OT: Theory question
BestStudentViolins.com
"Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly controversial
stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue that they are
not "true" scales because they are naturally occuring patterns."
The book is: The Everything Music Theory Book with CD by Marc
Schonbrun
A student presented this to me, and it strikes me as a really odd
remark Can someone shed some light on this? What is this guy talking
about?
Thanks,
Connie
*******************************
http://www.beststudentviolins.com/
Steve Latham
"BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184452329.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> The following sentence was found in a popularized theory book:
>
> "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly controversial
> stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue that they are
> not "true" scales because they are naturally occuring patterns."
>
> The book is: The Everything Music Theory Book with CD by Marc
> Schonbrun
>
> http://tinyurl.com/35m6k2
>
> A student presented this to me, and it strikes me as a really odd
> remark Can someone shed some light on this? What is this guy talking
> about?
>
> Thanks,
> Connie
>
Hi Connie.
Well, first off, let's just say that this author is talking out of their
ass. You say the book was "popularized" (I assume you mean it's popular) -
but by whom, in what circles? Is it used in university-level theory courses,
or only popular amongst certain players of certain styles. I don't know who
his "some theorists" are - are they really *theorists*, or are they people
talking about music theory when they don't really know anything, just
calling themselves theorists!
I think the author might be pointing at something that's a common
misconception, but the wording "naturally occurring" brings a lot of
pseudo-science into play.
In music of Western European Common Practice Period (CPP hereafter)
Tonality - basically what we call the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic
periods - composers didn'te really "compose with" scales. They *composed in*
a key (or keys).
But unfortunately, many students (especially those playing instruments) are
taught THREE minor scales - Natural, Harmonic, and Melodic.
But composers like Mozart didn't really sit down and say, "gee, I'm going to
write this piece in G Harmonic Minor". What they did was, wrote in a minor
key with the understanding that the 6th and 7th scale degrees would vary
from a "natural" position (one that matches the key signature) to a raised
position. Most typically, the reason for raising scale degree 7 was for
harmonic reasons, and the reason for raising both 6 and 7 were for melodic
reasons - the we eventually go two more "scales" - HM and MM.
But really, a better way to understand them is that HM and MM are
"variations of" a basic minor scale (Natural or Pure minor). Some people
here have described a minor scale (in CPP mind you) as a "9 note scale",
like:
A B C D E F F# G G#.
While I see the logic, I prefer to see it as a 7 note scale, with two
variable scale degrees:
A B C D E F* G* where F and G can both be raised depending on the musical
needs (which are often presented in the context of harmonic or melodic
situations to make it easier for the student to comprehend).
So basically, seeing three distinct minor scales, or seeing this whole
"melodic minor is raised 6 and 7 ascending, but natural 6 and 7 descending"
is an oversimplification (there are many works where melodies don't use
"melodic minor" in the "right" direction).
Now, that's that time period. More recently, composers have treated them as
three distinct scales - in fact, Jazz players have applied the same
principles of rotation to make modes out of a "harmonic minor scale". For
instance, we might say that A Bb C# D E F G is the "5th rotation (or 5th
mode) of a D Harmonic Minor scale" (and in fact many of these modes have
their own distinct names, making them sort of stand-alone scales).
Now as to the "naturallness" to which the author referred, I can only
imagine they're noting that natural minor agrees with the key signature (and
thus from that perspective is "natural" to keyed music) and that the others
are created for some other "unnatural" reason (from his perspective).
I hope your student gets their music theory information from more than just
this one source!
Best,
Steve
LJS
LJS
Hi Connie,
This is a new one for me as well. Was this in some particular context
that might shed some light on his meaning? I can't think of anyway
that it is a naturally occurring pattern. Some in this group will
argue that the major scale is not a naturally occurring pattern. lol
As I am sure you know, the pure minor is naturally occurring as any
of the original modes and it is specifically altered to create a Major
Dominant chord and the Melodic then was altered to make the scale more
"singable". Is it possible that it is a typo and he meant that
"because it is NOT a naturally occurring scale? I personally think
that in either case, it is somewhat strange, but at least then there
would be an argument.
I didn't see any factual information on his website. It was all sales
and self promotion stuff. (Why give it away if you have a good selling
children's book. lol) but here is the contact info that he said is
available for all questions and to schedule lessons if you are in the
New York area. :) < info @ marcschonbrun.com>
Please let me know what you find out.
LJS
Roland Hutchinson
> The following sentence was found in a popularized theory book:
>
> "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly controversial
> stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue that they are
> not "true" scales because they are naturally occuring patterns."
> A student presented this to me, and it strikes me as a really odd
> remark Can someone shed some light on this? What is this guy talking
> about?
I'm with you; it is really odd.
Mind you, it's hard enough just to think clearly about theory pedagogy;
writing clearly is even harder. So maybe we can cut the guy some slack in
the first edition of his book; everyone who has ever tried to write
explanatory material on theory for beginners has produced the odd
infelicitous sentence here and there. And I hesitate to cast the first
stone: I myself made a handout just a couple of days ago that had more than
its share of tortured syntax and muddled order of presentation. I also
should mention that I incline to blame the editor more than the author for
letting a muddle like that through into print.
Nonetheless, with gloves off, here's my take:
To begin with, the author can't control English idiom. I've certainly
encountered theorists with controversial stances, but I don't know how a
scale could possibly adopt a stance, controversial or otherwise. Perhaps
he meant "status"?
But then again, where in "traditional music theory" is the status (whatever
that might mean) of harmonic and minor scales controversial? Surely the
controversy, if it exists, would have been raised by _critics_ of
the "traditional" approach of identifying three forms of the minor scale.
Out of context, the quote looks to me like it could be a muddled attempt to
address the longstanding problem that students given three forms of the
minor scale to study and practice may tend to assume that there exist three
distinct forms of the minor mode, so that a piece can be written in
(say) "the harmonic minor" as opposed to just "the minor"; or that melodies
in minor need to be written in "the melodic minor", while their harmonies
must be written in "the harmonic minor"; or that there is
something "unnatural" about two of the forms of the minor scale. Of
course, none of these things is the case.
Absent any identification of who "some theorists" are and what they have
written about the "controversy", absent a definition what constitutes
a "naturally occurring pattern" and absent any explanation why such a thing
is excluded from being a scale, I'd say that you are under no obligation to
worry about what the author has tried (and failed) to say.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
LJS
books on the market and even a few more in this Title Series. As a
music educator, if you are writing books on theory, you must take
special care to get it right. But, let me explain my hard line here. I
have written to him and he replied. I am not sure if it is a mistake.
I have written a second time asking for an explanation of his reply
and will either post it or his, shall we say his more clearly
explained answer, after I get a reply to that. There may have been
typos in his reply and I don't want to penalize him if that is the
case.
I agree with your statements, but we shall see. You may be too kind. I
will keep let you know what he says in the way of explanation
LJS.
Wereo_SUPREME43
news:1184452329.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Marc Sabatella
> stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue that they are
> not "true" scales because they are naturally occuring patterns."
Are you missing the word "not" in the above (ie, "the are *not*
naturally occuring patterns). Because it is indeed true that these
scales are not a closely related to the overtone series as the major
scale (or natural minor) is, and this fact gives them second-class
status in the eyes of some.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
LJS
> > "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly controversial
> > stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue that they are
> > not "true" scales because they are naturally occuring patterns."
>
> Are you missing the word "not" in the above (ie, "the are *not*
> naturally occuring patterns). Because it is indeed true that these
> scales are not a closely related to the overtone series as the major
> scale (or natural minor) is, and this fact gives them second-class
> status in the eyes of some.
>
> ---------------
> Marc Sabatella
>
> Music, art, & educational materials
> Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc,
I asked the author about a typo. He seems to agree with it as it
stands. I will post it and the reply to the second one I sent him.
LJS
Carl Witthoft
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> > "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly controversial
> > stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue that they are
> > not "true" scales because they are naturally occuring patterns."
>
> Are you missing the word "not" in the above (ie, "the are *not*
> naturally occuring patterns). Because it is indeed true that these
> scales are not a closely related to the overtone series as the major
> scale (or natural minor) is, and this fact gives them second-class
> status in the eyes of some.
>
I'm tempted to suggest that is a silly, pseudo-elitist position to take,
not unlike denigrating certain physical features of humans which may
have been surgically altered :).
What do these anti-harmonic-minor people have to say about, say, Chinese
music? Or, for that matter, Monk's blue notes?
Heck, they probably are pissed off because Dali's clock isn't a rigid
item :-)
--
Team EM to the rescue! mailto:ca...@Team-EM.com http://www.team-em.com
LJS
>
> "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly controversial
> stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue that they are
> not "true" scales because they are naturally occuring patterns."
>
> The book is: The Everything Music Theory Book with CD by Marc
> Schonbrun
>
> http://tinyurl.com/35m6k2
>
> A student presented this to me, and it strikes me as a really odd
> remark Can someone shed some light on this? What is this guy talking
> about?
>
> Thanks,
> Connie
>
Hi Connie,
This is his reply to my (your) inquiry from the author:
Hi,
Many theorists think that the pattern of whole and half steps is the
only material that make a scale, so when harmonic minor has the step
and a half, it becomes "altered" and not really a new scale that you
harmonize, but just some sort of temporary adaptation that happens
from time to time.
I don't think of anything as a scale, personally. Everything to me is
small note groupings that relate to each other, and none of them ever
get to 7 notes long.
So tell your students, that I say this:
A scale is something that you make melodies with, harmonize fully (all
7 steps) and stands as it's own "Key".
Everything else is just gravy.
I hope that clears something up!
Marc Schonbrun: Guitarist - Author - Music Technology Educator
--
D'Addario Artist - www.daddario.com
Godin Guitar Artist- www.godinguitars.com
AXON/Terratec Artist - www.terratecproducer.com
--
www.marcschonbrun.com
________________
Well, it doesn't clear up very much for me, but that is what he said.
I replied and asked him to explain the points he mentioned and I will
post these if and when I get a reply.
LJS
rodd
news:1184452329.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> The following sentence was found in a popularized theory
> book:
>
> "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly
> controversial stance in traditional music theory. Some
> theorists argue that they are not "true" scales because
> they are naturally occuring patterns."
>
> The book is: The Everything Music Theory Book with CD by
> Marc Schonbrun
>
> http://tinyurl.com/35m6k2
>
> A student presented this to me, and it strikes me as a
> really odd remark Can someone shed some light on this?
> What is this guy talking about?
>
> Thanks,
> Connie
>
>
From my point of view, the problem is driven by the 'leading
tone' and a major triad on the Dominant. This major is
generated by using a note that is a major-7th above the
tonic.
These two things drive the need for three forms of the minor
scale. In my opinion they are not three distinct scales but
variant forms driven by the previous two facts.
To create the common minor I-chord, a minor IV-chord, and a
major V-chord progression, you use a series of notes which
make up what is called the harmonic minor; however, if you
use this series in a melody you get an augmented-2nd interval
between the 6th and 7th steps of the melody, which most
people of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries found
unacceptable. This problem was addressed by raising both 6th
and 7th notes to get rid of the augmented interval, and this
was called the melodic minor. (N.B. Marcel Dupre wrote an
organ fugue that used that interval of an augmented 2nd. We
organ students used to say that the notes called out the
composer's name -- Mar-cel-Du-pre.)
When the melody goes downward, the composer doesn't have to
deal the the movement driven by the leading tone. More
frequently the composer will use a flattened 7th and a
'natural' 6th in writing the melodic line.
When I was teaching my students, I never called these things
three scales. I called them three forms of THE minor because
I felt this was a better explanation of how this notes would
appear in conventional music.
Marc Sabatella
>> scales are not a closely related to the overtone series as the major
>> scale (or natural minor) is, and this fact gives them second-class
>> status in the eyes of some.
>>
> I'm tempted to suggest that is a silly, pseudo-elitist position to
> take,
> not unlike denigrating certain physical features of humans which may
> have been surgically altered :).
>
> What do these anti-harmonic-minor people have to say about, say,
> Chinese
> music? Or, for that matter, Monk's blue notes?
I think this is making too much of the comment. I don't think anyone is
saying the "invented" scales have no validity, really. After all, all
*melodies* are "invented" , and surely we would all agree they are at as
valid as scales - infinitely more so, in fact. I think it's really just
a matter of definitions. If I were to that the melody to Body & Soul
did not consitute a "true scale" in the same sense as the major scale, I
don't think anyone would find this "elitist". So I don't think there is
any need to get bent out of shape if someone makes the same observation
about harmonic minor.
Marc Sabatella
FWIW, it does not appear appear to me he is defining his omission of the
word "not" in the original quote. It actually appears that he simnply
did not notice he left it out, as his argument here is basically the
same one I made.
LJS
> > This is his reply to my (your) inquiry from the author:
>
> FWIW, it does not appear appear to me he is defining his omission of the
> word "not" in the original quote. It actually appears that he simnply
> did not notice he left it out, as his argument here is basically the
> same one I made.
>
> ---------------
> Marc Sabatella
>
> Music, art, & educational materials
> Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"http://www.outsideshore.com/
I didn't include my original mail to him. Here it is:
____
Hi Marc,
I was just asked a question about a quote from your book "The
Everything Music Theory Book" and I can't answer it. The quote as I
received it is: "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly
controversial stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue
that they are not "true" scales because they are naturally occurring
patterns."
I just can't think where they are naturally occurring but maybe I am
not seeing the forest for the trees or maybe this is a misprint or mis
quote. I did not see it in the book myself, so it could also be in
some context that I did not see. Anyway, I thought I would go to the
source to clear this up so that the student's question can be
answered.
Thank you,
William Wingstedt
>On Jul 15, 7:57 pm, "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> > This is his reply to my (your) inquiry from the author:
>>
>> FWIW, it does not appear appear to me he is defining his omission of the
>> word "not" in the original quote. It actually appears that he simnply
>> did not notice he left it out, as his argument here is basically the
>> same one I made.
>>
>> ---------------
>> Marc Sabatella
>> m...@outsideshore.com
>>
>> Music, art, & educational materials
>> Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
>I didn't include my original mail to him. Here it is:
>
>____
>
>Hi Marc,
>I was just asked a question about a quote from your book "The
>Everything Music Theory Book" and I can't answer it. The quote as I
>received it is: "Harmonic and melodic minor scales have a slightly
>controversial stance in traditional music theory. Some theorists argue
>that they are not "true" scales because they are naturally occurring
>patterns."
That last sentence lends itself to ambiguity. Link the first "they" to
harmonic and melodic minor scales and the second "they" to '"true"
scales' and the meaning shifts from what it would be if both "they"'s
refer to harmonic and melodic minor scales.
