Harmonizing scales

[Gabor]

Hey, if anyone have not seen yet, now it's the time to see the OP video :-)

[Reg]

Man... what would help guitarist with understanding theory, harmony etc... if your going to use composition, or more for this discussion, arranging techniques and terms... research them with composers and arrangers.

We as guitarist tend to develop our own personal terminology, (musical terminology slang...) we like calling starting scales from each scale degrees... modes, we seem to like calling harmonizing a scale as playing voicings moving up the neck in scalular movement patterns.
Most of our problems come from not starting with a reference.... what are you harmonizing and what is the organization behind choosing the added notes to what your harmonizing.

Traditionally we harmonize from the top down... but that's just a starting point of reference. Harmonizing a scales from the bottom up is cool... generally you would also have organization for what notes to add on top.

Most of us get chord voicing terms, like drop 2 or 3... which are terms from arranging techniques, that are adapted to guitar slang.

Getting back to using scale degrees as root motion for creating chord voicing on top of those scale degrees ...

Generally, each scale degree as root, implies a different chord. Inversions are using different arrangement of notes on top while still implying the same starting scale degree...

Cmaj as root or reference... and playing diatonic triads in ascending scalular motion above. The triad voicings have a dropped 5th

C- GCE C maj triad
C- ADF D min triad
C- BEG E min triad
C- CFG F maj triad
C- DGB G maj triad
C- EAC A min triad
C- FBD B min b5 triad (dim)

You could do same thing with Diatonic 7th chord.... or create whatever type of notes and voicing organization you choose, or type of motion.... 3rds, 4ths any cycle etc...

All these are with "Cmaj" as the root or Reference.

You can then use the actual scale degrees as the roots of the chord movement and harmonize above that root motion... Cma, D-, E- Fma etc... and now your harmonizing a diatonic scale degree root motion pattern.... would still need to define the organization for creating the voicings on top of that root motion.

What usually happens... we as guitarist tend to create whatever we can play. ( Well I don't, I'm a composer and arranger from the stone ages, and I tend to play as an arranger... screws up my playing ), and label it as whatever works for the moment. Which is OK. Some of our BS actually catches on.

Once you begin to open the doors of musical organization... your in trouble. There are very good reasons why most players say... I just play what sounds right in the moment.

I forgot to say
The vid sounds like standard II- V voicing lick.... Fmin to Bb7... from Wes style, I know I use those licks all the time... of course much hipper LOL I think I've actually written them out somewhere on the forum

[christianm77]

I don't know what all the discourse is here but @ 1:37 or so to 1:38 or so it is Ab 6 dim scale (Barry Harris)...period...end of discussion.

No it’s not.

[WILSON 1]

It sounds similar, but it isn’t, he is not playing any diminished chords.

I SERIOUSLY hope you are joking....grahambop, as I'm a respectful reader of many of your posts and have concluded that you are a follower of Dr. Harris' theory.

The OP opened this thread with a question on the source or theory behind that scale harmonization @ 1:36.

I stated that the "source" was Ab 6 dim scale not that was the scale being played.

The first chord can be read: F-7 or Ab6 / Eb.
The second chord: F-9 or Ab6 /Eb an inversion of Ab6 with the soprano note G borrowed from the following dim chord Edim of the 6 dim scale.
The third chord: straight up Ab6 / F
The forth chord: G dim7 (from the scale) with a borrowed alto note F and borrowed soprano note C from the root version of Ab6.
Last chord: Ab6 root position.

There is no need to play the actual dims or inversions to utilize the 6 dim scale as a harmonizing theory.

I believe this is in the spirit in which the question was first posted.

[christianm77]

I wrote what I thinks the chords are in the first post. There are no dim7 chords. Have a look and see what you think. His fingerings are fairly easy to see.

[christianm77]

Oh wait, I see what you mean. I still don’t think you have the voicings right tho.

Well I mean you could say all major scale harmonisations use the maj6-dim scale if you like. It’s not wrong. But then it’s also not wrong to say that the maj6-dim scale is the what happens when you swap in the harmonic major.... (listens to outraged screams of the Barry faithful)

It’s not the most commonplace explanation. It’s also not the way most Barry students would think to use the scale.

