undefined

hi Carl,

at your "Microwave" site,
http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02

you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:

name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?

blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??

-monz

oops ... this was also sent origially without a
subject line. i'm really having trouble with that today.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Carl,
>
>
> at your "Microwave" site,
> http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02
>
> you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
> but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:
>
>
> name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?
>
> blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
> blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??
>
>
>
> -monz

Hi monz,

>at your "Microwave" site,
>http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02
>
>you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
>but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:
>
>
>name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?
>
>blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
>blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??

I usually think of it as 0-3-4-5-6-7-10, and not so
much as a scale of its own, but as the 6-note scale
with an added tone, that you can use if'n you want,
but not all the time.

But maybe that's not right. Is this in theory books
as 'the blues scale'?

Oh, and thanks for reading Microwave!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Carl,
>
>
> at your "Microwave" site,
> http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02
>
> you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
> but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:
>
>
> name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?
>
> blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
> blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??
>
>
>
> -monz

There's certainly no fixed "scale" exclusively used in the blues. But
the first scale is the one I've always seen referred to as
the "blues" scale. Degree 9, though, is *very* typical in blues, not
to mention microtonal bends between 3 and 4, between 5 and 6, and
between 10 and 11.

> >blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
> >blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??
>
> I usually think of it as 0-3-4-5-6-7-10, and not so
> much as a scale of its own, but as the 6-note scale
> with an added tone, that you can use if'n you want,
> but not all the time.
>
> But maybe that's not right. Is this in theory books
> as 'the blues scale'?

Usually without the 4, as in the first line above. If you play lots
of licks using this exact scale, though, you might sound like George
Lynch, but probably not like a blues player.

>> hi Carl,
>>
>> at your "Microwave" site,
>> http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02
>>
>> you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
>> but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:
>>
>>
>> name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?
>>
>> blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
>> blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??
>>
>> -monz
>
>There's certainly no fixed "scale" exclusively used in the
>blues. But the first scale is the one I've always seen
>referred to as the "blues" scale.

Thanks Paul; that's as I thought then.

>Degree 9, though, is
>*very* typical in blues, not to mention microtonal bends
>between 3 and 4, between 5 and 6, and between 10 and 11.

Hmm, degree 9...

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> hi Carl,
> >>
> >> at your "Microwave" site,
> >> http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02
> >>
> >> you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
> >> but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:
> >>
> >>
> >> name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?
> >>
> >> blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
> >> blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??
> >>
> >> -monz
> >
> >There's certainly no fixed "scale" exclusively used in the
> >blues. But the first scale is the one I've always seen
> >referred to as the "blues" scale.
>
> Thanks Paul; that's as I thought then.
>
> >Degree 9, though, is
> >*very* typical in blues, not to mention microtonal bends
> >between 3 and 4, between 5 and 6, and between 10 and 11.
>
> Hmm, degree 9...

Yes, listen to B. B. King, for example . . .

hi Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Hi monz,
>
> > at your "Microwave" site,
> > http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02
> >
> > you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
> > but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:
> >
> >
> > name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?
> >
> > blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
> > blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??
>
> I usually think of it as 0-3-4-5-6-7-10, and not so
> much as a scale of its own, but as the 6-note scale
> with an added tone, that you can use if'n you want,
> but not all the time.
>
> But maybe that's not right. Is this in theory books
> as 'the blues scale'?

the 7-tone one i added (0-3-5-6-7-10-11 of 12edo) is the
one i've usually seen in piano lesson books ... sorry i
don't have any citations handy.

for guitarists, i usually see the "blues scale" defined
as the simple pentatonic blues scale, 0-3-5-7-10, because
guitarists will bend the string to get in-between pitches
when they want them.

regarding the 6-tone scale you originally had on your
microwave page: while its derivation is obvious, i've
never actually seen a blues scale defined that way before.

the "minor-3rd" 2^(3/12) is an essential part of the
blues scale. it's not usual to have the "major-3rd" 2^(4/12)
included, but of course both vocalists and instrumentalists
slide from the "minor-3rd" to the "major-3rd" all the time
(not to mention use of "neutral-3rds" as well).
so, at least in terms of standard piano pedagogy, the
additional scale you just posted is also non-standard.

