This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
There are actually two blues scales in common use. For purposes of illustration, let's use C as the tonic.
There is the traditional blues scale:
C, Eb, F, F# G, Bb
But importantly, this same scale, played a minor third down, is also widely used in the key of C:
A, C, D, D#, E G
Or, starting at C:
C, D, D#, E, G, A
This has been called the major pentatonic blues scale, the happy blues scale, or the Dixieland blues scale. Regardless, it is common, ubiquitous and invaluable, as it contains notes frequently used by blues musicians but not found in the traditional blues scale.
The two scales are often mixed together in improvisation, resulting in a perceived scale that includes all the note from both:
C, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, A, Bb
Being rude to new editors is not productive. And, no, this has nothing to do with AGF--intent is irrelevant. The action of spamming users with policy is inherently offputting. — trlkly11:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a discussion of how certain notes in a blues scale are bent (lowered or raised slightly in pitch) to achieve the characteristic sound of the blues. Thus, any notation of the blues scale is an approximation of how the scale is actually played in practice. Instruments that can bend notes (excluding, notably, the piano) do tend to bend the blue notes in the scale, making the blues scale somewhat unique among traditional/historic musical scales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Treder (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the encyclopedia that requires a source for everything you put in, hence why people who actually know about the subject often write things on talk pages so that other people can find sources and thus be able to add the information.
And again we run into the inherent rudeness issue: everyone knows that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You're not informing anyone of anything they don't know, and thus it comes off as condescending. Again, WP:AGF is irrelevant--as I'm sure you did not intend to be discouraging. — trlkly11:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, trlkly. I realize I know less about the policies and conventions of Wikipedia than I do about the blues scale. When I find the proper citations, I may try to expand this section. But I want to do it the right way, and do it well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Treder (talk • contribs) 07:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious additional blues scale with only Benward's intro textbook as a source
An essentially nine note blues scale is defined by Benward and Saker as a chromatic variation of the major scale featuring a flat third and seventh degrees which, "alternating with the normal third and seventh scale degrees are used to create the blues inflection. These 'blue notes' represent the influence of African scales on this music."<ref>Benward & Saker (2003). ''Music: In Theory and Practice'', Vol. I, p.39. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.</ref>
Blues scale as a chromatic variant of the major scale Playⓘ.
In my original edit summary, I stated, "if another source can't be found, then I believe it is a simple misunderstanding on Benward's part." Benward does not claim to be an expert on blues scales. If this concept can't easily be found in another, independent general work, or, even better, in a more specialized work, then I don't believe we have enough support for the claim. For now, I'm adding {{Better source}}. If nothing can be found except for this one intro-level survey of everything in music (including topics the authors have no specialized knowledge of), then I will remove it again. One option is to track down any source Benward may cite and to read it carefully to determine exactly what it says; that would be a WP:RS, if used without the filter of Benward's interpretation. Wareh (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Better source}} "is used in articles to identify sentences or short passages which have an inline citation but reference insufficient sources." I don't believe Benward & Saker have "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or...lack meaningful editorial oversight, or...[have] an apparent conflict of interest" (WP:NOTRS). You have yet to assert any of those allegations, and as such the use of "Better source" seems inappropriate. Hyacinth (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I own a copy of Benward but haven't been able to check it at home yet. If he cites a source, I will make an effort to track it down. I think my qualms about Benward are expressed at WP:TERTIARY: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. ... Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." I'm not looking for controversy here; I'm just putting a tag I think is accurate & appropriate as a placeholder. I'm sure you'll agree that anything correctly presented in an intro undergrad textbook should be easily verifiable from other sources. If it seems I'm professing certainty about an error here, my apologies -- I am open to learning that Benward is right. But, just out of curiosity, do you have any reason from outside his book to believe that this claim is correct? Wareh (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about Saker? She wrote the book too. They rarely if ever cite sources, but do point readers, for more information about blue notes, to Schuller, Gunther. Early Jazz: Its Roots and Musical Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp.46-52). The blues scale may be found on p.45 of ISBN9780195040432. Hyacinth (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 1989 edition with a different co-author. P. 43 of this edition has the blues scale whose accuracy concerns me, with "See Gunther Schuller's Early Jazz, p. 46-52 for a complete discussion of the blue notes." (Just a bit of autobiography: It's when I read this page and wondered, "Huh? Is this presentation of a blues scale really justifable?" that I discovered this Wikipedia article. At first I thought, "Oh, this is some kind of standard knowledge." Then I looked and saw that Benward/Saker was the source and could not help thinking, "Uh oh, Wikipedia is depending on the same source I hoped to use it to confirm or deny.")
I still have questions. I thank you for your research. I have requested a copy of Schuller's book through interlibrary loan, but I see (as I take it you were trying to point out indirectly to me) that the page in question is viewable on Google Books. Let me propose the following concerns:
There is nothing here, or in my edition of Benward/White, to support the idea of "an essentially nine note scale" as presented by the article. This seems to be original research, and quite misleading.
Benward/White and Benward/Saker speak of "alternating," and it's questionable how clearly and faithfully this is reporting the musical phenomenon discussed by Schuller.
The thing that is most striking to me on a first read of Schuller is that his presentation of the diagram borrowed by Benward et al. seems never to be referred to as a "scale." Rather, Schuller seems to be making a pitch inventory of a certain style of African singing. He lays out two ways of parallel harmonizing of the diatonic scale (4th and 5th) that "when 'combined, [these actually sung notes] will be seen to contain all the notes of the blues scale." The diagram following this statement, then, can be taken as a series of pitches that contains the notes of the blues scale, but not as a "blues scale" itself.
