Question about Intervals

[jay mitchell]

I followed one of the links in this thread and ended up at Noel Johnston's site. That is the book I was referring to.

OK, that makes sense. Not only have I recommended Noel's books, I own a few, and I see him play on a regular basis. Noel is a world-class guitarist, a master of many genres, a musical scholar, a teller of Dad jokes, and a super-nice human being. He and his wife own a music academy here in North Texas.

 

[jay mitchell]

Something such as focusing more on, say, "comfort zone" playing.

Nothing in Leavitt precludes that sort of playing. His book was intended as a text for music instruction at the university level.

Or just as using up to date techniques. Such as 3nps, hybrid picking and what not.

Leavitt includes a number of picking exercises, including the use of all upstrokes and all downstrokes. If you learn those techniques, economy picking will become second nature, should you decide to use it (I seldom do). Also, as I pointed out above, most of his scale fingerings are 3nps for all but one string. I am familiar with 3nps fingerings and seldom have a use for them. Any fingering that targets a specific picking order or style only works when you are playing the notes in linear ascending or descending order. My musical ideas very seldom coincide with that requirement.

Those simply don't exist in Leavitt's universe.

I disagree. They are included by implication. If you really learn Leavitt, you'll have already learned those concepts.

Which obviously isn't his fault at all, but still, methodology has improved ever since.

There are certainly a lot more schools of thought than there were at the time, but I don't consider any of the ones I've been exposed to to be superior to his.

 

[Aelred]

Learning music theory as a hobby is such fun online and through forum interactions!

Such clarity of communication and mellifluous inspiration to play is rare to find. The OP must be as overjoyed as I am to have the matter explained with such precision.

I put an A7 chord into a Looper and practiced major/minor notes on 3 strings in honor. Cranked the Gain and bashed out a few power chords and pentatonic rubbish in sheer delight.

Cheers!

 

[Eagle]

Nobody calls a tone interval a major second or a tritone a flat five so why a minor 3rd . No consistency in this . Does anyone call a semitone interval a flat second? No.

 

[TSJMajesty]

Nobody calls a tone interval a major second or a tritone a flat five so why a minor 3rd . No consistency in this . Does anyone call a semitone interval a flat second? No.

There are plenty of inconsistencies in communication systems. Heck, you couldn't even put a question mark at the end of your first sentence, so what's your point?

 

[Eagle]

There are plenty of inconsistencies in communication systems. Heck, you couldn't even put a question mark at the end of your first sentence, so what's your point?

It totally contradicts the point.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Nothing in Leavitt precludes that sort of playing. His book was intended as a text for music instruction at the university level.

And there's good reasons why it's not used anymore.

Also, as I pointed out above, most of his scale fingerings are 3nps for all but one string.

Which is a *fundamental* difference, no less.

 

[Sascha Franck]

And fwiw:

Any fingering that targets a specific picking order or style only works when you are playing the notes in linear ascending or descending order.

No. 3nps work as good (or bad) for any pattern as in position fingerings. Usually a little better. There's reason for 3nps to have become a sort of new standard, simply because it's at least among the most consistent methods to organise scalar "things".

 

[jay mitchell]

And fwiw:
No. 3nps work as good (or bad) for any pattern as in position fingerings. Usually a little better.

I disagree. Scale fingering patterns are one way to learn where notes lie on the fretboard. As with any scale pattern, they're not useful at identifying what notes to play or when to play those notes.

There's reason for 3nps to have become a sort of new standard,

I see no evidence that this is true. 3nps is one way to build scale patterns. No more, no less. None of the guitarists I listen to - some of them quite young - make consistent use of 3nps patterns.

simply because it's at least among the most consistent methods to organise scalar "things".

"Most consistent" in what way? Repetition of patterns?

 

[maguchi]

You guys are all correct. I don't see why one view excludes another. Intervals can be referenced in both ways. Two notes in isolation and also as relationships in a chord or tonality (scales and modes). Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go watch paint dry.

 

[Sascha Franck]

As with any scale pattern, they're not useful at identifying what notes to play or when to play those notes.

We haven't been talking about that at all.

None of the guitarists I listen to - some of them quite young - make consistent use of 3nps patterns.

Pretty much nobody worth his salt is making consistent use of any singular pattern building method.

"Most consistent" in what way? Repetition of patterns?

Just as in spreading notes all throughout the fretboard.

 

[Gothi]

To the topic about defining intervals in steps, I agree that it is not necessary for the classical composer to define it as such. If he knows the mode, he will imply the right steps without need for anything else. As a demonstrated before, there is no mentioning of specific flattened or raised intervals in Fux, apart from the diminished fifth. If you know the mode, you know what unison, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seven means relative to this. There is one exception though, the tritone, which is exactly a definition in steps. In Fux it is mentioned besides the diminished fifth and though this would mean the same sound to us, there is a suggestion that the use of both terms was context dependent. In Locrian in particular it may be more helpful to consider its fifth step as a diminished fifth from tonic because it helps remember at which degree it appears. The general paranoia about the Devil´s interval, including many cases where it is not the fifth degree, may better be defined in steps to remember it in every context. It is speculation on my part, but it makes sense the era of modes taken into consideration.

 

[Sascha Franck]

there is no mentioning of specific flattened or raised intervals in Fux

Why are you so obsessed with Fux?