Tbh I don’t think it’s terribly useful from the point of pedagogy. What I think constitutes useful teaching in this context is to use as a little theory is necessary.

But you know some people like the theory. So long as they don’t mistake it for y’know actually being able to play things on the guitar...

[ragman1]

Wilson, there are no diminished chords in the first run up that Pearson did. You're seeing things.

[Tal_175]

He is playing a modal vamp in the Ionian mode.

I just thought this would be a good time to invite the modes to the party. The OP has seen nothing yet.

[grahambop]

I stated that the "source" was Ab 6 dim scale not that was the scale being played.

Well I’m sorry but in your post you simply said ‘it is the Ab 6 dim scale’, you did not mention ‘source’ or any such thing. So I did not realise you meant ‘you can arrive at these chords by borrowing notes within the Ab 6 dim scale’ (I would probably agree with that).

[grahambop]

Wilson, there are no diminished chords in the first run up that Pearson did. You're seeing things.

Wilson is doing the ‘borrowing’ thing to change the dim chords into something else, apparently.

F**k me this thread is something else, I am impressed with what the OP has achieved here with an apparently innocent question, I take my hat off to him.

[Tal_175]

Well yes he is borrowing from the diminished from the BH point of view. But that's not in anyway universal way to look at it. Jimi Hendrix embellished triads the same way. I bet he wasn't thinking 6th diminished scales and borrowing. That's Barry Harris's theoretical framework for common and intuitive arrangement techniques. Which is elegant and all but it's just one point of view.

[christianm77]

It's not even Ionian. There's no 4th degree in any of the chords.

So I say it's drawn from the Lydian! I have no actual proof, but hey.

[matt.guitarteacher]

He might be, Pearson wasn't.

One day I'm going to post, anonymously, a bunch of totally random notes, pretending I got them from somewhere impressive, and ask, politely and humbly, what the theory behind it is. Then watch the clowns fall over themselves convincing themselves and everybody else they know exactly what it is. They could turn black into white.

I'd feel sorry for the OP if I didn't think he was intelligent enough not to be swayed by it all.

I spent years with guys like Pearson, I know the type. They don't study music, they play blues and rock, maybe country, learnt from here and there, copying licks, just like Pearson described. They listen to records, swap stuff with each other, and all that. Some of them are really good but they wouldn't know any deep theory if it bit them on the ass.

Pearson, who is NOT a jazz player, check...

JACK PEARSON

... just copied that thing from someone and adopted it. He said so himself. It was the OP who asked about the theory, not Pearson. I doubt if Pearson had even heard of the m6 stuff. Maybe he didn't really know who Barry Harris was either. Wouldn't surprise me.

You mean because that little run up the neck had some 69 shapes it must be some sort of clever m6 thing? Rubbish, he played those chords because he was shown them and because they're dead easy to play. They sound 'cool' and he liked them so they got incorporated. Simple as that.

Jeez, even Grahambop has been driven to use the naughty word! It's come to that!

Wow. All time high snobbery level tonight. Kind of riding down everyone at once, on multiple levels.

Meanwhile, apparently this guy is respected, ....and we anonymous folks commentate on the inter-webs.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I can't believe such a mundane OP turned into such a disaster thread...

[ragman1]

Yes, he's certainly respected because he's a very good player and entertainer. Check out his website. I like it, it's very good stuff, very commercial. But it's not jazz. The jazz mindset is different.

This isn't snobbery at all. It's different kinds of music we're talking.

JACK PEARSON

[ragman1]

Good video, by the way.

[Jonah]

tbh I tried to apply some consequent harmonization rules in jazz playing (the same way as I do in classical for example)... but almost always it sounded so awkward and forced out that I finally came to elaborating something just choosing the voicing by ear and trying to relate sequence with harmonic changes that are behind it...

that is I hear it is all Ab major... but if I need to alter something hear or there I just do it by ear...

