The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Posts 151 to 175 of 177
  1. #151

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    I play the F# on a C7. It's easy to get exercised about playing lots of information. But thing is the only thing that makes an MM chord an MM chord is the MM note. Until then it's all diatonic.

    So that's the #11 on a C7, the b5 on C7alt (VERY KEY SOUND - C7b9b13 is not a mm sound for instance), the natural 2 on a Cm7b5 and so on.

    If you want to get a bit more specific, the V triad of the related MM is always a good way to get that sound in a straightforward way.

    So
    Am(maj7) --> Amm --> E triad
    A7#11 --> Emm --> B triad
    A7alt --> Bbmm --> F triad
    Am7b5 --> Cmm --> G triad

    But generally when soloing I'm not micro-managing harmonic choices. I don't really care. If I end a minor phrase on 7 or play the V+ triad or something, and that minor phrase happens in the context of a dominant or m7b5 chord relationship, it's MM, cool... That's not how I think of it exactly.... It's hard to explain, but I'm running lines most of the time...

    I'm playing lines in 'related minor' or 'dominant' on ii-V's and m7b5's things and if I want to make things a bit more interesting, I generally use some sort of tritone sub, or major/minor interchange (backdoor) thing...

    If I want to be a bit 'chord scaley' I'll use the triads. Generally I feel this is a bit contrived when I do it tho lol.
    Last edited by christianm77; 02-02-2019 at 07:37 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #152

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Thanks for doing this video. I'm sure the OP and others, including myself, will take something away from it - helps to actually see and hear something explained when it comes to this stuff.

    Regarding the fingering (only because that's something I've been playing with recently), how strict are you with it while you play? and not practicing technique. Is there a guide or video of Reg's fretboard organization? I've heard it mentioned a few times on this forum over the years.

    I probably spend too much time playing every combination of fingering for everything I learn. For example, 2 notes per string, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 6... It seems to help me with accuracy and getting up and down the fretboard, but is slow going as you could imagine. There's no rigid organization about it at all. I also don't think in terms of visual patterns really, but rather the individual notes, which helps I think.

  4. #153

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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.


    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.
    But never mind any of that. The really important thing is that you also have a VW camper van T shirt.

  5. #154

    User Info Menu

    On a serious note you should do a series of videos explaining Reg's ideas.

    Mick Goodrick in his book 'the Advancing Guitarist' says -

    "When it comes to chord-scale relationships, a lot of different people will tell you a lot of different things. Most of the time, there's some truth to what anyone might tell you. However, you need to watch out for any tendency to think that "there must be one way that's the best." There isn't. Any sytem of chord-scale relationships is bound to have certain advantages as well as certain disadvantages. Consequently, I'd advise anyone to find out as much as possible about many different approaches. Initially, the two most important approaches are derivative and parallel (as we've indicated before). Derivative has the advantage of relying on relatively few "master scales," which would include the major scale, the real melodic minor scale, the harmonic minor scale, the symetrical diminished scale, the whole tone scale, the pentatonic scale, etc. The complexity of this approach involves the fact that you need to learn many different relationships of how the "master scale" relates to the chord type. Examples: chord symbol is F Lydian. Think major scale built on the fifth degree (C major scale)."

    When it comes to chord-scale relationships, a lot of different people will tell you a lot of different things. Most of the time, there's some truth to what anyone might tell you. However, you need to watch out for any tendency to think that "there must be one way that's the best." There isn't. Any sytem of chord-scale relationships is bound to have certain advantages as well as certain disadvantages. Consequently, I'd advise anyone to find out as much as possible about many different approaches. Initially, the two most important approaches are derivative and parallel (as we've indicated before). Derivative has the advantage of relying on relatively few "master scales," which would include the major scale, the real melodic minor scale, the harmonic minor scale, the symetrical diminished scale, the whole tone scale, the pentatonic scale, etc. The complexity of this approach involves the fact that you need to learn many different relationships of how the "master scale" relates to the chord type. Examples: chord symbol is F Lydian. Think major scale built on the fifth degree (C major scale).

