Major-Minor

[quote name='rslaing' post='557481' date='Jul 31 2009, 11:20 PM']believe me, the opportunities for budding musicians in a live environment is not as good as you make out. Honestly Certainly not in an environment where someone can push the boundaries a bit. But the live music scene is not healthy and anything that can generate interest and develop musicianship has to be a good thing.[/quote] This is interesting. I often complain that there seem to be fewer opportunities for young players these days - and yet I hear conflicting views on this. I don't teach much these days, but the students i have at the moment all seem to be busy with gigs - both the well paid function gigs and the "peanuts" jazz gigs. If you look in the jazz listings websites and JazzUk mag etc, there seems to be plenty going on. I read recently in the PRS magazine, that Fergal Sharkey (ex Undertones singer, now a government live music advisor) believes that live music is thriving. Personally (outside of my BBC work) I get plenty of offers, both money gigs and peanuts gigs, most of which I have to regretfully turn down due to my BBC schedule. Having said this, it does appear that the jazz venues are struggling to keep going, often only managing it because of the enthusiasm of the (usually) ageing promotor who very often dips into his own pocket to pay the (usually very small) fee to the players. When these guys die out, I guess things will get harder. The jazz festival scene is patchy, but I've heard of good attendances at some Manchester Jazz Fest gigs last week. Shame about Appleby Fest tho'. So what is the truth ? Is it just the pop world that is thriving ? Are jazz gigs more difficult to get in some areas of the country? And do many of you think of going on jazz courses ? I did this many years ago - exhausting but great fun. Is there room for more such things ? I vaguely wondered about trying to get the my Ed and Comm manager at the Beeb to organise something along the lines of a bass course - covering all styles of playing, bringing bass players of all types together - a bit like the BassDay thing - but a whole weekend course with top players from all genres giving masterclasses etc. Would people be interested ? Or would players be put off by being thrown in with musos from outside their preferred genre ? Would people pay for such a thing ? It's just a thought ........... The Major

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='557477' date='Jul 31 2009, 11:10 PM']Thanks for the compliment. I remember it as one the most enjoyable things I did in my whole degree. Just to spin the mode names out a bit more, the names we currently give to the modes actually correspond to early Greek tribes, which roughly speaking had scales intended to convey their tribal characteristics (opinions on exactly how this worked differ). The scales had no harmonic connection to each other in the way we like to think of modal structures today. I'm not really as well up on medieval music, but as far as I know the formalisation took place during the Middle ages - how they came to have the specific names assigned is most likely to do with diatonic approximations of the tribal scale structures the Medieval musicologists had available to them handed down from antiquity. So in a sense the modes are descended from Greek antiquity, but not in the way most people would imagine. As to harmony, it does seem to be the case that music from early Greek history was essentially melodic in character, although there is some evidence that the simultaneous playing of multiple notes was beginning to be observed by Plato, which basically dates it to the 4th century BC. What is worth noting is that although harmony in the modern sense was rare, the Greeks had a very sophisticated understanding of scales (which however looked very different from modern Diatonic scales) - actually scales in Ancient Greek music is quite a decent sized topic on it's own. The concept of a drone note is an interesting one, as it implies a tonal centre - the early equivalent of a modern musical key. Very common in (for example) Indian music, I'm not sure that it had much of a place in ancient Greece. Without getting into too much detail, all music was most likely restricted to a single octave (the Greeks had a good understanding of the notion of an Octave, a fifth and a fourth - their music was based on Tetrachords - but the mathematics used to construct the scales pretty much precluded any notion of multiple octaves). Because of this, and because Greek music put such a heavy emphasis on the concordant notes, the tonal centre would probably have been fairly obvious from the musical sequence. Also bear in mind that the Greeks had no notion of absolute pitch the way we do. As if all this isn't already hard enough, many of the words we use to describe music are modernisations of Greek originals - filtered through the Latin scholars from whom we get most of what we know. Trouble is, with few exceptions the original meanings of the words as understood at the time were different from the meanings we give them - in fact one of the hardest aspects of this whole area of study is being able to unload our modern musical training sufficiently to enable us to properly grasp what the ancient Greeks were actually on about! Hope this helps.[/quote] leftybassman - this is brilliant ! You put everything in easily understandable language - many thanks! Personally I would love to hear more of your knowledge on this subject (in small doses ideally, for my small brain) if you have the time and inclination. I would love to know more about: tetrachords / absolute pitch / scales in Ancient Greek music etc The Major

