Math and Martino Article

[vic]

If math and Martino are your bag...
http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.06.12.1/mto.06.12.1.capuzzo.pdf
R/
Vic

[pmfan57]

Nobody seemed interested when I posted this about a month ago. Not
even Joey.

[Paul]

I expressed interest.

Actually, reading this changed my mind about Martino's approach. I used to
think it was new age mumbo jumbo, but in fact it makes sense to me after
reading the article. It gives a way to organize musical information, which
is different from the way I organize (using that term loosely) it in my
mind. I think the article summarizes it well. Some of the article refers to
other theory that I dont know, so I can't comment on that, but the page 6
and page 7 pictures are worth the effort (and not that hard) to understand.
In particular, I believe that someone could use this method as a improv
tool, as an alternative to, say, the CAGED system.

One of my weaknesses as an improvisor is I use arpeggios starting at the
root as an anchor too much (not for note choice, but as a way to orient
myself on the fretboard in relation to the current chord). I think this is
sort of what CAGED does for you although I never heard of CAGED until after
I could play.

Martino's approach works in terms of diminished or augmented patterns as the
the anchor/orientation, and moving one voice ("transformation") to get the
desired chord, and argues that it is more natural to do this on the guitar.

I haven't had time to try think that way while practicing improvising: it's
something I keep meaning to try.

PK

On 5/5/06 4:00 PM, in article
1146859217.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "pmfan57"

[pmfan57]

While I think Pat thinks about this in theory, and thought about it
when organizing his thinking during woodshedding periods of his career,
he mostly relies upon the minor conversion principle. However, these
are not in any way mutually exclusive. Just that in figuring out WHAT
to play over the chords, he is converting to minor.

And even further, he's not thinking of ANY of that while he's playing,
having internalized all this years ago.

[Dan Adler]

I think my explanations were simpler in my article that was published
in Jazz Improv magazine a few years ago: (volume 3, No. 3). though my
next step is to formalize it using Group Theory which is the
mathematical language of recurring symmetrical cycles.

http://danadler.com/jazzres/index.html 5th from the top.

Direct link: http://danadler.com/misc/Cycles.pdf

-Dan
http://danadler.com

[thom_j.]

Pat touches on most of this in his 2 book series "Creative Force Part1
& Part2".with cassettes or CDs, irrc? thom_j.

"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1146859217.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

[LarryV]

Maybe because it's incredibly tedious reading. ;)

[Joey Goldstein]

Too tough for me.

LarryV wrote:
>
> Maybe because it's incredibly tedious reading. ;)

--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca

[Tim McNamara]

In article <1146943932....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"LarryV" <lar...@rcn.com> wrote:

> Maybe because it's incredibly tedious reading. ;)

Well, it is written by a math guy. Maybe Martino's original is more
readable.

[Tone]

Not for me.
And I thought this guy was actually a Music Theory guy, no? But I guess
once you go far enough with analytical music theory its math. Its still
interesting that a guy like Martino who never graduated high school
would come up with all these cool diagrams and cross products of
diminished and augmented chords. Maybe he wasn't steeped in the
prevalent music theory where all chords are explained in reference to a
major scale, and these interesting guitar centric properties of dim7
and aug chords really helped him organize/understand things better. But
I found his explanations pretty darn cryptic. I think I read it on his
web site a while back so maybe you could check for yourself.