alterations noted, what more do you need?
See above.
> As for your
> statement "you're not likely to find a composer who requests that
> particular
> sound from you" that may be so in traditional literature, but from a
> compositional point of view, I find that a perfectly acceptable/usable
> sound, particularly when voiced with the b9 on top.
Well, you've got pretty exotic tastes then.
Harmonically speaking that sound is not normally used.
You'll often see a melody with an accented b2 against a min7 chord (like
bar 11 of Corcovado), but unless you're playing very modern dissonant
music, you are unlikely to ever see a min7(b9) chord (but there might be
some exceptions I suppose).
Both b9 and b13 are considered to be "avoid notes" on min7 chords.
You'll see b6 emphasized on IIIm7 every once in a while, but remember
that b6 above the root of IIIm is the tonic of the key (Eg. C on Em7 as
IIIm7). But in cases like this the IIIm chord is really just a 1st
inversion of Imaj7 or Imaj9.
The only time you hear jazz musicians using sounds somewhat like a
m11(b9,b13) chord are in a modal phrygian setting.
Eg. A modal vamp on E phrygian might involve Dm7/E or Fmaj7/E.
Both these chords contain the F and the C which are a b9 and b13,
respectively, above E. But they are *not* Em11(b9,b13) chords.
> I guess you must
> be just
> a performer, not a composer. "
You seem to be mixing up who said what in this thread.
> ?? LOL. What are you trying to do, change the way guitarists should
> read chords based on how you like to see them?
See above. And this has nothing to do with guitar.
Joey Goldstein
>
> • Hopefully you'll see Cmaj11 on any chart.
Sorry. Meant to say...
• Hopefully you'll *never* see Cmaj11 on any chart.
antal...@gmail.com
Joey, I didnt say that. That was a quote from Fiona. Sorry for the
confusion.
antal...@gmail.com
Oh, as for the guitar part; I was refering to what Fiona said, quote
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:fv598l$to$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Fiona Abrahami wrote:
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
>>> Fiona Abrahami wrote:
>>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> It occurs to me, Fiona, that you might be mixing up classical theory
>>>>> notions of "chords of the 13th" or "13th chords" with the short hand
>>>>> chord symbols used in jazz/pop chord symbol notation such as "C13" and
>>>>> "Cm13". And yes, the concepts involved do overlap, but they are
>>>>> not exactly the same.
>> [snip]
>>>> Before I address the issues raised by your post let me explain why I am
>>>> different
>>>> directions (damn those huskies... mush!), dissonance, chromaticism and
>>>> intervallic structures on the atonal side of things, and 13th
>>>> structures
>>>> (both tertiary and quartal) on the diatonic/modal side (rootless
>>>> quartal
>>>> 13ths are wondrous things). Naturally, I'm also trying to bring all
>>>> these
>>>> things together.
>>>>
>>>> The reason 13th structures fascinate me so much is because of their
>>>> holistic nature, they are, if you like "the key," they represent the
>>>> home scale, all the modes, and all the possible chords of the diatonic
>>>> key centre in one simple package - where you need a minimum of three
>>>> triads (as used in classical and western folk traditions), or two
>>>> tetrads
>>>> (as used in jazz, blues, funk, soul, reggae etc.), you only need one
>>>> heptad (13th structure) to harmonize a diatonic melody. The
>>>> implications
>>>> of this simple fact are fascinating, all diatonic 13th structures of
>>>> the home key are inversions of each other, enabling harmonic motion can
>>>> be reduced
>>>> changes. 13th structures are the unifying feature that prove to me the
>>>> musical world is not flat but spherical.
>> [snip]
>>> Oh well.
>>> I tried.
>>
>> Never mind, Joey, don't worry, no one's going to accuse you of being
>> openminded.
>
> It's not a question of being open minded Fiona.
There was actually a 'not' missing from that sentence. Brain working faster
than fingers.
> I've played more bizarre music in my life than you are ever likely to.
And you're a prophet too? You've no idea of some the weird stuff I've played
over the last 35 years. Man, you should have heard some of the "sound
sculptures" I was involved in at Art College in the 70s, far more cutting
edge than anything coming out of the (British) music schools at the time -
but that's another story.
> I'm open to all sorts of things.
So in that case why did you say (repeatedly, in various paraphrasings)
"you're not likely to find a composer who requests that particular sound
from you" as if: (A) what has gone before limits what can come in the future
and thus these sounds are unusable in any context, (B) I'm asking as a
performer of existing material, not a composer free to choose any sound
combination I wish, or (C) that jazz or jazz usage is even the issue here?
> It's a question of being clear minded for me.
> That's all.
Fine, debate does help one clarify and consolidate one's opinions (which is
primarily my own reason for even bringing these topics to this board in the
first place), and bouncing ideas off knowledgeable minds helps strip the
ideas to their bones, but it helps not to make assumptions.
>> For what it's worth, my opinions here are not based purely on my
>> misunderstandings (although you may think that), and I do have on what to
>> rely: regarding 13th structure Dave Liebman in his seminal work "A
>> Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody" uses the root symbols
>> G13(no 11), C13(#11), indicating that he doesn't accept your assumption
>> that the 11th of a 13th chord is automatically dropped-out, or that if it
>> is played it is played sharp, because if he agreed he would not need to
>> use these symbols.
>>
>> Also, you recently poo-pooed my use of Locrian nat2, and the idea of
>> comparing modal scales to a major scale template. Again this was not my
>> own invention, but based on Andy Jaffe's text in his book "Jazz Harmony"
>> where he says (p.20) "whether a note is raised or lowered it is always
>> labelled in reference to the major scale based on its root." He then goes
>> on to call the 6th mode of melodic minor Locrian natural 9.
>>
>> Have you "tried" with them too?
>
> When I have time I'll try to get around to them too.
Well, good luck with that.
Fiona
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
> Fiona Abrahami wrote:
>> <antal...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Yeah Fiona, I read what Joey said and it all makes sense to me. It all
>>> matches up with what all my other teachers at Mohawk teach me. I'm
>>> pretty such the entire school of jazz masters is correct and you are
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Jazz? What's jazz got to do with it? You miss the point entirely.
>
> jazz has everything to do with it.
> We're discussing chord symbols. And chord symbols are only used by people
> who have to improvise. They were developed by jazz musicians, for jazz
> musicians. Nowadays, lots of other types of improvising musicians use them
> too. But they are a device of the jazz world.
Just like we Brits can no longer dictate either usage or meaning of the
English language despite having invented it, jazz can no longer dictate
chord symbol usage, particularly since it became a minority genre.
> My main criticisms of your thinking are based on that it looks to me like
> you're mixing jazz notions of chord construction based on chord symbols
> with classical notions of the harmonic analysis of pre-composed chords.
> The two are related, but they are *not* isomorphic to one another.
Oooh, isomorphic, nice word :-)
Actually, I don't consider I'm doing what you suggest above, what I *am*
trying to do is discuss purely theoretical ideas of modern harmony
(regardless of genre) in a text based environment, this requires some form
of short hand for communication. The main problem as I see it, is that there
are massive inconsistencies (even within the jazz world) regarding what is
standard and what is flexible, and I don't plan on being hemmed in by jazz
usage. Of course, I'll listen to what the jazz theorists have to say, even
though pretty much every jazz theorist I've read says something different
and contradicts what the last one says - you included - but, I don't
consider the jazz world's view to be definitive.
Fiona
LJS
Everyone at Mohawk teaches it that way? Well, lets change all the
theory books that have a different viewpoint. I suppose that this is
taught in the same class that teachers to give answers to what you
know weather or not it fits the context of the question or not. I am
sure that Fiona will address this as well, but I have been following
these posts and I see that you, as well as Joey has no idea of what
she was talking about. Its not that the information that Joey was
repeating was wrong. It is perfectly correct that guitar players will
read chords that way. If that was what she was talking about, your
post would be at least on topic.
If you read the posts throughly, (Obviously this is not taught at
Mohawk!) you would see that she was talking about an entirely
different thing than the way guitarists interpret chords. She has been
talking about a more modern approach that is rooted in classical music
and her statements are entirely true! "How can that be?" says the
student. Well, there are many ways to approach things in music. Jazz
guitarists, and some piano players, will do things in a manner that
works for them in their world. All too often, they fall into the trap
of thinking that their world is universal. Unless you want to limit
yourself to the one (and judging by your post, the only way that
Mohawk Music Conservatory sees things) point of view and be stuck with
it for the rest of your life, you should try to learn to listen to
what people actually say, rather than what you would like them to have
said; and you should try to broaden your horizons and see what other
music schools have been up to as well as Mohawk! I see by your totally
missing the point of Fiona's thread and your insistence on telling the
world that you have no idea of what she has been talking about that
Professor Joey has taught you well! I hope he is giving you extra
credit for telling us all that you know he is right because that is
what everyone else at the school believes to be the truth, the whole
truth and that there is no other truth.
Sorry to step in here Fiona, I know you can speak for yourself, but
one Joey is enough!
LJS
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Just like we Brits can no longer dictate either usage or meaning of the
>English language despite having invented it, jazz can no longer dictate
>chord symbol usage, particularly since it became a minority genre.
I hope I'm not about to take this in the spirit in which you meant it.
Jazz was mostly propagated by African-Americans for their own
community's consumption before the music gained national and
international appeal. I think it's periodically useful to remember some
nuances of insider/outsider dynamics here. It would seem that African-
Americans and then white Americans should get first dibs on defining
jazz nomenclature before opening it up to the rest of the "outside"
world.
>Actually, I don't consider I'm doing what you suggest above, what I *am*
>trying to do is discuss purely theoretical ideas of modern harmony
>(regardless of genre) in a text based environment, this requires some form
>of short hand for communication.
Yet, you've made most of your points in a jazz context, sometimes even
critiquing modern jazz musicians for what you consider to be an
excessively fussy sense of historical style.
>The main problem as I see it, is that there
>are massive inconsistencies (even within the jazz world) regarding what is
>standard and what is flexible, and I don't plan on being hemmed in by jazz
>usage. Of course, I'll listen to what the jazz theorists have to say, even
>though pretty much every jazz theorist I've read says something different
>and contradicts what the last one says - you included - but, I don't
>consider the jazz world's view to be definitive.
No, I think you consider your own worldview to be definitive, which is
why yours is always right and every other displays startling amounts of
inconsistency.
Orlando
antal...@gmail.com
here, I'm just a kid. I don't have the knowledge to reply to
everything Fiona said. I was simply commenting on what I could. I
understood the thread, thank you very much. By the way, I'm not
retarded. Obviously there are many ways to see things or call things,
etc. in the jazz world. I was just bringing to the table what I know
and learned. And whats with the personal shots at me, my school and my
education? Does it make you feel good inside? Grow the frig up,
clown.
Joey Goldstein
Antal, you still seem confused about who's saying what.
That's all me above. I'm correcting myself.
Joey Goldstein
Ah. I missed the quotation marks. I thought that was your own comment.
Sorry.
Joey Goldstein
I played several gigs with 3 bands playing at one time. All 3 drummers
were naked, pubes shaved off, with body paint all over their privates
and elsewhere. The band I was playing with had a great jazz sax player
who only took "joke solos", usually 8-bars long. We'd play, then stop
for 8 bars while he told a joke. Then we'd start up again. Of course you
couldn't hear his jokes because the 2 other bands were drowning him out.
It was called a Compositional Collage by the drummer/leader of the band
I was in. It was all his concept.
On another series of his we did a tune called Dead Clock, where he came
out, naked with face paint on, and destroyed a huge wooden clock he had
built with a chainsaw, while we played this pretty tune in the back ground.
His name is Graeme Kirkland. He's dropped out of music now and is a
financial adviser at Scotia-MacLeod. He only takes clients with over
$500k to invest. Anybody want his number?
>> I'm open to all sorts of things.
>
> So in that case why did you say (repeatedly, in various paraphrasings)
> "you're not likely to find a composer who requests that particular sound
> from you"
Because, for the chords I was talking about, it's true.
sure there are people who might ask for those types of sounds from you,
but they are few.
> as if: (A) what has gone before limits what can come in the future
> and thus these sounds are unusable in any context,
As if I said that.
> (B) I'm asking as a
> performer of existing material, not a composer free to choose any sound
> combination I wish, or (C) that jazz or jazz usage is even the issue here?
I'm just stating the facts. Sorry if don't like them.
>> It's a question of being clear minded for me.
>> That's all.
>
> Fine, debate does help one clarify and consolidate one's opinions (which is
> primarily my own reason for even bringing these topics to this board in the
> first place), and bouncing ideas off knowledgeable minds helps strip the
> ideas to their bones, but it helps not to make assumptions.
>
>>> For what it's worth, my opinions here are not based purely on my
>>> misunderstandings (although you may think that), and I do have on what to
>>> rely: regarding 13th structure Dave Liebman in his seminal work "A
>>> Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody" uses the root symbols
>>> G13(no 11), C13(#11), indicating that he doesn't accept your assumption
>>> that the 11th of a 13th chord is automatically dropped-out, or that if it
>>> is played it is played sharp, because if he agreed he would not need to
>>> use these symbols.