[quote name='chrkelly' post='557633' date='Aug 1 2009, 10:25 AM']I've got a K&M too, had it about 10 years. Nice and comfy but very heavy. If I have to use public transport to a gig, the stool stays at home. Major- Mine doesn't have the backrest and it's still very squeaky! I would never bring it to a session. Mine's all gaffa taped up at the mo to stop it. They're fine when new but over time all the moving parts work loose.[/quote] Thanks for that chrkelly. Maybe I'll stick with my old IKEA stool for the time being. The Major

[quote name='endorka' post='548564' date='Jul 23 2009, 08:15 AM']Since you asked, I present the mother of all stools - I am the envy of drummers everywhere I go; [url="http://www.thomann.de/gb/km_14052_stehhilfe.htm"]http://www.thomann.de/gb/km_14052_stehhilfe.htm[/url] You can even buy a backrest for it; [url="http://www.thomann.de/gb/k+m_14042.htm"]http://www.thomann.de/gb/k+m_14042.htm[/url] Shocking. Jennifer[/quote] Hi Jennifer Assuming you have the backrest for this stool, does it creak when you lean back on it (like the one I am sitting on now at my computer which drives me nuts! Cheap nasty thing)) I'm tempted to get one of these stools, but need to know that, if I buy the backrest it won't be wasted money. As I do lots of classical work, I can't have extraneous noises creeping in. The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='556799' date='Jul 31 2009, 08:50 AM']I disagree. (Sorry!) There are thousands of musicians who have not had the facility other than things like playalongs, books and the like, so that they can develop their playing, and have gone on to become fine musicians. It's all very well for say, an intermediate musician to expand his improvisational ability in a group of similar muso's IF it is a regular thing and the opportunity is there. Problem is, the beginner and person who does not play regularly with competent musicians, will not be able to develop without a different practice strategy. The playalong, or practising to cd's of any type, is no different to the age old method which just about every top musician in modern music has admitted to being the way they improved their abilities. In the old days they had to slow down 78's when they were imitating and transcribing the styles of their preferred musical choices. These days, we are fortunate to have the benefits of technology and should use it. It really is about time that the "old school" changed their dinosaur approach and moved with the times. Half of them wouldn't probably know how to turn a cd player on. This is the samesort of attitude that led to players in the 60's denouncing electric basses and guitars, and synths in the 70's. They were wrong then too. For bass players, the Aebersold series is brilliant, there are playalongs with Ron Carter, Rufus Reid and many others who have recorded and transcribed their bass lines, and for 20 quid, you can play along with fine musicians, learn tunes, and finally turn off the bass side of the recording and do your own stuff. I think it a little strange that any qualified musician should think that Aebersold et al would be "retrogressive". Anything that gives a musician the opportunity to play their instrument (and in this case with some of the best players in the business) can only be an advantage. Maybe in their day, (and I remember them in mine!) when groups of people rehearsed 6 nights a week, or had playing jobs every night of the week, their beliefs may have had creedence. But not now. Musicians don't have the facilities to go and play in "live" situations. So my advice is ignore the comments of the few that maybe had better "live" facilities and absorb as much theory as you can, and put it in to practice with your backing tracks, your theory books etc. When you come to playing with other musicians, you will be much better equipped than if you had not used facilities of modern technology. And when you get to where you want to be, use the technology available to further your skills. You will certainly NOT regress..grrrrrrrrr. I read an article by a great sax player from the North East, Ron Aspery (unfortunately no longer with us), lately, in which he raved about the Aebersold stuff as being brilliant for not only newbies, but experienced musicians. He apparently used them extensively in his practice routines.And you can be as creative as you like. It really is no different to playing with real musicians because the common denominator is IT IS MUSIC!! Whatever you do, keep on practicing.[/quote] Rob - I think you have over-reacted to my statements re Aebersold !! I have several of the CD play-alongs and I often use them for soloing practice. But surely you can see that there comes a point when you need to get away from this, dare I say, sterile environment and get out there and inter-react with other players. That is the ultimate pleasure in music making - playing with others, in front of an audience. Everything you say here applies to me too: (I'm not an old school dinosaur .. really I'm not). I have played along with records when i was young, I have transcribed solos. I played in beat groups that put the big bands out of work, I employed synth players in my bands, I do know how to make a CD player work, I can even use a computer ! Gigs have never been easy to get, but venues are still out there and promotors can still be found. If somebody has gone to the trouble of learning an instrument, and has done the CD playalong thing, has studied the theory, the reading, etc etc then surely they should try their hardest to get into a band or 2 and get out there and put all that learning into practise. The Aebersold stuff is only half the picture (and perhaps I was wrong to use the word retrogressive) .... play along as much as you can, but always with a view to doing it for real. Music is a communication between performer and listener. If there is no listener, its a lonely old world...... Actually, "live" music is doing quite well at the moment. Maybe not if you want to make money out of it - but if you are happy to play for peanuts, there are opportunities everywhere. The Major

