Is this part of any scale?

Notice, that's pretty cool. To me, it's a modified major scale and it's harmony. It takes a ton of experience to think on a dime in a jam. It's (harmonic major) a basically useless scale for jamming and writing. I use major scales and pents in a very unique way. The logic covers nearly all situations on guitar, a player can encounter in a lifetime. Major, pents, whole tone, diminished, quartal and tertiary harmony is about it, to know. Without becoming to verbose or erudite.
You are correct in G = F maj scale concerning the modal ditty. I don't think it's real important with a good and logicial bass player. I just don't think it's nice to make this more complicated. An example: dim7 and dominants and so forth. Classically, this can be excrutiatingly complicated. (Aug6) Ultimately, you may be right. A lot of people fall in the cracks with one point of view. Terms need to be more uniform. Haphazard learning can create chaos. I'm not sure that's a wrong thing. It gives us something to do. I wish there were more than 7 POVs. There's a reason why any decent college in the nation has a jazz studies curriculum. The irony is that it all winds up to the same thing. That's mean, to me.

Actually every scale you will every come accrosst is a modified major scale at some end or another. The major scale is just the fundamental of music, period. I think the harmonic major scale is useless for a guitarist, the bass player can get use from it. But it's is better left untouched, unless absolutely wanted. Everything you need to harmonize over a major chord is in the major scale, the b6 is an extreme option. Actually quite dissonant on the bass end, as a bass player myself. I know.

If I made that last post difficult to understand, I apologize. I try to make it as simple as possible because I know the person who would get something out of it is new at it. Most of the more experienced players on here, already know it so theirs no need for a advanced discussion about the topic in question. Unless I'm B.S with that person. :) I do try to make my explainations in depth enough so it is completely understood, though.

I too would like other point of views, music is a point of view subject. Everybody has their own way of doing things, and maybe someone on here finds the harmonic major scale beneficial. That's kool, I would love to hear about it.

Yeah sometimes the first thing I will do with a post I don't necessarily agree with, is challenge the idea. But that's what your supposed to do as a theorist. A theorist job when discovering a new theory is to try to discount it (even one's in books), and maybe second because some are afraid to try to discount it themselves. I'm not trying to be a d**k about it, but that's a part of learning. I do respect everyone on this forum, and I hate when it becomes an arguement.

Jazz theory is great to learn and understand, but the ultimate thing about music is playing what you want to hear. Music is a hearing art, not a science. You could be albert einstein and completely suck at music, intelligence is low on the list when it comes to being a musician. Not saying musicians are of low intelligence, but it's more of a feeling art. Mozart's music is qouted to make people feel like their flying, and blues music is meant to make you feel sad or maybe remember something along that line. Music is the power to carry the listener into the mental state of the composer. Make them feel your music, worry less about the intellectual side of it.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-12-2003 at 12:14 AM]

"Intelligence is low on the list when it comes to music"!?!?

I think Intelligence should be high on the list no matter what your doing, except maybe sex.

Some composers wrote music in very scientific factions, take bach for example, his music is Very mathematical.

Music is art, and art knows no boundaries, so if someone creates a melody using a tone row is that melody not valid?

BTW, saying Blues music is meant to make you feel sad is a stereotype. I've heard plenty of funky blues tunes that we're not meant too make you feel sad. I've also heard plenty of blues tunes that we're quite funny and made me laugh. When I listen to SRV or Buddy Guy I don't feel sad.

Saying Mozarts music makes you feel like flying is quite a generalization, Mozart wrote a lot of music and not all of it makes you feel like flying, not even 50%, hell, not even 10%. When I listen too Mozarts Requim I don't feel like flying, I feel like dying.

Sorry about the lay in, you usually write quite intelligent posts. I just have a thing with generalizations and stereotypes, they can lead too misinterpretations. you should say something like this: Blues music was originated by the slaves as a way of relieving emotional tension. Hopefully we have come a long way since that time and the blues form can be used for more then expressing grief.

Exactly, the feeling you get is what I'm talking about. I didn't mean to make specifics and generalization, any feeling from music. If it makes you laugh, cry, and any type of emotion or feeling from the music. That's what I'm saying. Music, I think should follow that instead of the intellectual side.

