Some Free chapters from my book

[smrieck511]

Hello everyone,

My name is Steve Rieck. I'm a Berklee graduate and guitar instructor at the Atlanta Institute of Music with close to 20 years of teaching experience. I wanted to let you know that I have a book for sale called "Fretboard Evolution". It's designed to fill in the gaps for guitarists who need help with harmony and theory.

There's a free preview edition which contains the first three chapters - covering Understanding the Fretboard, Understanding the Major Scales, The Circle of Fifths and Intervals.

Feel free to use and share this preview version. Thanks for checking it out!

http://www.steverieck.com/FE1_Preview.pdf

[LvJz]

Could you add chapter 15 to that? Perhaps you could please help me out in the thread below.

[smrieck511]

Actually I'm the worst capitalist on earth LOL so yeah... I'd love to help if I can, what's the specific question ?

[smrieck511]

Check your PM...

[pauln]

I looked at it and I'll give you my thoughts...

It's not your fault that the basis of music theory was conceived and developed by people that didn't understand simple math. It has been this way for so long it is too late to fix it. But, now most students of music will have had some basic math and likely experience some confusion when learning music theory.

Maybe chapter one of every music theory should be devoted to a review of what it means to count things, first distinguishing the difference between counting the things themselves and counting the steps between them, and then reminding the student of the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers.
Then perhaps a explanation that these concepts don't apply in common music theory, just to forewarn the student of what is to come...

Here are some examples of what I mean. I'm not picking on your examples per se, but on the way music theory is presented...

You write that a major scale will contain "exactly seven notes".
You show the seven steps "Whole-Whole-Half-Whole-Whole-Whole-Half"
but the first step is actually to the second note (a step from the first to the second note) so that the seventh step is from the seventh to the eighth note. The steps end on the eighth note of the scale, so there are eight notes in the scale.

Later when showing the major scale as the tonic and dominant tetrachords, you show all eight notes. Then you direct notice to the subsequent diagrams and indicate that "All of them contain exactly seven notes each with the seven alphabetical letters"; which is not true - they all show exactly eight notes / eight letters. Which you verify by writing about the two tetrachords of the first four and the last four...
The summary chart also shows eight note scales.

This above is a confusion between the number of things (8) and the number of steps between those things (7) and the relationship between a step and the note stepped from and the note stepped to.

You write that a "fifth" is a distance between two notes (interval) in which one note is five letters away from another. Just using just the letter names (as in your examples) does not stipulate the sharp and flat aspects of the scale. For example B to F is not a fifth, but B to F# is.

But a greater confusion is that this is a confounding between cardinal and ordinal numbers... they don't add and subtract the same way.
The numbers 3 and 8 are 5 numbers away from each other because 8-3=5 ... these are ordinal numbers.
The designations of 5th, 4th, etc are cardinal numbers.
The problem here is that "5 away" from the 1st(Root) is not the 5th, but the 6th.
The 5th thing is only "4 away" from the 1st thing.

As your next chapter is about intervals, I'll stop because the same confusions apply there and beyond. Hope you don't mind what I've written here. I think a lot of music theory would make make much more sense to math oriented students if they were brought into it with an initial orientation that indicates in advance that the math concepts they have learned will not work - music theory uses the words, numbers, and counts in a historically idiomatic verbal way, not a logical math-concept way.

You have probably already encountered some of this in your teaching, maybe in the Berklee curriculum as well?

[smrieck511]

A major scale contains seven notes.

C an octave above C is not a "different note" in terms of the scale, It's simply the same note where the scale begins an octave higher.

C D E F G A B
C D E F G A B

etc..

[LvJz]

Hey!

On page 168 you've assigned a quartal voicing to each chord in the first 8 bars of ATTYL. Do they have to be those specific voicings, or can I start on any note from the chord scale and stack 4ths from there?

[smrieck511]

B to F is a diminished FIFTH . B to F# is a perfect fifth.

If you're not aware of this basic fact, you really should be careful about commenting on this particular point as it could spread disinformation.


But I do understand your point about counting in the strict mathematical way vs. the conventions of music theory.

This is all the direct result for example, of counting a "C" GOING NOWHERE to the same C in the same octave as a "1st" (unison).

It's actually a good point you bring up there and I will revise that chapter to explain this in better detail.

[smrieck511]

Hey LvJz - Actually, you can but you have to beware of potential avoid notes (unavailable tensions) as discussed in the chapter on tensions.

[LvJz]

So it's all about using your ears and experimenting. Thanks, I'll back track to that chapter on tensions.

Cheers Steve

[smrieck511]

Cool... but there are avoid notes to consider. I would say try to read the chapters in order as they build off eachother.

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by pauln

For example B to F is not a fifth, but B to F# is.

[smrieck511]

B to F is most certainly a fifth (a diminished 5th but 5th none the less).

[LvJz]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

Count the letters, including B C D E F. B C D E F#

That's 5 in total, but what determines the quality of the 5th is how many semitones there are in between B to F, and B to F#.

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by LvJz

Count the letters, including B C D E F. B C D E F#

That's 5 in total, but what determines the quality of the 5th is how many semitones there are in between B to F, and B to F#.

My is reaction to the poster stating that B to F is not a fifth. Poster has no credibility in critiquing the dude's book...

[LvJz]

Oh, sorry lol. Btw, I recommend it, unless already pretty "up" on yer theory.

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by LvJz

Oh, sorry lol. Btw, I recommend it, unless already pretty "up" on yer theory.