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='556664' date='Jul 30 2009, 10:49 PM']At the risk of butting into an already well developed discussion, (and I'm aware that this is probably a little OT by this time,) perhaps I could put a bit of historical perspective into Major-Minor's excellent initial post. In my final undergraduate year as a Maths/Philosophy student I researched the topic of music in ancient Greece, and wrote a dissertation of my findings. All this was a long time ago I hasten to add, and the details are fairly cloudy, but the Greeks didn't think about music in the same way we do. They would have had no understanding of the notion of a mode at all (the word 'mode' is derived from the Latin word 'modus' and has no equivalent that I ever found in ancient greek writings). Their music (such as it was) was intimately tied up with their world view generally and their religious beliefs in particular. Folk music in the sense of casual music for the purpose of secular (non-religious) entertainment probably did not exist (despite what Hollywood would like you to believe). As I understand it (and someone may care to correct me on this) the modes we use today are medieval in origin, set down (like everything else in that period) by the church - in fact musicologists tend to call them the Ecclesiastical Modes for that reason. The Greeks did not have anything like our understanding of musical harmony - their approach was essentially mathematical in its nature, and the notes heard were simply a consequence of the divisions created by ancient Greek Proportion Theory - roughly the same as the modern notion of Ratio. Most of the important work from that period was done by the Pythagorean religious cult, but also appeared in the work of others such as Plato ( check out The Timaeus). The Greek names given to the modes are almost certainly to do with the fact that the Medieval Church had a religious philosophy taken almost entirely from ancient Greek Philosophy (particularly the work of Aristotle). If anybody's still awake I'd be happy to discuss it further ..... [/quote] This is most interesting. Thank you for your contributions to this discussion. I was always under the impression that the Greek names for modes actually came directly from that Civilisation so to hear that they are medieval in origin is fascinating. It also makes sense when one listens to Plainsong and other church music (not that I do it regularly you understand!). My academic music study was rather enforced by Music College requirements as I was always more interested in playing, so there are gaps in my knowledge. You say that the Greeks didn't have our understanding of harmony. Surely that is an understatement ? I have always believed that music in Ancient Greek times was purely melodic. The playing of more than 1 note at a time (apart from the drone) surely came much later. What is your understanding on this ? The Major

Hi BB Why don't you try to find somebody who knows about basses to view it with you ? Might even be worth paying somebody ! It might save you a lot of money in the long run. Plenty of bass players in Glascow. Call up the RSNO or the BBC SSO - see if they can put you in touch with one of their players. The Major

