Ways to Play a Scale

[sully75]

That's good. I like to divide it into rhythms and melodic shapes. And within that, the comprehensive list of rhythms and shapes, opposed to the practical list to focus on essential for your playing.

Rhythms

half note, half note triplet, quarter notes, quarter note triplet, 8th note, 8th note triplet, 16th note, 16th note triplet, 32nd notes.

Do you need to run through this list every day? No. If the slower ones are giving you trouble, then work them up, if not you can skip them and focus on others. 8th notes can give people trouble depending on their level, but others have them down. Like I said, I can play 8th notes fine in regular playing, so I focus on 8th note triplets and 16th notes, since I view those as essential for my playing but I don't have them great so far. And I have 16th note triplets and 32nd notes on the back burner and do some work.

Shapes

I view melodic shape as the subheadings of: scales, arps, intervals, and chromatics. Same as rhythms, you have the comprehensive list and then the practical list. You want your basic scales and arps down, then you can work on expanding from that. Some intervals are nice to have down, though you don't need to be able to rip through 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 6ths, 7ths, octaves, and 9ths (although that would sound cool).

Pivots and shells would file under arps.

Chromatics I group as ornamentation devices for one note: neighbor tone, approach, enclosure, run through etc.

Neighbor tone - half or whole step away from main note, usually half step.
Approach - 2+ chromatics into main note.
Enclosure - different types. Main type is scale tone above, half step below, main note.
Run through - main note, scale tone above, half step below, main note.

Again, disclaimer: that first outline was the Barry Harris single note outline as taught by Chris Parks. Some people like to stick strictly to the BH system for accuracy, and some people adapt it to their goals, either is fine. If you're looking to adapt your own routine, you don't have to list it like Barry, I think the organization I laid out works best.

Yeah I need to review the BH stuff but this was a good post, thanks!

[pamosmusic]

Straight ahead jazz is mostly that and tertial stuff - chords, triads, thirds etc. So if you want to play that music, that will affect your practice goals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s a question ….

Do other instruments limit their technical and instrument specific work as rigidly as we talk about here, based on the practical vocabulary of what they play?

Im thinking trumpet players and Arban or Clarke, saxophonists and Klose, pianists and Hanon and the etude repertoire.

Obviously time is what it is and you want to focus on what you’ll use, which is why I usually start people on thirds, sixths, triads, and seventh chords. Also intonation and stuff being an issue on other instruments means that there’s some other utility in the scales.

But I do find it a little odd how often we sort of need something to show up literally in the vocabulary to justify practicing it.

[sully75]

Yeah I don’t think generalizations are terribly useful here. Horn players in general almost certainly spent considerable time on scales … Bird loved Bach and played clarinet etudes from what I remember. Miles is the poster child for “Play what you feel, man” and at some point he had a Juilliard audition sufficiently together to be accepted there. Clifford Brown practiced Clark and Arban religiously.

Guitar players are probably a bit of an outlier in that respect and it’s not universal among guitarists. Seems likely that Wes spent some amount of time with scales. Jim Hall was a classical guy at one point, so ditto him. Charlie Christian on the other hand seems to pull a lot of stuff right out of chord shapes and probably didn’t have much use for scales … that so many guitarists idolized him probably could account for the perception that so many guitarist didn’t care for scales. How accurate that perception is is less clear

I remember reading/hearing that Wes was some level of musically illiterate but when I've seen the live videos in Europe, he seems to be pretty articulate about what to play. Am I totally incorrect? Could he read music?

[Christian Miller]

Every phrase comes from a scale whether the player knows it or not, unless someone is clueless or goes to great lengths to intentionally avoid it. And in the latter case, the majority of people would not consider it musical.

Phrases often come from scales even when the musician is clueless about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sully75]

Here’s a question ….

Do other instruments limit their technical and instrument specific work as rigidly as we talk about here, based on the practical vocabulary of what they play?

Im thinking trumpet players and Arban or Clarke, saxophonists and Klose, pianists and Hanon and the etude repertoire.

Obviously time is what it is and you want to focus on what you’ll use, which is why I usually start people on thirds, sixths, triads, and seventh chords. Also intonation and stuff being an issue on other instruments means that there’s some other utility in the scales.

But I do find it a little odd how often we sort of need something to show up literally in the vocabulary to justify practicing it.