>>>
>>> Also, you recently poo-pooed my use of Locrian nat2, and the idea of
>>> comparing modal scales to a major scale template. Again this was not my
>>> own invention, but based on Andy Jaffe's text in his book "Jazz Harmony"
>>> where he says (p.20) "whether a note is raised or lowered it is always
>>> labelled in reference to the major scale based on its root." He then goes
>>> on to call the 6th mode of melodic minor Locrian natural 9.
>>>
>>> Have you "tried" with them too?
>> When I have time I'll try to get around to them too.
>
> Well, good luck with that.
FYI
As great a musician as Liebman is, much of the nomenclature he tends to
use is non-standard.
I glanced through Jaffe's book once. I thought it was OK but was missing
some important stuff, like harmonic function (T SD D, etc.), as I recall.
Faced with recommending a harmony book to my students, I chose the
Nettles & Graf book instead. From what I can see on the Web it looks
like the Jaffe book has been discontinued and is out of print.
Just because you get a book published doesn't mean that your stuff is
correct or logically self-consistent. Hell, even I've got a book for
sale. And I know from writing it how hard it is to be logically
self-consistent or correct.
Joey Goldstein
I've got that guy kill-filed.
If he knows that you're one of my students he may be trying to take
shots at me through you.
He's just a troll. Ignore him.
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
> But with a short-hand chord symbol like Dm13 there is not really much
> confusion as to what the chord construction should be.
> Most people, including me, would use "Dm13" rather than "Dm7(9,11,13)".
> [Of course if I only wanted the 13 and not the 9 and 11, I'd have to write
> "Dm7(13)", which is still "a 13th chord". So this notion that *all* 13th
> chords are supposed to include 9 and 11 is just wrong.]
I wouldn't call a Dm7(13) a 13th chord, it is an 'add13' chord, but you are
just missing out the 'add'.
> The problems inherent with this form of short-hand chord symbol creep in
> with other chords, not m13 chords.
> Examples:
> • G13 does *not* contain an 11th.
> • Cmaj13 does *not* contain an 11th.
While I acknowledge that the jazz-police say that 11th are "not available"
on these chords, I find it deeply troubling that the jazz community, once
the cutting edge of aural stimulation, has become so reactionary that it can
no longer tolerate b9 dissonance.
> • G11 does not contain a 3rd.
Actually it does, the 3rd is what distinguishes a G11 from a Gsus4, however
as you said sus4 is usually substituted for a dom11. Even then the 3rd is
not ruled out, according to Levine (page 474 of Jazz Theory) "The 3rd is
just about the prettiest note you can play on a sus chord." He then
illustrates this with a chord played by Wynton Kelly in the intro to Miles
Davis' "Some Day My Prince Will Come" - the chord shown is labelled as Fsus
and contains the notes F, Bb, Eb, G and A. To me, that is not Fsus4 but F11.
> • Hopefully you'll [never] see Cmaj11 on any chart.
That is a sad reflection on the future of jazz on the North American
continent, with reactionary statements like it is no wonder American jazz is
moribund. Cmaj11 would imply C, E, G, B, D, F which includes the glorious
dissonant intervals of C:B maj7, E:F b9, B:F tritone and C:F 11th(4th). It's
not the notes that are the problem it's the voicing, as a stack of thirds
the dissonances are muddy, but there are a number of voicing that make this
a great chord. My favourite is C, E, B, F, G, D over three and a bit
octaves - lovely.
>> although I do accept that guitarists have
>> tendency to read an 11th chord as a sus4, there is no need for other
>> musicians to sink to their level. :-)
>
> "11th chords" are the stuff of music theory books and are the domain of
> classical harmonic analysis.
> I11 and V11 *do* contain maj 3rds above their respective roots.
>
> But the types of short-hand *CHORD SYMBOLS* we are discussing are
> something else.
> *Most musicians* (this has nothing to do with guitar players), who know
> what they are doing, will play a C9sus4 chord when they encounter the
> short-hand chord symbol "C11".
But you realise this is a substitution not playing as written, there is no
need for two symbols meaning the same thing. If a composer writes C11 rather
than C9sus4, then clearly they require something from C9sus4 and the only
possible difference is the 3rd - so logically that must be the sound they
are after.
>> As for your statement "you're not likely to find a composer who requests
>> that particular
>> sound from you" that may be so in traditional literature, but from a
>> compositional point of view, I find that a perfectly acceptable/usable
>> sound, particularly when voiced with the b9 on top.
>
> Well, you've got pretty exotic tastes then.
Actually that was me saying that, not your student, and yeah I've got pretty
exotic tastes. There is so much bland insipid pap out there these days
passing as jazz that unless something has got some real spicy dissonance or
other unusual quality I really haven't got time for it - and that includes
my own music. I've spent a lifetime struggling against the tide (in most
areas of life) such that my POV cannot be expressed with diatonic consonance
and "nicey, nicey" traditions. For better or for worse I now accept I am the
eternal misfit, and my music should reflect that - that it hasn't until
recently was symptomatic of my despiration to fit in someplace. But I'm
beyond that now, I've found my voice in dissonance and my musical future
lies in mining these seams of exotic harmony. As far as I'm concerned the
purpose of the discussions is to find a short-hand language to express these
sounds without having to refer to fully scored notation.
> Harmonically speaking that sound is not normally used.
See above, normal is not a requirement.
> You'll often see a melody with an accented b2 against a min7 chord (like
> bar 11 of Corcovado), but unless you're playing very modern dissonant
> music, you are unlikely to ever see a min7(b9) chord (but there might be
> some exceptions I suppose).
Modern dissonant music.... there you go then.
Fiona
Fiona Abrahami
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
> antal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Yeah Fiona, I read what Joey said and it all makes sense to me. It all
>> matches up with what all my other teachers at Mohawk teach me. I'm
>> pretty such the entire school of jazz masters is correct and you are
>> wrong.
>
> Well it's not as simple as being right or wrong on a lot of the stuff she
> and I have been talking about.
> It's more a case of common parlance among musicians in the jazz community.
> If you want people to understand what you're saying, it's a good idea to
> use the same language and terminology that they use.
Thanks for saying this Joey, and I do agree with you that this is the bottom
line. However, there are other issues and problems too, one being that the
jazz community (if we are limiting our discussing to them, I wasn't
initially, but it seems to have drifted that way) itself doesn't agree on a
standard set of symbols. Furthermore, as explained elsewhere, my primary
interest here is notating (in text) new sounds from a compositional POV. As
far as "what the people do" in regard to existing music I'm not really
disputing what you say, although I do think there are some traditions that
are illogical, but again I'm trying to focus on the new not the old.
Perusing the literature there seems to be three basic systems in use:
1 ~ Nothing higher than a 7th in the core symbol, with "available" modified
tensions in brackets or superscript. Unmodified tensions are assumed to be
available and not mentioned. This is the most common system; used by Levine
in Jazz Theory and a host of other authors.
1a ~ Variations on the above, some of which will accept 9ths in the core
symbol. You seem to hold by one of these variations Joey.
2 ~ Higher tensions (9, 11, 13) accepted in core symbol, 9ths but not 11ths
assumed in 13ths, alterations in brackets or superscript.. Used by Liebman
(but see below) and Mark Bridges in the Amsco Gig Bag Book of Chords
(guitar). I prefer this system but would like to see 11ths included in 13ths
:-)
3 ~ Polychords or Hybrids, stacked triads or tetrads, possibly the most
accurate way to define chords with higher tensions e.g. Dm over Cmaj7 would
indicate a Cmaj13 with the natural 11th, but difficult to process quickly
and breaking the chord into two parts seems to limit voicings as the
implication seems to be that you can't use a note from the upper chord in
the lower voicing. This system is favoured by Liebman because of its
flexibility to describe atonal intervallic structures.
In the end I may have to resort to this last system, but I'm not happy about
the perceived limitations on voicings. I'd rather see a modified version of
system 2 in use because I think it's easier to read.
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
>> Examples:
>> • G13 does *not* contain an 11th.
>> • Cmaj13 does *not* contain an 11th.
>
> While I acknowledge that the jazz-police say that 11th are "not available"
> on these chords, I find it deeply troubling that the jazz community, once
> the cutting edge of aural stimulation, has become so reactionary that it can
> no longer tolerate b9 dissonance.
It's not that they're "not available". It's that they're "not normally
available in Tonal music", and that is reflected with the way that
musicians interpret those 2 *CHORD SYMBOLS*. What we're talking about
here is the meaning of *CHORD SYMBOLS* to musicians. I'm trying to tell
you what they mean, but you're not listening.
If you want the P11th included in the voicing *you're going to have to
write it out*:
Eg. G13(11), or G7(9,11,13) or sim;
Eg. Cmaj13(11) or sim.
This is because the P11th is *not normally included* when a musician
reads those 2 *CHORD SYMBOLS*.
>> • G11 does not contain a 3rd.
>
> Actually it does, the 3rd is what distinguishes a G11 from a Gsus4, however
> as you said sus4 is usually substituted for a dom11. Even then the 3rd is
> not ruled out, according to Levine (page 474 of Jazz Theory) "The 3rd is
> just about the prettiest note you can play on a sus chord." He then
> illustrates this with a chord played by Wynton Kelly in the intro to Miles
> Davis' "Some Day My Prince Will Come" - the chord shown is labelled as Fsus
> and contains the notes F, Bb, Eb, G and A. To me, that is not Fsus4 but F11.
G7sus4(add10) or G7sus4(add3) is usually acknowledged as being different
sound from G7(11). The difference is that G11 and G7(11) both imply a b9
interval in the default root position close voicing of the chord.
G7(11) - G B D F C (A b9 is formed between B and C.)
G11 - G B D F A C (A b9 is formed between B and C.)
G7sus4(add10) - G C D F B (A maj 7th is formed between C and B, not a b9.)
G7sus4(add3) - G B C D F (The b2 formed by B and C is surrounded by more
consonant intervals which softens the harmonic impact of the b2's
dissonance.)
The other things going on here have to do with harmonic function within
the key.
Dom7 chords, as V7, have Dominant function in the key. A chord with D
function can not normally have the Tonic of the key as a harmonic tone.
I.e. Putting the tonic on a D funct chord destroys the D function.
Dom7sus4 chords are usually seen as SubDominant function chords, and SD
funct chords *can* contain the tonic as a harmonic tone, as well as the
leading tone, without losing its SD function in the key.
I think that a big part of your misunderstanding of how chord symbols
are interpreted is due to the fact that you are not dealing with Tonal
music per se, i.e music that is based on the major/minor key system. And
it's Tonal music that the whole chord symbol system was designed to
address. Sure, there are ways to graft the use of chord-symbols onto
non-Tonal music, but that's not what they were designed for. If that's
how you want to use them, then you'll have to include extra instructions
on your music as to what the chord symbols are supposed to mean to your
players.
>> • Hopefully you'll [never] see Cmaj11 on any chart.
>
> That is a sad reflection on the future of jazz on the North American
> continent, with reactionary statements like it is no wonder American jazz is
> moribund.
Bullshit.
If a modern writer wants that sound, and if he knows what he's doing,
he'll write Cmaj7(9,11), not Cmaj11.
I'm not "against" that sound. I'm against the use of that *CHORD SYMBOL*.
Sheesh. Who do you think you are? The savior of modern music? Give me a
break.
> Cmaj11 would imply C, E, G, B, D, F which includes the glorious
> dissonant intervals of C:B maj7, E:F b9, B:F tritone and C:F 11th(4th). It's
> not the notes that are the problem it's the voicing, as a stack of thirds
> the dissonances are muddy, but there are a number of voicing that make this
> a great chord. My favourite is C, E, B, F, G, D over three and a bit
> octaves - lovely.
It may be lovely, but it can't normally function as a I chord in the
*key* of C major because it contains the subdominant of the key.
Fiona. If you put a chart in front of any professional musician (who is
unfamiliar with your musical needs and tastes) with "Cmaj11" on it, the
first thing he's going to say to you is "What do you want me to play on
that chord?". If you want to avoid that conversation you should just
write "Cmaj7(9,11)", or write out the notes in your intended voicing in
standard notation.
>>> although I do accept that guitarists have
>>> tendency to read an 11th chord as a sus4, there is no need for other
>>> musicians to sink to their level. :-)
>> "11th chords" are the stuff of music theory books and are the domain of
>> classical harmonic analysis.
>> I11 and V11 *do* contain maj 3rds above their respective roots.
>>
>> But the types of short-hand *CHORD SYMBOLS* we are discussing are
>> something else.
>> *Most musicians* (this has nothing to do with guitar players), who know
>> what they are doing, will play a C9sus4 chord when they encounter the
>> short-hand chord symbol "C11".
>
> But you realise this is a substitution not playing as written, there is no
> need for two symbols meaning the same thing. If a composer writes C11 rather
> than C9sus4, then clearly they require something from C9sus4 and the only
> possible difference is the 3rd - so logically that must be the sound they
> are after.
In an ideal world that might be true.
But most writers who do write C11, really want C9sus4.
>>> As for your statement "you're not likely to find a composer who requests
>>> that particular
>>> sound from you" that may be so in traditional literature, but from a
>>> compositional point of view, I find that a perfectly acceptable/usable
>>> sound, particularly when voiced with the b9 on top.
>> Well, you've got pretty exotic tastes then.