-monz

hi Carl and Paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > >> hi Carl,
> > >>
> > >> at your "Microwave" site,
> > >> http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.06.02
> > >>
> > >> you list one "blues" scale in 12edo.
> > >> but there are actually two forms of 12edo blues scale:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> name ...... tones . instances . degrees ........ proper?
> > >>
> > >> blues ....... 6 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10 ..... no
> > >> blues ....... 7 ...... 12 .... 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 .. ??
> > >>
> > >> -monz
> > >
> > > There's certainly no fixed "scale" exclusively used in the
> > > blues. But the first scale is the one I've always seen
> > > referred to as the "blues" scale.
> >
> > Thanks Paul; that's as I thought then.
> >
> > >Degree 9, though, is
> > >*very* typical in blues, not to mention microtonal bends
> > >between 3 and 4, between 5 and 6, and between 10 and 11.
> >
> > Hmm, degree 9...
>
> Yes, listen to B. B. King, for example . . .

another aspect of blues theory is the idea that there
are actually two related blues scales which work with
any "tonic".

one is the "basic blues scale" which is essentially
0-3-5-7-10 with or without 6 and 11.

the other is the "relative blues scale", and is exactly
the same structure, a "minor-3rd" lower.

a great great blues musician can effortlessly shift
back and forth between them during a single performance,
and B.B. King is one such master. he uses the
relative scale more than most other blues musicians.

it's the mixing-in of the relative scale which causes
some folks to include 4 and 9.

here's a tabulation of both scales in their fullest form:

0-3-5-6-7-10-11 basic blues scale
9-0-2-3-4-7-8 relative blues scale

put them together and you have almost the whole 12edo
scale, missing only 2^(1/12).

the clearest exposition i've seen of this is in
Richard Daniels, _The Heavy Guitar Bible_.

http://www.heavyguitar.com/HeavyGuitarBible.html

Daniels presents the simpler "guitar" form of the
blues scales:

0-3-5-7-10 basic blues scale
9-0-2-4-7 relative blues scale

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> another aspect of blues theory is the idea that there
> are actually two related blues scales which work with
> any "tonic".
>
> one is the "basic blues scale" which is essentially
> 0-3-5-7-10 with or without 6 and 11.

For whatever reason, that 11 is really quite rare in blues music,
except as a passing tone. Unless you count 10.5 as 11 :) . . .

> the other is the "relative blues scale", and is exactly
> the same structure, a "minor-3rd" lower.
>
> a great great blues musician can effortlessly shift
> back and forth between them during a single performance,

Although another interpretation, which is usually more helpful for
students, is that the other scale is just the major pentatonic on the
same tonic.

hi Paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > another aspect of blues theory is the idea that there
> > are actually two related blues scales which work with
> > any "tonic".
> >
> > one is the "basic blues scale" which is essentially
> > 0-3-5-7-10 with or without 6 and 11.
>
> For whatever reason, that 11 is really quite rare in
> blues music, except as a passing tone.

yes, you're absolutely right about that. that's why
it really only shows up in piano blues theory: pianists
can't bend pitches the way other blues musicians can
(whether on guitar, harmonica, sax, or voice). often,
a blues pianist will play *both* the major and minor
3rd (or 7th) simultaneously, to simulate an "in-between"
note.

> Unless you count 10.5 as 11 :) . . .

hmm ... the 11/6 ratio happens to be my favorite flavor
of "major-7th", altho it's really a "neutral-7th".

