scales and their modes

[christianm77]

On a slightly briefer note.

Thing about scales - scales are not the same thing as a modes.

Scale usage after Burton different to before. GB popularised the idea of playing scales 'randomly' in improvisation over chords - as in here is a Lydian Dominant, choose whatever notes you want. This is the contemporary understanding. I think of this as a modal approach for want of a better word, but this approach is pretty unique to jazz after the 60s.

I think of Bach, Mozart and Charlie Parker as doing scales.

I think of Kurt Rosenwinkel et al as playing modes.

Hope that makes some sense.

[christianm77]

So agreed. I myself can clearly understand Parker's thinking about every line he ever played by using the 6 basic melodic embellishments, chord tone targeting, the several variations of enclosures, and arpeggios (outlining). And of course some blues scale (an African American original invention!). And in a few cases Parker might use: diminished scale shapes (Debussy, Ravel), and whole tone scale shapes (Monk, Debussy).

No need for Barry Harris or melodic minor (Levine) and I thoroughly understand those two perspectives and am quite able to think that way if I choose. But I tend function less melodically when I do so by the very nature of those being note grouping organizing systems. They are great for runs though! I don't want to think about chord tone targets or melody shapes for that matter when I am doing a long cross octave scale run. At the end of the run then I think chord tone target devices.

i.e. scales are good at being scales. Indeed.

Arpeggios are also good at being arpeggios. Why look to explain triads in terms of scales?

Now the interesting grey area - scales in stacked thirds are just like extended arpeggios. Vice versa. Dm13 or a Dorian in 3rds? Both interpretations have their points. And this stuff gets used a lot. Intrigues me... It's very jazz...

Dim scale in Parker? Haven't seen any yet. Good sound though.

[jordanklemons]

0_0

Aaaaaaaand this is one of the many reasons I just opt not to think, practice, or organize using scales or modes. To generalized and confusing... too many well what if you do this vs that, or this is how so and so did it.

Modes say that if you play a scale with a different note as the root or tonic, you get a different sound. But if the underlying chord stays the same (G7) and we change the arpeggio or mode or whatever we're using to play over it (D dorian vs G mixolydian)... what's ACTUALLY changing? Both contain the same notes. So what actually changes here?

The answer to that question, for me, is also the basis for why I just don't think about any of those issues and focus on other issues that feel more pressing...

The answer is the resolution points, and the melodic functions of each note. If we are using the D minor triad (or dmin6 arpeggio) as the basis for improvising or composing melodies over a G7 chord -- especially if the chord is being voiced as such also -- we're effectively tonisizing the notes D, F, and A in the melody. D will function as the melodic root note. No longer will the G note function as 'Do'. It will now be acting (melodically) as the 4 (fa) of a D minor vibe. This isn't a theoretical concept or idea. You can hear this by just trying it out. Vamp out on a G9 to comp for yourself (or with a looping pedal) and try playing a D minor pentatonic but with a 6 instead of a b7 to hear this. Use the D minor triad notes as your resolution spots, and hear how the G functions not with the strong pull of 'Do' that you'd expect, but as the bluesy 4 wanting to resolve down through the scale to the D or up to the 5.

Also try the G "mixo"... which really just means try tonicizing the G, B, and D notes melodically. If you add the b7 and the 9 to this triad, you'll end up with the same notes we just used previously, but the melodic tension, resolution, and emphasis is now completely different, and it yields a different color.

The two modes offer the same notes. Who cares what we call it or which we use? Really, the more important issue is, where do we want to construct the melodies to grow from? And we don't have to just pick one. We can go back and forth. Or we can use a different triad altogether. A Major. D diminished. E minor. E Major. Eb Major. Db Major. Db minor. The options are ridiculous. Many of these will "come from" the same scales or modes... some won't. But each will offer an entirely different arch to the melodies they create as each will alter the function of the notes, the tension and resolution points, and the tonality being created. The scales may offer similar, or the same, note choices. But if we don't dig inside the scale and learn to manipulate it, move the tonicized areas around, learn to utilize it melodically and alter the shades and hues and colors, etc... then not much else matters... to me.

I often compare it to learning to cook. If a teacher hands you a box with 7 spices in it and says... these are the "Indian food" spices... use these 7 spices anytime you want to cook Indian. So... what? I just throw all 7 of them into every dish I use? No... I go in and test out each spice and get to know it. I try different combinations. I learn about each one and how it combines with others. Maybe I only want to use 1 or 2 of them in some dishes. Maybe I want to use 5 in this one dish, but I want to REALLY emphasize 1 in particular and let the other 4 be secondary. I'm less concerned with the label "Indian food" written on the box holding the 7 spices. I'm more interested in gaining a level of intimacy with each individually, and then learning different ways to combine them to create as broad and deep and fine dining experience for anyone interested in eating my food. But now do it with sounds.

[christianm77]

0_0

Aaaaaaaand this is one of the many reasons I just opt not to think, practice, or organize using scales or modes. To generalized and confusing... too many well what if you do this vs that, or this is how so and so did it.

Modes say that if you play a scale with a different note as the root or tonic, you get a different sound. But if the underlying chord stays the same (G7) and we change the arpeggio or mode or whatever we're using to play over it (D dorian vs G mixolydian)... what's ACTUALLY changing? Both contain the same notes. So what actually changes here?

It is all completely specific and sensible from my viewpoint. Clearly it's not making much sense to anyone else.

I just wanted to butt in and say, I'm not really talking about CST. I'm talking about actual scales going up and down like scales are wont to do, and making melodies out of them as well. Not modes. Not harmony so much.

A melody can be heard in a different harmonic context. That's not my problem buster. ;-) If I leave Dm phrase on C# on a G7 chord, and someone says G Lydian Dominant... Well that's their vibe.

The answer to that question, for me, is also the basis for why I just don't think about any of those issues and focus on other issues that feel more pressing...

The answer is the resolution points, and the melodic functions of each note. If we are using the D minor triad (or dmin6 arpeggio) as the basis for improvising or composing melodies over a G7 chord -- especially if the chord is being voiced as such also -- we're effectively tonisizing the notes D, F, and A in the melody. D will function as the melodic root note. No longer will the G note function as 'Do'. It will now be acting (melodically) as the 4 (fa) of a D minor vibe. This isn't a theoretical concept or idea. You can hear this by just trying it out. Vamp out on a G9 to comp for yourself (or with a looping pedal) and try playing a D minor pentatonic but with a 6 instead of a b7 to hear this. Use the D minor triad notes as your resolution spots, and hear how the G functions not with the strong pull of 'Do' that you'd expect, but as the bluesy 4 wanting to resolve down through the scale to the D or up to the 5.

