Re: What's the relationship between scales and chords?

On Mar 2, 2:39 am, "David Webber" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"LJS" <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:cfa40538-11ab-47d3-9bc7-c086a4c94257@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Feb 29, 11:13 am, "Steve Latham" <llat...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Excuse me, but this makes no sense. VM7 according to the UC notation
that was suggested as STANDARD would logically have this as per
example in the key of C: a V or G chord with a diatonic 7th. That
would be the LOGICAL assumption of anyone that was not in a small
group of musicians that agreed otherwise. If, as suggested below, the
modifiers only applied to the minor chords that were written in UC and
then changed back to minor with the addition of the "m" and the "M"
distinction has a totally different meaning and then modifies the 7th
instead of the V!! I am sorry. In either case, how does this possibly
become a logical way of reading what is there.

The next step would be to take a Vm7 and say that it was a Gminor
chord. with a ... what kind of 7th? The "M" and the"m" occupies the
same place and both examples are not standard colors for the function
indicated. i.e. the modifier in one example is for the Chord Color and
in the other it is for the added 7th. Neither the G B D F# or the G Bb
D F are Dominant 7th chords.

If Steve and David wants to agree on this, that is fine, but if this
is supposed to be clear to someone that does not have the decoder
ring, well then it is just silly.

Sorry - what I am I supposed to have agreed on? [I have no place for a
capital M. If you want a minor 3rd, then write m; if you want a major 7th
then write maj7 ^7 or ^. And C^9 has a major 7th - the 9th is major by
default.]


Not really very much. A small point really. The agreement was not the
problem, but by its very nature, if you have to agree to do it one way
one day with one group and another way on another day with another,
then it just isn't using a standard, it is adapting to fit the various
audience that you are adressing. I never said that to explain things
in Cantonese is wrong, only that Mandarin is the standard. If you
speak to someone that does not use the standard (or in this case the
official) language in their dialect that you are assisting them with
the tools that they understand, but it still is not in the more
universal Madnarin. The very nature of having to do that shows that
one way of talking, although comfortable to the multi linguist, is not
the ideal way of looking at things.



The balance of this post seems to be centered around the symbols used
for typing or "fonts" that are substituted for the traditional ways of
notating colors and extensions. These are all fine. We all generally
accept the m7-5 as a clear way to indicate a 'half diminished' as we
don't have the slash/circle easily accessible on our keyboards. The
same is true for the Triangle for the maj7 as a modifier for the 7th
of a chord. None of these really change the more standard UC/LC
notation.

I take issue with the "more standard". A a mathematician, I take the
view that notation is supposed to be designed for the job in hand; a good
notation will help you express what you want to say. It doesn't matter if
it is different from someone else's as long as it is clearly defined.

I don't think that you have used this approach for your program! I
think that you researched and have seen the ways that are in use for
notation that has evolved with use. You may have a feature that would
write music in the old 4 line stave and with the conventions of the
old Church music, but you wold not pass it off as Standard even if you
were completely fluent in that notation. It would be good that you
included it, but that would not make it standard practice to the
music world.


If one is writing down music to be played, then a universal notation is
useful, as one person may play another's composition. (Even in the case of
a Hv chord from a German publication from the 1920s, if you know that in
Germany H means what we call B and that the German word for diminished
begins with v, then you're home and dry.)

If you're just analysing, then define and use the notation you want.

Thank you. That has been my point through out. You may use whatever
you need to address the music. But a chord spelling system is just
that and is NOT the standard for ANALYZING. Unlike your usual to the
point responses, you seem to be confused as to what I have been saying
or I have not successfully made the distinction. Your above sentence
does not disagree with my views. The paragraph, however, is talking of
something different. Here is an example of a GERMAN (not English)
example that does indeed follow the same rules that would be applied
in the SPEAKING language of the author and audience. Hv is a literal
translation of Bdim. They both mean the same thing and I don't think
that any German speaking reader of the German theory book would
certainly know this.



They are short hand similar to "lol" or "IMHO" or "IIRC".
They are simply symbols of slang

Neither the music notation nor "lol" are "slang" - they are "conventional
abbreviations". [The really funny thing about the dictionary of "slang"
which was referenced in a recent post is that "arse" is listed as slang.
How it got in there I don't know, but it is a perfectly proper, and very old
word. The word "ass" means a donkey, and grew up (I would guess) into its
current usage in the USA as a euphemism for the proper word, like "Gosh"
instead of "God".]