This is very true in regards to the way independent part writing is taught in schools although greater
leniency was allowed for parallel 1st inversion triads. Long before jazz existed as a word, classical method books have included parallel melodic presentations of scales as a basic technique exercise. Hanon style exercises are nothing but diatonic parallelism. So while independent voices was the guiding principle for part writing, diatonic parallelism was still presented as the clearest way to learn about inversions.
Further forward, some classical music composers began incorporating constant structure parallelism
into their compositions.

I would say - if we take the most generic classical language in functional tonality (like from high baroque through classicm to early romantic) - they never harmonize every note of the melody, they harmonize function that is expressed in the melody... (whether they did it conciously or not)...
this is just different way of thinking that we have in jazz... I would say classical thinking here would be just more spacious --- even if speak about counterpointas methods with voice against voice writing...

[cosmic gumbo]

Jack Peason is not a jazz musician, he's just another guitar player who can play jazz, because his bag is bigger than jazz. He knows as much theory as Wes and Grant Green did, so he's limited like they were. I wouldn't want to waste my time with lessons from a hack like him....he can only play, but probably can't hang with the geeks from Nerdsville Academy.

[pauln]

Within the organization of a song's form and progression, we all come to recognize certain places, certain chord harmonies, certain places within the song from which we know by experience that strings of chord changes may be played there. In the blues world, these strings of chords may be just a couple of chords, and in the jazz world we all know some of the popular short strings of chords, but if you play with this idea a while, you can find long strings of six to twelve or more chords that do this. These are not just inversions or voicing; the long strings span an express a couple of harmonic changes, so maybe the first two chords span a progression chord, the next two span the next progression chord... these are harmonic pathways from one chord in the progression to another, or through a few chords to another. They are often modified to voice the melody line, or to drop the melody line for comping... or just understood as harmonic vocabulary to organize soloing.

examples:

Short string of four through one change Abm7 -> Bb(7)

Abm7
4x4446
x6667x
x89811x

Bb(7)
x11121211x


Longer string of six through three changes Abm7 -> Dd(9) -> G9b5 -> Gb(69)

Abm7
4x4446
x6667x

Dd(9)
x89811x
x11121114x

G9b5
x14151417x

Gb(69)
x 13131314x

Longer string of six spanning a static chord Ab(69)

Ab(69)
x1112x
x3334x
x6667x
x8889x
x11111112x
x13131314x

[grahambop]

even Grahambop has been driven to use the naughty word! It's come to that!

lol sorry about that, got a rotten cold and was feeling very grumpy last night!

[ragman1]

lol sorry about that, got a rotten cold and was feeling very grumpy last night!

Er, I've done some amending too. It's the excitement :-)

[christianm77]

Welcome to the JGO world of bullshit LMFAO

(I love it, WTF is wrong with me??)

[christianm77]

x11111112x
x13131314x

I don't have that many strings.

[ragman1]

I've just realised what he was doing. That first run on the first video, he was playing 'There Will Never Be Another You'. He said he got shown it by Richard Cotten who founded the Cotten Music Centre.

I can see the attraction to the OP, who's a blues/rock player who's interested in different sounds. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it's probably why we're all here.

It's quite interesting. Worth a thread of its own or a PhD... are jazz players born or made? I think they're born. You're either 'jazz' or you're not. It's in your DNA or it's not. We can learn it, become fairly efficient even, but deep down there are folkies, blues people, classical people, etc etc - and jazz people. And there are probably different kinds of jazz people too.

At least, that's the theory.

[mr. beaumont]

He plays (Ab major)

x x 1 1 1 1
x x 1 1 1 3
x x 3 3 4 4 *
x x 5 5 6 6
x x 6 8 6 8

So - all of these chords are Ab major. Basically. Jazz versions of Ab major. Lets not get too hung up the names of them. I wouldn't bother thinking about it myself - I often play chords I don't even have a good name for - I think that sort of stuff gets in the way of just doing it.

There's not much theory here if any. What you need to know is two things - the Ab major scale along one string, and a bunch of Ab major type shapes that you can back it up with. You also probably should know which melody note is the tonic note, the 1 of the key, Ab. It's the one with the * on. That might be a bit weird at first because you are probably use to thinking about the bottom of the chord, not the top note.