    The Parallel approach starts out with all the complexity because in the beginning you have to learn seven different modes from the major scale, seven modes from the melodic minor, seven modes from the harmonic minor, etc. As difficult as this may seem, it does have the distinct advantage of a consistent understanding of note relationships from the roots of the chords. Consequently, this approach (parallel) is usually understood to be especially important and useful for musicians who play chords. This way, we know not only the notes that are available, but also their relationship to the chord type in terms of chord-tones tones and tensions."

    Mick Goodrick. The Advancing Guitarist (Kindle Locations 507-510). Kindle Edition.

    He goes on to discuss in depth.

  6. #155

    User Info Menu

    BTW - anyone thinking that while I would think derivatively in Goodricks terminology doesn't mean that I play that way.

    For instance, my go to choices on any dominant chords include the m7b5 on the third, minor on a fifth, or the major (#11) down a tone.

    Like wise, V dominant on II minor is a very hip sound. IV major on II minor is an obvious choice and so on.

    All the chord qualities are interchangeable. The mm modes are just a half step away.

  7. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by p1p
    Thanks for doing this video. I'm sure the OP and others, including myself, will take something away from it - helps to actually see and hear something explained when it comes to this stuff.

    Regarding the fingering (only because that's something I've been playing with recently), how strict are you with it while you play? and not practicing technique. Is there a guide or video of Reg's fretboard organization? I've heard it mentioned a few times on this forum over the years.

    I probably spend too much time playing every combination of fingering for everything I learn. For example, 2 notes per string, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 6... It seems to help me with accuracy and getting up and down the fretboard, but is slow going as you could imagine. There's no rigid organization about it at all. I also don't think in terms of visual patterns really, but rather the individual notes, which helps I think.
    Here's some:

    Do you use arpeggio shapes, major scale shapes, or something else?

    I'll try to link the rest later...
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 02-03-2019 at 11:18 AM.

  8. #157

    User Info Menu

    When I see a 7#11 I have a few possibilities. The simplest is C mixo with an F# in it. Also a D7 arp will do it.

    The favorites, of course, are G mel minor and C alt (C# mel minor).

    After that an A mel minor will do it, followed by the C wholetone and the Bbo arp or Bb WH diminished scale. All those include a #5 (G#) which increases the colour.

    At least that's way I do it. Seems to work. But generally G mel is the first option.

  9. #158

    User Info Menu

    To the extent that I think about lyd dominant, it's this. I know the sound and I think of it as "7th chord with a #11". So, for example, if I'm playing a baiao (a Brazilian style with a lot of lydian dominant at times, in the context of relatively simple harmonic movement by jazz standards) I'll reach for the #11. I know the name of that note in all 12 keys. Also, where are of them are on the fingerboard, and where all of them are with respect to common 7th chord grips. But mostly, it's by sound. My fingers seem to know where to go to get that sound. The rest is all by ear.

    If, on the other hand, I'm playing a jazz tune with sophisticated harmony and I see a couple of beats of 7#11, it's more complicated. I know the chord tones and I will consider the flow of the harmony. I'm well aware that I could think of a MM but it doesn't help me much as I'm playing. The issue is how am I going to make a decent melody that doesn't sound like clam chowder over that chord? For me, it's singing to myself and, if I'm uncertain of which note I'm singing, I'm aware of chord tones and key to avoid clams.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 02-03-2019 at 06:22 PM.

  10. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by p1p
    Regarding the fingering (only because that's something I've been playing with recently), how strict are you with it while you play? and not practicing technique. Is there a guide or video of Reg's fretboard organization?
    Yeah.
    I've attached a couple of pdf's which are more complete. Check out these threads and reg's youtube channel as well. I mostly use reg's fingerings for everything right now, but I'm still learning. He's not dogmatic about that stuff. They're a "starting reference". Once you know one way, you can play things however, but most of us don't learn one way well.

