Sorry to jump in on your post Danny, but when I read his answers in
responses to others, they at least talk about specific things instead
of the nonsense that I see in his responses directly to me!
On Jun 21, 9:07 am, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:4avp54p17a0va9ji6ei4p790htvg003sna@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> >>"BestStudentViolins.com" <SunMusicStri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>>news:ac92f971-6a70-43da-bc62-9eb7b7b4bb61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>I have an online friend, a working jazz pianist, who wrote me the
> >>> following:
>
> >>> This blues scale is entirely inaccurate because there's really no
such
> >>> thing as a blues scale. At best, certain cheap book authors have
> >>> touted the minor pentatonic as a blues scale, possibly adding the
> >>> diminished fifth or augmented fourth. But, actual blues music rarely
> >>> uses this combination of notes in a recognizably scalar fa****on.
>
> > Bull****.
> >>This is essentially true, as I mentioned in different words in my
earlier
> >>post. The "blues scale" is a modern construct. (I'd be interested
to
> >>know how modern. It's possible it was never mentioned before the
1980s,
> >>but if there is earlier do***entation, I'd definitely be interested in
> >>it.)
>
> > You must be either kidding, or not looking hard enough.
>
> Or expressing myself poorly.
Ah, certainly a huge possibility!
>
> >>It does provide a simple way of sounding "bluesy", but yes "actual
blues
> >>music" does not restrict itself to this palette of 6 notes.
>
> > No music really restricts itself to *any* palette of notes, if you
take
> > expressiveness into consideration.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I think the root of our disagreement lies here: I am happy that the
notes 1
> b3 4 b5 5 b7 are indeed prominent in blues playing, but I don't hear the
> other notes which are used as particularly subsidiary to these (or as
being
> extra to any equivalent of a tonal centre). For example, if a 2 or a 6
> turns up, it isn't really possible (I would argue) to hear it as a
chromatic
> modification of a note which lies on the scale. And therefore it calls
> into question exactly what you mean by "a blues scale". Even worse is
the
> concept of "*the* blues scale" as it is hardly possible to identify only
> one.
>
> And if you take the most bog-standard blues progression
>
> I I I I7 IV7 IV7 I I V7 IV7 I I
>
> there are notes in the harmonies which just don't occur in the "blues
> scale". And for some blues, this blues scale might fit, and for others
it
> sounds just wrong. So it is not really possible to argue that it is
any
> form of basis for the blues.
Sorry, that logic is flawed. As explained in an earlier post, the
melody came first. The melody is the origin of the Blues scale. It
comes, and I believe that you even repeated this in one of your posts,
from the folk music of the early blacks. There was no harmony in the
original songs that was played by 12 tet instruments. Later when the
music was taken out of the fields and put into the more modern
instruments of the day, the PIANO or banjo created the harmony. The
piano needed to find a way to suggest the blues without retuning the
strings (or using someone inside the instrument to bend them lol) and
one of the techniques used was to play the major harmony with the
minor (blues) sonority in the melody. The singers, if you listen
carefully, will be singing in the cracks of the piano with the blues
notes. So when you pick and choose from these various concepts that
are at play, your logic is flawed as you are mixing apples, oranges,
pears, plums and many other flavors that we have not even discussed.
>
> > Albert, BB, Freddie, Robert Johnson, Jimi, Jimmy (Page), Dylan, Muddy,
> > Duane (Allman), Buddy (Guy), Lennon/McCartney- when they did a blues
> > tune,
> > Clapton, John Lee Hooker, Earl Hooker - the road goes on forever.
> > When the masters play the blues, they use this scale as a basis.
>
> Again I would argue (in common possibly with Mr Violin's pianist friend)
> that (especially earlier) blues singers didn't "use this scale as a
basis"
> but rather played blues the way they felt it and the notes of this scale
> were prominent in their output. In any event, the flattened 7th and
3rd
> were originally sung as flattened by rather less than a semitone. I
don't
> really hear this scale when I listen to Bessie Smith or Jelly Roll
Morton
> (for example).
Then you should practice your listening skills. Unless you insist that
they use this one form and only that one form. The main problem with
your argument is that you insist that everything is black and white
and them by your personal arbitrary standards. I certainly hear the
scale in both of these and most other performers in this art form. Do
they also use embellishments? Of course. This is obvious to those that
listen and actually try to put it into perspective. Would you be just
as willing to say that Beethoven or Mozart didn't "use the major scale
as a basis" because they introduced modal interchange that had other
basis to express their ideas? Its the same thing, unless you claim
that the blues performers lack the sophistication to expand on the
basic blues and that they are not capable of using the same types and
techniques of these more classically trained composers.
>
> > There may be chromatic alterations, sure - usually the m3-M3
> > interpolation, and ^5-^-6 ^8 ( relative major/minor juxtapositioning)
but
> > this IS what it is - the blues scale is REAL - and REALLY used IN
> > PRACTICE.
>
> I am aware that it is really used in practice these days, but would
argue
> that if you start fom this set of 6 notes and work out from there, then
your
> playing is going to be rather derivative, until you free yourself from
it.
> I am not criticising - I use it myself as a shortcut to approaching
various
> solos (but not every blues solo) - but I am conscious of the need to
play
> what I feel, and my occasional better efforts, at least, go way beyond
it.
By this same logic, then all music that used Major or minor scales
exclusively wold be rather derivative until one freed themselves from
it! Some would argue that if you were playing a blues solo, that going
beyond it would be the shortcut as to continue to make music without
the crutch of modal interchange (which will take the solo out of the
blues category if carried to its limits) is the real challenge. It is
much easier to switch to altered scales than to work with a smaller
set of notes and to continue to make it sound fresh and creative. I am
not criticizing as there are many valid ways to approach solos, but to
say that the long list of players that Danny posted play rather
derivative solos is to miss the beauty of the blues which is a valid
art form of its own.
>
> As I say, I am not sure when someone first wrote down these 6 notes and
> called it a "blues scale". I suspect it is rather recent. I'd be
> interested in any do***entation.
The first writings were when the musicians played the music. The
second was when they wrote it for publication (this was usually done
by others that heard the beauty of the originals, and then years
afterward, someone got a research grand and put it into a book. If you
really want to understand it, go as closely to the source as you can.
LJS
>
> Dave
> --
> David Webber
> Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
> For discussion/sup****t
seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
|
