Just wondering?????

Being self taught I find myself with questions and no answer so I'll throw this one to the masses. In theory/modes we know D Ionian/E Dorian are the same scales. So I was working with an Emin6b5 chord.

e--6

B--8

G--6

D--9

A--7

E--

I'm looking for a scale to play with this chord but when I tried to work the 6b5 into the scale I came up with D Bebop Major only. So using the D Ionian/ E Dorian thinking can I also apply D Bebop Major to Emin6b5?

D Bebop Major

e--------------------------

B--------------------------

G--------------4-6-7-------

D--------5-7-8-------------

A--5-7-9-------------------

E--------------------------

Can I use the same scale over Emin6b5

e------------------------

B------------------------

G---------------6-7-9----

D---------7-8-9----------

A--7-9-10----------------

E------------------------

This may seem confusing, stupid or meaningless to others but I'm just trying to break away from the Major/minor scales and add a little variety. Being self taught I don't know if this would be correct so any input would help.

Chromatics, chromatics, chromatics.


Anyhow... Your D bebop major is just D major with a flat five. Your b5 is your A# and you minor 6 is your C#. So you've got:

Em6b5



E - G - A# - B - C#

Make sense? So now, with your fancy D bebop major, you just have a D major scale with a flatted 5th.

So here's what you have:

D Major:



D - E - F# - G - A - B - C#



D Bebop Major:

(remember you are just flatting the five)

D - E - F# - G - A# - B - C#

Anything look familiar?

Take a closer look:

Em6b5:



E - G - A# - B - C#



D Bebop Major:



D - E - F# - G - A# - B - C#

That is why your scale fits.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Rock on!

Thanks man. That's kinda how I saw it but I wanted a second opinion. Also I believe the Bebop Half Diminished has the b5
Bebop Half Diminished
1,b2,b3,4,b5,5,b6,7
The Bebop Major has a #5
Bebop Major
1,2,3,4,5,#5,6,7

And the others
Bebop Minor
1,2,b3,3,4,5,6,b7
Bebop Dominant
1,2,3,4,5,6,b7,7
It still works the same theory I was curious about. Thanks for the input

the bebop scale isn't really a scale but a theory on how to solo.

*side note*
scales/modes are not music theory!!! while yes there are theories/laws on how they are made. Multitude of functions made to derive them Pythagoras' 3:2 and the eastern way of using harmonics for example. This is all mind acoustical physical geometry crap that I'd be lying if I said I really understood. Think of it this way, I'm sure there is slews of theories on how to make a hammer, what shape it needs to be, the types of claws. but just because I gived you a hammer that doesn't mean you can now build a house. scales are our hammers and wood, "music theory" is how we build houses with them

I don't know if you already now that, but I think to reiterate when getting to the "funny" parts of music theory.
*side note*

so again the "bebop scale" is not a scale but a theory on how to solo.

effectively, (we will use Charlie Parker [bird], but it is really a group of people) Parker was playing his scales over the comp and got annoyed there is only four chord tones and three non-chord tones. So based off the harmonic progressions commonly used for various common scales he was able to get another non-chord tone. Then he has 4 tones and 4 non-tones, the tones are played on beat and the non-tones are played off. That is what is commonly called "bebop scales"

They harmonization that goes another with this "structurally" is actually what justjeff did on his first "chord challenge"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chord

here is a wiki on it but I recommend get "jazz theory" by Mark Levine

so what are you doing is the question? what you need to know is how is the #4/b5 functioning. To know that I need the next chord. Scale finders are not going to work here as the just compare your inputs to a database, it is not considering functionality. for example, if the chord is acting as a dominate (for "D" the next is "A') then you might be using the "altered scale" if it falls back on the minor chord (falling D to dim to E) then you might be using a full "diminished scale." but the only way to know for sure is how is it functioning.

But rule of thumb, when in doubt or lack of time to think ALWAYS PLAY CHORD TONES. you can almost never be wrong if you play the chord tones.

*edit* I just type altered chord in goole and I used to like this guy. I didn't look though it all but it seems fit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95bx07DWHKc&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1s6Qq7LqMc

@RA Great stuff..Thanks ALso I purchased Mark Levine's book a few months ago. I have not gotten to the altered chord/scale section yet but it has been a great tool so far. A must for serious guitarist IMO.

I had a whole response typed up, but I deleted it. I'll try this again.




The theory you are referring to is called, Pythagoras Ratios or Tuning and it is not used today in modern music. They are 2:1, 3:2 and 5:4. Since I already typed a lengthy response, but deleted it, I'm not going to do it again. I'd encourage you to research it because it really is interesting.

For now, I will just point a couple things out.

The basic ratios are as follows:

3:2 - Perfect 5th

4:3 - 4th

5:3 - Major 6th

5:4 - Major 3rd

6:5 - Minor 3rd

8:5 - Minor 6th

However, Pythagoras really only used, 2:1, 3:2 and 5:4 and later 9:8(Whole Tone). In short, sparing myself retyping everything I deleted, using only those ratios, you'll find that not all of Pythagoras' ratios work. Here is an example:

G# = 400hz

Ab = 409.6hz



               We like to think of G# and Ab as harmonically 

               equivalent, however, clearly, we can see that

               according to Pythagoras they are not. 

