-
ragman1,
if I understood you correctly you refferd to this piece of Ravel
Ravel, Quatour pour intruments a cordes, First Movement
The analysis attracts a lot attention to the motives - which is secondary in this I believe... (not that it is useless of course, but a bit formalistic imho... )
To me the first we shold notice in the sonata exposition is that there are three section
1) Symmetrical (extended question/answer period): the ascending theme in F major - bars 1-4, and then descending bars 5-8 (however weird it looks it is all about going to dominant of F major). This is affirmation, declaration whatever we call it.. it is stable
2) II-V area, it's all about being dominant 9-16 bars.. it has more tension than previous part.. all unstable
3) Then the reprise of the 1st part goes which is ending with a secondary dominat .. preparing trasition and going to secondary them in dominant key
where I believe these altered notes are found.. over G7 chord
But is it about using altered scale as compositional element?
SOofar all I see is absolutely classical form whish uses - though in really expanded and free way - but still basically traditional functional tonality relations
It's just what I hear here as important for understanding music.... I did not listen it to the end... I just listend and played a bit of the section by the line...
What do you think?Last edited by Jonah; 04-16-2017 at 03:16 PM.
-
04-16-2017 03:13 PM
-
I actually heard m21-23 as Lydian Dominant. No D# so can't call it as WT necessarily. *shrugs* Who knows?
A lydian tonality sliding into whole tone.
Where's the altered scale?
A bit OT, but I always rather liked the use of the whole tone influenced harmony in Britten. Here is an example I find really beautiful:
The influence of French music on British music isn't often talked about. There's a huge amount of Ravel in Vaughan Williams for instance - no surprise as VW studied with him. I blame the Brexiteers :-)
Anyway Lydian/WT is a slippery slope.Last edited by christianm77; 04-16-2017 at 03:33 PM.
-
Oh there's some more pages. I've read this article before actually. Later pages discuss diminished scale use.
-
From the Ravel the most pertinent for jazzers might be what he does on that G7 tonality, because Billy Strayhorn uses a similar sound (II9#11) in Take the A Train.
In this case I feel the chord was almost certainly regarded as WT back in the day. This seems borne out to my ears by the original arrangement, and how Ellington solos on it:
Also how hip is that bit of film?
-
A bit OT... I think the influence of French impressionist was just relatively limited for the classical world in comparison to German school...The influence of French music on British music isn't often talked about. There's a huge amount of Ravel in Vaughan Williams for instance - no surprise as VW studied with him. I blame the Brexiteers :-)
In a way 20th century modern classica almost did not develope the language of Ravel and Debussy... partly I believe because they both stil thought in terms of functional tonality mostly.
Though Debussy is much more 'avanced'))) than Ravel... when I listen to Debussy it often sounds liek he is just picking it by ear at the piano... just try to listen and hear what will be next...
only a few composers gave me that feeling: Wagner, Musorgsky and Morton Feldman...
-
Maybe, Schoenberg was such a big figure and he was as German as it gets...
Originally Posted by Jonah
But! What about Messiaen, Boulez, Grisey and the spectralists or do they not count as heirs of the impressionists to your ears?
Perhaps that style of harmony was best adopted by the jazzers who had use of an extended tonal palette that also related to functional harmony.
-
I don't think you need to read the paper, hard going if it is. The question is about the altered scale. Either he and other composers used it or they didn't. The rest of it, his style, his theories and ideas, aren't relevant here.
I'm not defending Tymoczko because I got in touch with him. I'm saying the man is evidently an acclaimed, decorated expert who doesn't say things for the sake of it. These things are his job, his career, and it's highly unlikely that he's guessing. He knows the subject of this discussion in detail because I told him.
It's just a matter of common sense.
-
Berg was direct connection with Mahler (and too me Berg was much more gifted composer than Schoenber who was a great personality, author, leader, idologist, philosopher...)...Maybe, Schoenberg was such a big figure and he was as German as it gets...
And also Webern was probably the only one of them who really used series as series... at least I think it's his that works gave push to serialism.
Yes I thought about them and some others too... but I also thought that maybe it's just French artistic aesthetics in general... that makes them sound similar?But! What about Messiaen, Boulez, Grisey and the spectralists or do they not count as heirs of the impressionists to your ears?
