Dogbite's Thread

[dogbite]

Originally Posted by Ken Valentino

Yes that notation has been working pretty well. ' for a 1/4 step or less and " for more than a 1/4 step sharp. So b2'-1 would be 12:11, 2'-1 would be 8:7 and 2"-1 would be 7:6.

Then we could say b2'-1 can resolve to 2'-1 from being simpler, and then 2'-1 can resolve to 2"-1 from now being positive.

curious as to your thoughts about the continuum that blues players exploit between the 6:5 minor third and the 5:4 major third. is there a set of ratios between the two pitches that you'd be looking for in particular?

also, the b5 "zone" between the 4:3 P4 and 3:2 P5...

just curious. to me right now, i just treat them as "inflections," an indeterminate range of intermediate pitches...

i know that was a wee bit wordy, but i think you'll get my drift

[Ken Valentino]

The b3' to 1 that shows up in blues took a long time to time to figure out. It was one of the big epiphany's that proved I needed to always think in a relative way.

It actually is a negative move of 6:5. We can prove this by doing a strong melody like 1-2-2'-2-1 and comparing it to b3'-1. To my ears the b3'-1 sounds still unfinished until I go back to 2'-2-1.

But we all know that in many blues licks b3' is a strong way to get back to the 1. This was very puzzling. What I eventually started noticing is if the lick could have resolved on b3 then b3'-1 seemed to work. I ended up naming the strategy a "Sharp Point" which is a type of "Double Negative".

Double negatives are where we at least have something improve (some tendency followed) even though the second ratio is still negative. Well making your reference point barely sharp is very tense, enough to want to go 6:5. So if we know our ear has really turned the b3 into a 1 then playing b3'-1 is a powerful move.

Some examples are:

b7-b3'-1 which b7 is the 5 of b3

5-4-b3'-1 which is "Three Blind Mice" to the b3

4'-4-b3'-1 which is 2'-2-1 to the b3 and is one of the answers to your second question.

The TT (Tritone) area in blues is usually the b3 of b3 if it's dark (TT-4-b3), or the 7 of 5 if it's bright. All kinds of things are possible though. Since the tritone isn't good for the key the ear usually wants some other measurement to take place.

[dogbite]

i feel the need to point out that much of what i write, although may be pertinent to jazz and standards, is directed toward stretching the sonic (or perhaps, tonal) envelope. i've been accused of being a "fusion" player because of this. others say they play "classical" as well. well, so do i. i play what the situation requires. not terribly long ago, i had to direct the flute choir; definitely classical, and some pop. then someone comes in and says. "i play rock; what's wrong with that?" so do i. what i'd like to believe is that my experiences in latin, jazz, and classical bring to my rock playing a worldliness that may be perceived by others.

because of this perspective, i would not have others construe my writings here as being some kind of method or instructional treatise on any kind of music, let alone jazz and standards. i also feel that i have been misinterpreted in what i am trying to accomplish and would like to set the record straight at least as much as possible in a forum space of x number of words. if i've given the impression that i teach what i write about here to my students in a private lesson scenario, i would only ask that you believe me when i say that i do not. i write about what i like here, because 1) i'm not being paid to do so and 2) because i like to.

i've read enough forums of jazz that i readily recognize an anti-teacher sentiment that i view as a narrow-mindedness that deserves to be challenged; however, the thought that some of what i've seen online may be taught either in a private studio, classroom or public school setting also disturbs me. i would also ask that we collectively hold it together, our ideas of art and theory (because it's fun) balanced with our personalities, feelings and egos (because we all deserve respect) so that new participants are not driven away by being attacked or otherwise embarrassed to share their discoveries and old participants are not driven away by a sense of chaos and disrespect to their well-established musical careers.

in other words, i miss the newbies who were driven away as well as the regulars who for whatever reason no longer contribute, for i feel that something wonderful has been lost over things as petty and simple as talking poo about somebody else's favorite whatever, or conversely, some guy throwing around a master's degree as if it were some kind of license to be rude and condescending.

