How many scales are there?

[Bobby G]

Whatever suits you, I think. Some people need to do everything from sheet music, others by communicating their ideas verbally, or from demonstrating parts on their chosen instrument.

I used to 'compose' songs, tunes, etc. on guitar, and then play it to the band. I'd generally have an idea of how it would sound played by whatever band I was in at the time, but quite often the final arrangement was arrived at collectively, although very often parts were purposely left to be more spontaneous or open-ended.

Cheers, Bob

 

[martin_br]

Scales are essential.
You shouldn't throw away centuries of R and D and just because of an aversion.
They are the DNA of music.
They are also good ear training.
Practicing scales tunes your ears as well as giving your fingers a work out.
If you make a concious effort to be aware of the degree of the scale you're playing as well as its name,you can apply this to other scales both in terms of shape,and aural function.
Any further discussion about this ought to be in another thread I think!

Hannah,just learn the easy ones:
C,F,G and eventually D.
That's way more than enough to be going on with.

 

[Simon]

Don't agree - scales aren't essential, unless your sitting exams or not interested in developing your ear. Scales develop a 'fingers leading the mind' approach to music, end up playing the same of finger patterns, same old digital stuff. They're a way to imitate melodies found in tunes. They may be 'centuries of R n D', but to me they're a theoretical way of categorising sounds from tunes. In jazz this whole theoretical approach only really kicked off in the mid 20th century with Jerry Coker, David Baker and Jamey Aebersold etc.

DNA of music? Are you assuming that by playing scales you're playing music ? There is so much more than the notes. Michael Brecker himself has pointed this out "notes are the decorations that hang on the rhythms", and I think this guy should know.

If you're going to learn some scales Hannah and you play alto sax (which I guess you would at age 9) and you want to practise scales, I'd work on A, D, G and C majors and leave F major for later.

Simon

Martin wrote:
Scales are essential.
You shouldn't throw away centuries of R and D and just because of an aversion.
They are the DNA of music.
They are also good ear training.
Practicing scales tunes your ears as well as giving your fingers a work out.
If you make a concious effort to be aware of the degree of the scale you're playing as well as its name,you can apply this to other scales both in terms of shape,and aural function.
Any further discussion about this ought to be in another thread I think!

Hannah,just learn the easy ones:
C,F,G and eventually D.
That's way more than enough to be going on with.

 

[martin_br]

It depends how you do it.
Boxer's don't need to run any distance but its good training.

How do you learn the relationships of the notes if not by repeated listening.
Scales doesn't just entail straight up and down.
Up a third down a step and so on.
Slimoninsky like.
You don't seriosly believe Mr. Brecker has never practiced scales!?
All music stems from scales in one form or another.
Harmony is the late comer.
And has warped western perceptions.

Above all you learn to hear the degrees of the scale and how they relate to what you're hearing.
The best possible ear training there is.


I hate the overly theoretical approach to which you refer, too.
Scales are hardly theoretical.
Unless you consider the harmonics from which they derive are theoretical?

I've been playing for 37 years,did my first pro gigs at 16,went to the same college as Pete.and have never been criticised for being theoretical.
Au contraire.
But there are some essntial basics you have to be able to do and know if you want to achieve anything.

Scales are among them..

 

[tris]

Simon yet again you are bang on the button!

For me "centuries of R 'n' D" is actual music and melodies, not scales etc. I do think it is true that western culture is far far far too harmony orientated. I have been very interested in African drumming and the complexity of their music is astounding.

You put those rhythms into notation and it would be the poly rhythms from hell. Ye,t in Africa every one is a musician and most peoples sense of rhythm would smoke most professional recording western musicians.

Rhythm is the be all and end all to me. As I have said before play a great melody with a weak rhythm and it is killed stone dead.

Martin you will not like me saying this but I played guitar for a very long time and to a very high standard without ever practising a scale. My first experience of a lead sheet was when I went to jam with some guys who were studying at Leeds. If I needed to work on my chops I would pick out a John McLaughlin solo or whatever.

