New starter here... a little advice on modes?

[christianm77]

I have to admit I don't get the "cool guys don't play the ii-V in their solos" attitude (ie they think dorian or dominant over ii-V). It seems very arbitrary to me. 4-3 suspension is not nothing. ii going to V is a functional progression, subdominant to dominant. It's more significant than I going to vi, which is just a prolongation of the same function, yet that's perfectly outline-able change. Go figure.

Now, I know Barry Harris says to play the dominant over ii-V. His reasoning is, it was impossible for Charlie Parker to have thought if ii-V and play the lines that he did. One can deduce from his lines that he was not playing ii-V. Barry Harris is teaching Charlie Parker and Bud Powell's music, so in that context it makes sense. But if you're not only playing pure bebop, that stylistic rule shouldn't apply.
Is there an inherent musical reason to dis 4-3? Bach didn't dis 4-3.
My outrageously speculative reason for why Bird and his gang didn't play it is because may be they grew up learning music that was before all V's were converted to ii-V's.

Well it's about chunking really. Modules, that kind of thing, simplifying the conception, but building up the surface detail. Suspensions are surface detail, not structural harmony here.

Learning that ii-V is a suspension of the V7 is actually an insight I got from this book long before I knew who Barry Harris was. I think this is well known thing generally in bop circles:
The Jazz Style of Tal Farlow: The Elements of Bebop Guitar Artist Transcriptions: Amazon.co.uk: Steve Rochinski, Tal Farlow: Books

Of course - 4-3 suspension literally makes the musical world go round... Difference between a descending progression and a cycle of fourths.... Between a Chaconne and Autumn Leaves... If anyone disses 4-3 it they are talking out their bottoms. Barry Harris certainly doesn't say it...

In fact by saying 4-3 you are implying thinking in ONE scale - V dominant. (That's the sort of thing, incidentally you might see in a figured bass part...)

The mainstream jazz educators put this in their own convoluted way - "don't play the 13th on a Dorian on ii it will give away the V dominant."

- You are taught first that you must play the right notes on the right chords, so no 6 on II Dorian, no 4 on V Mix
- You are taught LATER that these rules can be relaxed, anticipation and prolongation of chords

In fact, I think what they should teach is a reframe of the exact same info - playing the 13th/6th on the ii chord will create the sense of the dominant, while the b7 gives a more floating sound, so is sub or predominant... (or instead think 3 and 4 on V dominant, whatever floats your boat. Sheryl Bailey's family of four etc etc.)

That's a subtle distinction, but there's no need to build a separate harmonic region on both chords... They can be more profitably seen as a unit. Again, most experienced bop players do this one way or another.

This also gives you command of the harmony in your line. You tell the harmony what to do, rather than be dominated by it.

Barry doesn't talk about this 4-3 stuff much when it comes to line building, but if you follow his syllabus and have any ears at all, it will come naturally. You'll play the important minor, b7 major and lots of other fun stuff and resolve into target chords with dim7's and tritones and cool little phrases, but you will just be thinking - dominant scale resolving into target chord. I can only say I found this much more useful.

I can't imagine looking at something like Moment's Notice and trying cogitate each chord in isolation. No way anyone who can actually play it is thinking that way lol - and probably most experienced players will have their transposable ii-V material dailed in on these types of tunes. But Barry's approach can take you away from the dreaded ii-V lick thing...

O hai Rick -

(Incidentally Bernstein told me off for playing the ii in the bass in a cadence.... As in
Dm7 G7 Cmaj7
OR
Dm7 Db7 Cmaj7

BUT NOT
Dm7 Dm6 Cmaj7

Which is interesting.

But that's the bass, and mostly it's up to those dudes... )

[joe2758]

4-3 suspension literally makes the musical world go round... Difference between a descending progression and a cycle of fourths.... Between a Chaconne and Autumn Leaves... If anyone disses 4-3 it they are talking out their bottoms. Barry Harris certainly doesn't say it...

In fact by saying 4-3 you are implying thinking in ONE scale - V dominant. (That's the sort of thing, incidentally you might see in a figured bass part...)

this is what ive been trying to say

[joe2758]

check this out. here barry is talking about the movement he calls “major to minor to minor with the 6th in the bass.” don’t worry about that; it’s just a bass movement (an awesome one).
my point is that he says “you can throw in a 2-5 here.” and all he plays is a 4-3 suspension, he calls it a 2-5

[Tal_175]

When I say dissing (I should say ignoring) 4-3 I don't mean it harmonically. Barry Harris does not suggest not playing ii-V when comping. Both ii and V are played harmonically. But it seems like playing that change in the solo line is not a thing in his school of teaching. I remember him saying in a video that Charlie Parker didn't think about playing that change over ii-V.
In his scale exercises over tunes, dominant scale is played right through ii-V's. But over I going to VI, there is an explicit attention in given to playing that change (7th of I to the 3rd of VI).
I guess one can apply 5-4-3-2 ideas to build lines over ii-V using dominant scale: blah blah 4-3 blah blah 7-6.

[rpjazzguitar]

It has always seemed to me that the goal is to be somewhere in between strictly outlining all the changes vs. playing a melodic line that works with them while letting the comping instrument give the audience the harmony.

You have to surprise the listener often enough to be interesting and seldom enough to sound like you're playing the same tune as the rest of the band.

So, that means that you should be fully aware of the flow of the harmony (like the 4-3), but you don't have to play it. You phrase with it, but you don't become it. This is the same concept of comping with a clave. You phrase with it. You don't have to, and shouldn't, play it constantly.

[christianm77]

It has always seemed to me that the goal is to be somewhere in between strictly outlining all the changes vs. playing a melodic line that works with them while letting the comping instrument give the audience the harmony.

You have to surprise the listener often enough to be interesting and seldom enough to sound like you're playing the same tune as the rest of the band.

So, that means that you should be fully aware of the flow of the harmony (like the 4-3), but you don't have to play it. You phrase with it, but you don't become it. This is the same concept of comping with a clave. You phrase with it. You don't have to, and shouldn't, play it constantly.

Yeah

You outline changes in your playing. Not necessarily the ones everyone else is playing, mind.

[Tal_175]

I guess the special thing about ii-V is that it occurs more frequently than any other change in standards. So there is more freedom there for whether or not to outline any particular instance in a tune. It's not like a key harmonic moment will be glossed over. It would be very restricting and repetitive to outline all of them.
I don't play all ii-V's but it's not something I consciously thought about before.

[christianm77]

OK here's the thing about II-V's. I think you are a bit confused on this stuff Tal... Some interesting perceptive stuff coming up but not quite in focus.

• Spend some time listening to pre-bop jazz. Check out how many ii-V's they play. Not very many.
• Spend some time listening to Parker's rhythm sections in the '40s - a few more.
• Now listen to later bop Clifford Brown, early Trane (of course!) etc etc - a LOT more.
• Now listen to fusion/post-modal jazz.... they got bored of them!

It's a fashion thing.... If you look at the changes for Stella - original v. real book, it's a classic example, just the first few bars:

| Eo7 | % | F7 | % | Bb7 | Bb7+

becomes

| Em7b5 | A7alt | Cm7 | F7 | Fm7 | Bb7

Right?

So II-V's are decoration, they got fashionable in the 50s, suddenly everywhere. Sometime later, jazz educators decided they were the basic progression in jazz, because basically they hadn't checked out anything earlier than 1950.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's interesting how much musicians trained in this way struggle when presented with the very plain charts you get in Dixieland, Gypsy Jazz, Trad and so on, or the different embellishments you get in Swing and Big Band charts. Or Jobim harmony for that matter.

Anyway, none of that matters hugely if you don't play that music, but I actually found playing a load of pre-war jazz and then getting into Barry Harris who is coming almost from a pre-bop mindset sometimes really helped me understand how bop built on those resources. Very often the earlier simpler changes make a great framework into which we can slot these stylistic embellishments.

In terms of soloing, you can check out Stephan Grappelli or whatever working Gm lines on a C7 chord - the minor on dominant thing seems to have always been widely used in jazz....

Lester loved to float, look at him stretching that Am9 sound out over the D7 in bar 14 - no sign of an F# on any of those D7 chords lol.



so yeah, it's not especially modern to play ii on V7... But they ARE colours Wes was fond of, sure, and Wes influenced so many modern jazz guitarists. But in my case it was actually Prez, Django and Charlie Christian - I was swotting up on my pre-war style - that hipped me to playing those sounds first.

Anyway, we have these options within Barry's system. Maybe you've not got that far with it yet. It's all in the dominant scale.

[Tal_175]

OK here's the thing about II-V's. I think you are a bit confused on this stuff Tal... Some interesting perceptive stuff coming up but not quite in focus.

• Spend some time listening to pre-bop jazz. Check out how many ii-V's they play. Not very many.
• Spend some time listening to Parker's rhythm sections in the '40s - a few more.
• Now listen to later bop Clifford Brown, early Trane (of course!) etc etc - a LOT more.
• Now listen to fusion/post-modal jazz.... they got bored of them!

It's a fashion thing.... If you look at the changes for Stella - original v. real book, it's a classic example, just the first few bars:

| Eo7 | % | F7 | % | Bb7 | Bb7+

becomes

| Em7b5 | A7alt | Cm7 | F7 | Fm7 | Bb7

Right?

So II-V's are decoration, they got fashionable in the 50s, suddenly everywhere. Sometime later, jazz educators decided they were the basic progression in jazz, because basically they hadn't checked out anything earlier than 1950.

That's exactly what I was speculating when I said may be when bebop gang growing up, V's weren't turned into ii V's yet. May be you missed that.
I don't think at any point I was confused about what I was asking.
I didn't get far enough to where Barry Harris covers playing ii over V7 like Wes did. Does he really cover that? Is it in the second book?

[ragman1]

( remember i said it "can" not that it "does")

If you can then it does.

Maybe if Dm7/G7 was one bar and you were very quick :-)

[rpjazzguitar]

OK here's the thing about II-V's. I think you are a bit confused on this stuff Tal... Some interesting perceptive stuff coming up but not quite in focus.

• Spend some time listening to pre-bop jazz. Check out how many ii-V's they play. Not very many.
• Spend some time listening to Parker's rhythm sections in the '40s - a few more.
• Now listen to later bop Clifford Brown, early Trane (of course!) etc etc - a LOT more.
• Now listen to fusion/post-modal jazz.... they got bored of them!

It's a fashion thing.... If you look at the changes for Stella - original v. real book, it's a classic example, just the first few bars:

| Eo7 | % | F7 | % | Bb7 | Bb7+

becomes

| Em7b5 | A7alt | Cm7 | F7 | Fm7 | Bb7

Right?

So II-V's are decoration, they got fashionable in the 50s, suddenly everywhere. Sometime later, jazz educators decided they were the basic progression in jazz, because basically they hadn't checked out anything earlier than 1950.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's interesting how much musicians trained in this way struggle when presented with the very plain charts you get in Dixieland, Gypsy Jazz, Trad and so on, or the different embellishments you get in Swing and Big Band charts. Or Jobim harmony for that matter.

Anyway, none of that matters hugely if you don't play that music, but I actually found playing a load of pre-war jazz and then getting into Barry Harris who is coming almost from a pre-bop mindset sometimes really helped me understand how bop built on those resources. Very often the earlier simpler changes make a great framework into which we can slot these stylistic embellishments.

In terms of soloing, you can check out Stephan Grappelli or whatever working Gm lines on a C7 chord - the minor on dominant thing seems to have always been widely used in jazz....

Lester loved to float, look at him stretching that Am9 sound out over the D7 in bar 14 - no sign of an F# on any of those D7 chords lol.



so yeah, it's not especially modern to play ii on V7... But they ARE colours Wes was fond of, sure, and Wes influenced so many modern jazz guitarists. But in my case it was actually Prez, Django and Charlie Christian - I was swotting up on my pre-war style - that hipped me to playing those sounds first.

Anyway, we have these options within Barry's system. Maybe you've not got that far with it yet. It's all in the dominant scale.

And there you have it, right in bar 2. Against C7 to C#o he hits a Bnat and an F on the strong beats.
The arp looks like G7 in the latter part of the bar. Then, in bar 10, he covers the same spot with an Em7 arp.

[joe2758]

I didn't get far enough to where Barry Harris covers playing ii over V7 like Wes did. Does he really cover that? Is it in the second book?

not sure about “like wes did,” but in the ABC section of the first book he says we need to shed the 3 important triads in the dominant scale. one of which is the ii. he calls it the “important minor.” so he must think it’s important! but notice it’s PART OF the dom scale (the way he teaches)

[Tal_175]

not sure about “like wes did,” but in the ABC section of the first book we says we need to shed the 3 important triads in the dominant scale. one of which is the ii. he calls it the “important minor.” so he must think it’s important! but notice it’s PART OF the dom scale (the way he teaches)

I thought he was referring to "ii scale" ie Dorian (though BH would not call it that I believe) because there was a reference to Wes. That's what I meant by playing ii over V in that context. I don't know why from the lines I transcribed may be but I associate Wes with minor 11 over Dominant. But sure I remember BH talking about important minor in the context of tritone as well. Like playing tritones minor over a domiant.

