-
Almost everyone I've spoken to on the subject seems to agree that modes shouldn't be introduced until the student has a good grasp on basic changes playing with chord tones and so on.
However, I still frequently get students who know every mode under the sun, can't remember the tune and chords to a single tune and simply outline the chord tones of a simple progression. Worse thing is, they have been taught this way.
I'm not talking about language, I'm not talking about Barry Harris or anything, I'm talking about the basics....
So Jens putting this out there is helpful, as he has a good reach on YouTube, loads of subscribers. People who want lessons from me usually watch his channel :-)
Scale based improvising - well scales are nice things... Modal improvising is obviously something again. Again, I think with all this stuff, it's best to let the music teach to you, the listen/play cycle. Then a theory book stops being a Dungeons and Dragons manual and starts actually being useful for something....
-
10-03-2019 01:13 PM
-
Very early on in my jazz playing, I was teaching beginner lessons at a small studio owned by a really great jazz piano player (RIP Joe)
He became my kind of "jazz mentor" for a while. Basically we'd just play tunes and he'd kick my ass.
But I remember the first time he heard me noodling in between lessons, he poked his head around the door and said "sounds good, can you play me a tune?"
I played a somewhat solo version of "Here's that Rainy Day" and he said, "ah, nice. I stump most young guys with that question."
-
How can you navigate the instrument if you don't "map" the right notes in all positions.
Doesn't matter if you build off of it at least you know what you're adding or rejecting.
Barry Harris has stated that he has seen classical students and good ones at that who didn't even know where they were in a progression!
I've had students who couldn't make a statement in Eb because they couldn't map the board mix at Bb or any other position.
-
Originally Posted by WILSON 1
-
Might just be... that most guitarist and guitar teachers use term Mode, for being resulting notes when starting scales on each degree.
So if you use all Scales.
Major..... and it's modes
Harmonic Minor... and it's modes
Melodic Minor... and it's modes
Harmonic Major... and it's modes
Symmetric scales... and their modes, Diminished, Whole tone, Augmented, Pentatonics , blues, Bop
So when you go through the basic process of working out the fingerings of each mode of all scales... you have a complete map of the fretboard.
I mean this is one of the kid basics of playing the Guitar... throw in the arpeggios of each mode etc... This is what I went through as kid... little kid. By the time I was in High School I was working on the chords derived from all scales and their modes.... and then started applying this Guitar technique....to playing. (I wasn't aware of the term modes when I started... just scale degrees, learned from some older musicians when started playing gigs, jazz gigs... was also playing the rock gigs, I mean i was in High School...etc.)
-
Originally Posted by Claudi
-
Originally Posted by Uncle Vinnie
-
Originally Posted by WILSON 1
The Altered Scale For Jazz Guitar (Scale Diagrams & Licks)
-
Altered scale is a better name for its main jazz application.
Superlocrian gives its construction.... I think this is what the scale used to be called if the book 20th Century Harmony is anything to go by.
The altered scale is an enharmonic respelling....
Thing is I can think of four or five ways to derive the scale and they all teach you something about it...
-
Originally Posted by Reg
I mean, sure, everyone should know this stuff. Or at least knew the fretboard well enough that, say, flatting the 6 in a major scale in every position is not a big deal ...
And yet, I constantly come across students who know at least some of this stuff who are non functional as musicians.
Lack of experience? Probably.
From my teaching room perspective, just being able to outline the most basic vanilla chord progressions in all positions would be an important objective. Screw the modes of the harmonic major before they can do that.
People who learn modes play too many notes anyway, fall over themselves rhythmically until they have this shit together. That’s the priority for most.
What constitutes a beginner or advanced student is very relative...
-
The difference between the Dorian and Melodic Minor is only one note. Sometimes that #7 can sound interesting, sometimes it doesn't...
-
yea Christian... I was just trying to define Wilson 1's point about mapping.
But I like your point about playing to many note and the "falling over themselves rhythmically). Personally the steady 8th sound is just as bad as falling over themselves.
Most teachers teach what they Know, right. Whether it's the complete picture... or not. Most students learn or map the fretboard for what they know...again whether big picture or part of the picture.
