Re: tricking [revisited]

[Vadimonium@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/7/2003 7:58:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Also, please note that the way the term "tetrachord" is used here
> doesn't seem to match the way it's used in modern jazz theory.  A
> "tetrachord" -- as the term is used by Wynton Marsalis, for example --
> is a 4-note chord that has the following characteristics:
> 1)  the top and bottom note of the chord are an octave apart.
> 2)  the chord contains two perfect 4ths.
> 3)  the chord contains one major 2nd.
> 

hi,
yeah, i knew as soon as a 'duh' like me started with trying to put across 
something with the music theory terms, i'd have a problem. reading my prior deal 
here trying to outline what has me excited about this, i realized i should 
have been more exact in the thing the keys player said. as i recall, he  called 
the note sequences i heard and like "a type of tetrachord" not "tetrachord"  as 
 so expertly pointed out above. sorry. the notesequence is this is number 
form -- which i should have stayed with in the first place:

lower and upper grouping of four notes [tetrachord, i suppose only in that 
sense -]

scale degrees were shown to me in the order below. i liked the way he showed 
this because i could move it to any key.

6  1  2  b3  -- that was the 'lower' group of four.

3  5  6  b7  -- that was the 'higher' group of four. [3 to 5 in the higher 
group is like 6 to 1 in the lower; 5 to 6 in the higher group is like 1 to 2 in 
the lower; 6 b7 in the higher group is like 2 b3 in the lower.]
so, in G major, 6 = E, 1 = G, 2 = A, b3 = Bb for the lower group;
so, in G major, 3 = B, 5 = D, 6 = A, b7 = F   for the higher group.

i like this becaue you can figure the notes for the other standard chords in 
the basic progression and double up, like i tried to show in my prior email to 
the list.  it fits nicely on the harp. but, again, my layout i tried to 
explain is probably lousy next to a layout someone who knows what they're doing can 
come up with. i just like having the sounds available. his keyboard stuff 
sounded great. it was jazzy and bluesy at the same time. and easy to understand. 
all the stuff i like about playing straight forward things; and, it is smokey, 
in my opinion, very nice fit with the tyope of stuff i jam with my band on. 
it ws fun to find i could actually tune the reeds using r. oysler's sanding 
idea, and come up with a workable - not perfect, i'm sure - format for my harp. 

i was just trying to share a neat idea and some of the fun i'm having. not 
trying to come across as knowing more than i do -- which aint much. i just rely 
on my ears to tell me that something has 'that sound' and i try to learn as 
much as i can about how it was done, and then use it myself if i can figure a 
use for it. in the mean time, i'm doing what i can to come up to speed on the 
theory stuff; but, for me, hearing it isnt as hard as reading about it. but i 
want to know the theory, too. i dont want to continue being partially 'blind' as 
i call not knowing more of the theory stuff.

the only part of the note sequence i think i had anything original to add was 
to take what i heard this guy playing on the keys and try to put it on a 
harp. if someone has a better layout approach, or whatever, i'd like to hear about 
it, too. 

sharing stuff like this is a heck of a lot of fun, i think. particularly when 
you can take it to a gig and have it actually work. what a rush!!!!  my band 
thought i'd conned some guy to give me a whole new deal in a harp.....ha!! 
they know me very well !!!! 


vadie.....

=====================
"hearts of fire, minds of ice!"