Or..The forum of ideas, concepts, musicianship, friendship and a good laugh every once in awhile!!!
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.
Double Bass what mode is it?
- Thread starter icie
- Start date
Marc, you've obviously been smoking *waaayyy* too much crack lately. If we were to do as you suggest, it would clearly be called a Mixolydian b3 b5 b6. This helps because the astute and nimble mind on the bandstand would easily be able to spot the symbol and simply play a dominant scale, only with a flatted third and a couple of other flatted notes. There's no way it should be called an "Ionian whatever" scale, because Ionian =Major and Major just isn't hip enough to cut it in today's "hipper than thou" scene.
Duh.
John Goldsby
Supporting Member
- Mar 4, 2003
- 1,172
- 2,160
- Disclosures
- Bassist @ WDR Big Band Cologne, Discover Double Bass, Conservatorium Maastricht, NL
It's actually the 6th mode of the jazz melodic minor scale. For example, you want to play over an Amin9b5 chord, (that would be an a "half-diminished" chord with a natural 9 on top - a beautifully modern-sounding voicing for a half-diminished chord). The appropriate scale to use on the Amin9b5 chord would be the C ascending melodic minor scale (also called the C jazz minor scale).
C ascending melodic minor: C, D, Eb, F, G, A, B
Starting from the note A, it would be called the A Locrian #2 scale:
A, B, C, D, Eb, F, G
It's similar to the "normal" locrian scale derived the the Bb Major scale:
A, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G
but it has the "#2" the note B instead of Bb. Hence the name "Locrian #2."
Of course you can use other scales, but the C jazz minor has all of the notes of the Amin9b5 arpeggio -- it works very well over this chord.
The reason to know it? It sounds good.
It also works nicely in a minor ii-V-I like this:
Amin9b5, D7#9, Gmin(Maj7)
when you use the appropriate melodic minor form over the three chords: Amin9b5 (C melodic minor), D7#9 (Eb melodic minor), Gmin(Maj7) (G melodic minor).
Moving the melodic minor scale up in this pattern gives a cohesiveness to the minor ii-V-I. In other words, it can sound really good, if you have mastered the technique.
As with any theoretical knowledge, you have to integrate the theory so you can really hear it, before you can improvise with it in a musical way. I've spent a lotta hours practicing minor ii-V-I progressions by moving the three melodic minor scales up and down.
There are many players who not want or need to know the theory to be able to improvise beautifully. As many here have pointed out, the theory is not the music, it is only a technical description of the music.
Some players do not want to know the theory -- others get distracted by the theory. It takes all kinds. My opinion is that it is good to know the theory (why not?), and still focus intently on how the music sounds.
John Goldsby
Supporting Member
- Mar 4, 2003
- 1,172
- 2,160
- Disclosures
- Bassist @ WDR Big Band Cologne, Discover Double Bass, Conservatorium Maastricht, NL
In the more abstract sense I'd say they're both expressions of thought being manifested by different means each with a certain governance.
But to your point: Albeit "why" is not needed to answer the question it's a very important question. With "spoken language" a word or phrase with no context is pointless (though each word still has a definition); And with a random group of notes, recognizing its pattern is negligible compared to how it might function within a complete piece (though that pattern is still definable).
Forums... you gotta love 'em - the battle ground of one up manship!
I HATE to stoop this low, but go play with your bass geetars.
Wow,
Interesting and thoughtful comments from lots of you. I hope I didn't come off as sounding like I was for or against any particular attitude (theory nerd vs. free expressionist). I think they both have their place (as do all the gradients in between and beyond).
I totally agree that "why" is an important question to ask. I wasn't really responding to that post, I quoted the one that got me thinking. I guess I've answered the "why" for myself, and I just assume others have as well. Maybe I shouldn't.
Did the OP ever answer the question "why"?
Interesting and thoughtful comments from lots of you. I hope I didn't come off as sounding like I was for or against any particular attitude (theory nerd vs. free expressionist). I think they both have their place (as do all the gradients in between and beyond).