Maybe I should rephrase that, intelligence is not the most important attribute when it comes to music. Of course it is required, and you need it to anything inculding music. What I'm saying is you should follow the sound, not whether it's a scientifically correct.

What I'm trying to express is follow your heart when you play. I know that sounds kinda of corny, but it's the most powerful tool you have. Don't worry if your staying in the original key, if that's what you want to hear. Do it, don't hesitate. Follow the music, use the science later. If your going to write a sad song, play notes that sound sad to you. Express the emotion you want to convay. When people listen to music they feel the music, most don't look at it as wow that guy/gurl is playing a perfect mathematical symetrical sound. Mozart's requiem is sad because it's meant to express the mood of dying, hence the meaning of requiem. Listen to all the notes, they're sad sounding. Make the music based on the emotion or feeling you want to convay. Then use the science to understand it. This is why when to take music theory and they make you analyze music; for you to be able to analyze your own music and understand it, not so much how to write music scientifically. Your right music has no boundaries, starting a song with any idea before hand is setting boundaries. Just follow the music.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-12-2003 at 11:00 AM]

Bach isn't actually known much for a composer, which I don't gives him justice, but it's partially true. Most of Bach's work is theory study because he was showing the world how to understand music. I would say he's like Bruce Lee teaching the world martial arts, but bach introduced music understanding to the world. Before him it was strictly church study, I'm not a historian but I know that. He had some compositions Fugue in D minor and the brandenburg concertos (sc), but most of his compositions are theoritical. Still the godfather of modern music.

Music is basically the power to influence. As a musician you have the power to make people sad, make them happy, make them angry. It's actually god-like, or control by hypnotism. Everybody is influenced by music, when you hear a heavy song when your driving down the road you get pumped. Then a slower tune comes on and you lay back and enjoy. Music does this whether you notice it or not. Here's another way of looking at. Chris, I think of you more into the blues/jazz side of music. Well why do you like that music?? Yeah maybe there's a great guitarist you admire or a band, but there's alot in other types of music. Why that kind of music?? It's the fact that you like the sound, influence, or feeling you get from that music. Not the genre in particular but maybe a band. It's still the samething, you enjoy how the music makes you feel. And now even the way you carry yourself is influenced by it. No stereotypes, I'm not taking about that. Your surely different from the next guy who may like the samething you do, and not everything is influenced by music. I know you know what I'm talking about.

You probably like other types of music, matter of fact I hope so. What makes you like those kind of tunes. You like there sound, and the feeling. That's all music is, feeling. That's why intelligence isn't the most important thing. To be an great musician, above all you need to know how to convay feeling with music. Intellect can't give you this. You just have to listen to what you play and pour your heart into it. If your going to write a sad song, write it to where it almost brings tears to your eyes. That way you know your audience will feel that too, and you will blow them away. And don't be afraid to do it, it's a big leap to put yourself on the line with your music. Most don't make that leap cause there afraid, but trust me you'll be the musician you always wanted to be with that leap. You'll enjoy your music probably more than you enjoy the music you wish you could do now. I barely listen to music anymore, I'm not egotistical but I like my music better. I'm not pointing this to anyone in particular, but to anyone who hasn't leaped should trust themselves.

A blues songs may be sad because it's about your girlfriend cheating on you, then the next song may be happy sounding cause you shot the bi--- "gurl".

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 02-12-2003 at 12:02 PM]

I find my favorite musicians are ones that use both science and emotion in there playing/compositions. The emotional aspect is what you notice within the 1st listen, but it is the scientifical aspect that keeps it from getting boring and requires additional listening too fully comprehend.
Guitarists that rely on too much of the emotionally aspect; Santana, great tone and he can really make the guitar weep, but can get quite predictable and sappy.
Too technical: Vai, Yngvie, its cool from a technical point, but again can get quite boring fast for the lack of emotion.
You really can't denounce one or the other (emotion/science)for I think you need an equal amount of both to be a good musician/composer/arranger or whatever.

