-
On this thread I detailed how I planned to practice hexatonic scales for twenty weeks into this year -
Practice Resolutions - Goals For The New Year
I am pleased to report that this is going well and to plan. However, I still feel this ongoing learning is not being absorbed into my improvisations. Which is where this thread and its title come in - once this twenty week plan is over, I intend to replace the time I spend currently on a single scale with practice switching between two scales. I think it's a good idea because most of the tunes I play involve harmonic movement, so it gets me closer to the music I want to play. That's not to say I haven't already been practising this in the context of practising tunes, but I feel if I throw an hour each day at practising a basic harmonic movement like V - I rather than an isolated scale, I feel the time would just be spent more profitably because it's training my mind more in the way it's used in most jazz.
So at first I reckon it could go something like this -
Monday - G alt - C maj
Tuesday - C alt - F maj
Wednesday - F alt - B flat maj
etc.
Of course there are more options for the dominant chord - for the tonic chord I could use the Lydian rather than the Ionian.
Could start introducing the ii chord at some point, and perhaps the VI chord to circle back round to the ii.
This might actually encourage me to dust off my neglected loop pedal and actually use it, who knows?! Looking forward to it anyway.
-
03-20-2026 02:11 PM
-
After that you can do those Barry Harris/Aebersold scale outlines to tunes.
-
I also do a harmonized version of the continuous scale outlines in the context of tunes. I play the scale in quarter notes on the first, second, and third strings while harmonizing each note with a voicing of the chord at that moment, using good voice leading. I go up to around the 17th fret on the high E string, then descend all the way to the first fret of the G string. When the chord changes, not only does the scale change, but the voicings belonging to the chord change as well. For the G string notes, I typically use shell voicings. On the B and high E strings, all voicing options are available.
There are many benefits to this. It trains you to access all the voicings in your toolbox in a way that makes them available in performance. It also develops your ability to harmonize melodies with chordal phrases. This is useful not only for creative comping, but also for intros, endings, and chord-melody playing.
I stopped using chord dictionaries a long time ago. Another benefit of this exercise is that it forces you to find different voicings to harmonize a note based on what’s available in the position where the note lies. Once you’ve internalized the go-to options for each note in the context of the five common chord types in standards, you start discovering new voicings that you like.
Not to mention that these voicings also become chord outlining ideas when you’re playing single note lines.
-
I’m deeply interested in adding this to my studies. I think it’ll get me to my goal, this kind of chord melody playing.
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Working with scales in isolation may be misleading with respect to application with harmony if there is an implicit assumption that a scale that works to express a particular chord type might be universally applied whenever that chord type appears.
I don't know chord scale theory, and don't know its caveats or how much it asserts an application of a scale to a chord type will always work.
Here's an example of what I mean...
Say you are going to explore what can be done with a minor 2 - 5- 1, something like ii - V - i which appears often; call this one Am7 - D7(b or # 9) - Gm7.
In this instance, the Am7 and the Gm7 are identical chord types, but what we will hear is that something that expresses the Am7 that makes it sound hauntingly nice and even "more minor" does nothing like that if shifted down two frets to express the Gm7.
the ii
A B C Eb G Eb B D C
Treat the C Eb G as triplet, ascending through the 2nd Eb, treat the Eb B D C as enclosure down up down for the last three
Notice how strong the minor sound is... this is A diminished whole-half scale
the V
F Eb D C Bb G F Eb
Descending, I would call it Ab Lydian Dominant, but it's a mode of melodic minor and so it is just one name among six others.
the i
D G Bb D F D Eb E
Wes lick.
If you try to move what sounds so nice on the Am7 down two frets for the Gm7 it goes nowhere, does not point or imply, does not settle or resolve, just sounds wrong.
These kind of discrepancies are legion; the best way I know to discover and internalize their appropriate expressions of the harmony is through the development and construction of chord sequences/series where multiple chords (three or more) are used to express a progression "chord change".
-
Sorry Paul, I don't know what you're talking about really here. If I were to play a minor 2-5-1 in G minor I certainly would not treat the ii the same as the i - the former has a flattened 5 and 9 (although a natural 9 is possible) whilst for the latter I would simply use G melodic minor. Originally Posted by pauln
So your post is just a bit of a straw man of chord scale theory. Of course that's not to say that CS theory is the be-all and end-all, but it is definitely a useful tool in the tool box, so to speak. It is one way of looking at things and being able to link scales and change scale when the chord changes is an important skill to have, even if it's not how you'd approach every tune...
-
Thanks for this. Originally Posted by Tal_175
As with learning the continuous scale exercise the most immediate take-away from your suggestion is the necessity of slowing down in order to get good at doing it.
-
i learned this many moons ago. it's just standard chord grips. the tune basically plays itself. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Hope this isn’t too much of a segue from James’s thread.
The way I approach this is by focusing on the five common chord types: major, minor, dominant, altered dominant, and minor7b5. I do treat tonic minor differently from subdominant minor, but that’s mostly a matter of whether I emphasize the b7 or the 6.
The first step is to be able to harmonize chord tones and common extensions of these chords linearly along each of the top three strings using your garden-variety chord grips. You’ve probably encountered all the voicings you need for this already, but maybe they didn’t all make it into your habitual playing. One of the benefits of this exercise is that it forces you to collect the fruits of your past efforts.
Then you can experiment with using passing chords. That is, instead of always using a voicing of the chord at the moment, you can try using approach chords on the weak beats, etc.
Another thing you can do is change the inner voices of the voicings. For example, if you’re harmonizing the 11th of a minor7b5 with a certain voicing, you can move the b5 voice up a step to b5 or b6 and hear what that sounds like, etc. It's pretty much is an open ended process that's guided by your ears and tastes at this point.
-
Yeah, to me chord-scales and chords are the same things. As I was saying above, if I am experimenting with a voicing of minor7b5, I am asking what notes other than the four chord tones work with this chord? How does b13 sound in the inner voices. What if b13 is in the melody? Does the 11th sound good on top of this chord as a melody note if I make a chord phrase with it? The so called chord-scale theory is considering these notes in a unified way both as voicing options and melody notes (ie as chords and as scales). Originally Posted by James W
-
I've dabbled in using chord scale harmony to construct chord melodies, here's an example of that. The first several bars use only chords from the D melodic/harmonic minor scales (except for Bb7 chord with the Ab in it).
-
I don't know what is "chord-scale harmony". The harmonic techniques and devices I use are what I learned from standards. I mean, I was introduced to many of the concepts in abstract but I only really understood them when I saw and heard how they were applied in standards. The example you posted seems to be a different application. Using chords from one scale throughout a progression in an almost non-functional way which is more a post-bop thing I guess. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
It's not nonfunctional, those are the song's chord changes, with one or two common chord substitutes. Originally Posted by Tal_175
It's similar to what you said in your previous post: "The so called chord-scale theory is considering these notes in a unified way both as voicing options and melody notes (i.e. as chords and as scales)."
The difference is that I look for scale(s) in which the chords in the chord progression occur to find alternate chord voicings and smooth voice-leading ideas.
-
I understand that the original tune is functional but the functional key of the tune is F minor. The way you approach it with chords borrowed from D harmonic/melodic minor is probably making the functional nature of the tune more ambiguous though I didn't play it or hear it to be sure. Originally Posted by Mick-7
In any case why do you consider this an application of chord-scale harmony and what do you mean by it?
-
Maybe a video? Originally Posted by Tal_175
I *think* I know what you’re describing but not entirely sure.
If you play E F G A on the melody for a Cmaj7 chord, you’re harmonizing with various voicings for Cmaj7 or you’re harmonizing with diatonic stuff from
the chord scale?
I read it as the former, but not entirely sure.
-
I'm playing it in D minor, not F minor. In F minor I would use F minor chord scales, the key the chord progression is in. That is, you can use diatonic and/or nondiatonic (a.k.a., altered) chord scales to harmonize a song - chords borrowed from related tonalities. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Suppose the tune is Just Friends. The first four bars is |Bbmaj7 | Bbmaj7 | Bbmin7 | Eb7 | Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Let's pick a note, G on the third fret high E (the 6th of Bb). So the first voicing will be a Bbmaj7 voicing with the 6th on top. Suppose we are going up the scale first. The next note is Bbmaj7 with the 7th on top (A). We go up this way for two bars:
G A Bb C | D Eb F G. These are to top notes of each voicing of Bbmaj7.
So for example the first bar are the voicings with 13th, 7th, root, and 9th on top.
The melody is now on the 15th fret. The next chord is Bbmin7. Suppose we start going down: F Eb Db C. These will be the top notes of four Bbmin7 voicings. We continue with Eb7 voicings with the top notes: Bb A (or Ab) G F etc. I wrote the note names but I am really organizing these voicings in terms of the interval of the top note (11th, 3rd ...).
-
Sorry my mind went to Fminor because that's the key I know this tune in. That's why I thought you were doing something more adventurous here by superimposing voicings/extensions from a different chord-scale. So you are almost playing diatonically but thinking of a different minor variant (modal interchange from another minor scale in a way). Is that what you mean by chord-scale harmony? Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
I've been trying to simplify my thinking re: chord scale concepts to make them easier to apply and remember but I'm not there yet.
-
OK, I get it. It seems to be another good way of working on voicings and hearing them in different contexts. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Yeah I’m not sure how relevant this is, but chord scale theory to me is inherently non functional in that it tends to address each chord as a separate entity, often ignoring key. That’s if we define ‘functional’ as ‘what Bach and Mozart would have done’ and ‘what Parker does perhaps 80-90% of the time.’
