using the jazz minor scale

[Reg]

Kevin my reference to dilemma, domain and Musicology are from G.Haydon, "Introduction to Musicology", obviously to basic for your level of comprehension. One dilemma is people like you who claim to be experts in jazz theory, or at least project the image and still play, at least from what you posted on this site, at best, a beginners level of skills, and even less with use of typical jazz harmony, rhythm and improvisation.
Clearly my post was directed to someone else, and you still go on you attack. I'm very happy we disagree, I have no interest in explaining anything to you... I don't really like burning bridges... but we have nothing in common. If you don't like what I say... don't read or listen... I disagree with your concepts of hearing/learning/understanding jazz...
and I'm alright with it... I'm not forcing anything down anyone's throat...No one has too listen, but if they choose to... I'll give my opinions and understanding... and examples.
What a waste of time ...Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Reg

Kevin my reference to dilemma, domain and Musicology are from G.Haydon, "Introduction to Musicology", ...

Can you give a quote in context?

Originally Posted by Reg

One dilemma is people like you who claim to be experts in jazz theory, or at least project the image and still play, at least from what you posted on this site, at best, a beginners level of skills, and even less with use of typical jazz harmony, rhythm and improvisation.

Well, I was right that the personal attack was coming next. Sorry, posting videos to impress the kiddies is not my priority. (And for the record, Howard Morgan sent a nice note complementing my CMs - I'd hardly call the "beginners level" - but if walking bass line CMs aren't your thing, that's fine. But I don't want to get into an "I'm-better-than-you argument." We both have different goals in our playing.) This also shows that you don't know what the word "dilemma" means. Which means that you must have misunderstood your source as well.

Originally Posted by Reg

Clearly my post was directed to someone else, and you still go on you attack.

Just asking you to explain your bizarre terminology.

Originally Posted by Reg

I'm very happy we disagree, I have no interest in explaining anything to you...

My point is that you never have really explained anything. I have never heard so many bizarre terms thrown together with so little meaning. You get all huffy when people ask you to define them, acting as if they are common knowledge when they fail to show up on a Google search.

When have you ever explained anything? It took a week of pestering to finally get you to tell me that "blue note control system" was just what everyone else calls "blue note pedal." You have yet to explain your bizarre terminology that seems to be an inscrutable code that you made up. There is more to theory than making up a bunch of terms to confuse people - that is the opposite of good theory.

You say you're not going to explain anything? When did you ever explain anything? You just find a way to avoid the question when cornered, as you've done here once again.

Here is the question you avoided:

But Reg, you never explain anything. You throw around a bunch of terms and then make a video with some cool licks. That is not explanation. You still haven't explained how blue notes "control" the harmony - how do they make it do something they weren't already doing? How long have I been after you for an explanation of that - months? ...
Again, just explain how a blue note is a system and how it controls or influences the harmony - how it makes it do something it wasn't already doing. If it is just altering the harmony by extension, doesn't every extension do that? Why the bizarre language? That's not really "control" or "influence."

While you're at it, you can fulfill my request by providing an example of something in jazz theory that dies not have a precedent in classical theory? I can think of none save the blue note. Sure, there are lot's of stylistic elements that don't come from the European/American/classical tradition, but not much in terms of theory. This "Music theory can't explain jazz" is the battle cry of amateur jazz theorists who don't bother doing their research.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

I see, now your a better analyzer than me. So the grad class that I had in analyzing Bach fugues, that was just a sham? That's the internet for you - anyone can claim to be an expert on anything.

Like some schmuck who "took a course." Ooh!

It would hardly be the first time for me, and music would hardly be the first subject, when I knew more about something than someone who "took a course."

I told you I was down to reading two sentences per post. I just never told you when it got to zero. I don't know why I fell off the wagon, today.

Technically the burden of proof lies with you - you are the one making the ridiculous claim

Kevin, your arguments so consistently fail to keep track of a conversation, it is like someone with multiple personalities. If you would carefully reread the snippet of my post that you quoted it, it refers to a claim made by Remler and Coryell. They either had proof when they made the claim or they didn't.

Your ridiculous position is that I am somehow under a burden to find evidence of what isn't there?
OK, same pieces of music that you cited, I cite the other 99% of the time, when minor key lines don't follow the so-called "classical" pattern.

When you say it is not a rule, but a guideline, you are on the right path. When something occurs so infrequently that it can be explained by random chance, even raising it to guideline status is myth making.