LJS
Well, here is his response. I don't think it answers our questions. It
still doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something here? Remember
that this is a book for young students. It is like a primer for music
theory. Does this make sense to anyone out there?
THE ANSWER TO MY REPLY FOR CLARIFICATION:
> Well not quite. If they are altered, how are they Natutally occurring? I can see your point that the two forms are temporary in some regards, although I can see that in the Harmonic Minor more clearly than in the melodic minor as the Harmonic is more apt to be used in music more closely related to the natural minor except for cadences, but the Melodic seems to be able to stand on its own and seems to have done this in a lot of Bach chorals a and other works where the entire piece is more or less in the Melodic minor. The Invention in C minor comes to mind as a popular example of this. It seems to happen a little bit more than from time to time.
So does the Bouree in E minor, but these notes are temporary -- many
times they only work in ascending motion.
It's not consistent and in my mind, isn't getting the students to
think about music across the page, and not simply vertically.
>
>
> By small note groupings, I assume that you mean either melodic patterns such as sequences or tetrachords as some examples. That is true, but I have always looked upon them as melodic development techniques that usually occur within a scale and these fragments would be melodic fragments that would use a scale and could be of any length. I seem to remember that there are passages in various periods of music that do use 'fragments' that are seven and more notes long. I do understand that music can be broken into smaller parts, but I don't think that this leads to the logical conclusion of not recognizing a scale as a set of notes that defines a tonality.
The question is how many notes do you need to make a tonality? I think
it's 3 notes, 1 4 and 7. You don't need a whole scale to actively
engage your ears into a "sound"
> It usually works out that the scale will be used as a tool for melodic composition will change as the tonal center changes and this brings me to the instructions you suggested I relate to the students.
Yes, I understand.
>
>
> I don't exactly understand it myself. I can see the simplification of "a scale is something that you make melodies with" but what exactly do you mean by "harmonize fully ( all 7 steps) and stands as it's own key." Maybe there is a word or two missing here, but I just don't get it. What stands as it's own key? And relative to the level of the wording in the first part about "something to make melodies with", what level student would accept this definition and then be capable of harmonizing the scale? I am sure that I must be misunderstanding you in some manner. I hope that you can clear this up for me.
>
Well, when we "harmonize" melodic minor, we don't use a few of the
chords... In major and minor, we only really avoid iii or bIII only
because it's so far from Tonic. In melodic and harmonic minor, the III
brings up augmented tonalities that most students don't know how to
use. Im my mind, harmonic minor is the *result* of raising the leading
tone and melodic minor is the result of smoothing out the transition
between b6 and 7.
I just want them to see that every alteration has a price. It changes
not only one chord, but three. As for is it really a scale, I've been
discouraged to teach it that way, as I want students to think of
chords as long strings of horizontal notes, and notes intsrect
vertically to make chords...and not that chords come first.
M
So Connie. If you need help explaining the minors to a student, I will
be happy to chat or e-mail you about some ways that I have come
across, but I don't think that I will spend much more time with this
guy and I will have to look at the entire book (in a library
someplace, I don't feel like giving this guy any money for responses
like these two :-) before I would recommend it to any schools that I
teach or to anyone interested in music. Maybe it is a typo and he just
doesn't care enough to read the questions, but this in itself is not a
good attitude for an educator.
Have you looked over the rest of the book? Is this typical? or is
this the only questionable statement in the text?
LJS
LJS
wrote:
Ii find the whole thing strange and ambiguous. I know that iI have a
hard time expressing the subtlety of some concepts but there are so
many contradictions from an educational point of view as well as some
musical concepts. My problem with the whole thing is that I had
pointed out the possibility of the typo twice and he seems to go by
the quote as it stands, but it only makes sense if you add the word
not. I mean, I can stretch and say that there is only one minor scale
and the others are alterations, but this only really applies to early
music. Even by Bach's time and then through the "CPP" one begins to
think of the pure form as the "alteration" with a b6 and b7!
I have not seen the actual book. From what Connie said and from the
title and the series that it seems to be apart of it seems to be a
primer or beginning book to explain in simple ways music theory. This
is a difficult but worthwhile endeavor to put this into one text. As
an educator, however, I can assure you that the beginner will NOT be
harmonizing each note of the scales, major or minor and any student
that will accept his definition of the scale is not far enough along
to understand ANYthing else that he says.
I gave him one more pop with some specific repeats of the questions
and some comments and comments about his theories and I think that
will be about all that I can take with this. I only hope that the book
is not filled with things like this as it has the potential of being
widely read as there is not much competition for a text of this kind
and it is so hard to get these early "facts" out of these young heads.
Koday had no problems working with the minor scales, it would be a
shame to have things like this destroyed with some dubious
information.
I will be interested as to how he explains the 1 4 7 as three tones
that define a key, but with no reference to how this is used, it is
meaningless. It makes me wonder how much research he had done
concerning the possible level of the audience, but I will try to hold
judgment until I can see the actual book itself.
LJS
BestStudentViolins.com
> So Connie. If you need help explaining the minors to a student, I will
> be happy to chat or e-mail you
I appreciate you writing this guy, but I don't believe I need any help
explaining minors to a student. I'm in a PhD program for
composition. I'll try to struggle along, as best I can.
I got an email from my student this a.m. with the following correction
of the (mis-) quoted text: It should read "are NOT (emphasis mine)
naturally occuring patterns.." When he typed it to me, he left out
the "not," which makes a world of difference, of course! He also had
other complaints about the book, and asked me for recommendations for
a better theory book. I'm tempted to send him to Slonimsky, but that
would be too mean.
Steve Latham
I'm in a PhD program for
> composition. I'll try to struggle along, as best I can.
Connie, which texts are you using, or have you been using during your
studies?
>He also had
> other complaints about the book, and asked me for recommendations for
> a better theory book. I'm tempted to send him to Slonimsky, but that
> would be too mean.
Hee, hee. While Mr. Schonbrun may be a D'addario artist and all that, as I
said before, he's not too sound on his theory. You may have come across
these in your studies, but here's the usual list of suspects (all
university-level theory texts):
Kostka/Payne - Tonal Harmony
Aldwell/Schachter - something Harmony
Piston - Harmony
Schoenberg - something Harmony
The Schoenberg is very wordy and he tends to digress a lot (plus we're
dealing with a translation) so never one I recommend to start, but after
having read a couple of other texts, there's some valuable insight there.
The Piston is very readable from a prose standpoint, but I think other
aspects of it are a little disorganized.
I also really like Robert Gualdin's "Structural Functions in Tonal Music"
(or similar title). It's not as well known or well-used as those above (at
least the first three) but he's dead on. The only drawback is it's more of a
conceptual approach whereas something like the K/P above is more practical -
at least from a "rule-based" approach.
Clendenning/Marvin also have a nice text - relatively new - called something
like Musician's Guide to Theory and Analysis - they take yet another
approach where there's a more - I don't know, "new age" approach (bad word
choice on my part) - for example, they discuss twelve tone terminology right
alongside traditional terminology so "pitch set" and "pitch class" are right
there with "enharmonic" and "scale" - I think it's an attempt to lessen the
blow of atonal terminology later on and show it's much more closely related
to traditional things that one might at first think. Anyway, their chapter
on Mode Mixture is called something like "Color and Drama in music" - so
that kind of thing. I think it's complete, but it would be hard to teach
from from a pedagogical standpoint.
HTH,
Steve
Marc Sabatella
> of the (mis-) quoted text: It should read "are NOT (emphasis mine)
> naturally occuring patterns.." When he typed it to me, he left out
> the "not," which makes a world of difference, of course!
Glad I read this before "tuning out"! OK, so the author knew what he
was talking about in the first place, but just isn't really reading
LJS's questions thoroughly enough, and as a result, is attempting
answering something entirely different (what exactly, I cannot say).
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Marc Sabatella
Me too. It seems the discussion is destined to go nowhere, so I'm
tuning out.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Roland Hutchinson
> Ii find the whole thing strange and ambiguous. I know that iI have a
> hard time expressing the subtlety of some concepts but there are so
> many contradictions from an educational point of view as well as some
> musical concepts. My problem with the whole thing is that I had
> pointed out the possibility of the typo twice and he seems to go by
> the quote as it stands, but it only makes sense if you add the word
> not. I mean, I can stretch and say that there is only one minor scale
> and the others are alterations,
Or, put another way, this point of view seems to adopt the attitude that
the "natural" minor is somehow natural, and the others are, well,
unnatural. (Perhaps "artificial" would be a better word.)
> but this only really applies to early
> music. Even by Bach's time and then through the "CPP" one begins to
> think of the pure form as the "alteration" with a b6 and b7!
It hardly even applies to early music, aside from mode 1 and 2 plainchant.
One would have to look long and hard for a piece of Renaissance polyphony
in something resembling the minor mode to which accidentals had not been
applied -- if not by the composer, then by the singers.
It's a bit unfair to judge the whole work on the basis of a single excerpt,
but this one excerpt certainly does strike me as historically,
theoretically, and pedagogically misguided all at once.
Peter Schug
my.sp...@verizon.net wrote on 7/17/07 4:49 PM:
> LJS wrote:
>
>
>> Ii find the whole thing strange and ambiguous. I know that iI have a
>> hard time expressing the subtlety of some concepts but there are so
>> many contradictions from an educational point of view as well as some
>> musical concepts. My problem with the whole thing is that I had
>> pointed out the possibility of the typo twice and he seems to go by
>> the quote as it stands, but it only makes sense if you add the word
>> not. I mean, I can stretch and say that there is only one minor scale
>> and the others are alterations,
>
> Or, put another way, this point of view seems to adopt the attitude that
> the "natural" minor is somehow natural, and the others are, well,
> unnatural. (Perhaps "artificial" would be a better word.)
>
>> but this only really applies to early
>> music. Even by Bach's time and then through the "CPP" one begins to
>> think of the pure form as the "alteration" with a b6 and b7!
>
> It hardly even applies to early music, aside from mode 1 and 2 plainchant.
> One would have to look long and hard for a piece of Renaissance polyphony
> in something resembling the minor mode to which accidentals had not been
> applied -- if not by the composer, then by the singers.
>
> It's a bit unfair to judge the whole work on the basis of a single excerpt,
> but this one excerpt certainly does strike me as historically,
> theoretically, and pedagogically misguided all at once.
We can always fall back on Peter Schickele's favorite quote, from Duke
Ellington. "If it sounds good, it is good"
BTW I remember learning the melodic minor in high school and I fell in love
with the sound. I didn't follow the whole thread, but I have to ask, what's
natural? We pick and choose to make our music and it seems that what you can
do keeps expanding.
Pete
Steve Latham
"Wayne Reimer" <wrdslremovethis濃pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2106d75dd...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>>
> It surprises me that no one in this thread has mentioned that, theory
> aside, a classical pianist is going to come across those "alternate"
> forms of minor when practising scales (and will probably drill them
> until the fingerings are unconscious, unless things have changed a lot
> in the decades since I was a kid). Unfortunately for me, I just had to
> learn them, and was give no real reason for their existence. I bet
> there are quite a few other pianists who had the same experience, or at
> most, got some unsatisfactory, half-baked explanation.
Not only pianists Wayne, but other instrumentalists as well. And
unfortunately, this drilling of scales as, well, scales produces a mentality
in the student that they are these sort of three distinct forms that are
used exactly like that in music - which we know is far from the truth.
I hope at least now (or even previously from now) you've been able to get
around that "scale thinking" and see how the notes in minor keys really work
in real music.
As an aside, it's hilarious to see our students every year during juries,
when asked to play Bb melodic minor, stumble for precious minutes as they
try to remember which version is which!
Best,
Steve
John F
learn something important.
John F
Marc Sabatella
> natural?
One way of answering that would be, what can be simply derived from the
overtone series.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Roland Hutchinson
> We can always fall back on Peter Schickele's favorite quote, from Duke
> Ellington. "If it sounds good, it is good"
>
> BTW I remember learning the melodic minor in high school and I fell in
> love with the sound. I didn't follow the whole thread, but I have to ask,
> what's natural? We pick and choose to make our music and it seems that
> what you can do keeps expanding.
Exactly so.
What seems natural about a scale to any given individual is the largely
result of cultural conditioning and individual experience.
Joey Goldstein
> Peter Schug wrote:
>
>> We can always fall back on Peter Schickele's favorite quote, from Duke
>> Ellington. "If it sounds good, it is good"
>>
>> BTW I remember learning the melodic minor in high school and I fell in
>> love with the sound. I didn't follow the whole thread, but I have to ask,
>> what's natural? We pick and choose to make our music and it seems that
>> what you can do keeps expanding.
>
> Exactly so.
>
> What seems natural about a scale to any given individual is the largely
> result of cultural conditioning and individual experience.
>
I haven't really been following this thread...but...
The reason the natural minor scale is called "natural" has nothing to do
with whether or not it occurs naturally in nature, like from the
harmonic overtone series.
It has to do with there being no accidentals.
The key of A minor is relative to the key of C major.
The notes of the A nat min scale are the exact same pitches that
comprise the C maj scale, all natural notes - in that they have no
accidentals.
A nat, B nat, C nat, etc.
In order to create the harm min scale, one of the diatonic notes has to
be altered by means of accidentals. The G needs to be raised to G#.
To create mel min 2 notes need to be altered by means of accidentals. G
to G# and F to F#, when ascending.
There is no common key signature that will give you an A harm min or an
A mel min scale. These scales, compared to a strict diatonic pitch
collection, have to be created "artificially", by means of what is
called "musica ficta" or fictional music, i.e. accidentals.
Note: The diatonic scale is the 7 note scale that has 5 whole tones and
2 semitones with the semitones spaced as far apart as possible. It has
the potential to support between 6 and 7 possible modal tonal centers,
as well as 1 major key and 1 minor key. Outside of the context of a
single tonal center it is a mistake to think pf the diatonic scale as
"starting" on any single note.
C D E*F G A B*C
D E*F G A B*C D
E*F G A B*C D E
etc.
are all the same diatonic scale in various rotations.
The harm min and mel min scales involve chromatically altering the
diatonic pitch collection.
The terminology is also made cumbersome by the fact that musicians
continue to call harm and mel min scales "diatonic scales" and/or to say
things like "Those notes are diatonic to the A mel min scale" when what
they mean is "Those notes are derived from the A mel min scale".
IMO The harm and mel min scales are not "diatonic scales".
But I seem to be swimming against the tide.
Not sure if that's relevant to where this thread is at right now, but it
seemed to need to be said.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygoldstein
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Peter Schug
nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/18/07 1:29 AM:
Excellent point about natural meaning without accidentals. There are times
when playing the natural minor though that you will insert a leading tone,
which is to say, raise the seventh by a semitone.
