Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?

"Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:mg4r54pl316dg9bj6954hl6sfqv3ub29tk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:40:20 +0100, "David Webber"
> <dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I am getting even more confirmed in my feeling that just playing a blues
>>scale is extremely limiting.  Maybe I'm misinterreting it but you seem
to 
>>me
>>to want to get by with just 6 notes.   None of the blues I listen to
does
>>that - it is all much more interesting.
>
>
> well, we are only talking about adding ^2 and ^6.
> Gee, if the inclusion of these two notes is the difference between "much
> more interesting"and not, then, yeah - I'd say you need to broaden your
> horizons...

I just gave them as examples.  My horizons are indeed broader.   And 
"horizons" may be the best way of expressing it.    The problem as I see
it 
is,  if instead of saying "the b3 b5 and b7 were im****tant in somebody's 
work",  you say "he played on a blues scale",  then you are immediately 
closing down the horizons.   You may be able to extract a blues scale from

some of what he did, but it is only one way of looking at it, and, as you 
seem to agree, looking at it also from other directions is desirable.

> Note choice (set) is not nearly the only factor in what makes for
musical
> interst. Variation, contrast, loud/soft/ motivic development, rhythmic
> displpacement, fast/slow, flurry/spacing of single tones sliding into a
> note, expressive note production ( bending + more)...etc etc..
>
> IMHO - the gamut of notes available is one of the LEAST im****tant
factors
> in pulling of a solo that moves people.. But what do I know....

I completely with you that the gamut of notes used isn't the only
im****tant 
factor, and that expression is crucial.  Otherwise it would be sound and
not 
music.

Dave
-- 
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/sup****t see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm