Scales or no scales?

[theentertainer]

When I say I think in terms of scales people think that I just play the scale over the chords like I was practicing. But when I say I think in terms of scales I just simply think of the notes that work well over the chord. For example if I see a Cm7 I`ll think: oh, I could play a lick based on C minor scale. Or if I have to improvise over a Gm7b5 I`ll play Bb minor scale or Eb major scale.

[monkmiles]

I think I enjoy learning lines and/or licks to use over specific chord types or progressions, as opposed to looking at it in a scalar fashion. Like when you learn to talk, you repeat words and phrases together...and I think of it the same way with jazz guitar. I'm not saying I don't practice or learn scales, but when it comes to soloing I tend to get more out of lines/licks.

[MarkRhodes]

Carol Kaye says, "Never play scales over chords--play the chords!" That doesn't mean simply triads, though she teaches the "chordal scale approach" so that you learn to run all the triads (or sevenths, once you've mastered the triads) in a sequence. For example, if the chord is G7, you have G7 (GBD), Bmin7b5 (BDF) D (DFA) F (FAC) Amin (ACE) C (CEG) Emin (EGB) G (GBD) Charlie Parker did a lot of this, though he substituted a minor for the min7b5 and it took things a little out but eased them back in soon enough.Stacked triads pop up in a lot of horn solos.

[monk]

I saw huge leaps in my learning process when I started copping lines from albums. Now, this is when I was playing rock and blues, but perhaps it's different for Jazz?

Howard Roberts was fond of saying music is music. The fundamentals are the same for everything. How you apply them is what makes the style. So, the answer is "No, it's not different for jazz". How did some North Carolina Southern cat like Tal Farlow learn to play jazz? How did a Midwestern Indiana guy like Wes Montgomery learn to play jazz? They learned by listening to Charlie Christian records and and later, Charlie Parker records. Johnny Smith has spoken many times of wearing out Django Reinhardt records and having to buy new ones in order to learn the solos. Joe Pass spoke of going to a record shop and playing Parker recordings over and over in the listening booth and learning to sing the solo and then running home to try to play as much as he could remember.

There is absolutely no reason to NOT practice your scales. It will only make you better.

It will make you better at playing scales, yes, but it won't necessarily make you a better improviser. Herb Ellis cautioned players against devoting much practice time to scales. (It's good to know them but you don't have to play them daily to know them.) He thought it was better to relate melodic ideas to chord shapes, not scales. Charlie Christian worked that way too. You hear a lot of the same thing in Joe Pass. Many great jazzy lines are actually *harder* to learn if you think of them in terms of scales rather than as built from triads.

As I've said in other posts, other instrumentalists don't obsess over scales. Pianists, violinists and horn players understand, or more likely are taught, that playing scales develops dexterity, establishes the beginnings of ear training and helps the student learn to play with a good tone. Perhaps it was all the incessant articles on scales in in the guitar mags beginning in the late 70s but for the last 30 years it seems that guitarists, particularly newbies, are maniacal about scales. Scales are just a tool. Imagine a carpenter obsessing over nails.

Yes, playing scales will make you better at playing scales. Particularly if that's all you do. It seems that a lot of players learn to play scales in every position, learn a few sequences and digital patterns and think they're good to go. I've personally met very few who extract the triads, arpeggios or intervals or who learn to play dozens or even hundreds of melodies. As someone who has, in the past, spent a lot of time on scales and never found them particularly useful for what I wanted to do, I stand firmly in the chord shape camp as I have stated in past threads. I thoroughly agree with Mark's statement on Ellis, Christian and Pass as well as his assessment that many jazz phrases really are easier to play with chord shapes.

Carol Kaye says, "Never play scales over chords--play the chords!" That doesn't mean simply triads, though she teaches the "chordal scale approach" so that you learn to run all the triads (or sevenths, once you've mastered the triads) in a sequence. For example, if the chord is G7, you have G7 (GBD), Bmin7b5 (BDF) D (DFA) F (FAC) Amin (ACE) C (CEG) Emin (EGB) G (GBD) Charlie Parker did a lot of this, though he substituted a minor for the min7b5 and it took things a little out but eased them back in soon enough.Stacked triads pop up in a lot of horn solos.

Carol Kaye's advice is that of a 1950 bebop player. The stacked triads are the backbone of Wes Montgoery's approach which he no doubt got from Parker although Christian seemed to be heading in that direction at the time of his death.


Swing, bebop, hard bop, and soul jazz all seem to work well with a chord shape or stacked triad approach. Modal tunes and the things that came after up to more contemporary music seem to be more scalar. Although Larry Carlton and Pat Metheny managed to play some pretty good music with stacked triads.