As to Fugue 1, meas 25: I am not sure which Am fugeu that is and don't have the music. If it is the one I know from Well Tempered Clavier that starts with A G# A., then the rule, guideline - whatever - broken on the first beat and twice in the first two measures. I am quite sure if I analyzed all four voices for 25 measures, I could find more than a dozen of examples of the lines not following the so-called "clasical" pattern before I even get to the one you allege fits it.

I know you are not going to understand this. It's probably too steeped in common sense. When a proposition is false ten or a hundred times more often that it is true, the proposition should be abandoned.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

"[KS said] That's the internet for you - anyone can claim to be an expert on anything."

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Like some schmuck who "took a course." Ooh!

So working on a Master's degree and doing grad work on Bach, that isn't good enough for you? Since you've made it clear that you have no respect for academia, what credentials would someone need to convince you that they know something about Bach? Since you cagily hide your background, it seems that shooting your mouth off about things you don't understand on the internet is all you value.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

If you would carefully reread the snippet of my post that you quoted it, it refers to a claim made by Remler and Coryell. They either had proof when they made the claim or they didn't....

Why would they need to defend common knowledge. If they claimed the sky is blue, would they need to defend that too?

Originally Posted by Aristotle

OK, same pieces of music that you cited, I cite the other 99% of the time, when minor key lines don't follow the so-called "classical" pattern.

Again, you are building a strawman - no one claims that this is some rule that must be followed (except for bad teachers.) It is mainly practiced this way because it sounds strange to classical ears to go down the mel min - it sounds too much like a major scale and then that m3 is jarring to the ear. If that doesn't sounds bad to you, then don't do it.

The real decision on whether or not to use the inflections or not has more to do with harmonic considerations. Usually for dominant functions, the 6th and 7th will be raised and for tonic or subdominant functions, they will be lowered. I think that the idea of the scale is that if you play it up to the tonic, then that leading tone has resolved and then you are going down in tonic function. Why can't you understand this simple concept?

Originally Posted by Aristotle

When you say it is not a rule, but a guideline, you are on the right path.

I'm not on a "path" - I'm already at the destination. It was you that was misinformed and whose understanding is evolving.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

As to Fugue 1, meas 25: I am not sure which Am fugeu that is and don't have the music.

Wow, now I know that you're full of hot air. You claim to be a better analyzer of Bach than me, but you don't know what WTC II means? Wow. Like I said, anyone on the internet can pretend to be an expert. But if they keep talking, the truth comes out. You're looking at the wrong fugue, nitwit. And I'm the one that doesn't know what is going on with Bach. That's pretty pathetic.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

I know you are not going to understand this. It's probably too steeped in common sense. When a proposition is false ten or a hundred times more often that it is true, the proposition should be abandoned.

The problem is that you imagined the proposition based on your own understanding. Please find my one reputable source that says that it must be played that way. You're just looking for an argument and you're trying to invent one. And this is only one era of music. You really are reading too much into this. But that's what you anti-theory guerrilla terrorists do - you find some minutia of music theory to misinterpret and blow out of proportion and then criticize it without really understanding it.

How arrogant are you? You think that millions of musicians over the last 500 years have gotten it wrong and you are the only person to every figure it out? No, you're just misunderstanding and you are in too much of a rush to find something to complain about that you can't see it.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

So working on a Master's degree and doing grad work on Bach, that isn't good enough for you?

No, paper credentials mean nothing to me. Fallacy ad verecundiam is no better than any other fallacy.

That's it. Your once sentence limit has been reached.

The best advice I can offer you is - don't waste time responding to my posts.

[bass2man]

Well, I finally made it to post #125 and I have to tell you all....after reading all this, i'm exhausted...time for a shot and a beer..

This is waaaay more exciting than watching snooky slap someone around on Jersey Shore...

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

No, paper credentials mean nothing to me. Fallacy ad verecundiam is no better than any other fallacy.

Apparently the only credential you accept is "agreeing with Aristotle."

Originally Posted by Aristotle

That's it. Your once sentence limit has been reached....The best advice I can offer you is - don't waste time responding to my posts.

What a cowardly way to avoid anyone who disagrees with you. Make long uninformed posts and then throw a hissy fit and refuse to read anything that disagrees.

I guess that's one way to avoid accepting that your arguments have come to a dead end.

Wow. The internet.

Peace,
Kevin

[Jazzyteach65]

I thought we come here to celebrate the music, the precious artform o jazz guitar and each other's unique perspective, not fight!

