David Baker Bebop Scales — Barry Harris half-steps

[Bobby Timmons]

Bobby, I do think you can grasp the rules easily. But the next thing in there is years of practice

Ive also literally said numerous times that Ive been practicing this stuff for years.

So what exactly are you suggesting I do differently?

I don't get it. I have the BH single note basics memorized. I could teach them to beginning or intermediate students. I don't have it all bomb proof in my playing as Christian says, yes that takes years. But I could demonstrate excerpts of all of them to students without it needing to be a Carnegie Hall level performance. Maybe that's my perspective since I've been in daily Chris class for 3 months?

[pamosmusic]

Here’s something I say so often that a student told me he was going to put it on a t shirt

music is something you do, not something you know

[Bobby Timmons]

No shit. I went from this:

6th/dim or na?

To this in 3 months.

Quit crying and organize the stuff on paper or in your head and get a working knowledge of it. Yes, mastery takes years but you can get the breadth of it together in not that long of a time.

[Christian Miller]

I’m just saying stuff I wish I’d known twenty years ago and no I wouldn’t have listened lol.

You have to master one thing thoroughly before moving on. I’ve always spread myself too thin and half baked stuff.

It takes a lot of time to learn anything.

But then the only way I learned this was gigs . I wouldn’t have listened to a teacher. Character flaw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

Gotta quit being hard headed lol. That was a young adult me thing. Gotta start being wise in middle age and listen to the perspectives of others. Especially great teachers. You do want to master things before moving on, or at least get command of it or it's of no use to you. I spend a lot of mental effort 'curating' what I should work on. Since I have average talent and motivation, this is extremely important.

[pamosmusic]

This is a remarkable series of posts.

[pamosmusic]

Quit crying and organize the stuff on paper or in your head and get a working knowledge of it.

That would be the purpose of this thread, friend.

Except the "quit crying" part. I will continue to cry.

It being my party, etc.

[Bobby Timmons]

That would be the purpose of this thread, friend.

Added half steps
(Dominant) scale in 3rds
Scale in diatonic triads
Scale in chords. Chords being diatonic 7th chords.
Pivots
Half step below all those devices
Barry's chromatic scale
Family of dominants
3 important arpeggios. Arpeggios being a triad arpeggio with the root repeated at the top.
BH 5432 licks
Scale outlining
Rhythms like 16th note triplets

That's about it for BH single note unless I'm forgetting some things. I still forgot to confirm if that's what you're looking to get control of, not only half steps?

Join Open studio. Go to Chris class every day, watch his pre recorded BH single note course, and watch a bunch of his logged previous classes. Quit within the month trial period and you will have spent nothing, learned everything, and gained a working knowledge of it. :P

Except the "quit crying" part. I will continue to cry.

It being my party, etc.

Lol!

[pamosmusic]

That's about it for BH single note unless I'm forgetting some things. I still forgot to confirm if that's what you're looking to get control of, not only half steps?

Well Bobby, I’ve said several times already that this is specifically not what I’m trying to do. I’m very familiar with this material. I don’t consider the line building and half step rules stuff “mastered” … but I’m very familiar with it.

What I said was that I’ve been going back through the David Baker stuff lately because of its similarities and have found it really useful and have been trying to combine the two in a coherent way.

[Bobby Timmons]

I see. It would help if you'd clearly state your premise in the op. You never said that there.

I'm also trying to combine BH and other approaches and think it's a great idea.

[pamosmusic]

In terms of actually using the materials, I really prefer Barry’s presentation because it’s looser and easier to digest and more practically flexible. But David Baker has a kind of endless supply of ways to embellish or extend the lines, and I’ve been finding that super useful. So one thing I’ve been working on is trying to bring the two together in a way that makes sense.

Hoping to post some of that stuff here. Also would love to hear people’s thoughts and experiences with the two systems. Even though they have undoubtedly been expressed on 239 other threads at other times.

If only

[Bobby Timmons]

That's very unclear sir. You titled the thread BH only, then wrote 2 paragraphs about bebop scales, then arrived at your premise hidden at the end and I'm supposed to associate Baker with the bebop scales you wrote about earlier when I may not necessarily know what the Baker system is? That's extremely vague. I thought you were a writer? You post your premise clearly at the beginning and then elaborate on it. Not blather for several paragraphs and expect someone to figure it out.

