Chord Scale Approach

[matt.guitarteacher]

I've heard people describe playing with a chord/scale approach in terms like, "play D dorian over the Dm7 and then, A mixo over the A7. ". I've never understood why you would switch to thinking that way when they are modes from the same scale.

I'm a pretty sucky improvisor and have always tended to just play over the key of the moment. Sometimes I "think" mixo over V or dorian over ii to get there, but once there, I think, “I just got here. Why would I want to leave (philosophically)?.”

Lately, I've been trying to focus on emphasizing guide tones and such. Thinking modally over each chord seems to help with scale patterns starting on thirds for example. So what’s the thought process? What are you chord/scale guys thinking when switching from Dorian to Mixo within the same scale? Is it just a way of thinking about emphasizing certain notes within the scale on stronger beats?

[docbop]

Improv is like everything and there are multiple approaches and the different approaches go thru levels of popularity. CST was popular for quite awhile people saying it was driven by Berklee teaching. These days people are getting more into Key Center. A lot of talk on Arp's/chord tones and Guide tones, 3-7 lines.

IMO they all have some educational value and improv students over the course of study should spend some time with each. It's just like transcribing and learning riffs you learn, study, create your own, and move on. It's all stuff you work on in the woodshed, when you play you let go and let all this experiences come out in your own way.

[Silence]

I think the more ways you can look at improvising over a progression, the better. Why not try transcribing a couple of lines so you can analyze them to see what your favorite players are thinking?


Jerry Bergonzi's book "Developing a Jazz language" has a chapter dedicated to Chord Scales and how to apply them with various chord tones and extensions. I have been working out of that chapter for about 2 weeks and the exercises have definitely expanded my harmonic awareness. He also goes in depth on how you place certain tones on strong/weak beats. His books are really great.

On the other side of the token, doing those exercises for 3 hours can get somewhat boring. Supplementing that with transcription (When I say transcription, I mean learning the solos, not writing them out) is the best of both world, IMO.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Thanks for the replies.

My real question is, "What are you playing differently when your play D Dorian as opposed to G Mixolidian since you can be in the same fingering position and playing the same pitch grouping for both?"

I think a lot of guitar players look at modes as simply fretboard positions. (Key of C, 5th position is Aeolian). I don't think that real chord/scale players are looking at it simply from a fingering position perspective. How do you think/play dorian over Dm7 differently than just playing in C Major in a "D first" position. I really would like a perspective on the thought process.

[max_power]

I think in terms of chord tones + extensions, but I'm always aware of the scales that I could be/am currently using. For example, if I were playing over a Dm7 chord, I would focusing on the chord tones D F A C. Any notes in between I would see as extensions: I would see the note E as the 9, the note G as the 11, and the note B as the natural 13. In doing so I'd be fully aware of the fact that these notes make up a dorian scale, but I tend to stay away from just thinking "play D dorian" because when I think that way I tend to noodle a bit and lose focus. That's the benefit of the chord tones + extensions approach: you always know exactly where you are.

[ksjazzguitar]

I never made sense to me. Either think chord tones and use the scale to connect them, or think the scale and target the chord tones.

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

There's a time and place where a chord/scale approach makes perfect sense works nicely-- a major ii V I is not one of them, IMHO.

[matt.guitarteacher]

There's a time and place where a chord/scale approach makes perfect sense works nicely-- a major ii V I is not one of them, IMHO.

Roger that. That makes me feel a little more comfortable with what I'm doing with a ii V I myself.

An example of what I've been working on recently: Playing lines that start on the third of the chord. When I find a lick that I think works well in terms of chord tones on strong beats and such, I play it in other modes (starting on the same degree) over the corresponding chord type. It makes any line that works well over one chord transferable to another chord in a way that's easier to visualize. I probably am more comfortable playing arps from different chord tones than scales from the same chord tones. So this is helping in that area.

Is this kind of in the right ballpark with how you think about playing modes
over chords?

[mr. beaumont]

Is this kind of in the right ballpark with how you think about playing modes
over chords?

Absolutely.

Certain situations call for modes, IMHO--when they're the most direct or colorful approach--If I'm confronted with two bars of Abmaj7#11, why not use lydian as an option? Playing Flamenco sketches? Of course I want to know my phrygian dom. for that "oh so Spanish tinged" part...

But there's other situations where you're dead in the water/pedantically shooting yourself in the foot-- if you're playing mixolydian over a V chord in a maj ii V I, you're really not touching on much of the tension that chord could be providing...I'm not saying it can't sound good, but IMHO, it's far from the best choice...

[matt.guitarteacher]

Absolutely.

