... and the Berlin wall came tumbling down

[longfinger]

In music THE truth is that pure Cmaj7 chord tones are C, E, G, and B. There most certainly are pure, irrefutable, without a shadow of a doubt, hard eternal truths. But, art and interpretation are broad. (again, the separation between academics and art.) There is no doubt whatsoever that the facts are the facts, and there is no doubt whatsoever that most bass players don't know them. This is why I am here!

Still, I liked your thinking! And I know a lot of people who agree with you! And I do as well in many points of philosophy!

Too bad the other thread is closed... I wanted to respond...

About what you wrote above... Cmaj7 is only C E G B in a 7 note diatonic scale system. If we had an 8 note system with the new note H, then C E G B would actually be a Cmaj8 chord.

(C D E F G H A B C)
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1)
Cmaj7= 1 3 5 7 = C E G A
Cmaj8 =1 3 5 8 =C E G B

(H = modern A) (A= modern Bb)
so Cmaj7 would sound like our modern C7
C6 would be C E G H

In the overtone series, between the fundamental and the 16th partial, there are 8 unique pitches (accepting octave equivalents as being the same note). Our musical ancestors chose to have a 7 note diatonic scale system to clean up the sound and avoid the semi-tone crunch that an 8 note system would have. This was done for aesthetic art reasons. A choice of Art.

So you can see that Cmaj7 is only C E G B once we accept human traditions based on art aesthetic, that has been practiced and then codified by academic methods, in order to preserve and pass down this art practice to succeeding generations.

The sound may be truth, but what we call it, and understand it as being is convention.


I'll chime in again later but the way I've heard music discussed in all the schools around here, is that the art comes first, the academic then condenses a lifetime of art creation in a manner that can be learned in months. As generations pass, 400 years of art can be learned in 4 years through academic means. Every generations revises their academic traditions to encapsulate the new art traditions of living memory.

In the other thread you mentioned that in order to speak French, you have to learn it first... yeah but in order to learn it, the language of French has to exist first. Language is created, and renewed through an art process spanning centuries. Academic practices ensure that a person can learn in 10 years something that took 500 years to create. They go together in a sort of "chicken and egg" process, but not really. When you get down to it, the art comes first. The art creates, the academic preserves. One can create without preserving, but one cannot preserve what is not yet created.

Again, I gotta go out now. I hope this thread is not closed by the time I get back. The threads on the BG side grow to quickly for me to keep up with....

I think one has to think beyond an individual lifespan to appreciate this most effectively.

take care...

 

[JeffBerlin]

Well, your problem is that you're asking irrational people to act rationally. There are too many people on here who believe that a disagreement means all out war. They don't know how to ask for clarification or accept a different point of view. So these people will never listen to what you're saying. They will never open their minds enough to see if what you're saying really works. These people have a great deal tied up their ideas.

I would agree with that. But, to clarity, do you mean that irrational people take exception to me because I try to education them to principles that are better than the ones that they subscribe to at the present time? In other words, they are mad at me for trying to show them something that they don't know? Could this be it?

 

[JeffBerlin]

Too bad the other thread is closed... I wanted to respond...

About what you wrote above... Cmaj7 is only C E G B in a 7 note diatonic scale system. If we had an 8 note system with the new note H, then C E G B would actually be a Cmaj8 chord.

(C D E F G A H B C)
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1)
Cmaj7= 1 3 5 7 = C E G H
Cmaj8 =1 3 5 8 =C E G B

(H = Bb)
so Cmaj7 would sound like our modern C7

In the overtone series, between the fundamental and the 16th partial, there are 8 unique pitches (accepting octave equivalents as being the same note). Our musical ancestors chose to have a 7 note diatonic scale system to clean up the sound and avoid the semi-tone crunch that an 8 note system would have. This was done for aesthetic art reasons. A choice of Art.

So you can see that Cmaj7 is only C E G B once we accept human traditions based on art aesthetic, that has been practiced and then codified by academic methods, in order to preserve and pass down this art practice to succeeding generations.

The sound may be truth, but what we call it, and understand it as being is convention.


I'll chime in again later but the way I've heard music discussed in all the schools around here, is that the art comes first, the academic then condenses a lifetime of art creation in a manner that can be learned in months. As generations pass, 400 years of art can be learned in 4 years through academic means. Every generations revises their academic traditions to encapsulate the new art traditions of living memory.