[christianm77]

And there you have it, right in bar 2. Against C7 to C#o he hits a Bnat and an F on the strong beats.
The arp looks like G7 in the latter part of the bar. Then, in bar 10, he covers the same spot with an Em7 arp.

Ethan Iverson points out soloing musicians of this era most often ignored chord IV. I think the chord chart is wrong here. Basie often played C6

[rpjazzguitar]

Ethan Iverson points out soloing musicians of this era most often ignored chord IV. I think the chord chart is wrong here. Basie often played C6

The recording is on youtube, listed as a 1936 date.

It's a little murky, but the chart may be right. Perhaps more to the point, I think the line would sound good against C7 to C#o in bar 2.

It seems to me that it's another of those lines that works for reasons that aren't captured by the notion of a scale against a chord. It works because it's a good melody, it leaves space, you can hear the original melody of the tune in your mind and it works with that, it floats nicely over the rhythm, there's a chromatic line in the bass, it has good time feel, it stands out sonically from the rhythm section and so forth.

When I read about the "necessity" to outline the 4-3 in a ii V, I think of improv like this.

[Tal_175]

When I read about the "necessity" to outline the 4-3 in a ii V, I think of improv like this.

I don't think it's a "necessity" to outline every change in every tune one plays, 4-3 or not. Except maybe when learning tunes.

[dickbanks]

It's really simple.

If you play C major (Ionian) scale (C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C), and then play it starting on a different note , that is a relative mode.

For example, start the C major scale at D (D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D). this is called D Dorian. Same "do-re-mi" scale as C, sounds like C Major, just with different starting and ending notes. No real change here, you are still just playing C Major.

Now suppose instead, you play THE SAME fingering as you did to play the C major (Ionian) scale, only NOW you move down (up the neck, lower pitch) two frets. This is now the C Dorian scale. It sounds DIFFERENT than C major (Ionian), darker, sadder, like a minor scale. The C Dorian mode is the C Major scale with a minor third and a minor 7th, C-D-Eb-F-G-A-Bb-C. This C Dorian mode is a PARALLEL MODE of C Ionian. You are still in the key of C.

A good "clue chord" sequence for this C Dorian scale is Cm9 - F9 at the 8th fret. Play the C Dorian scale against these two chords (there are others), and you will hear it "lock in." It sounds like a minor scale, because it is a MINOR MODE (there are 2 more).

[rpjazzguitar]

I don't think it's a "necessity" to outline every change in every tune one plays, 4-3 or not. Except maybe when learning tunes.

Exactly. On-line I often read suggestions about hitting those modes/notes in accordance with the chord changes, but that's not what the great improvisers really do. They may have gone through a stage of it while learning.

Jimmy Bruno (apologies to Jimmy if I have misunderstood his teaching) did a video on this at the old JBGI pointing out that applying that sort of logic to ii V was not appropriate.

I mentioned before the experience of transcribing a section of a solo that really caught my ear and then finding that the notes are from the same scales I use all the time, without sounding as good. The Lester Young solo proves the same point. There is usually a post-hoc theoretical explanation, but I don't think those explanations really capture what makes a great solo. One of my teachers would respond to some students by yelling, "no licks! no licks! make melody!".

[Tal_175]

Jimmy Bruno (apologies to Jimmy if I have misunderstood his teaching) did a video on this at the old JBGI pointing out that applying that sort of logic to ii V was no appropriate.

That's actually the essence of my question. It seems like ii V is a bit singled out as a change that one should go easy on. Outlining both chords perhaps seen as distasteful. One should base their lines on ii or V but not play the change. Bebop generation used Dominant scale over the two, Wes, Martino etc. used Dorian. I'm speaking in very broad terms of course.
I was speculating that, this might be because bebop generation came before V's turned into ii V's, at least in their formative years.
Christian also brought some good insights into the changing fashions in Jazz history.
Also may be the high frequency of ii V's in standards make it very restricting and repetitive to outline many of the instances but a few.

[rpjazzguitar]

Underlying all the material on what scale/mode is the sound you want to get.