[pamosmusic]

That's very unclear sir. You titled the thread BH only, then wrote 2 paragraphs about bebop scales, then arrived at your premise hidden at the end and I'm supposed to associate Baker with the bebop scales you wrote about earlier when I may not necessarily know what the Baker system is?

Bobby, I have edited my post for clarity. But I can only recommend that you take your confusion as an indication that you actually might not be as well versed in this as you think you are.

Especially considering the way you rolled up acting like this stuff is easy and like I was an idiot for spending time on it.

We all have limitations in our knowledge and experience. Sometimes I do better at recognizing mine than other times.

[Bobby Timmons]

I'm not familiar with Baker or Ben-Hur material. I'm doing pretty well with the BH. I misunderstood you about your intended purpose of this thread because you didn't explain yourself adequately. You don't need to conflate that as my shortcoming. Everything doesn't need to be a power struggle.

[pamosmusic]

I'm not familiar with Baker or Ben-Hur material. I'm doing pretty well with the BH. I misunderstood you about your intended purpose of this thread because you didn't explain yourself adequately. You don't need to generalize that as my shortcoming. Everything doesn't need to be a power struggle.

Man this whole thing is tiresome. Come into something with some curiosity instead of acting like you have it all figured out once in a while, and consider that other people have experience with this material that you lack and might be hoping to achieve things that you’re not.

[Bobby Timmons]

I'm mad.

[Bobby Timmons]

Well anyway, I thought this was a good methodical post. We managed to make it to 3 pages of all commentary and arguing with almost no content. Maybe you should start a new thread? As I'm not familiar with Baker, I'll probably have little input.

Okay, so one thing that I've found super useful is looking at Barry's and Dave Baker's stuff and sorting them out by how long they extend the archetypal one-measure lines.

devices that add one beat:

1. starting on an enclosure (above, below, target)
2. starting with a third (or other interval)
3. starting with a triad
4. starting with a one-note reversal (so if you're starting on C, you go up to D, and then come back down)
5. adding an internal enclosure

devices that add two beats:

1. start by surrounding (target, above, target, below, back to target)
2. start with a chord (7th chord arpeggio)
3. start with an "arpeggio" (triad with the octave)
4. start with a two-note reversal
5. start with a triad, with a leading tone.
6. surround a note inside the line.

devices that add three beats:

1. start with chord, enclosing the first note
2. start with arpeggio, enclosing the first note
3. start with three-note reversal
4. start with a triad, surrounding the first note.

devices that add four beats:

1. start with a chord, surrounding the first note
2. start with an arpeggio, surrounding the first note
3. start with a four-note reversal

Of course, the added half steps (btw 3 and 2, 2 and 1) end up adding a beat, but at the moment I kind of keep that separate.

[dasein]

For a very long time, I was circling some sort of insight when it came to these half-step rules/bebop scales/whatever you want to call them. I could tell the way I was thinking about them was not the way that actual bebop players were thinking about it.

It took me a while. I talked to Alan Kingstone about it. I talked to Barry about it. And I talked to Vincent Herring about it, who studied with Phil Woods and had a slightly different way of approaching a lot of the same material.

And I think I did figure it out. I wouldn't claim that I'm thinking about it exactly the same as Bird and Bud, we can only guess at it. But I think I'm closer.

The issue was that a part of me was still stuck in a chord-scale mindset. A "bebop scale" is just mixolydian with a chromatic note between the root and b7. I thought of it as essentially the same scale, with chromatic notes to line up chord tones on downbeats. It is the scale that goes with the V in a V-I cadence.

But I don't think that's actually the way to look at it. The "bebop scale" is not the V. It's how you arrive at the V.

It seems like a minor, pedantic distinction. But if you sit with it for a while, you realize that it's actually a pretty big conceptual leap.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

[...] It seems like a minor, pedantic distinction. But if you sit with it for a while, you realize that it's actually a pretty big conceptual leap.

Absolutely not pedantic. Welcome to the world of Forward Motion.

[pamosmusic]

For a very long time, I was circling some sort of insight when it came to these half-step rules/bebop scales/whatever you want to call them. I could tell the way I was thinking about them was not the way that actual bebop players were thinking about it.

