Testing Out Theories for Yourself

[JonnyPac]

Greetings y'all,

I'd like to hear about your personal experiences when testing out music theories and related methods. I believe that one should never completely trust a concept until it hits your ears and you have scrutinized each detail. No method is without flaws and no theory is complete and all encompassing. In the end, we the individual musicians must pick and choose what we accept and play.

Your stories and thoughts...

[Reg]

1)How do we deal with blue notes, how they effect harmony etc... whats the source, not first use, harmonically where there from.
2)Modal concepts... how they influence harmonically and melodically
3)Modal interchange... again harmonic and melodic influences
4)Rhythmic concepts, both actual duration and accent patterns and harmonic rhythm...
I throw all the other harmonic concepts, multi tonic, triadic etc... diminished, or any other pitch collection source of governing principles into the modal concept group. But could be another group...
I also think of use of subs, approach, passing, reharm etc... as techniques of using one of the above classifications of harmonic theories.
I dig using techniques such as...
The tune "The Real Guitarist"
Gmaj7#11 ///
Fmaj7#11 ///
Dmaj7#11/ Gmaj7#11 G7
Cmaj7 / Bbmaj7#11
A-7 ////
Anyway I dig playing or pulling from subs as opposed to pulling from actual chord. Here's one blues example...
Instead of playing with Gmaj7#11 as tonal center... pull from E dorian, same notes, right, same characteristic note... In Gmaj#11 the #11 or C# and in E dorian the maj 6th or also C#, both are as I said characteristic pitch with same tendencies, which is fairly standard with "function subs"... anyway now from the E- or dorian, which can be played as E- pentatonic... somewhat of a Blues thing... I add the related V7 or A7... but I play from the Amaj pentatonic blues approach... Your phrasing and harmonic rhythm need to be organized... it's not random... anyway gives me very cool blues approach to playing on a very typically modal tune. The same procedure is used for rest of the changes... you need to recognize the difference between Dorian and Aeolean or natural min. Changes relationship. Not complicated and you probable already use, but there's a method and source or concept to help organize... which in the end helps your playing have better balance... sounds better.
Hey JP... maybe not quite what you were looking for but a start... Reg

[cosmic gumbo]

Yep, gotta test those musical theories, so much bullshit floating around. So many folks claim they've got a new wrinkle on things. only to find out it's a mainstream idea that THEY didn't know about, so they invent all sorts of new terminology to explain it, and add to the overall confusion. Too bad we don't put that much effort into testing stuff like the theory of evolution...sounds reasonable, guess it's true...

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Yep, gotta test those musical theories, so much bullshit floating around. ...

Totally agree. I can't even get the names straight.

Testing theories or concepts can be OK if you already have a solid theoretical baseline and an understanding of how it relates to the guitar.

You need a "center of gravity" to weigh and assess the value of new concepts and to understand how to integrate things. You have to commit to some approach for quite a while to create a CofG. Without it, all these new theoretical hallucinations and reinventions will seem disconnected, often contradictory and can create the illusion that guitar playing is rocket-science, which of course it is not.... (although some like to perpetuate the idea that jazz guitar is uber-complex ... It makes for good business opportunities. )

[smokinguit]

The music comes first to me. I just wanna play some songs damn it. I love chess, math, and other brainy stuff, but music is my time to relax not complicate things. Jazz is already complicated as it is. I study theory so I can understand you guys, especially in the theory section of the forum and the musicans I hang around. I don't think theory is the anwser to guitar greatness. Just another piece to the jazz guitar puzzle. I think listening and being able to sing your lines are more important IMO.

[timscarey]

Yep,

I always try to use concepts before i assimilate them into my "theory"

With the tonal theory I just took it at face value for many years because it is so old and so widely used.

With more modern theory I always play examples on PIANO or write tunes that use the ideas and learn them on piano.

Needless to say, my piano chops increase as I study theory.

This is mostly because I teach a lot of theory at all levels and I need to be able to play the examples for students, like if I'm explaining an appogiatura I need to be able to give them an example that can hear, not just a written version.

With modal concepts I try to write tunes and then play them with a full group, with a piano player (usually guitar can't really get the full chord out) obviously not to say that a guitar couldn't play the tune.

And just to be clear, the music comes first.

[fep]

The method books I like the best are ones with excercises and assignments for you to do yourself. Keeps you on track and let's you apply the lesson and helps you see if your making progress.

And... let's you test and hear the concept/theory yourself.

[Brodiecj]

Music theory in relation to playing different types of jazz is quite important...it definitely can get out of hand but it is quite necessary. The wealth of information that comes from studying voice leading, chordal substitutions, song/solo development and ear training is an invaluable asset to you as a player and as a teacher. The best solos (a relative notion in itself) usually are the result of the combination of some theoretical concept(s) and the soul in the solo. Music theory also gives a way to rationalize and explain how the music works. I guess I really feel music theory is a tool that we can use to realize the music that we want to play and to assist use playing with others.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Brodiecj

Music theory in relation to playing different types of jazz is quite important...it definitely can get out of hand but it is quite necessary. The wealth of information that comes from studying voice leading, chordal substitutions, song/solo development and ear training is an invaluable asset to you as a player and as a teacher. The best solos (a relative notion in itself) usually are the result of the combination of some theoretical concept(s) and the soul in the solo. Music theory also gives a way to rationalize and explain how the music works. I guess I really feel music theory is a tool that we can use to realize the music that we want to play and to assist use playing with others.

Agreed. ...and welcome to the forums!

Great replies, guys. Diggin' it here. I really like how Tim applies theory beyond the sounds we can reach as guitarists- That's super important.

[obinGilchrist]

So many folks claim they've got a new wrinkle on things

[czardas]

I made two monochords with adjustable frets about 20 years ago to test a system of (semi) mean tone temperament. The only interval that was equally tempered was the tritone, so I labelled it symmetrical (mean tone) temperament. I still haven't figured out a way to test 'drifting' temperament. This concept now has a name other than the one I invented. I found it on Wiki, but the details were rather sketchy.

[cosmic gumbo]

Originally Posted by czardas

The only interval that was equally tempered was the tritone

b5...and then bebop was invented. Nothing has been the same since...

[czardas]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

b5...and then bebop was invented. Nothing has been the same since...

Ha, that gives me an idea for the name of my next jazz composition, when I get round to it. Gonna call it 'Mean Tone Bebop!'

[JonnyPac]

Interesting replies. I wasn't really hoping to trash on any miracle-methods (thought they might deserve it). I was hoping to hear more on your personal journeys through books, blogs, classes, methods, teachers, and such. How did you compile knowledge and the applications to be where you are now? What worked? What didn't?

[czardas]

After much exhaustive research, I have come to view theory as mathematical sets. The notes in the sets either match or they don't. They either conflict or they don't. They are accented or not. They carry more weight or less. A mixture of contrasts comes from the balance of these elements as they are skillfully woven into a composition by its creator.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Interesting replies. I wasn't really hoping to trash on any miracle-methods (thought they might deserve it). I was hoping to hear more on your personal journeys through books, blogs, classes, methods, teachers, and such. How did you compile knowledge and the applications to be where you are now? What worked? What didn't?

Well, this being a guitar site, I'm curious as to what you mean by theory. Are you talking about the "dots on the page" or approaches to the fretboard?

As far a music theory goes, I think all the methods are pretty much talking about the same thing with different spins. How all this lays out on the fretboard and how different guitarists visualize and navigate to me defines an individuals personality on the guitar and in many respects their sound. It is basically the craft side of things. Same theory different practical application.

My path to understanding the guitar as an instrument began with Mickey Baker. After that I tried to capture certain sounds by my personal idol Ed Bickert. This led me to transcribing and looking at ways to simplify the neck. I filled in gaps of understanding with Bucky Pizarelli"s "the Creative Guitarist". This basically became the way I map out chord solos and progressions. I augmented this approach with Barry Kingstone approach to the Barry Harris Method, which used very similar chord forms as Pizarrelli but added a whole new dimension in terms of sounds (dim 6th scale).

Single line approach is pretty much based on Jimmy Bruno ... Very straight forward and easy to relate to any fretboard approach, plus he simplifies the idea of showcasing outside tones and not just playing a so-called outside scale.

All in all, I have established a good knowledge of the fretboard and now I just learn tunes, something I should have always emphasized.

[JonnyPac]

Jazzaluk,

That's more the kind of response I was looking for- a run down of things that struck true while studying and practicing. I have also had to discard a lot of advise, methods, and theories to focus on the things I find musically important. There is a lots of collecting and culling while learning jazz in my experience...

[EightString]

Nothing like that "fireworks in the brain" feeling when a heavy musical concept suddenly makes practical sense.

