• New Sponsor: ShipNerd, Ship Your Gear with Us... for less! Click Here.

Hey Jack Zucker Theory question for you

Tag

Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
42,094
Well, I'd like to clarify that this isn't Steve's system, or something that anyone around here (well, 99%) isn't using. All the intervals that represtent the 12-tone system are compounds of two intervals, thirds and fifths.
It's not a system so much as the physics of the thing, AFAIK.

So, from a root, a fifth is a fifth up.
A third is a third up.

Then you flip 'em.

A fouth is a fifth down.
A minor sixth is a third down.

Right?

Then, you add them.

A ninth is two fifths up.
A seventh is a two fifths up and a third down.

Do you see that?
Its really way easier to SEE than it is too write about.
A simple lattice will show you the generating patch of the intervals.
Here:
http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/graphics/lattice.gif
That'll show you where they all are.

Anything that is up and right is 'in'.
Anything that is down and left is 'out', if you will.

Also, a clarification:
This reciprocal concept has nothing to do with 'scale steps'. That would be diatonic symmetry (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Completely different.

So, anyways, you've got a key, and 'in' is one way, and 'out' is the other.
Right?

Does that help Tag?
I hope my explination was understandable, and if I made a mistake, somebody please come tell me.

Jamie
give me an example of what you mean as "In" to the right and "out" to the left.
 

KRosser

Member
Messages
14,160
Yup, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my thread about "theory".

Total Chinese to me, like reading a foreign language.
Trying to learn theory in this thread is like trying to learn Chinese by hanging out on a street corner in Beijing.

So get yourself to a community college class to learn it for real, from the beginning, if that's what you want. Or were you expecting to pick this up by osmosis?

You know, as many times as I've flown in a plane, you'd figure I must have picked up how to pilot one by now, but those guys must be super-special gifted 'cause I still can't figure it out.

You keep making it sound like it's impossible to learn a foreign language. It's not impossible. You just start from the beginning - "Hello"..."How are you"..."My name is...". You've never tried to learn a foreign language?

Yes, I guess in a way, you're right - if you refuse forcefully enough, anything is impossible.
 

kimock

Member
Messages
12,520
Yup, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my thread about "theory".

Total Chinese to me, like reading a foreign language.
Got an old lady? Pay bills? Ever look at the moon? Got a calendar?

Look at your guitar. See it?

No?

It's not a language, it's just the way things are together.

:YinYang
 

KRosser

Member
Messages
14,160
Got an old lady? Pay bills? Ever look at the moon? Got a calendar?

Look at your guitar. See it?

No?

It's not a language, it's just the way things are together.

:YinYang
Yeah, but Mr GuitarTone has insisted with increasing stubbornness that this is something he can't be expected to suss because he wasn't born with "the gift".

"The gift" is apparently the ability to search out reliable information for something you'd like to know more about.

That, and he seems to have this thing about Chinese being impossible to learn, despite the inescapable fact that billions of people apparently did.

Weird.
 

kimock

Member
Messages
12,520
Yeah, but Mr GuitarTone has insisted with increasing stubbornness that this is something he can't be expected to suss because he wasn't born with "the gift".

"The gift" is apparently the ability to search out reliable information for something you'd like to know more about.

That, and he seems to have this thing about Chinese being impossible to learn, despite the inescapable fact that billions of people apparently did.

Weird.
Well, in all fairness it's hard to escape the idea that there is specialized knowledge in any field. That's just an assumption of modern life.
but. . .
The lions share of the "learning" that goes on in music, which I consider a birthright for every human being, is just observation and experience.

All the important lessons are staring us in the face everywhere we look.
To assume specialized knowledge a prerequisite for musical self expression is to live life willfully blind to all that is real around us.

Theory doesn't make sense? Screw it. Make up your own theory, everybody else does. Don't feel like making your own rules? Screw it, Don't.
Nobody else does.
That doesn't mean you can't feel and learn.

Yo Guitartone, there's a bazillion Chinese who don't GAFF if you speak Mandarin, and there's a slightly smaller number of musicians that don't GAFF if you know anything about music. So what.

Play your guitar and just keep your eyes open and your head up and you don't need to GAFF about any of them. Right?:AOK

peace

move along. :)
 

KRosser

Member
Messages
14,160
:) Ken

lol, you've convinced me ages ago already that "I can do it", that I have the potential to learn it all...I'm now a believer.
Nice! My work is done here.

But, after reading through this gobbeldeegook thread a few more times I'm even more convinced now that I "don't have the inclination" to learn this stuff,
'Not having the inclination' is different from 'genetically challenged'. You don't have the inclination - don't do it. Like I said a long time ago, only you and your music know what you need.

and neither do the vast majority of the members here.
Neither you or I can speak for the majority here. Anyway, why is the majority important? The majority of humans don't even play the guitar at all. Why start worrying about the majority?