I agree. I don't discount the science of music or what it brings to the overall musicianship. It's actually balanced as you said, with each having it's only part in the complete composition. Emotion bring the sense of the song to life, and science makes that sense into a grand picture. Science also bring the understanding of what the music is made of, so natural you, as a musician, are going to dig into it and want to understand it. One can not exist without the other. If you just used emotion, your songs would be very plain. If you just used science your songs will probably have any random sense or worse no sense of itself at all. What I see alot of is, these equations like if you want to play something in a scale, you take all the notes and divide them by this, and you will get your chord progression. If it works for people that great, but I'm sorry. What art is in that? I could go roll a 12-sided dice and use that, and make it work. Or just spat out random numbers and make it work. Or any number of things that don't take true creativity.

The thing will Santana is that he's plays the same style over and over. The spanish romance type thing, which leads me to believe he is more of a scientific guitarist. He found something that works and he uses it. Of course he does have emotion in his music, but only one. There are many others, yet he chooses not to utilize them. A talented guitarist but too predictable, I also believe.

Yngwie actually comes up with some good solid music. Of course, when he's not ripping off bach or soloing. He has some songs that do hit the heart. I have the cd of his "facing the animal", he does have some nice tunes in that.

Vai is the same way. I don't think there is that many respected musicians who lack in either. Of course some choose to favor, but they both have to be there for someone to what to listen to them. Reemeber there are more than a couple of feeling you can get from a song. Some are more powerful, and those are classics.

Alot of people take the idea of I should only play what sounds natural. Like you said the dim chord always wants to resolve a 1/2 step. Of course thats right and it sounds natural, by why not resolve it to something other than that. Science used as a barrier! Sometimes you don't want a natural movement. Especially if you follow yourself, you find alot of unnaturalness. You want that dramatic change, take a live band coming out to a soft tune, then bang they start rocking. The crowd goes crazy, there's emotion there and evokes this. EVen if it's something you can't put into words. A dramatic side which is exciting, then there the Santana side who desires the move natural emotion. Even if you look at a picasso painting which is very dramatic in the artistic sense, it's not natural it's art and it's leaving an impression. Like a good song leaves an impression.

Everyone has there own way to approach music, especially the writting process. Music itself is a hearing art, so science itself is a limiting factor. When I say science I mean music theory, and music theory has rules. If art is freedom, then music theory is the secret police. You can't do this, you can't do that. What freedom is that? This is even noticed after a guitarist has been playing by those rules for a couple of years, they start altering scales. HAHA. Now they finally reach the point where they pay attention to their ear, and not rules. I just say bridge that and start with following your ear. The ear is the translator from heart to guitar. When you hear a melody in your head, are you thinking scientifically or by the way it sounds??

And you know once you get that idea down, you go ahead and your use what you know about music theory and apply it. Like if you have a melody, you use some science to put together a chord progression behind that melody. Still ultimately judged by your ear, and the understanding helps alot.

If you choose to use science first, you follow it's rules like a jazz progression follows this. So in the end you just wrote another jazz song that sounds like every other jazz song. Where's the art, creativity, or uniqueness in that?

I agree with what your saying, that there comes a time when you forget about the rules and just make music, and it is a pure sense of nirvanna once you reach this platue. But I see 2 flawls in what you are saying;

1) How can you learn to hear something that you don't know exists? One must 1st learn about the scale and it's make up before they can start to hear it. I think this especially true with man-made scales such as diminished and whole tone. The major scale emulates the sound of nature, so our ears are used to hearing this, but other exotic scales have to be heard before are ear can start to write melodically w/them. So it comes to the point what came 1st the chicken are the egg (science/emotion)

2) I feel it is a major misconception that learning theory will inhibit your creativity, you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are. I think the ear naturally hears the diminished chord resolving by half step, so one must teach oneself not to resolve this chord by half step and "learn" the sound this will emulate. I think if you don't learn theory chances are your jazz songs will sound a lot like everybody else's vrs. if you do.

Actually, you backed up what I saying with what you thought we're flaws. I may have not been clear enough on it. I'll try to explain, and most I agree with. The bottom line is that when you talk about hearing something or associated with sound, that what I'm supporting. Science of music is a different matter, it is made to make sense of organized music.