I'm not sure if I remember right, but I think something like that happens
also in tunes in Mixolydian mode. I am thinking of the Irish tune Red Haired
Boy where the seventh is used both ways depending on context. (If I have the
right tune and remember correctly)
Hmm... I remember incorrectly. The seventh is made natural any time it is
not a leading tone in that melody. Fun to play though and feel the
contextual change in the use of the note. (Or maybe the key signature was
wrong in my version)
Anyway, it's a good description of what is meant by Natural Minor.
Pete
LJS
I never thought that you would need help explaining minors to your
students, with or without the PhD. The only think I knew about your
was that you went by the name of Connie and you relayed a question
about a beginning theory book so in lieu of trying to get personal, I
just offered to help in case you were not experienced. Sorry if my
lack of information offended you. I certainly did not mean anything by
it.
I am surprised that in two specific references to the possibility of a
misquote or typo that he failed to make the correction in his e-mails,
but I guess that not reading posts on line is just a product of the
electronic society. It does make a lot more sense that way. I was
wondering as his comments are a bit unorthodox but certainly workable
and not radical to my way of thinking. I am glad to hear that it was a
misquote as I first thought.
lol What grade is this Slonimsky candidate in? and what did he do to
deserve that fate? Is he old enough for Piston? or one of the other
standard texts? or for one of the
If you don't mind sharing or talking, what grade levels have you
taught and how do you present minor scales to them (I am assuming less
than college level students as). My personal choice is through the
pentatons. After their ear has progressed enough to sing and hear the
pentatons and they have learned some folk tunes in minor using them
both vocally and instrumentally, they seem to just fall into it.
At any rate, I am glad that the problem is solved and that the author
does have a decent grasp of theory. I am still not satisfied with his
instructions of what to tell the student, however, but will eventually
ask him for a better explanation of what he had in mind.
Enjoy your composing!
LJS
BestStudentViolins.com
All of them. You know how graduate school is; you have to know
everything. But Kostka, certainly. That's the one I recommended to
my student.
BestStudentViolins.com
All of them. You know how graduate school is; you have to know
LJS
> > I got an email from my student this a.m. with the following correction
> > of the (mis-) quoted text: It should read "are NOT (emphasis mine)
> > naturally occuring patterns.." When he typed it to me, he left out
> > the "not," which makes a world of difference, of course!
>
> Glad I read this before "tuning out"! OK, so the author knew what he
> was talking about in the first place, but just isn't really reading
> LJS's questions thoroughly enough, and as a result, is attempting
> answering something entirely different (what exactly, I cannot say).
>
> ---------------
> Marc Sabatella
>
> Music, art, & educational materials
> Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"http://www.outsideshore.com/
You got it. I thought that on the second time at least that he would
catch on. I specifically asked him about a mis-quote. He said
something about being busy with a book, maybe he is just extremely
busy and distracted. Or, maybe it is just a sign of the times. There
is a lot of quick responses without really thinking about what any one
is talking about these days.
I am still puzzled by some of his responses, but if he thinks that I
was saying that they were naturally occurring scales, and he then gave
me some opinions without asking about that? Well, maybe he is just
really busy finishing up another book.
Thanks for the input Marc S. (Don't want to confuse the Marc's lol)
LJS
Marc Sabatella
news:f7k8fe$nii$1...@news.datemas.de...
> The reason the natural minor scale is called "natural" has nothing to
> do with whether or not it occurs naturally in nature, like from the
> harmonic overtone series.
> It has to do with there being no accidentals.
OK, but the term "accidental" implies a key signature, which of course
is associated with the diatonic scales - and do you really think there
is no relationship between these and the overtone series.
> The terminology is also made cumbersome by the fact that musicians
> continue to call harm and mel min scales "diatonic scales"
I've never heard anyone say that, and would wonder what they meant if
they were to claim it.
> and/or to say things like "Those notes are diatonic to the A mel min
> scale" when what they mean is "Those notes are derived from the A mel
> min scale".
Sure, that is indeed the common second definition of "diatonic", in
practice.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
LJS
> "Wayne Reimer" <wrdslremovethis¿@pacbell.net> wrote in message
THIS IS TO ALL FOLLOWING THIS PART OF THE THREAD!
I don't know when it actually got posted, but please remember that is
has been learned that the quote about the Melodic and Harmonic Minor
was INCORRECT. The student mis-quoted to Connie. The rest of the
things, of course it true, but this CORRECTION puts a different slant
on his writings.
I am glad that this has happened, however, as it is bringing to light
many interesting observations about the minor scales. His newly
perceived view is quite logical about the minor scales and will stand
up to the evolution of this scale from a historical standpoint as well
as a practical standpoint. I will still be asking him about a few
other details, but the student would probably be better off it he did
NOT learn the scales the way that has been described in the last few
posts.
We all need to practice or drill scales for technical reasons, but by
grouping them as three separate scales may not be the best practice. I
agree with Marc S. oops! (this may get confusing) Marc Sab. in that
it may lead us away from the inherent differences and applications of
the various forms of the Minor. And yes, the Melodic is a very
interesting scale. It is one of the few (maybe only?) parts of our
musical heritage that allows for chromatic alterations of notes to be
simultaneously sounded. It is, in fact then, a 9 note scale!
When I present scales to a student, it is usually done by adding
neighboring notes to the already learned pentatonic scales, or
pantatons. After the students have become familiar with these 5 five
note "scales", it is easy to add neighboring notes to complete the
other scales and modes and in doing so, the relationship of the notes
are explored in, as I see it, a more meaningful way.
In its simplest form, we take the Do pentaton and introduce the upper
neighbor to the Mi to add the Fa to the scale, and the lower neighbor
to the Do to introduce the leading tone. This is then done to add the
modes to their repertoire including the Aeolian and then the various
forms. This is done in the early years with the Pentatonic scales and
later the Modes are added in the middle and higher elementary grades.
I realize that this method is not in common use, but can be condensed
and rearranged a bit to accommodate the older student weather he/she
is a beginner or experienced musician. Approaching it in this manner
gives one a different perspective of the relationship of the tones in
ALL of the modes as well as in altered scales. With the forms of the
minor, it also keeps the basic minor character of the mode in the
forefront and helps the student to see the alterations in a meaningful
and logical manner. ( as a side benefit, it gives them at least 5 out
of the 7 (or 9) notes in the melodic when they are taking their
juries. lol
LJS
Steve Latham
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:Eaydnek6LMykagPb...@comcast.com...
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:f7k8fe$nii$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> The reason the natural minor scale is called "natural" has nothing to do
>> with whether or not it occurs naturally in nature, like from the harmonic
>> overtone series.
>> It has to do with there being no accidentals.
>
> OK, but the term "accidental" implies a key signature, which of course is
> associated with the diatonic scales -
I took his statment to mean "no accidentals beyond those included in the key
signature". In other words, "natural" minors a conform to (or can be mapped
on to) a key signature.
and do you really think there
> is no relationship between these and the overtone series.
Again, I take his statement to mean we don't call it "natural" to imply some
sort of relationship to the harmonic series, whether it has one or not.
Best,
Steve
Marc Sabatella
>> course is associated with the diatonic scales -
>
> I took his statment to mean "no accidentals beyond those included in
> the key signature". In other words, "natural" minors a conform to (or
> can be mapped on to) a key signature.
Obviously.
> and do you really think there
>> is no relationship between these and the overtone series.
>
> Again, I take his statement to mean we don't call it "natural" to
> imply some sort of relationship to the harmonic series, whether it has
> one or not.
My point is that this distinction is a phantom. The whole reason we
consider key signatures to be "natural" in the first place - indeed, the
reason why we use the word "natural" to refer to a return to the key
signature - is intimately wrapped up in the fact the diatonic scale is
based on naturally occuring phenomena.
Steve Latham
> consider key signatures to be "natural" in the first place - indeed, the
> reason why we use the word "natural" to refer to a return to the key
> signature - is intimately wrapped up in the fact the diatonic scale is
> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
Key signatures are a contrivance.
Music existed for a long time before key signatures, and even before the
concept of keys was established. Even in Bach's day, key signatures were not
quite "perfected" (at least no until around the time of the WTC) - in many
works, the piece is clearly in minor yet a key signature of one less
accidental is used (a dorian key sig for a minor key work). I don't know how
"natural" either is.
Steve
Peter Schug
ma...@outsideshore.com wrote on 7/19/07 1:20 PM:
>>> OK, but the term "accidental" implies a key signature, which of
>>> course is associated with the diatonic scales -
>>
>> I took his statment to mean "no accidentals beyond those included in
>> the key signature". In other words, "natural" minors a conform to (or
>> can be mapped on to) a key signature.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> and do you really think there
>>> is no relationship between these and the overtone series.
>>
>> Again, I take his statement to mean we don't call it "natural" to
>> imply some sort of relationship to the harmonic series, whether it has
>> one or not.
>
> My point is that this distinction is a phantom. The whole reason we
> consider key signatures to be "natural" in the first place - indeed, the
> reason why we use the word "natural" to refer to a return to the key
> signature - is intimately wrapped up in the fact the diatonic scale is
> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
If you follow the harmonic series, when you get to the seventh you will
discover that you are way closer to a flatted seventh than a semitone away
from the next tonic.
I am not talking about a bunch of convenient integers that have been fitted,
but the actual harmonic series, based on 1, 2, 3 etc times any starting
point. When you get to the seventh harmonic you come up with a flatted
seventh, so Euclid, Aristarchus and all those guys were fitting things
according to what they wanted to hear. Pythagoras had his own axe to grind,
wanting to base everything on fifths and only allowing integere that were
multiples of two or three. I have trouble believing that people still think
that he knew what he was talking about, and pushing his theory.
The "natural" scale should take that into account.
Pete
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:f7k8fe$nii$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> The reason the natural minor scale is called "natural" has nothing to
>> do with whether or not it occurs naturally in nature, like from the
>> harmonic overtone series.
>> It has to do with there being no accidentals.
>
> OK, but the term "accidental" implies a key signature, which of course
> is associated with the diatonic scales - and do you really think there
> is no relationship between these and the overtone series.
I think that there is *some* relationship between the harmonic OTS and
all of pitched music.
But if you think that the diatonic scale is somehow 'based on' the OTS
the onus will be on you to prove it, because as far as I can see (and
most of the other folks I've talked to about this) it isn't, at least
not in the way that I think you're gonna try to prove that it is.
The lydian b7 scale is the closest thing we have in music to a scale
that is based on the harmonic OTS.
>> The terminology is also made cumbersome by the fact that musicians
>> continue to call harm and mel min scales "diatonic scales"
>
> I've never heard anyone say that, and would wonder what they meant if
> they were to claim it.
Well, believe it or not.
The "diatonic scales" are said to be the major, nat min, harm min and
mel min scales.
I suppose that in this usage "diatonic scales" is really taking the
place of "the scales that the major/minor system of Tonality are based on".
Joey Goldstein
> the diatonic scale is
> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
Good luck backing that one up Marc.
Steve Latham
> Well, believe it or not.
> The "diatonic scales" are said to be the major, nat min, harm min and mel
> min scales.
For the Greeks, diatonic means "across the tones" or "through the tones".
They had thre genera of tetrachords, Diatonic, Chormatic, and Enharmonic
(anyone recognize those terms!).
The Diatonic tetrachord has wehat we would today call a TTS pattern like so:
A
G
F
E (they worked in terms of "nearest" and "farthest" strings, rather than
high and low pitch).
The other two genera involved moving the G and F closer to the E, producing
a trihemitone and pyknon (like our minor 3rd and semitones) or a ditone and
diesis (like a Major 3rd and quarter tones). The distance between A and G
above was considered the "characteristic interval" and the Diatonic Genus,
when elided or combined to make modes produced a set of pitches that was
largely "equal" in size - 5 tones and 2 semitones - thus, through the
"tones" which were more prevalent in this genus than others.
> I suppose that in this usage "diatonic scales" is really taking the place
> of "the scales that the major/minor system of Tonality are based on".
I'll add that I encounter the word most often to refer to "the notes of the
key" rather than the notes of the scale, but the latter is not uncommon. I
agree with Joey though that the usage has basically come to mean "the
major/minor tonality system". Though I would also add that from the Greek
historical perspective, the historical and modern modes would all be
Diatonic as well - consisting mainly of tones rather than any trihemitone or
ditone. Who knew that the ultimate diatonic scale is the whole tone scale!
Best,
Steve
Peter Schug
nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 2:34 AM:
> Marc Sabatella wrote:
>> the diatonic scale is
>> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
>
> Good luck backing that one up Marc.
I wish I could stand in front of a piano with you, armed with a frequency
meter and a calculator. I think it is very easy to establish that a diatonic
scale, albeit with a flated seventh occurs very naturally from the harmonic
series.
Why the frequency meter? To establish that the frequencies that are
multiples of the tonic are also related to the other notes of the scale and
all the intervals of the scale very preciesly, and even on an equally
tempered instrument, close enough to recognize numerically and by ear.
Aside from playing said harmonic series to satisfy my own curiousity, I have
occasionally worked things out in spread sheets and poked around the
intervals generated by small integers looking for inharmonious relationships
(lots of them).
I was always interested in the relationship between music and math, and read
on the subject since high school. Being sixty-nine, I've had a long time to
expore this stuff.
I would suggest that you read Benade and Partch's "Genisis of a New Music"
and get a feel for the relationship between the harmonic series and the
scales we use. The relationship is stronger and closer than you think.
Pete
Joey Goldstein
> in article f7pl1l$jba$2...@news.datemas.de, Joey Goldstein at
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 2:34 AM:
>
>> Marc Sabatella wrote:
>>> the diatonic scale is
>>> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
>> Good luck backing that one up Marc.
>
>
> I wish I could stand in front of a piano with you, armed with a frequency
> meter and a calculator. I think it is very easy to establish that a diatonic
> scale, albeit with a flated seventh occurs very naturally from the harmonic
> series.
The 11th partial of the harmonic OTS is #4 not 4.
1 2 3 #4 5 6 b7 is not "the diatonic scale" or even a diatonic scale.
> Why the frequency meter? To establish that the frequencies that are
> multiples of the tonic are also related to the other notes of the scale and
> all the intervals of the scale very preciesly, and even on an equally
> tempered instrument, close enough to recognize numerically and by ear.
>
> Aside from playing said harmonic series to satisfy my own curiousity, I have
> occasionally worked things out in spread sheets and poked around the
> intervals generated by small integers looking for inharmonious relationships
> (lots of them).
>
> I was always interested in the relationship between music and math, and read
> on the subject since high school. Being sixty-nine, I've had a long time to
> expore this stuff.
