Ways to Play a Scale

[pcjazz]

I'd wager that you'd rather play Humpty Dumpty since you never post. Are we being tested on Barry terms now? I didn't realize that was the premise of the discussion.

No, no test intended. Humpty Dumpty told Alice that words meant whatever he wanted them to mean. I don’t object to anyone using and defining terms as they choose (although doing so can lead to confusion). What I do object to is people saying that Barry meant this or that when he didn’t. There has been a lot of that recently, due mostly to the posthumous monetization of his name and teachings on the internet. Chris Parks is very good and doesn’t mislead, but he is in the minority unfortunately.

[Strat-itis]

Uh huh. I should just make a habit of complete accuracy when explaining Barry principles. I'm loose about it because although I believe it to be the best system there is, I know most people won't follow it. Maybe a couple people out of 100 on forums will take you up on your advice. Yes, Chris is very good about sticking to pure Barry teaching. Most clips on youtube are quite silly about exhibiting this 1 perverted Barry trick with their click bait.

[BreckerFan]

Humpty Dumpty is a great and very challenging tune, idk why it's being used as an insult lol.

[CliffR]

My friend made me put a humbucking strat sized pickup in his shredder yahama and it sound awesome as a jazz guitar. I don't think these distinctions between guitars are helpful.

Anyway, I think anytime someone writes something super opinionated here or dismisses someone else's ideas or plan, they have to post 2 choruses of them playing over What Is This Thing called Love at 185bpm in the key of A flat within 24 hours.

Hey - sorry! I was trying to be funny. I totally agree with you. FWIW, I also practice scales with a variety of permutations and believe it's helping me improve. I certainly don't consider myself a decent enough player to be handing out strong opinions or advice. I don't know This Thing Called Love, but here's that Jackson in action from an earlier recording I made of Stella.

[sully75]

Hey - sorry! I was trying to be funny. I totally agree with you. FWIW, I also practice scales with a variety of permutations and believe it's helping me improve. I certainly don't consider myself a decent enough player to be handing out strong opinions or advice. I don't know This Thing Called Love, but here's that Jackson in action from an earlier recording I made of Stella.

Sounds totally good, keep at it!

[charlieparker]

Has anyone used Berle's Patterns, Scales, and Modes for Jazz Guitar for this kind of thing?

It's basically has a chapter on each CAGED form starting with exercises playing

• Scale and Scale Patterns
• Arpeggios and Arpeggio Patterns
• Lines without neighbor notes
• Lines with neighbor notes

It does this for the Major, Mixolydian, and Dorian modes in each chapter and finishes the chapter with ii-V-I based exercises using these modes.

By the second chapter it works these through the cycle where you switch between CAGED shapes to the closest form. Later in the book it briefly covers connecting a single scale across CAGED shapes and other scales based on harmonic and melodic minor.

Seems like a fairly complete approach if one wants to focus on CAGED fingerings. The downside is the line sections haven't really grabbed me like some of Barry Galbraith's or Pass' books do.

Was wondering if anyone had actually worked through the book, though, and how many pages would one play through in a day as there is a lot of material in it.

[pamosmusic]

Has anyone used Berle's Patterns, Scales, and Modes for Jazz Guitar for this kind of thing?

It's basically has a chapter on each CAGED form starting with exercises playing

• Scale and Scale Patterns
• Arpeggios and Arpeggio Patterns
• Lines without neighbor notes
• Lines with neighbor notes

It does this for the Major, Mixolydian, and Dorian modes in each chapter and finishes the chapter with ii-V-I based exercises using these modes.

By the second chapter it works these through the cycle where you switch between CAGED shapes to the closest form. Later in the book it briefly covers connecting a single scale across CAGED shapes and other scales based on harmonic and melodic minor.

Seems like a fairly complete approach if one wants to focus on CAGED fingerings. The downside is the line sections haven't really grabbed me like some of Barry Galbraith's or Pass' books do.

Was wondering if anyone had actually worked through the book, though, and how many pages would one play through in a day as there is a lot of material in it.