>
> Actually that was me saying that, not your student, and yeah I've got pretty
> exotic tastes. There is so much bland insipid pap out there these days
> passing as jazz that unless something has got some real spicy dissonance or
> other unusual quality I really haven't got time for it - and that includes
> my own music.
There's also lots and lots of modern jazz out there peppered with all
sorts of dissonance and polyrhythms played by virtuoso musicians who
understand the place for the things I've been talking about.
> I've spent a lifetime struggling against the tide (in most
> areas of life) such that my POV cannot be expressed with diatonic consonance
> and "nicey, nicey" traditions.
Well anybody who has ever added anything meaningful to music has
understood the traditions of where he has come from and has studied them
in depth. Just turning your back on them rarely works, unless you're
some sort of unparalleled genius, and even then it doesn't usually work
all that well.
> For better or for worse I now accept I am the
> eternal misfit, and my music should reflect that - that it hasn't until
> recently was symptomatic of my despiration to fit in someplace. But I'm
> beyond that now, I've found my voice in dissonance and my musical future
> lies in mining these seams of exotic harmony. As far as I'm concerned the
> purpose of the discussions is to find a short-hand language to express these
> sounds without having to refer to fully scored notation.
>
>> Harmonically speaking that sound is not normally used.
>
> See above, normal is not a requirement.
Perhaps not for you. But for people who play with others more often and
who use chord symbols within Tonal music, it's a good idea to know the
norms that are expected.
>> You'll often see a melody with an accented b2 against a min7 chord (like
>> bar 11 of Corcovado), but unless you're playing very modern dissonant
>> music, you are unlikely to ever see a min7(b9) chord (but there might be
>> some exceptions I suppose).
>
> Modern dissonant music.... there you go then.
Music like that uses different chord symbols, or the composer needs to
spend some time explaining to his musicians what he expects them to play
when they encounter an everyday chord symbol.
Joey Goldstein
I think you misunderstand Levine.
Most jazz musicians prefer to see the simplest chord symbols possible.
Simple 7th chords and triads for the tonic and subdominant chords. This
allows us to color the chord on-the-fly as we see fit.
I don't know where you got this notion of "modified tensions" and
"unmodified tensions" but it seems a bit confused to me. And again, your
confusion seems to stem from a lack of experience with Tonal music.
On V7 in a major key, the diatonic tensions that are normally added to
the chord are 9 and 13. 9 and 13 are not "unmodified tensions". They are
simply the "norm" on V7 in major keys.
On V7 in a minor key, the diatonic tensions that are normally added to
the chord are b9 and b13. b9 and b13 are not "modified tensions", at
least not in the way that I think you think they are. They are simply
the "norm" on V7 in minor keys.
Of course there is cross pollination between major and minor going on
all the time so we often see b9 or b13 on V7 going to I in a major key.
The terms usually used for what I think you're trying to describe are
"unaltered tensions" and "altered tensions".
9 11 and 13 are called the unaltered tensions, and b9 #9 #11 and b13 are
called the altered tensions.
But their application is not as simple as the way you've tried to
describe it in your #1 above. Whether a musician decides to play an
altered tension or an unaltered tension depends on the context of the
music and his own tastes. I.e. The tensions that are "assumed to be
available and not mentioned" are governed by context and may be either
unaltered tensions or altered tensions.
I.e. In the key of C minor, on G7, no musician would assume that 9 and
13 were "assumed". On the contrary, they would assume b9 and b13.
> 1a ~ Variations on the above, some of which will accept 9ths in the core
> symbol. You seem to hold by one of these variations Joey.
All I care about is clarity.
If I write a chart, I want the musicians to understand what sounds I
want without having to talk to them about it. That's why I learned to
read and write music, so that I wouldn't have to talk to people at
rehearsals: "Well you put your little finger on that note... hold it for
boom bad boom ...and then wiggle it over here during rat a tat tat."
And if somebody writes a chord chart for me I shouldn't have to expect
them to explain what each chord symbol is supposed to mean.
This is all really about experience. Experience in the musical community
at large. I think that you might be in need of playing more often with
other people.
> 2 ~ Higher tensions (9, 11, 13) accepted in core symbol, 9ths but not 11ths
> assumed in 13ths, alterations in brackets or superscript.. Used by Liebman
> (but see below) and Mark Bridges in the Amsco Gig Bag Book of Chords
> (guitar). I prefer this system but would like to see 11ths included in 13ths
> :-)
>
> 3 ~ Polychords or Hybrids, stacked triads or tetrads, possibly the most
> accurate way to define chords with higher tensions e.g. Dm over Cmaj7 would
> indicate a Cmaj13 with the natural 11th, but difficult to process quickly
> and breaking the chord into two parts seems to limit voicings as the
> implication seems to be that you can't use a note from the upper chord in
> the lower voicing. This system is favoured by Liebman because of its
> flexibility to describe atonal intervallic structures.
>
> In the end I may have to resort to this last system, but I'm not happy about
> the perceived limitations on voicings. I'd rather see a modified version of
> system 2 in use because I think it's easier to read.
>
>
> Fiona
>
>
LJS
> antalab...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hey LJS, I get it. I'm not a professional player like some people
> > here, I'm just a kid. I don't have the knowledge to reply to
> > everything Fiona said. I was simply commenting on what I could. I
> > understood the thread, thank you very much. By the way, I'm not
> > retarded.
I didn't say that you were retarded. What I said was that you were
talking about things that you did not understand and you comments
proved that. I believe that I even said that the information that you
were referring to was fine and only that it was regarding something
other than what Fiona was talking about. If you had understood what
she was saying, you would have seen that your comments were merely
echoing Joey's misconception of what she has been saying all along.
Obviously there are many ways to see things or call things,
> > etc. in the jazz world. I was just bringing to the table what I know
> > and learned.
That is good. There is nothing wrong with that. In this case, you
didn't bring anything new to the table. You echoed what your teachers
had said. Unfortunately, they were not talking about Fiona's thread.
Instead, Joey was talking about the way he sees it and you were only
saying that he and others at your college were echoing his views. If
you read the posts again, you will see that although there information
may be correct in reference to the way some guitar players see
notation of these chords for regular everyday traditional use of these
chords in particular styles that they missed the entire point of the
discussion by Fiona as to what were ways to notate the tonality
implied by these chords in a more classical/jazz new approach to 13th
chords and was trying to discover the best way to give the entire
scale from the 13th chords. Personally, I think she is talking about a
style of modal jazz that uses these principles but is still in the
stages of having various styles of notation that reflect the way the
music is generated by various artists. I think she is looking for a
more standard way of expression this newer and more experimental form
of tonality that is being played by some of the more current classical/
jazz musicians that are really the composers of the 21st century using
the new venues available to them through the jazz idiom.
And whats with the personal shots at me, my school and my
> > education? Does it make you feel good inside? Grow the frig up,
> > clown.
If you continue to simply accept things without question and to look
for verification of "facts" by your teachers (no matter where you are
going to school) you will make the statements that you think I said
true. The fact is, I did not dis your school. I dis'ed the notion that
you were commenting on things as being true because your teachers said
so! There is a big difference. You echoed Joey's remarks just as if
you had been told what to say. It was off topic in the same places and
in the same way that Joey's remarks were. Quite frankly, you merely
parroted his posts as if understanding was a democracy and you were
voting on what was right. Again with this paragraph, you are
reinforcing what concerned me! My concern, and comment, is that you
were stating with authority something that had nothing to do with
Fiona's statements or questions. By doing this you showed that you are
not aware of the things that she is referring to, and I can assure you
that they do exist and that she is not making these things up. Your
post was also an example of my objection to Joey's teaching students
his closed minded way of looking at things. It is a long time tact to
build dependency by the student to looking to the teacher for guidance
rather than to provide the student with the tools of learning to see
things for himself and to learn to learn on his own how to best put
his experiences into the music that he will be using. That means that
the student is learning how one person thinks and sees things and
becomes so dependent on learning this one small genre of thought that
you become totally unaware of the information that is available out
there that will have a different perspective.
No, "antalab", if I thought you were retarded, I would not have
pointed out this rather large (but correctable) flaw in your thinking.
And there is nothing wrong with a Community College. I have been
adjunct and associate professors at both full universities and full
universities. An interested student can learn in any environment and
in your case, I have always said that Joey knows a lot of things and
he has learned a lot of them the hard way. He does have a serious
flaw, however, and that is expressed perfectly in your post. You have
(as I said) correct information. You don't understand the scope and
limits of what you know. You are learning how to make and understand
music (hopefully) through the eyes of your teachers. The fact that
everyone on a faculty agrees with everyone else (as you stated) is not
a good sign. Truly learned musicians will have different opinions on
just about everything. Its when everyone knows the same thing that
problems can arise. But this is not a life sentence. You are at a
preparatory school. You are learning the basics. You will discover
(hopefully) as you get out into the world that what you learned there
is probably correct, but that it is ONE perspective that addresses
only a limited amount of music and then in a limited way. Don't panic,
every school is this way to a certain extent.
I came into your post because I thought that you may have the interest
and the spunk to see that the world of music is a lot larger than a
small community college. Small communities tend to inbreed their
ideas. This is natural. Learn the facts that are available to you,
learn the styles of music that your teachers do well, (it will all
transfer over to other concepts of music) but don't learn the style of
assuming that everyone has the same limitations that you have. You
(and Joey) should be better at what you do than anyone else. Fiona is
better at what she does than anyone else, I am better at what I do and
everyone that takes the call to make music their vocation has
something that they will be better at than anyone else. The problem
comes in when any one of us begins to think that everyone thinks in
the same way that we do.
They do not. If you want to learn from everyone, then you have to
learn to listen to everyone from their perspective. I have learned
plenty from everyone that I disagree with in this group. I would be
surprised if Joey has learned anything from me or from Fiona and many
others that try to talk about things that he doesn't know about nor
care about. He has "killed filed" me. Yes, as punishment for my
challenging his thoughts on some classical concepts and his totally
wrong idea of how classical analysis works and who knows what else! So
his solution is to just put any ideas that contradict him out of the
picture! He has, similar to an ostrich that senses danger, buried his
head in the sand so that he doesn't have to face opinions that may
show that there are more ways to look at things than he can deal with.
The choice is yours.
Learn to listen to EVERY opinion and to learn what they are truly
about or isolate yourself from different avenues of thought. Your post
shows that you are leaning to NOT listening to what people say and to
try to apply your knowledge to things that are not related. Yes, Joey
was stating the way many guitarists make pragmatic use of the 13th
chord notation. But you both missed the entire point of the
conversation and tried to apply this particular notion of this
notation to something that didn't fit. Then you are saying that Fiona
is wrong because this information, although correct in its context, is
not useful or applicable to her context. If you don't see this
distinction, then I am sorry and those statements about your school
that you may try to claim that I said may turn out to be true in a
broader sense. If ANY of your teachers EVER suggest to you that you
must close your mind to opinions about the subject that they are
teaching, consider this a red flag and you should find out why this
information is "forbidden". A teacher will want you to look at
everything and question and dig and find the truth for yourself. A
"preacher" will profess his views as "the truth" and demand a leap of
faith from you to follow their teachings without looking at the
alternatives.
That is why I replied to you. Now because I though you were a retard,
but because I think you are capable of learning rather than simply
following. The choice is yours.
LJS
>
> I've got that guy kill-filed.
> If he knows that you're one of my students he may be trying to take
> shots at me through you.
> He's just a troll. Ignore him.
You are consistent with your philosophy Joey. Ignore anything that
deviates from your perspective!
LJS
Gee, there is a picture that could have better been left unpublished!
(You have an amazing attention to certain types of details!)
I notice, however did you notice that the comment you replied to was
about sound and variety of sound and the emphasis was on the musical
sound as being different and your response was about 3 jazz bands (not
even 3 different genres of music) that prevented each other from being
heard and the main focus is not on the music, but rather on people
exposing themselves in public. This may be an art concept that uses
music, but it sounds more like the music is incidental to the act of
being naked on public! Didn't seem to be a milestone in MUSIC,
although it seemed to make an impression on you.
>
> On another series of his we did a tune called Dead Clock, where he came
> out, naked with face paint on, and destroyed a huge wooden clock he had
> built with a chainsaw, while we played this pretty tune in the back ground.
Again with the naked! (Seems to be a theme with this guy!) But again,
music is in the background. I don't see any signs of progressive
musical thought here either. Just more naked!
>
> His name is Graeme Kirkland. He's dropped out of music now and is a
> financial adviser at Scotia-MacLeod. He only takes clients with over
> $500k to invest. Anybody want his number?
Does he do his financial consulting naked as well?
But as to the investing itself, what is his typical rate of return?
>
> >> I'm open to all sorts of things.
>
> > So in that case why did you say (repeatedly, in various paraphrasings)
> > "you're not likely to find a composer who requests that particular sound
> > from you"
>
> Because, for the chords I was talking about, it's true.
> sure there are people who might ask for those types of sounds from you,
> but they are few.
>
> > as if: (A) what has gone before limits what can come in the future
> > and thus these sounds are unusable in any context,
>
> As if I said that.
Hmm, actually you did, and you have said it in many different ways on
many different occasions. She is merely paraphrasing.
>
> > (B) I'm asking as a
> > performer of existing material, not a composer free to choose any sound
> > combination I wish, or (C) that jazz or jazz usage is even the issue here?
>
> I'm just stating the facts. Sorry if don't like them.
