Most Important Scale (as per Scott's Bass Lessons)

[Spin Doctor]

IMHO explaining natural minor as "1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 8" in relation to major is fine. Explaining major as "1 2 #3 4 5 #6 #7 8" in relation to natural minor is every bit as valid.

Explaining major in that way is not just as valid. It's just confusing, since it is not the conventional mode of thinking. Theory is mainly used to convey ideas to other people. Your method is valid only if you are having a conversation with yourself.

This is a classic example of what Neil DeGrasse Tyson calls "Fuzzy Thinking", and this stuff is RAMPANT on TalkBass...

 

[Wasnex]

Confused about your statements like major 3rd as #3 but...
I will interpret it as a humorously-sarcastic post in the thread, "But what Scott would do..."

Confused about your statements like major 3rd as #3 but...
I will interpret it as a humorously-sarcastic post in the thread, "But what Scott would do..."

Read the post again. I am not advocating for using #3, it was intended to make a point. I prefer to use major third or a minor third. #3 describes a major third in a minor key...not that I would do it this way, but its the same logic as describing a minor third as a b3. IMHO both are problematic.

 

[Haroldo]

Union. (Rudy wants to buy youz a drink.)

 

[Wasnex]

Explaining major in that way is not just as valid. It's just confusing, since it is not the conventional mode of thinking. Theory is mainly used to convey ideas to other people. Your method is valid only if you are having a conversation with yourself.

This is a classic example of what Neil DeGrasse Tyson calls "Fuzzy Thinking", and this stuff is RAMPANT on TalkBass...

How about showing me where the logic breaks down instead of being insulting and using the straw man.

Most schools teach major keys first, but it doesn't have to be done this way. I have read arguments that support teaching minor first; I agree with some of the points. I am not advocating for this approach, but I did provide an example to show how the same logic could be used to relate the major key intervals to the diatonic natural minor key. Perhaps this is not convention...but it is not fuzzy logic.

I was taught and drilled on many facets of the major and minor scales: 1. the nature of each interval to the root, 2. half step/whole step/step and half relationships between each interval, and 3. interval relationships between parallel major/minor keys.

To comprehensively understand the differences between major and minor, #3 should be considered from both perspectives: Compare the minor intervals to the diatonic major key and compare the major intervals to the diatonic minor key. This is really just an extension of #1.

Accidentals should be applied when notes are non-diatonic. I don't think of a minor third as a b3 unless it is non-diatonic. Likewise, I don't think of a major third as #3 unless it is non-diatonic.

 

[Wasnex]

And I totally understand your logic behind that "strange" statement, but...
Here is my short humorously-sarcastic (!) take on that important subject.

Many many hundred years ago, there were 9 musicians. One time they gathered together and decided to create a grand grand grand grand grand x 2000 piano with just white keys.
Those nine musicians voted and eventually accepted prime modes as the foundation for all music. Three musicians who disagreed with it were put to death.
The intervals between those notes were "written in stone" for nobody to even think about changing it.
After some "bloody" rebellions, the World's Musical Committee (What?) agreed to add some extra notes without changing the modes given by Olympus.
And now you know the rest of the story.

P.S. It is nothing more than a humorous take on Modes and the intervallic relationship of those notes.
For serious knowledge, please consult specialists!

That sounds about right...In this story, I would obviously be one of the dead guys .

 

[Wasnex]

Check Dan Haerle's chord notation.
Cmin (maj7) as Cmin#7. (What???)

That's how I would interpret it, but the first time I saw the notation I would be W.T.F? If I were reading through a chart in preparation for a rehearsal, both would probably stop me in my tracks...unless I had recently read other charts with the same notation. I haven't come across Cmin (maj7) very often.

I believe I have seen Cmin+7, and IMHO this one is even less intuitive for me...I normally think of # as an altered interval and + as an augmented interval.

Cmin (maj7) is very clear but way too long for my taste. I would prefer to mix in a different lucky charm. CminΔ7...accurate and succinct.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Check Dan Haerle's chord notation.
Cmin (maj7) as Cmin#7. (What???)

Two things:
1) I have been teaching alongside Dan for 2 weeks each summer for over 20 years and playing concerts with him during this time. He's a total gentleman and great guy who was at the vanguard of the jazz education movement along with Jamey, David Baker, and Jerry Coker. He would be the first to say that chord notation is not standardized, and that in this case the "#7" is only meant to show that the chord is minor but the 7th is raised. I am guessing this is from an older source, because the past few years I've played with him when we played his tunes, he was more likely to use C-Δ (edited to use triangle stolen from @Wasnex 's post) for the same harmonic designation. Even that would be poo pooed by some who like their version better. In short, chord symbol notation is a vernacular that must be taken into account when looking at sources from other eras/geographical places.

2) This is copyrighted material. I'm not sure Dan would approve of this being posted, especially for the purpose of questioning the chord notation.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

On topic to the subject of the thread, I would agree that major is the most quintessential note collection to learn first. So much comes out of it that learning anything else first would be missing important context.

 

[Wasnex]

Two things:
1) I have been teaching alongside Dan for 2 weeks each summer for over 20 years and playing concerts with him during this time. He's a total gentleman and great guy who was at the vanguard of the jazz education movement along with Jamey, David Baker, and Jerry Coker. He would be the first to say that chord notation is not standardized, and that in this case the "#7" is only meant to show that the chord is minor but the 7th is raised. I am guessing this is from an older source, because the past few years I've played with him when we played his tunes, he was more likely to use C-^ (last symbol should be a triangle) for the same harmonic designation. Even that would be poo pooed by some who like their version better. In short, chord symbol notation is a vernacular that must be taken into account when looking at sources from other eras/geographical places.