I’m not familiar …

but the hairs stand up on the back of my neck any time someone mentions CAGED and modes to close together.

im also skeptical of using modes to navigate a ii V I

[charlieparker]

I’m not familiar …

but the hairs stand up on the back of my neck any time someone mentions CAGED and modes to close together.

im also skeptical of using modes to navigate a ii V I

I think it's more about learning the CAGED shapes and emphasizing where the arpeggios are for I, ii, and V chords are in a single shape. It starts with the E-shape or what he calls form 1 with the 2nd finger on the root on the 6th string and then works through scale patterns starting and arpeggios oriented around the I and then arpeggios and patterns around the V and lastly the ii.

I'd say it's less a complete approach to impov and more about l learning 5 scale shapes and using one shape over a ii-V-I and then shifting to the nearest shape as you move around the cycle to the next ii-V-I and getting comfortable with the arpeggios within a shape.

[PMB]

Has anyone used Berle's Patterns, Scales, and Modes for Jazz Guitar for this kind of thing?

It's basically has a chapter on each CAGED form starting with exercises playing

• Scale and Scale Patterns
• Arpeggios and Arpeggio Patterns
• Lines without neighbor notes
• Lines with neighbor notes

It does this for the Major, Mixolydian, and Dorian modes in each chapter and finishes the chapter with ii-V-I based exercises using these modes.

By the second chapter it works these through the cycle where you switch between CAGED shapes to the closest form. Later in the book it briefly covers connecting a single scale across CAGED shapes and other scales based on harmonic and melodic minor.

Seems like a fairly complete approach if one wants to focus on CAGED fingerings. The downside is the line sections haven't really grabbed me like some of Barry Galbraith's or Pass' books do.

Was wondering if anyone had actually worked through the book, though, and how many pages would one play through in a day as there is a lot of material in it.

The layout of Berle's book is excellent - methodical and visually pleasing. The scale and arpeggio sequences are fine but many of the more developed lines used to demonstrate concepts aren't convincing. They come across like someone struggling to speak a second language where the idiom, accent and syntax isn't quite right.

[charlieparker]

The layout of Berle's book is excellent - methodical and visually pleasing. The scale and arpeggio sequences are fine but many of the more developed lines used to demonstrate concepts aren't convincing. They come across like someone struggling to speak a second language where the idiom, accent and syntax isn't quite right.

Ha. That's helpful. I will probably just skip those then and focus on the scale and arpeggio sequences to the extent necessary to get the CAGED shapes in-grained.

I actually have never heard Berle play anything which gives me a bit of pause but I do want to o focus on CAGED fingerings for now.

[AllanAllen]

I started grinding the melodic minor fingerings again because of this thread. What a humbling afternoon.

[Christian Miller]

If practice isn’t humbling you’re not practising


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sully75]

I started grinding the melodic minor fingerings again because of this thread. What a humbling afternoon.

Don't let it screw up your playing!

[GuyBoden]

I started grinding the melodic minor fingerings again because of this thread. What a humbling afternoon.

Don't let it screw up your playing!

I think that the above comment shouldn't be taken lightly.

There's not much call for Melodic minor Modes in Swing or even pre 1950's Jazz.

I'm still in slow recovery and constant therapy after learning all the Melodic minor mode scales 20 years ago, during lessons with Mike Walker.

[sully75]

I was 100% kidding.

I feel like a lot of people here are thinking only in pre-1950s jazz and assume other people are as well. I have total respect for someone if that's your goal, and I would very much like to be well versed in the whole lexicon of jazz, but my hope would be that I was playing really visceral 2026 jazz.

Anyway, I think the melodic minor mode seems to be pretty essential for a large portion of the history of jazz. While Django might have had no idea what it was, I think he played it quite a bit, as well.

[pamosmusic]

I think that the above comment shouldn't be taken lightly.

There's not much call for Melodic minor Modes in Swing or even pre 1950's Jazz.

I mean modes maybe not?

But melodic minor generally?

Charlie Parker’s “Segment” would like to have a word with you in the alley out back.

[sully75]

yeah I mean...it just tonicizes the minor chord. You need a minor scale, right? You need a leading tone? I got two for you, and neither are modes of major.