Scales are good. However in the end of the day, Berkeley, GIT, ACM, etc are all money making institutions who are selling the product of a musical eduction. In this respect I feel that it is a bit like the drug company's suppressing the use of homoeopathy etc. Has ideology and marketing clashed?

There is probably a sensible balance somewhere???

Linky,


I get the impression that you are a great lad and your commitment is admirable but as a player, from the description you have given you are grossly imbalanced as a musician and player.

Now I do not know what you ultimate aim for your playing is but the fact that you are playing pieces that can not pick out with your ear worries me.

If I were you I would slow down on working at being as saxophonist and work more on some musicianship skills. Training your ears should be your absolutely top priority until they are at a similar level to your technical facility.

If you harbour any ambition at all of being any kind of half decent jazzer you are going to have to catch up on your ear training. The longer you leave it the more demoralising it will be. I have had to deal with the problem with many pupils. I am sure Simon would be able to suggest some excellent reading materials in this area.

I am not trying to be cruel here, ultimately I do have your interests at heart. I read what you said and I was hoping somebody would say this so I would not have to.

 

[martin_br]

Tris.

Your experience as a guitarist gives you insights and perceptions not available to someone who plays only a monophonic instrument.
Listening to the intervals you are playing is the only ear training you're gonna get unless you have a piano handy or some such.

I'm teaching my son bass and I keep emphasising that he LISTENS to the relationships of what he's doing,whether its scales and arpeggios or his latest Jaco piece.

It is actually quite wholistic!
😉
Piece (sic)

 

[tengu01]

Now that this discussion has got nice and hot, I'm going to throw my two cents into the mix.

I think scales are useful because they are means of developing full familiarity with your instrument from end to end and also learning about the different sounds they encapsulate.

To my understanding, if you're going from playing by ear, it is entirely possible become proficient in your instrument. You know what works and what doesn't. Scales are simply a codification of these sounds.

Playing something that works is the WHAT
Scales and Harmony is the WHY. Or rather, it's the best explanation currently available. Like any codification, it doesn't capture the whole but it is a reasonable approximation. As knowledge increases, people can add to this codification as a means of spreading the knowledge.

Do you need to memorise all scales and harmony in order to play? Not at all. However, they are valuable tools to have in the armoury. Also provide a nice way to communicate your musical ideas. Additionally, if you're having a jam and you know your scales/chords, you can really explore to the corners of a progression with the advance knowledge of what may work well.

Sightreading: Good in professional situations where there isn't time to jam your way to the answer. Also opens up a whole new world. Kind of like telling stories. You can be the best storyteller in the world, but if you can't read, there is a whole world out there you cannot access until someone translates it for you.

Regarding the argument about scale/chord making people play more in an unoriginal way, I draw an analogy with karate.

Initially, students are taught a number of basic moves. As they progress, they are taught more moves and combinations of these moves which grow in complexity.

The ultimate aim of all this is 1) to have the technical ability to utilise any of these moves you have learned, 2) to have practiced them enough that they come naturally and without too much forethought 3) Tons of practice should inspire a certain fluidity and creativity in the application of these moves to match the situation. If you do not have the first 2 down, the third becomes difficult: technical limitations and too much thinking getting in the way.

This might seem like a long way round, but I believe a solid technical grounding is an asset to any style.

 

[Linky Lee]

Cheers Tris. I was waiting for a response. All news is good news if I can learn from it.

A negative note, yes I'd agree I'm unbalanced as a musician. On a positive one, I know where my weaknesses are and I've started going about remedying that. I'm not meaning to say I've got a bad ear. I don't think there is such a thing. It's just not trained as well as my fingers, or my theoretical brain.