Rob - I apologise for crossing between the two threads we are currently discussing, but the 2 vids on this post, in my mind, vindicate everything I've been saying about modes. The second one in particular where there is no hint of a modal centre. The guys use every trick in the book - I suppose you could call it multi-modal but that would be absurd ! But great playing from these guys - I love this style - very open very free soloing over a simple constant root. And Joe Satriani seems to imply that he will similarly use multiple modes in one solo - thereby negating the idea that the music is modal (in the historic sense of the word). As usual with our discussions, we actually agree on most things, but it is the interpretation of the terminology used which causes us to differ. I'm sorry I chose to refer to the jazz theorist as opposed to the non jazz theorist. This was all I could think of at the time to describe why I thought there was a differing way to anotate chord symbols - ie our discussion re the + sign (augmented triads etc). My formative years were spent playing in Mecca bands (dance hall bands) and the way the arrangers wrote chord symbols then has always been in my mind "right" because thats how I first learnt it. Actually at that time the sharp9 chord was always referred to as b10 (ie CEGBbEb). I haven't seen it referred to in this way for quite some time - that's musical progress I suppose ! Anyway, I realize this thread is about walking bass lines, and I personally take a more harmonic approach to this rather than scale based ie I use the basic notes of the chord sequence as my starting point and think in terms of substitute chords for the in between notes. Maybe this needs further discussion !?? The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='554690' date='Jul 29 2009, 06:40 AM']After your fanning of the flames, I am reluctantly suggesting a few chromatic notes does not change the basic outline of the tune. And there are no Bb's which is the other note that defines a D harmonic minor? I've had a think about this and I think that Major is right. The possible misunderstanding though, comes from people not knowing that there is a difference between modal song, and using modal scales in a non-pure modal song - if you know what I mean. Perhaps when we see a song with only a couple of chords, with a repetitive bass or melodic motif, it is all too easy to label it as "modal". Of course, it doesn't help when the jazz commentators pigeonhole this stuff as modal and no one objects and then you check the definition and that is strictly speaking not correct. Maybe we should have a new label. Stuff that is not built on a drone could be called "New Modal" or "Modern Modal" as against "Traditional Modal". After all, they have been doing this with folk music for years, with the stalwarts refusing to acknowledge modern folk music as "folk". Rob.[/quote] I think this discussion is starting to get somewhere now. And most enjoyable it is too ! "So What": I suggested that in ancient times this tune would not have been [u]clearly[/u] in Dorian mode as there is no 3rd in the melody. What I was referring to was the fact that in its original incarnation, modes were purely melodic with no harmonic accompaniment. However (and this is where I have had arguments with eminent classical musicians over this subject), the notes of the mode, in relation to the drone, create a harmonic tonality over a period of playing. So if the drone is D, by playing a few phrases that include the note the note F, we get the impression that it is a minor mode. If an Eb is slipped in, we know it is in some sort of Phrygian mode. Bear in mind that the Greek modes we talk of today were only the basic modes. If you follow the historic development of modes thru into the Asian classical styles, you can clearly see how complex the thinking became, with up scales being different to down scales, and sometimes bunches of semitones rather than our simple tone / semitone way of using the basic Greek modes today. Melodic modes (with no harmonic accompaniment) create a tonality over a period of time. So if you play a few phrases in Mixolydian mode (lets say GABCDEF) you will create a tonality that is dominant - the G7 chord that we would normally put against this will be implied by the relation of all the notes to the root note G. In particular, in this instance, the B and F are pivotal. So if you play one note from outside the mode, you destroy that clear tonality. If in this instance you slip in a Csharp, it is no longer Mixolydian. But who cares ?! You played the note you wanted, you created the line that was in your head, you can go on and add all sort of other notes that will be away from the mode you started with. You might play a phrase using BCDEF, then slip it up a semitone, and back down again. Youv'e gone right away from the mode, but it works and audience love it. So now where is your modal integrity ? Its gone forever. Hooray! Another thing that occurs to me: When you play, lets say, a Phrygian scale (EFGABCD) with its E root over an Eminor chord, if you were to "hang about" on the F, it will sound fairly dissonant. Nothing wrong with that per se, but some people might be thinking you were playing a "wrong" note. What I'm trying to get at is the fact that these scales, used by jazz soloists, are often played at speed, so the individual dissonances are not a problem. So if fast playing is your thing, then fine, you can use modal scales to fly about all over the place and probably very impressively. But if you want to investigate some, dare I say, more meaningful and emotional aspects of improvisation, then you need to be more aware of the affect of each note within the scale in relation not only to the root note but also the chord you are playing against. I keep stressing this: The modal approach is one that all creative musos need to be conversant with. But it can only ever be a starting point for creativity. On its own it is self limiting. If you want to compose a piece for a TV prog that has a middle eastern feel, then yes something like the Phrygian mode will give our modern ears that impression. If you want to create an improvised solo [u]purely[/u] in Dorian mode, go ahead. It will sound fine(ish). But why limit yourself when there is so much more you can do. Some of the best jazz musos out there have never fully studied modal thinking. I have spoken to many great players who think the Aebersold methods (and others)are a retrogressive step. Personally, I think the Aebersold (and others) play-along CD's are a great way to practice at home, but they are limited in their scope as the most important aspect of any improvisation (in a group context) is communicating with the other players, listening, reacting to what is going on around you. You can't do that with a CD as the those players can't react to what [u]you [/u]play. I've read Aebersold's Scale Syllabus that Rob so kindly posted for us. As an analysis of improv choices it is very interesting. And I would recommend it to every player. However, once read and digested, forget it and start being creative. As I've said before, jazz educators and academics have found modal thinking to be a very handy way of explaining some of the possible approaches to improv and creativity. But don't get bogged down with these methods. They can be very off-putting to the jazz student, and also there is the danger that players will come out of their education all sounding the same. It is always the players who show individuality and a creative spirit who get noticed rather than the lemmings who have learnt it all by rote ! The Major