Certain situations call for modes, IMHO--when they're the most direct or colorful approach--If I'm confronted with two bars of Abmaj7#11, why not use lydian as an option? Playing Flamenco sketches? Of course I want to know my phrygian dom. for that "oh so Spanish tinged" part...

But there's other situations where you're dead in the water/pedantically shooting yourself in the foot-- if you're playing mixolydian over a V chord in a maj ii V I, you're really not touching on much of the tension that chord could be providing...I'm not saying it can't sound good, but IMHO, it's far from the best choice...

Thanks for the response. Btw, that James Bond thread is a riot. There hasn't been much on here lately in the way of light reading. It's a much needed light-hearted distraction. I really have enjoyed your steady, Japanese Water Torture, one-sentence replies.

[pingu]

Yous guys should listen to Mr B
he knows of what he doth speaketh
generally I mean , he's cool

[Reg]

Nicely said and true...well maybe... hell I don't even know him... still nicely put... good reflection of his posts... Best Reg

[mr. beaumont]

Yous guys should listen to Mr B
he knows of what he doth speaketh
generally I mean , he's cool

Nicely said and true...well maybe... hell I don't even know him... still nicely put... good reflection of his posts... Best Reg

Thanks a lot, gentlemen.

The next time I'm wrong at home I'm showing my wife this thread.

[Aristotle]

Thinking modally over each chord seems to help with scale patterns starting on thirds for example. So what’s the thought process? What are you chord/scale guys thinking when switching from Dorian to Mixo within the same scale? Is it just a way of thinking about emphasizing certain notes within the scale on stronger beats?

All of the above and more.

You have had some good answers, but this is a huge question about processes that are not uniform and take years to develop. I surprised no one said that in a ii-V [in C], Charlie Parker indicated somewhere he is thinking Dm and Joe Pass said he is thinking G7.

I believe it was one of Pass's books where he as talking about playing over an extended Cm, that he would "think" of a G-chord sometimes; and if you try this, you will see the B-D-F's and so forth created tension when you go back to more inside Cm notes for release. I wish this idea, as I understand it, had a name.

And that gets to one aspect of your question, that is - how long is each chord played. Long enough that you will have siginficant tension and release in each chord, or is the significant tension mostly in one chord? So the short answer, if there is such a thing, is that what your line will emphaize (and how you will have to "think" of it) is controlled by the space in which the line has to operate.

Since that is probably not specific enough to help you now, consider this. That V-I thing Pass is talking about is one of the main "cadences" in our music. Think of it like an early Motzart piece: wailing back and forth on C,Eg,G and then wailing back and forth between on B,D,F.

Let's suppose now, you are on that D-Dorian chord and it's going to be there for a while. You can use the Pass idea. That is, "thining" D-Dorian will include superimposing the V, Am7 or A7, into your Dm phrase. For example, some sequence of notes that went: F,D,C#,E,D,A.

On the other hand, if the ii-V is going by to fast to be able to say something on each chord, then it is it's own cadence. And the mostly the A and C of the Dm chord want to resolve down to G and B. So, "thinking" G7, a la Joe Pass and his V-I cadence idea, it has to come out Dm-G ), and not straying too far from young Motzart, you might come up with something like F,A,C,A,B,G.

The thing to take away here is the idea that whatever chord or mode you have, there are chord tones versus passing (or color) tones. If the chord is part of a chord cadence, the roles of most of those notes is going to reverse. And it's going to keep changing. Because of different modes and such, it's going to be one part of the scale as inside notes one time, and another part of the scale later. I don't think you can just lock in to one focus. You are going to have to "think" all of these things, any and every "mode" of every key. So, one of the first stops along the way to building good melodies is to study and practice this V-I cadence idea, and then superimposing V's that aren't there, a la Joe Pas's Cm jam. It's used in literally thousands of pieces. As the years go by, you will find ways to take some of these kidde Motzart I-V-I phrase, transpose them to Ab minor, and play that over a G7 chord, on your way back to C Ionian. And the best part is, probably no one will ever figure out you stole it.

This post is why I don't teach. Because I would spend an entire day with someone on this, send the home with a stack of discs and reems of sheet music and tell them - when you master this, come back for another lesson.

[kenbennett]

...
My real question is, "What are you playing differently when your play D Dorian as opposed to G Mixolidian since you can be in the same fingering position and playing the same pitch grouping for both?"

. . .

What I'm thinking differently, if I ever do that, is the harmony, the chord tones, the scale notes that connect the chord tones. I may not be playing anything differently, even if I'm keeping track of where I am in a different way.

