Bebop scales

Originally posted by noticingthemistake


I'm trying to teach you and it's sad that you can only see it as academic, ignoring the non-academic.

Trying to teach me,WTF!, I've got a masters degree in jazz performance, what are you trying to teach me? If you feel that strongly against theory what are you doing moderating a theory forum...trying to save souls?

Yeah reading some of grip's posts are like reading the first and last sentence of each chapter in a book. No offense. I have always listened to your POV's, but your point of view isn't the only one. Certainly not the only one that works. [deleted] If someone disagrees, you immediately call them "dishonest". That's sad because it's nice when we have our debates, and I know we can learn a lot from each other.

As a moderator I think I have been fair to you, my job is to tell you when your out of line. My way may not be, "[nerdy]Excuse me, but could you not say stuff like that here". I speak from the heart so I know it's what I needed to say, and I don't apologize for it.


[Edited by noticingthemistake on 10-08-2003 at 08:32 PM]

I don’t mean it like that. What I’m trying to show you is the difference between a musical skill and the understanding of the art behind music. Don’t feel insulted, I will explain. A musician can be a great technical player, the greatest, and he/she can know all the theory in the world but can still never grasp the artistic point of it. All the great innovations in music came through minds of those who drew from the art in music. Theory then later made sense of it by taking examples of compositions and showing how the composer made it work. The hardest lesson and the last lesson any musician will ever have is letting go of what they have learned from theory, and start to play regardless of it’s ideas. Truly scary to any die hard theory major, but to be a true artist one must let go. The greatest musicians to touch the planet were great artists not theorists. That’s what I’m trying to “teach” you. I can only do that by showing you were theory has it’s faults, like the F, G, and I 6 chord and the tri-tone discussion.

As a theorist, your job is to challenge the theory to see if it holds water. Every time you have a theory, you should try to poke holes in it. That's how to tell the difference between theory and fact. Unfortunately music theory still is a theory, and half of being a musician (who studies theory) is being able to understand both the strengths and the faults of an idea. Sometimes I’m only trying to show you the faults. It’s the hardest lesson for any musician, who uses a lot of theory, to learn. It’s also the most neglected issue taught when an idea is presented to a student.

Learning the smallest touch of musical artistry is worth far more than all the theory knowledge in the world. I know many music majors and most think theory is the bible, heck I have 2 in my family. Again, since I say theory isn’t everything I am assumed to hate it. Not true. Theory is very important. You must know the rules to break them of course. Artistic (non-intellectual conception) is the key to music mastery not theory.

Why do I bother writing it. Because all I hear is how bad music is today and how there are so few true musicians out there. There’s my answer to that. Theory is what makes music dry, music is like nature and things happen in nature that science can’t explain. Music must flow freely without any constraints, theory is only the understanding and sometimes a clue to fix a problem.

[deleted]

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 10-08-2003 at 08:33 PM]

Music is art, performance is art, composition is art, theory is academics.
1) Theory enables us notate and converse our musical ideas, offer analysis of other musical examples, and most importantly opens pathways of communication among other musicians. It offers intellectual stimulation and appreciation of the unknown. I find a lot of people don't appreciate musical idioms like jazz and classical not becuase they find iot offensive, but becuase they don't understand it.
2) On line forums offer little knowledge of the person you are communicating with. Anyone who knows me would laugh absurdly at the idea that I approach music as a theorist and not an artist. Actually quite the opposite is true, as any of my students or associates would inform you it is usually me who is doing the preaching about music and art. You have never sat down and had a conversation w/me nor have ever heard me play, so making quite an assumption is unfair.
3) The ultimate goal as a musician is reaching the platau (sp?) in which you can forget everything and make bueatiful music. Reaching this point is a lot of hard work. There are many roads which lead to this path. One of the main problems I find w/other educators is that they believe the path they took is the only path.....this is not true. We are all not born w/equal musical attributes. Some peoples area of the brain that processes musical thoughts is highly developed at birth and can hear extremely well. Other people have highly developed motor skills and can learn technique and skills such as sight reading rather easy. Not to mention learning styles, we all process information differently. Carl Yung did a lot in this area of research. The path you took is not the path for everyone.

Well said, Chris.