I go back to the point that Benward et al. is essentially a WP:TERTIARY source. It has five vaguely written lines, and its use of the caption "Blues scale in C" for the same diagram it takes from Schiller, where it is not called "Blues scale in C", does not seem to me to be adequate basis for encyclopedic material. (If other good textbooks/tertiary sources, or a single solid specialized work, can be found calling this a "nine note blues scale," I will apologize profusely for my doubt, which I hope you will believe is not meant personally.)
I think what I'd like to do is (A) put the sound, conforming-to-ordinary-usage definition of Greenblatt first, (B) add an account of what Schuller actually says (this is more complicated and may take longer), (C) remove all trace of Benward et al. on the subject, because it seems quite clearly to be a garbled repetition of Schuller. Wareh (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the same book if it has different authors. Also note that text on Wikipedia may differ from the text found in Benward & Saker, unless Wikipedia quotes B&S. Hyacinth (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say maybe you didn't read Schuller (1986), p.45, but you quote the relevant passage above. It says, "all the notes of the blues scale:" and then shows the blues scale. Hyacinth (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to publish a book of all possible combinations of 9 notes and name them so that they can be on wikipedia too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.140.77 (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2013
The article really is not very useful as it stands to the reader who comes here to learn the basics. At very least there needs to be a display of the two scales at the beginning of the article.
Perhaps at the heart of the problem is that "Blues" is both a style of music in itself and a specific form in Jazz. This needs to be divided into separate sections.
I suggest the article should be reorganized as follows:
Introduce the minor and major blues scales and give their notes. For many readers this will be all they are looking for.
In a separate section describe the use of the scale and variations in Jazz. (For example, is the major form ever heard in Jazz?)
Perhaps then discuss origins, relationship to blue notes (the scalar notes are not blue notes in themselves since their pitches are fixed by definition - no one hearing a blue note would confuse it with a note of the blues scales)
Questions I don't know the answers to:
In what styles is borrowing of notes found and what are its origins?
What are the earliest recordings in which the major blues scale is heard? You certainly hear it in Professor Longhair's recordings, but I expect it goes back further.
What is the relationship between the two scales and various chord forms? For example, I believe the minor scale is usually associated with dom7 and m7 chords and the major scale is associated with 6 chords (for example C6 - I don't mean first inversion chords). But at the same time, the concept of each chord having an associated scale either does not apply or applies weakly in Blues. If my belief is correct, how do you reconcile these two things?
There are different styles of Jazz and different practices in Blues. Is there any hope of untangling these into distinct groups of practice with respect to the scales?
(perhaps not for this article)Is the origin of Blue notes the arabic maqam? Or do they both have an identifiable common source, or are they demonstrably of independent origins?
Finally, in my view it would be useful if at least some of the references were to original recordings (or their transcriptions) demonstrating the facts, rather than texts trying to describe them, since those are all secondary sources. This would follow the practice in texts on theory in the common era.
See WP:PRIMARY and WP:USEPRIMARY. One of the most important goals on Wikipedia is to be verifiable. You can write in an article: "In such-and-such piece of music [I say that] there is a D♯ played at X'Y"," but it is much better to write that, "so-and-so says in such-and-such book/article/interview/essay that a D♯ occurs at X'Y" in such-and-such piece of music." Hyacinth (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The impact of the 'minor pentatonic' goes way beyond jazz and the blues. It is a mainstay of rock music, especially heavy metal. An example would be the extended guitar solo in Pearl Jam's "Alive", but there are countless others. It is often used as the basis for minor sections of walking basslines, and for much riff-based music. I won't deny that most of this has a direct lineage back to the blues (contrast this with Michael Shenker or Richie Blackmore's more classically inspired use of harmonic minor and different modes, although again R.B. makes good use of the minor pentatonic at times). Many aspiring rock musicians will be told that the 'blues scale' is a key that can begin to unlock improvisation and melodic soloing in a rock context. This article does little or nothing to inform or educate them. Stub Mandrel (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun a section on usage to try and address some of the above issues. Unfortunately I have little knowledge or experience outside jazz and classical so I have left that for someone else to cover. I also find it hard to find academic sources on how and when it is employed given that such things are subject to personal taste.
I have also always heard the "hexatonic" blues scale referred to just as "the blues scale" and the others as variants (including the major blues scale) but the article gives them all equal weight. Does anyone else find this unusual? Storeye (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The article should say that "the blues scale" popularly refers to what is here called the hexatonic minor blues scale. Most of the rest is elaboration by individual theorists. 75.36.148.27 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I few months ago (I think it was) I modified this entry to show plainly that the (minor) blues scale comprises the same notes as its relative major blues scale. I illustrated that with the A (minor) blues scale and its relative major, the C major blues scale, both of which comprise the notes A C D Eb E G, (C D Eb E G A). The fact that the major blues scale and its relative minor are related is now obscured. "A", the first letter, is the root of a canonical minor ("Aeolean") scale, A B C D E F G - no flats, no sharps. Basing an illustrative minor scale on C, rather than A, is neither pedagogically nor aesthetically the better choice. Can someone repair this please? 75.36.148.27 (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Blues scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Blues scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
