Diminished chords vs min7b5 chords

[NayNay]

If you can identify any "opinion" I posted that is wrong, feel free to straighten me out.

I guess this discussion has reached a point where it doesn't make sense anymore.
Quite ridiculous, how one tiny little half-step can trigger arguments like the one a. is indulging in atm.

I just hope the original author of this thread now has a deeper understanding of the topic.

*leaves this thread for good* (and forever)

[Aristotle]

Quite ridiculous, how one tiny little half-step can trigger arguments like the one a. is indulging in atm.

As the author of the half-step post, who doesn't remember getting any pushback over it; it seems to me the idea that 'Bm7b5 as the sixth mode of the modified sixth mode of the major scale is a substitute for Fm' was more of "trigger."

[ksjazzguitar]

...it seems to me the idea that 'Bm7b5 as the sixth mode of the modified sixth mode of the major scale is a substitute for Fm' was more of "trigger."

OK, I'm not a big fan of overly scalar thinking, but that is unfair. The natural minor has just as much of a right to be called a scale as the major scale. And it's modification has just as much right to be called a scale. And the sixth mode of that has just as much right to be called a scale. That is one of my objections to the modern use of the word "mode" - it implies some kind of hierarchy. But one group of notes is just as much of a scale as any other - the decision that the major scale is the parent scale is completely arbitrary. We could easily have said that the major scale is the third mode of the modified third mode of the target scale. It's all completely arbitrary.

But that is another example of you mocking your opponents' ideas with irrelevancies, just like your "scale named for an ancient Eastern Mediterranean city-state or civilization" remark, or dozens of others. At least when I mock ideas, I do it with relavancies.

Peace,
Kevin

[Ron Stern]

The following is to be read in light of the fact that I really don't know what you guys are talking about.

That is one of my objections to the modern use of the word "mode" - it implies some kind of hierarchy.

Hm. A hierarchy based on what?

But one group of notes is just as much of a scale as any other - the decision that the major scale is the parent scale is completely arbitrary.

True but arbitrary is good for starting out. Left could be right and vice versa but if you never stick on a name and stick with it you'll never get anywhere.

I thought the essence of "scale" was the spanning of an octave.
When I started with modes, after many wasted hours, I concluded that the derivation of the modes was interesting and all but something to do while you're like waiting in the dentist's office. Otherwise the essence is the difference between mode X and the scale of the key of the song, which is usually only two notes. Then I wondered, why mess with a "new scale" with a new name just to change a note?

1. It's not just that there's a new note or two, but also, the definition means that the rest are not changed, which does not go without saying. It's a way of saying, "these differences from the key center scale, and no others."

2. When you harmonize a mode, it comes out different. It actually makes different harmony. Different how? To begin to answer that you need efficient terminology.

It reminds me of nautical terminology. It's historical and quaint and all, but that's not why it's used. It's historical and quaint because it's been used for so long, and that's because of it's utility, which is because of it's logic and anti-amibiguity. You tell a guy something bogus like, scooch on the front rope, and maybe he lowers the boom on your head, maybe he lets go the anchor.

With the passage of time, the quaintness becomes a virtue. If you know the definition, you understand completely, because the term itself is too weird to be mistaken for anything else, which is the point.

[ksjazzguitar]

Hm. A hierarchy based on what?

It's just that Aristotle seems to be implying that the mode is less "real" than the scale, with snide remakes like, "...it seems to me the idea that 'Bm7b5 as the sixth mode of the modified sixth mode of the major scale." He seems to think that each abstraction of mode is a step away from terra firma. My point is that the mode and scale are equal. I won't bother going into all my complaints against the modern use of the word "mode" but this is one of them - people seem to assume that C-C is a "scale" and D-D isn't as "solid" because it's a "mode." But the decision to call one a "scale" and the other a "mode" is completely arbitrary.

True but arbitrary is good for starting out. Left could be right and vice versa but if you never stick on a name and stick with it you'll never get anywhere.

True. And it's not a problem as long as people remember that it's arbitrary.