[quote name='rslaing' post='554269' date='Jul 28 2009, 06:33 PM']Because we have opened up the topic and are now investigating the harmonic aspects of the 7#9 (altered dominant), I am quoting some info from a great educator and musician, [url="http://www.marcsabatella.com/music/study.html"]Marc Sabatella[/url], to explain something in a much better way than I ever could. [i][b]Altered Scale[/b] The seventh mode of the melodic minor scale is often called the diminished whole tone scale, because it combines elements of the diminished and whole tone scales discussed later. Another name for this scale is the altered scale. To see why, recall the introductory discussion on chords. Chords are constructed by stacking thirds. Triads consisting of three notes were discussed, as were seventh chords consisting of four notes. In the key of C, G7 is the dominant seventh chord. It contains a root -G, a third -B, a fifth (D), and a seventh (F). If we add another third on top, A, we have a ninth chord G9. If we add another third, C, we have an eleventh chord G11. The C is the fourth of the scale, and is normally an avoid note. This symbol is normally used only when the fourth is explicitly required, as in a suspended chord. If we then add another third, E, we have a thirteenth chord G13. The C is normally omitted from this chord. Another third would bring us back to G. This chord can be altered by raising or lowering individual notes by a half step. The root, third, and seventh are not normally altered, since they are in large part what define the chord. A change to any of these destroys the dominant feel of the chord. The raised eleventh has already been discussed. The other interesting alterations are to the fifth and the ninth. For a G7 chord, this means the lowered or flat fifth (Db), the raised or sharp fifth (D#), the lowered or flat ninth (Ab), and the raised or sharp ninth (A#). [b]So now let us return to the so-called altered scale. A G altered scale can be built from Ab melodic minor, and consists of "G, Ab, Bb/A#, Cb/B, Db, Eb/D#, F". First note that this scale contains G, B, and F, the root, third, and seventh of the G7 chord. The rest of the notes, Ab, Bb, Db, and Eb, are respectively, the flatted ninth, the raised ninth, the flatted fifth, and the raised fifth. In other words, all the possible alterations in a ninth chord are included in this scale. The chord implied by this scale is often notated simply G7alt, although G7#9#5 is used as well, [size=3]as is G7#9[/size]. The b9 and b5 symbols are not normally used in this context, despite being present in the scale, because they imply the diminished scale which is discussed later.[/b] The sound of the altered scale and the chord it implies is much more complex than any other dominant seventh chord/scale so far presented, and it is one of the most important sounds in post bop jazz. You may wish to spend more time on this scale to get used to it. Try going to a piano and playing the root, third, and seventh in your left hand while playing the altered scale, and lines based on it, in your right. You may use this scale even when the chord appears to be an ordinary dominant seventh, but you should do so cautiously in a group setting, because other members of the group may be playing mixolydian or lydian dominant sounds, and your altered scale will sound dissonant against them. This is not necessarily wrong, but you should be conscious of the effect produced.[/i][/quote] Rob - this quote from Marc Sabatella makes great reading for the jazz muso. Thanks for posting it here. It is as you say very well written and clear. I would just caution other readers to be aware that this type of thinking is very much from a jazz perspective. A lot of the tonal effects he refers to are very much the language of jazz. If you are looking for music theorising of a more pop or rock nature, then this should not be taken too seriously. In any case it will make your brain hurt ! However if you have a thirst for musical knowledge and have a wide interest in the subject, then get stuck in ! I'm still concerned about the miss-naming of C7aug sharp9 versus C7 sharp 9. Again this is due to the jazz nature of the theorising books Rob has been reading. I don't think it's anything to do with US versus UK methods. Rather, its the jazz theorist versus the non jazz theorist.

