Re: Scales v. Modes



Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Since that doens't produce the same results as boiling it water, it's
> not
> > > much an analogy at all. My analogy is quite apt - both methods produce
> > > precisely the same results, but one allows you to say to you are doing
> it
> > > the "right" way, and one allows others to accuse you of engaging in
> "willful
> > > ignorance".
> >
> > OK. A better analogy.
> > "A car *is like* a small truck."
> > "A car is a small truck."
>
> And indeed, a car is *not* a small truck. But why is that distinction worth
> making? Because there are real life practical situations in which the
> difference is relevant. Whereas the difference you are obsessing regarding
> intervals over *has* no practical ramifications whatsoever. Hence, the
> analogy fails.

I never said it was a good analogy, just better than the previous one.

> > > I did. Try it yourself. There are very few occurences of the words
> "major"
> > > or "minor" in there,
> >
> > There does not have to be for my argument to be valid.
>
> This is the exact quote I asked you to defend:
>
> "That's why it's called a maj 2nd. It has NOTHING to do with the major
> scale".
>
> In other words, you were quite specifically saying the *name* major second
> had nothing to do with the major scale.

It doesn't.

> The article you referenced in no
> way supports this claim.

Then do your own Goddamned research. Once you do you're going to see
that I'm right and that you're just being ignorant, evidently willfully.

> > Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with
> > lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're
> saying.
>
> Well, I personally wouldn't choose to use this manner of speech in this
> instance, but yes, this statement is absolutely true and grammatically
> correct as is, without inserting the word "like".

Well then it's time to go read some books, 'cause you're wrong.
The fact that D-C is a min 7th interval has absolutely NOTHING to do
with the D major scale.

> > > > It should also be obvious that there was a time before the 7 tone
> scale
> > > > was conceived of, let alone used for any music making.
> > >
> > > Yes, but it is not obvious during this time, anyone would have had any
> > > reason for naming intervals in the way you describe. The idea that
> there
> > > are two thirds (one bigger than the other) is something you see only
> when
> > > you start constructing scales like this.
> >
> > The *intervals* came first.
>
> Again, I see no sense in which this is true. Intervals and scales are both
> just acoustic phenomena that have been around literally forever.

Nonesense. Look it up.

> The need
> to name them in this way would have come at roughly the same time - when
> someone took the overtone series and tried arranging the notes into a scale.

The need to name things according to a 7 tone scale system encompassing
a single "octave" came about with the advent of the diatonic scale.
This was millenia before the major scale was a gleam in anybody's eye.
Look it up.

Even what became known as the Ionian mode in Medieval times (don't know
the name of this scale prior to that) was hardly ever used for music
making throughout the history of Western music. Comments I've seen
elsewhere have lead me to believe that what we now call "dorian" was the
most used mode of the diatonic scale for much of Western music's
pre-Tonality (the major/minor key system) history. Ionian became popular
just prior to Bach's time, so popular in fact that a whole concept, that
of a key, became built around it. Because ionian was related to the idea
of the "major key" [a type of tonal center delineated by a central tone
or "tonic" and a major triad (a triad with one of the big thirds)
associated with that tonic] it became known as the "major scale".

> > > > You're saying that the major scale came first and that all intervals
> are
> > > > some modification of the major scale.
> > >
> > > I've never said anything remotely like that.
> >
> > Well it sure seems like that's what you're saying. It follows that that
> > is the way you are thinking from everything else you are saying.
>
> No, it doesn't. Feel free to provide a quote of where I've said that.

<Begin Snip>

> > Would you really say that the interval D-C "is a D major scale with
> > lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted"? 'Cause that's what you're
> saying.
>
> Well, I personally wouldn't choose to use this manner of speech in this
> instance, but yes, this statement is absolutely true and grammatically
> correct as is, without inserting the word "like".

<End Snip>

In other words you are saying this:
"D-C is a D major scale with lowered 7th and all the other tones omitted".

This is only the most recent time you've made such a statement. I need
not supply any more quotes. Your entire argument is predicated on this
idea that the major scale is some a priori entity on which all other
intervals are based. You are dead wrong about this. Look it up.

> I
> think it is pretty plainly obvious that both intervals and major scales have
> been around literally forever.

Absolute nonsense. Look it up. You're living in a dream world.