Enlightenment is one thing. Being insulted and assaulted is entirely another matter. My degree is in Composition. Also another degree in Electronic Engineering. [deleted] Theory is not just theory. Most all of music theory is NOW practice. I just don't get some of these comments. This IS guitartricks. [deleted] This argument as far as I'm concerned is over.

Be certain that the information at and on this forum is correct. [deleted] All my proofs are verified at a legitimate dot org. [deleted] Courtesy is equally paramount.

I am about to lose my hard drive. If we can't act like reasonable human beings, I'd just prefer to be elsewhere, thank you. Wish you all the best of luck.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 10-08-2003 at 08:36 PM]

I apologize I didn't mean to insult you. I know your an artist and I didn't write that post thinking your were anything less. Again I think it's misunderstanding what one says, and since the conversation had already started to get heated it was easy to see the worst possible way to take what I said. Your right maybe teach was a bad word, I should have said something like show or commune. I reffered to teach because I know one person can learn alot from another, not to insult you. Your right theory is academic and in the converstaion about the F, G, and I6 chords I was trying to be non-academic about it. I said there was no reason to have three different names for different variations of one chord, which today ,if I recall the discussion correctly was a dominant 7 chord. To me sound is what matters, and you don't need theory to judge how a chord will act. Art has no rules and no practices, music should be unbridled. I am not trying to force this on anyone but I hope there is much to learn from each other, as I have learned.

I am about to lose my hard drive. If we can't act like reasonable human beings, I'd just prefer to be elsewhere, thank you. Wish you all the best of luck.

Then leave man. Your comments are what got this whole thing started. "I'll take you on! Better be good". If everyone is so unreasonable and dishonest, then move on.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 10-08-2003 at 08:38 PM]

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
Your right theory is academic and in the converstaion about the F, G, and I6 chords I was trying to be non-academic about it. I said there was no reason to have three different names for different variations of one chord, which today ,if I recall the discussion correctly was a dominant 7 chord.

To offer a second view of the conclusion of this past debate:
At 1st you denied such a thing existed (aug.F, G,It 6th chords). Then you concluded that it had no function in modern times (which we all agreed too). We were only supporting the fact that it is recognized in theory analysis of barouqe music and to deny its existence, wether relevant or not, would be dishonest.

Originally posted by chris mood
To offer a second view of the conclusion of this past debate:
At 1st you denied such a thing existed (aug.F, G,It 6th chords).

Yeah I didn't know it existed. That was before anyone told me what it was. You guys said they're were those 3 aug 6th chords and I explained that there was only one. In modern terms that is so I was confused. Yeah I did learn something there.

Then you concluded that it had no function in modern times (which we all agreed too).

Yeah we did but once I knew what it was and I explained that it was basically a dominant 7 chord, except each with a slight variation. How long after I explained that, did it take for us to come to a conclusion on that?

We were only supporting the fact that it is recognized in theory analysis of barouqe music and to deny its existence, wether relevant or not, would be dishonest.

I never denied existance after I understood the concept. I said I don't need it, I didn't try to change you guys' mind on that and I didn't proclaim it to everyone else it was useless. I did say that it did make sense before the period it was renamed and was legit.

My point in bring it up after you said "you taught me..." was that it sounds like a dominant 7 chord, and one doesn't need to name it 3 different ways to write music. The non-academic. That's what I was trying to teach you, or point out to you. I'm not trying to degrade your intelligence because I'm sure you knew about it beforehand. Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake

Yeah we did but once I knew what it was and I explained that it was basically a dominant 7 chord, except each with a slight variation. How long after I explained that, did it take for us to come to a conclusion on that?
[/B]

We explained to you in the very beginning that the aug. 6th chords were not traditional 6th chords, but labeled so becuase of the aug.6th interval that existed within the spelling of the chord. Traditionally they are nothing more then inverted dominants, but at the time dominants did not exist in theory so they came up w/other names for them.

Yeah once you said that I figured out what you were saying. The bulk of the going back and forth for a few pages was about me saying I had no use for them now since today it's a dominant 7th chord. Then you said I shouldn't dump it until I understand them, and griphon I believe was telling me he doesn't agree with me. So I kept trying to explain where I was coming from. Until finally we agreed that I have no use for them and then the debate stopped.

To me music is pretty much universal and the french and everyone else didn't have different chords.