[MarkRhodes]

As someone who has, in the past, spent a lot of time on scales and never found them particularly useful for what I wanted to do, I stand firmly in the chord shape camp as I have stated in past threads. I thoroughly agree with Mark's statement on Ellis, Christian and Pass as well as his assessment that many jazz phrases really are easier to play with chord shapes.

Carol Kaye's advice is that of a 1950 bebop player. The stacked triads are the backbone of Wes Montgoery's approach which he no doubt got from Parker although Christian seemed to be heading in that direction at the time of his death.


Swing, bebop, hard bop, and soul jazz all seem to work well with a chord shape or stacked triad approach.

The first thing I thought when shown stacked triads was, "THAT'S what I've been looking for!" It opened up a lot of things for me.

[MarkRhodes]

And another thing....I've heard that scales are good for ear training but I've found that playing a lot of triads has sharpened my ears more than practicing scales did. Granted, this is a personal impression and "I could be wrong now---but I don't think so!" Another thing I've discovered is that it is easier to play long lines that cover a dozen frets when I just think of the chord tones / triads and not the scale(s) used.

[Shadow of the Sun]

One thing for me when it comes to musical concepts is utility- if a concept I have is only effective for jazz, or rock, or whatever, I'm not a fan of it.

As such, my general approach is looking at the chord tones, and classifying the possible extensions on it in terms of dissonance from least dissonant to most dissonant, and to look at classical style use of 'non-chord tones' - suspensions, retardation, apoggiotura, and so on.

With this way of thinking, if I'm playing rock or whatever, over a given chord, I can think of the less dissonant intervals as a way of filling in the harmony guidelines; with jazz, I can be more dissonant, more chromatic.

I have no issues with scales- hell, I think they're awesome for composing. But in a situation where the harmony is changing every two beats, thinking of scales is kind of difficult.

[monk]

And another thing....I've heard that scales are good for ear training but I've found that playing a lot of triads has sharpened my ears more than practicing scales did. Granted, this is a personal impression and "I could be wrong now---but I don't think so!" Another thing I've discovered is that it is easier to play long lines that cover a dozen frets when I just think of the chord tones / triads and not the scale(s) used.

Mark,
Synchronicity strikes. After I finished posting last night, I thought of a question that I wanted to ask you.

I'll begin with the premise that every time we play we are engaging in ear training on some level. Your mention of Carol Kaye reminded me of something she said, either in a video or an artcle that I read. The exact source escapes me at the moment but I remember her saying that playing what she calls "note-scales" all the time trains the ear to hear "note-scales". This is exactly the problem I had when I was immersed in scales, sequences and digital patterns. After I changed my focus to chord shapes and stacked triads, I began to hear differently and my ability to sing a line and simultaneously play it began to improve rapidly as did my ability to connect lines as I moved from chord to chord. If I had to state it in one sentence, it would be that my soloing has become more melodic.

So, thanks for answering my question before I had the chance to ask it.

[mr. beaumont]

Yeah...it's funny...visualizing a mixolydian mode and a 13th chord gives you the same note pool, but for me, things finally clicked when I started visualizing the latter, and related playing over a chord to the chord itself...rather, I don't think about "playing this OVER this..." I think about "This is what THIS is."

If that makes any sense at all

[MarkRhodes]

Mark,
Synchronicity strikes. After I finished posting last night, I thought of a question that I wanted to ask you.

I'll begin with the premise that every time we play we are engaging in ear training on some level. Your mention of Carol Kaye reminded me of something she said, either in a video or an artcle that I read. The exact source escapes me at the moment but I remember her saying that playing what she calls "note-scales" all the time trains the ear to hear "note-scales". .

There's that, and she also said that practicing scales is bad for your ears AND your fingers. (She does not object to knowing some scales but she does think it's a mistake to practice scales before you know your chords and your "chordal scales.") If I can find the quote, I'll post it here. It may be on her website. I'll look around later. (I'm on my way out now.)

I think she's right that this is the way most players did it in the '50s and it explains how they could learn tunes so quickly and play on tunes they hadn't rehearsed, or in some cases even heard before. They learned the "chordal scale," their flat-five subs (-for some reason, she doesn't like the term 'tritone'), how to substitute diminished scales for dominant chords and augmented scales for minor chords and it was off to the races! She's like Joe Pass in thinking everything is either major, minor, or dominant. She says she always thinks of minor chords as ii chords, wherever they pop up, and she thinks of the major scale a whole step below as the source of her playing over that chord. (For example, if you look at the sheet music for "Summertime" played in A minor, it will be written in C major, but she thinks of G major instead.)

If nothing else, I hear a lot of this in records from that period, or from soon after but by people influenced primarily by that era of jazz. You hear it a lot in piano players and horn players.

[Reg]

In the end you need all arrangements of note collections. When I was a young lad.. we all played chord tones...and were taught to solo using chord tones... Part of that was... most didn't know what the rest of the notes were, or had trouble agreeing on what they were. The other part... how could you go wrong, well at least it was pretty hard to sound bad simply covering the melody and chord tones... Could become very boring unless you were a great player.

The music was still in transition from pop or Maj/Min functional harmony to what many of the great players were figuring out, through playing and what has become Standard Jazz Harmonic Practice. The rest of the notes were figured out... the harmony was figured out and became practice. Many of the pop standards... from movies, musical etc... became jazz tunes. Although the charts stayed vanilla, the performances didn't.

I tend to think scales are simply a method of conveying those complete note collections, an easier method of seeing and talking about, as Jeff said, that D13 chord... Dmixo or Dlydb7 etc..

I don't know what's worse... a arpeggio or chord tone player trying to add or fill in with notes and not really knowing what their doing or a scalar player using wrong scales... I guess they both suck...

Sorry, anyway scales are just another tool for developing your fret board skills, which will translate to your eartraing skills just like chord tones used in arpeggio styles. Neither are the goal, just tools to help you get there.

Yea the ear training thing... you need to be able to hear all intervals...
It's good to see there are still different camps supporting different sides of the same goal...
Reg

[MarkRhodes]

In the end you need all arrangements of note collections. When I was a young lad.. we all played chord tones...and were taught to solo using chord tones... Part of that was... most didn't know what the rest of the notes were, or had trouble agreeing on what they were. The other part... how could you go wrong, well at least it was pretty hard to sound bad simply covering the melody and chord tones... Could become very boring unless you were a great player.

This isn't how I understand "playing chordally." You learn the triads (-for F, say, its F Gm Am Bb C7 Dm Emb5) and those tones become anchors for lines. It's not 'just play the F triad over an F chord.' (I know you, Reg, know this, but some others may think that is all it means). You can play a nice little pattern built on an Am triad---say, play the notes B, A, G#, A, D, C, B, C, F#, E, D#, E and so on. That's a simple pattern built off the 1 3 and 5 of A minor, which works over F, and it's easier to think of it that way than to think 'which scale gives me A, B, C, D, D#, E and F# and F if you're thinking that's the tonic?' I have no clue! And it wouldn't help if I did. The same pattern could be played over E minor and it would be a different scale but it would be the same treatment of a minor chord subbing for a major chord. ) And because you think of it as a pattern, it's easy to change---play with slides and slurs, add notes, mix triplets and eighths. It's a simple pattern that can be varied all sorts of ways. This isn't the same thing as 'just play chord tones.' It's more 'use the chord tones as anchors to build lines around. Also, when you stack triads, you play non-scalar lines that have a lot of built-in momentum. They just sound good, and when you get the hang of it, they aren't hard to play. And there too, you can mess around with 'em, mix 'em up.
That's how I take "play the chord."

[jster]

This isn't how I understand "playing chordally." You learn the triads (-for F, say, its F Gm Am Bb C7 Dm Emb5) and those tones become anchors for lines. It's not 'just play the F triad over an F chord.' (I know you, Reg, know this, but some others may think that is all it means). You can play a nice little pattern built on an Am triad---say, play the notes B, A, G#, A, D, C, B, C, F#, E, D#, E and so on. That's a simple pattern built off the 1 3 and 5 of A minor, which works over F, and it's easier to think of it that way than to think 'which scale gives me A, B, C, D, D#, E and F# and F if you're thinking that's the tonic?' I have no clue! And it wouldn't help if I did. The same pattern could be played over E minor and it would be a different scale but it would be the same treatment of a minor chord subbing for a major chord. ) And because you think of it as a pattern, it's easy to change---play with slides and slurs, add notes, mix triplets and eighths. It's a simple pattern that can be varied all sorts of ways. This isn't the same thing as 'just play chord tones.' It's more 'use the chord tones as anchors to build lines around. Also, when you stack triads, you play non-scalar lines that have a lot of built-in momentum. They just sound good, and when you get the hang of it, they aren't hard to play. And there too, you can mess around with 'em, mix 'em up.
That's how I take "play the chord."

Very interesting. I have never heard that before. Do you have more where that came from? Good stuff.

[MarkRhodes]

Very interesting. I have never heard that before. Do you have more where that came from? Good stuff.

I got it from Carol Kaye! I'm going to have a Skype lesson with her later this month. I love her approach. She's not the best WRITER--she writes just like she talks, and that has its merits, but it often lacks nuance. I've been giving her ideas a lot of work for a month now and I've seen the improvement. Because I started jazz the scales-first way, this is eye-opening to me. (The other way obviously work for a lot of people, so I'm not going to knock it, but I found it more paralyzing than liberating.)