If you play the iim against the V7, basically you get a suspended 4th sound. You avoid the very consonant sound of the 3 of the V7 chord (like the B against a G7, which can sound a little old fashioned).

If you stay on the V7 instead of playing the iim, you hear the 4-3 motion in the comping instrument and you're floating above it.

This also depends on what octave you're in. It's one thing to play the B against Dm7 in the same octave (as a 6th) vs playing it an octave higher as a 13th.

So, you could think about this decision as whether to play D dorian or Gmixo.

You could also just think about the chord you want to play on. Stay on Dm7 or stay on G7. You end up in the same place. Joe Pass did not base his playing on modes. He thought about chords and he knew the extensions by ear and by location from the chord grips he used (iirc from an interview).

Or, you could think like Warren Nunes taught. Dm7, Fmaj7, G7 and Am7 are interchangeable. As are Cmaj7 Em7 and Am7. (Am7 works for both). So you can play those arps against subdominant and/or dominant and learn the sounds. Warren hated talking about modes and didn't think that way, although he could play them out of his own version of the theory.

The underlying issue is whether your musical imagination now includes those sounds.

But, once you've learned those sounds, I think you just want to think about melody. I think that's what Lester Young does in the clip - and he arrives at a place which is very difficult to analyze using the usual tools.

[wolflen]

ahhhh...so that is how a mode works (after 20+ years of playing)

[p1p]

Other instrumentalists think more in terms of absolute pitch. The piano may as well be a treble clef. My own irritation with how easy understanding music on the piano is - compared to guitar, even after decades - is what led me to really commit to learning Reg's fretboard organization.

It feels a lot more like sax or piano and references absolute pitch much more strongly.

Do you mind referencing this? I wouldn't mind taking a look. Thanks!

[p1p]

Hi all.

I have recently started to study the Jazz Guitar book by Jody Fisher. So far it's quite good.
Does anyone have any experience with this book?

Anyway, I am towards the end of the introduction book, and I am struggling to wrap my head around modes.
The modes are just the major scale with certain start and end points?

Help! :P (thanks)

I just pulled this book out, swept off the dust.. Page 78 explains it pretty clearly. Spend some time with it if you don't understand at first, on the guitar. Basically it's the derivative approach, where a different 'major scale' here, may be derived from the same chord. Look at the chart.

For example, Gmaj7 .. is the I chord in the key of G, also the IV chord in the key of D. You'll get an Ionian sound over the G if you play the scale DERIVED from the key of G. You'll get a Lydian sound if you play the scale derived from the key of D. Same chord, different key, so you get a unique sound to the same chord.

Same applies for minor. Every min7 chord has three scale choices/derivations. For example, Fmin7 is the ii in Eb, the iii in Db, the vi in Ab, giving you Dorian, Phrygian, Aeolian sounds respectively over the same Fmin7 chord. Probably best to play around with it on the guitar, and don't worry too much about the Geek names (*Greek), just see how the the different derived sounds are over the same chord.

Every dominant 7 has one major scale choice, every min7b5 has one major scale choice.

Again, this is just the modes of the Major Scale so far in the book. He's basically saying here's 2 ways to play over the same major chord, three to play over the same minor, one to play over the dominant and one the m7b5 USING THE MAJOR SCALE HE HAS TAUGHT UP TO THAT POINT. Page 81 he explains modal music of the 60s and how up until that time most jazz songs were characterized as many chord changes through many keys. Modal tunes are based around very few chord changes, and just a few scales, melody written in a single mode. Someone mentioned 'moods' = 'modes' which isn't a bad way of looking at it.

I'm going to keep looking through this book now, let me know if you have any other questions.

Edit: I've just been through this book. Coming at it from a more experienced perspective now, it's actually pretty good. There's a lot of information, some of it not totally explained, some of it explained very well. The minor scales aren't brought up until near the end of the book, but then he gives the applications for the modes from them. It's a great resource that encompasses a lot of stuff, doesn't dive SUPER deep into one specific area of playing.

The book is also divided up into two sections A/B. A deals with chords and harmony, everything related to that, B deals with improvisation. They come together at the end as Chord/Melody style, which is kind of cool. I'm not sure I realised this when I first picked up the book.. it felt like loads of disconnected info.

I think I mentioned before, but the modes concept will eventually jump out at you once you get more fundamental stuff down pat. I'm really glad I pulled this book out now, as there's a few sections I can incorporate into my practice.

