Minor Conversion

[pamosmusic]

I have not been working through Linear Expressions, but I have been working through this concept broadly because I have a couple students who have been getting a lot out of it. Going to try to make some more videos. We'll see.

But also interested in hearing others' experiences with this.

[Tal_175]

I love Linear Expressions. I got a lot out of it, though I don't subscribe to blind minor conversion.
Here’s some of what I gained from the book:

• Versatile building-block cells. Each exercise demonstrates several small "jazz cells" and shows one way to connect them into flowing lines. That’s how I interpret them—and how I use them to learn musical language.
• A vocabulary framework based on the CAGED system. I also use CAGED to organize fretboard harmony horizontally in a pianistic way. This concept is implied in Linear Expressions, though it’s not a harmony book, so Pat Martino doesn’t delve deeply into that aspect.
• A visceral understanding of Martino’s 8th-note line construction. After playing the exercises many times, I developed an intuitive sense of how Pat Martino built his long, flowing lines. You may or may not choose to use the vocabulary in the book this way. Many of these cells also appear in Patterns for Jazz or Randy Vincent’s Cellular Approach, but the exercises in Linear Expressions reveal Martino’s unique application—which is incredibly illuminating.

[Tal_175]

What I mean by "blind minor conversion" is learning some minor lines and formulas for how to superimpose them over other chord types and trying to get good at playing these lines derivatively without any awareness of how these lines relate to the superimposed chords.

The problem with the "blind minor conversion" to me is not that the minor lines do not "match" the underlying chords perfectly. They actually don't, but that's fine. That's actually a feature, not a bug, but if one is not "blind" about it.
Say, Wes Montgomery is well known for using minor conversion. But anybody who has done transcriptions of Wes's solos (or analyzed them) can easily see that he wasn't always doing minor conversion over, say, dominants. You can see situations where he was very clearly outlining dominants (especially during dominant cycles) and situations where he was using minor lines over dominants. So I think of minor conversion as a type of vocabulary that one can use deliberately, rather than using it as a shortcut.

[Tal_175]

So one can use the ideas and building blocks in Linear Expressions to develop vocabulary over other chord types with a CAGED organization similar to what is shown in the book for minor. So when you're playing over other chord types, you have an option to use "minor conversion" or the vocabulary you have for that chord.

[GuyBoden]

I remember participating in a forum [Study Group] Linear Expressions about 10 years ago. See link below:
Linear Expressions by Pat Martino

Below is was my response at that time, after a reading the whole book.

After a quick read through the book, the general idea seems to be that the five fingering forms are used to navigate the whole fretboard both horizontally and vertically using each Activity. These activities are all based on minor patterns and these minor patterns can be substituted for any chord type in a song.

I'm very impressed, this must have been a great tool for learning lines back in the 1980's.

Rob MacKillop ran the [Study Group], so could be better informed.


Edit: IMHO, It's Pat Martino's relentless drive and rhythmic attack that makes his lines great, whatever he plays.

[pamosmusic]

I love Linear Expressions. I got a lot out of it, though I don't subscribe to blind minor conversion.
Here’s some of what I gained from the book:

• Versatile building-block cells. Each exercise demonstrates several small "jazz cells" and shows one way to connect them into flowing lines. That’s how I interpret them—and how I use them to learn musical language.

I would be interested to see what this looks like.

• A vocabulary framework based on the CAGED system. I also use CAGED to organize fretboard harmony horizontally in a pianistic way. This concept is implied in Linear Expressions, though it’s not a harmony book, so Pat Martino doesn’t delve deeply into that aspect.

• Curious what you mean by pianistic in this context? I use basically CAGED stuff and I think of it as being guitaristic. Not really sure what that means either

[pamosmusic]

Not sure why that post ended up so weird.

[Tal_175]

Not sure why that post ended up so weird.

It seems like maybe the "QUOTE" tag is not closed properly.

[pamosmusic]

It seems like maybe the "QUOTE" tag is not closed properly.