I only care about the practicality of theory. If such-and-such sixth chords turned out to be a dominant seventh, them who cares . . . play the dom7!

yeah me too. The practically of theory is what one should know. Like chris did say theory is a great way to converse ideas with another player. Theories are good to learn for technique values, like cadences and stuff like that. Because it gives you common interesting ideas, and sometimes the understanding of how to work through a problem. That's about it in my opinion. Everytime you come to an end of a tune and you have a V7 chord. If your start thinking theory like, "oh I have to go to I after that V7 chord for a cadence". Then I think you don't get the concept of music, go to something less expected like bVI or whatever you WANT TO HEAR. Of course I'm not saying to do that all the time, but not to think theoritical when writting music. Be expressive, doing something against the norm says alot more than going by theory ideas.

About the aug 6 chord, let's just let that one go. That talk took place months ago. Unless there something new to talk about then let's just let it go. No sense bringing it back otherwise. :)

But see, thats the point, there is stuff to learn from all of this. The more you read into the aug 6th chords the more you see that there was real strict rules on how they were approached, voiced, and resolved. Now I know your thinking that's totally against the artistic veiw, but what is learned hear is voice leading. The problem with todays music and musicians is that everybody is so concerned with root motion and block chord voicings that the art of voice leading and resolution is all but forgotten about. There is more to music then 5 going to 1, it's how you get there.

Yes there is alot to learn and yes when writting, what you have learned can get you out of a sticky situation. It's the thought of music has to be approached, and resolved in a certain way that can be a problem. The seventh in a dominant 7th doesn't have to go down a step, yes that is what sounds correct and normal. But every other possibility has a new sound, and each is expressive in a particular way. Of course the right situation has to come into account, but it shouldn't be ignored because theory says it has to resolve it such a way. Expressiveness makes it art, because each possible movement is an expression. Reducing that possibility by thinking theorical is depriving the musical nature. Don't be a comformist and don't think to much when playing, feel the music and play what you want or you want people to feel.

That's why I love guys like Mozart, Chopin, and many others because they are so expressive. And although you analyze alot of there music in theory classes, it's usually only certain parts. If you've ever analyzed a mozart piece completely (later years) it's a theoretic nightmare in some cases. Bach is easy.

Voice leading is the same way. Each harmony stacked upon a chord is like playing with the texture of a chord. Again listening and feeling the chord is the key, a sus2 sounds spaced out when a 9th chord has a beautiful texture that strenghtens the 7th.

I'm not saying don't learn this stuff, and forget it but the craft goes beyond theory. Use it when you need it but let the music speak for itself. That's the artists mentality. (don't feel offended)

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 10-08-2003 at 05:29 PM]

Thanks again, Chris.

I don't know where to start. I've just read the entire bebop forum, [deleted]

Explaining Aug 6ths was very difficult. Saying F,B, is not a tritone (attributing, to me) is insulting, assualting and plain not TRUE. Don't ever reconstrue or reconstruct what I say. My words, mostly, are very well pondered.

There are masters at this site. <~ I thought everyone should be informed how you are better than everyone. rest is [deleted]

[deleted]

Most people believe in kindness. Why can't WE show some? Starting now!!!

Noticing here. You want kindness so from now on any negative remark towards any member of this site will be deleted from now on. Thank you. :)

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 10-08-2003 at 08:45 PM]

All is better. Taking out all negative comments. Figured it would be better than closing the whole thread. Sorry if I deleted your post, but griphon wants kindness . just kidding but it works out better this way.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake

I'm not saying don't learn this stuff, and forget it but the craft goes beyond theory. Use it when you need it but let the music speak for itself. That's the artists mentality. (don't feel offended)

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 10-08-2003 at 05:29 PM]

I agree w/you 100%, very well said. All I'M saying is don't be too quick to dismiss stuff at face value, that's what I was trying to tell you w/the Aug 6th chords, sure there nothing more then inverted dominants but there is something to be learned beyond the surface.

I have a major problem with being deleted!!!!!!!! Honest people have no right!!!!! Arrogance!!!!!

You're going to delete this too. How arrogant.!!!!!!! You do not have that or this right. You have NO right to delete any thing I say. How arrogant. Will court settle this? Gestapo has ended, and I'm nearly old enough to understand.
Think about this?

[Edited by griphon2 on 10-08-2003 at 09:14 PM]