In the other thread you mentioned that in order to speak French, you have to learn it first... yeah but in order to learn it, the language of French has to exist first. Language is created, and renewed through an art process spanning centuries. Academic practices ensure that a person can learn in 10 years something that took 500 years to create. They go together in a sort of "chicken and egg" process, but not really. When you get down to it, the art comes first. The art creates, the academic preserves. One can create without preserving, but one cannot preserve what is not yet created.

Again, I gotta go out now. I hope this thread is not closed by the time I get back. The threads on the BG side grow to quickly for me to keep up with....

I think one has to think beyond an individual lifespan to appreciate this most effectively.

take care...

One has to start from somewhere and deal wiht the facts from there, no matter the historical age of a topic. You have to begin at the beginning and the beginning is always academic first and foremost. In fact, I would like anybody to list anything that requires learning where academics doesn't come first. Even the mother of a newborn says to her child, "Say MAMA!" Why? Because it is an academic methods to teach her baby. Make that list and let's look at it.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I would agree with that. But, to clarity, do you mean that irrational people take exception to me because I try to education them to principles that are better than the ones that they subscribe to at the present time? In other words, they are mad at me for trying to show them something that they don't know? Could this be it?

you wouldn't be the first guy to to be pilloried for being right.....remember the guys that were not convinced that people would ever want computers in their homes and the focus should be on huge central terminals

 

[Michael Case]

I would agree with that. But, to clarity, do you mean that irrational people take exception to me because I try to education them to principles that are better than the ones that they subscribe to at the present time? In other words, they are mad at me for trying to show them something that they don't know? Could this be it?

You are correct sir. Plus, on some level these people KNOW that they are not where they think they should be due to not knowing the skills needed to be a musician. When it gets pointed out they react in anger.

 

[JeffBerlin]

I think a strong music education should start at birth really, and I don't mean having formal classes for infants (that would be silly!), but just exposing them to musical concepts and ideas the same way they are exposed to speech and grammar, the alphabet/written language, morals and customs, etc. Sesame Street-type programs expose them to things like numbers, letters, colors, and shapes, but music is just used as a background device to help feed those concepts into young minds, rather than being taught as a concept equal to those things.

Music education in early school years is weak and fleeting at best, more like arts and crafts for music rather than actual musical concepts being explored.

I certainly wish I had been exposed to common musical language/grammar/notation and some foreign languages from the day I was born; I would be more well rounded today. Those things would be second-nature to me rather than exotic or nearly alien concepts to my brain!

This is my life that you just described. I heard music since I was an infant and I started to study when I was 5 years old. You pick up a few facts about learning that other guys who didn't share this history don't know about, include famous musicians as well. I'm not saying that I am better player than they are. I am saying that I know more about music and the myriad of different ways to learn it than they do.

 

[JeffBerlin]

You are correct sir. Plus, on some level these people KNOW that they are not where they think they should be due to not knowing the skills needed to be a musician. When it gets pointed out they react in anger.

I have no problem with this answer. Because, truthfully, I don't think that too many people can say why it is that they have a problem with me. In fact, I don't think that too many people have any problem with me at all. One reason is the number of opportunities that I have given people in my posts to spell it out for me. But, practically nobody has (one fellow did, but as I said, he is blocked by me). If most people can't say for sure why they are mad at me, then this might be the first day that they will think about it themselves and hopefully come to the conclusion that there really was no reason for it at all. But, if somebody still wants to advice me about their beef with me, then by all means, write in.

 

[JeffBerlin]

you wouldn't be the first guy to to be pilloried for being right.....remember the guys that were not convinced that people would ever want computers in their homes and the focus should be on huge central terminals

It goes way back further than that. Jesus, Galileo, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Gandhi. They were all villified until civilization caught up to them. Do I belong in this group? You are darned right I do! Am I as important as they are? Not even in the same ballpark. They changed the world. I'm just trying to change music. Not even close in their contrubution to humanity. But, I am still in their group, as anybody who goes against an uninformed majority is in their group. Musicians are blind, and they continue blindly following the advice of other blind musicians. Afromoose is blind because he wasn't even interested in finding out new principles to regard. He came in here ready for a fight, looking for those loopholes. True, he didn't have to accept my points. But, he was already determined to reject my comments no matter what he read from me or others. But, I am not blind to the greatness of musical improvement, and I notice that others here are starting to catch on to my points of view.

Still, ask questions and show me where I am in error about what I say and we can discuss it here.