Well, although there are text messaging dictionaries, they are still
not bona fide words. They are short cuts, some call this slang. And I
used the term "similiar to" in the comparison to what some would say
do not belong in the UC/LC notation. Some Jazz people will consider
slash/circle as half diminished to be non standard while some
Classical people may not accept m7b5 as part of the language. Both
cases are examples of prejudice and neither is correct. Each one wold
think of the other as using "slang" of something similar to this. In
relait


...
...
BUT then, there is that color thing with the chord. You must remember
that if it says just C or F or G that it is major, but we have to
write in the same modifier used with the Alpha system in the original
key of the tune, that being the "m" for minor and then we still have
the problem that this occupies the same place as the modifier for the
7th, 6th, 9th

I think the problem is that most of us don't find this a problem.

I stated that any educated person would have no problem understanding
this. This was morphed into what you seem to think I said when I spoke
about this changing the order of the modifiers without a definition of
what the changes meant. We as experienced musicians are Multi lingual
and have no problem with this. The students trying to learn to express
what is in their heads that have no formal training, however don't,
and as educators, we have not reason to pass off a shortcut for a
specific use as the standard for notation! That is what I have been
saying, nothing more and nothing less!


It is not a question of educated musicians being able to adjust to
deviant notation.

There we go again: "deviant" is a value judgement: I have no problem coping
with two views of something which are different, without having to think of
one of them as "deviant". [Conjugate he verb "to be normal": I am
normal; you are different; he is deviant. ]

True enough. I debated on the use of the work and did not use the one
that best showed the nuances of my meaning. Sorry. I think I must have
been caught up in the bigotry being cast towards the Jazz musicians at
the time. Sorry again for lapsing into this and I admit, of course
that I was wrong to use the term "Deviant" in the context that it
appeared. Thanks for pointing that out. I will try to not make that
same mistake in the future.


Of course we can all do this. The thing is that many
of us are educators as well, and this type of thing only gives the
student more useless things to occupy his mind..

Useless to whom? Usually taking two views of something gives you a better
picture and a more complete understanding.

Not really useful for analysis! Useful for reading a fake book. That
is where this form of UC notation seems to have been rooted. And the
attempt to put them into a key IS useful for very elementary analysis
(or at least a key related verbal description of the chart's changes)
BUT for analysis, it is very limited. If one is to try to go into a
through analysis using this method, there will need to be plenty more
changes that are further reinventing a less round wheel. Again, not
what I had said in totality. I said that it has its purposes, but
analysis was not one of them.



and to stand in the way
of his being able to actually understand and apply the principles and
concept that are transmitted by this language.

But, yes, I dare say some cannot cope with it.

If they can not cope with the actual principles that are trying to be
described, then of course they won't be able to use the UC/LC to
understand it and they certainly won't be able to understand it using
the UC or any other language. If however, the principle has been
heard, and remembered, then it is simple enough for an educator (as
well as the astute self learner!) to then place this principle into
the student's repertoire of tools that he has at his disposal.

Some do not have the capacity to compose on the fly as is necessary
for Jazz musicians. That is why everyone does not do it. That does not
make them a bad musician and there certainly may be room for them in
the music business. The language will enable the capable student to
process more examples in an efficient manner. It is not a guarantee of
success as an analyst nor as an improviser. The language does,
however, provide a medium that will allow this to be learned. Without
this language people can certainly find other ways to gather this
information, but when you close the door to the entire non Jazz
Western musical culture by simply to aver that "its just too hard for
Jazz musicians to learn!) then this door is quite a bit less opened
than if the teacher says, " this is the way to study music to
understand why this and that happen and how you can use this in your
composition/improvisation.


I like the triangle symbol myself. The letters are so cumbersome, and m
and
M in handwriting can be easily mis-read. The triangle is pretty obvious.

The triangle is pretty well ACCEPTED, but not obvious unless one has
run across it. The caret to indicate it is somewhat obvious to those
that already know what the triangle means. But to a beginning student
this also necessitates that a key of some kind should be included.

Agreed - notation must be defined (which is why in my first message
introducing the caret I did in fact say that I was using it to represent a
triangle - which I too regard as generally accepted).