Cheers

[rpjazzguitar]

Here's something I wonder about.

Suppose you're playing a tune that has a G7 and you want a lydian dominant sound, what do you think about?

You can get there by thinking G lydian dominant. Or, by thinking 4th mode D melodic minor. Or, perhaps by thinking key of C and raise the C to a C#. Or, you could think, "I want the C#, so I'll just play a line and change the C's to C#. Maybe you think G7#11 scale. Or, if you've internalized the sounds, you can just play what you hear.

Now, suppose you're playing that tune in a different key and that chord is now a Db7. When you get to the Db7, which way do you think? Do you instantly know that the note you want is G with the other notes coming out of the key of Gb? Or do you think Gb Lydian Dominant and you know some fingerings for that? If you think Db7#11 scale, do you instantly know the notes?

How do you get to the lydian dominant sound?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Here's something I wonder about.

Suppose you're playing a tune that has a G7 and you want a lydian dominant sound, what do you think about?

You can get there by thinking G lydian dominant. Or, by thinking 4th mode D melodic minor. Or, perhaps by thinking key of C and raise the C to a C#. Or, you could think, "I want the C#, so I'll just play a line and change the C's to C#. Maybe you think G7#11 scale. Or, if you've internalized the sounds, you can just play what you hear.

It's all of those to a degree probably. It's definitely G7. I mean if it's not linked to a chord, it's just notes and a scale. C lydian dominant isn't exactly the same as Gmm in the way that you actually play it over C7. The "no avoid notes" idea of altered really confuses this IMO. I probably start with the chord though. The #11 is just an embellishment, a lower chromatic neighbor tone of the 5th, but once you play it, it could be lydian dominant and more.

Once I play lydian dominant, I'm aware of the rest of the MM scale degrees, positions, chords etc as well. I'm aware though, not the same as being limited ....to "having to think about them". It' more about being able to think about them if you wish to, but you have to pracitce connecting different inversions, positions or chord types of melodic minor to do that, just like you do with major.

Now, suppose you're playing that tune in a different key and that chord is now a Db7. When you get to the Db7, which way do you think? Do you instantly know that the note you want is G with the other notes coming out of the key of Gb? Or do you think Gb Lydian Dominant and you know some fingerings for that? If you think Db7#11 scale, do you instantly know the notes?

How do you get to the lydian dominant sound?

I don't really understand quite what's being asked here. Would the question be any different if it were just major? In a basic sense it's the same thing. All of those chords are connected, whether you're talking MM or major. The main difference with MM is that it doesn't function like major or harmonic minor. You don't play a iii vi ii V from melodic minor. You're really based off of individual chord types and modal interchange in a way that's not necessary with major/minor.

So, for all of those who say "Why would you think dorian, mixolydian, ionian?"... Again, maybe you wouldn't, but at a certain level you might want to be able to, if you're going to develop basic things like altered or lydian dominant. So, I think we need to call a ceasefire on the constant red herring, rabbit chase which has bcome this the "dorian mixo ionian argument" against modes... and talk more about how to access basic things like lydian dominant or altered. You don't get at them by playing "in a key of X melodic minor". It doesn't work that way, and at that point the modal conversation becomes much more practical and valid.

I personally think that Reg's approach to learning to play from the "2nd finger reference" and eventually the development of "extended diatonic relationships" has especially beneficial implications for melodic minor, for all of the reasons mentioned in the above 2 paragrahs. The flipside of the blessing/curse of non-funtional aspects of MM is that you can eventually use almost anything from melodic minor over anything else. It's very useful, and there's no reason why every guitarist shouldn't be competent with basics, especially if a hobbyist like me can understand it.

Some mistakes... 8:20 should be lydian dominant...


8:20 should have been "lydian dominant" not lydian augmented.


10:20 may be unclear. I'm talking about practicing the same pattern in each mode ... and only in 6th-string-root-position: G ionian, A Dorian, B phyrgian etc ...and then, juxtaposing them in thirds as kind-of 9th chord or 6th chord "inversions" of each other. It's pretty different from the typical "learn G major in one position, ...ok, now in 5 postions...".


Technically and mentally, licks which are transposed modally up scale degrees while keeping a common string set are learned much more quickly than transposing everything to the same chord in a new position while changing every other aspect. Let me know if that makes sense.