[JonnyPac]

Great replies all around, guys. There are many “right” answers in art. CST is just one. If it works, it works. I won’t argue that whatsoever.


I am a big supporter of CST though. I base my own version on jazz theory on it as well as on “linear harmony” (or whatever you want to call it. Please don’t start a semantics debate here; that is why I don’t post here much anymore.)

Here’s why I support CST…


If you look at the big harmonic picture in a jazz combo, you’ll see that it is a team effort. It doesn’t matter if you played a perfectly logical line if everyone else didn’t support it. If the entire band is not on the same page, the music suffers. How do you remedy this? Agree on what chord-scales each measure is built from, and then work “inside” or “outside” from there. Bi-tonal works when it is done consciously (think Herbie Hancock, Eric Dolphy, Trane, etc), but if it is done due to harmonic misunderstandings between players, it probably just sounds unclear and a sloppy. So then you decide we are playing such and such changes… This way the bass-line, piano/gtr comping, and soloist are building the harmony on each level. (Chromatic passing notes/chords slip in to emphasize the harmony when phrased well, not disorient it in most cases, at least in bop and hard-bop.)

By thinking “Dorian” you don’t just think “these random notes have equal importance/color in some CAGED pattern; it might as well be Mixolydain”; you think, “Dorian is the blanket chord tonality”. Then you see the minor triad, the b7th, and the extensions. Then you add the remaining chromatic notes back in as passing tones, etc. In the end you are playing the chromatic scale and you have a hierarchy of notes and their qualities are well understood. Some are "vanilla", some are sophisticated, and some are ignored or used briefly.

Now think of this little mental exercise: We have a ii V7 I with no reharmonizations. It is unnecessary to think Dorian, Mixolydain, Ionian if they are 2-4 beasts each. You just bust out a motif and move along with the functional harmony in the key.

Now just what if each chord went on for 4-8 measures? Bebop motifs and little chord tone runs get old pretty fast. The harmonic rhythm is the big difference. In the second case, we really need more to pull from; the chord-scale is the source, if you play “inside”. You can target notes other than the guide tones (3rds and 7ths) and work into the extensions and use things like triadic superimposition.

Think midway now, 2 measures per chord… Do you go chord-scale or bop motif/linear? It gets gray. If you bust out 16th notes you’ll probably need a lot more from the CS than a little leading line offers. If you play 8th notes in octaves, you might do well with a nice motif.

They are all born from the same parent key, and scales and so on. CST generalizes the chord's full possibilities. It is 100% compatible with linear lines and any other way of thinking. It is just another edge to have.

Finally they really save the day in tunes that use less functional harmony than old standards. The harmonic rhythm can be slow or fast. If you get into playing tunes like Bill Evans’s Walkin’ Up, Time Remembered, Shorter’s Juju, Coltranes’s Naima you may find that SCT makes a lot of sense. It brings out the colors of each change as they were intended. There are no ii V patterns to help you in that idiom. This is my favorite type of jazz.


That said, I use chords symbols in my trio, but I always add the exact mode or scale that I intend the rest of the group to use. It is highly structured improvisation that depends on our SCT agreements to be harmonically realized as a project. Reacting to screwball reharmonizations is no fun for me at all. Even if I catch it, it is not as “magical” sounding to the listener as it is when we constantly catch each other with what looks like harmonic ESP. We are not the most awesome trio ever, and I don’t mean to brag at all. It is just harmonically well conceived and agreed apon by all members.I had a bassist sit in on a Bb blues and he launched into the Blues for Alice changes; I launched into a standard bop line... and I sounded like raw shiz. He did not support my solo because our harmonic conception had discrepancies. If I wanted those changes, I wound have requested them, etc. I feel liberated in the details of harmony, not a wild goose chase of one-up-man-ship. The song comes first, IMHO. Team work and clear guidelines have the highest possibilities of good results.



This is all my big opinion. Please do not quote any of this out of the supporting paragraphs. Address me with a "@ JP" and leave it there. Sorry to be fussy. I just want a little respect to speak my heart here.

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

@ JP, lol. well said. I can respect your approach. It seems very organized and simple enough. I personally don't think CST is over-thinking things either... It just lets you know the available pool of tones that go with each chord in various logical combinations. "Less bits of information" are good for quick harmonic navigation... Nice post... I look forward to reading your book.

[Aristotle]

I am a big supporter of CST

And you may come to believe 20 years down the road that CST is more obstacle than liberator. It's not that there is anything "wrong" in your post, but you are like someone explaining all the reasons why the Packers are an excellent team, end of story, but doesn't discuss the Steelers.