Do any of you guys think singing helps? I've found that I'm not one to be able to hit pitches when singing too well. Funnily enough I can on saxophone and flute because I know what a G sounds like or something, I find when I'm told to sing up a fifth I've got a vague idea of where that is but only vague.

I think learning how to sing these intervals is the key. I can hear them in my head and I can play them and understand them theoretically but when it comes to transposing what I can hear, or singing an interval pattern I'm pretty dire.

What do you guys think?

For example, I could compose a tune in my head and I could hear the harmony so to speak and the bass line etc. But I couldn't reproduce that into notation or play from what I hear. Though If I was given some music I would know what it sounded like and hear the intervals.

In a more basic sense, I can hear what I can read, and I can play what I can read, but I can't play from what I hear, though I can pitch what I can play.

I don't think that made much sense. Good luck trying to decipher it.

 

[tris]

Scales... more ramblings.


Of course there was value in doing that kind of intensive practice. When I was twenty I wanted to have gone through the book in all 12 keys; it took seven years!!!!! Now I thought that was pretty good going! (Don't ask my wrists about it... they still have not forgiven me!!! LOL)

Still if you are practising a melody you are still playing a scale, all be it with the notes arranged in a more pleasing manner. Why are there not more etudes?

Tengu

Nice karate analogy! But I believe most music students never master the most of the basics to a point of mastery. Thus, their development is impeded. Ear training being one of those things! They get caught up on theory too soon.

Now this is a blanket statement. (Slight disclaimer there!!!) I feel that the notion to give every sound that you play a name bit redundant. Why spend fill up your brain with all these names if you ultimately want to cast it aside. If you ask me it is looking for trouble and I am guessing that most people are so concentrated on relating what there hearing to an abstract name even whilst attempting even the most basic ear training. The result is that they are not listening with full concentration and believe they are untalented as they are not grasping it.

The best music is played by the unconscious mind. You are training this all the time. Learning theory is training the concious mind. Which, in a masterful musical performance is not in the picture.

I do agree with the importance of technique and execution but don't these arise due to concentration and awareness skill rather than performing any given set of notes whether it be a scale, a melody etc.

Linky

http://www.musictheory.net/

Go here and use the training software to brush up on basic intervals etc. Rather than naming them I suggest you grab your sax, or what have you and try and play the intervals, scales and chords rather than worrying about the names. Do 100 a day of each type every day until you are 100% accurate all the time. If you want to learn the names then you can. But try not to think about the names at all just concentrate of finding those notes.

It is worth singing them too. Singing in tune is a lot like playing the sax, at first try sliding into the note until it is in tune and hold it. This is building muscle memory between your ears and oral cavities. This is a simplified version of what you are doing with any instrument.

Martin,

Good point about mono vs. polyphonics... wish I had thought of it!!!

Is you son playing fretless or with wires? Ear training on the guitar... yukk back to the bad old days of dodgy intonation, thank goodness for the Buzz Fientin System. I would love to play legit bass but

I grew up on Hendrix, Howling Wolf, etc so it came as a shock when I started to work on intonation on the guitar.

 

[martin_br]

He's got both fretless and fretful (arf arf).
Your point about overkill on masses of stupidly named scales I agree with.
Majors minors and a few useful odds and sods ok.
But all that mumbo jumbo Berklee OTT stuff riles me.
Totally superfluous and very misleading.
Gotta go.
Catcha later

 

[Linky Lee]

Cheers, Tris.

I find that when I'm trying to play the intervals on my saxophone my brain leaps into gear saying "you're on a D and your ears are telling you it's a third so play an F#!" before my ears guide my fingers to the right note.

Any ideas on how to shut off the habitual side of the brain?

I'm going to give it a go to do a decent amount of oral training. Though I don't think I can find time for 100 every day. You wouldn't believe how manic a day is with an extra subject at school and a ridiculously great hobby that is very time consuming.