So, categorise all of these chords as 'a version of Ab major with this melody note on top. Once you collect enough of these shapes, you can start to improvise chord melodies on a given chord. A first step might be to take the chords in this example and mix them up, see what you come up with. Then, maybe transpose them to different keys, such as Bb or C.

We might also want a whole scale. The one note in the Ab major scale that doesn't quite fit over an Ab chord is the note Db. If you notice in the video he doesn't play that note. So I'm going to skip over it.

x x 1 1 1 1
x x 1 1 1 3
x x 3 3 4 4
x x 5 5 6 6
x x 6 8 6 8
x x 10 10 11 11

If you wanted to play it, you could use a diminished seventh chord. The general rule, is any note that you don't know what to do with, play a dim7. Good enough for Wes, good enough for me. Also, there's only one shape, so hey, easy.

x x 1 1 1 1
x x 1 1 1 3
x x 3 3 4 4 *
x x 5 5 6 6 *
x x 6 8 6 8
x x 8 9 8 9 (dim 7)
x x 10 10 11 11 *

Now you can play a chord behind each melody note of a tune in Ab major, right?

Speaking of theory - this is something people getting into jazz don't expect because they see learning as learning more stuff. Often in jazz it's learning contexts. As you get to know more shapes, you are going to find shapes pop up in different guises. Look at the shapes I've marked with a * - the same right, different frets? All of them do for an Ab major in this setting. Weird, huh?

Another example - all of these shapes would do for Fm7.

That might bake your noodle, because I think guitarists in blues and rock often think shape = chord as a 1:1 relationship. You see C major, you play a C major shape. Jazz (and funk) players learn that shapes pop up again and again in different places.

(Here's a hint - Fm/Ab pentatonic scale. You know the box. Look at the chords. Compare. Relate this to what you already know.)

Above all, have fun, and play things that sound good to you.

Can't beleive I missed this thread...again devolving into " I think we like to make this complicated" when Christian's first post pretty much wrapped it all up nicely.

[Jack E Blue]

Jack Peason is not a jazz musician, he's just another guitar player who can play jazz, because his bag is bigger than jazz. He knows as much theory as Wes and Grant Green did, so he's limited like they were. I wouldn't want to waste my time with lessons from a hack like him....he can only play, but probably can't hang with the geeks from Nerdsville Academy.

Best post in this thread. That's assuming I'm correctly interpreting the tongue-in-cheekiness.

[pauln]

I don't have that many strings.

Sure you do...

In case anyone is really wondering,

x11111112x
x13131314x

is the same as

x 11 11 11 12 x
x 13 13 13 14 x

[christianm77]

No I broke one.

Should I buy a new guitar?

[wolflen]

Sure you do...

In case anyone is really wondering,

x11111112x
x13131314x

is the same as

x 11 11 11 12 x
x 13 13 13 14 x

I only have 6 strings...who has 12 13 or 14 strings..and why do they have them...

[mr. beaumont]

No I broke one.

Should I buy a new guitar?

I dunno, was it an important string?

[RayBan]

Jack Peason is not a jazz musician, he's just another guitar player who can play jazz, because his bag is bigger than jazz. He knows as much theory as Wes and Grant Green did, so he's limited like they were. I wouldn't want to waste my time with lessons from a hack like him....he can only play, but probably can't hang with the geeks from Nerdsville Academy.

Like the old economists' joke: Yeah, sure, it works in practice; the question is, will it work in theory?

[John A.]

Jack Peason is not a jazz musician, he's just another guitar player who can play jazz, because his bag is bigger than jazz. He knows as much theory as Wes and Grant Green did, so he's limited like they were. I wouldn't want to waste my time with lessons from a hack like him....he can only play, but probably can't hang with the geeks from Nerdsville Academy.

That's some nice stuff there. What do you call someone who plays jazz really well? A jazz musician, among other things.

John

[WILSON 1]

Wilson is doing the ‘borrowing’ thing to change the dim chords into something else, apparently.