Hmmm... Kinda?

I don't like G on a G7 much. I'm conditioned into hearing that stuff as lederhosen music. But Parker uses it from time to time.

Anyway, I kind of hear it in a dual way. Flips between Dm and G7 sort of thing.

Also try the G "mixo"... which really just means try tonicizing the G, B, and D notes melodically. If you add the b7 and the 9 to this triad, you'll end up with the same notes we just used previously, but the melodic tension, resolution, and emphasis is now completely different, and it yields a different color.

I don't think my ear is hearing this... But what do you mean by 'tonicizing the notes G, B and C exactly'?

Personally I think you could train yourself to hear it either way. Or a different way.

Some days something flips in your head and you never hear something the same way again. That's fun when it happens.

The two modes offer the same notes. Who cares what we call it or which we use? Really, the more important issue is, where do we want to construct the melodies to grow from? And we don't have to just pick one. We can go back and forth. Or we can use a different triad altogether. A Major. D diminished. E minor. E Major. Eb Major. Db Major. Db minor. The options are ridiculous. Many of these will "come from" the same scales or modes... some won't. But each will offer an entirely different arch to the melodies they create as each will alter the function of the notes, the tension and resolution points, and the tonality being created. The scales may offer similar, or the same, note choices. But if we don't dig inside the scale and learn to manipulate it, move the tonicized areas around, learn to utilize it melodically and alter the shades and hues and colors, etc... then not much else matters... to me.

Some of these will be 'common practice' some of them will be 'uncommon practice'

Sounds like you are training yourself to hear polytonally.

I often compare it to learning to cook. If a teacher hands you a box with 7 spices in it and says... these are the "Indian food" spices... use these 7 spices anytime you want to cook Indian. So... what? I just throw all 7 of them into every dish I use? No... I go in and test out each spice and get to know it. I try different combinations. I learn about each one and how it combines with others. Maybe I only want to use 1 or 2 of them in some dishes. Maybe I want to use 5 in this one dish, but I want to REALLY emphasize 1 in particular and let the other 4 be secondary. I'm less concerned with the label "Indian food" written on the box holding the 7 spices. I'm more interested in gaining a level of intimacy with each individually, and then learning different ways to combine them to create as broad and deep and fine dining experience for anyone interested in eating my food. But now do it with sounds.

Summary - I think you need to know how the notes sound before you play them.

But there are many ways of hearing the notes, also. Here's a weird thing then - if it takes one a long time to gain exquisite sensitivity to the possibilities of each note, can you expect your audience to hear the same thing?

(Bearing in mind I hear the same music differently from you (probably) and JonR too I suspect.)

Musician's dilemma isn't it?

[jordanklemons]

It is all completely specific and sensible from my viewpoint. Clearly it's not making much sense to anyone else.

And onward we march into the problems of 21st century communication.

I don't like G on a G7 much. I'm conditioned into hearing that stuff as lederhosen music. But Parker uses it from time to time.

Word.

I don't think my ear is hearing this... But what do you mean by 'tonicizing the notes G, B and C exactly'?

Not sure what you mean about what your ear isn't hearing.

Tonicizing G, B, and D... not C. Tonicizing... to make the tonic. The way notes behave and function melodically is not always the same as their harmonic function. A note that is tonicized melodically is a note that is stable... it behaves like the tonic of a key.

Tonicizing the notes of the G triad over a G7 is certainly not an advanced application of this. It's about as simple as it gets and is really quite straight forward. I'm sure if we looked through a handful of tunes we could find examples of the melody outlining the basic 1-3-5 of a dominant chord.

***UPDATE: was just about to post this and then remembered All Blues tonicizes the G major triad during the melody. Like I said... very basic application.***

***SECOND UPDATE: Just remembered looking at Here's That Rainy Day with a student recently. We were talking about triads and how simple most melodies are... how much mileage we can get out of basic triads when improvising and creating melodies. They brought up this tune. How perfect... over the Bb7 chord, the melody is basically just outlining a Bb major triad.***

Personally I think you could train yourself to hear it either way. Or a different way.

Totally agree. It's pretty much what I'm talking about. There are so many ways of hearing and expressing these things hiding within scales and modes... hence why I prefer not to utilize them. I'd rather spend my time training myself to hear and express in those ways.

Some of these will be 'common practice' some of them will be 'uncommon practice'

Mmmm... I'm not sure. I guess this depends on who you ask. Of all the ones I listed, I've seen them all used ranging from GASB tunes to Duke to Mingus to Rosenwinkel, and on and on. Even see them in classical music. If it sounds good it sounds good. For me. Whether others feel it's common or not, I can't speak to.

Sounds like you are training yourself to hear polytonally.

Yeah, you're not the first person to bring up this idea. I don't know that I agree with it. On one hand, I get why we refer to it as polytonal... because we're talking about placing one sound over another. But to me... this is really just the study and, more importantly, application of tonality. Is CMaj7 considered polytonal because it's a C major chord plus a B note? What if we say it's an E minor triad sitting over a C? There's different ways to break it down and get to know it and play with it, but it's just a type of tonality. It's a very common and accepted one that we refer to as Maj7. But there's plenty of them.

Summary - I think you need to know how the notes sound before you play them.

Agreed. Again, why I don't find scales or modes overly helpful. I've learned more about what notes sound like over the last couple of years of listening and practicing this way than I did in the previous 20 years of approaching music with scales and modes.

But there are many ways of hearing the notes, also.

I'm not sure if I would agree. Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

Here's a weird thing then - if it takes one a long time to gain exquisite sensitivity to the possibilities of each note, can you expect your audience to hear the same thing?

A. I don't think it necessarily has to take a long time. Certainly no longer than learning to master the physical position of a scale... and in my experience, it happens much faster.
B. I don't expect anyone to do anything... but yes... if we learn to hear a series of notes in a way that we can express tension and resolution, I would say it's safe to say that others (who listen and are interested in giving their focus and openness to experiencing the music) would hear it in a similar way. I don't think anyone would argue that a C note being played over a C chord (not CMaj7, just C) is a very stable sound.
C. Ultimately, none of that really matters though. I'm not concerned with playing FOR others. I certainly hope they enjoy what I play... but I'm not pandering. I'm trying to create a piece of music from my heart and mind, with as few walls and barriers and blockades between my intention, and the sound and energy that my guitar and I emote. The more intimately I can get to know tonalities, sounds, resolution points and tensions, etc... the better I'm able to do my job.