Boulez was also much influenced by Webern..
Messiaen is too grand to be comparable with anyone in the period I believe... (and maybe too grand to be influenced by Ravel)))
You mentioned English music... it was - to my feel - a bit more conservative.. though does not make it worse... Elgar was very good composer... his violine sonata is one my favourites, and his cellos concerto is much more than just nice theme of the first part.
With Britten I have some problems.. I always felt he was a bit formalistic maybe... too academic. But some things I really like...
-
I don't refer to it. I don't know the first thing about it. I'm referring to someone else who does know about it! Originally Posted by Jonah
-
OK then could you please kindly pass my post to him.I don't refer to it. I don't know the first thing about it. I'm referring to someone else who does know about it!
Thank you
-
I can't find any examples of diminished-whole tone scale in Ravel or Debussy... maybe jazz did set a new precedent with its usage?
The two precedents that I am aware that jazz has dded to body of "music theory" are it's type of swing rhythm and its regard for blue notes becoming good notes (both African American inventions) ... maybe the alt scale is a third new precedent?
-
I think we could perhaps say that about the MM modes full stop. I dunno, history is rarely so neat. Originally Posted by rintincop
MM modes proper seem (as far as we can deduce) to be largely a product of the Berklee thing, so I'm not sure we can put them on the level of blue notes and swing rhythm as emergent products of African American culture - but then, where do you draw the line? The piano language of Bud Powell etc involves things that are not far away from altered scales.
Hmmm, I dunno.
-
Sure. Originally Posted by Jonah
But sarcasm aside, you are absolutely right, these composers were following a number of years behind the continental scene, even though I think they are quite unique and uniquely British.
Britten I think is kind of his own thing. Not a conservative exactly. Also true of Tippett.
Anyway Britten he's not my favourite. My theory is that the BBC types split the difference between Maxwell Davies and William Walton back in the 1960s when they were looking for someone to anoint 'greatest living British composer' and ended up with someone too harmonically weird for lay audiences and yet too conservative for the new music cognoscenti. Did him no favours at all actually.
My favourite Brit is probably Holst actually. And he's definitely his own thing, and hugely popular. Planets is too 'low brow' for the cultural elite though esp. after Star Wars.
Last edited by christianm77; 04-16-2017 at 05:26 PM.
-
Oh yeah, I also friggin' love Elgar :-)
-
And speaking of current Brit classical music, we have this fella:
I wonder what Turnage thinks of the altered scale?
(BTW I find this recording an excellent example of the difference in the concept of time between jazz musicians and classical. It's absolutely fascinating.)Last edited by christianm77; 04-16-2017 at 05:34 PM.
-
I can't help but feel you are coming into this with the belief you have a clinching argument which is not really the point for me even if you did. Things are rarely so easy to settle.It's just a matter of common sense.
And yes repeating the same line of argument over and over does feel like you are trying to get a rise out of me.
So yeah, I dubbed thee troll, although somewhat in a trolling spirit myself. It worked.
I couldn't see any clear unambiguous examples in the paper, but I did skim over it a bit. Originally Posted by ragman1
Well I should probably get in touch direct. But wouldn't he just say RTFP? :-) I would in his shoes!I'm not defending Tymoczko because I got in touch with him. I'm saying the man is evidently an acclaimed, decorated expert who doesn't say things for the sake of it. These things are his job, his career, and it's highly unlikely that he's guessing. He knows the subject of this discussion in detail because I told him.
It was really nice of him to respond, he's clearly a good guy.
Whether or not I hold DT's work, credentials etc as evidence is kind of irrelevant. Why? Well:
- both citations I can find re: the scale with relation to Ravel are references to DT's recent(ish) work in the area.
- DT's earliest paper on the subject was published in the late 90s IIRC.
- We are talking about something called the 'Ravel Scale' referenced in education at least two decades earlier.
- Why and where from?
- And Gil Evans was writing this scale in 58, where did he get it? Ravel seems likely source if it is true that he used it. Or did he just write it because he liked those notes?
And if we can find evidence in the gnarly black and whites, this raises this issue:
- Debussy knew he was writing pentatonic and whole tone scales AFAIK. Did Ravel have similar awareness when he wrote an altered scale?
