-
Am I alone being confused of all the scales and names of scales. Why not relate everything to the simple major scale, it consists of eight notes so what do we have left - four notes causing all this confusion? Is this just a stupid question from an autodidact or is there a point of wiev here?
What is your opinion, I bet you have a better understanding in this matter than I do.
/R
-
03-27-2010 04:24 PM
-
What eight note scale are you referring to? If you mean seven note major scale, then the answer is fairly simple. When you relate everything to a maj scale you, first of all go through an extra step. But more importantly each collection of notes, mode or scale has characteristic notes, intervals, cadences and imply different functions than Ionian or a major scale. There are physical differences or different tendencies of notes. At some point you you start to hear or think in for example Melodic Minor as its self and not in reference to Maj. Do you still hear minor as a maj scales with pitch changes? I replied to a thread called soloing in MM... check it out, might help... Good luck Reg
-
Sorry, another mistake from an autodidact - should be seven - the octave doesn't count, right?
Originally Posted by Reg
/R
-
The Major scale is the common denominator for most approaches to tonal theory.
The intervals are all major or perfect. When we use intervallic formula for chords and scales/modes
they are either confirming or modifying the intervals of the major scale.
I believe your question is why not relate everything to the major scale and the 5 additional notes.
(not 4, the octave is a repeated tone, 7+5)
You could travel a distance using this method but all methods of comparison have their limitations.
When the differences begin to outnumber the similarities, it is probably time to look for additional reference points.
-
Hey bako...how goes...I'm not sure everyone understands you mean from root to each scale degree...I'm hoping I'm wrong. Maj is a common template but in jazz and even early 20th century traditional music I believe not the only template used as reference. But since most institutions sill teach centuries old music theory, harmony and analysis... were kind of stuck with the language etc... Your point about comparisons is great, and I dig your travel metaphor... As hard as it is to explain jazz in traditional music vocabulary it's even harder to play when your hearing or thinking in traditional music concepts. At what point of traditional musical understanding does one introduce a new order of understanding? Kind of like how can one play jazz without an understanding of the history of jazz...
Sorry... philosophical jazz ... Jazz Existentialism....shut up and play... time to load up and get off to gig. Best Reg
-
GuitarRoland,
With a question like that you are a
prime candidate for Jimmy Bruno's
approach. Check out his Guitar Institute.
Along this same line you can address (or not)
the important changing note(s) as the
chords progress rather than thinking in
terms of changing scales.
-
The traditional theory I'm studying does a much better job at analyzing jazz than it does analyzing Debussy... It seems jazz is not ahead of classical music, jazz is still using traditional harmonies, century old harmonies. Classical music has moved on from that. Originally Posted by Reg
Wouldn't you say more than 90% of jazz is really simple compared to something like Debussy's music?
He uses harmonies from whole tone scales, harmonies built on seconds and inverted seconds, synthetic scales, exotic modes, quartal and quintal harmony and planing, linear chromaticism, poly chords, poly modal, etc. (I know I'm leaving a lot out). And he might use a lot of that in the same piece.
Analyzing that kind of music is part of what you do when studying traditional music vocabulary. Jazz is pretty simple by comparison (simple to analyze, not so simple to play). Imho
I'm struggling through a Debussy analysis project for my theory class at the moment. It's really hard to figure out what the heck he was doing/thinking.Last edited by fep; 03-27-2010 at 08:35 PM.
-
Still I've seen the description that, as there are 12 notes in total, only 4 are outside so left would be 8 within the scale? Originally Posted by bako
/R
-
My opinion is that there is no problem in relating it all to the major scale, and adjust the few tones (b3, #4/b5, #5, b9, #9) to fit with what you want to achieve. Originally Posted by GuitaRoland
If you read about Pat Martino, he's doing much the same, but relating it all to minor scales. That feels natural for me - more than relating it all to major scales. I don't know why, it's just does.
Point is that all this talk about modes etc is so confusing, because so few have a good grip on what it is, that it is all muddy water in these discussion groups. Even Mark Levine Jazz Theory is a bit muddy in the understanding.
Bert Ligon "Jazz Theory Resources: Volume 1 & 2" is a very good alternative, that I'd recommend, clearly stating the difference between functional music and modal music.
Most of the music you play is functional, and the major (or minor) scale related to the key center will be very good Originally Posted by Bert Ligon “Jazz Theory Resources”, Houston Publishing
-
Lol, you find any situation you can to use that word, autodidact. Originally Posted by GuitaRoland
Last edited by musicjohnny; 03-28-2010 at 10:43 AM.