Thanks. Glad you like the book. Looks like a good pick up for someone starting out. I'm playing through jonnypac's book at the moment--recommend that one too. Randy Vincent's and Bert Ligon's are on my "next up" lists. I love checking out different takes on how to approach improv... The Real Book is my "bible."....

[whatswisdom]

...Oh, forgot to mention Matt Warnock's stuff. His website, and his threads here are superb!

[smrieck511]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

My is reaction to the poster stating that B to F is not a fifth. Poster has no credibility in critiquing the dude's book...

Thanks! I'm very open to criticism as my book is not perfect and I will continue to revise it but I can't have criticisms/almost slanders of a theory book coming from someone who misunderstands something so basic.

It spreads disinformation. Something the internet could use less of.

[fep]

Originally Posted by smrieck511

Thanks! I'm very open to criticism as my book is not perfect and I will continue to revise it but I can't have criticisms/almost slanders of a theory book coming from someone who misunderstands something so basic.

It spreads disinformation. Something the internet could use less of.

Come on... stop the pissing contest.

I can guarantee he understands what a diminished 5th is. He just made a mistake on an internet post... he doesn't have an editor... give him a break. It was a well-intentioned post.

I always thought when someone says a 5th it's assumed to be a perfect 5th unless stated otherwise. If someone asked me to sing a 5th, I would certainly sing a perfect 5th. If they wanted me to sing a diminished 5th, I'd expect them to say diminished 5th. Right?

[smrieck511]

I did make it a point to explain the exact distinctions in my chapter on intervals but ..I agree...sorry about that. I'm hypersensitive to this and need to chill. I'll be the first to apologize.

[smrieck511]

So...sorry lets drop it. next subject...

[fep]

Okay,

Your book looks really sharp, I dig the cover, the font the layout, very easy to read.

I like the quizzes at the end of chapters. I like books with exercises and quizzes especially when the topic is something as dry as theory. It's to easy to blow through a chapter and not grasp all the concepts. I'd say if you do get a chance to add anything to the book... consider more exercises to be played on the guitar.

[smrieck511]

Thanks...right that's next up with a CD I hope.

[bluewaterpig]

Originally Posted by fep

I always thought when someone says a 5th it's assumed to be a perfect 5th unless stated otherwise. If someone asked me to sing a 5th, I would certainly sing a perfect 5th. If they wanted me to sing a diminished 5th, I'd expect them to say diminished 5th. Right?

I mean, to be honest.....no. If someone asked me to sing a fifth, I'd say sorry but you're missing a crucial detail in that request.

There are an infinite number of fifths, or fourths, thirds, seconds, etc. You could say a diminished fifth, a double flatted fifth, a triple flatted fifth and so on. Each is some type of fifth yet each is a different note. And before you say "why the hell would you ever use the term triple flatted fifth", abnormally named intervals come up in teaching at the university level quite a bit.

You can easily say this is being a music theory snob, but when it comes to really knowing theory, and especially teaching it, these "snobby" details are essential bits of information.

[fep]

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

I mean, to be honest.....no. If someone asked me to sing a fifth, I'd say sorry but you're missing a crucial detail in that request.

There are an infinite number of fifths, or fourths, thirds, seconds, etc. You could say a diminished fifth, a double flatted fifth, a triple flatted fifth and so on. Each is some type of fifth yet each is a different note. And before you say "why the hell would you ever use the term triple flatted fifth", abnormally named intervals come up in teaching at the university level quite a bit.

You can easily say this is being a music theory snob, but when it comes to really knowing theory, and especially teaching it, these "snobby" details are essential bits of information.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I've been in those college theory classes. And a lot of practical jazz band situations... if you posed that question to my big band director he'd make fun of you for weeks, especially if you phrased in such a patronizing way as you did.

My music theory teacher, the same thing.

I can see it now.... sing a unison. You say, "sorry but you're missing a crucial detail in that request." They look confused and then you say, "Is it a perfect unison, a diminished unison or an augmented unison, a doubly augmented unison"... ?

Then they break their music stand over your head.

[hot ford coupe]

I like the book. I think it does what it's supposed to. I especially like the book's intentions. I think some of you are not really seeing that intention. It's true that when you're teaching at a university level, you're bound to a different set of standards than when it comes to teaching the average budding jazz (or whatever) guitarist. Thus, you have to qualify every little point and argue it to death. Don't forget that the intention of the book is to fill in the gaps for a guitarist and not to teach a PhD candidate advanced musicology. Every player I've encountered uses the term 5th as a perfect fifth unless he/she qualifies it otherwise. To get picky is just showing off. Sorry if I've offended anyone but I sees it as it is.

[bluewaterpig]

Originally Posted by fep

We'll just have to disagree on that. I've been in those college theory classes. And a lot of practical jazz band situations... if you posed that question to my big band director he'd make fun of you for weeks, especially if you phrased in such a patronizing way as you did.

My music theory teacher, the same thing.

I can see it now.... sing a unison. You say, "sorry but you're missing a crucial detail in that request." They look confused and then you say, "Is it a perfect unison, a diminished unison or an augmented unison, a doubly augmented unison"... ?

Then they break their music stand over your head.

Unison is totally different. That single word implies only one interval.


We're not attacking you with these posts, you might just be reading with some angry eyes. Remember, you can't include tone in your text on an internet forum.

[smrieck511]

Thanks I appreciate that very much. To clarify, my book (I believe) does a pretty thorough job of explaining diminished and augmented intervals etc... The controversy was over a posters critique who didn't read what I wrote.

[JonnyPac]

Looks nice. Wanna swap books for review, etc? I'm always up to network.