-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
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)
-
02-24-2011 12:05 PM
-
Originally Posted by NayNay
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
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,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-24-2011 at 01:39 PM.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
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
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
At least when I mock ideas, I do it with relavancies.
It's just that Aristotle seems to be implying that the mode is less "real" than the scale
The natural minor has just as much of a right to be called a scale as the major scale.
I hope you remembered to give all your above sentances two demerits each for lack of relevancy.
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
I wondered, why mess with a "new scale" with a new name just to change a note?
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?
-
The answer is neither. Most guitar players run away from anything resembling a score.
-
Originally Posted by Flyin' Brian
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
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.
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
This is the acid test of the value of the definitions. They have to relate systematically.
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.
-
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
-
Take a look on the first page of this forum. There is a section their for free lessons. Valuable
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
Gibson Thin line Guitar Models
Yesterday, 11:07 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos