Scales/chords etc

Hey Aaron...thanks for the post, I'm going to say a few things that I thought of from what you said. First, as far as scales go, from everything I've ever read/studied about the music from any culture, from India to the Middle East to Africa and China (and of course the European tradition), they use scales...raga scales, scales for maqams, scales for Mongolian long song, or whatever...a scale is just a way of taking pitches and organizing them into a sort of cohesive format, so that's how I see it. And, as I studied with a genius bebopper for many years, scales, and the chords formed from them, became a natural way for me to think about music, and it has served me well for 35 years. (And, one of the first things George had me do was start analyzing Bach, which I still do, and as well I've taken apart virtually every tune I've ever played from many various styles).
I have no idea if you are a player or just a theorist, but in the real world of performing musicians, scales and chords are used quite frequently, and manymany books have been written that discuss the theory behind this concept. Jazz theory, from Monk to Bird and Trane, is based very heavily on the theory of building chords from various scales, and how scales can then be used to solo through them. And, of course, it's a very profound and deep study, I'm still at it after 30 years. So, I really don't see anything wrong about thinking in terms of scales...they are a vital part of all music.
And, of course, the European tradition of classical music is where this concept really started (not scales, of course, but chordal theory built from scales), so the jazz guys were not creating anything new harmonically, necessarily, but it was the element of swing in the rhythm that made jazz what it is. So, here's the way I would state it, in a very simple fashion: first, there's sound, which is, perhaps, the very foundation of the Universal structure; then, sound becomes notes/pitches, which people then organize into groupings which can be called scales; then, we can, if we choose, build chords from these scales, and from the chords come progressions, which people use to compose songs. Indeed, you said several times that what I said about chords/overtones was too simple, but, as I've grown in my understanding of what music really is, things are getting simpler and simpler...I believe there's a quote, something like the goal of all art is simplicity, something like that, and I believe it.
And, as far as overtones, like the 7th or 15th, not being the same as notes of a chord, I think there's more than one way to see the Harmonic Series, and not so sure there's any one "correct" way to do that. I am well aware that the Maj 7 in a chord is supported by the other notes, that's elementary jazz theory...but, when I tune my fretless guitars to the Harmonic Series, and hit the open strings, it forms a chord. And, I'm also well aware that most world cultures did not use chords in the way that Europeans have come to do, melody and rhythm are the foundations of most world musics, and Euros, for the most part, are the only bunch who wanted to harmonize notes into complex chordal structures, which lead to tempering the natural notes of the spiral of 5ths or the Harmonic Series.
So, there's all sorts of ways of looking at and analyzing music, and all sorts of music to analyze and study. When I made the comment about the dominant 7 chord being the 5th chord as opposed to the 1st, again, that's simple chordal theory, isn't it? If you build the 7 chords of a major scale, the dom 7 is the 5. And if, as you said, that's an arbitrary way of looking at it, it is, indeed, the way it has been taught for many years. And, I'm not opposed to doing things different than how they are usually done, but when I teach, you gotta start somewhere, and that's where I choose to start. What is interesting to me, and maybe I didn''t say it the way I wanted, is that the first 4 note chord formed by the Harmonic Series is a dominant, if you care to use that terminology...which is one of the ways I think. Yet, in traditional Western music theory, the 1 chord has, for many hundreds of years, been thought of as the primary chord in a composition...and of course, the 5th is the one that takes us back home, if you will, to the 1 (in traditional chordal theory). But, because the 7th harmonic appears in the overtone series first, I've come to think that, perhaps, IT should be more important than the major 7; but, as I also mentioned in the post about the 22 srutis, over the years many folks in various cultures have, for some reason, chosen to avoid the 7th overtone, and I find that weird. It's there, it's part of the Creation, we didn't put it there, and yet it's caused quite a ruckus over the centuries; there's something important there. So, in the last few years, as I get deeper into my own studies, I've thought about that phenomenon quite a lot. (Of course, the so called Major scale, and it's importance in traditional Western music, is certainly an arbitrary choice, but that's what happened). And, in blues, for example, the dom 7 IS the main chord, and that's what I'm trying to integrate into my concept of teaching at this point, I'm de-emphasizing the major 7 a bit, although of course it's an important chord. And, music is so incredibly deep and profound, that I'm not sure any one take on it can sum it up...I do what I can, and try to use what understanding was given to me in the best way I can. So, when I describe my approach, I'm sure there's more I can do, and I'll keep trying to do it.
I guess my whole point is this: there are, indeed, manymany ways to approach art, any art, and I have my way of doing it. I am studying constantly, trying to understand the structure of music at it's deepest levels, but there seems to be no end. And, I am always ready to hear what someone else has to say on music, or any subject, for that matter, and if there's something someone can help me understand better, than I am grateful to that person for teaching me something new. And, respect between people is always high on my list as well. When ego intrudes, a feeling of elitism often appears, and one can appear a bit smug or snotty...which, of course, says volumes about the person who feels that way, and doesn't exactly make others want to hear what they have to say, even if they are correct.
Or, in my St.Louis way of thinking, who wants to hang with a cheesedick? Better to be friends, don't you think? Anyway, there it is, best...HHH
microstick.net