Still no harder than a day at work 😉

I'll find some time in a day. Might have to sacrifice something else, sleeping springs to mind though I can't play after 8pm as my brother is sleeping so that would be useful. Maybe I can re-arrange my day so that all playing occurs in the earlier hours of the evening?

 

[Simon]

Hi Martin

I learnt the relationships of notes by repeated singing n listening n working at a keyboard (away from the sax). The keyboard gives me a point of reference in terms of harmony, I can get 4 octaves easily and I'm a visual type learner so the keyboard layout helps me to memorise the sound I hear. I haven't found that playing a sax gets me anywhere near this.


Scale theory is exactly that - theoretical. Example - I got taught that over a iim7b5-V7b9-imM7 progression you should use a harmonic minor based on the imM7 chord. The sound of the b9 over the iim7b5? Hmmm. I found other sounds that I liked and used this for a while. Years later I learnt these were called harmonic majors, a semitone apart. Big deal.


I don't know if harmony is the late comer. I've always learnt that there are 3 aspects to music, but for me rhythm has the edge! Slonimsky's book? Hmmm, would be great if it had some tunes in it; never have been asked to play the 'Heptatonic Arpeggio Blues' or the 'Sesquiquadritone Progression Shuffle' ;-)


I'm certain Michael Brecker did practise scales. For about a month, maybe two just to knock those diminished runs into shape. Then for the rest of the time he listened to others, copied solos, played tunes, created patterns and composed while developing an amazing sound on tenor and ewi and had alot of fun in the process.


Hearing the degrees of the scale and relating them in a harmonic context is the ultimate aim, but I've found that if I work on ear training and singing intervals in different harmonic contexts, I can get pretty close to identifying them on the horn. I tried the 'this is the #11 sound in a minor chord' idea, but it's too slow. Because learning sounds with labels attached kinda leads you down this path. Labels help explain it in hindsight to someone else, but for me they just slowed me down and made playing tunes and improvising stressful. Charlie Parker apparently once said, "when you're on the bandstand, leave the theory at home."


I tell my pupils to practise as if they were actually performing to an audience. If in your practice sessions you're trying to play with the same good sound and play as well as you would like when on the stage, why would you do the mental gymnastics then too?


I agree there are basics you need to have down, especially the mechanics of playing. I disagree that you should devote time to scale practice because there are 100s of tunes to learn and the musical chops you'll build by putting in the time and 'paying dues' AND the enjoyment you'll get from it far outweighs the technically impressive and (I found) dull, lumbering practice of scale running. Also, as a member of the audience it's really obvious when a player has drilled scales - it's almost like you can hear the pages turning as s/he moves from one chorus to the next. As a member of a band, will the others care what scales you know or what tunes you can play? If you have the ability and confidence to play by ear, surely your personality on the bandstand would reflect this too, and make the whole experience more enjoyable for the rest of the band and more importantly the audience.

So once again Hannah - learn 'Happy Birthday' starting on G!

Simon

Martin wrote:
It depends how you do it.
Boxer's don't need to run any distance but its good training.

How do you learn the relationships of the notes if not by repeated listening.
Scales doesn't just entail straight up and down.
Up a third down a step and so on.
Slimoninsky like.
You don't seriosly believe Mr. Brecker has never practiced scales!?
All music stems from scales in one form or another.
Harmony is the late comer.
And has warped western perceptions.

Above all you learn to hear the degrees of the scale and how they relate to what you're hearing.
The best possible ear training there is.


I hate the overly theoretical approach to which you refer, too.
Scales are hardly theoretical.
Unless you consider the harmonics from which they derive are theoretical?

I've been playing for 37 years,did my first pro gigs at 16,went to the same college as Pete.and have never been criticised for being theoretical.
Au contraire.
But there are some essntial basics you have to be able to do and know if you want to achieve anything.

Scales are among them..

 

[Simon]

Sheesh mate... it's 'aural' training, as in 'auditory'.
'Oral' training's more to do with your toothbrush...

