On May 31, 2:22 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:5882fcd9-bc69-47ca-b17a-9019fc02b581@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On May 31, 11:10 am, "Tom K." <tkor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I notice you are using the term "tone sets" rather than scales - while
I'd
> prefer "PC sets", we're essentially in agreement. These songs may be
based
> on scale subsets, but not scales.
>
No, I am using the term simply to define a set of notes that may be
dealt with in many ways. I am applying these tone sets that are
similar to the ones that I believe Jack is referring to as well
although his folk music may have different tone sets and their may be
other slight differences. I would have to see them before I could make
an absolute statement. I am using your "theoretical idea of scale" and
applying this to these tone sets as an example of how by that
definition, they are indeed scales. As Jack pointed out, the exact
origin of these handed down melodies is not clear, but because of
their similarities and their universality to so many cultures, one
must assume that they have something very basic and generic to music
as their basis. And, these songs seem to fit nicely into your "idea of
scale" by their nature and use.
>
> >> > 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.
>
> That's our difference - I wouldn't term a "smaller tone set" as a scale.
I think that I explained above that this is not the meaning of tone
set as I have used it. Just because you may fill in notes that are
based upon a small set of notes that are used in the manner that you
have described as a scale to make a larger set of notes that may also
be a scale, (too long of a phrase) does not negate the smaller set
from being a scale of its own. You certainly may extract the smaller
set of notes as a motif, but this would not negate that the same set
of notes that were used for the motif could not be a scale in their
own right.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Since a PC set may contain 2~12 tones, all scales are tone sets. And
all
> motives are tone sets. I was using the term motive to distinguish
between a
> relatively short, local musical pattern and a longer one that truly
> functions as a scale. If you find it confusing, don't use it.
I don't find it confusing, I just haven't seen a phrase you used that
PC would stand for. I think I understand what you are saying however,
(a rose by any other name...) but I don't see that a tone set has to
be a motif although it certainly may be one. A tone set does not imply
a specific order to the notes as does the term motif just as a scale
does not imply an order for the arrangement of the tones of the scale
for use in melodic composition or harmony. A melody and one of its
smaller components called a motif are examples of tones that are in a
specific order and in the case of the motif, the intervals and notes
may change as shape and rhythm are the key factors of the motivic
nature of these tones. If the tone set of the motive is transposed in
the course of the melody it is a subset of the melody and thus the
scale, but if the tone set is used to create many different melodies
(each of which could be considered a motive in some cases) ant they
are not dependent on the same arrangement nor the same rhythm, then
this use of the tone set is NOT motivic, but rather nestles quite
nicely into your definition of scale.
>
> > 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.
>
> Nope. I'm just saying that (IMHO) in order to be useful, the term scale
> should refer to a collection of at least 5 pitches.
>
> Tom K.
Well, I understand that you may look at it that way, but you seem to
be leaving out a rather large body of music both on the Ancient side
of the coin as well as on the more modern side of the coin. I still,
however, can't see how that in your opinion that both this statement
of 5 pitches and your "theoretical idea of scale" can co-exist. I
agree that in common talk that many don't recognize scales of smaller
tone sets, but my statements only apply to your definition of the
theoretical idea of scale. And, BTW, I think that you have come up
with a very good definition there that will not only account for your
limitation of scales to 5 notes as well as for mine that will accept a
more theoretical view of this and want to include ALL the contexts
that will be covered by your definition.
LJS
|