Pythagoras' idea is very similar to the Fibonacci sequence. There are obvious differences. Fibonacci used whole numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, etc... Pythagoras used ratios. Ratios that he considered to equivalent to whole numbers. Ratios that sounded pretty.

For example:

C = 256hz



C x (5/4) = 320hz

            E = 320hz

            E = Major 3rd



C x (3/2) = 384hz

            G = 384hz

            G = Perfect 5th above C



C x (9:8) = 288hz

            D = 288hz

            D = 1 whole step from C

But they didn't all sound like that. If you take the time to calculate all the ratios, you'll find that a lot of them are not perfect. And the more you calculate non perfect ratios, the worse your tunings will become.

Remember, in these early theories of tuning, all the intervals were based off each other - and they still are today - but that was all they knew. There is also, Ptolemaic Tuning, Mean-tone Temperament Tuning and Equal/Well Temperament/Tone Tuning. All are early methods of tuning. Only the Equal Tone Tuning is still used today.

My point is this. To say that Modes are not music theory is not correct. Furthermore, you can't say:



That is pretty contradictory and confusing. Without the theory of music, we would all be lost as to how to make the connection between the math and music. Math is just that, math. It doesn't have color. Math is absolute and most of the time finite(unless you are dealing with i [infinite's]). Especially when you are dealing with ratios. have the "0.66666666666666666666666666666666666666..." Problem? There is a finite ratio for that. That is where Pythagoras and a lot of other mathematical theorists ran into problems trying to understand music. But that is where music theorists come in. There is a disconnect between math and music. Music Theory makes that connection.

As for everything else, +1. If I misinterpreted what you wrote, apologies in advance.

Rock on!

@Guitarslinger124



yeah I'm not that great of a writer if you didn't know :). My point was not to talk about scale development, but what music theory is all about. I just listen two important developments one the western Pythagoras and two i don't know how it all works (honestly don't care) eastern harmonics (the end the same but they put more emphases on harmonic development).

the point is in the analogy. I view people who go into home depot/lowes and by a bunch of fancy tools yet can't understand why they can't built a house, the same as people who oddly memorizes scales yet can't understand why they can't build a song.

I agree that my phrasing is contradictory and confusing cause I'm using the phrase in two slightly different meanings. But my point is your not a carpenter because you have a hammer and practiced how to swing it. your a carpenter because you know how to mold wood. you don't understand musical theory because you know scales and practiced them. to understand musical theory you know how to put it all together.

also, I like to type in a way that has the slight intention of being written for people who are not posting or in another way, I'm writing with the full intention of this being public. I'm sure it bugs you as well when people (not just here, actually A lot less here a lot less) post "I know all scales and have become a musical god," yet still ask very silly questions. because that don't have a clue about theory.

So that whole part post was really not aimed at either of you two. But was to get people out of the unintellectual dogma (which by no means do I think either of you fit into [if I did I actually wouldn't post]) of thinking I know scales ergo I know music theory or I bought a hammer ergo I'm a carpenter. Now that is not to make fun of or discourage DIY. I just find relevance with it as my almost all my family members (males) are carpenters.




That was actually the point of this. "think" should be "like." I thought is was relevant as the "bebop scale" is not a scale. My whole post was to say "hey stop a minute slow don't and don't think about the scale right away." I don't think it is logically correct to look at a progression and the next thought is "WHATS THE SCALE FIND THE SCALE". Just take things slow and ask yourself what is going on? how are the notes functioning. Heck, half the time the scales just reveal themselves. For instance, I was playing Neapolitan minor before I even knew it's name I just wanted a secondary dominate on a phrygian.

so yeah music theory is music theory, but there is a slight subtlety I'm trying to get across if any of this made any sense.



it's funny but in a way that's actually my point.

Well that is fair enough. Although, honestly, the more analogies you used the less I started to understand haha. But seriously, I know what you mean, now... explained with more analogies. ;)

I agree with you 100%. I feel more strongly against playing fast and "knowing how to play guitar", but it's all the same thing. You can't have one without the other, but you can't have both without... well, without being Steve Vai.

I think there is a level of music theory, where the actual theory becomes impractical to the task at hand. I think that's also what you meant? You can talk frequencies all day, but that wont help you play any better. At least I don't think so. I just feel tired after reading stuff like that.

Anyway, kudos. I would'nt've given you karma a while ago if I didn't respect your posts. I'm glad you didn't take my post as offensive.

Rock on!

yeah something got lost in translation as both of us ended up at the same side of the room. but I also feel both of us have been posting here long enough to know no offensive is ever intended, even with my crappy writing :) .

Well, I think the discussion you two just had was great and helped me learn a fair amount. Thanks!

Yeah, thanks guys. Now I have plenty to study. That's the con of being self taught, there are many subjects that I don't even know exist. Thanks again.

I hear ya there Mosh. Good thing is that with this community, people can point you in the right direction for things to learn!

I sometimes wondered that what if guys like RA and Gs sit on around the table with galleons of wine and start talkin about music theory... goddamit guys :D. couple posts and not many lessons can do that.../favs.

Emp

Forget the theory, where is the wine!? Haha. I'll take Spatburgunder trocken (dry); if you're offering.

If I had to choose... Well, that'd be tough hehe.


Rock on!