[rpjazzguitar]

It would be good if my brain could do this.

Instantly know the melodic minor chords that I want to use in 12 keys and some enharmonic equivalents. Be about 100, or more, of those. All the tertians and a few more.

Then, be able to associate each one with the correct grip for that chord in about 5 places on the neck.

So for example, the chart says Dbmaj7#5. Instantly the other 8 or so equivalents (all melmin chords are the same chord says Mark Levine) spring into mind, including where to find them on the neck.

And, if I'm soloing, I instantly think Bbmelmin and know where all those notes are.

And, I have to know each one by sound to really use it.

But, my brain isn't going to do that.

[sully75]

I am not an expert but I think deriving the mode in real time from the parent scale seems like a loser.

If you want to play Lydian dominant, it's just the mixolydian with a #4. mixolydian is just the major scale with a flat 7th. So Lydian dominant is a major scale with a sharp 4 and a flat 7.

I think that's a 1000x easier than thinking it's the 4th mode of melodic minor.

But also it seems like just think of what it is doing...it's a chord for a 7th chord with a sharp 4 or where you want to express that. Counting back to the original melodic minor scale doesn't seem to get you anything. At least not for starters.

Maybe, anyway.

But if the chart says DbM7#5, why don't you just play a major scale with a raised 5th?

At the same time, if you practiced those modes, it seems like it would be easier to play that major scale with the raised 5th because you'd practiced it.

[Tal_175]

It would be good if my brain could do this.

Instantly know the melodic minor chords that I want to use in 12 keys and some enharmonic equivalents. Be about 100, or more, of those. All the tertians and a few more.

Then, be able to associate each one with the correct grip for that chord in about 5 places on the neck.

So for example, the chart says Dbmaj7#5. Instantly the other 8 or so equivalents (all melmin chords are the same chord says Mark Levine) spring into mind, including where to find them on the neck.

And, if I'm soloing, I instantly think Bbmelmin and know where all those notes are.

And, I have to know each one by sound to really use it.

But, my brain isn't going to do that.

I don't think people who do that have a different brain. They do it because they just practice playing these voicings. A lot of what comes out in performance is the product of what is practiced. I've been practicing these sorts of things more and more lately, and it does work.

[AllanAllen]

rpjazzguitar, I think you are trying to master everything when really. You should start with a few minor tunes mapped out. I try to know songs and not read everything off a chart. That way I can have a roadmap of what I'm going to play. I can get through something I've never played with a sheet, but it isn't fun.

Anyway, I already have 2 minor scales Dorian and the one off the 6th of the major scale. But Christian did that dang video with Wes using arps and that "because jazz" Valt in the applied example sounds real good in use. That's somehow related to MM, and I want a new chew toy while I shed precision, both technical (pick hitting the right string) and aural (notes against the metronome).

Also, I got the joke Sully. As another side note, if you're shedding Donna Lee, I should probably be taking advice from you, not the other way around. I tried that earlier in the year and tapped out at the bridge.

[Christian Miller]

I mean modes maybe not?

But melodic minor generally?

Charlie Parker’s “Segment” would like to have a word with you in the alley out back.

And that specific use case of the melodic minor - on the dominant chord - is one we see in baroque music, most famously Bach. So it's been around a little while.

To be honest I not sure people always get a solid grounding in the stock diatonic use of the minor scales before they go off into the modes and such. So many of the classic bop lines use a pitch vocabulary we've had since the baroque era.

Here's one I saw the other day in Bach BWV997...

D7 down to the third of A7 anyone? :-) (Also notice that scale starts on the 'and' - added note rules.)

There's some differences from the old school European uses though. There's a lot of hybridisation of the scales in ways you wouldn't see in classical music I think. For instance, there's a cool lick in a Wes solo on the Live version of Nica's Dream where he plays a descending natural minor thing - but instead of a root, he puts the major seventh at the top. So you get - 7b7-b6-5-4-b3-2-1. Over a II-V-I.

These days I think people would look on it as an altered scale or something going into the minor. But these sorts of things happen a lot in the wild, where a leading note is added into a natural minor or pentatonic scale.