    A lot of people push back on the idea of some of these stretches, as if they aren't practical or something. I certainly did and wasted several years not getting started on this stuff as a result. After some work, I've found that basically my brain much prefers things which make more logical layout sense to ease-of-play and comfort only. You compromise some things, the more shifts you include in your default beginning scale fingerings. Neither way is necessarily right or wrong. You give up things on either side. That has nothing to do with slurs in playing btw. Separate issue...

    Make sure you pay attention to his technique comments here:

    Incidentally I have pretty small hands. You just have to be safe and do things the right way.

    This thread has become a repository for all things reg:
    Reg's Thread... live at the speed of Jazz

    This one is pretty important as well:
    Techniques for Picking and Fingerings... basics and on to the speed of Jazz

    I've also attached some random personal notes on Reg stuff...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #160

    User Info Menu

    Thank you, very much appreciated!

  12. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    On a serious note you should do a series of videos explaining Reg's ideas.

    Mick Goodrick in his book 'the Advancing Guitarist' says -

    "When it comes to chord-scale relationships, a lot of different people will tell you a lot of different things. Most of the time, there's some truth to what anyone might tell you. However, you need to watch out for any tendency to think that "there must be one way that's the best." There isn't. Any sytem of chord-scale relationships is bound to have certain advantages as well as certain disadvantages. Consequently, I'd advise anyone to find out as much as possible about many different approaches. Initially, the two most important approaches are derivative and parallel (as we've indicated before). Derivative has the advantage of relying on relatively few "master scales," which would include the major scale, the real melodic minor scale, the harmonic minor scale, the symetrical diminished scale, the whole tone scale, the pentatonic scale, etc. The complexity of this approach involves the fact that you need to learn many different relationships of how the "master scale" relates to the chord type. Examples: chord symbol is F Lydian. Think major scale built on the fifth degree (C major scale)."

    When it comes to chord-scale relationships, a lot of different people will tell you a lot of different things. Most of the time, there's some truth to what anyone might tell you. However, you need to watch out for any tendency to think that "there must be one way that's the best." There isn't. Any sytem of chord-scale relationships is bound to have certain advantages as well as certain disadvantages. Consequently, I'd advise anyone to find out as much as possible about many different approaches. Initially, the two most important approaches are derivative and parallel (as we've indicated before). Derivative has the advantage of relying on relatively few "master scales," which would include the major scale, the real melodic minor scale, the harmonic minor scale, the symetrical diminished scale, the whole tone scale, the pentatonic scale, etc. The complexity of this approach involves the fact that you need to learn many different relationships of how the "master scale" relates to the chord type. Examples: chord symbol is F Lydian. Think major scale built on the fifth degree (C major scale).

    The Parallel approach starts out with all the complexity because in the beginning you have to learn seven different modes from the major scale, seven modes from the melodic minor, seven modes from the harmonic minor, etc. As difficult as this may seem, it does have the distinct advantage of a consistent understanding of note relationships from the roots of the chords. Consequently, this approach (parallel) is usually understood to be especially important and useful for musicians who play chords. This way, we know not only the notes that are available, but also their relationship to the chord type in terms of chord-tones tones and tensions."

    Mick Goodrick. The Advancing Guitarist (Kindle Locations 507-510). Kindle Edition.

    He goes on to discuss in depth.
    Yeah, re. vs derivative and parallel, there's a lot of personal experience and preference involved etc, but also think there's a lot of "practice-room-early-days-as-a-beginner thinking" vs "bandstand thinking". They're very different, as they should be IMO, but too often the discussions devolve into "I could never think that way", when really the discussion is about 2 separate things.