> Or, in my St.Louis way of thinking, who wants to hang with a
cheesedick? Better to be friends, don't you think? Anyway, there it is,

Who likes cheesesteaks and Rolling Rock?

Meet me at Indios Tainos in Philly.

HHH,

While I may have been a tad harsh, I meant only to make my point, not
to offend, so I hope I did not.

I am a semi-professional musician with a degree in music performance,
classical guitar specifically. I also have experience as a singer and as a
composer. I make my main income teaching guitar, classical and blues
and other styles. I also am an avid theorist and ethnomusicologist.

At any rate, to clarify, I have no argument with the basic facts you state,
I simply really dislike some of the wording used, and it is as a teacher
that I have such a reaction.

When I read that Jon Catler argues for use of the 13-limit because it is
"nature's first complete scale" between harmonics 8-16, I felt that was
a misrepresentation. And that has nothing to do with my SUPPORTING
his use of 13 and enjoying his music. But defining a scale as having to
have at least 7 notes, or as following the overtone series is just so
arbitrary. It is based on taking some classical theory ideas and applying
them in ways that don't really make sense. Does that mean that the
notes of harmonics 8-16 don't make a scale? Of course not. They are
a scale, sure. And a fine one, sure. It just isn't justified to define them
as strongly, like he did.

As a teacher, I'm very against giving simplistic explanations to students
just because it gets them to the next level. I feel that introduces too
many misconceptions and biases later on. When I feel the need to say
things like "if we stick to the scale, we'll have a major 7 on chord I"
I usually preface with something like "this isn't the whole picture, but
one way to construct chords is to stay with the notes in the scale,
and here's something that's commonly done." I feel it is important
to specify what is arbitrarily the case in lots of music (such as using
7 note scales) and what is unchangeable (like the harmonically
defined existance of various chord intervals).

A good example is the circle of fifths. On a tempered instrument,
such a circle does exist, but not necessarily on an unfretted or
in singing. And the circle is usually taught as though it shows
the whole universe of notes. And often, learned students of
theory will see some pattern that exists in some sort of scale
and relate it to the circle and say "OH, here's something interesting,
see how if we do this then we end up here and the 7th of
these chords is consistently this pattern on the circle in
relation to resolving chord" or something like that. Which is
kinda how your original post sounded to me.

This sort of pattern may in fact exist. But it really isn't a statement
about how music works and is perceived. It is easy to find patterns
in things, but they aren't always useful.

Maybe it was your wording. I myself, playing in a professionally
aspiring rock band for a the last couple years, noticed how much
music fit better with myxolidian, flat-7 sorts of scales instead of
major scales. I'm not even disagreeing with you. I noticed the
same thing. And I certainly agree that the major scale is less than
dominating these days.

I think mainly, I see the issue as a difference between practicality
and theory. It is practical to go with rules like: in a major scale
we have a major 7 on chord I. But theory-wise, these "rules" just
don't apply. In other words, there is no compositional, theory
reason that we can't have music founded on major scales, and
harmonically focused on dominant 7th chords. Barbershop
is a perfect example.

To wrap up, I have no problem with general simplistic rules
for playing and improvising that are used to avoid unwanted
conflicts. But far too often, players and amateur theorists
see existing patterns and apply them innapropriately and as
a teacher, I feel I'm working against that trend in order to have
my students remain open-minded and focus on the musical
elements that really drive the way the music works. Even if
they aren't interested in ever studying theory. It is just too easy
to be convinced of the significance of some patterns, even when
they don't really show what is reaelly driving the music.