> It's the *naming* of these that is more
> recent. And I do suspect, but cannot prove, that the naming of the
> intervals that we use is related to the naming of the scales that we use.

Why not read some books on the subject or ask some college music theory majors.
Try visiting rec.music.theory and ask some of the music theory PH.D's
over there.
This is not hidden esoteric knowledge. By not looking into this you
remain willfully ignorant.

> You have specifically denied this, but have yet to provide even a shred of
> evidence of this - just a web site that doesn't address the topic *at all*.

You have not even supplied a web site that supposrts your claims.
Yet you claim to be speaking for thousands of musicians. Go figure.

> > > Of course it matters, if you're going to insist that there is any sort
> of
> > > fundamental difference between calculating a minor seventh your favorite
> way
> > > versus "seventh of the major scale lowered a half step".
> >
> > I calculate a min 7th according to the definition of what "minor 7th
> > interval" means. It has nothing to do with any major scale whose tonic
> > is the lower note of the interval. Nothing.
>
> Of course it does. They are both corollaries of the same acoustic
> phenomena. Maybe you don't see the relationship, but it's pretty plain to
> me.

In a world where the major scale was some a priori ethereal substance
supplied to us by God before man first ever attempted to make music you
might have a point. But that's a dream world. The real world and the
real history of music was nothing like that. You're dreamin' buddy.

> But in any event, if you're going to obsess about distinctions like this,

I'm not obsessed with this. *YOU ARE*.
My first comment on all of this was:
"This is sort of just semantics (or pedantics), but an important point IMO."

> it
> is worth noting that the fact that the "mixolydian scale" contains a minor
> seventh above the root

The mixolydian scale is defined as a set of intervals above a tonic (not
a root, scales don't have roots, chords have roots) following the
intervalic pattern:
tonic, maj 2nd, maj 3rd, P4th, P5th, maj 6th, min 7th.
1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 for short.
When used in a chord-scale relationship with a G7 chord this scale
contains a min 7th above the root.
A dominant 7th chord is defined as a chord built according to the
following intervalic formula:
Root, maj 3rd, P5th, min 7th.
It is no secret then why a mixolydian scale is such a strong choice as a
chord-scale for a dom7 chord.

> is not actually the reaosn it works well over
> dominant seventh chords.

The reason it works well over a dom7 chord is because the intervals in
the scale are complimentary to the intervals in the chord. This has
NOTHING to do with some major scale whose tonic is the root of the
chord. *NOTHING*. You and Albert Silverman are the only two people I
have ever encountered who believe this to be true.

> It is the fact that it contains a note that is the
> same note as the seventh of chord. So it is more funamentally true to
> define the note set in terms of the *chord*.

The chord is defined by an intervalic formula too. All chord types are.
Or is "G7 a Gmaj7 chord with a flatted 7th"?
If yes, then why is its chord symbol "G7" rather than "Gmaj7b7"?
Perhaps you prefer the latter.

> And of course, the chord
> traditionally is defined in terms of a major scales -

Nonsense.
A chord's type (maj, min, dim, etc.) is defined by its intervalic formula.
A chord's function within a key is labeled according to its position
within that key in relation to the tonic of the key.

> but not the scale
> built on the root of the chord. So if you want to get technical, this is
> what it is *really* about.

That's what Tonal harmonic analysis is about. It's not what scale
construction and chord construction is about.

> > > > There is no need to invoke an A
> > > > major scale in order to arrive at this pitch collection based on that
> > > > intervalic formula, unless you are shaky in being able to calculate
> and
> > > > name intervals.
> >
> > I honestly had no idea that anybody would, or could, ever take that
> > statement as being "inflammatory", even if they disagreed with it.
>
> You shouldn't go around saying people who do things differentlky that you so
> are "shaky" without expecting some fallout.

Well had I realized that you were so shaky in this area I may have
treaded more lightly. Sorry.

> > > This is insulting to a number of fine musicians and misleading to a
> bunch of
> > > potentially fine musicians in the making.
> >
> > Bull***. Let them speak up for themselves.
> > This is insulting to you for some reason, and I have no idea why.
>
> Becuase I'm a musician who calculate my note choices differently than you
> do, and I don't appreciate being told it is because I am "shaky".

Okey dokey. Ta ta.


--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
.