-
03-28-2010, 11:22 AM #11Baltar Hornbeek GuestIt's a badge of honor. Originally Posted by musicjohnny
-
Thanks Gersdal I see your point, major or minor doesn't matter, my question is more principle. Originally Posted by gersdal
My opinion is that there is no problem in relating it all to the major scale, and adjust the few tones (b3, #4/b5, #5, b9, #9) to fit with what you want to achieve.
If you read about Pat Martino, he's doing much the same, but relating it all to minor scales. That feels natural for me - more than relating it all to major scales. I don't know why, it's just does.
Most of the music you play is functional, and the major (or minor) scale related to the key centre will be very good
/R
-
Hey Fep... Nice to see someone into analysis...maybe 75% is simple... but I wouldn't call Debussy very classical. For that matter many composers like Debussy, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Ives, Bartok, Igor, Webern and on to modern day composers such as Babbitt, Spies, Crumb or Foss aren't what I would call classical. Not much of their music in in the rotation. And I would totally agree with you, many of their compositions are very difficult to put into centuries old music theory analysis. But my point is that jazz is not that difficult to understand except when you try and understand it in centuries old theory etc... jazz is not meant to be difficult, jazz should be fun for both the player and the listener. I thought I was making reference to most of what your your calling later traditional music...I think I said jazz and early 20th century traditional music, basically from some of the Romantics on. But almost all of traditional music is composed... what you see is what you get, obviously what you see with jazz is just the beginning. I'm not sure where you are in the great road of musical enlightenment, but it doesn't get a whole lot better than some of the great Romantic compositions in both analysis and to me personally listening. I always dig you post Fep, wish we were closer, so I could hit you up for tech. support.. . Reg
-
Hi Reg,
Thanks for your reply.
That was a bit sloppy of me as I meant classical in the broader sense were the subgroups are the classical periods. Debussy chronologically fits into the Romantic period but he sure sounds modern to me, very different than Beethovan.
My music series course is 4 semesters, I'm in the 4th semester. In my opinion the book doesn't devote enough time to Twentieth-Centrury techniques, it feels like we're just blowing through it in three weeks. But I suppose that could be another 4 semesters to properly cover the twentieth century. It leads to frustration trying to do this Debussy assignment in that I feel I don't have a deep enough understanding to properly do it. The Beethoven and Chopin we did earlier seemed pretty easy in comparison.
-
Reg,
I was speaking very simply about one method for building intervals/chords and scales/modes parallel to the major scale (Ionian)
1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 in relation to D major D E F# G A B C# becomes D Eb F Gb Ab Bb C.
The intervals either maintain or modify the Ionian mode of the same letter and in this example all the notes are flatted.
It is only within this method of generating intervallic structures that I was referring to the major scale as a common denominator. There are many ways to think about and consequentially hear relationships between harmonies and ultimately this is much more important for the business of improvisation.
Fep,
re: Debussy
Tonal theorists try to make his music fit into key based concepts but his lack of traditional cadential motions makes it challenging to confirm any belief they develop. The post tonalists make detailed accounts of intervallic minutia that may have very little meaning at all. Both camps develop and defend their theories. I find myself wondering most about the composers methodology and conceptual framework but often this is unknowable.
I like the post tonal term centricity to explain the temporary convergence around a tone even though it may not establish anything resembling a clear key. Tension still resolves somewhere and harmonies progress to other harmonies.
What is your teacher's perspective on how to approach this analysis?
What composition are you working on?
-
Hi bako,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm analysing Debussy's Golliwogg's Cake Walk
The teacher likes us
1) to write on the score doing a harmonic analysis with lead sheet chord symbols and Romon Numeral analysis where appropriate. I like to start with this step. Our harmonic material has gotten pretty broad and numerous including Quartal, Quintal, Secundal harmonies, linear chromaticism, parrallelism/planning etc. plus all the more traditional stuff. So there is often more than one answer when looking at something by Debussy. (Also, I spent hours on one piece trying to figure out chord analysis even trying to hear implied chords... only to have the teacher respond that the piece didn't lend itself to chordal analysis. Which begged the question, "then why did you ask us to do a harmonic analysis in the assignment description?" With Debussy that issue comes up from measure to measure.
2) Form analysis
3) Melodic analysis - motives, sequences, phrase/period structure, how the melody interacts with the harmony. Modes/scales used etc.
4) Tonal movement
5) Tension and resolution, cadences, climaxes, density, changes over time.
6) Emotional impact.
The teacher just loves discussing this stuff.