> > the other is the "relative blues scale", and is exactly
> > the same structure, a "minor-3rd" lower.
> >
> > a great great blues musician can effortlessly shift
> > back and forth between them during a single performance,
>
> Although another interpretation, which is usually more
> helpful for students, is that the other scale is just
> the major pentatonic on the same tonic.

in some ways that is an easier way to comprehend it.
but the "relative" approach has the advantage that both
scales have exactly the same interval structure.
perhaps it's only because i'm used to it, but i
personally find the "relative" approach much easier.

i find that putting the basic and relative blues scales
together in this way comes very easily as a result
of actually practicing blues on an instrument.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> > Although another interpretation, which is usually more
> > helpful for students, is that the other scale is just
> > the major pentatonic on the same tonic.
>
>
> in some ways that is an easier way to comprehend it.
> but the "relative" approach has the advantage that both
> scales have exactly the same interval structure.
> perhaps it's only because i'm used to it, but i
> personally find the "relative" approach much easier.

This "same structure" is a theoretical point that is often lost on
beginners. What a beginner hears is that the two scales give you
quite different sounds in the context. So it's best to give the
beginner independent ways of thinking about the sounds, since it's
really the *sounds* that should drive their understanding. If you
tell a beginner that the scales have the same structure, they might
try to *use* this structure in the same way for both scales. And that
can sound awful, because the resolution notes don't occur in
corresponding spots in the structures of the two scales.

> i find that putting the basic and relative blues scales
> together in this way comes very easily as a result
> of actually practicing blues on an instrument.

Well, yeah. But a beginning guitarist, for example, might try to take
their familiar patterns and licks and simply try to move them down 3
frets. Even if they have great ears and musicality, this is a bad
habit to start with, because you should be able to play both scales
in the same position in the guitar, so you can seamlessly meld from
one to the other and back again . . .

But this is getting off-topic . . .

Hi monz,

>regarding the 6-tone scale you originally had on your
>microwave page: while its derivation is obvious, i've
>never actually seen a blues scale defined that way before.

Sorry; defined which way?

>so, at least in terms of standard piano pedagogy, the
>additional scale you just posted is also non-standard.

It's a mode of the 7-note scale you posted. Is
the mode you used more standard?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Hi monz,
>
> > regarding the 6-tone scale you originally had on your
> > microwave page: while its derivation is obvious, i've
> > never actually seen a blues scale defined that way before.
>
> Sorry; defined which way?

0-3-5-6-7-10 in 12edo.

> > so, at least in terms of standard piano pedagogy, the
> > additional scale you just posted is also non-standard.
>
> It's a mode of the 7-note scale you posted. Is
> the mode you used more standard?

the 7-tone scale 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 is the only blues scale
i've ever seen taught in piano blues theory.

mind you, i haven't actually *analyzed* a selection of
blues piano performances to find out for myself exactly
what's going on. i'm just going on what i've learned
from books and magazines.

-monz

Gunther Schuller (in Early Jazz) quotes someone (and the only name I can think of at the moment is not Courlander or anyone else plausible, but Henry Pleasants - probably just my mind) with a tetrachord based theory of the blues scale. These tetrachords make much more musical sense in blues than running a scale.

The cell is indeed 3, 2, 1 in semitones or (-3)-0-2-3 in 12edo degrees, it's that upper half step that is unstable. But according to Schullers source, the primary diatonic scale isn't done by shifting the tonic of the tetrachord (0-3-5-6), but by transposing up a fifth, 5-7-9-10. In C, this is a-c-d-eb + e-g-a-bb. C as the lowest note in the cell introduces f and gb and is taken for an innovation made by jazz players. But of course, the double tonic way, a-c-d-eb + c-eb-f-gb, practically gives you the diminished scale.

klaus

>> > regarding the 6-tone scale you originally had on your
>> > microwave page: while its derivation is obvious, i've
>> > never actually seen a blues scale defined that way before.
>>
>> Sorry; defined which way?
>
>0-3-5-6-7-10 in 12edo.

Hmm, I've seen it, on the web at least. All my piano
methods are out-of-state at the moment, so I can't check.

