Double Bass what mode is it?

[Eric Hochberg]

but it has the "#2" the note B instead of Bb. Hence the name "Locrian #2."

OK, now I get it... "sharp" 2, not "number" 2. Oh, brother...

 

[Eric Hochberg]

It basically comes out of the Chord Scale Handbook by Gary Keller. It's basically a different way of naming all the modes of the minor scales, i.e. Locrian #2 is the seventh mode of Jazz Melodic Minor. The book also discusses things like brightness/darkness of chords and how to utilize chord qualities as particular colors.

Thanks for answering my question. I did a concert with Gary and the Miami Sax Quartet last year. So that's what they were thinking about...

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Does anybody have a sharp 2 pencil I can borrow?

Or, alternately


What key do you do STOOP LOW in?

 

[Eric Hochberg]

What key do you do STOOP LOW in?

1b

 

[Marc Piane]

The saddest of all keys.


Invalid Link Removed

 

[Eric Hochberg]

Crazy, a la mode.

 

[Marc Piane]

phew, NOW we are off topic.

 

[lowb1970]

With the exception of singing

And rapping!

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

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.

I bet WARMBATON can hook you up.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Man I'm an idiot! Just realised the joke - you're a doubler!

Yep, he plays DB and doubles on grumpy old man. Hoo-ahh!

...Locrian number two...

 

[Paul Warburton]

Yep, he plays DB and doubles on grumpy old man. Hoo-ahh!

Just what the hell do YOU mean by that you god damn mother ****er???!!!!!

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Just what the hell do YOU mean by that you god damn mother ****er???!!!!!

Only that while you *do* double, AFAIK it ain't on slab, honey. Now take yer medicine and go to bed.

 

[Chrix]

With due respect Chrix I think you are missing the (or at least my) point. In my mind there are not sides and we are not talking about theory nerd vs feeling artist. Rather I am just asking why the OP wants a name for those notes. That's it. I feel like a broken record.

Of course it is all kosher but I want to help the OP learn. You know the Socratic Method (teaching by guided questioning) and all.

Indeed I most likely missed that point. It seemed this thread was going the direction of debating the merit of the math vs. abstract argument...Sorry about the confusion...


Sam,

I completely agree with everything you've said. I think trying to explain to kids the idea of playing a particular scale over a certain chord is the way to go. And in my own playing I don't think in this manner. I try to keep my ears open as well. Perhaps being in academia so long is tainting my view (Believe me...I'm ready to get out. I've been in way too long and need to stop thinking so hard about music and just playing...). I like your line about learning why and not purposely remaining ignorant. I think that's ultimately what I ask when it comes to these types of debates. Where does one draw the line between not wanting to think about music in such [over]definite terms and just pushing buttons and pulling strings just to do so?

I don't use this method, but wouldn't it be the 6th mode of MM?

It's actually the 6th mode of the jazz melodic minor scale.

Spot on...spot on. I screwed up. But I think that shows how much merit I give this method. (Plus I'd mentioned Diminished Whole-tone, which is the seventh mode of Jazz Melodic minor). Feh...


Sorry...didn't mean to get back on off topic...

 

[John Goldsby]

Spot on...spot on. I screwed up. But I think that shows how much merit I give this method. (Plus I'd mentioned Diminished Whole-tone, which is the seventh mode of Jazz Melodic minor).

Thanks, Chrix.

If we all take a minute and go back to read the OP's question, he's asking for the names of two scales. He doesn't know what they are called, but he knows they are scales that are commonly used in jazz. The names of the scales (the answer to his question): 1. whole-tone, 2. Locrian #2 (Locrian sharp two).

So—it is not a "method" to think about the names of scales and their construction. It's music theory. Since this is the theory forum, then it is appropriate just to answer the question and leave it at that.

We would not spend a lot of time debating whether the Ionian mode -- the major scale -- is good, or whether we should practice it, or whether it is a method. It's not a method; it's just what it is--melodic and harmonic material that you could use when you improvise.

Whether a bassist likes to know the names of the scales is a personal thing. Some players like to know the theory, some don't. Again, since this IS the theory forum, it seems better just to deal with the question.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Thanks, Chrix.

If we all take a minute and go back to read the OP's question, he's asking for the names of two scales. He doesn't know what they are called, but he knows they are scales that are commonly used in jazz. The names of the scales (the answer to his question): 1. whole-tone, 2. Locrian #2 (Locrian sharp two).

So—it is not a "method" to think about the names of scales and their construction. It's music theory. Since this is the theory forum, then it is appropriate just to answer the question and leave it at that.

We would not spend a lot of time debating whether the Ionian mode -- the major scale -- is good, or whether we should practice it, or whether it is a method. It's not a method; it's just what it is--melodic and harmonic material that you could use when you improvise.

Whether a bassist likes to know the names of the scales is a personal thing. Some players like to know the theory, some don't. Again, since this IS the theory forum, it seems better just to deal with the question.

John is of course right (as usual) here. This is a theory forum, and discussing theory is what it's here for. And the discussion of the philosophical aspects of when, whether, and how to apply theoretical concepts is also a legitimate aspect of most theory discussions.