One of the motives in this piece goes:
Bb Ab Bb F Bb Ab F Eb Cb, ending with that Cb being a tension note.
--6-4-6---6-4-------------------------------
--------6------6-4---------------------------
--------------------4------------------------
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
It starts with that and no underlying harmony. I'm hearing the tonal center as Bb with that Cb really wanting to resolve to the Bb.
I've got a question, is there a name for this scale? (I'm hearing it as a 5 note scale): Ascending - Bb Cb Eb F Ab Bb. Try playing that ascending and then descending. It's got a phyrgian sound but exotic asian at the same time, and it could be major or minor. Maybe there is no name (i.e. it's a synthetic scale made up by Debussy), but I read that Debussy liked to use modes and scales from foreign lands.
Later that motive is played with a Ebadd9 being the primary underlying harmony and the Key center to my ear becomes Eb.Last edited by fep; 03-28-2010 at 03:43 PM.
-
Fep,
I don't like the term synthetic scale for anything not yet legally sanctioned.
I just consider it a scale if it helps me to think of it that way.
Here's my quick thoughts.
First I ordered the notes to try to achieve a pentatonic 1 2 3 5 6 sequence.
Ab Bb Cb Eb F (1 2 b3 5 6)
Second move was to find a 7 note structures that includes these notes.
Eb harmonic major (EbFGAbBbCbD)
Gb major (GbAbBbCbDbEbF)
Ab melodic minor (AbBbCbDbEbFG)
Eb harmonic minor (EbFGbAbBbCbD)
I'll try to check out the score later tonight.
Given the strong Eb major sound I would say Eb harmonic major.
I hear alot of contrasting the Cb and C so I would explore the modal interchange between Eb harmonic major and Eb major.
It's interesting that the other prominent note Gb and key signature is the m3 of Eb but I'll look into whether that is a unifying point or just incidental.
-
Hey bako...Thanks ...I understood what you meant by Maj. and perfect intervals, I wasn't sure everyone was clear that you were referring to intervals from degree 1 to each other degree, thanks for clarifications... thanks again Reg
-
Hey Fep I remember that piano composition... opens on B Lyd. lick. The piece might be in key of Gb, but goes to Eb, ( rel. Min. but modal interchanged to be Maj) and eventually gets to Gb Then restates and out. Cute piece, intro on IV chord is cool. Or could be in Eb and starts on bVI and deceptively goes to I rather than V, and goes to bIII ...don't think so Gb with period fill. Reg
-
Fep much of what you say goes way over my head but when I play that little phrase I find it sounds like a Japanese 5 note scale moving through one octave but beginning on the second interval.
Re: GitaRoland’s original point. Jazz is ‘ear’ music. If you take a major scale and practice playing it choosing any note as a starting point ie. stop the habit of starting from the root, then your ear will hear the colour of any tonal centre in it and if you chromaticise then there you have all the other notes – all 5 of them. But then it depends how well you hear. Two octaves is better. On a piano to complete the chord you need two octaves, at least, like Monk, to say well what about the 9th, 11th and 13th? Notwithstanding the inclusion of altered tones that makes 10 rather than 5 extra notes. But then it’s the harmony that matters most in scales imo. A harmonic minor scale which has one note different than a major scale -the minor 3rd, sounds very different and that’s not because of the one different note of course. It’s because of the harmonic intervals we hear. A major scale has 6 perfect 4ths and a tritone. A minor melodic scale has one note different? Yea. But it has 3 kinds of 4th: 4 perfect 4ths, 2 tritones and a major 3rd (diatonically a 4th). One note different but tonally way different because of the intervals. Laying over the chords intervals and suddenly you’ve got a minor/major, a susb9, major#5, a dom7#11 etc.
Jazz is ear music. Playing with the scales, getting away from root based conditioning, and the question of whether it is this scale or that scale becomes something of a moot point. ‘Learn the changes then forget them’ as Bird said.
-
Hey thanks guys for the Debussy input. Bako, those are some good points.I hear alot of contrasting the Cb and C so I would explore the modal interchange between Eb harmonic major and Eb major.
It's interesting that the other prominent note Gb and key signature is the m3 of Eb but I'll look into whether that is a unifying point or just incidental.
Now back to that analysis.
-
Originally Posted by gersdal
My opinion is that there is no problem in relating it all to the major scale, and adjust the few tones (b3, #4/b5, #5, b9, #9) to fit with what you want to achieve.
If you read about Pat Martino, he's doing much the same, but relating it all to minor scales. That feels natural for me - more than relating it all to major scales. I don't know why, it's just does.