[Tal_175]

But if the chart says DbM7#5, why don't you just play a major scale with a raised 5th?

You can do that but that's probably not gonna sound very interesting and lead to starting lines from the root. It takes time to get conversant with a chord like augmented major 7 (or any chord really) and develop ideas for good sounding lines. Just raising the 5th alone is enough of a curveball when it comes to creating lines starting from different scale notes (arpeggios, pivots, chromatic passing notes etc) in the moment.

If someone has already reached a certain level of fluency and looseness with the intervallic structure of the melodic minor scale and have vocabulary for it, they'll find it easier to initially work on creating lines over DbM7#5 by superimposing a Bb melodic minor form over the chord. I think one still needs orient the scale to DbM7#5 chord tones and practice this way rather than just blindly plugging MM lines but that's not hard to do if they really worked on the MM scale as a family chords/arpeggios.

Ultimately, one has to work on each chord type individually if they want to be able to create good lines with the chord and voice lead it to other chords fluently. But having a melodic framework for a chord type as a springboard is immensely helpful rather than starting from scratch each time.

[Christian Miller]

I am not an expert but I think deriving the mode in real time from the parent scale seems like a loser.

If you want to play Lydian dominant, it's just the mixolydian with a #4. mixolydian is just the major scale with a flat 7th. So Lydian dominant is a major scale with a sharp 4 and a flat 7.

I think that's a 1000x easier than thinking it's the 4th mode of melodic minor.

But also it seems like just think of what it is doing...it's a chord for a 7th chord with a sharp 4 or where you want to express that. Counting back to the original melodic minor scale doesn't seem to get you anything. At least not for starters.

Maybe, anyway.

But if the chart says DbM7#5, why don't you just play a major scale with a raised 5th?

At the same time, if you practiced those modes, it seems like it would be easier to play that major scale with the raised 5th because you'd practiced it.

I could just point you in the direction of the Advancing Guitarist which I what I normally do when discussions like this come up:

"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," ..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....

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 and tensions."

Goodrick, Mick. The Advancing Guitarist: Applying Guitar Concepts & Techniques (Reference) (Function). Kindle Edition.

Which I think sums it up. The rest of the discussion is worth a look. There are great players who do it both ways. I use both to some extent, in that I know where the scales are around a given chord.

However, I tend to advocate for the derivative approach because once mastered it is incredibly powerful, and many top players use it extensively.

It is in my opinion the correct way to approach bebop judging from how those musicians applied material in their music, because it's the way those older musicians taught, and because it derives from chord substitution practices, which predate the chord/scale system by decades. (It's also how I mostly do it but don't let that put you off.)

Which is to say if you know a II-V relationship or a tritone sub, or understand that a m7b5 is actually an inverted minor 6th chord (and really you bloody well should if you want to play jazz, no?), you can also apply that knowledge to scales. It's not that hard really?

Which is exactly how Barry Harris taught.

What Mick doesn't touch on is MY main reason for derivative thinking - the re-contextualisation and application of material. This is influenced by Barry Harris of course, but Pat Martino was working on similar logic. So if I have a repertoire of minor lines and lots of cool minor voicings that I like, it makes sense that I would want to reuse these materials in as many contexts as possible. And by using the chord sub formula above I can already manage dominants, altered dominants and m7b5 chords.

I mean if I had a million m7b5 licks I could do the same thing the other way around.

This thinking is not limited to bop or traditional styles. It's the way Holdsworth conceptualised his music, for instance.

You can do this reuse of material in a parallel way of course, which requires modifying the modality of the line. It does changes the way the line is to be played however.

Both are worth practicing.

The BIG missing thing as I said above is that the guitar doesn't provide an obvious clue as to what notes are within a key and which aren't, unlike the piano. So guitarists can end up thinking about chords in quite a technical and convoluted way. There's an awful lot of music in the major scale... Most of standards is moving one or two of the notes to accommodate the chord.

[pamosmusic]

yeah I mean...it just tonicizes the minor chord. You need a minor scale, right? You need a leading tone? I got two for you, and neither are modes of major.

What?