we all have our moments of insanity online, so therefore must be patient with those who are also having a bad day, as it were. i'll close with maybe we should start a thread about LCC, 11th chords, reading music or... and if you missed those pie fights, don't worry about it unless you truly enjoy watching people's metaphorical parts being scraped up with a putty knife after a horrific accident. it's just not worth the effort.

reality beckons. i'm going away for a while, as the "world of men and machines" deserves more attention than anything online but as before, i'll be back.

best to all and all you care for

[michaelsorg]

Originally Posted by dogbite

i feel the need to point out that much of what i write, although may be pertinent to jazz and standards, is directed toward stretching the sonic (or perhaps, tonal) envelope. i've been accused of being a "fusion" player because of this. others say they play "classical" as well. well, so do i. i play what the situation requires. not terribly long ago, i had to direct the flute choir; definitely classical, and some pop. then someone comes in and says. "i play rock; what's wrong with that?" so do i. what i'd like to believe is that my experiences in latin, jazz, and classical bring to my rock playing a worldliness that may be perceived by others.

because of this perspective, i would not have others construe my writings here as being some kind of method or instructional treatise on any kind of music, let alone jazz and standards. i also feel that i have been misinterpreted in what i am trying to accomplish and would like to set the record straight at least as much as possible in a forum space of x number of words. if i've given the impression that i teach what i write about here to my students in a private lesson scenario, i would only ask that you believe me when i say that i do not. i write about what i like here, because 1) i'm not being paid to do so and 2) because i like to.

i've read enough forums of jazz that i readily recognize an anti-teacher sentiment that i view as a narrow-mindedness that deserves to be challenged; however, the thought that some of what i've seen online may be taught either in a private studio, classroom or public school setting also disturbs me. i would also ask that we collectively hold it together, our ideas of art and theory (because it's fun) balanced with our personalities, feelings and egos (because we all deserve respect) so that new participants are not driven away by being attacked or otherwise embarrassed to share their discoveries and old participants are not driven away by a sense of chaos and disrespect to their well-established musical careers.

in other words, i miss the newbies who were driven away as well as the regulars who for whatever reason no longer contribute, for i feel that something wonderful has been lost over things as petty and simple as talking poo about somebody else's favorite whatever, or conversely, some guy throwing around a master's degree as if it were some kind of license to be rude and condescending.

we all have our moments of insanity online, so therefore must be patient with those who are also having a bad day, as it were. i'll close with maybe we should start a thread about LCC, 11th chords, reading music or... and if you missed those pie fights, don't worry about it unless you truly enjoy watching people's metaphorical parts being scraped up with a putty knife after a horrific accident. it's just not worth the effort.

reality beckons. i'm going away for a while, as the "world of men and machines" deserves more attention than anything online but as before, i'll be back.

best to all and all you care for

Where's the "Like" button on this Forum?

[dogbite]

Originally Posted by michaelsorg

Where's the "Like" button on this Forum?

thank you michael

i was recently poking around the web and discovered a fascinating discussion on color theory; in a nutshell, an argument about what used to be taught as "primary colors," in comparison with more modern views of additive and subtractive colors. for anyone who care about the particulars, look up RYB, RGB, and CMY(K) but what on earth does this have to do with music theory?

here's what: as it turns out, what is "useful" is not the same as being "scientifically correct." even something as intuitive and seemingly simple as human color perception has turned out to be far more complex and misunderstood than one would have thought possible. not the crux of my point but the difference between a "color dominant" and a "secondary dominant," deceptive or otherwise, may turn out to be exactly that: a point of view.

