 |
| |||||||
|
Welcome to the Jazz Guitar Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
03-12-2010, 02:25 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 Jazz minor scales versus diminished scale In this thread (http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/impro...nor-scale.html) we discussed setting various jazz minor (JM) scales over dominant seventh chords, and I wanted to add a small thing I've been thinking about. Again, when you play a 7b9 chord you often leave out the root, resulting in a diminished seventh chord: G7b9: G B D F Ab --(no root)-> B D F Ab = Ab dim 7. Doing this to E7, Db7 or Bb7 results in the same diminished chord, so I think of these foursomes of seventh chords (G7, E7, Db7 and Bb7) as being similar. This means I may take an idea or pattern and move it up or down by minor thirds and it works against a seventh chord, with some added tension going on. This was brought out in the thread I mentioned above, where different jazz minor scales were suggested for playing against a G7 chord: D JM Ab JM F JM B JM Same idea! I also like using the diminished scale (and I the only one?). Let's compare the diminished scale you'd play against a G7b9 with those 4 JM scales to see where they differ, starting each scale on G for convenience. Ab dim: G Ab Bb Cb Db D E F G Ab JM: G Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G The diminished scale is an eight note scale, remember? The difference will always amount to two notes versus one; here the difference is D and E (Dim scale) versus Eb (Ab JM). This makes sense to my ear. Playing the Dim scale over G7->C sounds more "C majorish" to me because of the E natural. Now let's compare the diminished scale to the other three JM scales, one at a time. Ab dim: G Ab Bb B C# D E F G D JM: G A B C# D E F G Difference: Ab and Bb (Dim scale) versus A (D JM) Ab dim: G Ab Bb B C# D E F G F JM: G Ab Bb C D E F G Difference: B and C# (Dim scale) versus C (F JM) G# dim: G G# A# B C# D E F G B JM: G# A# B C# D E F# G# Difference: F and G (Dim scale) versus F# (B JM) Again I can say something snappy about each difference: Ab and Bb (Dim scale) versus A (D JM) -- more tension with the dim (b9 #9) versus nat9 with D JM. B and C# (Dim scale) versus C (F JM) -- major 3rd and modern #4 with the dim versus avoid tone (4) with F JM. F and G (Dim scale) versus F# (D JM) -- trading the b7 and root for a major7 may be tossing the baby out with the bath water, but it does ramp up the tension. Conclusion: come back home diminished scale, all is forgiven, or can't get enough of that JM stuff?     |
|
#2
03-12-2010, 03:51 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#3
03-12-2010, 04:01 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| When I "more or less move a phrase up or down by minor thirds" I like to use the JM. If I do it with the diminished scale, it sounds like I'm just taking a diminished chord and playing inversions of it: xx0101 -> xx3434 -> xx6767 -> ... I'm not sure what to conclude! Maybe that if you take the average, or centre of gravity, of those JM scales you get the diminished scale. Hef had the right idea  |
|
#5
03-12-2010, 06:21 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| I was bored at work ...  |
|
#6
03-13-2010, 11:59 AM
| |||
| |||
| BDLH How goes... I dig your process... But it seems your going through all this to come up with a symmetrical dim. scale and taking modal interchange one more step to Parallelism to explain note collections. I have problems not hearing the entire harmonic area, which Symmetrical dim. ignores. ( I'm delusional, I have lots of problems..,), back to music. On G7, DMM works, AbMM pushes the ears without context, FMM again context and BMM...that hurts my ears. I begin to enjoy Symm. Dim. when compared to MM's, at least theirs a structure, even if synthetic. Did you dig Bartok's four tonic system of composition? Hey I always dig your posts and enjoy your visions. If I'm pushing I apologize now... Do you understand jazz harmony and traditional harmony and what got you into the dim. direction, you seem to have a very good technical understanding of music. I'm always interested in fellow musicians methods of understanding jazz. I'm from the stone age, at least that's what my kids say. Have degrees from Berklee and UCLA, have taught, composed and played music for $ (that makes me a music wh...) most of my life. Have some posts of my live playing, will continue to do so. Gig to much, at least that's what my wife says, anyway I still dig jazz, I'm not just talking, I'm really interested..Thanks Reg |
|
#7
03-13-2010, 01:38 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| I'm mostly self-taught. I do like classical music. You mention Bartok: I'm a big fan of string quartets, including his, but I couldn't explain them. |
|
#8
03-13-2010, 05:36 PM
| |||
| |||
| Hey BDLH...Bartok's string Quartets are cool, (he composed 4) they are composed using a 4 tonic sytem, put the 12 pitches on a clock, you have 4 quadrants, each is a tonic system, maybe a little more but you probably get the picture. For a self taught guy... you have a pretty technical picture of music theory and performance... that's a compliment. Are you aware of where Dim. scales and function come from, besides symm. AKA, 7th degree of HM etc... and how from each Symm. Dim chord you get four dom.7th chords built on the two tri-tones and their inversions, (flip them over, B - F, becomes F - B, or G7 and C#7 or Db7 ) There is more, but I don't want to get ran out of town. I'm in SF area of Calif. anyway if you want more junk or my as I said delusional understandings of jazz theory and harmony lets keep posting... Thanks Reg |
Linear Mode
