-
Another chord-scale strawman I like is that they are just reorderings of a parent scale and hence add nothing meaningful in tonal contexts.
Let's take Just Friends in F. The first chord is Bb major. It's the IV chord. If you just 'think' F major and use your F major ideas there, obviously you're not playing the changes or bringing out the function of the chord. So there is a meaningful difference.
You don't have to approach such chords explicitly as the "Lydian scale" as long as you can hold two things in place: your chord tones come from BbMajor7 chord and the surrounding chords come from F major. Moreover your fourth is E and it is not a passing note. It is a cool note to emphasize in that context. Eminor7b5 is a cool arpeggio to play also G minor, even C7 etc.
Of course you can also approach it as BbMajor scale but you are still plugging a chord-scale there. In fact a bolder one that implies a reharmonization (Eb instead of E).
So the point of chord-scales to me is having access to a variety of ideas to build lines with when playing the changes. I can't think of a good player who doesn't already do that even if they may not know or think "Lydian scale". Chord-scales are just an emergent framework based on what musicians with good ears do. Some of them may think of them as substitutions or upper extensions. But you can also get there by practicing the arpeggios within chord-scales.Last edited by Tal_175; 07-02-2025 at 10:46 AM.
-
07-02-2025 06:39 AM
-
The old music, like folk songs and church music, was absolutely modal but the modern jazz modal usage isn't quite the same. I'm only talking about that.
Originally Posted by James W
Rubbish. Talk about dismissing hundreds of years worth of music which is modal.
It's not used in the same way. Songs like Greensleaves and She Moved Through The Fair are fairly easy to decipher (Dorian/Aeolian and Mixolydian) but that's not the same as trying to negotiate a Wayne Shorter tune like Fall!
-
Modal Jazz By Ron Miller (The definitive information on Modal Jazz.)
Read and understand the information in Modal Jazz By Ron Miller.
After absorbing the examples in the book and obsessively listening to Modal Jazz, play the book examples in a 'live' context, hopefully then you might know what Modal Jazz is or isn't.
-
Originally Posted by Strat-itis
This is the equivalent of playing scales from root to root over changes. A stream of straight, I dunno, 32nd note hits? It's a clever comeback and I wish I thought of it last summer.
-
If you go past the head, the solos in So What aren't all dorian. Cannonball plays a lot of bluesy G7 stuff. I think this gets lost in modern modal too, you can leave the mode. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
It really depends how you practice and label scales. Originally Posted by Cunamara
So if you are working on the Barry Harris system for example, you will spend most of your time practicing three scales (maybe just two) but you will play them from every degree, every constituent chord and so on. So in a sense you have all the modes and extensions in there even though you don't call them that.
So I might be thinking F7 (mixolydian in CST terms) on Am7b5 say, but I've spent a TON of time playing F7. It's just that if I play a pattern starting on the A, say, I don't then label that Locrian, or whatever.
On the other hand if you play modes but you practice each from the root - A locrian on Am7b5 for instance - you end up with a similar amount of work. But you spend less time with any one scale, and you probably tend to weight those chord tones as you say.
The more advanced application of the latter then might involve doing things like applying F lydian, A aeolian or for that matter C ionian on Dm11 so that you bring out the extensions, which seems daft if you have spent all your time really getting inside two or three scales (just play the million things you know in the G7 scale in the case of the Barry Harris approach.). But that's the way Adam Rogers appears to think, for instance, and it clearly works for him.
-
Yep, it's such a poor argument. Pick your best all rhythm recording and I'll still take Monk plodding around using rhythm behind harmony and melody 100 times out of 100. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
I think the real argument is you can make better music with a few notes (like an arpeggio) and some rests than with an exotic scale end to end. Which is like, yeah obviously. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
99% of the scales used even by the chord-scale purists come from the major, melodic minor, harmonic minor, diminished and whole tone scales. Even though these scales have funny names, they are not exotic. What may make them sound exotic at times is how they are used in reharmonizations. But that's a bit different. You can use a pentatonic scale and produce very exotic sounds by playing it against each chord in dissonant ways. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Regarding making better music with a few notes. In my experience, a few notes get repetitive and predictable real fast. I like the possibilities a scale gives for variety of ideas. I heard Sherly Bailey say that while playing a solo, for every chord she has 20 ideas that she can play. The idea is not to just string them together (although that can also make a killer solo if you can make the choices aurally) but having that resource as jumping off points for expressive freedom.