i use what i find useful and the question as to "why" it works, well, who gives a poop anyhow? if it works, use it. one of the things i've been exploring is the half-whole diminished (yes, symmetrical, octatonic) against a straight ahead minor chord vamp. russell calls it "minor chordmode, auxiliary diminished blues scale," i call it "green" because of the particular combination of altered tones interacting with the chord's most inside scale, which most of us call dorian; but what you call it ultimately doesn't matter as long as you can make it work:

chord: Dm7, Dm6, Dm9, Dm69, Dm11, Dm13
inside scale: D E F G A B C
scale actually used: D Eb F F# G# A B C

i've been told that "you can't do that" (use a major third in the context of a minor tonality) but i have found that used with skill and grace, (competence and finesse, if you prefer), it's a real nice sound!

my point here is: never let theory tell you what not to do! don't get hung up on the "why" of a particular situation; rather, listen, study, experiment and explore the possibilities!!!

don't mean to hit and run; however, i likely won't check back here for another week or two (reality; the world "out there" still requires my attention) but i wanted to posit what i feel to be a most important message: try out new things and hold your ground when told, "you can't do that," because i can, i did, and found something wonderful...

homework for those who crave such things: pick one idea that you've had that you've given up on simply because it's not conventional and make it work for you*

*okay, be reasonable; i didn't mean setting your instrument on fire at a lounge gig

[beeboss]

Originally Posted by dogbite

my point here is: never let theory tell you what not to do! don't get hung up on the "why" of a particular situation; rather, listen, study, experiment and explore the possibilities!!!

The whole of chord/scale theory is generally geared towards finding the most consonant sounds but in the real world those are not necessarily the ones we want. Tension and 'out there-ness' are required for interest, and actually we can play any scale (any combination of notes) over any chord and something will result. If it sounds 'out' then that may be exactly the sound we are looking for. It may actually be the best one for that particular moment in time.

Personally I like Eb dorian on a Dm7 chord - it doesn't exactly sound 'nice' but I quite like 'nasty' sometimes.

Don't get me started on philosophy of colour though ;-)

[DoorMouseForker]

I know what you mean, I am a heretic, one thing about having different ideas than other people is I cant expect everyone to be motivated to pay attention when I tell people about it. I don't have very complex ideas, but people play dumb, the default frame for other people is that I am over in some weird area with way over-complex rules and explanations and that it isn't a matter of whether I can explain it because one thing is a given is ultimately none of it makes any sense so its all a big waste of time and I ought to come down to Earth and agree to common definitions.

What a waste anyway to tell other people about weird ideas, weird ideas should be demonstrated before they should be discussed. It takes a virtuoso to do what I want to talk about. I been practicing, so now here I am I just got to 10,000 hours by my count, I am a month away from finishing this weird dog-star-heresy curriculum that I invented. There was this girl I met at a bar, she came over to my apartment, she was all expecting me to be all good or something, anyway I showed here these drills - theyre complex and hard - but what should I expect. At least I was able to do something, in the past I had to explain to people that one day I would master what I mean. It takes a thick skin to be a heretic. A month from now when I put this horrifying curriculum behind me and write songs, nobody is gonna be able to say nothing or claim I aint super-good!

Yngwie Malmsteen is good, there isn't any question, but people still are gonna say he isn't good, oh all he can do is play scales, whatever. There is always gonna be something someone can say - but no one who just walked out of a show where he was playing would say any nonsense like that. I saw him one time, way back, on his 1st solo tour, there isn't any question he is a badass, there never was.

I am over here at work, it used to be I had these slack jobs in computers, now I am over here at a hardcore computer job where I am busy a lot. I would go up and get bored and talk to people on the metal forum, who is gonna listen, I am talking about a bunch of weird stuff, theres a whole genre of un-readable literature about music. My theories are not so complex, compared to a lot of these whitepapers and articles that we find online and from ages ago.

Mainly its just this interval notation that a lot of folks just give up right when I mention it. People say like oh interval notation isn't good for writing compositions - and I agree totally - its just for looking at scales and chords and things and modes and transpositions and inversions. I use this other notation system based on tones but not using A, A#, B, etc instead using numbers like interval notation except based on tones, similar to how ragas are recorded but more digital - anyway that's my own business - I put myself in other peoples shoes, people would rather hear outrageous ideas from a virtuoso, I can relate with that, so I am training a lot.