Ah it was that the quote had ended up as part of your bulleted list.

anyway … carry on

[Tal_175]

I would be interested to see what this looks like.

These are my old notes. It shows every exercise as four note cells intervallically with respect to the root.




This is shows every cell that appears in the exercises without repetitions.

Curious what you mean by pianistic in this context? I use basically CAGED stuff and I think of it as being guitaristic. Not really sure what that means either

What I mean by pianistic is seeing chord voicings, chord tones and scale tones superimposed within a position. This means seeing the notes withing a position intervallically with respect to the chord in the moment. So like chord tones become the "white keys" in a loose sense. Then you can see how other notes relate to the chord, how to create voice movements and different voicings on the fly, who the voices connect to the next chord etc. A lot of guitarists find it easier to understand harmony on piano than on guitar, but it think CAGED actually makes harmony on guitar easier once one starts seeing the fretboard with this harmonic context.

[Tal_175]

Note the first two notes have patterns from Phase I and Phase II. That's why each "shape" have two rows. The first row is Phase I, the second row is Phase II. Some of the cells in Phase II are scratched off because they are the same as Phase I.

[pamosmusic]

Oh buddy.

Now we’re talking.

[pamosmusic]

Are the numbers here diatonic to natural minor?

For example 3 is flat 3 unless you put a natural sign. 7 is flat 7 unless you put a natural sign, etc.

I imagine your notation here makes it easier to use the cells in other contexts?

[Tal_175]

Are the numbers here diatonic to natural minor?

For example 3 is flat 3 unless you put a natural sign. 7 is flat 7 unless you put a natural sign, etc.

Yes, that was my intention but there might be small inconsistencies here and there.

I imagine your notation here makes it easier to use the cells in other contexts?

Yes, other keys, other positions, other chords.
For example the first two cells 1 2 3 4 #4 5 7 5 can be applied to F major starting from D:
D E F G - Ab A C A.
Or just the #4 5 7 5
Ab A C A
You get the blue note in F major.

[Tal_175]

The application of the patterns to F major above is seen as "minor conversion" that's what you would get if you were "thinking" D minor over F and applied the first activity* in Linear Expressions. That's fine but I work on cells/vocabulary from the point of view of the chord I am applying. So even though the numbers suggest a D minor view, I view D as the 6th of the chord (not 1).

*I was referring to the patterns as "exercises" but I should have called them "activities" to be consistent with the terminology of the book.

[rpjazzguitar]

I recall reading about Pat's "minorizing everything" (I recall that as a quote) which I assumed meant things like Am for C and Dm for G7. But, of course, C could also be Em and maybe Bm and ?? G7 could be Fm Bbm Abm etc.

Is that what Pat meant? What else does "minorize" mean?

[pamosmusic]

I recall reading about Pat's "minorizing everything" (I recall that as a quote) which I assumed meant things like Am for C and Dm for G7. But, of course, C could also be Em and maybe Bm and ?? G7 could be Fm Bbm Abm etc.

Is that what Pat meant? What else does "minorize" mean?

Pretty much it.

Pretty safe subs only though because he likes using the flexibility inherent to minor (b6 6 b7 7 interchangeably) so just Am for C and sometimes Em. But not Bm.

I put the standard ones in the video. He has some solutions for weird chords, but the simple ones are pretty much it.

[Tal_175]

I recall reading about Pat's "minorizing everything" (I recall that as a quote) which I assumed meant things like Am for C and Dm for G7. But, of course, C could also be Em and maybe Bm and ?? G7 could be Fm Bbm Abm etc.

Is that what Pat meant? What else does "minorize" mean?

G minor vocabulary can be the minorization of:
A7alt
F#7alt
C7
Ebmaj7
Bbmaj7
Emin7b5

That's of course in addition to the native chords of Gmin7, tonic Gmin6 and GminMaj7.

