Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Have scales ruined music?
- Thread starter Manuel101
- Start date
All chord letters are capitalized regardless of major or minor. Minor chords are written (as an example) Cm, Cmin, C-.
edwinhurwitz
Supporting Member
Yes and no. Scales are liquid chords and chords are frozen scales.
The thing is, every note you play can exist within 1 or more scales or one or more chords. There are multiple chords that can exist within one scale. Thus, when you play that scale, it's not clear what the chord is and thus not clear exactly what the harmony is at that moment.
If you treat every note as a chord tone or tension, then it has a harmonic context and relationship with the notes that come before and after it because the chord organizes the notes in a scale into a harmonic context (tonic, dominant, subdominant, etc). By keeping those relationships in your ear, your playing will become a lot more harmonically interesting and coherent.
Running scales is a static experience. Running chord changes gives you harmonic movement and thus tension and release.
The scale thing became big with modal jazz. After that, people starting running scales a lot, but what Trane and Miles did with their modal work is continue to play changes, which gave their music much interest.
Next time you hear a guitarist who bores you, see if he's just running scales or playing chords.
Ultimately, it can be a really subtle difference, but if you think chords while you play instead of scales, your playing can get a lot more interesting. Organizing your playing into 3rds helps a lot.
honestly...if you listen to the radio these days ...you will realize that most of the songwriters are lacking in knowledge of scales, chords, keys ..just about everything music has to offer ...everything is is diatonic 3 chord or 4 chord formula ...so to answer your question ....**** NO!
As you can see elsewhere, the meaning of 'chord' is disputed,
and in any case, I already said I understand the 'chord is 3 notes' definition:
If only because triadic harmony is so common.topo morto said:
The help I need is for someone to answer my question: why should 3 be considered special?
On the other hand, when it looked like you used 'waveform' to mean 'partial' or 'harmonic', it looked like you needed helping out on that particular point...
If we're not here to help each other out... what's the point of these kind of threads?
If you'll read back a few posts, I've already said that sus chords are neither major nor minor.
This has been happening gradually for 400 years. It's because it takes commitment, effort, and work to learn it. And it isn't the fun part.
Masters like Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Mozart, and the gang, had a spectacularly high knowledge of harmony and theory.
The jazz masters in the first half of the 20th-century almost universally demonstrated a very high proficiency in composition and harmony. They had to in order to meet the standard of the day.
Today you can get away with anything and knowing nothing. There are many a "Guitar God" who doesn't know a diminished scale from a weigh scale. The standards of proficiency in these things have eroded to almost being extinct. It's evident anytime you turn on the radio; what passes for 'harmony' today would not pass muster with an Art Tatum, George Shearing, or Frederic Chopin.
Precisely. It's tough gettin' folks to get a grip on this. I think we should now veer off into quartal harmony just to really throw people off!
Votes for 2:
Károlyi, Otto, Introducing Music (1991), p. 63. England: Penguin Books.
"Two or more notes sounding simultaneously are known as a chord."
The Norton/Grove Concise Encyclopedia of Music, 1994, S.Sadie, ed. p.162
"Chord: The simultaneous sounding of two or more notes."
Votes for 3:
Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p. 67&359. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.
"A combination of three or more pitches sounding at the same time."
Any more votes? (Academic sources, not random internet dudes or 'theory books for dummies' that might try to make things 'easy'.)
Károlyi, Otto, Introducing Music (1991), p. 63. England: Penguin Books.
"Two or more notes sounding simultaneously are known as a chord."
The Norton/Grove Concise Encyclopedia of Music, 1994, S.Sadie, ed. p.162
"Chord: The simultaneous sounding of two or more notes."
Votes for 3:
Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p. 67&359. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.
"A combination of three or more pitches sounding at the same time."
Any more votes? (Academic sources, not random internet dudes or 'theory books for dummies' that might try to make things 'easy'.)
I can't remember exactly what the books were called, but I had two college theory textbooks that identified a chord as two or more notes sounding simultaneously. They weren't any of the ones listed here, though.
True enough. On the other side is the Guitar God who knows every scale and flashy technique, can play at hyper-speed, but can't play musically.