Have a good one,

[DoorMouseForker]

Another thing, when someone has weird ideas, people sometimes expect that person to be interested in every weird idea - like serialism - but that isn't so - people with weird ideas are often focused on one or two weird things and might be oriented-regular in other ways. Like, I have one weird tuning, I don't know about any other weird tuning, I don't know about serialism, all kind of weird topics I don't know about - microtones and things - the whole phone book from Hell, all kind of weird things I don't get into - weirdness is not a generalized thing.

[dogbite]

agreed.

mr. mouse (may i call you that?) i am understandably curious about that tuning of yours. what is it?

db

[michaelsorg]

Originally Posted by dogbite

thank you michael

i was recently poking around the web and discovered a fascinating discussion on color theory; in a nutshell, an argument about what used to be taught as "primary colors," in comparison with more modern views of additive and subtractive colors. for anyone who care about the particulars, look up RYB, RGB, and CMY(K) but what on earth does this have to do with music theory?

here's what: as it turns out, what is "useful" is not the same as being "scientifically correct." even something as intuitive and seemingly simple as human color perception has turned out to be far more complex and misunderstood than one would have thought possible. not the crux of my point but the difference between a "color dominant" and a "secondary dominant," deceptive or otherwise, may turn out to be exactly that: a point of view.

i use what i find useful and the question as to "why" it works, well, who gives a poop anyhow? if it works, use it. one of the things i've been exploring is the half-whole diminished (yes, symmetrical, octatonic) against a straight ahead minor chord vamp. russell calls it "minor chordmode, auxiliary diminished blues scale," i call it "green" because of the particular combination of altered tones interacting with the chord's most inside scale, which most of us call dorian; but what you call it ultimately doesn't matter as long as you can make it work:



i've been told that "you can't do that" (use a major third in the context of a minor tonality) but i have found that used with skill and grace, (competence and finesse, if you prefer), it's a real nice sound!

my point here is: never let theory tell you what not to do! don't get hung up on the "why" of a particular situation; rather, listen, study, experiment and explore the possibilities!!!

don't mean to hit and run; however, i likely won't check back here for another week or two (reality; the world "out there" still requires my attention) but i wanted to posit what i feel to be a most important message: try out new things and hold your ground when told, "you can't do that," because i can, i did, and found something wonderful...

homework for those who crave such things: pick one idea that you've had that you've given up on simply because it's not conventional and make it work for you*

*okay, be reasonable; i didn't mean setting your instrument on fire at a lounge gig

I said as much on another forum (that you can use 1/2 step/whole-step dim scale over a minor 7); they wanted to shoot me! I don't go there anymore.

Here's a link to an example I posted of this: michael-sorg.com/theory2.html

[DoorMouseForker]

Hi, I understand you teach students so my tuning might be interesting information to you, however, I don't expect anyone else to care, if I was reading this thread and someone was talking about their tuning I might at most briefly ascertain what it was and then forget all about it, or I might not even consciously ascertain what it was at all - so - its for a 7-string and its E - G# - C - E - G# - C - E - and I mean to master that tuning completely - one thing cool is it lets you play unisons anywhere easy.

[dogbite]

Originally Posted by DoorMouseForker

Hi, I understand you teach students so my tuning might be interesting information to you, however, I don't expect anyone else to care, if I was reading this thread and someone was talking about their tuning I might at most briefly ascertain what it was and then forget all about it, or I might not even consciously ascertain what it was at all - so - its for a 7-string and its E - G# - C - E - G# - C - E - and I mean to master that tuning completely - one thing cool is it lets you play unisons anywhere easy.

thanks mouse,

this is ralph patt's tuning, in major thirds which allows an entire chromatic scale to be played in any position without stretches and/or position shifts. i contemplated it for a short while but realized that standard tuning is so engrained in my conceptual continuity that it would be like dropping english altogether in favor of a second language i haven't begun learning yet

it would, however, be an extension of what's already happening on the 2nd and 3rd strings...

thanks again for sharing

[DoorMouseForker]

Hi, I never learned the regular tuning except for maybe 500 hours of it, I am going to use the Ralph Patt tuning towards heavy metal that has a vague ethnic sense to it, mostly with regular time signatures, with singing vocals, also I apologize for talking like you're only interested in other people because you teach, I bet even if you didn't teach you would probably be interested in other people. I don't want to brag about being isolated, I mean to appreciate what people are doing I just haven't practiced it very much.