It took me a while. I talked to Alan Kingstone about it. I talked to Barry about it. And I talked to Vincent Herring about it, who studied with Phil Woods and had a slightly different way of approaching a lot of the same material.

And I think I did figure it out. I wouldn't claim that I'm thinking about it exactly the same as Bird and Bud, we can only guess at it. But I think I'm closer.

The issue was that a part of me was still stuck in a chord-scale mindset. A "bebop scale" is just mixolydian with a chromatic note between the root and b7. I thought of it as essentially the same scale, with chromatic notes to line up chord tones on downbeats. It is the scale that goes with the V in a V-I cadence.

But I don't think that's actually the way to look at it. The "bebop scale" is not the V. It's how you arrive at the V.

It seems like a minor, pedantic distinction. But if you sit with it for a while, you realize that it's actually a pretty big conceptual leap.

That’s really nicely put.

I’ve thought about the reverse of that a lot, where it works really well for letting the dominant pour over the barline and delay the resolution. It seems super logical at first for the scale to end on a chord tone of the dominant, but when you think about it resolving to a major chord or whatever, that suddenly makes less sense. But then if you think of those bar lines as more permeable — the whole Everything is a Pickup thing — it seems to me like it’s most useful as a device for expanding the dominant over the bar line. Which is really interesting

[GuyBoden]

I'm very interested in this thread about using Bebop Scales.

At present, I'm mapping out my fretboard with patterns/notes. I'm not an advanced player, but below shows how I am approaching using the Major Bebop scale.

Simple example of fretboard mapping with the Major Bebop scale descending. With the chord tones (1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th) landing on the downbeats.

[joe2758]

I would just like to apologize for calling Christian a douchebag like a week ago.

[pamosmusic]

You were just speaking your truth

[dasein]

That’s really nicely put.

I’ve thought about the reverse of that a lot, where it works really well for letting the dominant pour over the barline and delay the resolution. It seems super logical at first for the scale to end on a chord tone of the dominant, but when you think about it resolving to a major chord or whatever, that suddenly makes less sense. But then if you think of those bar lines as more permeable — the whole Everything is a Pickup thing — it seems to me like it’s most useful as a device for expanding the dominant over the bar line. Which is really interesting

This is actually what I struggled with conceptually.

The first example of this we're all given is a dom7/mixolydian scale with a half step between root and b7. When you play it in eighth notes from the root down an octave starting on beat one, you land back on the root on beat one of the next measure. Ok, easy enough.

I think I first saw this with Jerry Bergonzi. Saw it again with David Baker. Barry was probably the third time I saw this material. And they all start with that example.

But wait a minute. If a dom7 chord lasts a measure, why are we landing on a dom7 chord tone on the next measure? Shouldn't it land on a chord tone on the resolving I chord?

It was something that always puzzled me.

Again, it took me a while, and I had to probe a bunch of people for more specific answers, including Barry himself. But I think I figured out the disconnect.

When I first was learning jazz, I was told that "you play mixolydian over dom7 chords." As much as you want to say you're past this mindset, it can be very hard to get past it

When you first learn the bebop scale, you cannot help but go, "Oh, that's a mixolydian scale with an extra half note."

So now you think that "the bebop scale is the scale that goes with the dom7 chord." This is reinforced with things like Barry's scale outlines, where you run up and down variations of that scale on dom7 chords.

But here is where I think the conceptual difference is. I think for beboppers, there is a distinct idea that, for the sake of clarity, I am going to call the Resolution (capitalized, of course, to give it the pretensions of German idealism fitting for jazz education).

The Resolution, as the name would suggest, is when the line actually resolves to the I. The most common way for beboppers to do this is with some kind of diminished idea. A dim7 on the leading tone of the I has the advantage that all of its notes resolve by step to a chord tone in the I. But other things work as well -- tritone ideas ("altered") are another great option.

The bebop scale is how you get to the Resolution. When Vincent Herring explains this material, he teaches it starting on the 5th, 3rd, and root of the I chord (so for a G7, he teaches it starting on G, E, and C). Huh? If you think of the bebop scale as belonging to the V7, that's very counterintuitive. But that's the point. The way he thinks of it, the bebop scale is not the V, it's how you GET to the V.