[quote name='rslaing' post='554241' date='Jul 28 2009, 06:08 PM']That was a brilliant post and very well written! Thank you. It was me that mentioned So What because I honestly thought under the modern "interpretation" of modes, it was a modal tune. Why do the jazz academics refer to So What as the principal example of modern modal music then? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick? You mentioned that the melody doesn't indicate whether it is in a major or minor? What about the minor 3rd all the way through the melody? Is that just considered a "blue" note? I know Wikipedia is not accurate a lot of the time, but some of the dialogue seems to underpin a lot of jazz as being modal. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_jazz"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_jazz[/url][/quote] I often play "So What" as a bass guitar feature so hopefully I know how it goes (!) and there is no minor third in the melody: (in D minor) D A B C D E C D A are the notes of the main phrase which is repeated with small variations but still confined to the same set of notes. So as you can see there is no 3rd (minor or major). Its only by putting a chord of Dminor against the melody that you get an F (minor 3rd) in the mix Lets be clear: Every scale is a type of mode. so any piece of music (or part of a piece) that has a clearly defined scale at its heart is modal. And you are right to say that So What is a good example of the modern use of modes. We no longer think of the mode as just a scale. It has become a way to think of possible notes to play against a given chord. But it's only one of several approaches that one can take. I'm just concerned that people seem to get the wrong end of the stick when learning about modern modes. It becomes restrictive if you think you have to stick to the notes of the scale. Modes are a great starting point when composing or improvising, but nobody actually sticks to these scales except to create modal effects within a solo or composition. The Major

I have the feeling that there is a lot of confusion about musical modes on this forum ! I doubt I can put this right in one post, and I do have the intention of creating a new topic called "The History and Modern Usage of Musical Modes" when I can find time to do it properly ! But for now: Musical modes are actually very simple to understand once you know their history and how they became part of the current "jazz" music education system. In brief (apologies to scholars): Modes have probably been around for thousands of years. Nobody really knows because, until the Greek Civilisation, nothing was really written down. The Greeks theorised what was at that time the main musical vehicle, but of course we can never know just how their music sounded. The best guess is to listen to Indian Carnatic (Classical) music which developed even further down the modal line creating very complex and structured scales and rules. The Greeks identified 7 basic modal scales rooted on the 7 notes of the modern major scale: Ionian (our modern major scale) Dorian Phrygian Lydian Mixolidian Aeolian (natural minor scale) Locrian (a rarely used mode - mainly just theoretical) (There are other modes and scales and things like the wholetone scale and pentatonics that developed over time but lets leave that for another post) The important thing to understand here is that, more often than not, there would have been a drone (continuous bass note) underlying the melody. There were no chords - harmony as we know it had yet to emerge. (And once that harmony started to take root, the use of modes gradually died out. ) Each note of the modal scale had a relationship to that drone or root note. This is what created its character. Lets be clear: The ancients were probably not just playing up and down scales ! They were creating melodies or improvisations from within the notes of a particular mode. But always with a root note that the melody kept referring to (or a drone to root the melody on). (So the melody to "So What", had it been in existence in Byzantine times, would not have been clearly in Dorian mode, as it is actually based on a pentatonic scale (5 notes), and this melody doesn't give a clue as to whether it is major or minor.) The use of modes in music has always been essentially an academic one. If you analyze a folk tune like Scarboro' Fair, you can say it is in Dorian mode. But when it was created, i doubt very much whether the writer(s) realised that ! Folk music through the ages has always used modal ideas (so the academics now tell us), but much of that folk music was un-harmonised, unlike today when we put chords to everything. This really is the point i'm trying to put across: For much of it's history, modal music was purely melody based on a drone or root. More recently, composers who liked to incorporate folk-like moments in their music, used the modal analysis as a starting point for their composition. I'm referring here to the likes of Ralph Vaughn-Williams and Gustav Holst (and many others I can't think of right now!) It's only really with the emergence of jazz education systems that the mode has re-emerged as an analytical / compositional / improvisational tool. When I was at music college in the 1960's, musical modes were only vaguely mentioned from a historic perspective, and it wasn't until the jazz academics started to pidgeon-hole the different emerging styles that the humble mode started to re-appear in jazz educational tomes. It was realised that the jazz musicians were improvising using scales over chords that you could identify by the old Greek modal names. That's not to say that the players were sticking rigidly to this idea - far from it in fact - the modal approach is just one of many way of kicking off improvised soloing. Nowadays modes are taught as if they were the only way forward for the jazz improviser / composer. And this is where i take issue with the jazz educators. A mode is actually a [u]limitation[/u] if taken too literally. Incorporate it - yes - but control it - don't let it rule you! An improvising soloist needs to understand the possibilities that modal thinking will throw up - but they also need to understand that modes can actually hold you back unless you take them with a pinch of salt. And particularly for bass players, where the underlying harmonic sequence should be at the forefront of your mind when creating a bass part, modal thinking should be left to the academics !! The Major