[christianm77]

And onward we march into the problems of 21st century communication.



Word.


Not sure what you mean about what your ear isn't hearing.

I think I just hear everything e

Tonicizing G, B, and D... not C. Tonicizing... to make the tonic. The way notes behave and function melodically is not always the same as their harmonic function. A note that is tonicized melodically is a note that is stable... it behaves like the tonic of a key.

Tonicizing the notes of the G triad over a G7 is certainly not an advanced application of this. It's about as simple as it gets and is really quite straight forward. I'm sure if we looked through a handful of tunes we could find examples of the melody outlining the basic 1-3-5 of a dominant chord.

***UPDATE: was just about to post this and then remembered All Blues tonicizes the G major triad during the melody. Like I said... very basic application.***

***SECOND UPDATE: Just remembered looking at Here's That Rainy Day with a student recently. We were talking about triads and how simple most melodies are... how much mileage we can get out of basic triads when improvising and creating melodies. They brought up this tune. How perfect... over the Bb7 chord, the melody is basically just outlining a Bb major triad.***

OK - I understand you now.

Yes I think I hear the Dm and G7 sometimes. For example, if we take the line from Groovin High on the Am7 D7, I do hear a change halfway through the line. It goes from Am to D7, instead of me hearing it all in D7.

But that depends on whether you hear the ii as an actual chord or just an embellishment of V. Or maybe your name is Pat Martino and you hear everything minor.

The bit with that A-G#-G-F# thingy is definitely minor, but then I'm hearing the D C C# A bit as an enclosure of 3 and a 1 of the D7 chord. But then it is also possible to flip back to hearing everything in the D7 context too.

BTW my definition of tonicization is harmonic - as in VI7-ii being the tonicization of chord ii. Or #io7 ii, or whatever. You can do this melodically too, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Anyway, I'm going to outline this because it gets to the core of what I'm blathering on about.

For example the progression I VI7 | ii V | I can be evoked by the melody:

5 4 3 2 #1 3 5 3 | 4 3 2 1 7 2 4 (b)6 | 5

Which contains harmony and tonicisations, even though I am thinking of it from the POV of a globalised key with alterations and steps and thirds. You can name every scale created in this sequence, and the triads outlined it, but you can also just think of it melodically.

(I've just started an classical Ear Training manual that works this way.)

It's not either or. So here's an example of how to tonicise a chord wihtout thinking about harmony per se -

'when tonicising a root note within the progression (D for instance) use, the leading note alteration (C# here) and use movement in steps or thirds (or sixths) up from it.'

In practice this creates a certain harmony but it's a different way of looking at it. There's different ways of hearing it to - is the 1# now a DI or a TI in the new key of Dm?

This isn't the melodic minor harmony thing BTW - that happens when you take the minor in a sub key (relative minor for example) and play an unresolved leading tone. But you can do this without thinking about the harmony thing at all. It's just a note in the minor key. I could sharpen the 1 in the second bar, for instance.

Anyway, I leave as an exercise to the student to find the many many examples of this from the bop repertoire. You may prefer to think 'm7b5 or diminished arpeggio' but I like this approach too.

Thinking of global keys with alterations is typical for tonal music. It was also typical of Parker's approach to changes running through secondary dominants.

Totally agree. It's pretty much what I'm talking about. There are so many ways of hearing and expressing these things hiding within scales and modes... hence why I prefer not to utilize them. I'd rather spend my time training myself to hear and express in those ways.

In contrast, personally I found your quadrad approach made my head hurt after five minutes simply because I am not used to micromanaging the harmony so much. I'd rather think of fewer chords and create harmonic motion through the use of melodies derived from scales.

Which is funny given I used to be a chord tone guy.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't teach it.

Mmmm... I'm not sure. I guess this depends on who you ask. Of all the ones I listed, I've seen them all used ranging from GASB tunes to Duke to Mingus to Rosenwinkel, and on and on. Even see them in classical music. If it sounds good it sounds good. For me. Whether others feel it's common or not, I can't speak to.

Kurts music say, wouldn't work with the system I have outlined above which is the system that really started to break down in the 60s. He's thinking a different way. Probably CST.

Yeah, you're not the first person to bring up this idea. I don't know that I agree with it. On one hand, I get why we refer to it as polytonal... because we're talking about placing one sound over another. But to me... this is really just the study and, more importantly, application of tonality. Is CMaj7 considered polytonal because it's a C major chord plus a B note? What if we say it's an E minor triad sitting over a C? There's different ways to break it down and get to know it and play with it, but it's just a type of tonality. It's a very common and accepted one that we refer to as Maj7. But there's plenty of them.

Or it's just thirds going up and down through the key.

Agreed. Again, why I don't find scales or modes overly helpful. I've learned more about what notes sound like over the last couple of years of listening and practicing this way than I did in the previous 20 years of approaching music with scales and modes.


I'm not sure if I would agree. Maybe, but I'm not so sure.


A. I don't think it necessarily has to take a long time. Certainly no longer than learning to master the physical position of a scale... and in my experience, it happens much faster.
B. I don't expect anyone to do anything... but yes... if we learn to hear a series of notes in a way that we can express tension and resolution, I would say it's safe to say that others (who listen and are interested in giving their focus and openness to experiencing the music) would hear it in a similar way. I don't think anyone would argue that a C note being played over a C chord (not CMaj7, just C) is a very stable sound.

Hasn't always been heard that way, though. And you can hear it as a tertial structure or bass + chord. Nothing is set.

C. Ultimately, none of that really matters though. I'm not concerned with playing FOR others. I certainly hope they enjoy what I play... but I'm not pandering. I'm trying to create a piece of music from my heart and mind, with as few walls and barriers and blockades between my intention, and the sound and energy that my guitar and I emote. The more intimately I can get to know tonalities, sounds, resolution points and tensions, etc... the better I'm able to do my job.

It's funny when we write things down how complicated they look.

[JonR]

Bro, you are thorough.

So are you! (that's good...)

I'm not making this shit up. I have come to my conclusions through looking at actual music.

I don't doubt it. I won't respond to everything below, because you clearly know your stuff, and otherwise this could get ridiculous...
[Please don't feel you need to respond to - or even fully read - what follows. Our differences are simply a matter of (a) perspective and (b) level of knowledge (yours being far greater).

Dm6 arp seems pretty easy to me. I would say to a student - want a swing sound? Play Dm6 on G7. Or more generally, m6 a fifth up. Simple, clear, if you know your cycle.

