Bergonzi Book I - Melodic Shapes ((((IS HARD FOR ME))))

[sully75]

I'm still working away at this. Everything is very slow. I think I am making progress. I sure hope so as I'm doing hours and hours of it.

I watched a video on "coltrane patterns" and the guy did 1235 on minor vs Bergonzi's 1345. I think the 1 3 4 5 on minor is a major part of what makes the Bergonzi book so difficult, constantly having to shift between 1234 and 1345 from major to minor.

Just wondering if people understand a specific theoretical benefit from 1 3 4 5 on minor vs 1 2 3 5? It puts the 4 on the beat, not sure that's helpful. 1 2 3 5 is much easier to play for me and has symmetry with the major.

I'm going to keep practicing both of them.

[sully75]

Damn. Chat GPT is pretty nuts. That's a good answer.

Great question — this gets right into the heart of melodic construction and the specific flavor of jazz improvisation.

Jerry Bergonzi’s recommendation to play 1 2 3 5 on major chords and 1 3 4 5 on minor chords is about sound and function, not just arbitrary note choices. Let’s break it down:


---

? 1 2 3 5 on Major Chords

This gives you:

1 (root)

2 (major 2nd)

3 (major 3rd) — essential color tone of the chord

5 (perfect 5th)


This line is melodic, diatonic, and sounds bright and strong — the 2 to 3 motion is especially satisfying and common in bebop and other styles. It outlines the chord clearly and keeps the motion smooth.


---

? 1 3 4 5 on Minor Chords

This gives you:

1 (root)

3 (minor 3rd) — essential color tone of the chord

4 (perfect 4th)

5 (perfect 5th)


This avoids the 2nd (major 2nd) scale degree, which, in minor, can clash or create ambiguity.


---

? So Why Not 1 2 3 5 on Minor?

If you try 1 2 3 5 on a minor chord, you get:

1 (root)

2 (major 2nd)

3 (minor 3rd)

5 (perfect 5th)


The issue here is the half-step between 2 and ?3 — it's a bit more dissonant and less smooth than the whole step 2–3 in major. That minor 2nd (2 to ?3) is a tighter interval and can sound more angular or tense. It's not wrong, but:

It doesn't outline the harmony as clearly

It sounds less stable and melodic in the way Bergonzi is aiming for in these exercises



---

Also Consider:

The 4th in a minor scale (1 3 4 5) creates a nice stepwise motion: 3–4–5

It resolves outward, giving momentum

The 2 to ?3 motion is more chromatic, and Bergonzi saves that kind of motion for more advanced applications (later books)



---

TL;DR:

Bergonzi prefers 1 3 4 5 on minor because it:

Clearly outlines the minor sound

Avoids the chromatic tension of 2 to ?3

Sounds smoother and more melodic in context


You can experiment with 1 2 3 5 on minor chords, but it introduces more tension — great if you're using it deliberately, but not ideal for building the foundational sound.

Let me know if you want audio examples or licks to show the difference!