>
> I would suggest that you read Benade and Partch's "Genisis of a New Music"
> and get a feel for the relationship between the harmonic series and the
> scales we use. The relationship is stronger and closer than you think.
>
> Pete
>
>
Steve Latham
"Peter Schug" <Pete...@att.net> wrote in message
news:C2C653A4.8A03%Pete...@att.net...
> in article f7pl1l$jba$2...@news.datemas.de, Joey Goldstein at
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 2:34 AM:
>
>> Marc Sabatella wrote:
>>> the diatonic scale is
>>> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
>>
>> Good luck backing that one up Marc.
>
>
> I wish I could stand in front of a piano with you, armed with a frequency
> meter and a calculator. I think it is very easy to establish that a
> diatonic
> scale, albeit with a flated seventh occurs very naturally from the
> harmonic
> series.
If it were only the flattened 7th, then Mixolydian mode would be the scale
that is established by the overtone series.
Unfortunately for such theories, the 4th would be relatively sharp as well,
making the set of notes procured from the harmonic series:
C D E F# G A Bb
This has in fact been called "The Overtone scale". But as Joey pointed out,
Lydian b7 is another name for it. This is the "natural" scale derived from
the harmonic series.
[snip]
>The relationship is stronger and closer than you think.
Many people have been fooled into, or fooled themselves into believing so,
but the major scale (which is what you are talking about here, not just a
"diatonic" scale) does not come from the harmonic series. Major and minor
scales evolved from Authentic and Plagal modes, which in turn evolved from
Greek Tetrachords, none of which are based on the harmonic series.
The major scale happens to have a large number of pitches that do line up
with overtones of the harmonic series. That's all. Mixolydian mode has even
more, and Lydian b7 even more again (of course it depends on what type of
tuning you're using because some tunings will bring more, or fewer pitches
into alignment with the harmonic series). Hell, the chromatic scale has 12
notes that line up with the harmonic series!
The assumption that the Major scale (or any diatonic scale or mode for that
matter) is derived from the overtone series is a myth being perpetuated by
1) lack of scholarly research, and 2) some desire it seems to prove that
somehow the major scale is the most perfect scale ever, and by extension,
that only the music of the West, and ultimately of the tonal composers
(Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, etc.) is "natural", and therefore somehow
superior to other musics.
The ancient Greeks were no dummies. If they wanted to make a scale that
matched exactly the harmonic series, they certainly could have done so (even
only using ratios). It's interesting that they created everything but. It
took (in the West at least) until around Liszt for composers to start
experimenting with the overtone scale #4 b7 (also called the "acoustic"
scale BTW, for its obvious relation to natural acoustics - the harmonic
series).
I know there are many ardent supporters of the
harmonic-series-as-scale-generator (especially of the Major scale) and
expect to see a lot of flak, especially since this is cross-posted to a
couple of groups (and we have also recently had a similar discussion in
rec.music.theory to the extent that the harmonic series has influenced
music) but nonetheless, believe it or not, humans may choose to ignore
natural phenomena in their artistic pursuits.
Sincerely,
Steve
Roland Hutchinson
> The 11th partial of the harmonic OTS is #4 not 4.
> 1 2 3 #4 5 6 b7 is not "the diatonic scale" or even a diatonic scale.
And of course it's not even really very close to #4 and b7 as found in
conventional Western tunings, which concern themselves only with
accommodating (and, where necessary, approximating) intervals found among
the first five harmonics.
Now if you want to play with 7-limit and 11-limit tunings, that's all well
and good, but it's hardly fair to call an 11-limit tuning diatonic in the
conventional sense.
LJS
> "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
Steve,
This is not a disagreement, but I seem to remember something about
this from way back when. Can you cite some of these pieces in
question? I would like to revue them and see if I can remember all
that we said about them. I do remember something about the Dorian Key
signatures, and if I can see the pieces of music, I hope to be able to
remember what exactly we said about them.
Thanks,
Re: Natural Minor
Unless the focus shifted from the original part about the NATURAL
MINOR vs the Harmonic and Melodic, I can add my 2 cents and say that
we always just used the term to refer to the Aeolian Mode version or
the Relative minor in its "pure" form that used its relative major's
key signature and this was only to distinguish it from the Harmonic
and the Melodic Minor. If we were talking about the Natural Occurrence
of the scale relative to either the OTS or the Pythagorean 5ths etc,
we would have made mention of that so as to avoid any confusion or
simply assume from the context what we were referring to. Thus, the
way we learned it would be: If the Relative Major is a Pure Scale or
whatever, so would be the Natural Minor as well as all the other modes
associated with the common signature of the Ionian that contains
them.
LJS
LJS
> in article uMKdnQT1qdcpAALbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@comcast.com, Marc Sabatella at
> m...@outsideshore.com wrote on 7/19/07 1:20 PM:
>
> > Music, art, & educational materials
> > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
> >http://www.outsideshore.com/
Peter,
Thanks, we forget from time to time that even these 'Sacred Names"
from history had their own agendas as well as ideas based on the best
science available at the time, but not necessarily the complete
information. This is a principle that should NEVER be forgotten with
the ability of anyone being able to post on the internet, Wiki and the
ease of publishing a book in today's society.
Along those lines, I would not only point out that the 7th partial is
not only quite far away from the Tonic but it is also VERY close to
the Maj6th. I have even heard it said that the bMin7 could easily be
considered a #Maj6. In fact, if you listen to children singing "smlsm"
they often sing the La a bit sharp. If you look at it from this
perspective, you can use partials 1(2 4 & 8),3 (6) , 5, 7, 9 and come
out with C G E A and you have the Pentatonic Scale. This scale then,
depending on the mode, will father the Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian,
Mixolydian and Aeolian modes. each of these will have the essence of
their 7 note counterparts and could easily be created with musica
ficta to fill in the other notes.
I don't know if early examples of our music will support this
historically as I don't know if we have a lot of music played before
Pope Gregory. I do know that Zoltan Kodaly uses this method of
teaching these modes and tonality in general with this approach in his
program of music literacy. It would seem that in light of hard
evidence to the contrary that the early music would be likely to have
started with the Pentatonic scale if only from the preponderance of
the use of the Pentatons in the folk music of almost all cultures.
Please note that this is an alternate theory that would explain the
same development in a slightly different manner. I am not saying that
this was the fashion of the day, only that it is as logical as any
other way of explaining the evolution of the scales. We also forget
from time to time, that there was tons of secular music that was going
on as well as folk music in the early days of our civilization that
was never written down and was only passed on from person to person. I
have not seen any writings as to how this music would have influenced
the music of the monks that did actually write down the music from
their repertoire.
Just some thoughts from "the other side". lol
LJS
Peter Schug
nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 1:21 PM:
> Peter Schug wrote:
>> in article f7pl1l$jba$2...@news.datemas.de, Joey Goldstein at
>> nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 2:34 AM:
>>
>>> Marc Sabatella wrote:
>>>> the diatonic scale is
>>>> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
>>> Good luck backing that one up Marc.
>>
>>
>> I wish I could stand in front of a piano with you, armed with a frequency
>> meter and a calculator. I think it is very easy to establish that a diatonic
>> scale, albeit with a flated seventh occurs very naturally from the harmonic
>> series.
>
> The 11th partial of the harmonic OTS is #4 not 4.
> 1 2 3 #4 5 6 b7 is not "the diatonic scale" or even a diatonic scale.
I don't recall mentioning any 11th partial or trying to identify one nor did
I describe any diatonic scale at all. You are arguing with yourself.
The musical notes on say a piano that are in the harmonic series would be
(let's start a few octaves down from middle C so we don't run out of
keyboard.)
C about 65.41 Hz
interval one octave
C about 130.8 Hz
Interval = fifth
G about 196 Hz
Interval = forth
C about 261.6 Hz
interval = third
E about 329.6 Hz
intorval = minor third
G about 392 Hz
interval = minor third
Bb about 466 Hz
interval = second
C about 523 Hz
interval = second
D about 587 Hz
Here are all the intervals except the sixth and enough notes to make a
flatted seventh chord, just looking at the harmonic series in sequence, and
not even doing any integer math. Please notice that when looking at both the
second and the minor third, even the integer arithmetic afficianados talk
about wide and norrow minor thirds and seconds. Hmm... 9/8 and 10/9 pop into
mind for the seccnds.
Anyway, this is a very casual look at the equally tempered, inexact values
of the harmonic series in sequence and not multipied and divided by
anything.
Pete
LJS
Although there seems to be a variety of definitions of the Diatonic
Scale, Dolmetsch Online and <http://www.dolmetsch.com/
musictheory11.htm> others do say that the octave can be divided into
any arrangement of the 7 letter names as long as they all are included
and none are repeated. Some say that any arrangement of 1/2 and whole
steps are acceptable, but some do seem to allow the Harmonic with its
augmented second to be included as well as the melodic form.
The one we learned was the white notes and all of its transpositions
and rotations, but I do remember hearing the phrase "is diatonic to
the..." scale somewhere.
LJS
> > nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 2:34 AM:
>
> >> Marc Sabatella wrote:
> >>> the diatonic scale is
> >>> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
> >> Good luck backing that one up Marc.
>
> > I wish I could stand in front of a piano with you, armed with a frequency
> > meter and a calculator. I think it is very easy to establish that a diatonic
> > scale, albeit with a flated seventh occurs very naturally from the harmonic
> > series.
>
> The 11th partial of the harmonic OTS is #4 not 4.
> 1 2 3 #4 5 6 b7 is not "the diatonic scale" or even a diatonic scale.
But note that on the open French Horn, this tone is played as an F
natural. It actually comes out closer to the F natural than the F#
(for whatever reason) when playing the F.H.
>
> > Why the frequency meter? To establish that the frequencies that are
> > multiples of the tonic are also related to the other notes of the scale and
> > all the intervals of the scale very preciesly, and even on an equally
> > tempered instrument, close enough to recognize numerically and by ear.
>
> > Aside from playing said harmonic series to satisfy my own curiousity, I have
> > occasionally worked things out in spread sheets and poked around the
> > intervals generated by small integers looking for inharmonious relationships
> > (lots of them).
>
> > I was always interested in the relationship between music and math, and read
> > on the subject since high school. Being sixty-nine, I've had a long time to
> > expore this stuff.
>
> > I would suggest that you read Benade and Partch's "Genisis of a New Music"
> > and get a feel for the relationship between the harmonic series and the
> > scales we use. The relationship is stronger and closer than you think.
>
> > Pete
>
> --
> Joey Goldsteinhttp://www.joeygoldstein.comhttp://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygoldstein
Steve Latham
> in article f7qquc$kaa$2...@news.datemas.de, Joey Goldstein at
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 1:21 PM:
>
>> Peter Schug wrote:
>>> in article f7pl1l$jba$2...@news.datemas.de, Joey Goldstein at
>>> nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 7/20/07 2:34 AM:
>>>
>>>> Marc Sabatella wrote:
>>>>> the diatonic scale is
>>>>> based on naturally occuring phenomena.
>>>> Good luck backing that one up Marc.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish I could stand in front of a piano with you, armed with a
>>> frequency
>>> meter and a calculator. I think it is very easy to establish that a
>>> diatonic
>>> scale, albeit with a flated seventh occurs very naturally from the
>>> harmonic
>>> series.
>>
>> The 11th partial of the harmonic OTS is #4 not 4.
>> 1 2 3 #4 5 6 b7 is not "the diatonic scale" or even a diatonic scale.
>
> I don't recall mentioning any 11th partial or trying to identify one nor
> did
> I describe any diatonic scale at all. You are arguing with yourself.
You said, a diatonic scale, with a flatted seventh. That implies you're
thinking of a major scale. Are you instead saying that the diatonic scale
you would establish is Lydian, with a flatted 7th, because that makes sense.
You also said diatonic scale - that implies a 7 note scale. Therefore you
need the 11th partial to get all 7 notes.
[snip harmonic series on C]
>
> Here are all the intervals except the sixth and enough notes to make a
> flatted seventh chord,
Umm, you mean a Dominant 7th chord I think. You actually gave enough notes
to make a Dominant 9th chord. Why did you stop at a 7th chord? How does this
make a diatonic scale?
Curiously,
Steve
Peter Schug
wrote on 7/20/07 7:19 PM:
All I was trying to show, (that you snipped) was that the harmonic series
__ALSO__ consists of a series of intervals, octave, fifth, forth, third,
minor third etc. in sequence.
I could invoke ratios and come up with all the notes of the diatonic scale,
but that was not my purpose. Anyone should know the ratios of the diatonic
scale as accepted by everyone but the diehard Pythagorians. (I ain't one of
them!)
For me the big one that is missing from the plain and simple harmonic series
is the sixth, and that is reached with the ratio 5/3rds of the starting
point. In other words, five times the staring point divided by three. But! I
was more interested in showing that the intervals appear in what I think are
their order of importance directly in the harmonic series. Espeically if you
allow that inversions are of equal importance. Octave, fifth/fourth,
third/sixth.
As for the seventh chord, I remember learning someplace that the seventh
chord as we know it is considered a recent addition, but the seventh
harmonic was right there, available and yet ignored. When I started learning
improvisation I had to do two octave arpeggios on seventh chords in all keys
in chromatic sequence so I guess they stuck in my mind.
Pete
LJS
> in article Zpboi.3310$U47.1703@trnddc08, Steve Latham at llat...@verizon.net
> wrote on 7/20/07 7:19 PM:
>
>
>
> >news:C2C69B58.8A0B%Pete...@att.net...
> >> in article f7qquc$ka...@news.datemas.de, Joey Goldstein at> >>>> in article f7pl1l$jb...@news.datemas.de, Joey Goldstein at
Hi Pete,
Finally someone had addressed my original question to the group. Thank
you Pete. The question centers around that exact note. the 6th. I
don't remember the exact numbers, but that 7th partial. That is the
problem that everyone has with the OTS. It just doesn't seem to fit
quite right. L. Bernstein thinks that the children of the world sing
this note naturally but not as a Bb, but as an A.
Suspend your belief for a bit and consider this alternative. This note
is a flat Bb. But it is also can be considered a sharp A. History
seems to refer this to a Min7 but for a bit, just consider it a Major
6th.
If this is accepted as fact what do we have?
A tonic Harmonic Series
A Pentatonic Scale with the first 5 notes.
The same result of Pythagoras's stacked 5ths C G D A E
We get a different scale if we consider the 11th an F# ( GA_CDEF#) or
an Fnat (CDEFGA) Six notes common in two different scales. one of
what we now call Tonic and the other of the Dominant key.
Now, is it not possible to see this as easily as the 7th being a Bb?
L.B. didn't see this as so far fetched and he is one of our top
contemporary theorist. Kodaly doesn't seem to have thought of this as
so far fetched, (although I don't know if he actually though of it
this way) but he based a large portion of his theory of learning music
literacy and ear training through the real basics of the use of the
Pentatonic Scale.