Well, no! You are stating opinion. That is the biggest problem here.
You always state your opinion as facts but you then take opinions and
facts from the citations that are provided to you and then dismiss
them as opinion! or even state blindly that they are wrong! (No
explanation, just that in the eyes of Joey, they are wrong!)
So you have "killed filed" these as well?
>
> Just because you get a book published doesn't mean that your stuff is
> correct or logically self-consistent. Hell, even I've got a book for
> sale. And I know from writing it how hard it is to be logically
> self-consistent or correct.
Truer words were never spoken by any author!
LJS
There were no personal shots at you or at your school! Your
misunderstanding of that is indicative of what I was actually saying.
i.e. You are not listening to what is being said and although your
information is now wrong for what it is, but when you try to apply it
to the wrong conversation or in the wrong context, it becomes wrong
information. The answers needs to have some relevance to the topic or
it is just out of place!
LJS
LJS
You should really look into some of the notation used in the modal
theory I have been talking about. A whole lot of it is about just
that. No limitations on the voicing, but very specific modes that are
to be used to implement the voicing. Poly Chords are covered in his
analysis, but mostly in his analysis of composers that use polychordal
techniques. He does include tertian notation that has been used to
define the modes as well. They of course don't always follow Joey's
rules but will give you some additional ideas as well concerning what
I think you are touching upon. If you are considering the 13th chord
as defining a tonality or a scale that may be used for harmony and/or
melody that will be the basis of the sonority and movement in the
music, then we are talking about the same thing.
I will be happy to talk about what I know of this if you want to know
more before shelling out $50 (or whatever) for his book. I have seen
several applications of Millers information being used in what I have
read between your lines (and this constant return to how to spell Jazz
chords!) and you have already given me some concepts to look into
concerning functional uses of these concepts.
LJS
antal...@gmail.com
> On Apr 29, 9:48 pm, antalab...@gmail.com wrote:
>
through it. Blah blah blah Joey is wrong Fiona is right.
"You are consistent with your philosophy Joey. Ignore anything that
deviates from your perspective! "
What? I ignore anything that deviates from my perspective? What are
you on, crack? Go read any topics I've created and you'll see I'm not
like that. You shouldn't jump to conclusions about me after reading
one post I made. It seems YOU are the ignorant one here.
LJS
Well, I read that post and you have no idea of what Fiona was talking
about. And you still don't. You have no idea of what I am saying. I
actually said that your information was correct, but you don't
understand that or what my conversation was about. So if you are
happy with your perspective and you are reaching your potential with
your current learning style, then that is great. I can't be right all
the time. I thought you may be capable of more but you know yourself
better than I do so I am sorry to have intruded into your world, carry
on with what you are doing and the best of luck to you with your
education and career in what ever field you find yourself.
LJS
LJS
My O My, I see that you have learned a lot from Joey already! I think
that there was actually a name calling in your other post. When you
learn to use profanity in your posts you will be the Joey clone. Carry
on.
LJS
BTW, what topics? I only spoke of this one post. Why are you so
paranoid that you can twist what I said into all these negative things
that you have take from a simple comment that you had right
information but you did not understand what the conversation was
about. How are you not like that! I don't remember topics that you
have created that shows what your perspectives are much less how you
have deviated from them. What are you talking about?
Fiona Abrahami
<antal...@gmail.com> wrote
> LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> antalab...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
> OK LJS, im not reading that wall of text you typed out. I skimmed
> through it. Blah blah blah Joey is wrong Fiona is right.
Well perhaps you should learn to trawl through walls of verbiage, that skill
is kind of a prerequisite for this newsgroup (as it is for academia) as a
number of regulars here tend towards to verbose - Joey and myself included.
Fiona
antal...@gmail.com
<fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <antalab...@gmail.com> wrote
Im not going to read 2 giant posts about his analysis of me and my
narrow sightedness and how I should "open my eyes", and a post that is
basically poking fun at Joey. I'll read posts that provide useful
information, like your posts and Joey's posts.
antal...@gmail.com
Ok, fine. I'm not going to recite all the topics for you. You're just
proving your ignorance once again.
Joey Goldstein
Yeah, but LJS is a special case.
He types those walls of verbiage without saying anything at all. And the
rare occasions when he does say something, he's usually wrong.
He's really not worth the time. Kill-filing him was the best thing for me.
I can still tune in to his nonsense through GoogleGroups, just to keep
tabs on all the stupid shit he's saying about me. But with the kill-file
in my regular news-reader, I don't have the urge at all to respond to
him. I've been using usenet for almost 15 years now and I've never felt
the urge to kill-file anybody, except him. And I've dealt with every
usenet musical wacko out there.
Fiona Abrahami
<antal...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> <antalab...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> antalab...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > OK LJS, im not reading that wall of text you typed out. I skimmed
>> > through it. Blah blah blah Joey is wrong Fiona is right.
>>
>> Well perhaps you should learn to trawl through walls of verbiage, that
>> skill
>> is kind of a prerequisite for this newsgroup (as it is for academia) as a
>> number of regulars here tend towards to verbose - Joey and myself
>> included.
>
> narrow sightedness and how I should "open my eyes", and a post that is
> basically poking fun at Joey. I'll read posts that provide useful
> information, like your posts and Joey's posts.
Understood, but it's one of the problems with text based communication that
because it lacks the inflections of prosody it is prone to being misread.
It's difficult I know, but try to keep an open mind, I think he was trying
to be helpful - even if it didn't come across that way.
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
Yeah Antal. Keep an open mind about LJS.
And if you find anything worthy about him, that I missed before I
kill-filed him, let me know.
Or, you could save a *lot* of time and just kill-file him now.
LJS
Well, there was Analyzing this Progression. Where you had us help you
with your progression. A simple functional progression that spurred a
debate over the completeness of functional harmonic analysis. Your
informative responses were things like:
> And which note does it resolve to? and when?
> LJS
I dont have my notes with me but i'll tell you as soon as possible
That showed that possibly Joey was right when he asked if we were
doing your homework. Then you wrote about how the discussion was just
confusing to you and had Joey finish up your "analysis" of the piece.
If you had actually worked on the progression, you should not have to
look up your notes to see how a key element is used in YOUR own
progression! Hardly an example of progressive thinking!
Quickly about naming a chord. -- yes, really on the cutting edge of
musical thought. I don't think so.
So that statement you made about your other posts seems to not be as
you reported. Maybe I missed some of other topics that showed your
"out the box" thinking but I saw nothing of that nature here. You
ended up confused and Joey then showed you the way to complete your
assignment. If it exists, show me something where you contribute "your
perspective" instead of just looking for freshman theory harmonic help
and then only choosing the stock answers that always seem to come from
one source.
Then, for a reading comprehension assignment, you might reread your
thread so far and see who actually said what. You have introduced all
the derogatory statements that you attribute to me. This, again, is
not an original thought. Joey has the rights to this dodge. He has
worked it extensively in my threads as well as in too many others. So
even here, I don't see YOUR perspective.
You may use the diversion, "Hey, but I'm only a kid!" to soften your
mistakes, but then don't come back and make sassy statements to your
elders. Children that sass their elders and can't back it up are
really quite unbecoming. Show your independent posts with new ideas
or be quiet. Making statements you won't back up is a big "red flag"
that signals to everyone that this is a mouthpiece that has nothing to
say.
So, try saying something about the topic if you have something to say,
but if not, why embarrass yourself by making empty statements that say
nothing. Maybe as a "kid" some still think that school yard "oh,
yeah!" type of argument is cute, but you will be in the real world
soon enough and in general adults don't pay much attention to these
types of statements. College can be a time to reflect and start to
see things the way others see things and to learn how to evaluate
information for what it is rather than by who said it. If you fail to
learn that, you will have limited paths to follow in life, and only
your only consolation will be that you don't know what you are
missing. You have a lot of knowledge at your community college. Make
use of it, but if one thinks that any one place, or one group of
people, is the all and end all, then one is not getting the benefits
of a good education.
LJS
LJS
> >> LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> antalab...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> OK LJS, im not reading that wall of text you typed out. I skimmed
> >> through it. Blah blah blah Joey is wrong Fiona is right.
>
> > Well perhaps you should learn to trawl through walls of verbiage, that skill
> > is kind of a prerequisite for this newsgroup (as it is for academia) as a
> > number of regulars here tend towards to verbose - Joey and myself included.
>
> Yeah, but LJS is a special case.
> He types those walls of verbiage without saying anything at all. And the
> rare occasions when he does say something, he's usually wrong.
Translated this really says: I don't say anything that applies to your
concept of music. If your horizons were broader, you may be surprised
as to how it applies even to your world. And if you mean by "wrong"
that they don't agree with your conclusions, I plead (joyfully!)
guilty! (and if your posts didn't contain so much misconception about
what I had posted (and sometimes down right lies about what was said)
then they would not be so long. Unlike your posts that are limited to
the way you interpret music in your world and are usually without
proper or applicable documentation. Your verbiage usually is shortened
by excluding facts, explanations and on topic questions about your
views and these are replaced with profanity, name calling and simply
saying "I am right, you are wrong!" Shorter, yes, informative? Well.
>
> He's really not worth the time. Kill-filing him was the best thing for me.
lol That makes you a special case! I hope you don't put your head in
the sand when you see danger in the streets! That could be fatal.
>
> I can still tune in to his nonsense through GoogleGroups, just to keep
> tabs on all the stupid shit he's saying about me.
That sort of defeats the "kill file" concept doesn't it? And if you
would learn about Reading Comprehension, you would see that I never
say any "stupid shit" about you. You are the one that usually adds the
"stupid shit" to my posts with your paranoid conclusions that you add
to my writings. If you could comprehend what is written, you would
see that I have had nothing but good things to say about what you know
and I have always said that you do know a lot. Its when you speak to
issues that you do not understand and try to force every thread into
some unrelated interpretation that suits your knowledge that you find
yourself in a corner and you need to curse, rant, rave and name call
instead of trying to listen and learn something. If you have not
learned anything from my posts, I feel sorry from you. I have learned
from most EVERY post that I have read (minus some of your rantings). I
may be about a decade older than you, but I have not stopped learning
and learning from everyone. Can you say the same?
But with the kill-file
> in my regular news-reader, I don't have the urge at all to respond to
> him. I've been using usenet for almost 15 years now and I've never felt
> the urge to kill-file anybody, except him. And I've dealt with every
> usenet musical wacko out there.
Thank you for the compliment Joey. I am the only one that has
challenged you enough to make you crawl away. Hmm, I wonder what that
inner urge is that makes you want to respond? But wait, you don't
really respond. You rant and rave and call names. If you responded,
either I would see that there was some basis for your statements and
understand your point of view or you wold provide additional
information to support what you are saying. But you never do that. You
always rant and rave before you (if ever) back up your position! So,
your calling me a wacko (another name calling! You just can't help
yourself can you) only reminds me of the source.
LJS
LJS
Thats right Antal. Hide from the truth and open mind thinking. Listen
to Joey. He has all the answers! You can be a lifelong student with
him and never have to think for your self. The answer to life is to
ignore things that you don't understand and agree with.
LJS
antal...@gmail.com
antal...@gmail.com
point. By asking the questions that I do, I'm trying to show you that
I'm anything but narrow minded. I take into account everyones replies
and I learn. Don't just assume I think everyone is wrong all the time
and only one person is right.
"You may use the diversion, "Hey, but I'm only a kid!" to soften your
mistakes"
What?By saying that I'm more or less telling people I'm not a
professional and I'm here to learn. This means professional players
won't think I'm a 30+ years experienced musician who is wrong most of
the time. So much for my attempts to be humble.
"Thats right Antal. Hide from the truth and open mind thinking. Listen
to Joey. He has all the answers! You can be a lifelong student with
him and never have to think for your self. The answer to life is to
ignore things that you don't understand and agree with. "
I thought I covered this already? You just keep ignoring what I say
and stick to your original assumptions about me.
Originally I didn't think you where that bad a guy, but I'm starting
to understand why Joey would choose to ignore you. You just jump to
conclusions about people and you end up coming off as an elitist
prick.
LJS
Thank you Fiona. My generation challenges everything. I take very
little for granted. There are so many false prophets out there that to
do otherwise is to be taken in by one of them. I have learned that
people that really know something are not afraid to back up their
thoughts and are usually very willing to offer proof of their beliefs.
I have never met a real expert that was not eager to explain how
things worked and they also have the self confidence to understand
that questions, no matter how blunt, will not hurt them. It is because
they really know what they profess and that they also know what they
don't know. This keeps an auto mechanic from telling a jet engine
engineer that he doesn't know how to maximize the fuel efficiency of
the turbine engine by telling the engineer that he is wrong because
the clutch is slipping in the when he presses the pedal.