Some of these are hard if not impossible questions to answer, but there might be more to this story that we can uncover.
In any case what DT said in your quote exactly confirmed what I already thought from making transcriptions and what we discussed on the thread. A couple of points from his email:
The LCC stuff, which is moving into late 50s early 60s stuff. The acoustic overtone/lydian dominant scale was known to and used consciously by Kodaly incidentally going further back, and while I haven't made it through the LCC for a long time, it's possible the book might mention that... Anyone?
Also I haven't looked much into Herbie, so that's a great tip for getting used to the altered sound which is something I want to do more.
He doesn't mention Warne Marsh/Tristano stuff either, although that's another lead. There are some Tristano guys around on the forum. A Jazz Life is intriguing, but doesn't shed too much light as Klopotowski is discussing Marsh's teaching in the '80s.
But did this Ravel scale stuff come from nowhere? I'm genuinely interested.
Perhaps 'do you know where the term Ravel scale comes from?' might be the question to ask DT (it might be in his book, which I don't have, but I see it's on Kindle and looks like my sort of thing.)
I should also contact Hal Galper... 'Dear Hal could you shed any light on this incredibly nerdy discussion?'
TBH between what we discussed on the forum and DT's kind email, I feel I've got a gist of it, and further researching might take a lot of effort best spent elsewhere. I mean, it might turn into a PhD or something :-)Last edited by christianm77; 04-16-2017 at 06:24 PM.
-
Is the 2nd note in the altered scale an altered root, or altered 2nd? I'd say neither. It's in the scale to create a certain dissonance. A scale that contains a minor 3rd imposed against a chord that has a major 3rd is blues. beyond that the rest of the movement is whole tone.
I doubt you'll find much of the altered scale in classical music.
It's jazz.
When did it start? IDK. Sounds kind of Bird to me. He played a lot of odd leaps. People are still scratching their heads trying to figure out some of what he was doing.
-
No, I think you're right, it was the 70's. Originally Posted by christianm77
I remember the 70's. Anyone need some drugs? I'm from Buffalo.
Kidding aside the altered scale which I never heard of before it a logical way to describe post swing jazz but, I'd guess it was used in fragments. Dizzy and Bird spent a lot of time getting ideas from some book of classical exercises. Exercises aren't scales.
Modes? No please no no no.
Thank God I didn't stay in jazz school back then. Doesn't take much to confuse me and I was out of it after one course.
But;
-
@ Stevebol, I don't believe you remember the 1970s. Well maybe in flashes here and there.
-
I'm missing something. I don't get it; Originally Posted by christianm77
Altered scale - Wikipedia
"In jazz, the altered scale or altered dominant scale is a seven-note scale that is a dominant scale where all non-essential tones have been altered. This means that it comprises the three irreducibly essential tones that define a dominant seventh chord, which are root, major third, and minor seventh and that all other chord tones have been altered."
Is this scale intended for say, a C7 or Cm7? To my ears it work better over a C7. In that case the maj 3rd is altered. The bulk of the notes comprise a whole tone scale.
This makes no sense to me. It sounds more like a variation of a whole tone scale than anything else. If you start on C and descend, that's 5 notes of a whole tone scale.
"The altered scale is also enharmonically the C Locrian mode, C-D?-E?-F-G?-A?-B?, with F changed to F?. For this reason, the altered scale is sometimes called the "super Locrian mode". It is also enharmonically the seventh mode of the ascending melodic minor scale. The altered scale is also known as the Pomeroy scale after Herb Pomeroy (Bahha and Rawlins 2005, 33; Miller 1996, 35), the Ravel scale (after Maurice Ravel), and the diminished whole-tone scale due to its resemblance to the lower part of the diminished scale and the upper part of the whole-tone scale (Haerle 1975, 15), as well as the dominant whole-tone scale[citation needed] [clarification needed] and Locrian flat four (Service 1993, 28).
The super locrian scale (enharmonically identical to the altered scale) is obtained by flattening the fourth note of the diatonic Locrian mode. With a tonic of C, it is spelt: C. D?. E?. F?. G?. A?. B?, and C:"
For the sake of simplicity I'll think of it as whole tone blues.
