On May 31, 11:10 am, "Tom K." <tkor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:55eb511a-d38c-4a2b-b96f-686c2deb3ad1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On May 31, 8:14 am, "Tom K." <tkor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "Alain Naigeon" <anaig...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >>news:48406765$0$27224$426a74cc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > Tom, where is it written that a scale must have 7 notes, or more
than
> >> > four,
> >> > or that it should contain at least one interval not greater than
some
> >> > inferior
> >> > limit, or..?
> >> > In other words, I'm not necessarly disagreeing with your answer,
but
> >> > I'd
> >> > then ask : how can we turn our common feeling of a scale to a
rational
> >> > definition ?
>
> >> It seems to me that a scale is a theoretical idea - a collection of
> >> pitch-cl***** serving as a reference for a body of music. While
> >> personally
> >> I would prefer that it be limited to a subset of the chromatic whole
the
> >> term "chromatic scale" or even "twelve-tone scale" has been in common
> >> usage,
> >> so the upper limitation is apparently 12 for 12 TET music.
>
> >> As far as the lower limitation is concerned, I would argue that there
is
> >> a
> >> large body of music employing pentatonic scales - but not anything
> >> smaller.
> >> So if you can show the 4 tone (especially o7) music, I would revise
that
> >> opinion.
>
> >> So a "rational definition" would be 5~12 notes; IMHO, a more useful
one
> >> would be 5~8 notes as that encomp***** the largest body of
non-chromatic
> >> music.
>
> >> Tom K.
>
> > Hi Tom,
> > Your argument makes sense from several perspectives, but I loose it
> > when you insist on real examples to accept an obviously theoretical
> > premise.
>
> > First, however to the smaller end of the number of notes for a scale.
> > If you delve into the world of songs that children learn and sing,
> > even with different words in many cultures, you will find examples of
> > the tone set m_sl as well as d_m_sl and m_sl_d as well as other
> > three and four note tone sets that are used as scales. It may be
> > argued that these are part of a greater whole, however that does not
> > have to be the case. The fact that these tunes can be harmonized using
> > other scales does not mandate that they themselves are written in
> > those larger scales.
>
> Do you have examples of these songs which are not harmonized? The
melody of
> the bossa nova "One Note Samba" (excluding the bridge) consists of
sol-do,
> yet no one calls it a 2 note scale. The 2 notes are a subset of the
major
> scale - call them a motive, a dyad or whatever, but not a scale.
But there is a bridge so I wouldn't have considered a song like this
for an example. I would however like to meet the children that you
know that would sing this song as a matter of course! lol
I am referring to children's songs. Things like "Star Light Star
Bright", "Hot Cross Buns" and hundreds (if not thousands) of songs
that have come to be a standard part of children's literature usually
based on Nursery Rhymes and other chant like material. I don't know
how extensive these tunes have been researched as to the actual origin
of the tones that are used today, but the lyrics, which are often
shared with the same melody go back at least several hundred years. I
can only imagine that since I have heard the same melodies on at least
4 continents that there is some basic origin of these tone sets that
have been used to create folksongs. These tone sets are organized by
Zoltan Kodaly (and others) in an evolutionary order to teach music.
They seem to come from the overtone series and they appear to be
timeless. As you combine all of these songs, you will assemble the
Pentatonic Scale and then the Major scales and all of its modes, but
this is somewhat non relevant to the context that I used based on your
definition (which I gather that you have at least some dissagrement)
that prompted my response.
>
> > Speculating outside my main field, I also seem to
> > remember some African chants that seem to be built on three or four
> > note patterns as well as possibly some Native American music.
>
> Not all music is based upon scales - unless you stretch the definition
of
> scale so far that you begin to lose the usefullness of the term.
Although I
> suspect that a great deal of African and Native American music is
> pentatonic, the music you mention would have a smaller referential pitch
> collection; and as a result, it would not exhibit the larger pitch
> complexities of scale based music. Of course, the lack of higher level
> pitch relations is more than compensated by other aspects, especially
> rhythmic richness.
>
I don't know that all of this music is Pentatonic based although a lot
of it certainly is. I don't remember saying that all music is based on
scales, although I am a bit hard pressed to think of any except some
modern music as examples at this precise moment. There may very well
be some older music that is not that is evading me at this stage of
needing coffee in the late morning! I don't really know how one would
stretch the definition of scale to lose the usefulness unless you were
mixing contexts of the definition and the use. Your mention of music,
of course, would be out of the realm of a discussion of scale context
and usefulness. Unless the rhythm is using pitched instruments there
would be no relation****p and if there were, then the rhythmic aspect
would still not be a factor on the scale used or its use.
I don't understand your statement about smaller referential pitch
collections. I would not assume that a scale that was a smaller tone
set would have the same complexities of scales of a larger tone set
and I didn't think that I implied that in any manner. I don't see how
the use of a "simple" scale or the very nature of a simple scale would
have anything to do with a larger more complex scale. I would assume
that by complex you mean that it has richer harmonic implications and
possibilities, but we are not speaking about harmonic implications in
this discussion. I, for one, have limited my comments only to scales
and then from a theoretical context that would produce a definition of
leaps that would be more fitting to cover all eras of music rather
than a limiting definition that would only cover a smaller segment.
Maybe you can help me to understand the relevance of comparing one
scale to another relative to complexity and how this applies to the
issue at hand.
> A distinction between "scale" and "motive" (long term or general, and
short
> term or local) might be helpful here.
At present, I don't see how this applies. A tone set is not a motive.
There are numerous motives that can and have been used with the tone
set of m_sl. I am not referring to motives that may be created by this
tone set. I am referring to this tone set in the specific context that
fits your theoretical idea of scale. More definitions (or
distinctions) do not seem to be the answer. If you now redefine your
idea of the scale, I may very well have to change what I have said to
accommodate these new definitions.
>
> > Now for Alain's scale. I suggested that it be expanded to two octaves
> > that was composed of as two octaves with the same note to show
> > ambiguities with some definitions, but in reality, this is unnecessary
> > as all scales can of course go up to other octaves and lower octaves.
> > Now for the theoretical answer to the use of these notes as a scale.
>
> Sorry but I don't think that using enharmonic equivalents such as your
"C Eb
> Gb A B# D# F# Gx C" qualifies as anything more than a Co7 chord.
>
> Again, if you wish to call structures of fewer than 5 pitch-cl*****
scales,
> then have at it. I just don't think it helps in terms of Alain's
request to
> "turn our common feeling of a scale to a rational definition".
> Tom K.
I would think that your "theoretical idea" of scale cleared this up!
You gave clear guidelines of what determines the scale. That is what I
commented on. Alain's scale can fit these guidelines. And if this tone
set is used as a melodic scale that fit your guidelines as to the idea
of scale, then it is not a matter of what I chose to call these
structures, it is rather an example of what you have defined these
structures to be! If your "common feeling of scale" does not fit your
"theoretical idea of scale", what anyone would call it has little to
do with anything. If you wish to define a concept and then decide that
certain examples of your idea should be excluded, then YOU have at it.
My post only gave examples of what you had stated in your post as
guidelines for defining scales!
It once again goes back to CONTEXT. According to your apparent
application of your idea, it seems that now you are saying that it
only applies to specific genres of music but then does not apply to
music in a broader context. I am, as stated before, interested in
finding a definition that will work for as much of the music spectrum
as possible, not just certain limited periods of musical history.
LJS
|