I think that's also one of the reasons we've gotten away from "-" for
minor - "A-" - could look like a stray mark on the page! So fonts have
hurt,
and helped in some instances.

Yes. But also, much music which intersts me uses notation like C-9 for
C7b9. (CEGBbDb) It dates form a time earlier than when people started
using - to indicate a minor 3rd. So I have never liked - for minor.
The m is fine. One also doesn't need mi or min, but some people like them.

Of course it is and I never said that it wasn't. There are forces in
this group that are very good at spinning what they read to suit their
needs. Let me repeat. I never disagreed with what you are saying
there. Again, you, me and anyone else that understands the principle
of a Dominant 9th chord in minor will know what this means no matter
what you call it. As you said, however, this starts at a time when...
and you are NOT using this as a language for analysis. You are using
it to SPELL THE CHORD. We have learned this language and its
variations because we use it in our work. We are multi lingual!
(aren't musicians innately great!) This again is NOT in disagreement
with anything that I have said.



Mind bending, no. Useless and unnecessary, yes. Clearing the meaning,
no. Related to the original objection of the system, no.

It neither clarifies nor obscures the meaning. I find the choice between
IIm7 and ii7 neutral over all. If one is discussing a piece in a major
key in which harmonies are largely diatonic, then I would tend to go with
ii7. But if there are all sorts of chromatic notes I can just as easily
live with eg II7 (in either convention) and IIm7. In some cases I
guess you may want to write II7 as V7/V, in others not. Such notation is
there to help us express ourselves. I worry when someone tells me that
another way of looking at something is unnecessary. Nothing in musical
analysis is "necessary"; if an alternative approach helps some people, then
it is useful.

But Dave, The UC/LC is not the alternative approach to analysis.
Trying to claim the other methods as the STANDARD for analysis is the
alternate approach. Everything has some sort of a purpose. Everything
that you say in the above paragraph is not in conflict with anything
that "I" have said. We rarely disagree and by your post above, I don't
think that we are in disagreement here. Confused by what I have said,
yes, but you have not disagreed with my position on any point that I
actually asserted, but you have expressed some good questions as to
what some have spun my thoughts to suggest. My position is simple.
There is a commonly used language that will work for analysis of
functional music be it simple, extended, classical or jazz. The use of
this language for analysis is the most efficient way to compare music
from many different sources. It is wrong however, to try to convince
students that a different language is needed by Jazz musicians that is
easier to understand than the UC/LC is simply an attack on their
musicianship and intelligence. There is no innate complexity in the UC/
LC system. Is analysis a bit more complicated. Yes it is! But
Composition/improvisation is more complicated, the language used to
analyze is NOT.

LJS
ps. Just as a side light. You seem to play both ensemble parts as well
as improvising. Do you find UC/LC notation complicated? and needing 3
years to learn the basics? (well, I do hope that this was just an
exaggeration of time!) And if so, what part of this do you find
difficult? I don't see anything that is more complex than the UC
system in discussion, and I see many things that are easier and
simple. I did start with this, so maybe it was easier tor me because
of that, but it certainly did not take very long to look at a piece of
music, reduce the intervals to thirds, see what scale step they
occupied and then if it was major us an UC and if it was minor use a
LC. If you know the scales, and the intervals and the basic definition
of the chord, where is the rocket science here?



Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question for Joey
    ... order of a half diminished chord could not be a ... Joey, I never said it was not! ... the look of the "V of" or the V/II notation. ... I can read your language quite easily. ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Question for Joey
    ... tonic would not be considered as a functional half-diminished chord. ... like the look of the "V of" or the V/II notation. ... I can read your language quite easily. ... exactly is the SUB different than that? ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Whats the relationship between scales and chords?
    ... example in the key of C: a V or G chord with a diatonic 7th. ... same place and both examples are not standard colors for the function ... same is true for the Triangle for the maj7 as a modifier for the 7th ... view that notation is supposed to be designed for the job in hand; a good notation will help you express what you want to say. ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Whats the relationship between scales and chords?
    ... VM7 according to the UC notation ... example in the key of C: a V or G chord with a diatonic 7th. ... same place and both examples are not standard colors for the function ... same is true for the Triangle for the maj7 as a modifier for the 7th ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: total begginer
    ... > standard notation, nor are they part ... A dominant seventh chord on either ... fair game, is communicating information amoung musicians, musicians familiar ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)
Loading