However as I said earlier, I don't subscribe to blind minorization. That means:
Altered dominant vocabulary =/= Tonic minor vocabulary played half step above a dominant.

For example, at least in the bebop and straight ahead context, altered dominant vocabulary often has certain resolution and voice leading patterns. One wouldn't be able to play these by blindly playing tonic minor vocabulary half a step above (except by accident) without being exposed to the idiomatic usage of altered lines.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah, the reason for this, I’m somewhat tempted to say, is that altered scale isn’t really a thing in bebop. There’s lots of things that retroactively got included under the altered scale umbrella such as tritone subs and the minor triad up a half step thing, the use of the 7b5 chord (often whole tone influenced in the bop era) and so on.

I regard it as a pedagogical simplification.

One thing that springs to mind is the #9-b9-1-b7 cliche you mentioned elsewhere. In the Barry Harris system it’s actually naturally falls out of the backdoor dominant on minor II V I. Which is to say it’s derived from natural minor (b7-b6-5-4). But since the notes can be found in the altered scale people lump it in with that.

I don’t think a lot of people understand how diatonic classical minor harmony works to begin with.

A lot of stuff that’s attributed to the altered scale comes from that. If you loosen things up to allow the I natural minor to go on the V7 which is something you see all the time, you already have every note of the altered scale except the b5. (And you could say that the b5 drops out of the Neapolitan chord.)

I mean even the minor up a half step from V7 sub can be found in the harmonic minor scale. See also Reg’s idea of a pre-altered scale that combines harmonic and natural minor, which he mentioned years ago.

Lastly, the characteristics of the altered scale are quite different to the other MM modes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

If I had to guess I’d say that what most today would call the altered scale evolved from jazz musicians using aspects of minor key harmony - natural minor/subdominant, Neapolitan chords as well as harmonic - minor in a loose and improvisational way over minor progressions.

I think that’s what we are seeing when Django plays a Bb triad on E7 in Minor swing, or Miles runs b9-#9-b9-1-b7 on a dominant. During the bebop era they did definitely have a concept of the tritone sub or the flat five, but I’m not sure they necessarily relate it to a scale

As for teachers of that era, Tristano had the concept to some extent - the dominant II scale grafts a Db melodic minor to a C7 scale so you get different notes in the two octaves. Barry Harris a bit later on teaches mostly out of the dominant tritone sub, but does use the concept of ‘tritone minor.’

Later musicians became conscious of a singular altered dominant tonality and a particular scale to go with it. But you can see that the treatment of altered dominants varied quite a bit from teacher to teacher up to the Berklee era.

That’s my hunch anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

G minor vocabulary can be the minorization of:
A7alt
F#7alt
C7
Ebmaj7
Bbmaj7
Emin7b5

Yeah I didn't include A7 (or in my Cm video, that would be D7). That would be I guess included under the m7b5 sub -- dominant up a minor third. I guess you could include the (much less common) Gm over Eb7 to round out the minor thirds.

However as I said earlier, I don't subscribe to blind minorization. That means:
Altered dominant vocabulary =/= Tonic minor vocabulary played half step above a dominant.

For example, at least in the bebop and straight ahead context, altered dominant vocabulary often has certain resolution and voice leading patterns. One wouldn't be able to play these by blindly playing tonic minor vocabulary half a step above (except by accident) without being exposed to the idiomatic usage of altered lines.

I think as a little addendum to what Christian said, you wouldn't come across those resolutions "blindly" by thinking of the altered scale either. One's no more intuitive than the other, beyond the likelihood that (at this point) we've been exposed to the concept of the altered scale quite a bit.

I think the main advantage here is that a person is not likely to have a lot of altered scale vocabulary, or be super accustomed to playing over 7#5 or whatever. But they are likely to be a lot more comfortable playing over a minor chord. They sit well on the fingerboard, easy little triads, line cliches, etc. So that person could just keep churning out stuff to play over that minor chord and accumulate vocabulary during the time they'd otherwise spend getting acquainted with a new harmonic area.