I know, it's pretty LOL. I want to work on scales so I can play the guitar more gooder. in gooder ways.

[AllanAllen]

I remember reading/hearing that Wes was some level of musically illiterate but when I've seen the live videos in Europe, he seems to be pretty articulate about what to play. Am I totally incorrect? Could he read music?

He never explicitly said what theory or level of reading he could do. He did say, as a joke, he didn't practice he just threw some raw meat into the guitar case, and all the half wits took that as fact.

[joe2758]

No 'great lengths' are needed just a bit of imagination. I consider myself to be in the minority of people who find some such music... musical.

aha! I thought of a counter. Can there be an atonal phrase without relying on the rhythm?

[pamosmusic]

I remember reading/hearing that Wes was some level of musically illiterate but when I've seen the live videos in Europe, he seems to be pretty articulate about what to play. Am I totally incorrect? Could he read music?

I don’t know. Is that relevant?

You don’t really have to read music to know theory or play scales. You also don’t really need theory to play scales.

Though Wes almost certainly knew a good deal about music, even if it wasn’t upper structures and chord scales and stuff the way we conceive of it these days.

[James W]

aha! I thought of a counter. Can there be an atonal phrase without relying on the rhythm?

All music has rhythm. Can there be a musical phrase which isn't rhythmic? (i.e exists in time?)

[joe2758]

I think you can make a musical phrase out of tonal notes using just quarter notes as where it wouldn't be possible to delineate atonal phrases

[James W]

I think you can make a musical phrase out of tonal notes using just quarter notes as where it wouldn't be possible to delineate atonal phrases

Sounds like you need to check out some twelve tone rows. Not all of which are strictly atonal but most of the Second Viennese school are.

[joe2758]

I've composed with 12 tone rows, and by design, you can't make phrases without changes in rhythm. That's also what I meant by "great lengths." Webern et.al created clear phrases because of when they either weren't atonal or clever use of rhythm

[AllanAllen]

You high falutin types suck all the fun out of this.

[joe2758]

You high falutin types suck all the fun out of this.

oh sorry i guess ill just go f*c myself. As you were saying about the exciting scale exercises

[James W]

I've composed with 12 tone rows, and by design, you can't make phrases without changes in rhythm. That's also what I meant by "great lengths." Webern et.al created clear phrases because of when they either weren't atonal or clever use of rhythm

You definitely can make phrases without changes in rhythm. Where have you got that idea from? There are lots of ostinato in Schoenberg for example and much of the music of Hauer is quite rhythmically staid. I'm struggling to make sense of your third sentence.

[pamosmusic]

oh sorry i guess I’ll just go f*c myself. As you were saying about the exciting scale exercises

Get outta here, nerd

[AllanAllen]

oh sorry i guess ill just go f*c myself. As you were saying about the exciting scale exercises

Yeah, how dare you make me feel insecure having a conversation I don't understand.

[BreckerFan]

Every phrase comes from a scale whether the player knows it or not, unless someone is clueless or goes to great lengths to intentionally avoid it. And in the latter case, the majority of people would not consider it musical.

Do phrases really "come from" scales? Or is it that they can be analyzed as belonging to a scale? If I outline a 2-5-1 with 7th arpeggios, I don't think it's right to say the line comes from the major scale. It comes from the seventh arpeggios, with are diatonic to the major scale.

While I'm by no means anti CST, I'm a little skeptical of it as an approach without a lot of other stuff taken in conjunction. Knowing which scale to play over Dmaj7 doesn't necessarily give you the ability to play anything interesting over Dmaj7. In addition to knowing which notes you can play, you need to know which notes you should play, and how to play them.

[BreckerFan]

This would have been an interesting discussion if I asked "should I practice scales".

My question was, I'm working on a scale regimen for myself and trying to put together a little cheat sheet of ways to practice them, any thoughts on that?

I don't get everyone chiming in on their thoughts, a lot of which are pretty bizarre, about whether or not scales are valuable to practice. I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly don't give a shit what you think my goals should be or if you think I'm wasting my time or whatever. It's not relevant, it's not my question.

I have heard it confirmed many times by many people who are very close to the gypsy community in Europe that a large percentage of really excellent gypsy players are bordering on total musical illiteracy in the western sense. As in not knowing the names of the notes on the strings. It doesn't stop them from playing beautiful and sophisticated music.