It is entirely possible to derive new voice leading from chord-scales which is sort of functional in a different way?
But in terms of functional harmony scale use it’s all more diatonic. You just use the diatonic tones as passing tones between chord tones, whether or not they are chromatic. You see this is standard common practice western music and also bop most of the time.
For example if a classical composer sees an Ab7#11 chord (Augmented/french sixth) in Cm, they will simply raise the F to an F# (Gb) to accommodate the chord. (This ends being a quite exotic scale with two consecutive semitones, but I don’t think the music has of that time bothered to name it.)
Most jazzers would play Ab Lydian dominant as a basic choice on that chord I think?
This is more chromatic (has more accidentals when written down.)
I don’t think this type of scale use is widely taught today? At least I didn’t encounter it until later.
The chord scale choices that most books and so on teach are not the most diatonic choices. It is more in line with what Barry Harris taught, although not completely. (There are differences obviously between bop and jazz harmony, the treatment of dominant chords is usually less diatonic.)
In a naive reading, chord scale theory doesn’t really differentiate between connecting notes and harmonic notes in scales, which makes sense when you consider it was originally a shortcut to teach harmony to horn players who didn’t play piano. It’s fair to say there’s been some evolution on that usage in the past 50 years.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 03-22-2026 at 07:13 AM.
-
Chord scales as widely covered in jazz education and harmony texts aren't inherently tied to functional or non-functional application. It is often clear from the context whether a particular discussion is about functional or non-functional application. For example two of the most commonly discussed chord-scales: Lydian dominant and altered scale are often discussed in the context of functional application. The former is called non-functioning and the latter is called functioning dominants (see Emily Remler Hot Licks video). In the former case "non-functioning" does not refer to non-functional harmony but static dominants in the functional contexts like II7 chord or blues, the latter case refers to secondary or primary dominants.
Also another common chord-scale Locrian #9 (or natural 9) is often discussed in the context of minor ii - V's in functional music.
-
I’m not crazy about the distinction ‘functional harmony’ and ‘non functional harmony’ tbh. I think most jazzers musicians understand it to mean ‘standards and II V Is and stuff.’ So that’s how I use it here. But calling Wayne’s harmony ‘non functional’ is a bit of a cop out in my view. Originally Posted by Tal_175
But in fact I’m not convinced it matters too much. Jazz improvisers have most often been working on precomposed songs and therefore the approach has always been a layered one. If I put Fmaj7 F-6 E-7 on D-7 G7 Cmaj7 for example, I’m doing something procedurally completely different to a composer writing a sonata or whatever.
And an approach that subverts the Tin Pan Alley song is part of that art form.
But if you are working chords by chord and not focussing on a central key, the process doesn’t fundamentally differ whether you are running Rhythm Changes or learning to solo on Inner Urge or something. The main difference is the former will be much more familiar to you if you have played a lot of basic repertoire.
OTOH if you use a key based approach, inner urge is going to be a different kettle of fish. And a lot of the older players - especially horn players - were key/melody based, whether it was quoting material or playing in Bb on the A section or whatever. So it’s easy to see why the post
bop era represented a rupture with the old practice, and why music educators found it necessary to formulate a new standard approach, which then got applied to all tunes.
So, if you go and look at Parker, you’ll see a lot of stuff ‘in the key with alterations.’ It seems to have been a basic part of his MO.
Bop era players tended to be less diatonic on cycle dominants, but interesting the Barry school emphasises the diatonic options. It is necessary to teach the vanilla European harmony perhaps to teach the jazz extension of that practice.
That’s what the added note scales are imo - you see them in Chopin etc. And that makes sense because those scales answer a basic issue in Common Practice harmony and Western meter that isn’t necessarily always honoured in jazz.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 03-22-2026 at 07:50 AM.
-
Anyway I think working on connections between chords is vitally important.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think of the distinction between chord-scalar and diatonic thinking as a difference in point of view. Voice leading is, in a sense, baked into the diatonic perspective, which is reflected in the functional names of the notes within a key: the subdominant, tonic, mediant, and so on.
In the chord-scale view, voice-leading becomes a separate layer of discussion, added on top of the chord-scale framework from the point of view of the chords through devices like guide tones. From that perspective, we might say “the 7th of the first chord resolves to the 3rd of the next.” From the diatonic perspective, we would instead say “the subdominant of the key moves to the mediant of the key.” I think both of these points of views exists in classical music also (4-3 suspension for example).
Christian's point if I understand it correctly is that sometimes one point of view is a more natural choice to understand and play within the style of a certain influential player.
Reply With Quote
Jack.Wilkins birthday tribute- "My Foolish Heart" by Jeff...
Yesterday, 11:17 PM in The Players