>> > so, at least in terms of standard piano pedagogy, the
>> > additional scale you just posted is also non-standard.
>>
>> It's a mode of the 7-note scale you posted. Is
>> the mode you used more standard?
>
>the 7-tone scale 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 is the only blues scale
>i've ever seen taught in piano blues theory.
>
>mind you, i haven't actually *analyzed* a selection of
>blues piano performances to find out for myself exactly
>what's going on. i'm just going on what i've learned
>from books and magazines.

That's cool; I've never studied blues keyboard, really.
Thanks for sharing.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> > regarding the 6-tone scale you originally had on your
> >> > microwave page: while its derivation is obvious, i've
> >> > never actually seen a blues scale defined that way before.
> >>
> >> Sorry; defined which way?
> >
> >0-3-5-6-7-10 in 12edo.
>
> Hmm, I've seen it, on the web at least. All my piano
> methods are out-of-state at the moment, so I can't check.
>
> >> > so, at least in terms of standard piano pedagogy, the
> >> > additional scale you just posted is also non-standard.
> >>
> >> It's a mode of the 7-note scale you posted. Is
> >> the mode you used more standard?
> >
> >the 7-tone scale 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 is the only blues scale
> >i've ever seen taught in piano blues theory.
> >
> >mind you, i haven't actually *analyzed* a selection of
> >blues piano performances to find out for myself exactly
> >what's going on. i'm just going on what i've learned
> >from books and magazines.
>
> That's cool; I've never studied blues keyboard, really.
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> -Carl

i can't really cite where i got my info either, except
maybe some articles in "Keyboard" magazine, which i used
to read avidly when i was a gigging keyboard player back
in the 1980s.

i've spent a lot of time doing research in libraries,
and i'm always peeking at books unrelated to my direct
research, when they catch my eye as i roam the shelves
looking for what i want.

-monz

my favorite and most productive ways of using libraries!
)letting things find us(

monz wrote:

>
>
> i've spent a lot of time doing research in libraries,
> and i'm always peeking at books unrelated to my direct
> research, when they catch my eye as i roam the shelves
> looking for what i want.
>
> -monz
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

hi klaus,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

> Gunther Schuller (in Early Jazz) quotes someone (and the
> only name I can think of at the moment is not Courlander or
> anyone else plausible, but Henry Pleasants - probably just
> my mind) with a tetrachord based theory of the blues scale.
> These tetrachords make much more musical sense in blues than
> running a scale.
>
> The cell is indeed 3, 2, 1 in semitones or (-3)-0-2-3 in
> 12edo degrees, it's that upper half step that is unstable.
> But according to Schullers source, the primary diatonic
> scale isn't done by shifting the tonic of the tetrachord
> (0-3-5-6), but by transposing up a fifth, 5-7-9-10. In C,
> this is a-c-d-eb + e-g-a-bb. C as the lowest note in the
> cell introduces f and gb and is taken for an innovation made
> by jazz players. But of course, the double tonic way,
> a-c-d-eb + c-eb-f-gb, practically gives you the diminished
> scale.
>
> klaus

wow, thanks for sharing this! it's a very different
interpretation of blues than anything else i've ever
seen, and quite interesting.

but we need to keep in mind here that all this theorizing
is rooted in 12edo and thus applies only to the piano.

most blues music is based on guitar and voice, and
the good stuff is *very* microtonal. my analysis of
a Robert Johnson song illustrates this:

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/rjohnson/drunken.htm

-monz

monz wrote:

> hi klaus,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
>
> > Gunther Schuller (in Early Jazz) quotes someone (and the
> > only name I can think of at the moment is not Courlander or
> > anyone else plausible, but Henry Pleasants - probably just
> > my mind) with a tetrachord based theory of the blues scale.
> > These tetrachords make much more musical sense in blues than
> > running a scale.
> >
> > The cell is indeed 3, 2, 1 in semitones or (-3)-0-2-3 in
> > 12edo degrees, it's that upper half step that is unstable.
> > But according to Schullers source, the primary diatonic
> > scale isn't done by shifting the tonic of the tetrachord
> > (0-3-5-6), but by transposing up a fifth, 5-7-9-10.

something seems wrong with 5-7-9-10?
This should be 4-7-9-10?