All my posts to Antal were of the nature that he was only repeating
the words of Joey and that these words had nothing to do with what you
were really talking about. The fact is, unless one wants to learn the
concept of tonality being defined by 13th chords, that one will not be
able to break away from the standard chord spelling mentality that
plagues oh so many guitarists. (I think it is inherent in the
instrument as most fingerings are not easily related to voice leading
and thus throws the guitarist into this strange way of thinking about
harmony that is not related to the contrapuntal manner that has shaped
the evolution of tonality. BUT, as usual, I digress ;-)
Antal has shown a tendency to only understand things in the particular
way that Joey says things. This is not good in a young student. You
must be able to learn from as many different sources as possible in
this world if you are to ever come close to really understanding
anything. As you seem to see, I was pointing out that even though he
had some information that was true in the context that he learned it,
it was not true in the context that he presented it and his
presentation showed a whole lot about him and his way of looking at
things. I had said nothing about his intelligence. I have still not
seen any evidence of his being able to learn on his own and that is
sad. I see his dependence on what his teachers have "agreed" upon. (I
don't know, Agreement and truth doesn't usually share the same bed.
This sounds like a follow the leader style of knowledge and does lead
to closed mindedness.) If the masters in the past had all agreed on
what was true in music, we would not even be up to the Gregorian
chants as yet. We would still be sitting around the fire (if they had
not agreed that life was complete before they discovered how to use
it!) beating on rocks and logs.
I have never said that Antal should disregard everything that Joey or
his other teachers have said. I only said that he was mimicking Joey
and was only voting on the truth and that is a road that will lead him
to self destruction. I was hoping that he would have seen that his
post was what it was and that he would have taken the time to read
what he said and to read what you had been saying and then USE the
information that he had learned from Joey and actually apply it to the
conversation. Alas, he didn't pick up the gauntlet. Maybe there is
time, maybe he is too ingrained in knowing everything that he needs to
know. I wish him well. But IMO he seems to be falling in to a trap
that so many students find themselves and become trapped there. You
dedicate your time to ONLY learning how to emulate one person's way
of thinking and you find that there is only one job that uses those
skills and it is already taken by the one you are emulating. If a
musician is truly to be successful, he has to learn to learn on his
own. Teachers can help, but you have to discover what masters of the
past have done and then this is only useful if you apply this to what
YOU want to do. This is my message to Antal. Nothing more and nothing
less. All the rest is, unfortunately, a creation of his paranoiac
reading of my post.
Sorry if this is longer than I would have liked, but I hate to see a
student choose his road without stepping back and looking at the
bigger picture.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
>
> Originally I didn't think you where that bad a guy, but I'm starting
> to understand why Joey would choose to ignore you. You just jump to
> conclusions about people and you end up coming off as an elitist
> prick.
Well, the problems with LJS are that he thinks he's right, he's
persistent, he doesn't understand what other people are saying (although
he thinks he does), and he types more words than anyone I've ever seen
(which makes it not worth the time to nit-pik with him, point-by-point,
and try to straighten him out). I'd still be dealing with him, but it's
too tiring and not worth the effort or the time for me.
His claims that he has some new way to look at theory would be laughable
if he wasn't so persistent about jumping on every newbie who falls
upon this discussion group and filling their heads with unintelligible
nonsense.
He has studied some classical Tonal theory in a Bachelor's of Music
course in Louisiana, and claims to have taken some "advanced theory"
course too, I believe at the same institution. [BTW This is
significantly more post-secondary music theory education than I have
had. I only took 7 semesters at Berklee in a diploma program geared
towards jazz performance, not theory or composition.]
Yet nearly every time he has gotten into a discussion here about aspects
of Tonal theory, the stuff taught at every conservatory and university
with a classical music department everywhere, he has been wrong. Topics
have included augmented 6th chords, the reasons why classical composers
treated 2nd inversion major and minor chords as containing a dissonance,
and the role of the overtone series in the development of Tonal music.
He does have a new way at looking at this stuff...The wrong way.
His forays into jazz theory *are* always laughable. He's always wrong.
But he thinks he's right. Seeing how he is not a jazz musician, and has
no experience playing jazz, this appears to be based on that he's known
a few jazz musicians briefly in his life and has vague recollections of
a few conversations he's had with them.
You might have some fun talking to him at first, so enjoy it while you
can. Maybe you won't have the same reaction to him that I've had. Maybe
you'll even learn some stuff from him.
Then again. Maybe not.
Whether or not I'm close-mined, as is being posited by him as well as
Fiona, remains to be seen. The stuff that I happen to think I know, I
happen to think I know pretty well. And I stand by it. But when someone
proves me wrong I am always quite happy to accept it, assuming that I
understand the proof.
I rarely enter into discussions her about things I don't understand
here, unless I find them interesting and am trying to learn to
understand them. For instance, it's unlikely that I would enter into a
conversation about Wagnerian opera, except on the extreme peripheries of
the conversation, because I know nothing about Wagnerian opera. And if
someone here who obviously did know something about Wagnerian opera were
to correct any erroneous statements I had made, I would be a fool not to
thank him and get on with my business.
On matters of legit theory, which I have only studied a bit on my own
(and a bit at Berklee in 1st year), LJS has attempted to correct me
numerous times. But he has usually been proven wrong by someone else
here, like Steve. Or the logic of his argument has just been so
obviously wrong. I am left to conclude that even though he has studied
this stuff in university, I happen to have a clearer understanding of it
than he does.
LJS
On May 1, 12:19 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> antalab...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Originally I didn't think you where that bad a guy, but I'm starting
> > to understand why Joey would choose to ignore you. You just jump to
> > conclusions about people and you end up coming off as an elitist
> > prick.
That, is because you don't or can't read what is there. You are
influenced too much by your preconceived notions!
>
> Well, the problems with LJS are that he thinks he's right, he's
> persistent, he doesn't understand what other people are saying (although
> he thinks he does), and he types more words than anyone I've ever seen
> (which makes it not worth the time to nit-pik with him, point-by-point,
> and try to straighten him out). I'd still be dealing with him, but it's
> too tiring and not worth the effort or the time for me.
This is more examples of your making things up.I usually ask
questions. Then you reply with answers to what you are afraid that I
was saying, but I never (or rarely) say them at all. You have
provided each and every insult that you think I said. The truth is
that you have always brought them up!
>
> His claims that he has some new way to look at theory would be laughable
> if he wasn't so persistent about jumping on every newbie who falls
> upon this discussion group and filling their heads with unintelligible
> nonsense.
On the contrary. This shows how you can't listen to what is said. If I
made any claims at all it would be that I have a very OLD approach. My
approach was taught to me by Nadia Boulanger through one of her
teachers Gretchen McGee. Maybe you think that using these same
principles are to talk about music past the early classical (or
freshman theory) is a new approach, but it is fare from innovative.
In fact, it is very old school. If you had studied classical theory
more, you would know that.
And that unintelligible nonsense? Well maybe so some, but not to those
that have learned to create their own music. If you want to actually
do something new, you have to go beyond what others have done. If you
can't follow it, then if I were you, I would look into what it is that
I am saying. You have not been able to disprove anything that I have
said! All you can say is that it is wrong! Well if you actually looked
into what I said, you wold see that it has all been said before. Its
all out there just waiting for you to discover it. But it seems that
you already know everything so you are too lazy to check it out. You
would rather ignore it than to discover that there are other ways to
see things. If if works for you fine, but why does it upset you so
much? Afraid that it may not really be nonsense?
>
> He has studied some classical Tonal theory in a Bachelor's of Music
> course in Louisiana, and claims to have taken some "advanced theory"
> course too, I believe at the same institution. [BTW This is
> significantly more post-secondary music theory education than I have
> had. I only took 7 semesters at Berklee in a diploma program geared
> towards jazz performance, not theory or composition.]
Yes that is true. I went to SLC (Now SLU) The same school that taught
this nonsensical approach to music that brought you Bill Evans. We had
the same teachers. I had met all the requirements of a Master of music
theory and took that opportunity to bow out and even though I had my
thesis roughed out, I choose to play music for a living. (All my
friends were disrupted by the war and it was the last chance I had to
drop out ;-). So in effect, I have a Master of Theory education as a
world class little conservatory (at that time) that was recognized by
those that knew at the time. It is still a great teachers college and
by what I can tell by some ofthe "scholars" in this group, it probably
is still one of the better music departments. :-(
>
> Yet nearly every time he has gotten into a discussion here about aspects
> of Tonal theory, the stuff taught at every conservatory and university
> with a classical music department everywhere, he has been wrong. Topics
> have included augmented 6th chords, the reasons why classical composers
> treated 2nd inversion major and minor chords as containing a dissonance,
> and the role of the overtone series in the development of Tonal music.
> He does have a new way at looking at this stuff...The wrong way.
My way of looking at tonal music is the OLD way and you really don't
have enough education and experience in Classical music to tell Joey.
You simply haven't had the experience. You have one way. Some of it is
really incomplete. (Like your cadential 6/4 ideas and your Aug6 and
some other things that have come up.) Steve has a different way from
yours, at least until he explains the things that I have said that you
didn't understand! And then you at least have an opinion. Before that,
you just couldn't understand how a tonic chord could be unstable and
need a resolution! This is a Jazz approach and shows that you just
haven't had this explained to you by anyone that knew. And it isn't
important to your world, because when it occurs in copy band jazz, the
bass player does it and you just have to play a tonic chord. You don't
need to know this for what you do. On the other hand, you understand
the use of TriToneSubs in a jazz setting, but you have no idea of how
the Aug6 is different! Again, as a jazz guitarist, the things that
make it special in a classical setting (and thus different from a TTS)
are not used in the jazz setting. Thus you don't understand how they
relate and how they differ. The things I talk about are not wrong
Joey, they are just things that you have not studied and that do not
apply to what you do.
>
> His forays into jazz theory *are* always laughable. He's always wrong.
> But he thinks he's right. Seeing how he is not a jazz musician, and has
> no experience playing jazz, this appears to be based on that he's known
> a few jazz musicians briefly in his life and has vague recollections of
> a few conversations he's had with them.
If you read the posts, you would see that I don't have forays into
jazz theory in the traditional sense. And you wish that what you said
in that paragraph is true but, alas, it is not. Jazz is music. I will
analyze Jazz as music and I will stipulate that it is being looked at
from that perspective. So do a lot of Jazz musicians. Not the sidemen,
but the innovators. They have almost to a man based their innovations
on Classical music (in the general sense, not the Classical Period)
principles. I remember several cases that you reacted as indicated by
that paragraph and in every case, you seem to have missed the point
that I was not talking about a specific jazz principle that was in
use, but how a change in perspective could give drastically different
results and produce a different style that was related, but you have
no room for that kind of speculation or for that kind of thought or
for that kind of music in your box.
You also make those erroneous statements that are supported only by
your fantasy about me. (Lord, I hope I have my clothes on in your
fantasies!) You have no knowledge of who I know or when and where I
have know them. You just like to make things up. I have had more
varied experiences (most with my clothes on!) than anyone in this
group! I wold be surprised it that was not true. I have worked in
literally every genre that I can think of. I was very fortunate that
way. It was fun. I have played in Striptease pit bands and I have
played with the legends of Ballet, i have been members of blues bands
and power trios and also members of symphony orchestras and I have
then there are the Broadway show bands and night club bands but to
even try to list them all would be an even longer post than has yet to
be seen by anyone in this group. All of this means nothing except that
in every case, I have spoken with the musicians and have taught them
and I have learned from them. I can assure you, Joey, there is much
more in the university than what is contained in your philosophy.
>
> You might have some fun talking to him at first, so enjoy it while you
> can. Maybe you won't have the same reaction to him that I've had. Maybe
> you'll even learn some stuff from him.
> Then again. Maybe not.
That is everyone's choice with everyone they meet.
>
> Whether or not I'm close-mined, as is being posited by him as well as
> Fiona, remains to be seen. The stuff that I happen to think I know, I
> happen to think I know pretty well. And I stand by it. But when someone
> proves me wrong I am always quite happy to accept it, assuming that I
> understand the proof.
LOL, that is quite a disclaimer! IF you understand the proof! I have
seen you miss my explanations and then when Steve would rephrase it
and tell you the same things you would argue with him. And you
certainly can misunderstand peoples posts! The truth is, Joey, that
YOU have to make an effort if you want to learn. All others can do is
put it out there for you. It has been presented to you so many times
even in my short 3 years of so with this group and you never seem to
understand the proof that one would think that by now you would make
an effort to LEARN WHY you don't understand the proof! It has been
proven to you many times and many ways. The proof is there. YOU have
to make an effort to understand it. The choice is yours!.
>
> I rarely enter into discussions her about things I don't understand
> here, unless I find them interesting and am trying to learn to
> understand them. For instance, it's unlikely that I would enter into a
> conversation about Wagnerian opera, except on the extreme peripheries of
> the conversation, because I know nothing about Wagnerian opera. And if
> someone here who obviously did know something about Wagnerian opera were
> to correct any erroneous statements I had made, I would be a fool not to
> thank him and get on with my business.
As only one example: As I have stated, you know some jazz ways of
explaining the TTS. But you then claim that classical musicians can't
notate it with their language. You were very insistent with that. The
fact is, it is more clearly notated by the classical language than in
the Jazz language. You may know the TTS, but it was your insistence
and your lack of understanding how functional harmonic analysis works
that made you look like a fool with your absolutely absurd example of
how a classical musician wold notate it. You understand the Berklee
way of saying it. (an acceptable notation but it relies on the user to
know what it is in order to understand the notation, that is not the
sign of a good system ;-( BUT you really don't know that it can be
just as easily explained with UC LC/RN notation. That is only one
example of where you enter in fields that you do not understand. In
fact, most all of the threads that I come in on that you are involved
with are examples of your not understanding something that you are
saying and that is the only things that I comment upon. (If you
actually took the time to understand the posts you would see that)
>
> On matters of legit theory, which I have only studied a bit on my own
> (and a bit at Berklee in 1st year), LJS has attempted to correct me
> numerous times. But he has usually been proven wrong by someone else
> here, like Steve. Or the logic of his argument has just been so
> obviously wrong. I am left to conclude that even though he has studied
> this stuff in university, I happen to have a clearer understanding of it
> than he does.