For Heavens sake.

Everyone voice xx2233 on the instrument.

Now you can say I took the third of C maj 7 and added a 6 and then a 9 to form a C 6/9.

or

you can voice xx2213 ( C6 /E) and borrow the alto voice (D) from the F dim (of the C6 dim scale) to form C 6/9..same chord

only Barry Harris theory utilizes a GRAPHIC method for creating chords and dims can borrow from inversions too.

His theory immerses us into the C chromatic scale making every accidental available and the C6 dim, Cmin6 dim, G7dim and G7b5dim scales form the harmonic structure for progressions.

[christianm77]

Wilson is doing the ‘borrowing’ thing to change the dim chords into something else, apparently.



For Heavens sake.

Everyone voice xx2233 on the instrument.

Now you can say I took the third of C maj 7 and added a 6 and then a 9 to form a C 6/9.

or

you can voice xx2213 ( C6 /E) and borrow the alto voice (D) from the F dim (of the C6 dim scale) to form C 6/9..same chord

only Barry Harris theory utilizes a GRAPHIC method for creating chords and dims can borrow from inversions too.

His theory immerses us into the C chromatic scale making every accidental available and the C6 dim, Cmin6 dim, G7dim and G7b5dim scales form the harmonic structure for progressions.

Do you think this theory helps in this specific teaching situation?

I mean even when teaching physics we tell helpful lies, even if you think the maj-6 dim scale is a law of nature rather than the work of Man...

[ragman1]

.

only Barry Harris theory

Only the Bible. Only the Koran. Only what MY belief says.

Doesn't cut it.

[WILSON 1]

Only the Bible. Only the Koran. Only what MY belief says.

Doesn't cut it.

Whoa...big fella!

Calm down...

..the line break gave my statement incorrect emphasis. I meant to indicate that the 6 dim system gives you ALSO a graphic reference not that it is the be-all and end-all way to go.

christian77 stated that he likes to create chords first and worry about the label later and this harmonic system allows for a lot of that.

I am truly disappointed, though, to note the number of musician here who believe that a diminished chord must be played in order to reference this theory.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I am truly disappointed, though, to note the number of musician here who believe that a diminished chord must be played in order to reference this theory.

But there's only one distinguishing note from major. You take any set of voicings built from diatonic major ....and say it's built from the "6th dim scale", but without the b6, that's the same as saying it's "built from the chromatic scale". It doesn't require a full diminished chord, but doesn't it actually require the b6 somewhere to distinguish itself?

Does the original example have a b6 in it?

[ragman1]

Wilson -

Truncating your post wasn't an attempt at misrepresentation, just a shortcut. I wouldn't call the usual way of doing music a theory. It's too carefully organised and worked out for that. But when someone comes up with their own theory then we're into a different world. And it's a limited world. It tends to attract followers, like a guru does, and all the rest of it. And there's no arguing with them.

I stated that the "source" was Ab 6 dim scale not that was the scale being played.

Well, if it wasn't the scale being played, what relevance has it?

[WILSON 1]

that's the same as saying it's "built from the chromatic scale".

BINGO! ...and that's a big bingo.

[christianm77]

Hey, let's not bother trying to teach someone in as clear way as we can, introducing theoretical concepts as they are necessary and providing as gradual as possible a difficulty curve in what is a very involved artform that can be completely intimidating to the newcomer, let's argue the philosophical toss about whether a harmonisation that doesn't include a b6 can be considered to be maj6-dim or not.

I'm going to be writing an essay about you lot at some point. The term 'problematic' will be used unironically. You have been warned! :-)

[joe2758]

Hey, let's not bother trying to teach someone in as clear way as we can, introducing theoretical concepts as they are necessary and providing as gradual as possible a difficulty curve in what is a very involved artform that can be completely intimidating to the newcomer, let's argue the philosophical toss about whether a harmonisation that doesn't include a b6 can be considered to be maj6-dim or not.