Yes, but to me that's only like saying "Play a G9 without the root". It's a nice way to play on a G7 - as is an arp from 3rd or 7th - although I wouldn't have linked it with a swing sound specifically (except it's totally inside, not edgy in any way).

I don't. I mean dorian on minor chords. The most glaring example I can think of is the use of the dorian mode in the melody on the Abm6 and Am6 chords in the bridge of Douce Ambiance by Django

Yes, that's interesting. (Equally interesting, IMO, is that Django avoids the issue in his solo, and sticks mainly with chord tones, although there's harmonic minor implications on both chords.)

, but other examples would include Six Appeal. I was quite surprised when I started seeing the dorian everywhere because I was so conditioned to think it was all chord tones and embellishments.

Right. It's particularly interesting in Douce Ambiance, because the key is G minor, and one might think that for the Abm6 chord in the bridge keeping the G might help link the change; but the G is definitely flattened. Then again that's easily explained because the Gb is followed by F, both times. That's a better melodic resolution. So they came to dorian mode by simple aural means: the chord has a 6th (as all those minors did then!), and the b7 sounds best with that particular melody. In other contexts - embellishing the root - then the major 7th would be used. And in Django's solo, he plays a A-G-F-E pull-off on the Am (so much for the 6th!) which could be explained in a similar way - resolution to chord tone by half-step.

Also everyone knows Miles started the modal thing in jazz? Apparently not.

Well, Miles started something quite different! The use of dorian in a melody on a min6 chord is not really a "modal jazz" thing - even if one might explain its choice in similar terms. I think of Django as prefiguring bebop, not modal, because he was still working in totally functional music - although I guess his taste for semitone modulations (also in Appel Direct) has the same cheeky effect as Miles's shift to Eb dorian in So What.

Indeed. And yet still they play the dorian and melodic minor sounds. Probably because they were playing melodies not scales, but they were playing them over m6 sounds, and these m6 melodies incorporate both leading and flat sevenths. So I call it a 'minor 6th scale' - a scale the incorporates both the dorian and mm scales.

Right!

Again, do you not think, 'play D minor 6 stuff on G7' is not a relatively straightforward way of putting it?

Only as a way of getting the focus away from the root. But I don't think it takes much intelligence to understand "start from the 5th not the root", or "focus on the other chord tones (3-5-7-9)". I have no problem calling it "Dm6" if that helps people get it, but for me it sounds like an unnecessary distraction - an apparent alternative viewpoint which isn't alternative at all. It's when you get to the D melodic minor that it becomes more interesting (as I think you'd agree) - because otherwise the choice of C# might seem very odd in the context of C major.

Yes, for example, check out the penultimate phrase of the first half Little Wille Leaps. There's a thing in Dm - quite a scalar line which finishes up on a C# on the chord G7.

OK - I can hear that's a distinctive bebop thing. (I remember a similar phrase in another Miles tune, where he ends his solo (after running down the scale) on a #4/b5 - as if handing over a challenge to the next player. I don't recall the tune however.)

... voice-leading is also melodic, so *shrugs*. I suspect the key difference is between chromatic melody and diatonic melody.

Yes. I tend to think chord tones + diatonic passing notes + chromatic passing notes (approaches), in that order. So the melody passes from chord tone to chord tone, and the notes in between can be either diatonic or chromatic. And sometimes it's cool to accent a non-chord tone (too boring to always foreground the basic chord tones) - that's why I like that unresolved #4/b5 effect. It's kind of witty.

It's the duck and rabbit. But scales come in for me because you need them to play diatonic passing tones which are a feature of the music.

Sure. IMO, that goes without saying. You can still draw the diatonic passing tones from neighbouring chords without any knowledge of the key, although of course awareness of key matters. IOW, I probably end up playing scalar lines as much as you do - coming from another direction (and not really a very different one).

.
If you think - major triad has a typical upper neighbours above the 5 and 1, and a semitone above 1, you are actually getting pretty close to a scale anyway, whatever you call it. The concepts are interlinked.

Yes. I'm just resisting what I see as a reductive focus on scales (not yours ) - as if everything needs to be converted to scales to make it understandable. As if we need to understand chords in terms of scales, rather than as harmonies relative to a root (chord tones, extensions, alterations). But like you say, this is really a duck/rabbit issue!

I like scales ATM because they get me away from thinking about the harmony so much. but that doesn't mean I'm not playing stuff you would hear as harmony.

Likewise - I'm probably not playing stuff you wouldn't hear as scales!

Charlie Parker plays plenty of scales. Transcribing him got me pointed this way. The main scale he plays (to my knowledge) is harmonic minor.

I noticed that. So much for Mark Levine's relegation of harmonic minor to a 2-page afterthought in his 500+pp Jazz Theory Book...
In fact - and this won't surprise you - I see those harmonic minor implications on Parker's playing as springing from chord tones. If you have Em7b5 followed by A7(b9), any arp-based line is going to imply harmonic minor - it's only natural. I once went through the Omnibook with exactly that purpose in mind: every instance of harmonic minor I found was on a minor key ii-V, and is obviously the notes those two chords spell out. Of course, he knew his harmonic minor scales, so he knew what he was doing in that respect - but he was careful to fit it to the chord tones. (I don't recall any clear instance of harmonic minor on a minor tonic or elsewhere.)

What I mean is Lydian Dominant doesn't have an 'avoid note'. Mixolydian/Dominant scale does (4). Of course, no one gave a crap about this back in 1945.

Right!

In terms of actual music, Lyd Dom on V is pretty frickin' common. Of course - I think of it as... guess... Minor on dominant. Here's an example - oh I can't be bothered. Just go check out some bebop heads. The tetrachord #4 5 6 b7 (7 1 2 b3 from POV of the important minor) is EVERYWHERE.

I don't give a crap what's in any theory books. That's what's on the records.

I trust your vastly superior knowledge here. I've just been under the impression, from what I've seen, that altered was more common on V, translating to lydian dominant on the bII. (And that's not from theory books, although it's more from chord charts than listening to records.)

Anyway, that's a minor key melodic fragment, no?

Yes, if you think from the 5th of the chord, as you're saying.

So what do you think the guys in the bop era were thinking - dominant raised 4 or minor key on dominant?

I think minor is easier than dominant #whatever in this case. But who knows?

Right. Both make sense. The raised 4 on a dominant makes a good chromatic approach to 5. But I agree (from the evidence you've given) that "melodic minor on the ii" is a good explanation - at least for those moments when #4 doesn't go to 5.

Scales are super melodic, just don't go up and down in steps all the time.