I switch the voice off by listening to my sax tone and try to 'pre-hear' the F# when playing the D. You really don't need to rush this stuff, because in the long run it'll be worth more than scale running. You're trying to get the sound and physical sensations into the subconscious mind. Take one interval a week - I'd personally start with 4ths and play them through the horn as semibreves at mm=60. Start on Low C if you can play to High F# (or Low B if you can get High F). Play Low C - think F - sing F - play F; repeat. Move on to F to Bb, then Bb to Eb etc. With a break of 6 seconds between each pair, should only take 2 minutes 40. This is linear, so after a while mix em up ( Mid C - Mid F down to Mid Bb - Mid Eb down to Ab... then you're getting 5ths as well. Why 4ths and 5ths firstly? Cos western music is based on it. Think Cycle of Fourths. The strongest root movement bar none. ii-V7s follow it, blues, rhythm changes,.... hear these, hear alot!

When to practise? Get up early. It's the best time for getting through to the sub, hearing is at it's best. End of day - tired, neighbours more prone to calling, better tv.

Simon

Linky_Lee wrote:
Cheers, Tris.

I find that when I'm trying to play the intervals on my saxophone my brain leaps into gear saying "you're on a D and your ears are telling you it's a third so play an F#!" before my ears guide my fingers to the right note.

Any ideas on how to shut off the habitual side of the brain?

I'm going to give it a go to do a decent amount of oral training. Though I don't think I can find time for 100 every day. You wouldn't believe how manic a day is with an extra subject at school and a ridiculously great hobby that is very time consuming.

Still no harder than a day at work 😉

I'll find some time in a day. Might have to sacrifice something else, sleeping springs to mind though I can't play after 8pm as my brother is sleeping so that would be useful. Maybe I can re-arrange my day so that all playing occurs in the earlier hours of the evening?

 

[Bobby G]

Tris, Martin, Simon, Linky. Thanks for all that, most interesting, it has helped me put my playing and attitude to music-making right into perspective. Everything I've been thinking about theory, scales, intervals, rhythm and playing by ear has been covered. I know whatever path I take to develop musically is an endless one, as it should be, with many turns and junctions. But, if it's endless we've all only just set off on our paths. This is a good thing.

Cheers, Bob

 

[martin_br]

Simon,
you obviously are taking the term scales to extremes.
I dion't use,nor ever have,the Berklee-sque drivel.
My reference to Slimoninsky was analogy.
The sort of thing you should invent for yourself while thinking about the shapes and how they sound.That's how Coltrane got to where he got.
If you know where you are in the scale and how it relates to the key you're in you can do what you want in any other key if you are competent in all 12.
That's the whole point.
Having the facility to 'say' what you 'hear'.
The tune that goes :1 6 5 6 1 6 5 6 1 6 5 6 3 2 1 is the same in all 12.
It's an ear thing.

Theory is a set of terms describing what is known,not just what might be.
Start with Pythagoras and work your way to Schoenberg.

And then maybe String Theory.8)

The dominance of harmony in Western music is a direct consequence of equal temper,without which we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sorry Hannah.
Your thread's been overloaded!

:erm:

 

[tris]

Simon,Simon,

Great ideas yet again.


Linky, I agree with Simon and as it happens Bill Evans. The path to mastery is quickest negotiated by

PRACTICING THE MINIMUM

By this I mean practice the minimum amount of material until it is mastered. Run it through all keys, permeate it. It is only masted when it can be done perfectly, every time without thought. I am sure you will be able to apply this to your ear training Linky. This has to be done from the ground up. If there are any gaps they need to be filled.

Linky, learning a load of new stuff now is pretty redundant. If you ain't playing properly with the toys that you have, you ain't going to be able to play with any new ones!

Simon's comment about practising like a performance is a great comment that I would like to reinforce.


You seem like a determined lad, disparate to succeed but I sense self-doubt?