Excellent! Let's marshal the evidence the old school way.
Question : are Benward & Saker speaking in a purely tonal/functional harmony context? "Chord" in that sense is defined as 3 notes in Aldwell & Schachter's "Harmony & Voice Leading" (2d ed, p.8), but it is clear that the context is tonal harmony - it makes no claims for the validity/non-validity of 2 note sets as chords in other contexts.
For the 2 note argument, I offer 3 more:
-Perle, "Serial Composition and Atonality", 1972, p.109.
-Carter, "Harmony Book", pg.2 (2002, evidently an amalgam of earlier carter books.)
- The "concise oxford dictionary of music", defines a chord as "any simultaneous combination of notes" (p.142), (Although it does acknowledge that 3 note chords are most common.)
At the risk of being pedantic (hey, I have an honors degree in theory & composition - I'm by definition pedantic!) I think the problem here is context. Two note chords most certainly do exist, although not in the traditional harmony sense that most people think of.
GT
Precisely. It's tough gettin' folks to get a grip on this. I think we should now veer off into quartal harmony just to really throw people off!
I'm in.
Or let's go full bore (*ahem* bad pun) into set theory land and see how many people know how to play a 7-35 scale.... that's an old theory nerd joke, from an old theory nerd.
GT
Adding my first 2 cents,and is only my opinion
Music never ruin itself,is people that ruin the music,(what i get from Carol's interview).
But being music a vehicle of expression,some people use it to express bad or good things in different ways,and some do it in ways that annoys you,some in ways to destroy you,some in ways to amuse you,some in ways to depress you,some to attack you,some to relax you,some to inspire you. (obviously,Carol got affected by the way she heard people was making music,naturally,we all are music critics)
And some just do not care how you get it or affects you.
There are phases a musician goes through (some never stop to think about those phases,nor that they have to) where meanings reverse : like most people start playing to satisfy themselves,some never leave this stage,then later start thinking how their music is perceived,there is a need to be "liked" through the music,or through the technique,or through sharing one's feelings at playing,or through KNOWLEDGE.Now they are playing "outward" more than playing "in".Or find a balance for both.
Some do not even want to be "liked",is not their goal.
But for whatever reason we are playing,we are living an specific era,and we learn what is at hand,taking some things and rejecting others,there is only one constant : we need to learn them to know the difference and to be able to discern what we are going to use,what path to follow (and even though we can take another direction in the future).
If you never learned scales,there is no foundation to hate them,or to teach against them,same goes for chords,if you do not know them,you cannot go against them.
The advice is : YOU LEARN ALL YOU CAN AND THERE IS,as did Carol,only then you can see what is people doing and take a stand,as she did.
It is very simple : you have to know you major,minor,dominants,suspended,diminished and so on chords or scales,you have to learn chord progressions for different styles,a little harmony,as a basis for a foundation.
Unless you want NO foundation,which is also another way of express yourself to the world of music.
Of course,you gonna start fighting against all musical instruments designed exclusively with foundation in mind (which is why guitars have frets and pianos have keys,and flutes have holes)(let's pretend fretless skip the frets,but not the notes,unless you are a martian and never hit the right notes on purpose thus no band will want you)
Instruments today are engineered for people to learn them,so...........you learn them.
Unless you do not want to,of course,just not be against those that do.
Scales and chords are all part of the same musical western culture we are submerged in.
Music never ruin itself,is people that ruin the music,(what i get from Carol's interview).
But being music a vehicle of expression,some people use it to express bad or good things in different ways,and some do it in ways that annoys you,some in ways to destroy you,some in ways to amuse you,some in ways to depress you,some to attack you,some to relax you,some to inspire you. (obviously,Carol got affected by the way she heard people was making music,naturally,we all are music critics)
And some just do not care how you get it or affects you.
There are phases a musician goes through (some never stop to think about those phases,nor that they have to) where meanings reverse : like most people start playing to satisfy themselves,some never leave this stage,then later start thinking how their music is perceived,there is a need to be "liked" through the music,or through the technique,or through sharing one's feelings at playing,or through KNOWLEDGE.Now they are playing "outward" more than playing "in".Or find a balance for both.