2) This is copyrighted material. I'm not sure Dan would approve of this being posted, especially for the purpose of questioning the chord notation.

I personally didn't mean to question or poo poo anything. I like the lucky charms notations so C-Δ7 would be fine, although I kinda prefer the symmetry of CminΔ7. In my opinion brevity is important when reading fast tunes...or when someone has to scratch out the chord changes quickly for a hack like me. Cmin(maj7) is a real eye full and takes a lot of effort to write. A skilled musician should be prepared to instantly recognize and read all of them...it's really not that hard with a little practice.

 

[Wasnex]

We could write it as CmM7.

You could, but would you?

 

[Wasnex]

But what if we write that chord as Cmb8? drool

You have convinced me. CmM7 is perfect ...relatively speaking.

 

[Mushroo]

But what if we write that chord as Cmb8? drool

Or Baug#1

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I personally didn't mean to question or poo poo anything. I like the lucky charms notations so C-Δ7 would be fine, although I kinda prefer the symmetry of CminΔ7. In my opinion brevity is important when reading fast tunes...or when someone has to scratch out the chord changes quickly for a hack like me. Cmin(maj7) is a real eye full and takes a lot of effort to write. A skilled musician should be prepared to instantly recognize and read all of them...it's really not that hard with a little practice.

Didn't mean to imply that you did! But as someone who has taught theory for 25 years now, I know there are a lot of people who feel so strongly about notation that it can lead to crazy dustups. I once saw two musicologists get so animated over whether the ornamentation of a trill from a certain period started on the upper or lower note I thought they were going to have to settle the matter in the parking lot.

I have removed that snapshot of copyrighted material.
I have not questioned Dan's chord notation. My intent was to show that Wasnex had a good point on intervals, chord notation in previous postings, but I was, more or less, too ignorant to see it.

P.S. I truly like Dan Haerle's "The Jazz Language" and would recommend to everyone.

No worries, and it's entirely possible that Dan simply wouldn't care about such things. I'll bring it up discretely this summer.

Agree that it's a good book. It was originally released in 1980, which is about what I thought, and explains why that symbol appears as it does. Sometimes when there isn't a universally "right" answer authors just write what makes sense to them at the time, and things evolve as the times change.

 

[socialleper]

There are literally dozens of scales to use, but if there had ti be just one that a novice player picked up immediately, it would be major. A lot of songs are written around major chords.
In my genre it is all about the pentatonic minor, so I'd say do that one second.

 

[Jeff Bonny]

There is an underlying false assumption here that you will discover a "most important" scale that will remain for you the "most important" scale. Stop taking ideas simplified for beginners as uneditable gospel.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

From Hiroaki Honshuku Jazz Theory I class in New England Conservatory.


View attachment 3031222

Actually, I would welcome that as a student. It says "here is how I greatly prefer things to be here in this class". I would consider that fair warning!

 

[SteveCS]

Actually, I would welcome that as a student. It says "here is how I greatly prefer things to be here in this class". I would consider that fair warning!

I find that really confusing and contrary to everything I was taught ...
Intervals other than 4th, 5th and unisons are diminished, minor, major or augmented. 4ths 5ths and unisons may be diminished, perfect or augmented. Intervals are never flat or sharp - that honour is reserved for note names only. But I know nothing...

 

[Wasnex]

I find that really confusing and contrary to everything I was taught ...
Intervals other than 4th, 5th and unisons are diminished, minor, major or augmented. 4ths 5ths and unisons may be diminished, perfect or augmented. Intervals are never flat or sharp - that honour is reserved for note names only. But I know nothing...

IMHO, the document seems to have internal conflicts; specifically with rules regarding diminished 5th vs b5...maybe I just don't understand.

The logic of some of the preferences also seems inherently illogical. IMHO imposing such arbitrary rules would greatly hamper the learning experience. I.E. students spend to much time focused on complying with the teachers rules, when the priority should be learning the material. When I was going to school, I sometimes felt the process was as much about weeding people out as teaching a foundation, so maybe it makes sense if that is the goal.

 

[dtripoli]

Yeah, just gotta face the fact that the Major scale is the center of the universe.

So, with everything referenced to Ionian(major scale): 12345678
Dorian starts on 2nd note of the Maj scale: 23456782
Phrygian starts on 3rd note: 34567823
Lydian starts on 4th note: 45678234
Mixolydian starts on 5th note 56782345
Aeolian starts on 6th note: 67823456
Locrian starts on 7th note: 78234567

Practice all of them ascending, descending. Seems like a lot, but once you get it you got it.

Finally a simple explanation to what seemed like a complex issue

 

[Wasnex]

I think our Professor is talking about the chord's FUNCTION(!) as "There is no diminished FUNCTION!)" and not about the diminished 5th interval.
He uses that dim5th.

Perhaps I will reveal some more of my ignorance.

In my quite limited education, diminished and half diminished referred to a chord quality, rather than a function. Both diminished and half diminished were distinct and clearly defined so there was no room for confusion...thus the statement seems a bit obtuse, but perhaps I just lack the proper context.

Perhaps the random ø7 chord () might function as a viiø7 or iiø7, but only if we limit the discussion to major and natural minor forms. Or we could use hoity toity names like leading tone or super tonic as we did in school.

Perhaps it is fortuitous that I do not need the professors credit. The big rules do not make me optimistic for an enjoyable learning experience. Perhaps I would ace the content; yet fail the class for spite. Perhaps I would fail on my own merits. We'll never know as my days of making the dean's list are done.