"The altered scale is also enharmonically the C Locrian mode"
Not to me.
Lower part diminished and upper part whole tone? I'm OK with that. There's no such thing as the 'super Locian mode'. Modes are modes.
Whoever made this up was improvising.
Where's the Stevbolonian mode?
Where's my mode?
"It is also enharmonically the seventh mode of the ascending melodic minor scale. The altered scale is also known as the Pomeroy scale after Herb Pomeroy (Bahha and Rawlins 2005, 33; Miller 1996, 35), the Ravel scale (after Maurice Ravel), and the diminished whole-tone scale due to its resemblance to the lower part of the diminished scale and the upper part of the whole-tone scale (Haerle 1975, 15), as well as the dominant whole-tone scale[citation needed] [clarification needed] and Locrian flat four (Service 1993, 28)."
I need to think about that.
"The super locrian scale (enharmonically identical to the altered scale) is obtained by flattening the fourth note of the diatonic Locrian mode. With a tonic of C, it is spelt: C. D?. E?. F?. G?. A?. B?, and C:"
OK I'm called BS on that.
What's wrong with just calling it the altered scale? What's being altered is debatable.
Modes are modes. They are what they are. The altered scale isn't a mode.Last edited by Stevebol; 04-17-2017 at 02:24 AM.
-
Well, I'm old now but you have a point. The altered scale isn't a mode. It's a simple fact. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Hal Galper on chord scale theory.
But YES! Steve your post is a really salient, if tagential, point.
When did people think that the altered scale is a melodic minor mode? Historically, who goes 'the Ravel Scale, Pomeroy Scale, Mode VII melodic minor and Altered Scale are the same thing'? That's actually a conceptual leap.
Here's a thing - I am the enharmonazi after all.
Altered Scale
C Db Eb E Gb Ab Bb
Construction:
C7 (no 3rd) + b9 #9 b5 b13 (i.e. altered dominant extension.)
Superlocrian (Mode VII melodic minor)
C Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb
Altered scale is not spelled the same as a suprlocrian. It's like saying a Dominant Seventh is the same as German Sixth. Theory nazis would hate that and with good reason. German 6th does not function the same as a Dom 7th.
You might think I am being incredibly silly, but that Fb tells us the superlocrian is not an altered dominant harmony at all in the first octave. It is a half diminished scale - a locrian scale with a flat fourth. Every other mode in the the CST system is spelled out with a stack of thirds making the extended tertial harmony. Superlocrian?
C Eb Gb Bb Db Fb Ab
Doesn't fucking work. Why make the exception? It's as bad as the LCC and the C#. Let's sweep this under the carpet (Warne Marsh didn't).
So even on its own terms CST doesn't really work intellectually, but we knew that already, didn't we?
Luckily even CST gurus understand its limits because they a) are great jazz musicians first and foremost (Levine, Aebersold can play us all under the table for sure, let alone fucking Burton) and b) cos they invented CST to make money and know it for what it is (gigs are thin on the ground, it's no shame.)
However, these factoids and approximations have a life of their own. People think they are Legit somehow. The only thing that is Legit is the MUSIC!!!!!!Last edited by christianm77; 04-16-2017 at 10:58 PM.
-
(PS I do think MM harmony sounds good though. 'Every cloud...')
-
MM isn't functional though. it's a sub. Fb is always going to relate aurally as Maj 3rd- E nat. Regardless of how it's spelled, your ear is going to hear it that way. I think altered spelling is probably just a convoluted spelling to better line up with it's functional counterpart - harmonic minor, and with how your ear hears it's harmonic context. Like phrygian dominant, the sound over-rides would-be function, doesn't it? PD doesn't really spell in thirds like the chord your ear wants to hear. Originally Posted by christianm77
Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-17-2017 at 12:41 AM.
-
I'm talking about MM/CST on it's own intellectual terms. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
For example, why 7 note scales? Why not 6, or 8?
Why tertial stacks in two octaves, why not three of four?
And why doesn't the altered scale work with the overall schema?
MM/CST is an approximation of something deeper.
etcLast edited by christianm77; 04-17-2017 at 12:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
Henriksen Bud or Blu 6
Today, 07:53 PM in For Sale