Remember: theory is just what it says: "theory." There is no right or wrong theory, that's why it's called what it is! Theory is so limiting and finite. Remember that it's JUST "WESTERN THEORY" we are talking about. Arab, African, East Asian and Hindustani Musics all have theories TOTALLY diferent than "ours."

[merseybeat]

Well said JT I have backed off a little because of the same! Most of the musicians I know are the creative ones! Make thing happen! you know! then there's the bedroom rejects who snipe at us! I am learning and there always something more! Just cause I don't know one particular aspect doesn't mean I don't know something that someone else doesn't know if that makes any sense!

That said there is enough positive vibe on this site to advance my playing 10 fold! I have learnt so much here that I occasionally buy the Site don a beer!

Eddie

[Aristotle]

And along the lines of what Jazzy and Mersey are saying, I believe the motive behind the posts (in the improv form) is or should be how to benefit: 1) note selection, phrasing...melody-making in general, or 2) how to gear rehearsal to achieve better achieve #1.

When I questioned this so-called "classical" minor here, it followed two jazzers implying that it has no application in jazz. Agreed! You are not going to change out of this tonality, just because the direction of the melody changes. For jazzers, practicing that split-scale would be mostly a waste of time vs. mastering the melodic.

I just wish jazzers would stop implying it has significant application in classical, because no one can name a single piece that conforms to the logic. Practicing it for years, as many classical players have done with the Segovia scales is a waste of time. Later on, if they take up jazz, they are going to wish they had "improvised" the Segovia scales by playing the melodic both ascending and descending.

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by merseybeat

Well said JT I have backed off a little because of the same! Most of the musicians I know are the creative ones! Make thing happen! you know! then there's the bedroom rejects who snipe at us! I am learning and there always something more! Just cause I don't know one particular aspect doesn't mean I don't know something that someone else doesn't know if that makes any sense!

That said there is enough positive vibe on this site to advance my playing 10 fold! I have learnt so much here that I occasionally buy the Site don a beer!

Eddie

haha!

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65

Remember: theory is just what it says: "theory." There is no right or wrong theory, that's why it's called what it is! Theory is so limiting and finite. Remember that it's JUST "WESTERN THEORY" we are talking about. Arab, African, East Asian and Hindustani Musics all have theories TOTALLY diferent than "ours."

True, but those weren't what we were talking about.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

When I questioned this so-called "classical" minor here, it followed two jazzers implying that it has no application in jazz.

But know you're trying to change the topic that you were discussing with me. You weren't saying that the mel min is used differently in jazz (obvious) but were challenging its definition and use in classical (based on ignorance and misunderstanding), twisting definitions and distorting information along the way. You couldn't win that argument so now you're curling up in a ball and playing victim.

Fellas, misinformation is the enemy. The facts are not determined by a popularity contest (this isn't Yahoo Answers.) The facts are the facts. The problem is that on the internet it is nearly impossible to tell who knows what. So you try and keep track of who seems to know what they're talking about. The problem is that I see so many people jumping to the defense of the the anti-theory guerrilla terrorists because they seem "nicer." Of course they seem "nicer" - they're just having fun picking on the people with an actual background in the subject and creating disinformation. They really don't care what people truly learn. Yes, the class clown is more fun than the professor, but from whom will you learn more?

Peace,
Kevin

[Jazzyteach65]

Keep in mind that at the end of the proverbial "day," YOU are the one that dictates how the notes/dissonant and consonant notes "behave." No theory or study can EVER teach you that!

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

When I questioned this so-called "classical" minor here, it followed two jazzers implying that it has no application in jazz. Agreed! You are not going to change out of this tonality, just because the direction of the melody changes. For jazzers, practicing that split-scale would be mostly a waste of time vs. mastering the melodic.

My two bits: in jazz (and probably classical, too, but I'm afraid to go there because you guys know so much more than I do), minor tonality seems more flexible in note selection, as opposed to major tonality: I pick and choose the minor/major 6th/7th.

Example: In D minor, if I'm targeting the note A in a line, I'd play:

A Bb A G ... rather than A Bnat A G ...

The Bb as an upper neighbor there pulls back to A better than Bnat does.

Same in the other direction: If I'm targeting C, I'd play:

C Bnat C D ... rather than C Bb C D ...

And over an A dom chord, I'd just hear C# as the leading tone, Cnat as the #9, B as the natural 9 and Bb as the b9; each has their own color.

Does that make any sense? Maybe the classical melodic minor scale is an effort to square the circle: to combine horizontal lines (avoid aug2 in scalar lines) and harmony (dominant chord goes here). Woops, I said too much.