Originally posted by chris mood

1) How can you learn to hear something that you don't know exists? One must 1st learn about the scale and it's make up before they can start to hear it. I think this especially true with man-made scales such as diminished and whole tone.

I've had a discussion with griphon about this, I think it was him. The inner ear (mental ear that hears melodies in your head) can only produce accurately what it knows and has heard. This is mostly true, well to get valueable use of it. Someone who has never heard a particular scale can (I'd say accidently) come up with something in a scale he's never heard. But it's always hazy to them, and the understanding won't be there.

Originally posted by chris mood

The major scale emulates the sound of nature, so our ears are used to hearing this, but other exotic scales have to be heard before are ear can start to write melodically w/them.

I also agree that sound is based on nature. Actually sound (pitches/notes) and everything we hear as music comes from nature, not just the major scale. The major scale is based on the western organized group of pitches. Like the hungarian major and minor are based on the hungarian group of pitches. It's more of a cultural thing. Like when you hear a brazilian tribal tune, they know nothing of the major scale or even scales yet they can produce music. However strange it is to our ears, but our music would probably be strange to them. Watch the nature channel.

Originally posted by chris mood

So it comes to the point what came 1st the chicken are the egg (science/emotion)

Definitely emotion. Emotion comes from sound or pitch. A certain pitch has a different impression (emotion) to it, than a another pitch. Like the difference between F# and Eb, and not just in the aspect of singular pitch but there relationship as well. When you go up in pitch, I guess you feel lifted in sense, when it goes down, you feel depressed. Since sound itself is as old as time, it definitely came first. Even primal animals communicated with pitch, especially whales and dolphins. They were around long before us. Even a dog, when he growls (which is low register) means "get lost", and a yipe (high register) means something else. Birds also communicate in pitch, along with most animals. Any movement of particles produces sound, even air. Just wave your hand by your ear and you can hear the wind. Also, science needs something to study before there can be a science about it. Music theory is a part of the science of sound.

Originally posted by chris mood

2) I feel it is a major misconception that learning theory will inhibit your creativity, you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are.

I agree. Theory will not inhibit your creativity the way you put it. It actually can do nothing but help, knowledge is power. A misuse of theory can hinder you, if you know the rules and strictly follow them. Especially when you only use them, and not your own creativitiness. I know quite a few people who do this.

Originally posted by chris mood

I think the ear naturally hears the diminished chord resolving by half step, so one must teach oneself not to resolve this chord by half step and "learn" the sound this will emulate.

I agree. But take someone who only follows the rules, like diminished chords have to resolve 1/2 step. Since music is organized sound, that would only be one sound and you would be missing out on alot. A diminished chord can actually go to a V chord (inverted or not) in a major scale. It's not as natural as the first one but it can work, but any resolution can work if thats want you want. See you don't always want a natural flow to music, there needs to be dynamics in it to make it somewhat interesting. Music that is natural flowing all the time is usually rather weak and/or boring. Same thing with the V chord naturally going to a ii chord. This is hindering you, if you strictly follow these rules. So yeah I believe you should learn and experiment. As a musician, or should I say artist, we need to experiment to evolve.

Originally posted by chris mood

I think if you don't learn theory chances are your jazz songs will sound a lot like everybody else's vrs. if you do.

Really in depends on the person writting the song. But if you know that one chord progression works great for jazz, and you continously use it. Well, you going to write a song that sounds like the norm. Just like writting a rock song with the chord progression C, G, F. Done billions of times. On the other hand, if you use the theory you were taught to understand and build on your creativeness, it will definitely help set your song apart. Like if you took the rock prog. C, G, F and made it C Gb F. Theory will help you understand what you did, and maybe make it more paladiable to the ear. Someone without an theory knowledge may be oblivious to it cause they don't understand how it could work.

Music theory opens up alot of possibilites and maybe a path to start from. I still say follow your ear, because it's knows right (for you). Theory is still theory, it should be studied but more on the side of achieving understanding rather than what the strict rules are.