Point is that all this talk about modes etc is so confusing, because so few have a good grip on what it is, that it is all muddy water in these discussion groups. Even Mark Levine Jazz Theory is a bit muddy in the understanding.
Bert Ligon "Jazz Theory Resources: Volume 1 & 2" is a very good alternative, that I'd recommend, clearly stating the difference between functional music and modal music.
Most of the music you play is functional, and the major (or minor) scale related to the key center will be very good
I like you post and Bert's statement is simple and lucid ... I think we must remember that Theory is "Theory"... one can analyze and demonstrate one's conclusions in a linear fashion, and by following intellectual 'theory', the mind moves along a linear path ... however, the nature of music is 'aural' and depending upon the mind of the listener, may or may not travel along a linear path .. good musicians hear things and live within the realm of tonal relationships, but, often, don't relate to these in a linear fashion ... great musicians introduce new and sometimes wild or vivid tonal relationships depending upon how they hear them in their mind..
I studied classical for awhile, played rock when I was younger, then got bored with it musically, and finally ended up with jazz because of the complexity. There is lots of raw material to work with ... I love to weave complex structures by modifying threads... it opens up a palette of sound colors to work with .. each chord is composed of several tonal threads and the possibilities are an open road before me ... depending on where I want to go.
I don't worry too much about analyzing it, I'm more interested in the journey.
-
Originally Posted by gersdal
My opinion is that there is no problem in relating it all to the major scale, and adjust the few tones (b3, #4/b5, #5, b9, #9) to fit with what you want to achieve.
If you read about Pat Martino, he's doing much the same, but relating it all to minor scales. That feels natural for me - more than relating it all to major scales. I don't know why, it's just does.
Point is that all this talk about modes etc is so confusing, because so few have a good grip on what it is, that it is all muddy water in these discussion groups. Even Mark Levine Jazz Theory is a bit muddy in the understanding.
Bert Ligon "Jazz Theory Resources: Volume 1 & 2" is a very good alternative, that I'd recommend, clearly stating the difference between functional music and modal music.
Most of the music you play is functional, and the major (or minor) scale related to the key center will be very good
I like you post and Bert's statement is simple and lucid ... I think we must remember that Theory is "Theory"... one can analyze and demonstrate one's conclusions in a linear fashion, and by following intellectual 'theory', the mind moves along a linear path ... however, the nature of music is 'aural' and depending upon the mind of the listener, may or may not travel along a linear path .. good musicians hear things and live within the realm of tonal relationships, but, often, don't relate to these in a linear fashion ... great musicians introduce new and sometimes wild or vivid tonal relationships depending upon how they hear them in their mind..
I studied classical for awhile, played rock when I was younger, then got bored with it musically, and finally ended up with jazz because of the complexity. There is lots of raw material to work with ... I love to weave complex structures by modifying threads... it opens up a palette of sound colors to work with .. each chord is composed of several tonal threads and the possibilities are an open road before me ... depending on where I want to go.
I don't worry too much about analyzing it, I'm more interested in the journey.
-
Doesn't it just make sense to relate the modes to the major scale? After all, each mode is just a position of the ionian scale moved to another position (second position of the ionian scale moved to the first position becomes dorian, third position of the ionian moved to first position becomes phrygian). I haven't found a shortcut either (and I wish there was one), but it doesn't really make sense to me to try to think of it any differently. But maybe I'm totally wrong!
-
A lot of people do relate everything to a major scale... I have 4 scales that I relate most things to.
Major, Minor, Mixo, and Locrian (one for each basic chord type)
As far as Debussy vs Jazz? well..... Debussy is not improvised.
when analyzing chord structures that do not fit into traditional tonal harmony, I use the "interval root" system where a chord root is determined by the root of the strongest interval in the chord. 5th and 4th stacks I generally give a root based on the lowest sounding pitch in a 5th stack and/or the implied root progression with the surrounding chords for a 4th stack. I picked this up from Paul Hindemith's composition book, he has a method of classifying ANY group of notes and measuring it's harmonic function. in reality though, I very rarely ever have to resort to that in everyday life, and really haven't spent enough time with the book to understand his whole system.
Naming scales? well, I think it's just so they can be taught in a systematic way and books can be sold. I think a lot of people learn how to play the scales first and then learn what they are called later (usually to make some cash) I always thought that a good way to learn scales was from the inside out, starting with an arpeggio and then adding passing tones as the fingerings become more fluid.
Reply With Quote
There Will Never Be Another You - chord changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions