The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 82
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Good luck, Don. Just play the blues thing over it. Easy peasy.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    What scale to play on 7#9?

    I know that a lot of players way better than me think this way, but here's an alternative.

    To make it easier to read, let's look at G7#9.

    The chord tones are G B D F and Bb.

    Typically, if you have a #9, the b9 will also sound good.

    Now we have 6 notes. G B D F Ab Bb.

    Since it's a dominant chord, lets say you avoid the maj7. So, no F#. Of course, Wes made it sound good, but I'm talking about the rest of us.

    Since you've already got an Ab and a Bb, let's avoid A.

    That's 8 notes accounted for.

    What's left?

    C, Db, Eb, E

    C is the 4th and has to be handled carefully for a couple of reasons. It weakens the dominant flavor. It can clash with the B in the chord. OTOH, fourths often sound cool.

    Db and Eb are the altered fifths. They'll both work so you pick them by ear.

    E is the 6, or 13. 13#9 isn't something you see that much, but you do see 13b9 all the time. The 13b9 implies a #9 (or can, anyway) so E is another viable choice.

    So, now you've got 9 notes to choose among, assuming you dodge the F#, C and A. Make melody and leave out the ones that don't sound good.

    If you don't like the altered fifths, you can pare it down to 7 notes. G B D E F Ab Bb. 2nd mode F melodic minor, if that's helpful.

    Every time you change one note there's a new scale name. I have to translate that to the notes, usually by chord name. for example the Fmelmin is, sort of, G13b9#9.

    Does this approach seem unwieldy? I don't think it is for someone who knows the notes in the chords he uses.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    yes I mentioned that one. Check out what the guys do on those chords.
    I have. I own the Coltrane Omnibook for one. The thing is, when those two chords come up you can just do a little riff that accentuates both the #9 and the half-step root motion. Easy peasy.

    If the chords were to be held longer it could be different.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    If you don't like the altered fifths, you can pare it down to 7 notes. G B D E F Ab Bb. 2nd mode F melodic minor, if that's helpful.
    F MM would replace that Bnat with a C.

    That scale is the F diminished scale, minus C#.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    I have. I own the Coltrane Omnibook for one. The thing is, when those two chords come up you can just do a little riff that accentuates both the #9 and the half-step root motion. Easy peasy.

    If the chords were to be held longer it could be different.
    Also have a listen to what Miles and Cannonball do.

    They both take a more straightforward approach but IIRC Trane leans a little more into the diminished scale, though it's been a while since I listened to it.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    What scale to play on 7#9?

    I know that a lot of players way better than me think this way, but here's an alternative.

    To make it easier to read, let's look at G7#9.

    The chord tones are G B D F and Bb.

    Typically, if you have a #9, the b9 will also sound good.

    Now we have 6 notes. G B D F Ab Bb.

    Since it's a dominant chord, lets say you avoid the maj7. So, no F#. Of course, Wes made it sound good, but I'm talking about the rest of us.

    Since you've already got an Ab and a Bb, let's avoid A.

    That's 8 notes accounted for.

    What's left?

    C, Db, Eb, E

    C is the 4th and has to be handled carefully for a couple of reasons. It weakens the dominant flavor. It can clash with the B in the chord. OTOH, fourths often sound cool.

    Db and Eb are the altered fifths. They'll both work so you pick them by ear.

    E is the 6, or 13. 13#9 isn't something you see that much, but you do see 13b9 all the time. The 13b9 implies a #9 (or can, anyway) so E is another viable choice.

    So, now you've got 9 notes to choose among, assuming you dodge the F#, C and A. Make melody and leave out the ones that don't sound good.

    If you don't like the altered fifths, you can pare it down to 7 notes. G B D E F Ab Bb. 2nd mode F melodic minor, if that's helpful.

    Every time you change one note there's a new scale name. I have to translate that to the notes, usually by chord name. for example the Fmelmin is, sort of, G13b9#9.

    Does this approach seem unwieldy? I don't think it is for someone who knows the notes in the chords he uses.
    I like this scale an awful lot on this type of chord - I mention it above (but I mention a lot of stuff lol); it's what Warne Marsh used to call 'Dominant II' and it's a a little neglected.

    But this is also a lot of talk on theory.

    The thing that I find constantly frustrating is the need to appeal to theory. Theory as a sort of excuse. Really, music needs to be in charge and that requires listening and hearing. If you want to hear a major seventh on a dominant chord, there's plenty of examples - not just Wes, BTW. Lester Young, Miles, Parker, Chet Baker, you name it. So playing 'good sounding' notes on the chords seems at right angles to the ability to actually play jazz. In fact good changes players define their own chordal movements, or simply play strong melodies that might even 'smooth out' a lot of these kinks.

    Why are we so keen to imprison students with bullshit edicts? We may be better of teaching them to connect chords together for a start and break these into melodic lines, and phrase lines into resolution points instead of playing chords piecemeal, in isolation (big thing that comes up with most of my jazz students is they don't connect chords together, which is not their fault, because almost every mass market book seems to talk about individual chord scales in isolation without talking about how these things might move.)

    This reminds me of something. My daughter rides a bike without stabilisers and hasn't yet reached 4, a feat I didn't manage until much older. Why? Because the stabiliser wheels don't help train you to balance the way you would when riding properly, in fact quite the opposite, so good cycling instructors don't use them to teach children. I sometimes feel the 'good sounding notes on chords' approach is analogous. It's very pernicious, and what you said is revealing because it implies that by necessity mere mortals need a different process to better players; which is not actually true. But the worst thing is becomes a self fulfilling cycle. There's so many things like this in the wider jazz marketplace and it is depressing because people think it's helping them. Backing tracks, too.

    And I do wonder if I transcribed for instance, Mark Levine's playing if I'd find what he plays and what he writes are two separate things? Honestly, I wouldn't bet against it. I know someone who took a lesson with Jamie Aebersold was admonished for playing 'too correctly out of the scales' which I think is wonderful. I feel worrying too much about all the contours of the harmony creates a lot of hang ups.

    In any case no competent changes player plays EVERY chord - as Peter Bernstein put it 'chords are not your children' - you don't need to spend equal time with all of them. Truth of the matter is the 7#9 is a classic chord for sailing through if you want. At the most, you might alter the key to accommodate the third (usually by raising it a half step) or not - but no further action is necessary. But any chord in jazz can be a doorway to some other harmonic world should you choose to step through it (and have time to do so.)

    So reading threads like this makes me a bit sad. People would rather look at a book than listen to music; try and puzzle things out themselves. The books are at best incomplete, and at worst confusing. I feel I wasted good years on them. Ah well, it's useless to try to convince people really, there's a perceived lack of time, perceived difficulty of using one's ears (not as much as you'd think), sunk costs etc etc. But someone may read this who might find it interesting.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-07-2021 at 04:09 AM.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    I could have said it simpler.

    7#9.

    It's a dominant chord, so it's got a R 3 b7 and, in this case, #9.

    Same for any dominant chord. You get to choose your 5ths, 9ths and 6.

    There are two notes left over, the 4th and the major 7th. Those are notes that can sound great, but are, arguably, easier to make sound bad than the others.

    [Others have discussed chord-tone, extension and tension, as a way of characterizing how unpleasant a note can sound to a club owner.]

    Now, you could write out every possible combination of Root, 3, 7, and the various 5ths, 9ths, and so forth. A lot of the resulting scales would have names. The names could change completely if you alter a single note. That makes them hard to learn, but people do.

    But, what is so difficult about thinking "7th chord and I'll adjust the 5ths and 9ths by ear"?

    Why do I need a separate name for every combination of 5 and 9?

    When I play an E7 heading to Am, do I really need to think A harmonic minor or E phrygian dominant to know that there's a G# in the E7 chord and that I might want to play it, or not?

    I apologize for this rant. I know I've posted about it before.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    I have. I own the Coltrane Omnibook for one. The thing is, when those two chords come up you can just do a little riff that accentuates both the #9 and the half-step root motion. Easy peasy.