I mean really, c'mon on, notice how few members have joined this discussion, why is that?
'Cause it's kind of a boring discussion?

IMO it's because this is the exact stuff that scares the living daylights out of most kids aspiring to play guitar, they read this and they run back to their computers.
Which is fine. It's OK for some things to be scary. When and if the need calls, some will find the courage and it's my personal belief they'll be better for it.

Can you imagine Jimi Hendrix reading this...about creating "tension" in a solo? :)
No, not really. Hendrix didn't think that way. So what? Hendrix' music is just one small drop in the whole ocean.

Anyway, I don't care about what Jimi's abilities or limitations were. I only care about his music, and knowing theory has helped me learn, analyze and understand much about it.


I take it the Lydian Scale is used over the maj7 chord because all 7 tones are resting areas. The #11 does not create tension like the natural 11. Now if we are in G major, and have a D7 chord aproaching the Gmaj, the flat 5 sub gives us A flat 7. In the purest sense, that is A flat Mixolydian. I alwyas group the II-IV-V-VII chords together as you know, so maturally I play a lot of F# Lydian (the same as A flat Mixolydian) lines over that flat 5 chord.
I feel your pain.

Now see - I understand all that, but I think it's kinda a waste of time, honestly. Which is neither here nor there since they weren't asking for my advice.


I'll tell you what Jimi would say...
"Hey Eddie, did you spike my joint with heroin?"
Yeah, well, like I said - I don't care about Hendrix' methods. I only care about his music.

Anyway, talk about creating tension...I'm off to the bank right now to ask my Bank Manager for an overdraft increase for a few days.
Now that's a great way to create tension...no music theory needed.
Good luck!
 

KRosser

Member
Messages
14,160
Well, in all fairness it's hard to escape the idea that there is specialized knowledge in any field. That's just an assumption of modern life.
Sure, but the question was whether one had to be 'genetically blessed' to amass 'specialized knowledge'. I think that's a silly idea.

but. . .
The lions share of the "learning" that goes on in music, which I consider a birthright for every human being, is just observation and experience.
I think there's probably as many shares as there are lions, since some people's experience is heavy on the academics, not at all, or all points in between.

All the important lessons are staring us in the face everywhere we look.
To assume specialized knowledge a prerequisite for musical self expression is to live life willfully blind to all that is real around us.
Of course. None of which is negated or compromised by the quest for specialized knowledge, necessarily.

Theory doesn't make sense? Screw it. Make up your own theory, everybody else does. Don't feel like making your own rules? Screw it, Don't.
Nobody else does.
That doesn't mean you can't feel and learn.

Yo Guitartone, there's a bazillion Chinese who don't GAFF if you speak Mandarin, and there's a slightly smaller number of musicians that don't GAFF if you know anything about music. So what.

Play your guitar and just keep your eyes open and your head up and you don't need to GAFF about any of them. Right?:AOK

peace

move along. :)
Well, obviously what I have to say about learning theory is entirely dependent on whether it's important to you or not. If it is important or you just regret not having it, I'm just sayin' - it's a learnable body of knowledge, it's not rocket science*. You find a reliable tutorial method and start from "See Spot Run".

And sure, not GAFF about anything is always an option.



(* Actually, rocket science is learnable too, if you're willing to work hard and start at the beginning.)
 

JonR

Member
Messages
15,428
Can you imagine Jimi Hendrix reading this...about creating "tension" in a solo? :)
I take it the Lydian Scale is used over the maj7 chord because all 7 tones are resting areas. The #11 does not create tension like the natural 11. Now if we are in G major, and have a D7 chord aproaching the Gmaj, the flat 5 sub gives us A flat 7. In the purest sense, that is A flat Mixolydian. I alwyas group the II-IV-V-VII chords together as you know, so maturally I play a lot of F# Lydian (the same as A flat Mixolydian) lines over that flat 5 chord.

I'll tell you what Jimi would say...
"Hey Eddie, did you spike my joint with heroin?"
Jimi didn't think that way because he had no jazz education. He wasn't a jazz player. He was a blues/R&B player, with a very fertile imagination, and a great ear.
He didn't need to think theoretically (at least in that sort of jargon) because he knew the sounds he wanted and how to find them.
When he wanted to go beyond the familiar blues/R&B stuff he grew up with, he experimented with electronic effects (distortion, flanging, delay, etc), not with jazz scales and advanced harmony.
That was where his ear and curiosity led him.
(His harmonic experimentation led to some unusual and startling chord sequences - eg Burning of the Midnight Lamp - but it was still mostly triads he played with. The famed "Hendrix chord" was a one-off, a crunchy blues tonic, not the complex functional dissonance of the 7#9 as used in jazz.)