You have an example of that? I know this is wasted words. You will not
answer this challenge because you can not. Steve has corrected what
you have mistakenly claimed that have said a few times, but Steve has
not proven me wrong on any point that I can remember. Please point out
a few so that we know that you are not just making this up in your
fantasy world. That is simply a false statement. I expect more than
that even from you Joey. And if you think that you have a clear
understanding of theory (classical theory) take a theory class at a
reputable music school and see if they agree with your perception of
what is happening in the music. That would be a real awakening for
you. Are you brave enough to take the chance?
I did with some graduate jazz theory and composition classes. I did
fine and I learned a lot about things. Maybe this is the New Approach
that you are talking about. Atonal Modal music is new, but in reality
it is based on very old principles. As far as what you know about this
I have no idea. The last I remember is you challenged me to give you
some examples, I then responded with a list of tunes and artists and
you then suddenly called a few names, swore a bit and then dropped the
subject. So what did you find out about them? or their music? Why did
you not come back with some questions of opinions? My guess is that
their music didn't fit in your box and thus you were just too lazy to
learn what they were doing. After all, you don't get requests for
those tunes very often, why should you bother to learn?
So, this fantasy of yours doesn't even hold up on its own merit even
if you had your facts straight. Re read the posts and you will see
that I have spoken the truth. Go back to the earlier posts where
things were explained and you should see where you made assumptions
that were not true. You should see that you replied to things that was
not said, that you assumed that false things were said or meant when
indeed they were not. Most of your posts are you responding to
yourself with a vague reference to what the poster is talking about,
but always in the same direction with the same answers no matter what
the real question was. If this is enough for you, that so be it. Its
your choice, If Antal wants to emulate you, that is his choice. But
when it comes to students, I will continue to try to give them a
choice. I don't want them to idolize me, or even to take what I say at
face value. I don't want them to take what you say at face value
either. But when someone tells STUDENTS(!) to ignore facts and
opinions and that they alone have all the answers, then I have to make
sure that I do everything that I can to help them to make a decision.
If they still want to blindly follow that path, at least I have done
what I can as an educator to give them the choice. From your posts, I
see that you are a preacher rather than a teacher, but I doubt if that
can be proved to you in a manner that you will understand! You have
gathered a lot of information the hard way, on your own. I have said
that from one of our first conversations. That, however, does not give
you the license to preach that what you have learned is the ONLY way.
That is what you need to learn in order to truly be an educator.
LJS
LJS
LJS
I don't know Antal. What you are saying here is not coming through in
your posts. All of my statements are in reference to that one post
that you more or less copied and pasted Joey's comments and stated
that he was right and Fiona was wrong. That seems pretty clear and is
not really a sign of open mindedness.
I hope that you are open to ideas and that you are trying to look at
what people are saying. I just haven't seen this as yet. There is,
however, something in your posts that makes me try to point out that
you don't seem to be doing that. Something is telling me that you have
the potential, but as yet I just haven't seen it. I am certainly open
to the possibility. Your insults, however, your name calling and your
choice of words seem to say that you are not open, but maybe it is
just the environment that you are currently in or where you come
from.
Don't take this wrong, but what culture are you from? Antal is not a
common name from the US and as far as I know, in Canada either. I have
had experiences with students in other cultures that did not
understand some things the way that they were intended because of the
way that they were raised to think. These misunderstandings were
instantly cleared up once we were aware of the cultural differences
and we learned how to communicate facts and ideas rather than to get
side tracked with inferences that were not intended.
Here is what I read and responded to. Maybe you can tell me what you
meant or what I misunderstood and we can get off this merry go round.
Fiona was asking about ways to indicate all 7 notes of a scale of mode
with the use of 13th chords. She was not asking about how jazz
guitarists interpreted the chords as they played. Joey responds with
the way he interprets chords and then digresses into the way others
interpret chords and then they were talking about two different
things. Joey is then saying that Fiona is wrong and she refuses to
understand how to write the chords. Well maybe or maybe not. It really
was not what she was asking. He also accused her of Classical notation
and then said that she was wrong with this even though he said the he
didn't understand how classical theorists would notate this and that
it didn't appear in classical music (which I pointed out with specific
examples, that he ignored, as to where they did. Even in Beethoven and
of course in more modern classical music).
Then after this simmered a bit, you chimed in saying that Joey was
right and Fiona was wrong. For a reason, all I saw was the same party
line that Joey stated. The point I responded to was that Fiona was not
wrong. She couldn't be wrong. It was not possible for her to be wrong
as she was only asking a question. She responded in various ways that
showed how the details of what Joey was saying about what is implied
and inferred by the notation was not complete enough to suit her
needs. She was correct with that statement. They did not indicate the
entire scale when certain notes were not indicated so she was correct.
Joey was also correct in the facts that he stated as they related to
his world. That world, however, had nothing to do with what Fiona was
asking or talking about.
Somewhere along the line, Fiona realized that Joey was not interested
in what she was asking so she succumbed to his discussion and gave a
few citations that had different opinions than what Joey was stating
as the universal way that it was done.
Anyway, you then stepped in and said that she was wrong and he was
right and I saw no reasons except that you learned this from Joey and
from the other teachers at this school. Your post sounded as if Joey
wrote it for you. You didn't seem to understand that Joey was talking
about something entirely different from what Fiona was asking, yet you
automatically took his position ONLY because it was what your teachers
had agreed upon. Thus, you were also missing what Fiona was talking
about. THAT and your reasons as stipulated in that post is what I was
responding to.
If you can show how this is open minded and how it shows that you take
an interest in what people are saying, then please explain it to me. I
just don't see it as yet from your original post nor from your
subsequent posts. I would like to see that this is true. I am trying
to get you to look at what people are saying. That is why I posted to
you. You are now telling me that I am wrong and you are understanding
what people say, but I'm sorry. Your posts do not say that to me.
Please explain. This post (aside from your sassy tone and comments
that no student should use to address any elder or teacher) seems to
be saying that you understand. So please tell me what makes you think
that you do!
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> even in my short 3 years of so with this group
You started posting regularly in this group in April 2007.
It just feels like 3 years.
(Sure, you made a few sporadic posts in 2005, but that doesn't count.
that wasn't long enough for us to get to know the real you.)
And why would I bother replying point-by-point to any of that huge
mass of nonsense you just posted?
I'll say one thing though.
Your thinking that you studied with Nadia Boulanger because you
studied with someone who studied with her, is like Antal thinking he
studied with Pat Metheny because he's studying with someone who
studied with him.
I.e. It's pure delusion.
I know you've got a *VERY* high opinion of yourself and of your
musical training, but it's totally unwarranted, as far as I can see.
I'd guess that most folks here would agree with me, or they wouldn't
always being trying to explain to you how wrong you are all the time.
Get over yourself.
Somewhere in there you talked about how making music was the most
important thing. Well where's your music Mr. Schenck?
I'd especially like to hear some of the jazz you played on all those
varied gigs you *say* you played.
And what instrument is it that you play again?
Oh right, it's a big secret. You won't tell us. I forgot.
Really man. Why you expect anybody here to take you seriously is
beyond me.
Your ideas don't add up. You claim to have had musical experiences
that your own words continually give evidence against. And you're
arrogant without having anything to back it up with.
Give it a break?
You're just embarrassing yourself.
LJS
> On May 1, 8:22 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > even in my short 3 years of so with this group
>
> You started posting regularly in this group in April 2007.
>
> It just feels like 3 years.
>
> (Sure, you made a few sporadic posts in 2005, but that doesn't count.
> that wasn't long enough for us to get to know the real you.)
See, there you are. Twisting the facts even though you have the
documentation. Did I say that I posted regularly? No, you added that
and then went into your slurs based on your additions to the post.
>
> And why would I bother replying point-by-point to any of that huge
> mass of nonsense you just posted?
You wouldn't. You can't refute them with any honesty so you would have
no interest in learning anything.
>
> I'll say one thing though.
>
> Your thinking that you studied with Nadia Boulanger because you
> studied with someone who studied with her, is like Antal thinking he
> studied with Pat Metheny because he's studying with someone who
> studied with him.
> I.e. It's pure delusion.
Again you have made up your own version of my post. Never have I said
that I studied with Nadia. I have always carefully pointed out that
our teacher taught with her. That was the caliber of teachers that we
had in our school back then. You have again changed my post and
responded to your twisted version of it. You then use this "lie" to
fit in your analogy! It would have to be not someone that studied with
him, but rather one that Pat Metheny has chosen to TEACH for him.
There is a big difference. But, the approach to theory is the same.
Just as if one of Metheny's picks to represent him to students would
be teaching the principles of improvising to students in the Pat
Metheny way of thinking. This is another thing that you don't
understand.
So once more, you changed the post, and replied to the negative
qualities that you fabricated and injected into the post to support
your opinion. Joey, that is one definition of just plain lying.
>
> I know you've got a *VERY* high opinion of yourself and of your
> musical training, but it's totally unwarranted, as far as I can see.
That's right. As far as YOU can see.
> I'd guess that most folks here would agree with me, or they wouldn't
> always being trying to explain to you how wrong you are all the time.
> Get over yourself.
That's funny. You have statistics on that? or is it just another thing
that you are making up. You have some examples? of is this just
another one of your fantasies?
>
> Somewhere in there you talked about how making music was the most
> important thing. Well where's your music Mr. Schenck?
> I'd especially like to hear some of the jazz you played on all those
> varied gigs you *say* you played.
> And what instrument is it that you play again?
> Oh right, it's a big secret. You won't tell us. I forgot.
Totally irrelevant. You inject this statement time and time again. I
rarely play any more. Mostly for my own amusement. I have had a great
career for over 35 years and I keep my feet wet, but I have other
things that I have to do now. I might play again after my house is
rebuilt. I am involved in other things.
That, however, has nothing to do with theory.
If I claimed to be a great touring soloist, or a Grammy winner, or
even that I was a Professor at various colleges! I have never claimed
that. I don't subscribe to rec.music.performance. This is Music
Theory. This is listening, analyzing, and studying and experimenting.
That is another thing that you don't understand, and (Why yes it is!)
this is another example of your "lying" in you posts. If I played the
guitar and you liked the way I play, I suppose that then you would
believe me when I say that a Cadential 6/4 chord does not function as
tonic. Music theory is what it is. Nothing more or nothing less. Maybe
it is your PLAYING that keeps you from understanding classical
analysis so much. I believe you said (recently even) that you studied
performance and had very little theory in a formal setting and that
setting was Berklee. Yet, here you are, using performance as a
criteria for understanding music theory. Don't you see anything wrong
with that?
>
> Really man. Why you expect anybody here to take you seriously is
> beyond me.
> Your ideas don't add up. You claim to have had musical experiences
> that your own words continually give evidence against. And you're
> arrogant without having anything to back it up with.
>
> Give it a break?
> You're just embarrassing yourself.
Gee, well what can I say. Every paragraph above was an example of how
you make things up and then attack only what you have made up! That is
quite a skill Joey. I assume that is what has made you what you are
today. Even here, in this last paragraph. I certainly don't expect you
to take me seriously. You don't even take classical music seriously,
you don't take the truth seriously, you just say anything that pops
into your head. Lies, profanity, slurs name calling but never anything
specific. Just make up things, spit them out, and never even consider
if you are even close to what was written. Tou make up what people
said, you make things about music. You make up all kinds of things.
Maybe that is why you think I make up my experiences. But even you say
that you don't understand classical theory, and you are correct, you
don't! But you still keep insisting that I am always wrong. Joey, by
your own words, HOW would you know?
I am not embarrassed for my self, except maybe for entertaining your
absurd posts. Talk about trolling, and an overly high opinion of one's
self. If you are not embarrassed then you don't really understand what
reality is.
How can you reply so quickly anyway? I thought you had Killed my File?
Even that was a lie? Really,
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> On May 1, 9:23 pm, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 8:22 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll say one thing though.
>
> > Your thinking that you studied with Nadia Boulanger because you
> > studied with someone who studied with her, is like Antal thinking he
> > studied with Pat Metheny because he's studying with someone who
> > studied with him.
> > I.e. It's pure delusion.
>
> Again you have made up your own version of my post. Never have I said
> that I studied with Nadia.
"My
approach was *taught to me by Nadia Boulanger* through one of her
teachers Gretchen McGee."
That's what you said.
If that's not what you meant to say then you should have said
something else, the first time.
Don't attribute your own lies to me, *liar*.
> I have always carefully pointed out that
> our teacher taught with her.
The immediately above statement is false. And the above quote is
proof.
> > I know you've got a *VERY* high opinion of yourself and of your
> > musical training, but it's totally unwarranted, as far as I can see.
>
> That's right. As far as YOU can see.
>
> > I'd guess that most folks here would agree with me, or they wouldn't
> > always being trying to explain to you how wrong you are all the time.