When one learns how to count to 10.... if you skip a number. You can still get to 10. You can still get to 100 etc... but you'll begin to hit some walls the further along you get. Yea, lousy analogy.
Yea Rag... Melodic generally relates to Dorian as does Harmonic Minor is to Natural or aeolian. Disclaimer... very general statement. Like most oneliners. Like that counting to 10 while skipping a number analogy.
-
From my teaching room perspective, just being able to outline the most basic vanilla chord progressions in all positions would be an important objective. Screw the modes of the harmonic major before they can do that.
People who learn modes play too many notes anyway, fall over themselves rhythmically until they have this shit together. That’s the priority for most.
Good rhythm and the ability to construct coherent phrases are different events than pitch content.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many forum members have astutely pointed out a true fact, that all notes of a scale/mode are not equal.
The tendency seems to divide the notes in a binary way, basic chord tones + remaining scale tones.
I would go further. All chord tones are not equal. 1, 3, 5, etc. are all unique.
Furthermore, the inversion or voicing of the same notes although related are also not equivalent either.
Ex. compare a ma7, b2, b9 or ma3, m6, ma10, b13
-
Originally Posted by Reg
Most teachers teach what they Know, right. Whether it's the complete picture... or not. Most students learn or map the fretboard for what they know...again whether big picture or part of the picture.
When one learns how to count to 10.... if you skip a number. You can still get to 10. You can still get to 100 etc... but you'll begin to hit some walls the further along you get. Yea, lousy analogy.
Yea Rag... Melodic generally relates to Dorian as does Harmonic Minor is to Natural or aeolian. Disclaimer... very general statement. Like most oneliners. Like that counting to 10 while skipping a number analogy.
-
Originally Posted by bako
However, being able to outline a chord progression clearly in a few notes does a lot to get rid of that nervousness about playing the changes. Or at least it did for me.
Many forum members have astutely pointed out a true fact, that all notes of a scale/mode are not equal.
The tendency seems to divide the notes in a binary way, basic chord tones + remaining scale tones.
I would go further. All chord tones are not equal. 1, 3, 5, etc. are all unique.
Furthermore, the inversion or voicing of the same notes although related are also not equivalent either.
Ex. compare a ma7, b2, b9 or ma3, m6, ma10, b13
-
Sometime during the first year I played guitar, my teacher gave me an arrangement of Malaguena. Afterward, I was able to improvise lines that sounded "Spanish" to my ear. Years later, I found out I was playing phrygian mode. I just played the notes that gave me that sound. I never thought about a fingering or a theory.Years later, I became interested in Forro music, which is often played using lydian dominant mode (4th degree melodic minor). I could hear that #11 on the dominant chords, so I could play it, without ever having to think about a fingering. It still seems to me that that was a good way of learning a mode (not modes, plural). One sound (mode) at a time.Now we're talking about things like harmonic major. That's C D E F G G# B C. Knowing that doesn't actually help me. Not until I pick an application and try to learn the sound. Then, for example, I can hear a 7b9 sound. At that point, I can find the notes by ear without thinking about fingerings. I can hear (not quite as efficiently) maj7#5 -- and find those notes by ear. At some point, I hope to learn the sound of some other application. I don't know how "modes" is usually taught. I'm not recommending one approach over another. I'm just commenting that the way it worked for me was one sound at a time -- and I found those sounds in songs, not books of theory. If I can hear the sound, I can play it using only the basic skill of being able to play a line by ear. Same as if I'm trying to play C Ionian over Cmaj7. I know the sound, so I can play the notes.
-
I'd absolutely go with that, one thing at a time. Not 'Learn a million things first, then make music'!