Maybe if he'd lived he would have got deeper into jazz, and messed around with all those quoted concepts.

IOW, you CAN do it all by ear, if you want to. You don't have to learn any theory if you don't want to.
I mean, you have to understand it, intuitively, but you don't need the jargon.
Like, you can speak and write English without thinking much about the rules of grammar you are using. You don't have to go word by word, thinking "hmm, I need an adjective now, then a noun, then a verb; and this had better be the present perfect tense..." Those rules are all THERE. You know them already.
Same with music. You know the rules already, because you've heard music all your life. You know how it goes. You know when it sounds wrong and when it sounds right. Just messing around on an instrument (and listening as you do so) will lead to good music in the end. It's just that it can take a hell of a long time for some people, and they find that a little theory helps light the path for them.
If it doesn't light the path for you (or if it distracts or "blinds with science"), then you should ignore it.

Another example I often think of is John Lennon. He was a fan of mixolydian mode, used it often and very well. He just didn't know what it was called. It's the theorists that come along later and analyse what intuitive musicians do, and give it names.
How useful is it to us to be able to say that "Tomorrow Never Knows" is in mixolydian mode? It's just shorter than saying "major key with b7".
That's the whole point of this theory stuff. It's a naming system, recognising the "common practices" that musicians use. It's a way of making music EASIER to understand, to make sense of. If it doesn't do that it's a waste of time.
 

ducmike

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
1,702
Jimi didn't think that way because he had no jazz education. He wasn't a jazz player. He was a blues/R&B player, with a very fertile imagination, and a great ear.
He didn't need to think theoretically (at least in that sort of jargon) because he knew the sounds he wanted and how to find them.
When he wanted to go beyond the familiar blues/R&B stuff he grew up with, he experimented with electronic effects (distortion, flanging, delay, etc), not with jazz scales and advanced harmony.
That was where his ear and curiosity led him.
(His harmonic experimentation led to some unusual and startling chord sequences - eg Burning of the Midnight Lamp - but it was still mostly triads he played with. The famed "Hendrix chord" was a one-off, a crunchy blues tonic, not the complex functional dissonance of the 7#9 as used in jazz.)

Maybe if he'd lived he would have got deeper into jazz, and messed around with all those quoted concepts.

IOW, you CAN do it all by ear, if you want to. You don't have to learn any theory if you don't want to.
I mean, you have to understand it, intuitively, but you don't need the jargon.
Like, you can speak and write English without thinking much about the rules of grammar you are using. You don't have to go word by word, thinking "hmm, I need an adjective now, then a noun, then a verb; and this had better be the present perfect tense..." Those rules are all THERE. You know them already.
Same with music. You know the rules already, because you've heard music all your life. You know how it goes. You know when it sounds wrong and when it sounds right. Just messing around on an instrument (and listening as you do so) will lead to good music in the end. It's just that it can take a hell of a long time for some people, and they find that a little theory helps light the path for them.
If it doesn't light the path for you (or if it distracts or "blinds with science"), then you should ignore it.

Another example I often think of is John Lennon. He was a fan of mixolydian mode, used it often and very well. He just didn't know what it was called. It's the theorists that come along later and analyse what intuitive musicians do, and give it names.
How useful is it to us to be able to say that "Tomorrow Never Knows" is in mixolydian mode? It's just shorter than saying "major key with b7".
That's the whole point of this theory stuff. It's a naming system, recognising the "common practices" that musicians use. It's a way of making music EASIER to understand, to make sense of. If it doesn't do that it's a waste of time.

Very well said.

I always liked the explanations of the song transcriptions in the old G1 mag. They go something like " so and so used the A harmonic minor scale to build this riff...... and then went into mixylodian for this part of the solo....", and I'm thinking BS, so and so was thinking "I discovered this cool lick while f-ing around yesterday, and I think it will work here". My point is, in most pop, rock, blues, or country cases, theory is only used to explain the music, not make the music.

And for what it is worth, I'm not anti-theory, I study and apply theory on a regular basis, and it has helped me grow as a musician.
 

gennation

Member
Messages
7,871
All this can be broke into there only being 3 Dominant chord types/functions:

a functioning V7 = Melodic Minor up a half-step
a non-functioning dom7 = Lydian b7
functioning as a I7 = Mixolydian
 

KRosser

Member
Messages
14,160
All this can be broke into there only being 3 Dominant chord types/functions:

a functioning V7 = Melodic Minor up a half-step
a non-functioning dom7 = Lydian b7
functioning as a I7 = Mixolydian
Yeah, except you can use any of those scales for any of those functions.

And except Dom7 chords can be more than one function at a time.

What was the question again?
 






Trending Topics

Top Bottom