[Tal_175]

I think as a little addendum to what Christian said, you wouldn't come across those resolutions "blindly" by thinking of the altered scale either.

Exactly. That's why I never mentioned the altered scale. Not sure how we got to the altered scale but I was referring to the idiomatic altered dominant vocabulary. By that I don't mean altered scale but vocabulary in recordings that incorporate b9, #9, b5, #5 notes in the context of functioning dominants. If you just told someone to play MM up a half note, they wouldn't magically produce idiosyncratic altered dominant lines. Likewise if you showed them bunch of lines over static minor chord, you wouldn't expect them to apply these lines to dominant contexts in idiomatic ways. That's true even if the segments of these types of phrases exist in the etudes but without applications in the context.

I think the main advantage here is that a person is not likely to have a lot of altered scale vocabulary, or be super accustomed to playing over 7#5 or whatever. But they are likely to be a lot more comfortable playing over a minor chord. They sit well on the fingerboard, easy little triads, line cliches, etc. So that person could just keep churning out stuff to play over that minor chord and accumulate vocabulary during the time they'd otherwise spend getting acquainted with a new harmonic area.

True but that wouldn't be minorization which is the subject of this thread.

[pamosmusic]

Exactly. That's why I never mentioned the altered scale. Not sure how we got to the altered scale but I was referring to the idiomatic altered dominant vocabulary. By that I don't mean altered scale but vocabulary in recordings that incorporate b9, #9, b5, #5 notes in the context of functioning dominants.

Ah got it. The word "altered" was used and off we went.

Noted. I'd agree with you on that then.

True but that wouldn't be minorization which is the subject of this thread.

I'm not sure I follow. It would definitely be minorization. And would sort of be the main advantage as I see it.

[Tal_175]

Yeah, the reason for this, I’m somewhat tempted to say, is that altered scale isn’t really a thing in bebop. There’s lots of things that retroactively got included under the altered scale umbrella such as tritone subs and the minor triad up a half step thing, the use of the 7b5 chord (often whole tone influenced in the bop era) and so on.

I regard it as a pedagogical simplification.

One thing that springs to mind is the #9-b9-1-b7 cliche you mentioned elsewhere. In the Barry Harris system it’s actually naturally falls out of the backdoor dominant on minor II V I. Which is to say it’s derived from natural minor (b7-b6-5-4). But since the notes can be found in the altered scale people lump it in with that.

As I said in the previous post I wasn't talking about altered scale. In that sense I use the term "altered dominant vocabulary" as a scale-agnostic term. But I see why you would think that I was talking about altered scale as there isn't really a language to talk about altered dominants without implying the altered scale. I mean that as the collection of idiomatic vocabulary for resolving dominant lines that incorporate some of the "altered" notes. In that case #9-b9-1-7 would be one example of idiomatic usage of these notes. But you wouldn't just think natural minor and play this over the changes in idiomatic ways without some exposure to it's usage (through transcriptions or from teachers who know the language).

I mean even the minor up a half step from V7 sub can be found in the harmonic minor scale. See also Reg’s idea of a pre-altered scale that combines harmonic and natural minor, which he mentioned years ago.

I have seen that idea in many contexts. Some people refer to it as Mixolydian b9, #9, b13 or Phrygian dominant with added b9 etc. It seems like the pre-Berklee conception for these types of lines.

[Tal_175]

I'm not sure I follow. It would definitely be minorization. And would sort of be the main advantage as I see it.

I think I misunderstood you. I though you were saying that one could just learn minor vocabulary and at least they got that chord covered. But what you meant was they can start by playing over other chords using this vocabulary which helps them to get on with things. Later on they can learn the harmonic nuances of the vocabulary. Yeah, I can see that with the caveat that minorization is not an easy thing to master in its own right in my experience. I suspect some people think of it as an alternative approach to jazz harmony for single notes rather than as a temporary pedagogical tool.