No argument there! But that's where I stop thinking of it as a scale, and think of it as arps or chord tones/extensions/approaches. It's the duck/rabbit again...

[christianm77]

So are you! (that's good...)
I don't doubt it. I won't respond to everything below, because you clearly know your stuff, and otherwise this could get ridiculous... [Please don't feel you need to respond to - or even fully read - what follows. Our differences are simply a matter of (a) perspective and (b) level of knowledge (yours being far greater).

I wouldn't count on b)

Yes, but to me that's only like saying "Play a G9 without the root". It's a nice way to play on a G7 - as is an arp from 3rd or 7th - although I wouldn't have linked it with a swing sound specifically (except it's totally inside, not edgy in any way).

Sounds better than a G7 most of the time.

Yes, that's interesting. (Equally interesting, IMO, is that Django avoids the issue in his solo, and sticks mainly with chord tones, although there's harmonic minor implications on both chords.

Right. It's particularly interesting in Douce Ambiance, because the key is G minor, and one might think that for the Abm6 chord in the bridge keeping the G might help link the change; but the G is definitely flattened. Then again that's easily explained because the Gb is followed by F, both times. That's a better melodic resolution. So they came to dorian mode by simple aural means: the chord has a 6th (as all those minors did then!), and the b7 sounds best with that particular melody. In other contexts - embellishing the root - then the major 7th would be used. And in Django's solo, he plays a A-G-F-E pull-off on the Am (so much for the 6th!) which could be explained in a similar way - resolution to chord tone by half-step.

Well that's cos it's a minor chord and you can can play melodies belong to the minor chord on it, where the 6 and 7 can be flat or natural. Again, this would tend to agree with your thesis; Melodic Harmony is
a Myth, Fam.

Well, Miles started something quite different! The use of dorian in a melody on a min6 chord is not really a "modal jazz" thing - even if one might explain its choice in similar terms. I think of Django as prefiguring bebop, not modal, because he was still working in totally functional music - although I guess his taste for semitone modulations (also in Appel Direct) has the same cheeky effect as Miles's shift to Eb dorian in So What.

He does it so much in his tunes it's like a running joke. Just go "up".

Only as a way of getting the focus away from the root. But I don't think it takes much intelligence to understand "start from the 5th not the root", or "focus on the other chord tones (3-5-7-9)". I have no problem calling it "Dm6" if that helps people get it, but for me it sounds like an unnecessary distraction - an apparent alternative viewpoint which isn't alternative at all. It's when you get to the D melodic minor that it becomes more interesting (as I think you'd agree) - because otherwise the choice of C# might seem very odd in the context of C major.

Well this is all by the by. The main reason I bother doing this is because you can use the exact shame shit on a minor chord or a dominant chord (or a half dim.) I would really rather everything was one scale, so I can use the same stuff on everything. I might hear it in a different context, but the notes be the same. That's because I am LAZY (not really, but it makes time for other stuff.)

OK - I can hear that's a distinctive bebop thing. (I remember a similar phrase in another Miles tune, where he ends his solo (after running down the scale) on a #4/b5 - as if handing over a challenge to the next player. I don't recall the tune however.)
Yes. I tend to think chord tones + diatonic passing notes + chromatic passing notes (approaches), in that order. So the melody passes from chord tone to chord tone, and the notes in between can be either diatonic or chromatic. And sometimes it's cool to accent a non-chord tone (too boring to always foreground the basic chord tones) - that's why I like that unresolved #4/b5 effect. It's kind of witty.

Yeah I hear that too. Same sort of thing a ending a phrase on 9.

Sure. IMO, that goes without saying. You can still draw the diatonic passing tones from neighbouring chords without any knowledge of the key, although of course awareness of key matters. IOW, I probably end up playing scalar lines as much as you do - coming from another direction (and not really a very different one).
Yes. I'm just resisting what I see as a reductive focus on scales (not yours ) - as if everything needs to be converted to scales to make it understandable. As if we need to understand chords in terms of scales, rather than as harmonies relative to a root (chord tones, extensions, alterations). But like you say, this is really a duck/rabbit issue!
Likewise - I'm probably not playing stuff you wouldn't hear as scales!

Indeed.

I noticed that. So much for Mark Levine's relegation of harmonic minor to a 2-page afterthought in his 500+pp Jazz Theory Book...

It's like, dude, you have heard some bebop right? Most peculiar. A daresay ML has bop chops agogo.

In fact - and this won't surprise you - I see those harmonic minor implications on Parker's playing as springing from chord tones. If you have Em7b5 followed by A7(b9), any arp-based line is going to imply harmonic minor - it's only natural. I once went through the Omnibook with exactly that purpose in mind: every instance of harmonic minor I found was on a minor key ii-V, and is obviously the notes those two chords spell out. Of course, he knew his harmonic minor scales, so he knew what he was doing in that respect - but he was careful to fit it to the chord tones. (I don't recall any clear instance of harmonic minor on a minor tonic or elsewhere.)

Harmonic minor is a Minor V-I in scale form.

1 b3 5 - Im
7 2 4 b6 - V7b9(no root) or viio7

You add a minor I-V-I (or I-V-I-V-I-V-I) over a static minor wherever you like, of course.

(Also a major scale is a major V-I in scale form
1 3 5 - Im
7 3 4 6 V9 (no root) or IIm6 (AHA!) anyway...)

Because I am LAZY and only practice one scale I see all of that as bVII7 now with the odd natural 7. So C7 say with the odd C#. Or a minor IV with a raised 4 (haha) but that encourages you to play into the minor, not over the minor itself. In fact this is really how the BH system works - let the dominant dominate.

But in practice I visualise/hear this stuff as a mix between G dominant and D minor. Exactly as you suggest in fact.

Has the same effect.

I trust your vastly superior knowledge here. I've just been under the impression, from what I've seen, that altered was more common on V, translating to lydian dominant on the bII. (And that's not from theory books, although it's more from chord charts than listening to records.)

Cool. Examples please!

I'm just thinking Scrapple, stuff like that. Bear in mind I understand the melody as taking place over four bars of C7, followed by four bars of F. I don't think about Gm. But actually, it doesn't really matter.

Yes, if you think from the 5th of the chord, as you're saying.Right. Both make sense. The raised 4 on a dominant makes a good chromatic approach to 5. But I agree (from the evidence you've given) that "melodic minor on the ii" is a good explanation - at least for those moments when #4 doesn't go to 5.

Cool :-)

[JonR]

I wouldn't count on b)

Now you're being modest I can summon up nothing like the knowledge of jazz you've displayed, just in this thread. (If I sometimes sound like I know what you're talking about, it's because I went off and checked those tracks on youtube before posting, or googled the sheet music...)
Maybe on theory our knowledge is not dissimilar.

Sounds better than a G7 most of the time.

Sure.

Well that's cos it's a minor chord and you can can play melodies belong to the minor chord on it, where the 6 and 7 can be flat or natural. Again, this would tend to agree with your thesis; Melodic Harmony is
a Myth, Fam.

"Fam"? I wasn't thinking of it as supporting my "thesis" (thanks for dignifying it with that term), only observing that that flexibility of minor scales is a practice that goes way back to medieval modal times (when they didn't have chords, of course) - changing scale intervals to make better melodic resolutions, at least to the root or 5th.

He does it so much in his tunes it's like a running joke. Just go "up".

Uh-huh. Maybe he was a truck-driver in his spare time...

Well this is all by the by. The main reason I bother doing this is because you can use the exact shame shit on a minor chord or a dominant chord (or a half dim.) I would really rather everything was one scale, so I can use the same stuff on everything. I might hear it in a different context, but the notes be the same. That's because I am LAZY (not really, but it makes time for other stuff.)

Hey, me too. That's where this duck/rabbit/telescope/perspective issue comes in. We each choose whatever theoretical concepts save us having to think too much. K.I.S.S. What's "simple" depends on where you're starting from.

It's like, dude, you have heard some bebop right? Most peculiar. A daresay ML has bop chops agogo.

Right. I think his issue with it must be that old "avoid note" chestnut. Harmonic minor contains avoid notes. Therefore it can't be admitted to the CST club. Whatever ML heard in bebop, he must have heard it as something else. I think he would have needed to see the whole scale in use, with its distinctive augmented 2nd in place in a scale run, to be convinced. As he says, harmonic minor "fits no one particular chord". Well, not if you try to use all 7 notes as chord extensions it doesn't!
To be fair, he does offer a couple of quotes from recordings of players using harmonic minor on a minor key ii-V, or V7b9. But clearly he regards them as oddities. He even says "the harmonic minor scale is most often played over V7b9 chords resolving to a minor chord a 5th below." Well, duh! (Like that's a weird scenario...)

Many of the notated examples elsewhere in his book can be interpreted in ways different from what he says. I.e., he's been selective about his evidence, and even the evidence he's selected is (a lot of the time) not proof of anything.

Harmonic minor is a Minor V-I in scale form.
1 b3 5 - Im
7 2 4 b6 - V7b9(no root) or viio7

Right!

Cool. Examples please!

Well, as you suggested I should check any bebop head, I could say check any bunch of Real Book tunes .
Put it this way: I've just been flicking through my box files of jazz charts, and I'm finding all V7 chords shown either as plain V7, or as V7b9, V7#9, or V7#5#9. Every one; not come across a single V7#11 yet. I've seen a few V7#11s as bVII or bII (although a little fewer than expected). I have come across one or two altered dom7s acting as bIIs, which I guess would count as lydian dominant V7s if the bass note was changed. But overwhelmingly (even more than I imagined) V7s are altered (or mixolydian by implication) not lydian dominant. But then I've only got as far as C in the alphabet...

I'm just thinking Scrapple, stuff like that. Bear in mind I understand the melody as taking place over four bars of C7, followed by four bars of F. I don't think about Gm. But actually, it doesn't really matter.

OK. I see the F# in the melody on the Gm, and also an F. And a Db too. (Do you also include the b5 in your "all minor" concept?). I see the F# as a chromatic approach to the root (which I agree could be seen as a harmonic/melodic minor device!), while the F is a chord tone. Likewise the Db is b9 of the C7 (no lydian dominant V7 here).
On the rhythm changes bridge, the line on the G7 has a C#, but it's between two D's so counts as a chromatic embellishment in my book (the ascending scale line has a C before that); and in the next bar an F# to approach the G (I hope we're not going to talk "bebop dominant" here... ).

[wolflen]

to christianm77 and JonR....

thank you both for the dialog and sharing your insights and ideas..I agree with both of you on some points and disagree with both of you on others..that makes us all right or all wrong or just enough to be called jazz...

[christianm77]

Now you're being modest I can summon up nothing like the knowledge of jazz you've displayed, just in this thread. (If I sometimes sound like I know what you're talking about, it's because I went off and checked those tracks on youtube before posting, or googled the sheet music...)

Thanks for taking the time to check my rantings :-)

Maybe on theory our knowledge is not dissimilar.

I don't doubt it

Sure.
"Fam"? I wasn't thinking of it as supporting my "thesis" (thanks for dignifying it with that term), only observing that that flexibility of minor scales is a practice that goes way back to medieval modal times (when they didn't have chords, of course) - changing scale intervals to make better melodic resolutions, at least to the root or 5th.

Well that make sense to me. Yes.

They did have chords in medieval music after the 12th century at least?

Uh-huh. Maybe he was a truck-driver in his spare time...

Haha. Ten-four...

Nah he had to finish off the tune quick so he could go fishing.

Hey, me too. That's where this duck/rabbit/telescope/perspective issue comes in. We each choose whatever theoretical concepts save us having to think too much. K.I.S.S. What's "simple" depends on where you're starting from.
Right. I think his issue with it must be that old "avoid note" chestnut. Harmonic minor contains avoid notes. Therefore it can't be admitted to the CST club.

That's the very thing that makes it so useful for tonicising minor chords.

Whatever ML heard in bebop, he must have heard it as something else. I think he would have needed to see the whole scale in use, with its distinctive augmented 2nd in place in a scale run, to be convinced. As he says, harmonic minor "fits no one particular chord". Well, not if you try to use all 7 notes as chord extensions it doesn't!

I presume he knows 'Donna Lee'? ;-P

To be fair, he does offer a couple of quotes from recordings of players using harmonic minor on a minor key ii-V, or V7b9. But clearly he regards them as oddities. He even says "the harmonic minor scale is most often played over V7b9 chords resolving to a minor chord a 5th below." Well, duh! (Like that's a weird scenario...)

TBH the ML book does say it's about post 60s jazz straight up.

Many of the notated examples elsewhere in his book can be interpreted in ways different from what he says. I.e., he's been selective about his evidence, and even the evidence he's selected is (a lot of the time) not proof of anything.
Right!

No comment :-)

Well, as you suggested I should check any bebop head, I could say check any bunch of Real Book tunes .

Put it this way: I've just been flicking through my box files of jazz charts, and I'm finding all V7 chords shown either as plain V7, or as V7b9, V7#9, or V7#5#9. Every one; not come across a single V7#11 yet. I've seen a few V7#11s as bVII or bII (although a little fewer than expected). I have come across one or two altered dom7s acting as bIIs, which I guess would count as lydian dominant V7s if the bass note was changed. But overwhelmingly (even more than I imagined) V7s are altered (or mixolydian by implication) not lydian dominant. But then I've only got as far as C in the alphabet...
OK. I see the F# in the melody on the Gm, and also an F. And a Db too. (Do you also include the b5 in your "all minor" concept?). I see the F# as a chromatic approach to the root (which I agree could be seen as a harmonic/melodic minor device!), while the F is a chord tone. Likewise the Db is b9 of the C7 (no lydian dominant V7 here).

On the rhythm changes bridge, the line on the G7 has a C#, but it's between two D's so counts as a chromatic embellishment in my book (the ascending scale line has a C before that); and in the next bar an F# to approach the G (I hope we're not going to talk "bebop dominant" here... ).

Yeah I think you get the #4 plenty on V as a passing tone (Scrapple, say), but I'm willing to go with what you say about the V7#11 (the #4 used harmonically) being rare. It's not a sound I favour harmonically. II7#11, bVII#11 and IV7#11, sure.

Not sure about b5. I hear that more as bVI7#11...

[JonR]

to christianm77 and JonR....

thank you both for the dialog and sharing your insights and ideas..I agree with both of you on some points and disagree with both of you on others..that makes us all right or all wrong or just enough to be called jazz...

Yes - jazz is the art of playing all the wrong notes, but in the right order....



Or not, of course (you choose).

[JonR]

II7#11, bVII#11 and IV7#11, sure.

Right. That's one thing I have read in a theory book which chimed exactly with my experience (albeit as a generalisation): lydian dominant on any dom7 type which is not functioning as a V. (OK, except a blues tonic...IMO)

Not sure about b5. I hear that more as bVI7#11...

Are we talking about the same b5? Bar 3 of Scrapple? It's on the last 8th note of the Gm7, and seems to be a syncopation of beat 1 on the C7. The rest of the Gm7 bar is a pure Gm9 arp, with two Bb's. If you include the C# as part of a chord scale on Gm7, it would have to be the D harmonic minor scale - which seems a stretch too far, especially given the phrasing.
bVI7#11 of the key (F) would be Db7#11, and the phrase has two D naturals and an A natural. (If you're thinking bVI7 of Gm, that still doesn't work.) I see no reason to interpret it beyond what's actually there: Gm9 arp, with a syncopation on the last note. (Maybe he was thinking momentarily of a passing Gm7b5 on the way to C7, but b9 of C7 is simpler.)

[christianm77]

Right. That's one thing I have read in a theory book which chimed exactly with my experience (albeit as a generalisation): lydian dominant on any dom7 type which is not functioning as a V. (OK, except a blues tonic...IMO)
Are we talking about the same b5? Bar 3 of Scrapple? It's on the last 8th note of the Gm7, and seems to be a syncopation of beat 1 on the C7. The rest of the Gm7 bar is a pure Gm9 arp, with two Bb's. If you include the C# as part of a chord scale on Gm7, it would have to be the D harmonic minor scale - which seems a stretch too far, especially given the phrasing.
bVI7#11 of the key (F) would be Db7#11, and the phrase has two D naturals and an A natural. (If you're thinking bVI7 of Gm, that still doesn't work.) I see no reason to interpret it beyond what's actually there: Gm9 arp, with a syncopation on the last note. (Maybe he was thinking momentarily of a passing Gm7b5 on the way to C7, but b9 of C7 is simpler.)

No, I wasn't thinking of that. I actually use this all the time.... Dm7 Dm7b5 C etc...(or F Fm C etc)

Sorry I'm being a bit dim. I thought you meant b5 of the key. Yes, a b5 here is fine, hadn't really thought about it TBH, but that makes sense. You can turn any m7 V7 into a m7b5 V7b9 whenever you want.

Globally I tend to view that note as a b6 of the key - and part of the backdoor dominant thing, but here seeing it as a b5 makes sense, because it is bluesy. It's nice when blues things also serve a harmonic function.

Also IIm7 IIm7b5 (IVm6) I is itself a substitute for II-V-I

I also mentioned early using #4 as a gateway into parallel minor V7-I (harmonic minor.) Obviously that's not what is happening here.

[jordanklemons]

OK - I understand you now.

Yes I think I hear the Dm and G7 sometimes. For example, if we take the line from Groovin High on the Am7 D7, I do hear a change halfway through the line. It goes from Am to D7, instead of me hearing it all in D7.

But that depends on whether you hear the ii as an actual chord or just an embellishment of V. Or maybe your name is Pat Martino and you hear everything minor.

The bit with that A-G#-G-F# thingy is definitely minor, but then I'm hearing the D C C# A bit as an enclosure of 3 and a 1 of the D7 chord. But then it is also possible to flip back to hearing everything in the D7 context too.

BTW my definition of tonicization is harmonic - as in VI7-ii being the tonicization of chord ii. Or #io7 ii, or whatever. You can do this melodically too, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Anyway, I'm going to outline this because it gets to the core of what I'm blathering on about.

For example the progression I VI7 | ii V | I can be evoked by the melody:

5 4 3 2 #1 3 5 3 | 4 3 2 1 7 2 4 (b)6 | 5

Which contains harmony and tonicisations, even though I am thinking of it from the POV of a globalised key with alterations and steps and thirds. You can name every scale created in this sequence, and the triads outlined it, but you can also just think of it melodically.

(I've just started an classical Ear Training manual that works this way.)

It's not either or. So here's an example of how to tonicise a chord wihtout thinking about harmony per se -

'when tonicising a root note within the progression (D for instance) use, the leading note alteration (C# here) and use movement in steps or thirds (or sixths) up from it.'

In practice this creates a certain harmony but it's a different way of looking at it. There's different ways of hearing it to - is the 1# now a DI or a TI in the new key of Dm?

This isn't the melodic minor harmony thing BTW - that happens when you take the minor in a sub key (relative minor for example) and play an unresolved leading tone. But you can do this without thinking about the harmony thing at all. It's just a note in the minor key. I could sharpen the 1 in the second bar, for instance.

Anyway, I leave as an exercise to the student to find the many many examples of this from the bop repertoire. You may prefer to think 'm7b5 or diminished arpeggio' but I like this approach too.

Thinking of global keys with alterations is typical for tonal music. It was also typical of Parker's approach to changes running through secondary dominants.




In contrast, personally I found your quadrad approach made my head hurt after five minutes simply because I am not used to micromanaging the harmony so much. I'd rather think of fewer chords and create harmonic motion through the use of melodies derived from scales.

Which is funny given I used to be a chord tone guy.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't teach it.



Kurts music say, wouldn't work with the system I have outlined above which is the system that really started to break down in the 60s. He's thinking a different way. Probably CST.



Or it's just thirds going up and down through the key.



Hasn't always been heard that way, though. And you can hear it as a tertial structure or bass + chord. Nothing is set.



It's funny when we write things down how complicated they look.

It was a little tough to follow what you were saying, as it felt like you were jumping around a lot... but having been a student of the hippy jam band modal thing, the Charlie Christian thing, the Joe Pass thing, the bebop thing, the Jim Hall thing, and the fusion thing... we're talking about 2 different things.

It seems like you're talking about outlining the changes, and referring to that as melodic. I think outlining the changes can sometimes be done in a melodic way, but generally they're two different things. Melodicism is a subjective term, so what some people find melodic others might not. But when I speak about melodicism or the melody, I'm not talking about running changes. Great melodies (in my mind... memorable melodies that get stuck inside me and bring a sense of storytelling and emotion) generally respect the changes, but they rarely run the changes. It looks like you're talking about outlining changes in a way that tonicizes a chord (or chords) within the progression. A super important skill to develop, for sure. But still different from what I mean when I talk about and practice tonicizing different notes within the melody.

[christianm77]

I'm suppose I am looking at scales as a good way of generating melodies, and finding ways to run them though changes in such a way that they generate enough harmony so they aren't just floating over the top but describing the changes at the same time.

[rintincop]

Scales for generating melodies are essentially passing tones between chord tones. It's a simplistic approach. Yes, everybody needs to master the modes of the scales, the melodic minor modes, the 2 whole tone scales , the 3 diminished scales, the pentatonic and blues scales. Mark Levine covered all this 18 years ago. But great melodies didn't come from scales for Louis Armstrong and most of the other jazz masters until around the time of Coltrane. I use them to "see the forreest" and for linear lines. But melodic melodies for me come more from the 6 melodic embellishments and the 3 enclosures and the chord arpeggios with scales in last place as being melodic

[FuseHead]

Hmmmm Modes....

Hold or record a single note for an extended period of time. Using your major scale, start changing the note you start and stop on playing over it. Listen to how the starting and stopping note totally changes the mood.

Badda Bing Badda Boom... Now your using mode theory how it is traditionally used in music. Hint? In any given major key, the relative minor is by far the most common mode used in music today. The reverse is true if your playing in a minor key, the relative major is by far the most common used mode. Work on leaving out a few notes and your pent's and dia's start working themselves out. Leave out enough notes and you Arp's will come around as well.

[christianm77]

Scales for generating melodies are essentially passing tones between chord tones. It's a simplistic approach. Yes, everybody needs to master the modes of the scales, the melodic minor modes, the 2 whole tone scales , the 3 diminished scales, the pentatonic and blues scales. Mark Levine covered all this 18 years ago. But great melodies didn't come from scales for Louis Armstrong and most of the other jazz masters until around the time of Coltrane. I use them to "see the forreest" and for linear lines. But melodic melodies for me come more from the 6 melodic embellishments and the 3 enclosures and the chord arpeggios with scales in last place as being melodic

That's a useful simplification for teaching as with many of these sorts of things.

The basic advice for someone learning to solo in a swing style, for instance, is ignore scales and focus on arpeggios, embellishments and variations on the melodic lines of songs. This is great advice.

But in fact there are plenty of scales on these old records.

I draw a distinction between the majority of these practices which I see as 'diatonic scale use' (major, minor and the use of alterations in the key to tonicise certain areas of the key) and the modern concept of scale use, Chord Scale Theory.

I am repeating myself here, because people often seem to assume that 'playing scales' means using CST. It doesn't.

In fact CST does not place any constraints on the order of notes and how you use them - which is kind of the opposite thing of the idea of the traditional scale (scala - 'ladder') which goes up and down or in some orderly pattern.

Barry Harris, BTW, is mostly about developing diatonic scale use.

[JonR]

Scales for generating melodies are essentially passing tones between chord tones. It's a simplistic approach.

Yes, and a reasonable one, works pretty well.

Yes, everybody needs to master the modes of the scales, the melodic minor modes, the 2 whole tone scales , the 3 diminished scales, the pentatonic and blues scales.

Not sure I agree there, but I wouldn't make a thing of it. I never felt any need to "master the melodic minor modes", at least. I mean, I know what they are - and I sometimes play stuff that somebody might interpret as using them - but that's not how I think of them. I think of them in the same way as your opening statement: as passing tones between chord tones - or the grand total of workable extensions or alterations on specific chords. The melodic minor link (as I said previously) doesn't give me any additional info or perspective.
Major scale modes are different, because they can have individual identities. Tunes are written in those modes. They tend not to be written in melodic minor, which is really only an occasional alteration of natural minor (as is harmonic minor - which you forgot! ).

Mark Levine covered all this 18 years ago.

Indeed. 21 years ago in fact. I liked his book when I first read it. Less so now.

But great melodies didn't come from scales for Louis Armstrong and most of the other jazz masters until around the time of Coltrane.

That's also the way I see it, pretty much.

I use them to "see the forreest" and for linear lines.

For me, it;s the reverse. I always thought of the scale focus of CST as "not seeing the forest for the trees" - focusing on details which obscure the big picture.

But melodic melodies for me come more from the 6 melodic embellishments and the 3 enclosures and the chord arpeggios with scales in last place as being melodic

Yep, it's all about melody for me too (and rhythm of course) - within a harmonic background, of course.

[emanresu]

I've reached the final part writing the app before getting it "almost" usable now.

Allrighty. The scales/modes stuff was pretty easy to do but! Jesus Christ it became insanely difficult once showing them as we are used as learned musicians. For example G-min harm- it has 2 flats and one sharp. That means mayhem when wanting to present such things correctly. I mean coding logic... now i'm gonna just skip this to avoid an extra month pondering about that issue.

I always thought the classical notation system is eloquent and kinda brilliant but also slightly retarded:P Because ideally there just shouldn't be "preferred" keys, because it's gonna be hard to get used to all what's gonna happen with alterations and steps and theoretical&sight reading crap like that. If we look it all as "binary", all this is just easy. Once again - traditions can be such a nuisance:P