Then I wondered, why mess with a "new scale" with a new name just to change a note?

Because they have different characters. But ultimately it's just a label.

I have no problem with arbitrarily calling C-C the parent "scale" and all the others as child "modes" as long as people remember that it is a completely arbitrary distinction. Aristotle's cheap shot at the logic of another poster (not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with their logic) seemed to be based in this assumption that the mode is inferior to the scale, so the mode of the mode is even more inferior. That was my point.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

But that is another example of you mocking your opponents' ideas

Opponents? Maybe that is how you think of it.

At least when I mock ideas, I do it with relavancies.

You probably don't believe your poop stinks either. And who appointed you Relevancy Czar.

It's just that Aristotle seems to be implying that the mode is less "real" than the scale

No. You inferred, doesn't mean I implied.

The natural minor has just as much of a right to be called a scale as the major scale.

Modes have rights?

I hope you remembered to give all your above sentances two demerits each for lack of relevancy.

[Aristotle]

The following is to be read in light of the fact that I really don't know what you guys are talking about.

I am just feeding Kevin a return ration of manure. I can't figure out what he is talking about musically either, other than he thinks I am his "opponent."

I wondered, why mess with a "new scale" with a new name just to change a note?

Me too. A pitch collection by any name would sound the same.

Here is a musical IQ test. Two guys are looking at a score. The first guy says - that's a wierd looking scale in the first measure. The second guy says - that's the Phillistine (pie a la) Mode. It's the same as a Cartheneginian Scale, but starting a minor third above the root.
Which one is the guitar player?

[Flyin' Brian]

The answer is neither. Most guitar players run away from anything resembling a score.

[Aristotle]

The answer is neither. Most guitar players run away from anything resembling a score.

Touche!

[Ron Stern]

The first guy says - that's a wierd looking scale in the first measure. The second guy says - that's the Phillistine (pie a la) Mode. It's the same as a Cartheneginian Scale, but starting a minor third above the root.
Which one is the guitar player?

True but the assumption is that the first guy doesn't know the name. Two possibilities: he should, or he shouldn't. Why should he?

To begin with, to me, there has to be a reason to bring it up at all. Trying to think of an example . . . can't. But my impression is that certain modes/scales are not frequently played over certain chords, so, if the first guy asks, why does this sound weird, and the second guy says, because it's X mode/scale over Y chord, and the first guy knows the peculiarities of X, and of Y chord, obviously, then he gets his answer efficiently. Or if he doesn't he has a good starting point.

This is the acid test of the value of the definitions. They have to relate systematically.

[Aristotle]

True but the assumption is that the first guy doesn't know the name. Two possibilities: he should, or he shouldn't.
Why should he?

Oh, there are plenty of possibilities. Maybe the second guy was wrong and no one got around to naming it anywhere in a book that's still in print.

This is the acid test of the value of the definitions. They have to relate systematically.

They don't. Much of it is ad hoc. The melodic minor isn't by itself more melodic than other scales. And the Mixolydian has less in common with the Lydian that other modes, despite the commonality of name.

Labels, like any tool, range from potentially useful to critically important. Like all tools, they are subject to the law of dimishing returns. IMO, in jazz, generally the point of diminishing returns has been passed when you catch yourself describing something as a substitution for a substitution, or as the mode of a mode.

[AdamWalsh]

I'm fairly new to guitar and a lot of this kind of theory confuses me, I'm trying to understand how chords work, extensions, substitutions, modes, the harmony within Modes and all the rest of it. Voice leading, and just generally getting more knowledgeable with music theory and playing. Basically could anybody point me in the right direction with where I could find lessons on this kind of stuff? I know there is a lot to learn so any help is appreciated, thanks

[edh]

Take a look on the first page of this forum. There is a section their for free lessons. Valuable

[Thumpalumpacus]

Usually it is said the other way around, lower any note a half-step and you get a 7th chord.

Which explains why moving dom7s by a tritone still gives you what is essentially an enharmonic.