What ever goes though the mind a lot will manifest itself. If you keep telling yourself you are a great player you WILL become a great player! It is as unavoidable as death and taxes.


Food for thought?

 

[martin_br]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/englandpatienttrans.shtml

Everything you need to know about the zone...

 

[Bobby G]

Good points tris. In terms of guitar playing, I was never technically extremely proficient, theory-based or whatever, but I used what I had, mainly a set of peculiar open tunings and a delay pedal to get into 'the zone', but without wishing to sound elitist it was my zone (as is everyone's really) and I was able to get to it down my self-discovered route. As such, I never 'rehearsed', or really formulated a set-list (a lot of the songs were springboards for explorations & improvs) just played and discovered but it worked really well for what I was trying to do at the time. Like someone else said, I almost treated every minute's playing like I was in front of an audience.

My way of learning guitar, and sax come to that, is probably closest to Simon's - I learned basic chords and fingerings, then worked out stuff from records; fortunately my ear has alway been goodnd that method suits how I want to play.

I don't have any problem with extreme theory, or millions of scales, or anyone who wants to go down that route - indeed I find it all interesting - but it's not really for me right now. Having said that I do know what key I'm in at any given time as my ear and residual knowledge of simpler scales have put me in that place. But for me, it's enough to know that an 'off' note, or series of notes in a passage actually works for my ear without having to know exactly which scales I am using, and I would imagine there isn't a series of notes you can play that doesn't fit some scale, somewhere. But for me, it's not so important. For anyone who's into it, good, and I'm glad we have the choice of whether to exploit 'centuries of r&d' or not.

Cheers, Bob

 

[Linky Lee]

Yeah, The self doubt is creeping in coming up to my exams which I need to do pretty well in so that I can get my place at the university I want.

Last night I devised a system of Aural 😛 Training that hopefully will fit into my routine and start to make a difference. I can always adapt this if I feel it isn't working well enough etc.
Within this I'm doing Tris recommended 100 intervals a day and keeping a track of my overall percentage, and my percentage for each interval. This should highlight the weaker and stronger areas in my interval recognition and help me to tailor my learning programme.

Cheers for all the input.

 

[Bobby G]

See, intervals I never had a problem with - I grew up with everything going in my ears so that's really how I learned to relate to music. I suppose it does help if you listen to it 😉

What I mean is that I was able to follow and reproduce a tune by singing it back from a really early age, and even sing simple harmonies. But what came first was the ability to do this, it was only later that I was able to put names to this.

For instance, first came the learning of the notes, so if someone sung a C and asked me to sing, say, a G I could do that with no problem.

Then came the idea of relative pitch, all of which I found easy to grasp, so that it was easy to sing a note a fourth, fifth, etc above a given note.

Then, during playing of the guitar, came the idea of chords, intervals within chords, extensions of chords etc etc.

Finally, I ignored all that and made it up as I went along e.g. I'd discover a chord and put a name to it rather than working out what chord I 'should' be playing. One particular chord never did get beyond being referred to as Bb nasty.

As has been said earlier, it's quite clear that in some musical situations you need the common language of musical notation backed up with some theory just to save time, but as a solo performer which for large parts of my playing life I have been, it's not necessary. Useful as a prompt maybe, but not necessary.

Also, there's the difference between studying, and playing. The serious student, say a McLaughlin or Coltrane is going to need a lot of grounding in the theory, especially I would think if, as the two examples quoted are/were, you were going to study or incorporate the music of many different cultures into your playing.

Not that that approach can't be fun, but what I mean by playing as opposed to studying is that a 'player', such as myself, is doing it mainly for fun, make some noise , jam the Blues or whatever, although it's inevitable you'll pick up some 'knowledge' on the way. Of course, there are many, many types of player, so if the opportunity is there, and we know what we want to do musically, we are free to choose our methods of learning, playing, or studying from nothing more than picking up simple tunes in your spare time right up to making the study of music your life's work.

Cheers, Bob