I've been playing professionally for nearly 35 years, and I STILL relish those moments.

Most of those "fireworks" moments come from experimentation, based on something I learned or saw in the abstract.

Back when I was a teen, most all of the rock guitar players in my circle were doing box-shaped pentatonic scales. But I got hooked on a player named Dave Meniketti from Y&T. Sidebar, he's one of the main reasons I got hooked on singing AND playing lead at the same time.

Anyway, Meniketti was doing a lot of modal stuff, and even throwing in chromatics and these cool flat-5 things in his solos. So I "got" what he was doing at an intellectual level, but as a young rock player, it took a lot of trial and error, and experimentation, before I started getting that modal (with a touch of "outside") stuff in my playing.

That was when my playing sort of exploded in terms of melodic content in a "fast soloing" situation. That was when I started getting players, even pro players, asking me, "How do you DO that? Show me what you're doing there!"


Flash-forward a couple of decades: I started REALLY getting into jazz a few years ago (coming from a theory-heavy progressive metal background), and since then, because of the depth and breadth of jazz, I feel like I have a potentially limitless number of those "fireworks" moments ahead of me.

I actually LIKE feeling like I have a lot to learn again.

[Socrates]

One theoretical device which has never quite yeilded the fruits I expected is the use of melodic minor over altered chords. It seems to be the standard recommendation that many tutors give in order to achieve an exotic jazzy feel, yet in practice I use it only occasionally, preferring instead a mixture of harmonic phrygian and dimished scales/arpeggios. I think the harmonic minor particularly is under rated as a theoretical idea in jazz, yet it works great to my ear, especially resolving to major tonality.
I suppose all the many theories are geared toward making one familiar with the many different possibilities that music offers; no single one is sufficient in itself.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Socrates

One theoretical device which has never quite yeilded the fruits I expected is the use of melodic minor over altered chords. It seems to be the standard recommendation that many tutors give in order to achieve an exotic jazzy feel, yet in practice I use it only occasionally, preferring instead a mixture of harmonic phrygian and dimished scales/arpeggios. I think the harmonic minor particularly is under rated as a theoretical idea in jazz, yet it works great to my ear, especially resolving to major tonality.
I suppose all the many theories are geared toward making one familiar with the many different possibilities that music offers; no single one is sufficient in itself.

I agree. ALT is not the most "inside choice" for an altered dominant chord. Many bassists play the P5 of the chord; in these cases, the choices you listed are much nicer sounding, IMHO. There are a lot of teachers pushing the "hippest" or "jazziest" choices instead of the "inside" defaults.

[Nuff Said]

Personally, I believe its too easy to get lost in Theories and neglect ear training. Teaching Jazz Music Theory has become a bigger business than playing the music live.

Nuff

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

I agree. ALT is not the most "inside choice" for an altered dominant chord. Many bassists play the P5 of the chord; in these cases, the choices you listed are much nicer sounding, IMHO. There are a lot of teachers pushing the "hippest" or "jazziest" choices instead of the "inside" defaults.

I like to use what my teacher calls the... "modified Auxiliary Diminished" scale for altered chords.

a half-whole dim (aux dim) with lowered 11th and 13th

R-b9-#9-3-4-5-b6-b7

I know that there are 2 halfsteps in a row, but the note that usually shy's me away from the altered scale is the #11. I like to use the perfect 11 and natural 5 as well as the #5.

I also like how it implies just a bit of blues flavor with the #9-3-4 combo.
Just a very useful note collection IMO

I also use it on b13 chords with an altered 9th, and occasionally on a Dom chord with only an altered 9th as a option other than just the aux dim I always hear your "supposed" to play.

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by Nuff Said

Personally, I believe its too easy to get lost in Theories and neglect ear training. Teaching Jazz Music Theory has become a bigger business than playing the music live.

Nuff

I totally agree with that.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Nuff Said

Personally, I believe its too easy to get lost in Theories and neglect ear training. Teaching Jazz Music Theory has become a bigger business than playing the music live.

Nuff

Likewise. A good theory is an ear-theory, and ya gotta play it live.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Socrates

One theoretical device which has never quite yeilded the fruits I expected is the use of melodic minor over altered chords. It seems to be the standard recommendation that many tutors give in order to achieve an exotic jazzy feel,

I don't think that's the purpose .