Like the classical/jazz 11 chord or 13 chord... They are obviously
named that because of the idea of "oh, I see a pattern, we can
keep adding notes by thirds, generally within the scale, and
make bigger chords... why not go past 7, past 9, etc." But
those chords don't have anything of the stability and
functionality of the earlier ones. A *harmonic* 11 or 13 might,
but as played in jazz and neo-classical the musical affect of
adding those notes is NOT something that creates a clear
perceivable chord. And it seems to me that there is NO way
anyone would ever have started describing those sounds that
way if it hadn't been for seeing this every-other-note-in-the-
scale pattern and extending it arbitrarily, intellectually really.
You may like those sounds, but that is a poor way to describe
what they are musically.

Ok, so it DOES work to use that description in order to teach
players simply where to put their fingers or to simply know what
is happening. But I just can't stand teaching things just enough
so people can do one step. I feel VERY strongly as a teacher that
students should not be taught false associations and things that
will lead to misunderstandings.

Kinda like how I was taught that C# and Db are the same. My
teacher could have simply said "the same when played on the
guitar or piano" or something to that level, and at least I'd
know that there was a bigger picture out there if I ever cared
to explore it, instead of gong around thinking falsehoods.

So I hope you see where I'm coming from. I think we'd actually
agree on most things. Maybe not completely on teaching
styles though. But I hope you'll really consider my points,
especially when it comes to teaching. Teach the reletivity of
these things if you aren't sure, and let your students come to
their own conclusions or figure out what does or doesn't make
sense to them. Just make sure to leave the possibilities open
by not making too strong claims about simple things. If you
get my drift (again, not everything translates to print quite right).

Sincerely,
-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> In other words, there is no compositional, theory
> reason that we can't have music founded on major scales, and
> harmonically focused on dominant 7th chords. Barbershop
> is a perfect example.

I agree, but to be nit-picky I think you should say "otonal tetrads"
rather than "dominant 7th chords".

> Kinda like how I was taught that C# and Db are the same. My
> teacher could have simply said "the same when played on the
> guitar or piano" or something to that level, and at least I'd
> know that there was a bigger picture out there if I ever cared
> to explore it, instead of gong around thinking falsehoods.

I got interested in tuning theory in grade school. A music teacher
came to our class to explain the elements, and she said there were
seven notes to the scale, which corresponded to the white keys on a
piano. I asked "Why seven notes?" and she replied that this is just
the way it was. Since she was putting it all forward as more or less a
law of nature, I silently disagreed; if there must be these seven
notes for some reason, then there had to be that some reason.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > In other words, there is no compositional, theory
> > reason that we can't have music founded on major scales, and
> > harmonically focused on dominant 7th chords. Barbershop
> > is a perfect example.
>
> I agree, but to be nit-picky I think you should say "otonal tetrads"
> rather than "dominant 7th chords".
>
> > Kinda like how I was taught that C# and Db are the same. My
> > teacher could have simply said "the same when played on the
> > guitar or piano" or something to that level, and at least I'd
> > know that there was a bigger picture out there if I ever cared
> > to explore it, instead of gong around thinking falsehoods.
>
> I got interested in tuning theory in grade school. A music teacher
> came to our class to explain the elements, and she said there were
> seven notes to the scale, which corresponded to the white keys on a
> piano. I asked "Why seven notes?" and she replied that this is just
> the way it was. Since she was putting it all forward as more or less a
> law of nature, I silently disagreed; if there must be these seven
> notes for some reason, then there had to be that some reason.
>

Right on! I still think it'd be better not to say "Oh, Gene rebelled against
his teacher's stupid statement so I guess it's fine to teach that way, since
he still ended up learning things right." I'd rather teach that it doesn't
have to be seven notes. And English teachers need to stop teaching like
there's some law of the universe reason that English has some of the
crazy arbitrary rules it has. It would be better to teach that it happened
to evolve into what it is, and we should learn it because we're working
to communicate, and in this country (the US) its the main language. But
it didn't have to be that way, just like it didn't have to be 7 notes (even
though I understand there are reasons for 7 and it isn't TOTALLY
arbitrary.

I tend to feel strongly about the attitudes and presentation of teachers
because they have a big impact on people. I have no tolerance at all for
a "follow these rules, that's the way it works" no further explanation sort
of teaching. There's no harm in overwhelming a student by showing that
an answer may be beyond their comprehension and then simply saying,
you don't need to know this, but if you care later, I'm showing you that
it is there to learn.

-Aaron