> In C,
> > this is a-c-d-eb + e-g-a-bb. C as the lowest note in the
> > cell introduces f and gb and is taken for an innovation made
> > by jazz players. But of course, the double tonic way,
> > a-c-d-eb + c-eb-f-gb, practically gives you the diminished
> > scale.
> >
> > klaus
>
> wow, thanks for sharing this! it's a very different
> interpretation of blues than anything else i've ever
> seen, and quite interesting.
>
> but we need to keep in mind here that all this theorizing
> is rooted in 12edo and thus applies only to the piano.
>
> most blues music is based on guitar and voice, and
> the good stuff is *very* microtonal. my analysis of
> a Robert Johnson song illustrates this:
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/rjohnson/drunken.htm
>
> -monz
>
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> hi Carl and Paul,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >
> > > > Degree 9, though, is *very* typical in blues, not
> > > > to mention microtonal bends between 3 and 4, between
> > > > 5 and 6, and between 10 and 11.
> > >
> > > Hmm, degree 9...
> >
> > Yes, listen to B. B. King, for example . . .
>
>
>
> another aspect of blues theory is the idea that there
> are actually two related blues scales which work with
> any "tonic".
>
> one is the "basic blues scale" which is essentially
> 0-3-5-7-10 with or without 6 and 11.
>
> the other is the "relative blues scale", and is exactly
> the same structure, a "minor-3rd" lower.
>
> a great great blues musician can effortlessly shift
> back and forth between them during a single performance,
> and B.B. King is one such master. he uses the
> relative scale more than most other blues musicians.
>
>
> it's the mixing-in of the relative scale which causes
> some folks to include 4 and 9.

in case you guys never heard this ... here's my
MIDI rendering of the opening solo of one of B.B.'s
greatest tunes, "Sweet Little Angel":

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/worklist/sweetang.mid

there's some microtonal pitch-bending in the solo part.
but my main point for this particular post is: listen
to how effortlessly he switches back and forth between
the basic and relative blues scales. awesome.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > Hi monz,
> >
> > > regarding the 6-tone scale you originally had on your
> > > microwave page: while its derivation is obvious, i've
> > > never actually seen a blues scale defined that way before.
> >
> > Sorry; defined which way?
>
>
> 0-3-5-6-7-10 in 12edo.

That's funny, virtually every guitar magazine and book I've seen for
years and years defines it this way . . . and so does my piano book
by Mark Levine.

> the 7-tone scale 0-3-5-6-7-10-11 is the only blues scale
> i've ever seen taught in piano blues theory.

What's your favorite work of piano blues theory?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> Gunther Schuller (in Early Jazz) quotes someone (and the
> only name I can think of at the moment is not Courlander or
> anyone else plausible, but Henry Pleasants - probably just
> my mind) with a tetrachord based theory of the blues scale.
> These tetrachords make much more musical sense in blues than
> running a scale.
>
> The cell is indeed 3, 2, 1 in semitones or (-3)-0-2-3 in
> 12edo degrees, it's that upper half step that is unstable.
> But according to Schullers source, the primary diatonic
> scale isn't done by shifting the tonic of the tetrachord
> (0-3-5-6), but by transposing up a fifth, 5-7-9-10. In C,
> this is a-c-d-eb + e-g-a-bb.

Confused. Doesn't e=4, and f=5?

>> 0-3-5-6-7-10 in 12edo.
>
>That's funny, virtually every guitar magazine and book I've seen for
>years and years defines it this way . . . and so does my piano book
>by Mark Levine.

The Jazz Piano book? That's what I had. Indeed, it's the book
I was referring to that's still in Montana. Glad to hear I
remembered correctly.

-Carl