    I personally think that easiest bridge between derivative and parallel understanding is to maybe focus on chord-of-the-moment with corresponding mode for each scale degree ... and harmonizing the scale from which you're deriving things. Probably personal prejudice, but when I hear people talking about difficulty with melodic minor/altered, it's usually because they're trying to grok it parallel from mixolydian and line up with standard major/minor fingerings or something. Altered is particularly difficult parallel on guitar, because there are just too many degrees of separation between Major functional and the practical fingerings for MM. At least start with lydian dom.

    Having struggled through the wrong way for too long before finding something which worked better for me, I would advise something different for my past self if I could go back: 1) Just learn to play off of each scale degree chord from 6th string roots until you know them for 7 chord types. 2) Apply the up-and-down-a-third patterns/subs for chords (especially helpful to shore up more obscure postions). 3) Grok altered...

    I guess I view that as kind of a progression from more derivative to becoming more parallel thinking. Seems like most start with grokking altered. I certainly did. It's why we give up on MM multiple times, sometimes forever. :-)

  13. #162

    User Info Menu

    Small point on stretches ...

    I learned Chuck Wayne's fingerings which involve stretches with the 4th finger.

    I also learned the fingerings that involve stretching towards the nut with the 1st finger.

    What I finally realized years later was that I could facilitate stretching by moving my entire hand up or down the neck a little bit. For some reason, I'd developed the habit of staying in a fixed position with my hand and using only my fingers to stretch.

    In fact, movements from one position (fret) to another can be surprisingly fast and shouldn't be overlooked. Even a small movement can make a stretch easier.

    Bear in mind, for example, that Segovia's scales involve major shifts. Wes played his single note lines with three fingers. He switched positions a lot. Django -- two fingers and lots of shifting.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 02-03-2019 at 08:31 PM.

  14. #163

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Yeah, re. vs derivative and parallel, there's a lot of personal experience and preference involved etc, but also think there's a lot of "practice-room-early-days-as-a-beginner thinking" vs "bandstand thinking". They're very different, as they should be IMO, but too often the discussions devolve into "I could never think that way", when really the discussion is about 2 separate things.

    I personally think that easiest bridge between derivative and parallel understanding is to maybe focus on chord-of-the-moment with corresponding mode for each scale degree ... and harmonizing the scale from which you're deriving things. Probably personal prejudice, but when I hear people talking about difficulty with melodic minor/altered, it's usually because they're trying to grok it parallel from mixolydian and line up with standard major/minor fingerings or something. Altered is particularly difficult parallel on guitar, because there are just too many degrees of separation between Major functional and the practical fingerings for MM. At least start with lydian dom.

    Having struggled through the wrong way for too long before finding something which worked better for me, I would advise something different for my past self if I could go back: 1) Just learn to play off of each scale degree chord from 6th string roots until you know them for 7 chord types. 2) Apply the up-and-down-a-third patterns/subs for chords (especially helpful to shore up more obscure postions). 3) Grok altered...

    I guess I view that as kind of a progression from more derivative to becoming more parallel thinking. Seems like most start with grokking altered. I certainly did. It's why we give up on MM multiple times, sometimes forever. :-)
    I might get around to some of this once I've cracked the problem of playing quarter notes in time.

  15. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I might get around to some of this once I've cracked the problem of playing quarter notes in time.
    Optional... It's just "Jazz time"....

  16. #165

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Optional... It's just "Jazz time"....
    It's really not and you know it lol.

  17. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    It's really not and you know it lol.
    I was joking. Omitted the necessary smiley I guess. :-)

  18. #167

    User Info Menu

    I lol’d though. Although I don’t rofl or lfmao

  19. #168

    User Info Menu

    Three things need to be differentiated in the discussion of chord-scales (chord-scale is a less ambiguous term then modes here).
    1- Chord-scales as applied to diatonic chords. (what I was referring to as dorian-mixolydian-ionian thinking).
    2- Chord-scales for various alterations (lydian over tonic major or altered scale over dominant). These don't come from diatonic chords unlike 1.
    3- Chord-scales applied to different chord tones. (playing a phrygian lick starting from the 3rd of major chord).