I also know that many players, particularly modern players who I admire, have scale practice routines. Adam Rogers in particular got me thinking about it. It's something I'm going to work on. I got some valuable advice here but wading through a ton of responses of people saying how they think scales are a waste of time, I suggest you don't play scales. It is a free country.

The jazz guitar forum is a place where when you ask a question you never know what you'll get, but you do know for sure that it will not be an answer.

[sully75]

I don’t know. Is that relevant?

You don’t really have to read music to know theory or play scales. You also don’t really need theory to play scales.

Though Wes almost certainly knew a good deal about music, even if it wasn’t upper structures and chord scales and stuff the way we conceive of it these days.

I mean, about 5% of this thread is relevant to my actual question, 70% is distinctly in unhelpful, so I think if anyone can ask a tangential question, might as well be me, no?

[Strat-itis]

Do phrases really "come from" scales? Or is it that they can be analyzed as belonging to a scale? If I outline a 2-5-1 with 7th arpeggios, I don't think it's right to say the line comes from the major scale. It comes from the seventh arpeggios, with are diatonic to the major scale.

While I'm by no means anti CST, I'm a little skeptical of it as an approach without a lot of other stuff taken in conjunction. Knowing which scale to play over Dmaj7 doesn't necessarily give you the ability to play anything interesting over Dmaj7. In addition to knowing which notes you can play, you need to know which notes you should play, and how to play them.

No, not all phrases come directly from scales only. Some use other devices, and some are heard up. Following the pure system of 'CST' - stick one official scale on each chord - is obviously a foolish approach. But everyone knows that, so I don't get why CST is even brought up in the first place if not to use as a red herring.

BH derives all his devices from first a scale to keep things organized even though they become separate shapes, and the result is musical and authentic. But BH built his system post hoc, the musicians in the era used a variety of devices that were available at the time.

[BreckerFan]

No, not all phrases come directly from scales only. Some use other devices, and some are heard up. Following the pure system of 'CST' - stick one official scale on each chord - is obviously a foolish approach. But everyone knows that, so I don't get why CST is even brought up in the first place if not to use as a red herring.

BH derives all his devices from first a scale to keep things organized even though they become separate shapes, and the result is musical and authentic. But BH built his system post hoc, the musicians in the era used a variety of devices that were available at the time.

I don't think it's at all the case the everyone knows that. I have a student right now who has had previous jazz guitar instruction, and came in with a binder full of notes on scale and arpeggio shapes, chord progressions, etc. He wants to play recorda me and Spain, but when he talks about how to solo over them it's all about which mode goes over which scale. I started working with him on outlining the 2-5s in recorda me with 7th arpeggios and it's a totally new approach for him.

A lot of jazz education doesn't progress beyond "play this scale over this chord." There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but by itself that will not produce meaningful jazz vocabulary. It's like asking how to spell a word and just being given the alphabet. The important stuff to know about jazz vocabulary is more than just the scale, it's how the scale is used.

[Mick-7]

Following the pure system of 'CST' - stick one official scale on each chord - is obviously a foolish approach.

Nobody really does that.... a scale or scales for a tonal center, sure, but not for each chord. But even then you'll end up focusing on chord tones and phrase development rather than a particular scale.

[Strat-itis]

I don't think it's at all the case the everyone knows that.

I agree. I guess I meant to say that everyone on this forum probably knows that.

I have a student right now who has had previous jazz guitar instruction, and came in with a binder full of notes on scale and arpeggio shapes, chord progressions, etc. He wants to play recorda me and Spain, but when he talks about how to solo over them it's all about which mode goes over which scale. I started working with him on outlining the 2-5s in recorda me with 7th arpeggios and it's a totally new approach for him.

That was my experience in community college lol.

A lot of jazz education doesn't progress beyond "play this scale over this chord." There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but by itself that will not produce meaningful jazz vocabulary. It's like asking how to spell in a word and just being given the alphabet. The important stuff to know about jazz vocabulary is more than just the scale, it's how the scale is used.

It's a bad approach. The path to playing musically is using a framework that is also musical.

[sully75]

I dunno, I think really high level players are skinning the cat multiple different ways, simultaneously and/or in sequence.