> > Get over yourself.
>
> That's funny. You have statistics on that?
Anybody can read the archive. It's all there.
> > Somewhere in there you talked about how making music was the most
> > important thing. Well where's your music Mr. Schenck?
> Totally irrelevant.
No. It isn't.
I agree with *you* that being able to make music is important, even
for a "theorist". A music theorist who has made no music is not likely
to know much about music at all.
> I
> rarely play any more. Mostly for my own amusement. I have had a great
> career for over 35 years and I keep my feet wet, but I have other
> things that I have to do now. I might play again after my house is
> rebuilt. I am involved in other things.
Fine. Then post a link to some music you made 35 years ago or at any
time between then and now.
Or post a link to some sort of reference to some music you were
involved in making anytime over those years.
Oh. And what instrument were you playing in the band that played
behind the strippers? Violin? Must have been a pretty classy strip
joint. Or maybe it never happened?
> That, however, has nothing to do with theory.
It has to do with *you* and your credibility as a *musician*.
You have none, as far as I'm concerned at this point. None.
If your ideas made sense, that would be enough for me. But they don't.
So in lieu of that, in an effort to understand where you're coming
from, I'd like to hear some of your music, please.
> If I claimed to be a great touring soloist, or a Grammy winner, or
> even that I was a Professor at various colleges! I have never claimed
> that.
You've claimed that making music is important.
Let's hear some.
> I don't subscribe to rec.music.performance. This is Music
> Theory. This is listening, analyzing, and studying and experimenting.
> That is another thing that you don't understand, and (Why yes it is!)
> this is another example of your "lying" in you posts.
You're the liar here.
> If I played the
> guitar and you liked the way I play, I suppose that then you would
> believe me when I say that a Cadential 6/4 chord does not function as
> tonic.
I never argued that a cadential 6/4 chord could function as a tonic.
That is a simple topic that is taught in the 1st half of most legit
theory books. It's you who doesn't understand *why* the chord is
treated that way, even though *everybody* here tried very patiently to
explain it to you over several days.
You never understood what I was actually talking about in that thread
(let alone Steve or Tom or Dave or Hans), and you still don't. And I
won't go over it again with you. Read the archive.
> Every paragraph above was an example of how
> you make things up and then attack only what you have made up!
No. It isn't.
> That is
> quite a skill Joey. I assume that is what has made you what you are
> today.
What I am today is someone who *makes music*. It's not great music,
but it's music nonetheless.
What are you?
> But even you say
> that you don't understand classical theory, and you are correct, you
> don't!
Yet I always seem to understand it better than you.
Weird, eh?
> But you still keep insisting that I am always wrong.
You are.
> Joey, by
> your own words, HOW would you know?
I know, because I *have studied* the stupid little simple things
within standard Tonal theory that you have tried to demonstrate your
knowledge of here. And you've been wrong, consistently, almost every
time.
When I don't know something about legit theory I ask Steve or Matt or
somebody who demonstrably knows what I don't know. They demonstrate
this with the strength of their ideas. I don't know Steve's
credentials but I don't question them either because his ideas are
sound. Matt Fields claims to have a Ph.d in music theory, but the only
reason I believe him is because his ideas are consistently sound, and
I've seen and heard some of his music.
When these same people deal with *you* they spend a few posts trying
to straighten you out and then they rightfully tire of you and leave
you wallowing in your own mental vomit. You can't see this because you
can't see *anything*. You're the one caught up in his own head, unable
to learn anything new (or old).
I have no doubts that you have been around some very good musicians
and teachers. But nearly every word you type here leads me inescapably
to conclude that you've misunderstood nearly everything you've tried
to learn from them. So why not try music instead of words? Let's hear
some of your musical "knowledge" expressed in music.
> I am not embarrassed for my self,
You should be.
> except maybe for entertaining your
> absurd posts.
You don't entertain them. You provoke them.
Why do you keep talking me when you know I've kill-filed you?
I've been patiently trying to avoid you for months now, but you keep
talking about me negatively in your responses to other people here.
You've taken to attacking my students now too, just because they study
with me. What a supreme dick you are.
What am I supposed to do besides answering like with like?
What did you expect me to do?
> Talk about trolling,
Talk about calling the kettle black.
> and an overly high opinion of one's
> self. If you are not embarrassed then you don't really understand what
> reality is.
Pure projection.
> How can you reply so quickly anyway? I thought you had Killed my File?
It's a secret, like your musical abilities.
And I haven't "killed your file" dumb-ass.
I've created a kill-file for you.
It's how the Internet, which is a series of tubes btw, happens to
work.
> Even that was a lie? Really,
No. You're just too stupid to figure it out.
J. B. Wood
the recent discussion was taken from the A.S. library of "Ancient Theory"
;-) I enjoy reading all posts but wheat-from-chaff separation is getting
increasingly difficult. We need a return to civil discourse. Heck,
A.S.'s "doctor" (directed at an erudite member of this ng) posts of a few
years back were mild by comparison. Margo, where in the world are you
when we need a touch of "class"-i-cal? Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
LJS
> On May 2, 12:54 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 9:23 pm, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 8:22 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'll say one thing though.
>
> > > Your thinking that you studied with Nadia Boulanger because you
> > > studied with someone who studied with her, is like Antal thinking he
> > > studied with Pat Metheny because he's studying with someone who
> > > studied with him.
> > > I.e. It's pure delusion.
>
> > Again you have made up your own version of my post. Never have I said
> > that I studied with Nadia.
>
> "My
> approach was *taught to me by Nadia Boulanger* through one of her
> teachers Gretchen McGee."
>
> That's what you said.
> If that's not what you meant to say then you should have said
> something else, the first time.
That is beyond funny. Its really sad! I see your quotation marks that
isolate the statement. BUT LOOK! You forgot to Clip the modifying
clause that clearly says THROUGH ONE OF HER TEACHERS! If you had
remembered to clip that, your statement would be correct if it wasn't
a lie! You have posted the statement that actually SAYS I have studied
her approach, which became my approach as I could see her wisdom, by
way of one of her trusted teachers! Do you routinely isolate PARTS of
sentences and clip out the modifiers in your citations? This is one of
the most ridiculous citations that you have ever made!
>
> Don't attribute your own lies to me, *liar*.
>
> > I have always carefully pointed out that
> > our teacher taught with her.
>
> The immediately above statement is false. And the above quote is
> proof.
Proof that I said I learned from her second hand! Just as I have
always said. And, Its proof that you don't understand what you read
and say! Can you honestly be that unable to comprehend the language?
>
> > > I know you've got a *VERY* high opinion of yourself and of your
> > > musical training, but it's totally unwarranted, as far as I can see.
>
> > That's right. As far as YOU can see.
>
> > > I'd guess that most folks here would agree with me, or they wouldn't
> > > always being trying to explain to you how wrong you are all the time.
> > > Get over yourself.
>
> > That's funny. You have statistics on that?
>
> Anybody can read the archive. It's all there.
Apparently you can't! Again with no documentation, just your fantasy.
Can't you even rearrange a few words and sentences to support this
empty statement?
No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with theory. They are not
connected. Its like saying that You can't play the guitar because you
can fix aircraft problems. They just aren't related. I don't need your
acceptance. After all, you are rude, and you don't understand
classical theory. You twist posts, you are dishonest and even if you
were a guitar legend, it wold not have anything to do with your
ability, or lack of ability to analyze music.Its just another of your
diversions to NOT speak about theory. I wouldn't go to the guitar
group and say that you didn't know theory, but this is the THEORY
group. When I post about playing music on a performance group, then I
might consider your obsession relevant.
>
> > If I claimed to be a great touring soloist, or a Grammy winner, or
> > even that I was a Professor at various colleges! I have never claimed
> > that.
>
> You've claimed that making music is important.
One very true statement.
> Let's hear some.
Listen to the radio and CD's There is music all around. Just listen.
Plenty of music by plenty of composers. I can hear it all and analyze
it. Playing it, of course is totally independent of this. It has no
relevance.
>
> > I don't subscribe to rec.music.performance. This is Music
> > Theory. This is listening, analyzing, and studying and experimenting.
> > That is another thing that you don't understand, and (Why yes it is!)
> > this is another example of your "lying" in you posts.
>
> You're the liar here.
You say that but you never back it up. That stupid reply above only
shows one of your techniques of avoiding the truth.
>
> > If I played the
> > guitar and you liked the way I play, I suppose that then you would
> > believe me when I say that a Cadential 6/4 chord does not function as
> > tonic.
>
> I never argued that a cadential 6/4 chord could function as a tonic.
> That is a simple topic that is taught in the 1st half of most legit
> theory books. It's you who doesn't understand *why* the chord is
> treated that way, even though *everybody* here tried very patiently to
> explain it to you over several days.
Yes, you did. You were insisting that it was tonic because it had all
the tonic notes in it. The discussion was that it was really more of a
dominant but with suspensions. Again, rearranging the phrases to CYA.
>
> You never understood what I was actually talking about in that thread
> (let alone Steve or Tom or Dave or Hans), and you still don't. And I
> won't go over it again with you. Read the archive.
Ha! lol, Right. What didn't I understand? After Steve explained to
you what I meant, you still disagreed with him! You were at odds with
everyone!
>
> > Every paragraph above was an example of how
> > you make things up and then attack only what you have made up!
>
> No. It isn't.
> > That is
> > quite a skill Joey. I assume that is what has made you what you are
> > today.
>
> What I am today is someone who *makes music*. It's not great music,
> but it's music nonetheless.
> What are you?
I am a theorist in this group. Someone that knows and can analyze
great music when he encounters it. And you are correct. Your music is
not great! But that doesn't matter. I have never pointed out that you
music isn't great and it doesn't matter if your music is great or not.
I have only pointed out that your classical theory is faulty. And it
is! It has nothing to do, however, with performance. I think your
playing is fine. Its very professional. I wouldn't accuse you of
playing poorly because you were playing less than great music. The
performance and the music have nothing to do with each other. They are
two separate things. I have heard absolutely horrid performances of
West Side Story. That doesn't make the music bad, only the
performance.
>
> > But even you say
> > that you don't understand classical theory, and you are correct, you
> > don't!
>
> Yet I always seem to understand it better than you.
> Weird, eh?
Not weird, just a fantasy. If it were real, you wold be able to cite
examples and back them up. But you always stop at that point. Usually
that is where the profanity comes in. You have learned to control that
somewhat! That is one thing.
>
> > But you still keep insisting that I am always wrong.
>
> You are.
>
> > Joey, by
> > your own words, HOW would you know?
>
> I know, because I *have studied* the stupid little simple things
> within standard Tonal theory that you have tried to demonstrate your
> knowledge of here. And you've been wrong, consistently, almost every
> time.
Apparently, you haven't studied enough. When anyone talks beyond the
definition, you suddenly become lost and change the subject. All these
"little simple things" are not a simple as you see them. They are
basic principles that have specific reasons for being there and have
very strong underlying influences on the music. And the same little
thing has different implications in different circumstances. You know
the definitions of these "little simple things" but you don't really
understand how they can have different meanings in different contexts.
Yes you know the definitions, but when you learn their implications,
then you begin to know what they are really about.
>
> When I don't know something about legit theory I ask Steve or Matt or
> somebody who demonstrably knows what I don't know. They demonstrate
> this with the strength of their ideas. I don't know Steve's
> credentials but I don't question them either because his ideas are
> sound. Matt Fields claims to have a Ph.d in music theory, but the only
> reason I believe him is because his ideas are consistently sound, and
> I've seen and heard some of his music.
Yes, I have read a lot of those. You ask on practically every topic.
Problem is you ask AFTER you have made erroneous conclusions about the
topic. Maybe if you did more of that, you wouldn't come off as so lame
on classical theory and you would learn how to see the things that I
point out. You are, (I don't think that you realize it) however,
following my advice here. I am not a false prophet. I encourage you to
seek the help of Steve and Matt (and you would do well to ask many
other people as well) and anyone for their opinions. When I read these
posts, I see that they take different approaches to explaining things
to you. They may fit your learning style better than I do. This is
something that I tell all that I encounter. Don't believe anyone! The
thing is, (as I have followed most of these lessons on line that you
are talking about) you don't seem to accept what they say either. The
explain the same thing, you change the context and then they bow out
by agreeing to what you said. Never mind that by that time, you are
talking about something different. Those are the ones that are not
just endless discussions about the various semantic meanings of the
terms being used.
>
> When these same people deal with *you* they spend a few posts trying
> to straighten you out and then they rightfully tire of you and leave
> you wallowing in your own mental vomit. You can't see this because you
> can't see *anything*. You're the one caught up in his own head, unable
> to learn anything new (or old).
Again, empty words with no examples.
>
> I have no doubts that you have been around some very good musicians
> and teachers. But nearly every word you type here leads me inescapably
> to conclude that you've misunderstood nearly everything you've tried
> to learn from them. So why not try music instead of words? Let's hear
> some of your musical "knowledge" expressed in music.
Lets see you fly the plane! Or show me the your proof of the theory of
relativity! These are just as related as what you are asking. It just
isn't a factor. Maybe you don't know what theory is all about! A
theorist does not have to be a performer or a composer. He analyzes
things. I wonder if all the members of this group that are not
professional musicians realize that you are saying that they have no
credibility with any of their posts as they are not performers or
composers! Joey, get a grip. Try to stay with one thought for more
than a sentence of two.