Dang, I didn't mean to do this. Without mechanics all this is moot. Arguable, but nonetheless moot. I know somewhere on this site, that it's called guitar tricks. The idea of the site seems to me is to be taking some of the complication out of theory, excercises, licks, music, etc.
Philosophy don't make a hill of beans if you have no hands or a brain.

I believe there are 8 ways to resolve a dominant chord. And 16 ways to resolve a diminished chord. This can be a very tedious study. It requires major standard notation reading and reasonably advanced theory background. I would venture to guess, most that come to this site lack this ability.
Advance jazz or players understand the difference between the two chords implicitly. We understand the resolution of the tritone in both chords. The tedium is explaining German, French, and Italian Augmented 6 chords. PRAGMATICALLY, most of my ilk call them dominant or V7 chords. It's just easier.
Most of us just want to be helpful. I'm certainly not rich,
but can play when I feel like it. The biggest problem is keeping the goverment from stealing MY money. Let's be helpful.

Griphon, sorry you feel that way man. To me the forum is for discussion and well that's for discussing things. Since it's music theory, well we're discussing music theory. All I said was that you should play what you feel, and chris and me got into a discussion about that. You probably right man, most people who read this are beginners, but that doesn't mean no one can get into a discussion about stuff that isn't particularly for them. Which I don't even think this is that type of discussion, just chris and my opinions on the differences between science(music theory) and sound (playing what you wanna hear).

If your so against talking about more advanced stuff, why bring up the topic of an Augmented 6 chord??? Don't you think thats alittle advanced. Is there a difference between the english chordal system and the french, german, and italian?? Do you think an american who just starting playing is going to know about that? I don't even know about it. And who said they were rich?? I'm unemployed at the moment.

I'm trying to help too, I think everyone is dewd. Chill man, it's just B.S'in.

Originally posted by griphon2
The tedium is explaining German, French, and Italian Augmented 6 chords. PRAGMATICALLY, most of my ilk call them dominant or V7 chords. It's just easier.

I forgot to meantion this. An augmented 6 chord is NOT the same as a dominant 7 chord. There is a difference, I'll explain. Anytime you see augmented. This is telling you the triad structure of the chord. Whether it's major, minor, diminished, or augmented. Everything else is an extension of that triad, even 7th's. So when you say E augmented 6, what your saying is your playing an E augmented triad with a 6 added to it. So an E augmented 6 chord would be E, G#, B#, C#. The E dominant 7 chord which has a major triad structure would be E, G#, B, D. See what I mean, "augmented" is not a substitute for saying "sharp that note". I may be wrong if the germans, french, and italians have a different chordal system. That I am unaware of since everything we know as chordal structure came from germany and/or italy. Yeah contemporary is more american but this is not that issue. Either way if your books or teacher said this is so, they're wrong. Alot of misguided information out there.

I'm flabbergasted, nearly speechless. I can't believe this.

Believe what?

Assuming what one says is far different than making an attempt to understand what one says. Secondly, assuming that all teachers except you are misinformed or even blatantly wrong is a disservice to and for us all.

I knew what you were talking about dewd, but you can clearly see how that is misunderstood. Your right in the fact that augmented by simple definition mean, "to raise...", but by musically definition, it directly points to a chord. Like I said. I pretty much corrected your misinterpetation of the use of that word. I've seen alot of misinformation out there on this alone, and augmented 6 is not a the same as saying a raised 6. It is definitely not the same as a dominant 7 chord. You can clearly see that.

Secondly, I never said that ALL teachers and books were wrong on this subject. Read what I said again, I said if your teacher or a book told you this, it's wrong. You always talk about getting your information out of a book, the lydian chromatic concept I believe. I believe that is a creditable book, but there are alot of misinformation out there. I'm thinking I'm doing a far better justice by correcting this mistake. If you wish to ignore this fact, go for it. I'd bet my life on it that any respectable musician who know about this would tell you the same.

A raised 6 or augmented 6 or #6, IS a b7. French, Italian and German Augmented 6s are the classical equivalents to dominant 7th chords. (neapolitan 6s are bII chords).
As I said in a post, that's a PRAGMATIC view.