 

[Jojabeau]

What seems to p#ss off so many readers is Mr. Berlin’s lack of timidity in expressing what appears to be a well thought out opinion. He is not interested (apparently) in reaching a consensus, finding a middle ground or making people feel better about beliefs that he considers to be counterproductive. Good! I don’t agree with everything Mr. Berlin has to say but thank God he is more interested in making serious contributions to music education than placating people who simply want to feel good about the rut they are in.

 

[JeffBerlin]

What seems to p#ss off so many readers is Mr. Berlin’s lack of timidity in expressing what appears to be a well thought out opinion. He is not interested (apparently) in reaching a consensus, finding a middle ground or making people feel better about beliefs that he considers to be counterproductive. Good! I don’t agree with everything Mr. Berlin has to say but thank God he is more interested in making serious contributions to music education than placating people who simply want to feel good about the rut they are in.

Well put!I don't find much benefit in reaching a consensus just to appease players. I certainly do when I am with people, to compromize and work with them, not against them. But, musical facts already speak for themselves and I want to share them with any interested party.

For example, I can't find any reason for anyone to use tablature, and I can't make up a smooth manner to use it even a little bit just to please some guys, because I know that tab cannot help anybody learn how to play better.

So your comment is correct about me. Incidently, if you wish to mention some points that I made that you find errors with, please mention them so that I can think about your comments. Thank you.

 

[metdistortion]

I am finding you quite pretentious.

 

[LarkinLondon]

My pathetic two cents:
People are getting angry because Jeff's message carries the weight of some divine superiority. And when you guys comment "people are just getting angry because they're not as good as they think they are", you're adding more weight to it. You're basically saying "People are insecure because they know we're better."

Could/Will academics make you a better bass player? Certainly. Will someone with academic knowledge be better then someone without it? We all know how subjective that is.

 

[projectMalamute]

In music THE truth is that pure Cmaj7 chord tones are C, E, G, and B. There most certainly are pure, irrefutable, without a shadow of a doubt, hard eternal truths. But, art and interpretation are broad. (again, the separation between academics and art.) There is no doubt whatsoever that the facts are the facts, and there is no doubt whatsoever that most bass players don't know them. This is why I am here!

Still, I liked your thinking! And I know a lot of people who agree with you! And I do as well in many points of philosophy!

Okay, I'm going to argue semantics here. I think the point is important.

The physical phenomenon of simple harmonic motion is a hard eternal truth. The relationship between the length of a resonating air column and frequency is a hard eternal truth. These things are true whether a human being is around to observe them or not, they are a consequence of the physical laws of the universe.

What Mr Berlin is talking about here is not the same thing. A Cmaj7 chord is spelled C-E-G-B not because of an eternal truth that someone uncovered but by definition. Of course it's a well understood definition and not subject to debate but it is a different category of thing then my other examples.

 

[JeffBerlin]

I am finding you quite pretentious.

OK. Please tell me why?

 

[JeffBerlin]

My pathetic two cents:
People are getting angry because Jeff's message carries the weight of some divine superiority. And when you guys comment "people are just getting angry because they're not as good as they think they are", you're adding more weight to it. You're basically saying "People are insecure because they know we're better."

Could/Will academics make you a better bass player? Certainly. Will someone with academic knowledge be better then someone without it? We all know how subjective that is.

OK. Thanks. My explanation is that I comment not out of divine superiority, but from 50 years in the field. Also, people will ahve to admit, there really aren't al ot of good bass players around. If many of them learn from the methods that are available and still aren't improving as player, doesn't this tell you that the methods that people use must be flawed?
Regarding people being angry with me because they aren't as good as they think they are, I think that my message has been that players who don't know their subject talk as if they do. But, I do appreciate your input. Thanks again and keep it coming.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Okay, I'm going to argue semantics here. I think the point is important.

The physical phenomenon of simple harmonic motion is a hard eternal truth. The relationship between the length of a resonating air column and frequency is a hard eternal truth. These things are true whether a human being is around to observe them or not, they are a consequence of the physical laws of the universe.

What Mr Berlin is talking about here is not the same thing. A Cmaj7 chord is spelled C-E-G-B not because of an eternal truth that someone uncovered but by definition. Of course it's a well understood definition and not subject to debate but it is a different category of thing then my other examples.

Interesting points. I regard this "definition" as irrefutable and worthy of learning. Other "definitions" include driving laws, medically irrefutable truths when related to humans, and that the definition of life is that it begins and that it will end.