I didn't get the altered scale either, until I realised how to use it, what it was for. On the one hand, it's the main chord tones (R-3-7) plus altered versions of all the other usual (mixolydian) notes.
On the other (more importantly) It simply provides a maximum number of half-step resolutions on to the tonic chord: assuming 6, maj7 and 9 extensions on major or minor (it gives one more half-step move in major than in minor, but that's down to the normal 4-3). Here's all the possible moves from a G7alt to chord tones or extensions on a Cmaj:

Ab > G or A
A#/Bb > A or B
B > C
C#/Db > C or D
D#/Eb > D or E
F > E

That's along with retaining the root of the chord, of course. And it's neat that the tritone sub is the bII7 chord - Db7(#11) - a lydian dominant (same set of notes).

The altered scale's relation to melodic minor is coincidental. The 7 notes just happen to match (with some enharmonic adjustment) the 7th mode of melodic minor. That's only a useful piece of knowledge if one knows all one's melodic minor scales intimately already - and IMO it can still lead to you taking your eye off the ball. It's part of the whole misused concept of chord-scale theory.

Originally Posted by Socrates

yet in practice I use it only occasionally, preferring instead a mixture of harmonic phrygian and dimished scales/arpeggios.

The HW dim scale is of course the other jazz convention for a minor key V chord. And the harmonic minor vii chord is a dim7, a rootless 7b9, with the same dominant function - so that's an intimate link.
By "harmonic phrygian" do you mean 5th mode of harmonic minor? aka "phrygian dominant"?

Originally Posted by Socrates

I think the harmonic minor particularly is under rated as a theoretical idea in jazz, yet it works great to my ear, especially resolving to major tonality.

That's true. AFAIK, it was Mark Levine who promoted the idea that harmonic minor was almost never used in jazz. He claims not to have found it in the vast amount of jazz listening he did - apart from one or two odd exceptions.

But I agree - on a V chord in a minor key (at least), the tonic harmonic or melodic minor ought to be one of the most obvious choices.

I think Levine's perspective was the "avoid note" issue, probably because he's a pianist concerned with maximising his choice of extensions. The 5th modes of harmonic and melodic minor each contain 2 avoid notes. The altered scale contains none - and neither does the HW dim scale.
The only thing that can explain him not hearing harmonic minor (used - arguably - by Charlie Parker quite often) is that he was being very strict about how to identify it. A lot of solo phrases on minor key V chords - that use a major 3 and b9 - can be explained in other ways (such as diminished runs), because a soloist rarely uses a whole scale. If it wasn't incontrovertibly harmonic minor, it seems Levine thought it had to be something else.

Originally Posted by Socrates

I suppose all the many theories are geared toward making one familiar with the many different possibilities that music offers; no single one is sufficient in itself.

Right. Jazz theory is not really a single body of rules or formulas. It basically comes from the same thinking as classical theory - as a list of the "common practices" of jazz musicians - but writers on jazz theory tend to be individuals with their own perspectives: not necessarily interested in constructing a "one-size-fits-all" text book, but in laying it out the way it makes sense to them.
And jazz practice has of course changed over time, often quite quickly (compared to the development of classical music, that is). So theory always comes up against the accusation that it's out of date: "that may be the way they did things back then, but we have some new ideas now". (And even within one period or genre, there are great musicians who take the conventions quite liberally.)
The old theories don't get totally rejected, but they tend to produce old-fashioned sounding music. So if you want to play bebop, that's fine. Bebop is a vintage genre whose formulae are pretty well understood, thanks to a few decades of hindsight. The theory of early modal jazz is also pretty safe.
I'm not so sure about jazz of the last 40 years or so. It's very hard to theorise about a living music! (Some people call it "post-modern", which is a neat way of avoiding the issue, because it's a euphemism for "anything goes" .)

[Socrates]

It simply provides a maximum number of half-step resolutions on to the tonic chord: assuming 6, maj7 and 9 extensions on major or minor (it gives one more half-step move in major than in minor, but that's down to the normal 4-3). Here's all the possible moves from a G7alt to chord tones or extensions on a Cmaj:

Ab > G or A
A#/Bb > A or B
B > C
C#/Db > C or D
D#/Eb > D or E
F > E

Interesting. I had never noticed that the altered scale afforded more half step resolutions than the other scales. Although it is only one more. It also excludes the satisfying effect of the half step move from the tonic note to the leading note over a 5 -1. It just seems a fairly cumbersome tool by itself. I do use it though. As you rightly suggested, it was Levine who had me thinking in the first place that it was somehow crucial to shove in as many altered tones as possible. This is one example of what JP was saying about theory not always tallying with our aesthetic sense of what sounds right.
I find that the harmonic minor allows me to think and play in a spontaneously inventive and melodic (in the layman's sense of the word) way.