The issue isn't of chord-scale theory yes or no. Although, on this forum, CST is pretty much the only thing on the menu. Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger. And yet there are execellent improvisers who don't think that way. Not a challenge, but I wonder if you can really do a comparative analysis, and explain the alternatives to CST reliance and why are they aren't as good.

Using the usual Dm7-G7-C example, there are only 7 notes in C. It's not that hard to know at any point which of the 7 are: chord-tones, passing tones or color tones on each chord. It's all key of C. The three types of tones are always going to be in the same place within the scale. (Within a given CAGE form, those effects are going to be in the same place in the form in every key). That becomes a basis of creating "normal" melodies. Not everyone's head works the same way. Mixolydian, etc. have too many syllables and can clog the synapses with neuro-electrical spam.

-----
Of course the musical problems themselves are complicated by other facts. The guitar is more of a contraption that some other instruments. Also, I have a feeling beginning students to jazz improv on guitar are probably more "raw" than on other instruments. They are less likely to have several years experience in a church or school choir, experience school band where there is a conductor, deadlines and managed rehearsals, less likely to have a capacity to read, less likely to have training in basic theory and harmony, etc. Combine that with the pedagogy of, OK, Mr. Beginner: here's ten keys, times 7 modes, times five CAGED forms, now from that palette, compose a good melody off the top of your head. And then you may begin to see some of the Yin, and not just the Yang, of CST.

[Reg]

Eventually you dump all the methods of trying to understand what's the best process of understanding what your playing and actually just play what you hear. At least that that's what I was taught to to do years ago... a lot of years ago. Still appears to be the goal for most jazz players. I usually simply hear/play a melody/chord or what ever type of statement the music makes me hear and play from that. The vertical and horizontal aspects both influence how I hear that statement, whether what I'm playing is melodic or chordal. I cover a lot of other music gigs, and still use the same process. I always think of vertical and horizontal methods of explaining whats going on as the same or as one... Well obviously there are exceptions, but a small %. I verbalize with scales and modes because most don't have the time to develop the skills to think horizontally and vertically as one, especially while they are playing. And many won't have that time to develop those skills. I tend to believe if one is able to keep their goal, or how they want to be able to play, (what you hear), in perspective while you develop the skills, either approach may work... Transcribing is great... but unless you have the one playing verbally telling you what process he/she is thinking... your simple learning notes. I'm just throwing that out to show how two players may play the same line and have two different approaches for sources of line... which one's better, or is it the approach later by a music teacher showing student how to solo... Many believe...When talking about playing music the actual playing out weighs the talking about it... I'm somewhere in between... I enjoy discussion of approaches, but in the end do believe time on your instrument is more important than discussing how to play... I know... you need to have a plan yada yada... I have never meet a great player who hasn't put in the time on their instrument, or a great composer who can't play, but I do know many who can talk about playing and when they play it's somewhat a disappointment. I'm not making any reference to any one on this forum. My comments are from years of being involved in music. I guess I could have simply said play more than talk about playing...Reg

[Aristotle]

Reg,
You should consider investing in a few paragraphs.

[wizard3739]

+1 for your last post Reg! Thanks for the very practical videos you have been posting.

wiz

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

I agree with Jonny and Reg... Learn it well, "forget it", and play what you hear!

[Jazzaluk]

The vertical and horizontal aspects both influence how I hear that statement, whether what I'm playing is melodic or chordal. I cover a lot of other music gigs, and still use the same process. I always think of vertical and horizontal methods of explaining whats going on as the same or as one... Well obviously there are exceptions, but a small %. ...Reg

Hi Reg ... I'm getting a lot of ideas from your posts. I appreciate the way you treat jazz directly, on it's own merits. It has really made me re-think and simplify my impov.

I am interested in your concept of vertical and horizontal thinking. I have studied Joe Pass quite a bit and I know that he thought in a similar way. He used specific chord names to identify scales he would draw upon for creating lines. There was not a lot of ambiguity. For example,, G7 was mixo only, G7+ was whole tone, G7b9 implied Cmi, G7#5b9 identified G alt etc. This way, the vertical thinking could guide the linear playing and facilitate a reasonably unambiguous means of writing chord charts for solo guitar.

My question to you is ... Do you use specific or unique chord names or symbols when you use your modal interchange thinking?

Hope this makes sense to you.

Cheers

[FatJeff]

Eventually you dump all the methods of trying to understand what's the best process of understanding what your playing and actually just play what you hear.

Agreed. A worthwhile longterm goal.

Reg,
You should consider investing in a few paragraphs

Also agreed. :-)

[Reg]

What's a paragraph... I'll pull out a few more boxes from the attic... or hire an editor.