-
Parent scales for the win? (Major, Melodic/Harmonic Minor). Probably better to be flexible with fewer things than rigid with a lot of things
-
It might feel that way, but it doesn't sound like it. Somewhere along the way, jazz has been turned into a "faster and more notes" kind of music. I'm not interested in that ride, you might be and if that's the case we'll never agree, and that's fine. It's just my opinion. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
I think that spinach is more important for my diet than popcorn but I still need to eat both if I'm going to meet my calorie quota... and both are delicious... There's no counterexample to a video of some guy shredding unpitched percussion because there exists no musical recording (that I can imagine) from which rhythm is fully (or even a little) absent, unlike discernable pitch... "Good rhythm" is not defined by rigid adherence to western musical notation nor by the number of subdivisions you can squeeze in between every beat, but by the emotional effectiveness / logic(?) of the placement of musical units in actual time... right?? Also, faster and more notes = more density of information transmission and should therefore be promoted even if its implementation isn't perfect yet.
-
Faster and more notes has it's apex at technical speed metal bands like DragonForce. Which is a style that's not for me, I'll take a Miles Davis or Ahmahd Jamal ballad over a flurry of 32nd notes.
But like I said earlier, at this point I'm arguing personal preference which doesn't usually lead to interesting conversation.
-
The problem of the argument is we're conflating what aspect of music is more important for musicians to work on vs what aspect of music is most important for the merit of the music. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
What aspect of music is more important for musicians to work on? Rhythm. It's not terribly hard to decide what notes to hit. While it's extremely hard to consistently put elloquent, precise rhythm to them, and while improvising.
What aspect of music is most important for the merit of the music to the listener? None. They're all equally important. The music sounds best when all 3 aspects are optimized in harmony with each other, not when rhythm is paramount. Regardless of how technical the music is. If rhtyhm were paramount to music sounding good then only rhythmic music would be the best. But it's not. The reason we like jazz is the combination of all 3 aspects of music optimized interdependently.
-
If this were true, then popular music (the music most listeners like) would be as rich harmonically as it is rhythmically. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Which it isn’t
-
So popular music defines what has the most merit to music? And Popular music often has adequate to great melody and harmony, it isn't all by definition mediocre.
Advanced melody and harmony, not that crazy rhythm.
-
No but you were talking about what is important to the listener and what the most listeners like listening tool would be a good place to start on that one. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
Well here's some pop music for ya. The current Billboard #1 song definitely sounds to me like all 3 components are in harmony, not rhythm is paramount.
-
This discussion is very interesting and contains often very useful suggestions.
But in my opinion the most important lesson that ALL jazz musicians (of all levels) can learn is this: if in over 100 messages containing information of all kinds it is not possible to give a single and sure path to improvise on a very simple tune like Blue Bossa it is because Jazz and improvisation depend SO MUCH on the personality of the person who studies and plays.
The same theoretical concepts, the same practical examples, the same exercises on the same scales and the same arpeggios....... taught to two different students, produce a different effect.
Even very different.
A young boy with great natural talent can play very well knowing little at a technical level and having played the guitar for a few years.
An older student cannot get a good result even if he follows the lesson of a very good Jazz guitar teacher. This is the beauty of Music. In mathematics 2 + 2 always equals 4 for a young person and for an old person. In Music the same identical teachings produce infinite different results. If that were not the case, this discussion would have died down after 3 or 4 messages.
Ettore
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Popular music trends these days are "fed" to the public through the base media outlets of movie sound tracks..vid games..and various forms of social media
radio, TV/streaming.
It will cover many different "categories" with no one dominant. So I hear an interview with a new recording artist describe their style of music as pop blues jazz hiphop
asian new wave. I dont think the general listening public has the ability to decipher a dedicated style or cares to do such.
Gone are the days of when most listened to top 40 radio and knew all the songs of the Beach Boys and Four Seasons and rarely if ever was that music
used as backround in movie plots or other formats.
Today if there are three or more chords in a heavy rhythmic tune it may dilute the drive of the "tune".
-
Hear, hear! Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
@ Petey. Here's a purposely fair illustration how all 3 components are more or less equal and best optimized interdependently within reason, not rhythm is paramount.
Here's Bonamassa playing rhythmically. Although it's not totally rhythm. There's melody and some harmonic ideas. But the rhythm is what makes it shine.
Here's T Monk playing primarily to exercise harmonic color. While there is also spiky melody and some spiky rhythm. So it's not only harmony. But the harmony is what makes it shine.
Now as guitarists who like jazz, which one is better? I would have to say I'd prefer the Monk clip. Either that or I'd say they're equally great. I wouldn't say the Bonamassa clip is better because it has better rhythm. If rhythm were paramount, the Bonamassa clip would clearly be the winner.
-
But in my theory, music sounds self revealing, Originally Posted by Strat-itis
the language only for indirect communication.
-
Here’s one …
define harmony:
define melody:
-
I don't think this argument is true at all. The Real Book is full of movie theme songs, and bands were a regular part of old TV sitcoms and you know, the Beatles did pretty good on Ed Sullivan. Originally Posted by wolflen
All of these were ways music was fed to older generations. Going beyond that, 100s of years ago, you'd be fed music at church.
Reply With Quote
Eastman Jazz Elite 16 for les Paul or small body semi.
Today, 08:36 AM in For Sale