Some do not even want to be "liked",is not their goal.
But for whatever reason we are playing,we are living an specific era,and we learn what is at hand,taking some things and rejecting others,there is only one constant : we need to learn them to know the difference and to be able to discern what we are going to use,what path to follow (and even though we can take another direction in the future).
If you never learned scales,there is no foundation to hate them,or to teach against them,same goes for chords,if you do not know them,you cannot go against them.
The advice is : YOU LEARN ALL YOU CAN AND THERE IS,as did Carol,only then you can see what is people doing and take a stand,as she did.
It is very simple : you have to know you major,minor,dominants,suspended,diminished and so on chords or scales,you have to learn chord progressions for different styles,a little harmony,as a basis for a foundation.
Unless you want NO foundation,which is also another way of express yourself to the world of music.
Of course,you gonna start fighting against all musical instruments designed exclusively with foundation in mind (which is why guitars have frets and pianos have keys,and flutes have holes)(let's pretend fretless skip the frets,but not the notes,unless you are a martian and never hit the right notes on purpose thus no band will want you)
Instruments today are engineered for people to learn them,so...........you learn them.
Unless you do not want to,of course,just not be against those that do.
Scales and chords are all part of the same musical western culture we are submerged in.
edwinhurwitz
Supporting Member
OK, for the pedantic folks, yes, a chord is multiple notes played at once, but the point is not whether you play the whole chord or not but whether you think of the note you are playing as being part of a chord or a scale. Your brain fills in the other tones in the chord that you imply by playing that one note. If I play a G# and then an A in the key of A major, you can think of it as just playing two scale tones in the key of A, or you can think of it as a V-I resolution. If I play F#, G# and A, that could be a ii-V-I. If you think of your notes as always part of a chord, your playing will be more harmonically coherent. But I think everyone here knew all that.
What it comes down to is do you play music on your bass? Define music as any way you want but an instrument is designed to play music in some form or another. Chords, scales, melody are the same thing just played in different ways in different combinations and uses of the notes involved. Anyone that plays brass knows that chords cannot be played on a single instrument, but arrangements of brass instruments will bring chords to the fore as an ensemble of each of the different instruments playing in harmony, with a lead instrument playing melody.
Point being that brass players study chord and harmony approaches to music because it is a necessity to understand and make music. As a bass player you will learn songs and music from chord charts, not scale charts, not one has ever ever in over 40 years ever ever gave me a scale chart to help me play a song.
Carol is getting to the point, and it's taken out of context by the way, that any player that understands chords and their use, will play more musical ideas than anyone would ever do just by running scales.
Scales are an important part of learning to play, but pretty useless in the execution of your playing without a solid foundation in chords.
The big debate is whether to learn scales first or chords amongst teachers and players, but again they lead to the same thing for any player that learns them both fully, which is an interactive use of them both to make and play music.
For me I always start new players with scales. They simply exercise the hands, encourage dexterity in the fingers and allow a player to handle and understand chord theory much more easily when it comes up. Chord theory involves a certain amount of going in to intervals, harmony, dissonance and resonance, which for me is far to early for a player that cannot use their hands correct, where as with scales you can lay great foundations for what is to come.
Point being that brass players study chord and harmony approaches to music because it is a necessity to understand and make music. As a bass player you will learn songs and music from chord charts, not scale charts, not one has ever ever in over 40 years ever ever gave me a scale chart to help me play a song.
Carol is getting to the point, and it's taken out of context by the way, that any player that understands chords and their use, will play more musical ideas than anyone would ever do just by running scales.
Scales are an important part of learning to play, but pretty useless in the execution of your playing without a solid foundation in chords.
The big debate is whether to learn scales first or chords amongst teachers and players, but again they lead to the same thing for any player that learns them both fully, which is an interactive use of them both to make and play music.
For me I always start new players with scales. They simply exercise the hands, encourage dexterity in the fingers and allow a player to handle and understand chord theory much more easily when it comes up. Chord theory involves a certain amount of going in to intervals, harmony, dissonance and resonance, which for me is far to early for a player that cannot use their hands correct, where as with scales you can lay great foundations for what is to come.