    If the chords were to be held longer it could be different.
    That's right, easy peasy.

    If you're a guitar player it's the work of a moment to test these sounds. All the ones you'll ever need have already been given to you. So test them, otherwise it's simply a verbal, academic, rather meaningless inquiry.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    That's right, easy peasy.

    If you're a guitar player it's the work of a moment to test these sounds. All the ones you'll ever need have already been given to you. So test them, otherwise it's simply a verbal, academic, rather meaningless inquiry.
    I see it differently.

    1. Much of the discussion above is concerned with generating "synthetic scales", so the point is made - it's not really settled,
    2. We have go-to chord scales for every other chord - don't we?
    3. Not all scales sound the same/have the same effect,
    4. One has to practice what they want to improvise with, so they need a plan


    If one is to burn on that chord for an extended period they will want/need a personal preference that has been ironed out in the practice room

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    F MM would replace that Bnat with a C.

    That scale is the F diminished scale, minus C#.
    '

    Thanks, that's right.

    So, G B D F Ab Bb E, which seems like a logical group of notes to consider to get a 13 with altered 9th sound, doesn't have its own name.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I like this scale an awful lot on this type of chord - I mention it above (but I mention a lot of stuff lol); it's what Warne Marsh used to call 'Dominant II' and it's a a little neglected.

    But this is also a lot of talk on theory.

    The thing that I find constantly frustrating is the need to appeal to theory. Theory as a sort of excuse. Really, music needs to be in charge and that requires listening and hearing. If you want to hear a major seventh on a dominant chord, there's plenty of examples - not just Wes, BTW. Lester Young, Miles, Parker, Chet Baker, you name it. So playing 'good sounding' notes on the chords seems at right angles to the ability to actually play jazz. In fact good changes players define their own chordal movements, or simply play strong melodies that might even 'smooth out' a lot of these kinks.

    Why are we so keen to imprison students with bullshit edicts? We may be better of teaching them to connect chords together for a start and break these into melodic lines, and phrase lines into resolution points instead of playing chords piecemeal, in isolation (big thing that comes up with most of my jazz students is they don't connect chords together, which is not their fault, because almost every mass market book seems to talk about individual chord scales in isolation without talking about how these things might move.)

    This reminds me of something. My daughter rides a bike without stabilisers and hasn't yet reached 4, a feat I didn't manage until much older. Why? Because the stabiliser wheels don't help train you to balance the way you would when riding properly, in fact quite the opposite, so good cycling instructors don't use them to teach children. I sometimes feel the 'good sounding notes on chords' approach is analogous. It's very pernicious, and what you said is revealing because it implies that by necessity mere mortals need a different process to better players; which is not actually true. But the worst thing is becomes a self fulfilling cycle. There's so many things like this in the wider jazz marketplace and it is depressing because people think it's helping them. Backing tracks, too.

    And I do wonder if I transcribed for instance, Mark Levine's playing if I'd find what he says and what he writes are two separate things? Honestly, I wouldn't bet against it. I know someone who took a lesson with Jamie Aebersold was admonished for playing 'too correctly out of the scales' which I think is wonderful. I feel worrying too much about all the contours of the harmony creates a lot of hang ups.

    In any case no competent changes player plays EVERY chord - as Peter Bernstein put it 'chords are not your children' - you don't need to spend equal time with all of them. Truth of the matter is the 7#9 is a classic chord for sailing through if you want. At the most, you might alter the key to accommodate the third (usually by raising it a half step) or not - but no further action is necessary. But any chord in jazz can be a doorway to some other harmonic world should you choose to step through it (and have time to do so.)

    So reading threads like this makes me a bit sad. People would rather look at a book than listen to music; try and puzzle things out themselves. The books are at best incomplete, and at worst confusing. I feel I wasted good years on them. Ah well, it's useless to try to convince people really, there's a perceived lack of time, perceived difficulty of using one's ears (not as much as you'd think), sunk costs etc etc. But someone may read this who might find it interesting.
    Great post, Christian. Crazy, isn't it? We learn to speak by imitation and experimentation. The codification - alphabets, formal grammar, etc - comes later. I'm reminded of Jordan Klemons' post here a few years ago. He recounted playing a chorus or two for Peter Bernstein at their first meeting. "Well, you're hitting all the right notes" was PB's 'damned with faint praise' response.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    OK.

    Trane used the b13 prominently, so we can get that out of the way.

    He also used both b9 and #9 a lot. So that looks like Phrygian especially when he ripped a scalar passage, but he didn't play it from the modal root, so it didn't take on that Spanish sound.

    But - he also used the major 3rd although less frequently than the b9 and #9 combo. When he used the M3 he used it strongly so not like a passing note.

    You could call that the 8-note Spanish Phrygian that Berklee describes, seems to me.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar

    I see it differently.
    No, actually we don't see it that differently.


    Much of the discussion above is concerned with generating "synthetic scales", so the point is made - it's not really settled,
    I said that, you can play, include or exclude any notes you want in a line. I mean, look at those players like Scofield who play all that crazy chromatic outside stuff!

    We have go-to chord scales for every other chord - don't we?
    Yes and no. Generally no, because there are always other options. None of it is set in stone.

    Not all scales sound the same/have the same effect
    Obviously not; they have different notes therefore different effects.

    One has to practice what they want to improvise with, so they need a plan
    That's what I'm saying, test it out. Don't go the 'Chord x always equals scale x' route. It can often be true but certainly not always.

    If one is to burn on that chord for an extended period they will want/need a personal preference that has been ironed out in the practice room
    Absolutely. In a band context that's an obvious must otherwise it'll sound a real mess.

    But you asked specifically what to play over a 7#9 chord. So far quite a few ideas have been offered, from the basic pentatonic to some more exotic scales/modes. They all work in the right context but to find out which is best requires research and experimentation. And sometimes the answer is make your own.

    It would probably have been better if we'd started with a definite tune which figured a strong 7#9. Then it could have been demonstrated. But, as it is, all we've really got is a lot of options which makes it all rather abstract and confusing.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Don -

    You know, a lot of this is about wanting to be safe. If we simply throw anything and everything into the pot it'll drive us potty, and there's no point to it. So we go to the other extreme and become rigid and fundamentalist, demanding a definite, certain answer to every situation. If it's chord X then it's always scale X.

    There's nothing much wrong with that because, as the Chord/Scale Theory points out, it will suit the tune. For those beginning to play jazz, which is very complex music, it does provide some stability.

    Those who've been at it longer see other options. But there's no point at all in trying to force that on an unprepared mind. They'll just get thoroughly confused, and I've seen that happen time and time again.

    Far better to stick to what works than try to get clever, not knowing what one is doing, and sound dreadful. So it's a question of honesty and a certain humility. If you don't understand it, don't do it. We generally know when it's time to introduce other ideas into the playing.

    So proceed gradually and take one step at a time.

    I see you're using the Parker Omnibook. Okay, let's say you see a Dm7 chord and look at what he's playing (usually off the cuff and at high speed). There are the notes: D E F G A B C. Ah!, you say, the Dorian mode! Then, later in the progression, when the Dm7 comes round again, he plays: D E F F# G A B. And all the beginners start scratching their heads, wondering 'OMG, what scale is that?'.

    Well, the answer is it isn't, he just threw in another note, it's not any particular 'scale'. You see the point? I feel we do that a lot of the time, trying to tie things down that actually just happen in the moment from an experienced player.

    So far better to keep it simple and clear, it'll all happen at its own pace.

    Now, do you have a particular tune you want to discuss? Because that would be best.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Don -

    You know, a lot of this is about wanting to be safe. If we simply throw anything and everything into the pot it'll drive us potty, and there's no point to it. So we go to the other extreme and become rigid and fundamentalist, demanding a definite, certain answer to every situation. If it's chord X then it's always scale X.