Of course I very much like the melodic minor feel suggested by the lydian dominant chord and would use melodic minor over it, even when it is functioning as a tritone sub for an altered dominant.

Your point about the enharmonic equivalance between the altered scale and the 7th mode of melodic minor put into words a suspicion I have long held but have never heard expressed: that they are coincidental. If you think like you are in two tonalities at the same time (as Levine's book seems to imply) you are bound to get muddled.

I like Tim Scarey's point about the "#9-3-4 combo". The natural 4th of a dominant has loads to offer, especially when you lean chromatically into it's neighbours.
I've got a thing for turns, can't get enough of them. Especially starting on the third of the dominant, e.g:

3-4-3-#9-3

Blues meets Baroque. Great Jazzy mix.

[JonnyPac]

Yup yup. All good stuff.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Interesting. I had never noticed that the altered scale afforded more half step resolutions than the other scales. Although it is only one more.

Not quite following you: only one more than what?
Than the HW dim choice? (It has a lot more than the 5th mode of major or harmonic minor options.)

Originally Posted by Socrates

It also excludes the satisfying effect of the half step move from the tonic note to the leading note over a 5 -1.

Yes, it excludes that nice "reverse leading tone" option.

Originally Posted by Socrates

It just seems a fairly cumbersome tool by itself. I do use it though. As you rightly suggested, it was Levine who had me thinking in the first place that it was somehow crucial to shove in as many altered tones as possible. This is one example of what JP was saying about theory not always tallying with our aesthetic sense of what sounds right.
I find that the harmonic minor allows me to think and play in a spontaneously inventive and melodic (in the layman's sense of the word) way.

I just go with chord tones personally, I don't think about scales (or very rarely anyway). I'd use any kind of passing tone, diatonic or chromatic, to link chord tones. But I do take notice of extensions or alterations shown in charts. I know you can sometimes take them with a pinch of salt, but often they're important. I'd rarely go for a scale that excluded indicated extensons or alterations (at least not if playing with a pianist or 2nd guitarist).

Originally Posted by Socrates

Of course I very much like the melodic minor feel suggested by the lydian dominant chord and would use melodic minor over it, even when it is functioning as a tritone sub for an altered dominant.

Well, it's the same scale, of course. G7alt and Db7#11 use (or rather imply) the same 7 notes.
The only difference in the chords, too, is the bass note. Any voicing for G7alt will do for Db7#11, and only the bass determines which is which.
I guess the difference is that "G7alt" is a little more flexible with scale choice - you can interpret it as a HW dim chord, at least. Db7#11 doesn't really permit anything other than lydian dominant (IMO).

Originally Posted by Socrates

Your point about the enharmonic equivalance between the altered scale and the 7th mode of melodic minor put into words a suspicion I have long held but have never heard expressed: that they are coincidental. If you think like you are in two tonalities at the same time (as Levine's book seems to imply) you are bound to get muddled.

Exactly. (I didn't get that impression myself from Levine, but - much as I like his book in some ways - it's a little too biased towards chord-scale theory, and I can see plenty of misapprehensions arising from it.)

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by timscarey

I like to use what my teacher calls the... "modified Auxiliary Diminished" scale for altered chords.

a half-whole dim (aux dim) with lowered 11th and 13th

R-b9-#9-3-4-5-b6-b7

I know that there are 2 halfsteps in a row, but the note that usually shy's me away from the altered scale is the #11. I like to use the perfect 11 and natural 5 as well as the #5.

I also like how it implies just a bit of blues flavor with the #9-3-4 combo.
Just a very useful note collection IMO

I also use it on b13 chords with an altered 9th, and occasionally on a Dom chord with only an altered 9th as a option other than just the aux dim I always hear your "supposed" to play.

Interesting.

Mixo b6 or Dorian b2 both work great when you are not altering the the 5th.

[JonnyPac]

The important part of all of this scale or that, if the process of trying it out in different contexts and choosing what you accept and discard. Just don't sell yourself short on something too soon. I too was late to realize that ALT is useful (after rejecting it as the Levine-prescribed #1 choice for altered dominants). There are lots of nice sounds, ALT is just one of them. Hear it all in context and try to make it work for you.