Lesson 7/8 Suggestions

[stevel]

Maestro,

I think you're doing a really, REALLY wonderful thing here. But I feel like you need to do some more research on each topic.

You mention Pentatonic in Lesson 7 and being a misnomer - I think for the Scottish scale you list.

Octa, Penta, Hexa, etc. are simply prefixes for the number of notes a scale contains.

There are two basic Western Pentatonic scales:
"Major" CDE GA
"minor" C EbFG Bb

There are also "modes" of these:
C D E G A
D E G A C
E G A C D
G A C D E
A C D E G

Note these are "unnamed" though the first and last share the relative Major-minor relationship of 7 note scales.

There are also however common Pentatonic scales form Asia that don't have this same W W m3 W m3 pattern (C D Eb G Ab for instance).

You also mention there are only 3 recognized types - Diatonic, Chromatic, and Whole Tone. What about "diminished"? You need some better categorization here.

Where did you find the word "primitive" for the Natural Minor scale? Is it used only in Jungle music?

You also say "This form is used only to a very limited extent, and then principally in vocal music, the harmonic form being in almost universal use in spite of the augmented second." when speaking of Melodic Minor.

This is totally inaccurate. You really shouldn't put stuff like this in your documents or else people will simply dismiss your information, and assume since you don't know something as rudimentary as this, that all of your other information will likely be faulty (which is why so many Theory websites suck). You really need to understand how scale degrees 6 and 7 were used in minor keys in CPP works to understand this, but to be brief, the so-called harmonic minor scale and melodic minor scale were used with equal frequency in all genres. In fact, the interval of the Augmented 2nd is strenously avoided in most (classical) music, and more especially so in Vocal music because of it's difficulty to sing.

So I'm not trying to pick on you, but I'm really disappointed when I see yet another webdite providing mis-information to people. You really do you and your site a disservice.

Peace,
Steve

[Boneman]

Mind if I chip in here? Music is by it's own definition an infinite subject that no one can know everything about. To say that the boss is doing a disservice is wrong. The fact that he bothered to set something up like this in the first place warrants praise. Your comments should have been kept in a PM to him and not for general consumption.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Boneman

Mind if I chip in here? Music is by it's own definition an infinite subject that no one can know everything about. To say that the boss is doing a disservice is wrong. The fact that he bothered to set something up like this in the first place warrants praise. Your comments should have been kept in a PM to him and not for general consumption.

I think you misread my post. I did praise his efforts. I think this is a great site - one of the most well-organized I have found. However, if it contains erroneous information, that information should be corrected. As vast as the English language is, the correct spelling of dog is dog. Telling people it's spelled "dawg" is doing a disservice.

I thought about doing a PM, but this is about discussing things. You may note I have some other posts down there and MaestroX has responded to me about those, and doesn't seem to be bothered by constructive criticism.

Steve

[MaestroX]

You did the right thing in telling me. I hate giving people misinformation, and as you said Stevel its why many theory websites suck.

You may note I have some other posts down there and MaestroX has responded to me about those, and doesn't seem to be bothered by constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism is the way foward in learning, I don't mind it as long as we can work out a solution to make this thing better!

I'll address te issue with Lesson 7 later today and see how I can refine it. With one persons input on this, its difficult to keep on top of everything, so thankyou for pointing that out.

[reith]

I think Maestrox has set himself a formidable task. Over a couple of years I've noticed many differences in approach and nomenclature between the UK and the Americans who seem determined to reinforce their independence by going their own way. What seems the worst is that someone prostitutes a basic notation like the roman numeral or figured-bass to deal with a specific analytical point, then tries to generalise it by getting his ideas published as a thesis or similar. Makes what was basic communication 20 years ago now difficult.
So Maestrox' encapsulation of enough spirit so we can understand differences in the letter is most praiseworthy!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by reith

I think Maestrox has set himself a formidable task. Over a couple of years I've noticed many differences in approach and nomenclature between the UK and the Americans who seem determined to reinforce their independence by going their own way. What seems the worst is that someone prostitutes a basic notation like the roman numeral or figured-bass to deal with a specific analytical point, then tries to generalise it by getting his ideas published as a thesis or similar. Makes what was basic communication 20 years ago now difficult.
So Maestrox' encapsulation of enough spirit so we can understand differences in the letter is most praiseworthy!

Yes, this is definitely a formidable task!

One thing we discussed, and something I think is still necessary, is an American English to English English guide!

I have to disagree with you partly though Reith - actually communication is far more standardized than 20 years ago. For instance, Roman Numerals used to be ALL CAPS, regardless of the quality (see Schoenberg), and some added a (what I've seen been called "bastardized") from of figured bass. Virtually every text I see printed in the US uses case-sensitive Roman Numerals, and what's called "standard" figured bass for inversions (the difference is that in one version accidentals are applied to the figured bass symbols, and in the other the Roman Numeral's quality is enough to determine this, so it makes for a less fussy system - more information in less symbols).

Also, terminology for German, French, and Italian Augmented 6th chords has become standardized (though the symbology is not quite there yet) as well as for things like the Neapolitan chord. Years ago, a lot of people called it bII, but now, everyone's happy with "N". (though I have to admit, the stray N within a bunch of Roman Numerals looks odd).

I get sent perusal copies of texts all of the time. I have found nothing that has been printed in the last 5 years in the US to differ significantly from each other. If I look at texts from the 80s though, stuff is all over the map.

I'm interested in your perspective though, because Thorolf seems to be using an American system instead of British. What if the British system is confined only to that country, and the American system is more far flung than you realize?

I know there are some number systems in use too (like Nashville Numbering here in the US) but they just don't seem to be catching on. I think the problem is a lot of information is built into the existing Roman Numeral system, and simpler or modified systems often leave out some important aspect and thus are only applicable in a limited set of circumstances.

Peace,
Steve

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by stevel

I'm interested in your perspective though, because Thorolf seems to be using an American system instead of British. What if the British system is confined only to that country, and the American system is more far flung than you realize?

hehe, I’m completely new to discussing music theory in any other language than norwegian!

I know that our ad hoc system is generally European/German, with H for B, etc., but to avoid confusion, we still write Bb for B flat as chord symbols, to avoid the ambigous B. Also, when it comes to Plagal, etc., it definitely looks that we’re indeed on the european side of things.



Regards

[MaestroX]

Just thought I would follow this up.

Stevel, would you perhaps help me in re-writing lessons 7 and 8 to be more accurate and correct?

Your help would be very much appreciated

[stevel]

Originally Posted by MaestroX

Just thought I would follow this up.

Stevel, would you perhaps help me in re-writing lessons 7 and 8 to be more accurate and correct?

Your help would be very much appreciated

I'd be happy to look over them and offer suggestions - I think there's probably some editing that can be done in the others as well. I just didn't want to sit here and nit pick you to death because I know how much work you have put into this (and thank you for that by the way).

I just started a new semester and I'm still "getting into" teaching my courses again - I've got one I've already taught, but another newer professor is also teaching a section and I'm having to help him along, and I've got two brand new courses I'm developing "on the fly" so to speak.

Once I settle in a bit I'll take a look at things and see if anything pops out that needs to be (or could be) considered.

Best,
Steve

[MaestroX]

Great, I'm really glad your willing to help. I think with more people working at it (considerably more qualified than I am) it will be even better