Here we have two explanations of the origins of the all important
Pentatonic Scale from two different sources! The natural phenomenon of
the HS (with the A instead of the Bb) and with Pythagoras and the
science of the Stacking of 5ths to account for the same first 5
different tones of the HS.
>From the Kodaly perspective, you will find many learned musicians that
will say, after looking at the Pentatons, that they never really
understood the modes until they looked at them this way. If you really
want to study the difference of the Dorian and the Aeolian modes, try
working with the La Pentaton and the Re Pentaton. Ionian and
Mixolydian? Look at the Do and the Sol. The Phrygian then takes on its
own separate identity when it is studied this way. Not only will you
see how these pentaton modes have their own characteristics but their
relationships to each other become more clear as well. After doing
this, you will not ever think that the modes are just playing on the
white notes and starting and ending on notes other than C. When you
take out that B and F (Hmm, isn't that F/F# one of the controversial
notes in the scale? and isn't that Bnat really difficult to account
for?) then you are forced to see the unique uses of these five modes
and how they are different. When you make cadences without the F and B
you start to understand the modes in a deeper and different manner
than what most of us have been taught.
Now. Remember, we have to accept the A/Bb as an A instead of a Bb in
order to see this difference as it relates to the HS, NOT to see how
the Pentatonic scale relates to the modes. How the Pentatons relate to
the modes are common if you accept the A as the 7th partial or not.
The only difference here is to HOW did we get to the CDE_GA_C. But
Pythagoras was looking to find a scientific way to explain the
Pentatonic Scale (and maybe other things). But this scale has been
around, I believe, since before he discovered his ratios. So where did
it come from? Do the children just pick the m_sl tone set out of the
air? (hmm, wouldn't that be the HS?) or do these kids do the math and
then make up the scale? Do not most early folk songs seem to be based
on the Pentationic scale? Did the Ionian mode really use a 71 cadence
in its early stages? or did it use a 21 ans a plagal 61 cadence?
(didn't someone mention that the scales came from the Plagal cadences
in some posts?)
The interesting thing to me is that so many things can fall into place
if you consider it this way. Did the musicians think of it this way
way back then? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. This
analysis fits in so many ways that it seems to warrant at least some
consideration. Usually the music comes first and then the analysis.
Well, the music is there. Does if fit if you look at early music in
this way? Can it make sense with the music that was written? What do
YOU think. I would like a discussion of this FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
THE H.S. AS A TONIC SONORITY! Does it work? We have been discussing
it from another perspective and we are having some problems getting it
all to line up completely. Can we have a discussion of the possibility
of the scales being derived from the Pentatonic Scales as the first 5
notes in the first 7 partials of the Harmonic Series?
If we can accept that the Pentatonic Scale came from the HS, then
simple musica ficta will fill in the other notes to complete the
formation of the scales (or modes) that we ended up with in our
musical culture.
I know that this is a leap of faith, and that you have to suspend
your belief in some of the things that we KNOW to be true! But if it
is not true, we should be able to assume that it IS true and as we try
to find ways to explain how we have evolved considering this as fact,
we will find things that will NOT work. Well, we have taken the other
road, and find that there are some things that just don't seem to
work. Try to give this approach to theory a try and lets find out what
is possible to explain with this approach and what things just won't
work.
Thank you for reading this far. I hope that some of you will be able
to make this assumption and to try this method of examining this
question. There is a wealth of creative thinkers in this group, I hope
that we can get a real "think tank" approach to his question.
Thank you Pete for setting up this question. You are probably sorry
that you brought it up! lol But I am glad that someone has finally
seen that this is the problem that has been overlooked throughout this
entire time, thousands of posts and so much objection to talking about
this thing that we all understand! Well, maybe we can actually
understand it more. If you can't do this, well, I would appreciate
your indulgence if this experiment gets going. Those are the rules I
would like to follow. See what we CAN explain with this "given
premise" and see what we find out.
Thank you,
LJS
Marc Sabatella
> the onus will be on you to prove it, because as far as I can see (and
> most of the other folks I've talked to about this) it isn't, at least
> not in the way that I think you're gonna try to prove that it is.
I certainly had no intention of doing anything as simplistic as taking
the first few elements of the overtone series, laying them in a row
after the fundamental, and expecting it to add up to a major scale.
On the other hand, the fact that a major scale (with the right tuning,
of course) contains the simplest integer ratio intervals above the
fundamental (4:3, 3:2), and two similar tetrachords that can also be
formed with simple integer ratios (9:8, 5:4) is almost relevant to the
historical development of these scales. In any event, I think this
suggests the extent to which the diatonic scale can be considered to be
based on the overtone series in a way that seems so obvious, I'm
surprised anyone would question it. Now, if one wanted to argue that
the other scales in question *could* be dervied in a straightforward
manner form the overtone series, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But
all the historical evidence I am familiar with of that the modern
tunings of the minor scales in question were one step removed from this.
If this turns out to not be true, that's fine - I'm not saying the
scales in question *are* "unnatural". Just giving what I would have
thought obvious to be the basis for that claim.
Hans Aberg
translation. The link
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_scale#The_earliest_diatonic_scales
suggests it was done in old Mesopotamia. It gives the major chord 64:81:96.
Since the days of Pythagoras, year -550 at least
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering>, one has been
able to work out the correct ratios using a monochord:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochord
If one instead assumes the major chord 4:5:6, and that it should be played
correctly at p1 = 1, p5 = 3/2, p4 = octave inversion of p5 = 4/3, then
this leads to the Western Just intonation of the diatonic scale.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#The_diatonic_scale
Hans Aberg
Carl Witthoft
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Marc Sabatella wrote:
> > the diatonic scale is
> > based on naturally occuring phenomena.
>
> Good luck backing that one up Marc.
He he he. Name a tone that is NOT a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Or alternatively, name a tone that IS... all depends on one's
definition of "naturally occurring." Maybe the only natural tones are
from the trepidation of the spheres.
--
Team EM to the rescue! mailto:ca...@Team-EM.com http://www.team-em.com
Steve Latham
[snip]
>>
> All I was trying to show, (that you snipped) was that the harmonic series
> __ALSO__ consists of a series of intervals, octave, fifth, forth, third,
> minor third etc. in sequence.
That's true, it does.
>
> I could invoke ratios and come up with all the notes of the diatonic
> scale,
> but that was not my purpose.
Ok, sorry I misinterpreted your post.
>
> For me the big one that is missing from the plain and simple harmonic
> series
> is the sixth, and that is reached with the ratio 5/3rds of the starting
> point. In other words, five times the staring point divided by three.
Agreed.
But! I
> was more interested in showing that the intervals appear in what I think
> are
> their order of importance directly in the harmonic series. Espeically if
> you
> allow that inversions are of equal importance. Octave, fifth/fourth,
> third/sixth.
Well, it seems you're saying that a diatonic scale can be built from these
factors. I mean, true, the harmonic series does contain all of the necessary
factors for producing a diatonic set - but it can made to produce other sets
similarly.
>
> As for the seventh chord, I remember learning someplace that the seventh
> chord as we know it is considered a recent addition, but the seventh
> harmonic was right there, available and yet ignored. When I started
> learning
> improvisation I had to do two octave arpeggios on seventh chords in all
> keys
> in chromatic sequence so I guess they stuck in my mind.
Depends what you meant by "recent". Notes a 7th above a bass note were long
used as dissonances, and eventually evolved into being used as part of a
sonority (yet the 7th was still a tone that needed resolution virtually
through the 19th century). But now were talking about chords rather than
diatonic scales. A major triad, or a Dominant 7th chord share an even
greater similarity to the harmonic series than scales. But similarity does
not mean one begat the other, in either case.
Best,
Steve
Hans Aberg
<lla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Depends what you meant by "recent". Notes a 7th above a bass note were long
> used as dissonances, and eventually evolved into being used as part of a
> sonority (yet the 7th was still a tone that needed resolution virtually
> through the 19th century). But now were talking about chords rather than
> diatonic scales. A major triad, or a Dominant 7th chord share an even
> greater similarity to the harmonic series than scales. But similarity does
> not mean one begat the other, in either case.
Actually, the Dominant 7th chord = 20:25:30:36 is closer in texture to the
12-TET Dominant 7th chord than to the Harmonic Dominant 7th chord =
4:5:6:7.
Hans Aberg
rodd
For an even better picture of the use of the overtone series,
one need only look at the classic pipe organ.
8' pitch equals standard piano pitch, divide in half to get
4' pitch which sounds an octave higher than piano pitch,
(twice the vibration speed of the 8' pitch.)
then 3 times the vibration speed of the 8' pitch which gives
the Nazard 2 2/3 pitch which sounds the fifth
4 times the vibration sounds the next octave at 2' pitch.
5 times the vibration soungs the third at 1 3/5 pitch.
etc., etc., etc.
If independent sets of pipes are used, they are tuned to be
dead-in-tune to the foundational 8' pipe.
Call it overtone series in action in the real world!
Jack Campin - bogus address
> insert a leading tone, which is to say, raise the seventh by a semitone.
> I'm not sure if I remember right, but I think something like that happens
> also in tunes in Mixolydian mode. I am thinking of the Irish tune Red Haired
> Boy where the seventh is used both ways depending on context. (If I have the
> right tune and remember correctly)
>
> Hmm... I remember incorrectly. The seventh is made natural any time it is
> not a leading tone in that melody. Fun to play though and feel the
> contextual change in the use of the note. (Or maybe the key signature was
> wrong in my version)
>
> Anyway, it's a good description of what is meant by Natural Minor.
That's about the least convincing example of anything you could find
in the folk repertoire. Its oldest known form is "Gilderoy", a
putatively Scottish lament relating to the MacGregor clan ("an gille
ruadh" means "red haired boy") which has such an elaborately arty text
it must have been written in English, and probably in London as part
of the 17th century vogue for "Scotch" or "Northern" music. That tune
is unequivocally in the minor. But there are possibly more variants
of it throughout the British Isles than any other tune, and you can
find one that fits any modal pattern you want.
There have probably been postgraduate theses attempting to nail this
particular lump of jelly to the wall, the EFDSS journal would be the
place to look.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Peter Schug
bogus address at bo...@purr.demon.co.uk wrote on 7/21/07 6:39 PM:
>> There are times when playing the natural minor though that you will
>> insert a leading tone, which is to say, raise the seventh by a semitone.
>> I'm not sure if I remember right, but I think something like that happens
>> also in tunes in Mixolydian mode. I am thinking of the Irish tune Red Haired
>> Boy where the seventh is used both ways depending on context. (If I have the
>> right tune and remember correctly)
>>
>> Hmm... I remember incorrectly. The seventh is made natural any time it is
>> not a leading tone in that melody. Fun to play though and feel the
>> contextual change in the use of the note. (Or maybe the key signature was
>> wrong in my version)
>>
>> Anyway, it's a good description of what is meant by Natural Minor.
>
> That's about the least convincing example of anything you could find
> in the folk repertoire. Its oldest known form is "Gilderoy", a
> putatively Scottish lament relating to the MacGregor clan ("an gille
> ruadh" means "red haired boy") which has such an elaborately arty text
> it must have been written in English, and probably in London as part
> of the 17th century vogue for "Scotch" or "Northern" music. That tune
> is unequivocally in the minor. But there are possibly more variants
> of it throughout the British Isles than any other tune, and you can
> find one that fits any modal pattern you want.
>
> There have probably been postgraduate theses attempting to nail this
> particular lump of jelly to the wall, the EFDSS journal would be the
> place to look.
Sorry Jack,
I only know one, modern, American version of the tune and it is mixolydian.
It is the only one I can comment on. I'd post the notes but to do that I'd
have to figure them out in ABC and I am too lazy to do that.
I bow to your more extensive knowledge of Red Haired Boy, but in my limited
experience I still like the way the seventh changes in context.
Pete
Joey Goldstein
If I'm following you, you're saying that some of the intervals of the
scale (within a just intonation, of course) are "based on" the harmonic
OTS, but that the entire scale is not-based on the OTS.
Y/N?
If yes, then there's no argument here. Except that it's a rather big
leap to take that and then say that the "diatonic scale is based on the
OTS".
Marc Sabatella
> scale (within a just intonation, of course) are "based on" the
> harmonic OTS, but that the entire scale is not-based on the OTS.
> Y/N?
I can't tell if you're referring to the major scale or to the melodic or
harmonic minor scales - what you have written is not an accurate summary
of what I wrote about either. So let me try to summarize:
For the major scale, *all* the intervals are very clearly and simply
based on the OTS - and just the first few partials, at that. This is
true physically, and it is also almost certainly true historically -
that is, the very fact that these intervals come from the OTS is
directly relevant *how* the scale came about. I've never seen a single
credible source claim otherwise, and in fact it's hard to imagine on
what basis anyone could possibly defend such a claim.
The other diatonic scales can, of course, be similarly derived in this
way, and again, historically, I've never heard anyone claim that this is
*not* in fact precisely how they came about. The gamut of pitches used
to form the diatonic scales is unquestionably directly reated to the OTS
both physically and historically, and I'd be really surprised if you
were able to produce evdiece to the contrary - this much I thought was
unviersally known to be true.
For the melodic and harmonic minor scales, one *can* derive all the
intervals from the OTS, of course, although doing so may require use of
higher partials, or more indirect calculation of intervals relative to
individual scale tones other than the tonic. But there is no historical
evidence I am aware of that is in fact how these scale came into common
use. That is, no one sat down and said, hey, let's look for a different
gamut of pitches we could use. Everything I have read suggests what
would also seem to be apparent from common sense - that these scales
came about as transformations of the basic diatonic scale. Hence,
arguably, less "natural" in a very real sense that could be worth
noting, even if the word "natural" isn't *really* the best choice.
> If yes, then there's no argument here. Except that it's a rather big
> leap to take that and then say that the "diatonic scale is based on
> the OTS".
I can't beleive that anyone would claim that this a leap at all. Where
else do you imagine these pitches to come from? Did Pythagoras simply
sing them into a tape recorder, and people tune their instruments from
that, with no reference whatsoever to the OTS as a means of tuning the
pitches?
LJS
>
> Music, art, & educational materials
> Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"http://www.outsideshore.com/
Hmm.. Interesting. I don't remember if this is a reply of a post by
Steve or Joey, but I am glad to see that it is not only me that has
his statements re-written by either of the above. As well as a touch
of reality about the way that the scales were derived.
Sorry to bust in on the dialog Marc, but I have noticed that with some
posters it doesn't matter what you say, you will get rebutted for
things that you did not say at all and then those misquotes will be
used in future postings that you make as if they were what you
actually said.