I'm going to be writing an essay about you lot at some point. The term 'problematic' will be used unironically. You have been warned! :-)

yeah everyone shutup except Christian. He tried to warn us on that chord progression thread, but you're not listening. Now face his wrath.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Hey, let's not bother trying to teach someone in as clear way as we can, introducing theoretical concepts as they are necessary and providing as gradual as possible a difficulty curve in what is a very involved artform that can be completely intimidating to the newcomer, let's argue the philosophical toss about whether a harmonisation that doesn't include a b6 can be considered to be maj6-dim or not.

I'm going to be writing an essay about you lot at some point. The term 'problematic' will be used unironically. You have been warned! :-)

Ha. No. It's more about not over complicating for the beginner. A major scale isn't a sixth diminished scale minus 1 note nor a chromatic scale minus5 notes, nor is it a pentatonic +2 notes. NONE of that is helpful.

It has a very basic implication for how we want to discuss for someone trying to understand these things. If the beginner needs to know that is built from a major scale , it doesn't help to make it more complicated for my own sake.

[christianm77]

yeah everyone shutup except Christian. He tried to warn us on that chord progression thread, but you're not listening. Now face his wrath.

Face my highly academic, extremely dry but well referenced wrath!

[Tal_175]

You guys are beating the dead horse. OP is gone already. Barrier to entry to jazz has been heroically defended one more time.

[christianm77]

Ha. No. It's more about not over complicating for the beginner. A major scale isn't a sixth diminished scale minus 1 note nor a chromatic scale minus5 notes, nor is it a pentatonic +2 notes. NONE of that is helpful.

It has a very basic implication for how we want to discuss for someone trying to understand these things. If the beginner needs to know that is built from a major scale , it doesn't help to make it more complicated for my own sake.

(Aha! But, but it's not a full major scale, actually is it? It's actually major scale -1. There is no Db in any of the voicings or in the melody line.)

Anyway, I think the major scale is culturally familiar and easy to sing, so is probably a safer bet. I think my post was a pretty decent fist at giving a relevant, clear answer. Maybe too much info.

Really I'd just rather the OP learned the shapes and could play them fluently. I explain 'it's all Ab major' and then we can have a go harmonising some other simple melodies. If they were in a room with me. Other info can be introduced as required.

[Tal_175]

But hey, nobody is responsible for anybodies jazz education other than the student himself/herself. A successful student must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each educational resource. Internet forums has to be seen in this light.

[grahambop]

Yes the OP has been taught a brutal lesson which can only toughen him up for the obstacles ahead.

[christianm77]

But hey, nobody is responsible for anybodies jazz education other than the student himself/herself. A successful student must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each educational resource. Internet forums has to be seen in this light.

Well that’s a cop out if ever I heard one haha.

[joe2758]

You could explain something to me, if you'd like to. Keeping to the major scale, the BH thing comes from harmonising the major bebop scale, right? That produces maj6 inversions interspersed with diminished chords. So the C maj scale (leaving out the G#o) would look like:

C6, Do, C6/E, Fo, (Am7?), Bo, C6.

I'm just stacking 4-note chords from the C major bebop scale. I'm not sure what happened to the Em7, or the F maj, or the G7. The F seems to have become a dim chord and the G7 doesn't seem to exist at all. Which, of course, is nonsense. If you reharmed a simple tune in C it would sound completely wrong.

Of course, you could rearrange the order, which is fiddling it really, and say the F is now an Am7 (I think) and the G7 is a Bo. That would make more sense but it's changing the original plan. What does the Fo represent?

Where am I going wrong? But, more important, what are you supposed to DO with this stuff? I just want to play nice tunes, not start from scratch again. This guy's messing with my mind!

Help me, Matt


(Don't anyone say it'll take too long to explain, I won't believe you :-) And no endless list of links, please. I want someone here to do it. Then I'll listen most attentively)

The C6 dim scale contains G7 and E7. That's a major point he makes. It includes all the major diatonic chords plus the diminished chord. It's not fiddling, he calls it "borrowing," which is a major part of the approach

[joe2758]

Then using the concept of related dominants you also get Eb7 and Db7. Then, including the biii dim you get four more dominants.