Rob (by the way - hope you are over your flu !) Carrying on in pedantic mode: Re: bar 28. This really worries me. I suppose I have my arranger's hat on here rather than the "jazz" hat. The point I was trying to make is this: Bar 28 has 3 main ingredients which should be made absolutely clear to the muso reading the chart. They are: C root, E (creating the majorness of the harmony), and the Gsharp in the melody. Altogether this creates an augmented triad which is at the heart of the harmony for this bar. If we add Bb, this underlines the dominant nature of the chord but it is not essential. It is just an option. Even less important is your sharp 9 (Dsharp). This is purely colouration. A very good addition but essentially just filigree or added tension. I take issue with you over the nature of the symbol C7 +9. When written like this, you should assume that the 5th of the chord (G) is natural. For it to be sharpened, there must be an indication of that augmentation, whether it be a + sign (ideally) after the "C", (C+), or a sharp5 sign. Otherwise how can you differentiate the chord C E G Bb Dsharp (C7 sharp9) from the chord C E Gsharp Bb Dsharp (C7 augmented sharp9) ? As I've said in previous topics, its only too easy to have anomalies creeping in to the world of the chord symbol. We need at all times to be clear as to our exact intentions when writing chord abbreviations. I agree with you about fake books - they are always somebody's personal ideas re the harmony and should be taken with a pinch of salt. But we have to start somewhere when learning a new song so I have loads of fake books to get me started. Then of course you can start adding your own substitutions. I find your "Weekly Lesson" very interesting Rob, as I'm always looking for new ways to help explain music theory to students. The Major

Well done Rob ! As usual, you have put a huge amount of work in to this - I applaud your endeavours. Can I just clarify a few points that some readers might find confusing: On the songsheet you have put the 1st two bars as Fm and Bbm. Perfectly alright - but it would be better if they were marked as Fm7 and Bbm7 as the flow of the sequence works better with these 7ths added. To be fair, you have marked them as such on the chord sheet at the end of the post. Without these 7ths being stated, the chords (triads) sound too static and lacking in direction. In bar 28, you have put C7 +9. This bar is usually stated in most fake books as C7+ - in other words C dominant 7 with an augmented 5th: C E [u]Gsharp[/u] Bb. If you look at the melody line, the [u]Gsharp[/u] goes through both bar 27 and 28 and then carries on into the next section as an Ab. This note is a feature of this moment in the melody, the chords changing (modulating) while the note stays the same. You have explained that the symbol C7 +9 means a sharpened 9 (ie Dsharp). Therefore this gives us C E G Bb Dsharp. The Gsharp in the melody will not work very well against the G natural in your chord symbol. A whole tone scale will work nicely over C7augmented (C7+). (There are of course only 2 wholetone scales.) Bar 36 you state as a Bminor chord - yet the melody line is G and F. A better chord symbol at this bar would be Bo (B diminished). This is one of those rare moments where the Locrian mode can be invoked. And finally: Bar 38 has an F minim followed by a G minim in the melody. Therefore the Eb7 +9 chord only works under the second half of the bar, the first minim being an Eb9 chord. Sorry to be so pedantic ! The Major

Here's a transcriptions site I found the other day. Go straight to Transcriptions and then to the Bass page for lots of good stuff. [url="http://www.lucaspickford.com"]http://www.lucaspickford.com[/url] The Major

[quote name='MB1' post='545006' date='Jul 19 2009, 11:08 PM']MB1. What a Shame!....if only it were a 62! [/quote] Well I've got a '62 Jazz that I might consider selling for £39,000 !! The Major

Hi Hector I have no doubt Jennifer (endorka) will tell you about the stool she uses which looks perfect to me and won't break the bank. Thomanns I think ? My only comment would be to make sure you can get both feet on the ground for stability. The stool I use for gigs (its in the photo on my profile) is very portable, very light etc but I have to cock the left leg up as you can see. Not ideal ! In the BBC orch I spend every day playing in, I have a stool which is adjustable and I have it fairly low. Its very heavy tho and I'm glad we have a road crew to cart it around ! The Major

Well done ! If that is your first effort, you should be very proud. If there is one thing i think you should think about, its the idea of contrast. If you can come up with something else that's maybe in the same tempo, but perhaps in a contrasting key, and maybe with a change of rhythmic emphasis, you could slot it in halfway to give the piece a lift - or the other trick is to play the same music but in a different key (maybe a semitone higher ? for instance). Composition is a very personal thing - and I wouldn't want to sound as if I am being critical - far from it - I think you show great promise. But if you are going to take composition to the next stage, you need to look at what all the great writers do. And in most cases. its that notion of contrasting one idea with another that will take you forward in your development. Keep up the good work ! Try to write something - however short - every day. Composing takes practice just like learning an instrument. The Major