    The problem with 1, as I see it, mostly concerns beginners. Afterall this is a "getting started" thread. I'd claim that 1 is a more problematic learning approach than focusing on chord tones. That is, seeing things as chord tones, embellishments and passing tones. The problem with seeing things as scales starting from chord tones in the beginning is:
    a- It encourages playing 8th note lines right off the bat rather than focusing on coming up with good quarter note melodies. That's because if you don't play these scales in 8th notes you're all over the place with respect to chord tones.
    b- It's not as effective and direct method to develop aural ability to hear harmony and voice leading in ones lines and learning tunes.

    With regards to point 2. These are just specific devices. Thinking altered scale over Dominant is a "sound" for example. Yes you can go further and apply other MM modes to corresponding extended functional relationships, but again that's just one device. Personal artistic choice, take it or leave it. It's not the "next level" in jazz, it's just as cliche and vanilla as anything else in the wrong hands. There is nothing wrong with thinking tritone's minor instead of MM up a half or Altered from the root.

    Regarding point 3, that's a question of how one relates to fretboard relationships. I can start my line (in the practice room) on any chord tone and see other chord tones and scale degrees in relation to the starting point. Many ways to get better at that. Parallel thinking is not the only way. It may work for some people better than alternatives. But may be they didn't look at the alternatives the right way. It all should come down to the same thing: aurally connecting with the fretboard.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 02-04-2019 at 01:23 PM.

  20. #169
    If you're playing chord scales and NOT accenting chord tones, then THAT is the problem, not the scale itself. Arp up, scale down.... Things like this are standard practice.

    You could NOT label things like that "chord scales" or "modes" or any OTHER terminology if you like, but that's just terminology. It doesn't change the fact that you have to play over CHORDS, and it also doesn't change the fact that there are standard practice terms for these things which are used by other musicians, whether or not we may agree with them.

    It makes me crazy when people talk about it as a METHOD. Dorian isn't a method. It's a term for for something you play or.... MIGHT play.... over a minor chord , at least the way it's used as a jazz shorthand term for playing changes.

    The way the term is used, "Dorian" means: "The white notes, like in the Key of C major played over a D minor chord - although it may be a different key center and maybe not even a II chord relationship - accenting chord tones or at least targeting them, in a distinct way which evokes the Dm chord in the jazz idiom."

    Well, ok. Terms like "Dorian" are imperfect, but they're way shorter than THAT.

    Jazz players know the difference between this common usage and actual "modal jazz" ... or even modal classical terminology. They completely understand that modes aren't simply playing all the notes up and down, starting and ending on the same one.

    Is anyone saying that it's not valuable to learn to play lines which begin and/or end on root of the chord at some point ....or from OTHER chord tones as well?

    Anyway, I obviously don't ever understand what is being talked about in these threads I guess. I feel like we're talking about a hundred things at once.

    Terminology isn't methodology, and starting points aren't the destination.

  21. #170
    Let's make it simple and easily understood for a moment: say you're teaching a new student about what major keys are. Would it NOT be standard practice to teach them the sound of beginning and ending on the tonic? Would you not establish the basic idea that you have things moving away from the tonic and back ...and that THAT basic idea is kind of fundamental to what makes it sound like that major key?

    Now, individual chords are different from key centers, but the same melodic principles apply: tension and release, home-away-and-back. Basic melodic principles which work for a single chord type work for many others.

    When young students learn a major scale, there is never any understanding , by either teacher or student, that they are learning it specifically BECAUSE it will be used EXACTLY the same way in real music. It's a STARTING POINT, and everyone understands that with a major or minor scale.

    It's basic technique, but it's also ear training. They firmly establish the sound of major and the other two minors firmly in your ears. Modal chord scales do the same thing for different chord types. We argue against these things so adamantly it seems, here on the jazz forum, while a great many respected teachers and players teach their students to play some version of chord scales to beginners, including Barry Harris and some pretty firmly grounded bebop heavies. Forget Berklee for a minute, why do these other teachers who are more traditional also teach basic chord scale runs to beginners?