 

[maguchi]

To the topic about defining intervals in steps, I agree that it is not necessary for the classical composer to define it as such. If he knows the mode, he will imply the right steps without need for anything else. As a demonstrated before, there is no mentioning of specific flattened or raised intervals in Fux, apart from the diminished fifth. If you know the mode, you know what unison, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seven means relative to this. There is one exception though, the tritone, which is exactly a definition in steps. In Fux it is mentioned besides the diminished fifth and though this would mean the same sound to us, there is a suggestion that the use of both terms was context dependent. In Locrian in particular it may be more helpful to consider its fifth step as a diminished fifth from tonic because it helps remember at which degree it appears. The general paranoia about the Devil´s interval, including many cases where it is not the fifth degree, may better be defined in steps to remember it in every context. It is speculation on my part, but it makes sense the era of modes taken into consideration.

Yes, agree. And in the Lydian mode the tritone/devils interval can be considered a raised 4th or sharp 4th (AKA a #11 when referring to certain extended and altered chords).

 

[Aelred]

Complete Tangent: I know of Fux through the history of Mathematics and some reading on the influence of Maths, Music and Science. Vincenzo Galilei, father of Galileo and inspiration of Kepler (The Harmony of the World), was a musician who decided to replicate Arsitotle's experiment about strings, weights and tones - and found the theory and practice utterly estranged.

No one did repeatable experiments until then: if Aristotle said so, that was that - for centuries (despite Aristotle insisting that demonstration had to be repeatable and refinable. They ignored that part). Maths, music and the Cosmos itself was all inter-related - and very obviously so to them.

See The Music of the Spheres: Music, Science and the Natural Order of the Universe; Theology, Music and Time; Resounding Truth etc. I always did like Hans Urs von Balthasar's contention that the Gospel of Matthew was not complete until Bach wrote the St Matthew Passion.

Fux's work began with mathematics then relied on demonstration and practice.

I'll get back to flubbing A major and minor. BTW, Vincenzo Galilei was a lute player - the original Rock'n'Roll rebel who overturned all of history and culture forever 'coz his lute didn't sound right.

From Wiki: "Galilei made discoveries in acoustics, particularly involving the physics of vibrating strings and columns of air. He discovered that while the ratio of an interval is proportional to string lengths — for example, a perfect fifth has the proportions of 3:2 — it varied with the square root of the tension applied (and the cube root of concave volumes of air). Weights suspended from strings of equal length need to be in a ratio of 9:4 to produce the 3:2 perfect fifth."

So, lets get into Mathematics! I have a lot more experience and study with Math and history than playing guitar.

 

[Gothi]

So, lets get into Mathematics! I have a lot more experience and study with Math and history than playing guitar.

Yup, and there can be no doubt that Fux himself considered counterpoint the math of polyphony and harmony. Species are the axioms from which the voice leading is derived. The rules limit the possible outcomes. One thing though, it is a dynamical math that changes with the classical periods and even when just moving from 2 part to 3 and 4 part writing. In two part writing, a given melody (Cantus Firmus) to be harmonized + the rules given can be so narrow that there is only one legal solution, while the amount of solutions expands with the amount of parts and even eliminates some of the rules from the two part writing. It is a stunningly simply system at its core, but with complex consequences and endeless possibilities. The rules change, but never in a way that violates the axioms significantly. Math is not just a metaphor in music. It is music.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Wtf? None of that has to do with intervals. Which, in an equally tempered environment are nothing but a measuring scale. Same as, say, centimeters. Just that their names can be confusing, but that's about it.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

If you learn how to read the circle of fifths it will help you get to the notes in each key faster. You will know exactly how many sharp or flats the key has and which notes they are. It is a great tool. There are a lot of books on it. It isn't hard to understand once someone walks you through it. Once you start using it you will get faster at it. For me relating it to the face of an analog clock worked for me. It has 12 keys on it just like the 12 numbers on the clock. Another similarity is that the sharps side counts up the sharps just like the clock numbers. G has one sharp and is where the 1 is on the clock, D 2 sharps at the 2 position, A, 3 sharps at the 3 position and so on. That will get you part of the way around it.

Three is zero memorisation needed the guitar is laid out like it.

Bar across the 6 strings like this...

1 1 1 1 2 2

That gets you first flat key F (6th string first fret), it's flat note B♭ the first fret on the A string.
B♭ next string adds another flat E♭
Next string E♭ adds A♭
Next string A♭ adds D♭
Then D♭ adds G♭/F♯

In reverse for circle of 5th
Move that shape up a fret and strat at the top string...(the original shape are the sharps)

2 2 2 2 3 3

G one flat F♯
D two flats adds C♯
A 3♯ add G♯
E 4♯ add D♯
B 5♯ add A♯
F♯ 6♯ add E♯

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

It depends on context for the name beyond describing it as a tone.

Interval=distance between pitches.
Context comes in when related to key.
C to D♭ is as much a minor second as E♯ to F♯ or C to C♯

 

[PLX]

Interval=distance between pitches.
Context comes in when related to key.
C to D♭ is as much a minor second as E♯ to F♯ or C to C♯

Ed (I hope I can call you "Ed"), when I play 0-3-5, what key am I in ?