    There's nothing much wrong with that because, as the Chord/Scale Theory points out, it will suit the tune. For those beginning to play jazz, which is very complex music, it does provide some stability.

    Those who've been at it longer see other options. But there's no point at all in trying to force that on an unprepared mind. They'll just get thoroughly confused, and I've seen that happen time and time again.

    Far better to stick to what works than try to get clever, not knowing what one is doing, and sound dreadful. So it's a question of honesty and a certain humility. If you don't understand it, don't do it. We generally know when it's time to introduce other ideas into the playing.

    So proceed gradually and take one step at a time.

    I see you're using the Parker Omnibook. Okay, let's say you see a Dm7 chord and look at what he's playing (usually off the cuff and at high speed). There are the notes: D E F G A B C. Ah!, you say, the Dorian mode! Then, later in the progression, when the Dm7 comes round again, he plays: D E F F# G A B. And all the beginners start scratching their heads, wondering 'OMG, what scale is that?'.

    Well, the answer is it isn't, he just threw in another note, it's not any particular 'scale'. You see the point? I feel we do that a lot of the time, trying to tie things down that actually just happen in the moment from an experienced player.

    So far better to keep it simple and clear, it'll all happen at its own pace.

    Now, do you have a particular tune you want to discuss? Because that would be best.
    No, it’s the Trane Omnibook, and yes the tune is All Blues. There is repeatability in what he did, it’s clear enough. There were enough choruses.

    Seems like a good enough object lesson to me. How ‘bout you?

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Ah! Sorry, Coltrane. I think someone else talked about the Parker one.

    Then you need this :-)

    (Ignore the error message, the page will display and the site is kosher)


    www.jazzadvice.com | 520: Web server is returning an unknown error
    Last edited by ragman1; 11-07-2021 at 01:52 AM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    By the way, there's also this from this very site:

    https://www.jazzguitar.be/blog/all-blues/

  19. #68

    User Info Menu


  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Personally... there are differences between performing, soloing etc. And scoring a Big Band or large ensemble, composing/ arranging etc.

    That difference is... when most solo, they embellish. You have a rhythm section or something that you, or someone is soloing over, under, whatever you want to call it. Your expanding what the basic tune is... what generally happens, after you have your shit together... There is a Reference, the tune and how your group performed that tune.

    Then you take solos and develop the basic tune with embellishments of that basic Tune. The better you get and the better the players are your gigging with.... the more options you have to expand those Relationships and their Developments. Your playing Live... All these details of scales, chords etc... generally go bye fast. If you need to actually spell them out and figure out musical relationships... theory, harmony CST... it's just not going to happen.
    (your in the fast lane)

    When you arrange or score music.... all the details need to be worked out. (your in the slow lane)

    The debate seems to have stemmed from, name or label of notes implied by... from Bach5G... "E13+9"

    E13 implies Mixolydian and then the added #9. The only scale in the Jazz vocabulary that contains all those note would be Bebob Dorian 1 9 b3 3 11 5 13 b7. This is also very loose. To call this collection of notes E13#9, I would need to rename and relabel the scale 1 9 #9 3 11 5 13 b7 and label... bebop Blues scale ? LOL I don't know.

    If BACH5G would name the tune we would know easily what the chord implies by simply checking out the arrangement.... how and with what notes the melody and soli sections are voiced with. ( you could also know by using your ears when playing).

    I don't know... but knowing Bill Holman and many of his arrangements... the added note is just a Blue Note. So Mixo with #9.

    My point is.... yes if your arranging or voicing out instruments you might have musical organization and detailed harmonic and melodic references.... When your Playing... you do the best you can. Generally if you can't play or are unaware of what your hearing or seeing.... Don't Guess. Play what you know, and use your rhythmic skills to make it work. By rhythmic skills I mean... don't guess on the strong harmonic accents... the rhythmic pattern of the style and in the context of your performance.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Ah! Sorry, Coltrane. I think someone else talked about the Parker one.