  22. #171

    User Info Menu

    Matt believe it or not I understand your frustration. I don't think you speak non-sense. I get where you're coming from most of the times. Non-chord scale people sometimes overstate their case. At least I'm guilty of that. But if you really read what I wrote above, I'm not really trash talking CST or anything. I do see that it's one solid approach. I only criticized it as a beginner learning approach. So on that point:
    OK, I like this premise. Suppose you have a student who wants to learn jazz. They are eager to pursue any direction you point to them and you are their only source of musical training. Would you, with clear conscience, start them off by learning 7 modes of major scale and 7 modes of MM? Ok may be you would. I don't know. But I disagree.
    I personally would start them with major scale and diatonic arpeggios of major scale. I'll have them learn some tunes and play chord tone based melodies. Have them follow guide tones or target important melody and chord notes etc.
    I studied with 6 professional jazz musicians, 3 of them taught jazz guitar at universities. First two (of the 6) many moons ago were before I wanted to learn jazz so I wasn't studying jazz with them per se but they were all jazz pros. I did learn modes with one of the first teachers. But not one of them taught improvisation based on modes. Especially the last 4 whom I studied jazz with. They of course all knew about modes and chord scales, but they didn't approach their own playing that way. In their teaching also they were all about tunes and chord tones.
    I also don't agree with the Major scale = tonic major chord, Dorian scale = ii minor chord etc.

  23. #172

    User Info Menu

    When I say I don't agree with the Major scale = tonic major chord, Dorian scale = ii minor chord etc. I mean as a way of teaching and ear-training chord tones.

  24. #173

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by wolflen
    ahhhh...so that is how a mode works (after 20+ years of playing)
    You could EASILY go another 20 years without the use of modes. There is PLENTY in the regular old diatonic and pentatonic scales.

  25. #174

    User Info Menu

    I can no longer follow who is disagreeing with what.

    If this is about how to teach improvisation, I'll just say the way I was taught.

    I learned to read first, so I knew the entire fingerboard.

    Around the same time, I started learning chord melodies. That brought in the concept of passing chords and harmony.

    The first thing I can remember being taught about improv was that Chuck Wayne found the chord for every note of a tune's melody and tried to improvise on each one of those chords. I was taught arps and major scales. As far as I know "improvise on" meant chord tones from the arps I'd learned.

    I learned about tonal centers later, from a different teacher. And, I learned how to identify the tonal centers by looking at a chart.

    So, at that point, I could improvise with arps and tonal centers (which referred to major scales as far as I knew at the time).

    Still later, I learned about altering scales to accommodate chord of the moment (COM). And, from reading on line I found out that it was possible to do that via thinking about modes. But, my teacher referred to those pools of notes by chord name, not mode name.

    I came to understand (on line) that his chord name approach was more ambiguous than a mode-name approach. But, it didn't matter to him. He wanted melody and was perfectly content, apparently, to pick out, for example, which, 6 and 7 by ear, against a minor chord.

    In order to apply this body of information (which I accumulated over decades from multiple teachers in a more haphazard way than, say, a Berklee education) I had to learn the names of the notes in the chords, scales and modes I use. That was a lot of work, and it isn't finished, but I could never do it with fingering patterns. The visual pattern based approach never worked for me.

    This approach doesn't directly address learning the various "sounds" heard in jazz. My experience is that I have to learn those, laboriously, one sound at a time. I have never been able to get anything out of an encyclopedic list of possibilities. For example, I recall a post on another forum which detailed what amounted to scores, or perhaps hundreds, of triad pairs against bass notes; I have never been able to get anything out of that approach.

    I do wonder what I've missed by doing it this way.

  26. #175

    User Info Menu

    You can't learn everything. Just the way it is.