I am in complete agreement with your explanation of how the scales
came into being. It is the way I learned that they did and we tried to
find other methods at the time and always came back to this simple
method.
Ahh... a breath of fresh air!
LJS
Jack Campin - bogus address
> based on the OTS - and just the first few partials, at that. This is
> true physically, and it is also almost certainly true historically -
> that is, the very fact that these intervals come from the OTS is
> directly relevant *how* the scale came about. I've never seen a single
> credible source claim otherwise, and in fact it's hard to imagine on
> what basis anyone could possibly defend such a claim.
> The other diatonic scales can, of course, be similarly derived in this
> way, and again, historically, I've never heard anyone claim that this is
> *not* in fact precisely how they came about.
I have never heard any historian with half a clue claim what you're
stating.
Perhaps you could be precise what you claim this "OTS" thing is, since
the people on this group who have been venerating it with religious
awe never seem to use the phrase with the same meaning in two
consecutive sentences:
- the overtones of an actual vibrating string or pipe? (except for
the fundamental, these were unknown until the early modern period,
and hardly any music even in the present day exploits their
interactions).
- the mathematical idealization of these, i.e. the series of strictly
integral multiples of a fundamental frequency? (fun for undergraduate
applied mathematics classes and electrical engineers, way too
oversimplified for any real acoustics).
- the just intonation scale where you are allowed arbitrary suboctaves
of integer multiples of the fundamental? (no significant use in
music theory until Zarlino and it corresponds to nothing in physical
reality)
- something like Partch's system where any rational ratio goes?
(worked for Partch, not for anybody else before or since).
The ancient Greeks, and everybody else constructing mathematical
theories of musical scales, DISAGREED about what ratios to choose.
There are many different simple ratios that give something that
sounds like a major third. If the idea of "third" originated in
a mathematical model, there would be only one. Instead, we have
a *continuous* range of intervals all of which are major thirds,
and the subset of them that corresponds to rational ratios is of
measure zero. The only way to make any sense of that is to infer
that the notion of "thirdness" predates and does not presuppose
the mathematical model. All you can conclude about the early
mathematicization of pitch is that music is something people like
to build formal theories about. Pitch theory came out of the same
culture as astrology and didn't need much more connection to the
physical, practical facts.
Indian music is a particularly glaring example of where such simple-
minded theorizing fails. Its fundamental system of measurement is
a division of the octave into 22 units, and while they are clearly
not equally tempered, there has never been *any* effort to give a
formal description of exactly what they are. Different lineages of
musicians are content to disagree.
Peter Schug
bogus address at bo...@purr.demon.co.uk wrote on 7/29/07 6:18 PM:
>> For the major scale, *all* the intervals are very clearly and simply
>> based on the OTS - and just the first few partials, at that. This is
>> true physically, and it is also almost certainly true historically -
>> that is, the very fact that these intervals come from the OTS is
>> directly relevant *how* the scale came about. I've never seen a single
>> credible source claim otherwise, and in fact it's hard to imagine on
>> what basis anyone could possibly defend such a claim.
>> The other diatonic scales can, of course, be similarly derived in this
>> way, and again, historically, I've never heard anyone claim that this is
>> *not* in fact precisely how they came about.
Maybe if you played the fiddle where you can feel the harmony between
strings you would be more receptive to these ideas.
I play whistle on occasion and very few whistle players seem to feel for
either harmony or even a good unison. It's a rare whistle player who
actually tries to blend.
I don't read a lot of ancient stuff, but I have read some books on
acoustics, starting with James Jeans and through Benade, Bachus and Partch.
All of these guys make sense. If you can't figure it out maybe you're not
trying hard enough. It's all small numbers.
Yes, there are several things that can be called a third, and there are at
leas a couple that can be called a second, and they all have their place.
That's why pianos sound out of tune and good musicians on strings or using
voice or winds can find a consensus pitch that works.
We're all just trying to figure out why. It isn't random and it isn't magic.
There is an underlying sense to it, and that sense seems to be involved in
those small integers.
Not all the Greeks disagreed, but I do think that Pythagoras was barking up
the wrong tree. As I have said in the past, it is too bad he never heard of
Occam's Razor. His ratios were bizarro, but he had his axe to grind and the
axe was the circle of fifths.
Pete
Jack Campin - bogus address
Peter Schug <Pete...@att.net> wrote:
> in article bogus-FA39AB....@news.news.demon.net, Jack Campin -
> bogus address at bo...@purr.demon.co.uk wrote on 7/29/07 6:18 PM:
>
> >> For the major scale, *all* the intervals are very clearly and simply
> >> based on the OTS - and just the first few partials, at that. This is
> >> true physically, and it is also almost certainly true historically -
> >> that is, the very fact that these intervals come from the OTS is
> >> directly relevant *how* the scale came about. I've never seen a single
> >> credible source claim otherwise, and in fact it's hard to imagine on
> >> what basis anyone could possibly defend such a claim.
> >> The other diatonic scales can, of course, be similarly derived in this
> >> way, and again, historically, I've never heard anyone claim that this is
> >> *not* in fact precisely how they came about.
I didn't write any of that.
Joey Goldstein
Marc. When people say that the major scale is "based on" the OTS what
they usually mean is that the OTS of the tonic contains the intervals of
the scale.
Eg. They'd believe that the C major scale is contains the tones of a
harmonic OTS with C as its fundamental.
If that's what you believe, then I'm afraid you're just wrong.
If that's not what you believe then we're probably in agreement.
Peter Schug
bogus address at bo...@purr.demon.co.uk wrote on 7/29/07 8:24 PM:
Nobody said you did.
The less than signs tell you how far back the quote is.
Your contribution is the part where there is only one less than sign. Two or
more less than signs are from someone earlier than you. I can't believe that
you don't know that.
Pete
Sorry to top post.
Marc Sabatella
>> based on the OTS - and just the first few partials, at that. This is
>> true physically, and it is also almost certainly true historically -
>> that is, the very fact that these intervals come from the OTS is
>> directly relevant *how* the scale came about. I've never seen a
>> single
>> credible source claim otherwise, and in fact it's hard to imagine on
>> what basis anyone could possibly defend such a claim.
>> The other diatonic scales can, of course, be similarly derived in
>> this
>> way, and again, historically, I've never heard anyone claim that this
>> is
>> *not* in fact precisely how they came about.
>
> I have never heard any historian with half a clue claim what you're
> stating.
Please show me where you've seen anything to the contrary in any
reputable publication. Certainly I am not saying anything different
from what one reads in Grout, the New Harvard, etc.
> Perhaps you could be precise what you claim this "OTS" thing is
I'm just borrowing the abbreviation, but it stands for "overtone
series", and its definition is also pretyt non-controversial, I'd have
thought.
> since
> the people on this group who have been venerating it with religious
> awe never seem to use the phrase with the same meaning in two
> consecutive sentences:
I've never venerated it - I simply refer to it when relevant. And I've
never meant anything by it other than what what any dictionary or music
theory or musicology text could tell you it means. The ratios that have
been known since the times of the ancient Greeks.
> The ancient Greeks, and everybody else constructing mathematical
> theories of musical scales, DISAGREED about what ratios to choose.
I'm sure they disagreed over how to apply this series to create scales,
but they certainly knew what the series was. I'm not interested in
splitting the hairs you seem to be wanting me to choose between.
> If the idea of "third" originated in
> a mathematical model, there would be only one. Instead, we have
> a *continuous* range of intervals all of which are major thirds,
> and the subset of them that corresponds to rational ratios is of
> measure zero. The only way to make any sense of that is to infer
> that the notion of "thirdness" predates and does not presuppose
> the mathematical model.
At some level, this of course makes sense, but it is one thing to say
the notion of "thirdness" is very old, and another entirely to say that
the diatonic scale - by which I mean the formalized concept on which
Western music has been based for the last millenium or so - is anywhere
near that old. Furthermore, even though we are capable of recognizing
non-rational intervals as major thirds, that does not mean that the
*reason* we as a species respond to these interval is not related to the
simple integer ratios. That is, the fact that we recognize an
equal-tempered major third as a pleasing interval may simply be that we
are responding to the just third and simply not being aware that it is
off a little. As you observed, there *is* a difference between the
idealized ratios and what actually happens in nature, but that doesn't
that the ratios are not relevant.
> Indian music is a particularly glaring example of where such simple-
> minded theorizing fails.
Since I am not talking about Indian music, I don't see the relevance of
this. Still...
> Its fundamental system of measurement is
> a division of the octave into 22 units, and while they are clearly
> not equally tempered, there has never been *any* effort to give a
> formal description of exactly what they are.
On the contrary, there have been *many* such efforts. They may not all
agree, however...
Marc Sabatella
> they usually mean is that the OTS of the tonic contains the intervals
> of the scale.
> Eg. They'd believe that the C major scale is contains the tones of a
> harmonic OTS with C as its fundamental.
> If that's what you believe, then I'm afraid you're just wrong.
Since I've gone into a fair amount of detail on what I do believe, and
stated clearly up front that I of course would not be so naive as to
believe what you've just written, I can't imagine why you'd still be
bringing this up.
> If that's not what you believe then we're probably in agreement.
I would have to assume we are - again, what I have written is what is
pretty much common knowledge.
LJS
>
> > Music, art, & educational materials
> > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
> >http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
> Marc. When people say that the major scale is "based on" the OTS what
> they usually mean is that the OTS of the tonic contains the intervals of
> the scale.
> Eg. They'd believe that the C major scale is contains the tones of a
> harmonic OTS with C as its fundamental.
> If that's what you believe, then I'm afraid you're just wrong.
>
> If that's not what you believe then we're probably in agreement.
>
> --
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Do they? or by your reasoning wold they think that the C fundamental
would give the F major scale? C G E Bb D F and take you pick on the A.
This uses more common notes than in the OTS than the C major scale!
Unless you agree with me that the 7th partial may be an A and that the
first 5 different notes form the pentatonic scale and that the other
two notes are added to the scale with musica ficta. (lol)
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Again....
The closest thing to a familiar 7-tone scale that can be derived from
the harmonic overtone series, where the fundamental is the first note of
the scale, is the lydian b7 scale.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
LJS
> >> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
>
> > Do they? or by your reasoning wold they think that the C fundamental
> > would give the F major scale? C G E Bb D F and take you pick on the A.
> > This uses more common notes than in the OTS than the C major scale!
> > Unless you agree with me that the 7th partial may be an A and that the
> > first 5 different notes form the pentatonic scale and that the other
> > two notes are added to the scale with musica ficta. (lol)
> > LJS
>
> Again....
> The closest thing to a familiar 7-tone scale that can be derived from
> the harmonic overtone series, where the fundamental is the first note of
> the scale, is the lydian b7 scale.
>
> --
> Joey Goldsteinhttp://www.joeygoldstein.comhttp://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygoldstein
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
And again, just because you say so. No consideration for any other
point of view and not support of your views! Which note is your
lydianb7 built upon? Oh, yes. C D E F# G A Bb. Of course you realize
that the 11th harmonic the F# is 49 cents flat making it a real toss
up as to its being an Fnat or an F# and the A is either the double use
of the 7th partial or the 13th partial which is an oops a very flat
Ab. so you must be using the 7th partial twice the same as I am? (are
we in agreement once more? lol) or exactly how do you account for the
notes in this scale starting on tonic? I missed that explanation the
first time I heard you say this as well as this time. My consideration
of the mixolydian scale was at least used by most of the composers
from the beginnings of our music as well as having notes just as
closely related to the HS notes as your lydian b7 does. Which
composers did you say actually used this scale? I missed that part as
well!
I missed you after you passed the baton to Steve on the Cad6/4.
Welcome back.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Assuming that your figure of -49cents, the difference between a 12TET F#
and the 11th harmonic, is accurate....
And assuming that the offsets, in cents, that my Korg X5DR synth gives
me for its just intonation in C major are accurate, then:
A just F# is -12cents lower than a 12TET F#.
A just F is -02cents lower than a 12TET F.
By extension of your -49cents figure for an OTS F#, we can deduce that
this pitch is +51cents higher than a 12TET F natural.
When we compare the OTS pitches against a just intonation we will have a
better gauge as to how F#-ish or F nat-ish the OTS' 11th partial really
is. (I hope that you'll agree that a just intonation is a better model
for "in-tuneness" than 12TET.)
So, compared to a just F#, the 11th partial is -37cents lower.
(-49 + 12 = -37)
And compared to a just F nat, the 11th partial is +49cents higher.
(+51 - 02 = 49)
It would appear then that the 11th partial is both closer to a 12TET F#
than it is to a 12TET F natural, and is even closer to a just F# than it
is to a just F nat.
Therefore, the *norm* of treating the 11th partial as an F# rather than
as an F natural seems quite justified to me.
Sometime, you should have a listen to it too. It sounds nothing like an
F and very much like an F#.
> and the A is either the double use
> of the 7th partial or the 13th partial which is an oops a very flat
> Ab.
Yes, it is true that the 13th partial is almost half-way between A and
Ab (depending on the intonation).
So if you want to think of the overtone scale as being:
C D E F# G Ab Bb C
then that's fine with me.
But it's not the major scale, and it's not the diatonic scale (or a mode
of the diatonic scale) either.
> so you must be using the 7th partial twice the same as I am?
Now why would I do that?
> (are
> we in agreement once more? lol)
Err. Umm.
No.
> or exactly how do you account for the
> notes in this scale starting on tonic?
If that question actually made any made sense I might try to answer it.
But it doesn't, so I'll pass.
> I missed that explanation the
> first time I heard you say this as well as this time.
Nonsense...In the sense that you're not making any sense so I haven't
got a clue what the f... you're talking about.
> My consideration
> of the mixolydian scale was at least used by most of the composers
> from the beginnings of our music
Nonsense....In the sense that this simply is bullshit that you're making up.
> as well as having notes just as
> closely related to the HS notes as your lydian b7 does.
Nonsense, type 2 again.
> Which
> composers did you say actually used this scale? I missed that part as
> well!
I never said that any composers used an overtone scale.
That's what you're saying, isn't it?
But my understanding is that some classical Indian music is based on an
overtone scale.
> I missed you after you passed the baton to Steve on the Cad6/4.
> Welcome back.
I don't miss you.
You're tiring and boring and usually wrong, about everything.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
LJS
>
>
> >> --
> >> Joey Goldsteinhttp://www.joeygoldstein.comhttp://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygolds...
> >> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
>
> > point of view and not support of your views! Which note is your
> > lydianb7 built upon? Oh, yes. C D E F# G A Bb. Of course you realize
> > that the 11th harmonic the F# is 49 cents flat making it a real toss
> > up as to its being an Fnat or an F#
>
> Assuming that your figure of -49cents, the difference between a 12TET F#
> and the 11th harmonic, is accurate....