>
> > I am not embarrassed for my self,
>
> You should be.
>
> > except maybe for entertaining your
> > absurd posts.
>
> You don't entertain them. You provoke them.
I see. Now you are saying that it is my questioning of your absurd
posts that provoke you into making them! You really should work on
your self control.
> Why do you keep talking me when you know I've kill-filed you?
LOL, that's a typical example of Joey Logic! If you really kill filed
me, then HOW is it that you can respond to my posts! lol. Please, you
are making me hurt from laughing!
> I've been patiently trying to avoid you for months now, but you keep
> talking about me negatively in your responses to other people here.
> You've taken to attacking my students now too, just because they study
> with me. What a supreme dick you are.
> What am I supposed to do besides answering like with like?
> What did you expect me to do?
>
> > Talk about trolling,
>
> Talk about calling the kettle black.
>
> > and an overly high opinion of one's
> > self. If you are not embarrassed then you don't really understand what
> > reality is.
>
> Pure projection.
>
> > How can you reply so quickly anyway? I thought you had Killed my File?
>
> It's a secret, like your musical abilities.
> And I haven't "killed your file" dumb-ass.
> I've created a kill-file for you.
> It's how the Internet, which is a series of tubes btw, happens to
> work.
>
> > Even that was a lie? Really,
>
> No. You're just too stupid to figure it out.
No Joey, you forget that you even said that you check on my posts by
going to Google Groups. The stupid thing is to kill file someone and
then go to the extra work of looking up my posts! Maybe you should
rethink your logic there! Something seems to not quite add up.
But this sends us right back to the profanity and the name calling and
the slurs. Your real strong point.
This is going no place. If you refuse to say anything truthful or
pertinent there is no use to wast any more time with this nonsense.
Like John has said (if you think he is credible enough, I think he is
a scientist, I don't know if he plays or composes so you may not
listen to him. I do.) lets get on to talking about music issues. So
unless you come up with something factual, I have no more time for
your absurdities. People can read the posts for themselves.
LJS
Joey Goldstein joegold AT sympatico DOT ca (I never use my yahoo email account)
> On May 2, 1:11 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 12:54 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 9:23 pm, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 8:22 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "My
> > approach was *taught to me by Nadia Boulanger* through one of her
> > teachers Gretchen McGee."
>
> > That's what you said.
> > If that's not what you meant to say then you should have said
> > something else, the first time.
>
> That is beyond funny. Its really sad! I see your quotation marks that
> isolate the statement. BUT LOOK! You forgot to Clip the modifying
> clause that clearly says THROUGH ONE OF HER TEACHERS!
No I didn't, liar. It's right there, in the quote above.
What I'm commenting on is the extreme hubris of your statement.
But of course, you don't 'get' that, because you're clueless, as
always.
> If you had
> remembered to clip that, your statement would be correct if it wasn't
> a lie! You have posted the statement that actually SAYS I have studied
> her approach,
You said this "approach was taught to me by Nadia Boulanger".
If that's not what you meant to say you could have said something
else. You're just full of yourself and deluded, as well as being a
liar and a charlatan.
It has everything to do with your credibility as a practitioner of
music whether you be a performer or a composer.
Nobody can be a "musician" without being proficient in either one of
those two areas of music-making.
*Every* respected music theorist that I've ever read about (don't know
much about Pythagoras' music-making activities though) has been a
competent musician.
If you are music theorist and you can't make music then you are a
charlatan.
> It has nothing to do with theory. They are not
> connected.
Evidently, because you have no music to show for yourself after a
lifetime posing as a "theorist", you'd like to believe that.
> Its like saying that You can't play the guitar because you
> can fix aircraft problems.
No. It's not like saying that at all.
It's like saying that you don't understand music because you can't
make any.
> They just aren't related. I don't need your
> acceptance. After all, you are rude,
Kettle black.
You just refrain from using profanity while I welcome it.
But you're the most rude person I've ever encountered on usenet.
> and you don't understand
> classical theory.
I understand it better than you.
> You twist posts,
I talk to people from my own point of view.
Because you don't understand what I'm saying you think I'm twisting
things.
This is partly because the things I tend to talk about involve more
recent developments in music making than what you studied in the 40s
and partly because you're just daft. I'm the one with the new
approaches here, not you. Sheesh.
> you are dishonest
You're the one who keeps lying.
You're the one who won't tell us what instrument he plays.
You're the charlatan music "theorist" who doesn't have any music.
> and even if you
> were a guitar legend, it wold not have anything to do with your
> ability, or lack of ability to analyze music.
Sorry. This is music, not physics. Making music is *all* that matters.
> Its just another of your
> diversions to NOT speak about theory.
You're the jerk who has derailed this entire thread away from talking
about music.
You've made it about me.
Now it's about you.
> > > If I claimed to be a great touring soloist, or a Grammy winner, or
> > > even that I was a Professor at various colleges! I have never claimed
> > > that.
>
> > You've claimed that making music is important.
>
> One very true statement.
>
> > Let's hear some.
>
> Listen to the radio and CD's There is music all around. Just listen.
> Plenty of music by plenty of composers. I can hear it all and analyze
> it. Playing it, of course is totally independent of this. It has no
> relevance.
It makes you a charlatan. A vapid poser.
An irrelevant troll.
> > I never argued that a cadential 6/4 chord could function as a tonic.
> > That is a simple topic that is taught in the 1st half of most legit
> > theory books. It's you who doesn't understand *why* the chord is
> > treated that way, even though *everybody* here tried very patiently to
> > explain it to you over several days.
>
> Yes, you did. You were insisting that it was tonic because it had all
> the tonic notes in it. The discussion was that it was really more of a
> dominant but with suspensions. Again, rearranging the phrases to CYA.
Go read the archive. You've got my position all wrong.
> > You never understood what I was actually talking about in that thread
> > (let alone Steve or Tom or Dave or Hans), and you still don't. And I
> > won't go over it again with you. Read the archive.
>
> Ha! lol, Right. What didn't I understand? After Steve explained to
> you what I meant, you still disagreed with him! You were at odds with
> everyone!
Steve and I (and several, if not most, others here) agreed that the
reason that 6/4 major triads were treated as containing a dissonance
by CPP composers had to do with style and convention alone. *You* kept
trying to say that it was because of the overtone series. *You* were
and are wrong about this and continue to not understand why.
I was at odds with Steve about other things within that thread. I am
often at odds with him. I don't blindly accept everything he says on
faith. I read what he writes and then I make up my own mind. Of course
when he tells me how a particular device would be analyzed in a CPP-
oriented analysis I listen.
When and if I read what *you* write (assuming it's less than 5000
words) I just laugh because it's so vague, logically inconsistent,
wrong, and full of unwarranted hubris.
> > > That is
> > > quite a skill Joey. I assume that is what has made you what you are
> > > today.
>
> > What I am today is someone who *makes music*. It's not great music,
> > but it's music nonetheless.
> > What are you?
>
> I am a theorist in this group.
lol
You're the resident goof-ball troll.
> > > Joey, by
> > > your own words, HOW would you know?
>
> > I know, because I *have studied* the stupid little simple things
> > within standard Tonal theory that you have tried to demonstrate your
> > knowledge of here. And you've been wrong, consistently, almost every
> > time.
>
> Apparently, you haven't studied enough. When anyone talks beyond the
> definition, you suddenly become lost and change the subject.
If I change the subject it's because I think it's important that some
other facet of the concepts being discussed needs to be understood
before the concept itself can be understood. This always throws *you*
for a loop because you don't understand any of it.
> All these
> "little simple things" are not a simple as you see them.
The way that 6/4 chords and +6 chords were treated in CPP harmony are
indeed simple matters, at least for me they are. Sorry you still seem
have so much trouble with them.
> > When I don't know something about legit theory I ask Steve or Matt or
> > somebody who demonstrably knows what I don't know. They demonstrate
> > this with the strength of their ideas. I don't know Steve's
> > credentials but I don't question them either because his ideas are
> > sound. Matt Fields claims to have a Ph.d in music theory, but the only
> > reason I believe him is because his ideas are consistently sound, and
> > I've seen and heard some of his music.
>
> Yes, I have read a lot of those. You ask on practically every topic.
*You* should ask more often.
> Problem is you ask AFTER you have made erroneous conclusions about the
> topic.
If I've already made my conclusions, then why would I be asking
anything?
> Maybe if you did more of that, you wouldn't come off as so lame
> on classical theory and you would learn how to see the things that I
> point out.
I'm less lame on classical theory than you are.
> You are, (I don't think that you realize it) however,
> following my advice here. I am not a false prophet.
So now you're a prophet. I see.
> I encourage you to
> seek the help of Steve and Matt (and you would do well to ask many
> other people as well) and anyone for their opinions. When I read these
> posts, I see that they take different approaches to explaining things
> to you. They may fit your learning style better than I do. This is
> something that I tell all that I encounter. Don't believe anyone! The
> thing is, (as I have followed most of these lessons on line that you
> are talking about) you don't seem to accept what they say either.
Sometimes I don't. Sometimes they're wrong. Or sometimes their views
are irrelevant for my own music *making* endeavors.
> The
> explain the same thing, you change the context and then they bow out
> by agreeing to what you said.
There you go. They "agree" with me and then bow out. Why would they
continue arguing with me if they agree with me?
Lots of times we don't agree and one of us still bows out.
But *nobody* here ever seems to agree with you very often at all, and
it's not because you've got some new approach to music theory. It's
because you've totally misunderstood the old approaches that your
teachers tried to teach you.
> Never mind that by that time, you are
> talking about something different. Those are the ones that are not
> just endless discussions about the various semantic meanings of the
> terms being used.
If only you could understand those terms too. Then you might feel part
of the conversation.
> > When these same people deal with *you* they spend a few posts trying
> > to straighten you out and then they rightfully tire of you and leave
> > you wallowing in your own mental vomit. You can't see this because you
> > can't see *anything*. You're the one caught up in his own head, unable
> > to learn anything new (or old).
>
> Again, empty words with no examples.
Read the archive. They're easy to find.
Nearly every single thread you join in on results with one or more
members of the group trying to straighten you out.
> > I have no doubts that you have been around some very good musicians
> > and teachers. But nearly every word you type here leads me inescapably
> > to conclude that you've misunderstood nearly everything you've tried
> > to learn from them. So why not try music instead of words? Let's hear
> > some of your musical "knowledge" expressed in music.
>
> Lets see you fly the plane! Or show me the your proof of the theory of
> relativity! These are just as related as what you are asking.
Musicians make music, period.
You can not be a music theorist without being a musician as well,
unless perhaps you're a physicist first, like Helmholtz. But people
like him, unless they are also musicians, should refrain about making
assumptions about music-making based on their scientific inquiries,
IMO.
> It just
> isn't a factor. Maybe you don't know what theory is all about! A
> theorist does not have to be a performer or a composer.
Yes. He does.
> He analyzes
> things.
From what perspective?
> I wonder if all the members of this group that are not
> professional musicians realize that you are saying that they have no
> credibility with any of their posts as they are not performers or
> composers!
I never said that about them. I'm saying it about you.
And most of these people, although not professionals, are involved in
*music-making* of some kind.
Let's hear some of your music.
> Joey, get a grip. Try to stay with one thought for more
> than a sentence of two.
Stop writing such enormous deluges of vacuous sentences then.
> > > I am not embarrassed for my self,
>
> > You should be.
>
> > > except maybe for entertaining your
> > > absurd posts.
>
> > You don't entertain them. You provoke them.
>
> I see. Now you are saying that it is my questioning of your absurd
> posts that provoke you into making them! You really should work on
> your self control.
No. This time it was your absurd attack on one of my students.
> > Why do you keep talking me when you know I've kill-filed you?
>
> LOL, that's a typical example of Joey Logic! If you really kill filed
> me, then HOW is it that you can respond to my posts!
I first came upon your latest negative comments about me by reading
Antal's posts.
I tried to avoid responding to you through several rounds of this but
you kept escalating the rhetoric. So I've been using GoogleGroups to
reply in kind.
Couldn't figure that out yourself? Too hard?
> No Joey, you forget that you even said that you check on my posts by
> going to Google Groups. The stupid thing is to kill file someone and
> then go to the extra work of looking up my posts! Maybe you should
> rethink your logic there! Something seems to not quite add up.
The stupid thing is that you keep making posts here about me when I've
been trying to avoid you.
Hell you keep making whole threads about me. You're obsessed with me.
> But this sends us right back to the profanity and the name calling and
> the slurs. Your real strong point.
You are totally deserving of anything and everything I can muster up
to dish out at you.
> This is going no place. If you refuse to say anything truthful or
> pertinent there is no use to wast any more time with this nonsense.
So stop.
> Like John has said (if you think he is credible enough, I think he is
> a scientist, I don't know if he plays or composes so you may not
> listen to him. I do.)
John should butt out of things that don't concern him, or he should
have made a post about the musical ideas that we were previously
discussing. So should you.
> lets get on to talking about music issues. So
> unless you come up with something factual, I have no more time for
> your absurdities. People can read the posts for themselves.
OK. Let's see your next profound statement about music.
What concept could you possibly mangle now that you haven't already
previously done so to?