    Then you need this :-)

    (Ignore the error message, the page will display and the site is kosher)


    www.jazzadvice.com | 520: Web server is returning an unknown error
    Thanks, that aligns with my quickie analysis done yesterday on nothing more than Coltrane's solo. Only problem with the article is that it should say b13, not sharp 5. (The very same article mentions how the P5 is emphasized, for one thing). Otherwise good.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    By the way, there's also this from this very site:

    https://www.jazzguitar.be/blog/all-blues/
    Yup. The chord scale for D7#9 is described as the G Harmonic Minor Scale "with added b7", which is the 8-note Spanish Phrygian Scale as described by Berklee (Starting on D).

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    E13 is the full mixo scale. E F# G# A B C# D.

    Or, reordered: E G# B D F# A C#.

    If you add the #9, you add a G to that list. If you need to name it, Emixo-add#9 works.

    I think, though, that adding the #9 raises a question about whether to use a 9 or a b9. This depends on context.

    In a ii V I, for soloing, the 9 sounds awkward and the b9 sounds smooth, to my ear.

    So, the list becomes E G# B D F G A C#. The A is the 11th and might be considered an avoid note, with the usual caveats.

    So, it's E G# B D F G C#.

    Or, back to alphabetical order: E F G G# B C# D. That's 7/8ths of a diminished scale (it's missing the A#). It doesn't have a commonly used name.

    In my, perhaps too-simple, system, it's an E-dominant and you adjust the 5ths and 9ths by ear. You also get to make choices, if you want, about the 4 and 6, play them or omit them.

    And, Reg makes an excellent point -- if you play with great time feel, you can get by with whatever harmony you know.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    I spent a few minutes on a site called Scale Finder. You put in the notes and it tells you the names of the scales that have those notes.

    I just wanted to see what the names would be of scales with various combinations of 5ths and 9ths.

    So, nat5 nat9 in a dominant scale is mixolydian

    Sharp the 11th and you get 4th mode melodic minor aka lyd dominant.

    Common knowledge so far.

    If you put in #11 and b9, it's 7/8ths of a diminished scale.

    Same thing if you add in the #9.

    If you try #11 #5 no4, there's no name.

    #11, b13 no 4, no name

    #11 b13 with 4 is fifth mode melodic minor (Fmelmin for C7#11b13)

    At that point I stopped, although there are a great many more possible combinations.

    It seems to me that some of the combinations of 5th and 9th, with or without 4th have names and some don't. I don't see why the ones with names are inherently more useful than the ones without names.

    It seems to me that suggests that focusing on the combinations of notes rather than the scale names gives you more options than just the usual scale names.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Whatever you want to call it, say "Phrygian plus major 3rd", is a classic bebop sound over a dominant chord. The fact that it's a 8 note scale shouldn't cause problems -- use the #9 when going down and the 3rd when going up. Look at this snippet from the Donna Less head (in four flats):

    Chord names-donna-lee-jpg

    The Enat goes up to F at the beginning and the end, and the Eb in the middle goes down to Db. Plus plenty of Ab goodness.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Yea... I know I'm old and have been on this forum a long time, but I posted about what Don and Rag have been figuring out 10, 12 years ago, no one seem interested. So cool , I guess that's how long it takes. The big deal or why most used that added note version was about the 5th. MM altered implies a Flat 5th, (#11) and Har. Min.Phrygian Dominant with added #9 had the nat. 5th.

    Which isn't that big of a deal, except when you start developing and expanding while you soloing, comping and even more so when arranging.

    But E13#9... I mean who hasn't played a Bluesy pentatonic improv using Mixo and pent together. If your from the rock/fusion thing... shred till the eyes pop out. Or bring out that Blues thing with feeling.

    On a serious note... Kris, Kenny's point is pretty typical from old school players. (I'm old school) Back then, we would play 6 nights a week... +. Point being... playing enough gigs... like all the time, you could be tone deaf and not even know what academia was... and still cover. I'm extremely theory aware, way over the top... but I still play from my heart, with as much feeling as anyone. I love letting and seeing where the music can go.

    It's not one or the other.