But I think even that can lead to potential confusion. Because the V is just a chord, and staying too attached to chords can be a straitjacket. As Barry said over and over, the ii in a ii-V can also be considered part of the V. And as panosmusic has pointed out, always resolving on the switch from V to I can be very square.

So I think we have to separate two distinct ideas:

- The Cadence (the V or ii-V or iii-vi-ii-V, etc etc) which is a harmonic idea. What the rhythm section is playing behind the soloist.

- The Resolution, which is a melodic idea. What the soloist is playing, which can be tied to what the rhythm section playing but does not have to be

The bebop scale is not the "chord scale" of the V of the Cadence. It's a melodic idea, it's how you arrive at the Resolution.

And if you think of the Resolution as something separate from the Cadence, you suddenly have a lot more freedom. You can delay the Resolution, even after going back to the I. But you can also anticipate it. You can even just hit the Resolution and end your line. This is something I've noticed Bird do a lot: he'll play on the ii chord, play a nice bebop line, but only play one or two notes on the V. Then he'll leave space, and only resolve them when the I comes.

A seemingly small change that leads to a very big paradigm shift.

[pamosmusic]

This is actually what I struggled with conceptually.

The first example of this we're all given is a dom7/mixolydian scale with a half step between root and b7. When you play it in eighth notes from the root down an octave starting on beat one, you land back on the root on beat one of the next measure. Ok, easy enough.

I think I first saw this with Jerry Bergonzi. Saw it again with David Baker. Barry was probably the third time I saw this material. And they all start with that example.

But wait a minute. If a dom7 chord lasts a measure, why are we landing on a dom7 chord tone on the next measure? Shouldn't it land on a chord tone on the resolving I chord?

It was something that always puzzled me.

Again, it took me a while, and I had to probe a bunch of people for more specific answers, including Barry himself. But I think I figured out the disconnect.

When I first was learning jazz, I was told that "you play mixolydian over dom7 chords." As much as you want to say you're past this mindset, it can be very hard to get past it

When you first learn the bebop scale, you cannot help but go, "Oh, that's a mixolydian scale with an extra half note."

So now you think that "the bebop scale is the scale that goes with the dom7 chord." This is reinforced with things like Barry's scale outlines, where you run up and down variations of that scale on dom7 chords.

But here is where I think the conceptual difference is. I think for beboppers, there is a distinct idea that, for the sake of clarity, I am going to call the Resolution (capitalized, of course, to give it the pretensions of German idealism fitting for jazz education).

The Resolution, as the name would suggest, is when the line actually resolves to the I. The most common way for beboppers to do this is with some kind of diminished idea. A dim7 on the leading tone of the I has the advantage that all of its notes resolve by step to a chord tone in the I. But other things work as well -- tritone ideas ("altered") are another great option.

The bebop scale is how you get to the Resolution. When Vincent Herring explains this material, he teaches it starting on the 5th, 3rd, and root of the I chord (so for a G7, he teaches it starting on G, E, and C). Huh? If you think of the bebop scale as belonging to the V7, that's very counterintuitive. But that's the point. The way he thinks of it, the bebop scale is not the V, it's how you GET to the V.

But I think even that can lead to potential confusion. Because the V is just a chord, and staying too attached to chords can be a straitjacket. As Barry said over and over, the ii in a ii-V can also be considered part of the V. And as panosmusic has pointed out, always resolving on the switch from V to I can be very square.

So I think we have to separate two distinct ideas:

- The Cadence (the V or ii-V or iii-vi-ii-V, etc etc) which is a harmonic idea. What the rhythm section is playing behind the soloist.

- The Resolution, which is a melodic idea. What the soloist is playing, which can be tied to what the rhythm section playing but does not have to be

The bebop scale is not the "chord scale" of the V of the Cadence. It's a melodic idea, it's how you arrive at the Resolution.

And if you think of the Resolution as something separate from the Cadence, you suddenly have a lot more freedom. You can delay the Resolution, even after going back to the I. But you can also anticipate it. You can even just hit the Resolution and end your line. This is something I've noticed Bird do a lot: he'll play on the ii chord, play a nice bebop line, but only play one or two notes on the V. Then he'll leave space, and only resolve them when the I comes.

A seemingly small change that leads to a very big paradigm shift.

Awesome. I might have to print this off and make notes in pencil or something.

I think this is a really clear articulation of what I’m trying to figure out.