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='544083' date='Jul 18 2009, 03:59 PM']Thanks, Major. Trouble is with C6/9, I have the same problem as you mention with seeing a 13th -- I see the 9 and assume there's a Bb as well. Also, the A is definitely a 13th (certainly in the upper structure of the chord, voiced into the second octave); playing it as a 6th (within the first octave) muddies it up quite a bit and changes the "feel" of the chord. Minefield.[/quote] Actually I used the wrong term here - I should have said "voicing" rather that "inversion". The chord symbol method does not indicate the "voicing" of a chord. It simply states what the constituent notes of the harmony are at that particular moment. And writing the chord C 6 /9 would automatically remove the dominant nature of the chord so that the 9 is not allied to a b7 (dominant 7th). This is one of those anomalies of the chord symbol method (see my previous thread on anomolies etc). Yes you are right that the chord symbol I suggested ( C 6/9 no 3rd) if taken literally would give C G A D when actually you want the A an octave higher. But that would be in the "voicing" of the chord for the particular set of instruments playing. In this case its better to actually write the notes for each instrument as you intend it to be played leaving no room for interpretation. Putting the chord symbol underneath would just be a helpful crosscheck on your intentions. The chord symbol method has always been open to abuse - and a good arranger will always use it with care. The Major

Another option would be "C6/9 (no 3rd)" When we write chord symbols, the inversion (ie the placing of the notes) is not directed. Although the A in this chord is effectively the 13 note of the C scale, the very term 13th would give most players the idea that it was a dominant chord which it is not as there is no Bb. So to use 6 and 9 would be clearer. The Major

[quote name='guyl' post='543965' date='Jul 18 2009, 01:50 PM']For a few years, I was overjoyed with my B-Band Statement (which sounded awesome). Sadly - it started to die. First the tone started to go off a bit. Then it started to buzz and feedback. Couldn't get any response from B-Band or advice on how to repair, so I changed it for something else. When researching recently, I came across a lot of comments like: "The Realist is excellent but it doesn't last very long". I kinda hoped spending £hundreds on a pickup meant you are set for life! Does anyone know if these kind of pickups have a limited life?[/quote] I put an Underwood on my bass 30 years ago and its still going strong ! The Major

[quote name='bythesea' post='543147' date='Jul 17 2009, 12:47 PM']Seems to be (with my limited ability) - I checked on here whether I should get a 4/4 or a 3/4 considering the Stagg was a 3/4 and was advised to get a 4/4. So I did I have found a bass teacher near me who teaches BG but also plays DB, so I am hoping to pick up some tips from him. First lesson next week [/quote] Good luck with your first lesson, bythesea. Let us know how you get on. The Major

[quote name='ardi100' post='543080' date='Jul 17 2009, 11:53 AM']Thanks Major, Do you know what brand they were? I'll check them out. Adrian[/quote] The one that bythesea pointed to is like the ones I bought. Fantastic value. You can't go wrong for a starter bow. Bows can go up to several thousand pounds for a top quality item. But my favourite bow at the moment is a Paesold which I paid £150 for several years ago. Also got a Paesold 2 star which was £1000 but I prefer the cheaper one ! And the bass size (ie 3/4 or 4/4) is totally irrelevant to the bow. Bows come in various lengths and weights and its entirely down to personal preference which you use. I'd go for the cheap Chinese one for now and if you like using it , get something better later on as your playing progresses. The Major

Hi Adrian There are some amazing deals on ebay for bows. I bought 2 Chinese bows last year for £40 each including shipping. And they are perfectly usable. If then you decide to buy a better quality bow, you would then have a spare ! And IMO all DB players should learn to use a bow even if you rarely perform with it. They are great for checking intonation. The Major

If you want to get somewhere near the original "Porgy and Bess" version try this: Slow tempo ||: Am7 / E7 / | Am7 / E7 / | Am7 / E7 / | Am7 / E7 Am7 | Dm7 / F6 / | Dm7 / / F7 | E7 / B7 / | E7 / E7+ / | Am7 / E7 / | Am7 / E7 / | Am7 / E7 / | Am7 / D9 / | C / Am7 / | F7 / E7 / | Am7 / E7 / | Am7 / Bm7b5 E7 :|| There are many different possible variations on this chord sequence but this is near enough to the original. The Major