[DoorMouseForker]

Hi, any scale which has ritusen, man gong, major pentatonic, minor pentatonic, or suspended pentatonic as a subset, will automatically have various points in the scale where you can ascend 7 semitones X number of times, that is,

Ascend 5 semitones X number of times - which is the same as Descend 7 semitones X number of times

or Ascend 7 semintones X number of times - which is the same as Descend 5 semitones X number of times

I have added this chart which tells you where you can do this on the classical modes, these modes A through G represent the classical modes.

This doesn't tell all possible subsets of a scale. With the exception of Ionian and Phrygian they also each contain a dominant pentatonic mode, and other subset permutations.

From these points in the classical modes, you can ascend or descend 5 or 7 semitones X number of times.

A . B C . D . E F . G .

A - up 7 or down 5 - 2 -- pentatonics - suspended, minor, man gong
A - up 5 or down 7 - 4
B - up 7 or down 5 - 0 -- pentatonics - man gong
B - up 5 or down 7 - 6
C - up 7 or down 5 - 5 -- pentatonics - major, ritusen
C - up 5 or down 7 - 1
D - up 7 or down 5 - 3 -- pentatonics - ritusen, suspended, minor
D - up 5 or down 7 - 3
E - up 7 or down 5 - 1 -- pentatonics - minor, man gong
E - up 5 or down 7 - 5
F - up 7 or down 5 - 6 -- pentatonics - major
F - up 5 or down 7 - 0
G - up 7 or down 5 - 4 -- pentatonics - major, ritusen, suspended
G - up 5 or down 7 - 2

Maybe you thought of this already but here is the chart.

[dogbite]

thanks again, mouse

thanks also for supplying the names of the pentatonic modes with a whole lot less syllables than i saw last time

here's what i've been working on lately:

perpetual thirds - 7 octaves divided into 24 [nearly] equal parts
E G B D F# A C#(Db) E(Fb) G#(Ab) B(Cb) D#(Eb) F#(Gb) A#(Bb) C#(Db) E#(F) G#(Ab) B#(C) D#(Eb) G Bb D F A C

perpetual pentatonic - 7 octaves divided into 36 [nearly] equal parts
D E G A B D E F# A B(Cb) C#(Db) E(Fb) F#(Gb) G#(Ab) B(Cb) C#(Db) D#(Eb) F#(Gb) G#(Ab) A#(Bb) C#(Db) D#(Eb) E#(F) G#(Ab) A#(Bb) B#(C) D#(Eb) E#(F) G Bb C D F G A C D

these pitch collections were described at the very beginning of this thread and i keep revisiting them in my own practice rituals because they're so [expletive deleted] interesting. i was asked once how one would use them and i don't recall ever responding, so here it is:

C D F G A C D E G A B D E is a subset of that "perpetual pentatonic" and clearly "fits" the natural scale that embellishes Fmaj7, Dm7, Bm7b5, G7, E7b9sus, etc... and i would use this pitch set for every one of these chords, in particular the Dm7 Dm6 sort of vamp, even while extending the range into the "non-diatonic" sections of the pitch set for brief moments of time:

...Eb F G Bb C D F G A C D E G A B D E F# A B C#...

the continuing modulation along the circle of fifths is really interesting to me and if played well, allows the ear to accept brief departures from the tonality.

the "perpetual thirds" described above is also known as the super arpeggio.

and this is what i've been doing for fun lately