I totally agree that "why" is an important question to ask. I wasn't really responding to that post, I quoted the one that got me thinking. I guess I've answered the "why" for myself, and I just assume others have as well. Maybe I shouldn't.
Did the OP ever answer the question "why"?
You lie when you say you hate to stoop that low. You loved every second of it, didn't you?
I think I need to smoke way more to understand what the heck Planet Earth is talking about in post #46. Either that or I need to find out what he's smoking and where I can get some.
Either that is an attempt at banter, but in poor taste - or it's just in poor taste full stop... either way, was it really necessary?
People often forget on these forums that the simplest joke, or bit of banter can quite often be misinterpreted, as I've seen many times. I would of thought that quite obvious really. If you hate to 'STOOP THIS LOW' as you put it, then why do it?
Either that is an attempt at banter, but in poor taste - or it's just in poor taste full stop... either way, was it really necessary?
Thank you for so eloquently proving my original point about one up manship. Playground bullies aren't welcome on this forum. Perhaps the forum admin could step in point that out?
I took it as an attempt at banter/humor, as consistent with the turn toward off topic silliness the thread has taken since the actual question posed in the OP was answered in post #2. The forum admin would like to point out that making jokes is not illegal on this forum. If anyone has a problem something someone posted, they are free to report that post. If someone has a problem with the moderation, they are free to report that, too. In the greater scheme of things, as a moderator I would prefer not to have to step in and edit threads where people are just joking around. If I have to i will, but I would prefer not to.
What I see in the tattered remains of this dead horse flogging is a bunch of DB forum regulars hanging around and chewing the fat, and one person telling them not to chew with their mouths open. Since the thread question has been answered, I don't see anything wrong with guys having a little fun. When the rules really get broken in a way that is clearly not an attempt at humor, that's different (BTW, questioning the moderation in the open forums is also against the rules, but we try not to be to Orwellian about enforcing the letter of the law down here when we can).
Please everybody, can we just resume the unbridled jocularity?
Please everybody, can we just resume the unbridled jocularity?
And, of course, the discussion/debate over the uses of the mode called "Locrian #2", and the philosophical issues related to the practical uses of theoretical concepts in actual musical practice.
I took it as an attempt at banter/humor, as consistent with the turn toward off topic silliness the thread has taken since the actual question posed in the OP was answered in post #2. The forum admin would like to point out that making jokes is not illegal on this forum. If anyone has a problem something someone posted, they are free to report that post. If someone has a problem with the moderation, they are free to report that, too. In the greater scheme of things, as a moderator I would prefer not to have to step in and edit threads where people are just joking around. If I have to i will, but I would prefer not to.
What I see in the tattered remains of this dead horse flogging is a bunch of DB forum regulars hanging around and chewing the fat, and one person telling them not to chew with their mouths open. Since the thread question has been answered, I don't see anything wrong with guys having a little fun. When the rules really get broken in a way that is clearly not an attempt at humor, that's different (BTW, questioning the moderation in the open forums is also against the rules, but we try not to be to Orwellian about enforcing the letter of the law down here when we can).
Please everybody, can we just resume the unbridled jocularity?
Fair enough. Please note though, that I did actually edit my post as not to include the question to the admin, correcting my mistake. Just so you know.
If you follow my posts throughout this thread, I would of thought it fairly obvious that I was making banter too with other TB-ers. I still feel though that the post by 'Paul Warbuton' was a little harsh and out of context with the so called jocularity as you put it. But that's okay I guess! Each to their own........
I love the way that threads go way off topic on this forum
Derren, my post was a feeble attempt to quiet down your sarcastic remarks about how we do things over here.
I know i've been a bad boy.
I doesn't really matter - I was just unsure on how to take you're original remark, especially as I had actually contributed to the original OP's question properly, and was merely making the observation that the thread had gone in a slightly weird direction. I was just making light hearted jibes at the fact, as were other posters too I might add.... It just goes to show how easy it is on such forums for quite innocent remarks, mine, yours and others can easily be misinterpreted. As long as it wasn't a malice comment that's cool.