Don't assume, look it up! (I thought you knew all this stuff anyway?)
> And assuming that the offsets, in cents, that my Korg X5DR synth gives
> me for its just intonation in C major are accurate, then:
>
> A just F# is -12cents lower than a 12TET F#.
> A just F is -02cents lower than a 12TET F.
>
> By extension of your -49cents figure for an OTS F#, we can deduce that
> this pitch is +51cents higher than a 12TET F natural.
>
> When we compare the OTS pitches against a just intonation we will have a
> better gauge as to how F#-ish or F nat-ish the OTS' 11th partial really
> is. (I hope that you'll agree that a just intonation is a better model
> for "in-tuneness" than 12TET.)
>
> So, compared to a just F#, the 11th partial is -37cents lower.
> (-49 + 12 = -37)
> And compared to a just F nat, the 11th partial is +49cents higher.
> (+51 - 02 = 49)
>
> It would appear then that the 11th partial is both closer to a 12TET F#
> than it is to a 12TET F natural, and is even closer to a just F# than it
> is to a just F nat.
>
> Therefore, the *norm* of treating the 11th partial as an F# rather than
> as an F natural seems quite justified to me.
Of course it does Joey. That is why there were so many pieces in the
early church music written in the Lydian b7! I just can't remember
them at the moment!
>
> Sometime, you should have a listen to it too. It sounds nothing like an
> F and very much like an F#.
I played it on the F.H. It can easily go in either direction.
>
> > and the A is either the double use
> > of the 7th partial or the 13th partial which is an oops a very flat
> > Ab.
>
> Yes, it is true that the 13th partial is almost half-way between A and
> Ab (depending on the intonation).
> So if you want to think of the overtone scale as being:
> C D E F# G Ab Bb C
> then that's fine with me.
> But it's not the major scale, and it's not the diatonic scale (or a mode
> of the diatonic scale) either.
lol, You see, I was asking you where your A came from
>
> > so you must be using the 7th partial twice the same as I am?
>
> Now why would I do that?
>
> > (are
> > we in agreement once more? lol)
>
> Err. Umm.
> No.
>
> > or exactly how do you account for the
> > notes in this scale starting on tonic?
>
> If that question actually made any made sense I might try to answer it.
> But it doesn't, so I'll pass.
>
> > I missed that explanation the
> > first time I heard you say this as well as this time.
>
> Nonsense...In the sense that you're not making any sense so I haven't
> got a clue what the f... you're talking about.
See, we missed that colorful language.
> > My consideration
> > of the mixolydian scale was at least used by most of the composers
> > from the beginnings of our music
>
> Nonsense....In the sense that this simply is bullshit that you're making up.
>
> > as well as having notes just as
> > closely related to the HS notes as your lydian b7 does.
>
> Nonsense, type 2 again.
>
> > Which
> > composers did you say actually used this scale? I missed that part as
> > well!
>
> I never said that any composers used an overtone scale.
> That's what you're saying, isn't it?
I thought it was you that said that the only scale that could be
considered as coming from the OTS it the Lydian b7 thus admitting that
there was a possibility that a lot of published sources give credit to
the OTS as a possible source for our scales was not mistaken. With
all the pushing and shoving of notes, why you would pick an unused
scale like that when the same pushing and shoving will produce the
Mixolydian scale which was actually used in the period is beyond me.
(Remember the Tonic/Dominant question?)
If you read carefully, you would see that I think it is much more
likely that the scales, as we know them, came from the pentatonic
scales. I wouldn't, however, expect you to read more than a phrase or
two at a time and then run your mouth about things out of context and
never look at the total picture. What is that saying? "Can't see the
forest for the trees!"
> But my understanding is that some classical Indian music is based on an
> overtone scale.
That's an interesting interjection. No relevance or explanation of
how, or why you state it, but at least you admit that it is something
that you understand and you are not claiming it as fact. That is a big
improvement. I don't suppose you understand which one that would be
would you? and share it with us?
>
> > I missed you after you passed the baton to Steve on the Cad6/4.
> > Welcome back.
>
> I don't miss you.
> You're tiring and boring and usually wrong, about everything.
Oh, Joey. You are such a card! lol
LJS
Marc Sabatella
> The closest thing to a familiar 7-tone scale that can be derived from
> the harmonic overtone series, where the fundamental is the first note
> of the scale, is the lydian b7 scale.
Only if you are exceedingly naive in your attempt to derive the scale
from the series. It is *trivially* simple to derive a major scale from
the overtone series. All you actually *need* are the first three
elements. Once you've got a perfect fifth and an octave, you've got all
you need to build a major scale.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> the harmonic overtone series, where the fundamental is the first note
>> of the scale, is the lydian b7 scale.
> Only if you are exceedingly naive in your attempt to derive the scale
> from the series. It is *trivially* simple to derive a major scale from
> the overtone series. All you actually *need* are the first three
> elements.
C, c and g. Yeah, then what? (Taking suboctaves is not a physically
motivated step).
> Once you've got a perfect fifth and an octave, you've got all you
> need to build a major scale.
You could get all the pitches by the Pythagorean tuning system - in
order, C, G, D, A, E, B, F#. The only way you're going to get an F
is by starting with it and shifting the tonal centre - so why not
shift to get any mode you want? Nothing in that procedure leads to
major in a unique way, and you end up with such a weirdly pitched
third it can only be treated as a very unstable dissonance.
What *is* your derivation?
Joey Goldstein
> On Jul 30, 3:00 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Don't assume, look it up! (I thought you knew all this stuff anyway?)
I don't claim to know everything.
That's what you do.
>> Therefore, the *norm* of treating the 11th partial as an F# rather than
>> as an F natural seems quite justified to me.
>
> Of course it does Joey. That is why there were so many pieces in the
> early church music written in the Lydian b7! I just can't remember
> them at the moment!
There are *no* pieces of any early era of Western music that were
written in an overtone scale of *any* type.
>> Sometime, you should have a listen to it too. It sounds nothing like an
>> F and very much like an F#.
>
> I played it on the F.H. It can easily go in either direction.
*Every* text I've ever seen puts the 11th partial as being F#.
*None* of them put it on F.
F doesn't come out of the OTS of C until the 21st partial.
What's "the F.H."?
>>> and the A is either the double use
>>> of the 7th partial or the 13th partial which is an oops a very flat
>>> Ab.
>> Yes, it is true that the 13th partial is almost half-way between A and
>> Ab (depending on the intonation).
>> So if you want to think of the overtone scale as being:
>> C D E F# G Ab Bb C
>> then that's fine with me.
>> But it's not the major scale, and it's not the diatonic scale (or a mode
>> of the diatonic scale) either.
>
> lol, You see, I was asking you where your A came from
My A comes from the way that most texts, that I have read, treat the
13th partial.
And the 13th partial is not "a very flat Ab". It's a very sharp Ab and a
very flat A, when compared to Ab and A in 12TET .
A 12TET Ab is 800 cents above C.
A 12 TET A is 900 cents above C.
In a just intonation, tuned to C major, Ab is 792 cents (800 cents minus
08 cents) above C.
In a just intonation, tuned to C major, Ab is 888 cents (900 cents minus
12 cents) above C.
The 13th partial of C is 841 cents above the 8th partial of C.
So the 13th partial is actually closer to a just intonated A than it is
to a just intonated Ab, which is probably the reason why most writers
put it on A rather than Ab.
But if you want to use Ab, that's fine with me, really.
So what's your point?
>>> I missed that explanation the
>>> first time I heard you say this as well as this time.
>> Nonsense...In the sense that you're not making any sense so I haven't
>> got a clue what the f... you're talking about.
>
> See, we missed that colorful language.
Are you really such a pussy that seeing the occasional veiled obscenity
horrifies you so much?
My God, if I'd actually spelled it out you might have had a stroke!
>>> My consideration
>>> of the mixolydian scale was at least used by most of the composers
>>> from the beginnings of our music
>> Nonsense....In the sense that this simply is bullshit that you're making up.
>>
>>> as well as having notes just as
>>> closely related to the HS notes as your lydian b7 does.
>> Nonsense, type 2 again.
>>
>>> Which
>>> composers did you say actually used this scale? I missed that part as
>>> well!
>> I never said that any composers used an overtone scale.
>> That's what you're saying, isn't it?
>
> I thought it was you that said that the only scale that could be
> considered as coming from the OTS it the Lydian b7
No. What I said is that it is the only well-known scale that comes close.
People who actually use lydian b7 scales to make music with don't
usually intonate the notes to the OTS. Usually they're in 12TET.
> thus admitting that
> there was a possibility that a lot of published sources give credit to
> the OTS as a possible source for our scales was not mistaken.
Show me *one* reliable source that says this.
Prediction....
As usual, what we will find is that *you* have misunderstood what the
source is actually saying.
> With
> all the pushing and shoving of notes, why you would pick an unused
> scale like that
I didn't "pick" it. It's simply there and I commented on it.
Why would you "pick" something that isn't even there?
> when the same pushing and shoving will produce the
> Mixolydian scale which was actually used in the period is beyond me.
Everything is beyond you, I know.
> (Remember the Tonic/Dominant question?)
My God... You're a joke, right?
> If you read carefully, you would see that I think it is much more
> likely that the scales, as we know them, came from the pentatonic
> scales. I wouldn't, however, expect you to read more than a phrase or
> two at a time and then run your mouth about things out of context and
> never look at the total picture. What is that saying? "Can't see the
> forest for the trees!"
I read your little fantasy about the 7th partial and pentatonic scales.
Dream on.
>> But my understanding is that some classical Indian music is based on an
>> overtone scale.
>
> That's an interesting interjection. No relevance or explanation of
> how, or why you state it,
The relevance (why I have to explain this to you what's beyond *me*) is
that you are talking about scales used in the making of music that are
derived directly from the OTS, and *THERE AREN'T ANY*, except for
possibly in Indian classical music.
> but at least you admit that it is something
> that you understand and you are not claiming it as fact. That is a big
> improvement. I don't suppose you understand which one that would be
> would you? and share it with us?
Which "one" what?
>>> I missed you after you passed the baton to Steve on the Cad6/4.
>>> Welcome back.
>> I don't miss you.
>> You're tiring and boring and usually wrong, about everything.
>
> Oh, Joey. You are such a card! lol
My my. Such colorful language!
A "card"!
Oh you.
Joey Goldstein
>> Again....
>> The closest thing to a familiar 7-tone scale that can be derived from
>> the harmonic overtone series, where the fundamental is the first note
>> of the scale, is the lydian b7 scale.
>
> Only if you are exceedingly naive in your attempt to derive the scale
> from the series. It is *trivially* simple to derive a major scale from
> the overtone series. All you actually *need* are the first three
> elements. Once you've got a perfect fifth and an octave, you've got all
> you need to build a major scale.
Building a scale from given materials and deriving a scale from given
materials are two different activities.
I can build a house from a pile of lumber.
But I can't derive a house from a pile of lumber.
Marc Sabatella
> materials are two different activities.
Boy, hair splitting is getting to be a rea art around here. All I can
say is, while I don't doubt that there exists some alternate reality in
which the distinction you are making is relevant to the discussion at
hand, it isn't relevant in *this* universe.
> I can build a house from a pile of lumber.
> But I can't derive a house from a pile of lumber.
You are able to make this distinction in this context because the word
"derive" has no meaning whatsoever when applied to physical objects.
From what source *could* you be said to "derive" a house?
Marc Sabatella
>> the overtone series. All you actually *need* are the first three
>> elements.
>
> C, c and g. Yeah, then what? (Taking suboctaves is not a physically
> motivated step).
I have no idea what you mean by "physically motivated" in this context.
No can I imagine why you'd want to disallow octave transposition - the
most trivial application of the overtone there is - from the realm of
what could be considered as derived from the overtone series. I'm not
interesting in distuingishing between these split hairs, either.
> You could get all the pitches by the Pythagorean tuning system - in
> order, C, G, D, A, E, B, F#. The only way you're going to get an F
> is by starting with it and shifting the tonal centre - so why not
> shift to get any mode you want?
Precisely. That's why I said *all* the diatonic scales can be generated
this way.
> Nothing in that procedure leads to
> major in a unique way, and you end up with such a weirdly pitched
> third it can only be treated as a very unstable dissonance.
Which is, of course, how it *was* treated in much of history, even when
tuned differently. But in any case, if this were in fact the only or
even the most historically relevant way to derive the scale, you might
even have a point. As it is, I was merely trying to point out one
simple way of derving a major scale for the benefit of the folks who
clearly did not have the patience or the comprehension skills necessary
to read my previous posts.
> What *is* your derivation?
I don't claim any derivation to be "mine" - I'm simply summarizing what
any textbook can tell you on the subject. There are many possible ways
to describe the relationships, but as I've already stated, one that I
consider relevant to this discussion is to characterize the major scale
as a set of two paired tetrachords formed of the simple ratios 3:2, 4:3,
5:4, and 9:8. I still can't believe it is even the slightest bit
controversial to point this out, or to suggest that maybe, just maybe,
this might be relevant...
Steve Latham
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:Ic6dnYwdecBpcTHb...@comcast.com...
>
> For the major scale, *all* the intervals are very clearly and simply based
> on the OTS -
Are you talking about the 6 P4ths, 1 tritone, 4 m3, 3 M3, 5 M2 and 2 m2 (and
their inversions)?
Or are you talking about distance from the tonic - M2, M3, P4, P5, M6, M7
and 8ve?
Even if the latter, how are these "based on" the OTS (or Harmonic Series)?
Or are you saying that, the intervals found in the major scale can also be
found in the harmonic series?
and just the first few partials, at that. This is
> true physically, and it is also almost certainly true historically -
"almost"?
> that is, the very fact that these intervals come from the OTS is directly
> relevant *how* the scale came about. I've never seen a single credible
> source claim otherwise, and in fact it's hard to imagine on what basis
> anyone could possibly defend such a claim.
Marc, the Major scale didn't come from the harmonic series. It came from
Ionian mode. Which came form alterations to Mixolydian and Lydian modes,
which came from the Greek GPS, which came from stacking of tetrachords.
>
> The other diatonic scales can, of course, be similarly derived in this
> way, and again, historically, I've never heard anyone claim that this is
> *not* in fact precisely how they came about. The gamut of pitches used to
> form the diatonic scales is unquestionably directly reated to the OTS both
> physically and historically, and I'd be really surprised if you were able
> to produce evdiece to the contrary - this much I thought was unviersally
> known to be true.
It's a universal myth. Or, there's a difference in the way people use the
terms "based on" or "came from" and so forth. The similarities people see
are post hoc inventions, not proof of origin.