Now that we've also let off some steam and everyone seems to have more or less kissed and made up, I wanted to add - as a theory teacher rather than a moderator - a caveat to the philosophical side of the discussion that may or may not lead to more discussion. As a theory teacher, while I am aware of many of the theoretical/technical issues involved in the analysis of music, I am also fairly wary of their misuse in the educational process. This wariness probably comes from having seen too many students who get straight "A" grades for understanding the technical aspects of harmony, scale construction, etc., but who don't seem to be very musical in their understanding when it comes to the application of these concepts.

The distinction I would like to draw is between music theory as defined by two very different words: descriptive, and prescriptive. I feel that music theory should be mainly descriptive, in that it should be viewed as a very detailed postmortem on music that has already happened. Most people can relate to the idea of hearing what they consider to be great music and then trying to figure out what made it so, in order to better understand and borrow from its greatness. i.e. - How did Kenny Barron manage to navigate these changes so logically and beautifully on recording X? If I transcribe what he played and analyze the results, I may be able to gain some insight into how he handled certain elements that typically cause me to stumble in the same framework. In this way, music theory can help to shed light on areas of music that were previously a bit vague or dark in the understanding of the student of the music.

On the other hand, when music theory is taught or viewed as a prescriptive entity, it can often do a lot of harm, as it tells students that if they simply follow a set of guidelines, meaningful music will be the result. Personally, I don't believe that this is a healthy outlook, especially as regards improvisation, where everything depends upon context which cannot be predicted.

The best of both worlds, IMO, is when music theory can be used to help build vocabulary which can be practiced and hopefully be integrated in an organic way into the improvisations of the person in question. Just as with language, building vocabulary is a good thing, but random insertion of "expensive" words into living, breathing conversations is not. John's description of learning to hear the concepts discussed in this thread in the practice room and then letting them find their way into situations in which they may apply is the best of both worlds.

 

[christ andronis]

John is of course right (as usual) here. This is a theory forum, and discussing theory is what it's here for. And the discussion of the philosophical aspects of when, whether, and how to apply theoretical concepts is also a legitimate aspect of most theory discussions.

Now that we've also let off some steam and everyone seems to have more or less kissed and made up, I wanted to add - as a theory teacher rather than a moderator - a caveat to the philosophical side of the discussion that may or may not lead to more discussion. As a theory teacher, while I am aware of many of the theoretical/technical issues involved in the analysis of music, I am also fairly wary of their misuse in the educational process. This wariness probably comes from having seen too many students who get straight "A" grades for understanding the technical aspects of harmony, scale construction, etc., but who don't seem to be very musical in their understanding when it comes to the application of these concepts.

The distinction I would like to draw is between music theory as defined by two very different words: descriptive, and prescriptive. I feel that music theory should be mainly descriptive, in that it should be viewed as a very detailed postmortem on music that has already happened. Most people can relate to the idea of hearing what they consider to be great music and then trying to figure out what made it so, in order to better understand and borrow from its greatness. i.e. - How did Kenny Barron manage to navigate these changes so logically and beautifully on recording X? If I transcribe what he played and analyze the results, I may be able to gain some insight into how he handled certain elements that typically cause me to stumble in the same framework. In this way, music theory can help to shed light on areas of music that were previously a bit vague or dark in the understanding of the student of the music.

On the other hand, when music theory is taught or viewed as a prescriptive entity, it can often do a lot of harm, as it tells students that if they simply follow a set of guidelines, meaningful music will be the result. Personally, I don't believe that this is a healthy outlook, especially as regards improvisation, where everything depends upon context which cannot be predicted.

The best of both worlds, IMO, is when music theory can be used to help build vocabulary which can be practiced and hopefully be integrated in an organic way into the improvisations of the person in question. Just as with language, building vocabulary is a good thing, but random insertion of "expensive" words into living, breathing conversations is not. John's description of learning to hear the concepts discussed in this thread in the practice room and then letting them find their way into situations in which they may apply is the best of both worlds.

..well said Chris...that's why you get paid the big bucks!

 

[Paul Warburton]

Sam and Janet evening,
You may meter stranger...

It had to be you, it had to be you. It had to be you , it had to be you, it had to be you.
It had to be you, it had to be you, it had to be you, it had to be you, it had to be you.
SOME others i've seen, SOME others i've seen, SOME others i've seen, SOME others i've seen, SOME others i've seen.
It had to be you, some others i've seen, it had to be you some others i've seen.
It had to be you, it had to be you, SOME others i've seen.

 

[Marc Piane]

On the other hand, when music theory is taught or viewed as a prescriptive entity, it can often do a lot of harm, as it tells students that if they simply follow a set of guidelines, meaningful music will be the result. Personally, I don't believe that this is a healthy outlook, especially as regards improvisation, where everything depends upon context which cannot be predicted.

The best of both worlds, IMO, is when music theory can be used to help build vocabulary which can be practiced and hopefully be integrated in an organic way into the improvisations of the person in question. Just as with language, building vocabulary is a good thing, but random insertion of "expensive" words into living, breathing conversations is not. John's description of learning to hear the concepts discussed in this thread in the practice room and then letting them find their way into situations in which they may apply is the best of both worlds.

Exactly what I'm sayin. Man you talk gud. You must be one of them edumacated college elitists and stuff. I bet you like arugula.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I have absolutely no idea what arugula is.

...

(giyf)

...


Oh. It's okay I guess. Still rabbit food, though. Put some bleu cheese on it, and I'll eat it. Of course, the same can be said of cardboard.

 

[Marc Piane]

Obama got accused of being an elitist because of some comment he made about the rising cost of groceries and a reference to arugula.