Truth or definition or whatever term we call it, we can debate and discuss, and find loopholes and subtle questionable interpretations into whatever we wish to find flaws with. But, I suggest that one keeps their musical lives simple and just get to the stuff that will help you play better.

 

[PlanetEarth]

In the overtone series, between the fundamental and the 16th partial, there are 8 unique pitches (accepting octave equivalents as being the same note). Our musical ancestors chose to have a 7 note diatonic scale system to clean up the sound and avoid the semi-tone crunch that an 8 note system would have. This was done for aesthetic art reasons. A choice of Art.

I'm confused I read this as saying an artistic choice had to be made about an academic concept (making the premise 'diatonic scale system' is academic), doesn't the academic need to exist prior to making a choice about it?

Totally not trolling (promise), but would love some clarification, I'm actually a huge proponent of history as it relates to any discipline and find it very telling in how things evolve...


Going slightly OT:
However and ultimately the point of academic vs art is for naught in the context of this thread IMHO. If one subscribes to Jeff's teachings then so be it - otherwise each are free to turn the channel.

Ultimately all this arguing if for anything other than one inquiring with an open mind to resolve possible unanswered questions as an individual is wasted energy....

I don't think anyone is swayed by any of it, I know I'm not - I debated with Jeff at first to gain enlightenment into what he thought and how that applied to what I thought. After reflecting on it I decided I agreed with him and his rational made more sense (to me) than what I had been taught prior, and ONLY because of the conversation directly between he and I. Subsequent to that nothing anyone else said even remotely made me re-think my decision.

In fact in just a few very un-assuming/unrelated posts from Jeff speaking more philosophically from his decades of experience I found myself with a new head and enjoying music, and the learning process more than I have in 20+ years. I'm again in a place where I can't wait to get an instrument in my hands and am constantly thirsty for knowledge. With just that alone - my gigs the past few weeks have been more fun and liberating musically since longer than I care to admit....

Anyway, your mileage may vary - everyone should just keep in mind that there are some people who are here to learn from Jeff so when these conversation go off into left field that makes it hard for the rest of us - again, if your inquiries are genuine in order to rectify any personal conflicts with the information that's fine but a motive other than that serves absolutely no positive purpose....

I find it exhausting to weed through it all to get at the stuff I really want and am constantly on the fence about returning to this forum - I keep coming with the benefit of the doubt and the fact that..... Well, when I was getting started tunes like Motherload and Joe Frazier were standard bass repertoire pretty much unanimously with every bass instructor I was ever with right along with Ray Brown, Ron Carter, Jaco, et al. Guess what, this guy wrote them.....

Sorry for the rant - and longfinger, that's not necessarily pointed at you - unless you're trolling, but I'm making no judgement on that...

-PE

 

[metdistortion]

OK. Please tell me why?

It just strikes me that you think you're god's gift to the music world.

 

[JeffBerlin]

It just strikes me that you think you're god's gift to the music world.

Thanks for your honestly! I am not God's gift to the music world. I am an experienced musician who knows his topic (maybe better than most) and shares these thoughts with interested people. In every other subject there is, I don't have the experience nor the knowledge to talk as I do in music. I am quiet when I am around other voices of experience in other subjects. They are well read and experience in so many thing that I am interested in, that I must give them credit for teaching me and helping me to grow as a person in this world. In many ways, I regard them as God's gift to all of us to learn from, certainly me. In music, Charlie Banacos was God's gift to the music world.

 

[projectMalamute]

Dear god this makes my head hurt.

Too bad the other thread is closed... I wanted to respond...

About what you wrote above... Cmaj7 is only C E G B in a 7 note diatonic scale system. If we had an 8 note system with the new note H, then C E G B would actually be a Cmaj8 chord.

(C D E F G A H B C)
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1)
Cmaj7= 1 3 5 7 = C E G H
Cmaj8 =1 3 5 8 =C E G B

(H = Bb)
so Cmaj7 would sound like our modern C7

In the overtone series, between the fundamental and the 16th partial, there are 8 unique pitches (accepting octave equivalents as being the same note).

Our musical ancestors chose to have a 7 note diatonic scale system to clean up the sound and avoid the semi-tone crunch that an 8 note system would have. This was done for aesthetic art reasons. A choice of Art.

This is exactly what happens when the concepts of 'logical consequences of a set of definitions' and 'physical consequences of natural laws' get all intermingled and mixed up and used interchangeably.

Precise language from a musician on the street trying to get through a gig is not a big deal, precise language from an academic is important.