-
Let me give another example. Suppose you have a ii V in F. You play /Gm7 C7/ Fmaj7 /.Now, suppose you insert an Amaj/F in front of the Fmaj7. Try it 3x333, 3x231x, 1x222x, 1x221x. Two beats each, nice and slow. To me, that's a pretty easy sound to hear because the voice leading is so obvious. Play that a few times and maybe it will stick in your mind. Scat sing a line that uses the C# leading to the C note in Fmaj7. When you sing a line you like, put it on the guitar. If you can sing a line and play it, maybe you just learned a new sound that you can access at will. If it helps, you can remember that the key note is the #5 of the I chord. Let me make that a little clearer. In this process, the basic skill is being able to imagine a line in your mind and play it instantly. It seems to me that this skill is half of jazz (the other half is imagining a good line). If you can do that, you don't need to think about fingering patterns. So you don't think,"oh, it's A/F, that's third mode D melodic minor, I'm in fifth position so I'll hop onto my 5th position D melmin fingering". Rather, you hear the line and your fingers play it automatically. Of course, not everybody wants to construct a solo this way; some approach soloing by finding cool ways to put together patterns, the sound of each of which, presumably, they can hear. And, eventually, either approach leads to automaticity, or so I would imagine. A theoretician might begin by thinking about A/F as Fmaj7#5 and relate that to third mode Dmelmin. Or maybe think of it as F harmonic major. Maybe the theoretician arrives at this point in the process of considering all the modes of melodic minor and harmonic major and working through them. Using the first approach, you learn one sound and one context (ii V I) to apply it. It's pretty easy to get this into your playing. How would it work using the other approach? You'd have a scale/mode which applies to a maj7#5 without a specific harmonic context. To make this clear -- you'd have the chord and the scale, but not the chord progression that might be in a song. You'd then have to find a context (or contexts) in which it might apply. So, you might get to something like the first approach, perhaps with multiple applications. Nothing wrong with that, although, to me, it can quickly get overwhelming. BTW I got the idea of the A/F from Toninho Horta who has used it in different arrangements. It's a strong sound and easy to hear. I don't know where he got it.
Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 10-08-2019 at 04:42 PM.
-
I wrote that last post with a bunch of paragraph breaks which weren't preserved.
-
I wonder if this is Dirk's way of pushing us into brevity.I wonder.Paragraph break.
-
He has to be told
para test
-
That worked
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Obviously that’s stupid though. No one ever actually learned like that in the history. Luckily for us, theory books existed to tell Buddy Bolden what to play. Otherwise we would still be playing polka.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Who are you actually talking about? Who do you imagine thinks this way? Or is this just made up and imagined?
-
rpjazzguitar -
I hear what you say, I'm not laughing at it. You're saying - at least I think you are - that playing by sound/ear/memory is better/more reliable/quicker/more authentic than merely trying to apply theoretical concepts.
I agree, but don't you think there's a danger of playing parrot-fashion? Like the bird that imitates a sound but doesn't understand what it's saying. Like your Malaguena example, you know where the notes are to get that Spanish-y sound and you just keep playing it.
Then later you find it's a C major scale. Then later still you find it's the Phrygian mode of C major, from E to E. Which is probably unnecessary.
But it's not really either/or, is it? Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge. On the other hand, it's equally ignorant to know all the theoretical terms and concepts but not be able to relate them to producing actual music on the instrument.
I'm sure there are two kinds of players. One prefers the practical action of finding the notes, listening, applying, and so on. The other likes his book knowledge and uses it to translate what he knows into producing music.
It might be argued that the old players, who were largely self-taught, learnt by listening, watching, copying, and applying it. That would probably carry more weight than a purely theoretical approach.
On the other hand, as far as I know, many of them have said they regret not learning music and that their lives were definitely enhanced by knowing what it was they were playing.
So, personally, I wouldn't kick theory out. But there's theory and there's theory. One should understand some of it otherwise one's understanding is too basic. But one doesn't have to be a music scholar to play good music either.
A complete player has both, the practical ear and finger-based understanding and at least a good knowledge of what he's playing and why. But I've absolutely no doubt at all that the better players have always been the ear players. Music is a practical art, not a cerebral one.
So fundamentally I agree with you, but not entirely. It's not either/or by any means. But when the conceptual overshadows the practical too much then we've stopped playing real guitar and started playing brain guitar.
In short, it's the vast difference between knowing and understanding. But I suppose that's a bit philosophical...
16" 1920s/30s L5
Yesterday, 08:44 PM in For Sale