>
> For the melodic and harmonic minor scales, one *can* derive all the
> intervals from the OTS, of course, although doing so may require use of
> higher partials, or more indirect calculation of intervals relative to
> individual scale tones other than the tonic. But there is no historical
> evidence I am aware of that is in fact how these scale came into common
> use.
Minor evolved from Dorian and Phrygian modes. Harmonic and Melodic minor are
not scales, but mnemonic devices to aid people in understanding that in the
tonal era, minor mode pieces used variable 6th and 7th scale degrees
depending on the circumstances. The concept of these things being
stand-alone scales is a modern one.
> I can't beleive that anyone would claim that this a leap at all. Where
> else do you imagine these pitches to come from? Did Pythagoras simply
> sing them into a tape recorder, and people tune their instruments from
> that, with no reference whatsoever to the OTS as a means of tuning the
> pitches?
This is a misunderstanding. Pythagoras did not "tune to" the harmonic
series. He was interested in numbers and numerology. He divided the string
on a monochord and produced *ratios* (or the famous myth about the
Pythagorean hammers) Since he was a number guy, and those guys believed that
numbers had religious/spiritual importance, they very much liked whole
number proportions - what could be better than 2:1?
Pythagoras used ratios to describe distances between notes of "purer"
(simple whole number ratios) ratios. Pythagoras ultimately describes a way
of tuning scales, but did not "invent" the scale himself.
There were three Greek tetrachord Genera (plural of Genus); Diatonic,
Chromatic and Enharmonic. Diatonic scales evolved from conjunctly or
disjunctly joined tetrachords. These are the things the evolve directly into
modes, then into major and minor scales.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachord
[But you can look up Tetrachord, Diatonic Genus, and similar terms. You'll
find they all reference Pythagorean *tuning* but the *scales* come from
joining two tetrachords. Pythagoras by the way tunes to ratios (not things
he hears as harmonics) while Aristoxenus takes an opposite approach and
believes "tuning should be done by things intrinsic to music, not from
esoterics in math of physics" - but he's still talking about tuning, and not
building a scale.]
"As the three genera simply represent ranges of possible intervals within
the tetrachord, various shades (chroai) of tetrachord with specific tunings
were specified. Once the genus and shade of tetrachord are specified the
three internal intervals could be arranged in six possible permutations.
Modern music theory makes use of the octave as the basic unit for
determining tuning: ancient Greeks used the tetrachord for this purpose. The
octave was recognized by ancient Greece as a fundamental interval, but it
was seen as being built from two tetrachords and a whole tone. Ancient Greek
music always seems to have used two identical tetrachords to build the
octave. The single tone could be placed between the two tetrachords (between
perfect fourth and perfect fifth) (termed disjunctive), or it could be
placed at either end of the scale (termed conjunctive).
Scales built on chromatic and enharmonic tetrachords continued to be used in
the classical music of the Middle East and India, but in Europe they were
maintained only in certain types of folk music. The diatonic tetrachord,
however, and particularly the shade built around two tones and a semitone,
became the dominant tuning in European music.
The three permutations of this shade of diatonic tetrachord are:
Lydian mode
A rising scale of two whole tones followed by a semitone, or C D E F.
Dorian mode
A rising scale of tone, semitone and tone, C D E? F, or D E F G.
Phrygian mode
A rising scale of a semitone followed by two tones, C D? E? F, or E F G
A."
[note: the boxes are flat signs in the original]
I'm sorry Marc, but the Major scale "coming from" the harmonic series is not
well supported historically. Even saying "diatonic" scales (referring to
modes usually) is not supported. Tetrachords are bounded by a P4 - not a P5!
Everyone who makes this argument starts by saying, "the first new pitch
produced by the harmonic series is the 5th, and thus X,Y and Z are all based
on the 5th". But why then, did the Greeks pick the next partial - between
partial 3-4 (G-C on a C series)?
You said above some scales "can be derived" from. That's what people are
doing, they're taking a Major scale and "deriving" if from the Harmonic
Series. But just because it *can be* derived from the Harmonic series
doesn't mean it *was* derived from the harmonic series.
Best,
Steve
Steve Latham
> this way.
Marc, I believe you said "based on" not "generated" and, while hair
splitting it may be, they are hairs in need of splitting due to the already
overwhelming misunderstandings on this topic.
[snip]
but as I've already stated, one that I
> consider relevant to this discussion is to characterize the major scale as
> a set of two paired tetrachords formed of the simple ratios 3:2, 4:3, 5:4,
> and 9:8.
Ok. Now you're saying they are coming from tetrachords which is more
correct. Again, I'd be careful to say "it can be seen as two tetrachords of
T T S separated by a tone". But again, it was not created in that way - it
evolved from other modes which were more directly related to tetrachord
origins.
Best,
Steve
Joey Goldstein
>> Building a scale from given materials and deriving a scale from given
>> materials are two different activities.
>
> Boy, hair splitting is getting to be a rea art around here.
Yep.
> All I can
> say is, while I don't doubt that there exists some alternate reality in
> which the distinction you are making is relevant to the discussion at
> hand, it isn't relevant in *this* universe.
It is relevant and please don't make me explain why that is again.
>> I can build a house from a pile of lumber.
>> But I can't derive a house from a pile of lumber.
>
> You are able to make this distinction in this context because the word
> "derive" has no meaning whatsoever when applied to physical objects.
> From what source *could* you be said to "derive" a house?
If I had an existing structure and peeled away some of it to create a
house, that would be a way of "deriving" said house.
At any rate, Marc, you and I are in agreement that the major scale is
not derived from the OTS in the way that I am using the word derived, so
why not just agree to agree?
LJS
> > Building a scale from given materials and deriving a scale from given
> > materials are two different activities.
>
> Boy, hair splitting is getting to be a rea art around here. All I can
> say is, while I don't doubt that there exists some alternate reality in
> which the distinction you are making is relevant to the discussion at
> hand, it isn't relevant in *this* universe.
>
> > I can build a house from a pile of lumber.
> > But I can't derive a house from a pile of lumber.
>
> You are able to make this distinction in this context because the word
> "derive" has no meaning whatsoever when applied to physical objects.
> From what source *could* you be said to "derive" a house?
>
> ---------------
> Marc Sabatella
>
> Music, art, & educational materials
> Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"http://www.outsideshore.com/
That's one way to put it! I consider it an inanity! There is a contest
here to see who can be the Cliff Claven of the music world. And the
spin and rewriting of your posts will drive you crazy. But there are a
lot of good solid musicians around here that pop up from time to time.
You will be nit picked on terminology to the nth degree, but try to
talk about a concept and you will get so many tangents that its easy
to be sucked up in the inanity. And mostly it comes down to: Its that
way because I don't believe you!
How are things out west?
LJS
LJS
> "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
Wow, talk about a string of "leaps of faith" and assumptions!
LJS
LJS
> "Marc Sabatella" <m...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
I wonder whose relentless hairsplitting and spinning posts is a major
factor on all the misconceptions around here?
LJS
> Marc Sabatella wrote:
> >> Building a scale from given materials and deriving a scale from given
> >> materials are two different activities.
>
> > Boy, hair splitting is getting to be a rea art around here.
>
> Yep.
>
> > All I can
> > say is, while I don't doubt that there exists some alternate reality in
> > which the distinction you are making is relevant to the discussion at
> > hand, it isn't relevant in *this* universe.
>
> It is relevant and please don't make me explain why that is again.
Marc, you are forgetting the rules. Joey won't repeat the explanation
that he didn't give. He only continues to say that he explained it.
>
> >> I can build a house from a pile of lumber.
> >> But I can't derive a house from a pile of lumber.
>
> > You are able to make this distinction in this context because the word
> > "derive" has no meaning whatsoever when applied to physical objects.
> > From what source *could* you be said to "derive" a house?
>
> If I had an existing structure and peeled away some of it to create a
> house, that would be a way of "deriving" said house.
>
> At any rate, Marc, you and I are in agreement that the major scale is
> not derived from the OTS in the way that I am using the word derived, so
> why not just agree to agree?
>
> --
> Joey Goldsteinhttp://www.joeygoldstein.comhttp://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygoldstein
Marc Sabatella
> splitting it may be, they are hairs in need of splitting
I'll have to take your word for it, I guess, because I don't get the
relevance of the distinction to the subject.
> Ok. Now you're saying they are coming from tetrachords
Not just "now" - this is what I have been saying all along.
Marc Sabatella
>> based on the OTS -
>
> Are you talking about the 6 P4ths, 1 tritone, 4 m3, 3 M3, 5 M2 and 2
> m2 (and their inversions)?
>
> Or are you talking about distance from the tonic - M2, M3, P4, P5, M6,
> M7 and 8ve?
Mostly the former, although of course the tritone is pushing things a
bit compared to the others. Certainly the latter.
> Even if the latter, how are these "based on" the OTS (or Harmonic
> Series)?
You'll have to explain the distinction you are trying to make between
"based on" and "generated by" in order for me to answer this question.
You'll also have to explain the *relevance* of the distinction to the
topic at hand, or else I can't see why I'd be bothered to continue this
discussion any further.
> Or are you saying that, the intervals found in the major scale can
> also be found in the harmonic series?
This is indeed implied by what I've said, although it's not the whole
picture.
>> This is
>> true physically, and it is also almost certainly true historically -
>
> "almost"?
A little hedging for the benefit of the hair-splitters :-). Since I
have no time machine, I can't say with 100% certainty that what is
generally known to be true is in fact so.
>> that is, the very fact that these intervals come from the OTS is
>> directly relevant *how* the scale came about. I've never seen a
>> single credible source claim otherwise, and in fact it's hard to
>> imagine on what basis anyone could possibly defend such a claim.
>
> Marc, the Major scale didn't come from the harmonic series. It came
> from Ionian mode. Which came form alterations to Mixolydian and Lydian
> modes, which came from the Greek GPS, which came from stacking of
> tetrachords.
Unless you have proof that none of this has anything whatsoever to do
with the overtone series, I don't the these facts as being at all being
contrary to my claim.
> The similarities people see are post hoc inventions, not proof of
> origin.
The similarities may not be proof of origin, but the various writings
over the centuries all suggest this has been known for a long time to be
more than accidental. Unless you've got access to some ancient writings
discovered since the publication of the most recent edition of Grout, I
can't see any reason to doubt the connection.
> Harmonic and Melodic minor are not scales, but mnemonic devices to aid
> people in understanding that in the tonal era, minor mode pieces used
> variable 6th and 7th scale degrees depending on the circumstances.
And now we've come full circle - this is how the discussion started,
with me attempting to explain why the harmonic and melodic minor
"scales" might be conisdered of lesser stature than the diatonic scales.
>> I can't beleive that anyone would claim that this a leap at all.
>> Where else do you imagine these pitches to come from? Did Pythagoras
>> simply sing them into a tape recorder, and people tune their
>> instruments from that, with no reference whatsoever to the OTS as a
>> means of tuning the pitches?
>
> This is a misunderstanding. Pythagoras did not "tune to" the harmonic
> series
It was a joke. I am aware that Pythagoras did not single handedly
invent the major scale.
> I'm sorry Marc, but the Major scale "coming from" the harmonic series
> is not well supported historically.
The mere fact the this "coming from" was indirect over the course of
centuries in no ways implies the connection does not exist.
> Even saying "diatonic" scales (referring to modes usually) is not
> supported. Tetrachords are bounded by a P4 - not a P5!
P4 can be found in the overtone series as well.
Marc Sabatella
>> alternate reality in which the distinction you are making is relevant
>> to the discussion at hand, it isn't relevant in *this* universe.
>
> It is relevant and please don't make me explain why that is again.
If you are unwilling to attrempt such an explanation, then I'm finished
here.
> If I had an existing structure and peeled away some of it to create a
> house, that would be a way of "deriving" said house.
And which dictionary supports this particular definition of the word
"derive"?
> At any rate, Marc, you and I are in agreement that the major scale is
> not derived from the OTS in the way that I am using the word derived,
> so why not just agree to agree?
I have no idea what you mean by "derived". It most certainly is derived
from the OTS in the way *I* mean.
Joey Goldstein
Marc has been posting to this group and other related groups for decades.
He knows what to expect.
You're a newcomer here.
When, and if, you actually offer something worth listening to you'll
find all sorts of listeners here.
Joey Goldstein
> I have no idea what you mean by "derived". It most certainly is derived
> from the OTS in the way *I* mean.
Oiy. I can't believe that I have to do this, AGAIN.
1. You and I agree that the component intervals (P5ths, P4ths, Maj 3rds,
Min 3rds, Maj 6ths, Min 6ths, Tritones, Min 2nds, Maj 7ths, etc.) that
are used to construct a diatonic scale are all found at various places
within the lower regions of the harmonic OTS.
Don't we?
2. You and I agree that the series of intervals that comprise the major
scale (1 2 3 4 5 6 7) *are not* found in any cross-section of the
harmonic OTS' lower regions.
Don't we?
(We'd have to go well above the 16th partial to find the series of tones
that make a major scale. In that upper region the entire chromatic
scale, or any other scale for that matter, can be derived from the OTS,
which makes the fact that the tones of the major scale happen to be in
there too of very little significance.)
When most people talk about "deriving the major scale from the harmonic
OTS" what they usually mean is something akin to #2, in my experience.
I know that this manner of thinking is not necessarily implicit in the
definition of the word "derive", but that's what most people I encounter
seem to mean when they say that "the major scale is derived from the OTS".
So, unless I'm reading you incorrectly, and you too believe that the
major scale exists as some sort of a cross-section of the lower partials
of the OTS, then we have no argument.
And I too really see no reason why this discussion needs to go on.
LJS
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Yes, I can tell by his replies and your dialog and the same misquoting
and spinning and never giving a real answer and quibbling about
unrelated "facts". All the same jive that you say to me and anyone
that dares to have an opinion that disagrees with you.
You are right. I am fairly new to this group. I guess I just keep
hoping that there is more to you than you are showing. I guess I am
learning what to expect as well.
LJS
LJS
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Oiy,
Doesn't make sense this time either!
This does not disprove anything. You need to put these fragments
together to have it say anything. If you actually took the time to
listen to what anyone says, then you might be able to communicate
better. This is not an explanation of anything. #1 an #2 are some
facts. How does this relate to what Marc (or I for that matter) is
saying? This is not an explanation! And it is not what Marc, nor I,
have been saying or disputing. Just because #1 and #2 may be true does
not preclude Marc's nor my ideas of for that matter, your ideas
either.
You are disagreeing with people's ideas and knowledge. You are saying
that its your way or its not true. The burden of proof is on you and
you are not meeting it! There are more than one way to look at
things. If you want to disprove an idea, you have to come up with some
reason that it can't be true. That is not what I am seeing here.
LJS