She often says something that I still don't really understand: "you don't learn to play standards tune-by-tune." In a way I get this---she talks a lot about "cycles" and how most standards "go in cycles" for stretches, and sometimes a whole song is one long cycle, so if you "learn your cycles" you're ready for most standards.

Sometimes I think she forgets how MUCH theory she knows!

[mr. beaumont]

I never found diatonic triads very useful when shedding "chord tones."

I always went with the tetrachord and then extensions.

I find myself playing with triads when thinking about superimposition.

[JakeAcci]

Just another point, not negating anything else that's been written, I think in a tune that doesn't modulate much, it's great to just see the whole thing as the I chord and see the changes that need to be made on that chord throughout the harmony of the tune.

For example, on a blues, the third of the I gets flatted for the IV7 chord, but the root of the I is just the fifth of the IV7, and the fifth of the I is the 9th of the IV7. The root can get raised a half step for the VI7 (V7 of ii) chord...on and on.

This was what was covered in the first bebop lesson I ever took, when I was at a point of knowing scales and modes very well and having decent technique, but not being familiar with making changes in a jazz context.

It's kind of overlooked, chord tones of the I throughout the changes. Kind of a huge thing in jazz and pop.

[fumblefingers]

I got it from Carol Kaye! I'm going to have a Skype lesson with her later this month. I love her approach. She's not the best WRITER--she writes just like she talks, and that has its merits, but it often lacks nuance. I've been giving her ideas a lot of work for a month now and I've seen the improvement. Because I started jazz the scales-first way, this is eye-opening to me. (The other way obviously work for a lot of people, so I'm not going to knock it, but I found it more paralyzing than liberating.)

She often says something that I still don't really understand: "you don't learn to play standards tune-by-tune." In a way I get this---she talks a lot about "cycles" and how most standards "go in cycles" for stretches, and sometimes a whole song is one long cycle, so if you "learn your cycles" you're ready for most standards.

Sometimes I think she forgets how MUCH theory she knows!

i think that she means that a lot of tunes have similar form and harmonic patterns. they're used over and over again. once you learn them you can quickly negotiate a new tune, or a bunch of new tunes. (Berklee teaches this very same principle).

so, to her point, its not like learning classical compositions which are much more varied and unique, relative to the standard jazz and and popular song forms.

[fumblefingers]

Some great points have been made/clarified here.

I remember in the 70's some jazz educators differentiated between "tonal jazz" and "modal jazz". Thinking about scales when playing tonal jazz is a non-starter. The opposite however, is not necessarily the case.

And thankfully a number of people here steered things back on course when others predictably started to confuse improv with technique and technical practice.

Facility/technique wise, I have always been taught that you should master everything, at least in terms of the "basic vocabulary building blocks". And those building blocks are scales, chords, arpeggios, intervals - plus - jazz patterns, licks and lines. No problemo! Right?

But improv? Improv is supposed to be a type of extemporaneous composition. As someone said above, its about making melodies. In other words .... music. These melodies may be rendered in a highly lyrical style, or in a style that is not very lyrical at all. Regardless, when we break down and analyze melodies, whether they be improvised or composed, they are comprised of the "basic vocabulary building blocks" mentioned above (or combinations or permutations thereof).

That's why it's important for all musicians - but critical for improvising musicians - to master these building blocks, because there is no time to memorize the melodies. You are required to be a melody machine, and produce them almost impulsively.

[mr. beaumont]

I think spending hours running changes is one of the few ways to get to the point where you can hear the possibilities for creating a melody that addresses the chords.

Just another example of how jazz isn't rocket surgery...it's more like jogging...anybody can do it, but you gotta work if you're gonna be any damn good.

[Reg]

There really is no bebate, right. As I have always said and still do,( sometimes I camouflage and try to push buttons etc), but as we all know... To play jazz you need all your technical skills.
(As FumbleFingers put above... and has been posted forever... )

And yes Mark, I thoroughly know and understand how to use triads. I know the difference between a improvisational concept and an application of that concept being applied ... to triads, 7th chords, arpeggios, scales ... whatever vertical or horizontal physical note collection I want to use as my starting point, the reference point to begin developing relationships.

What many don't seem to understand... there are differences between those improvisational concepts, which are applied to the material you choose to solo with.
For example Marks, or Carls' use of mechanically derived enclosures of chord tones of A min triad. What harmonic concept is being used... or are you not worrying about the harmonic implications... letting the mechanical pattern be in control. Personally the harmonic implications are more important than the simple mechanical aspect. That mechanical pattern is one of the many technical skills... we should have already trained ourselves to play from getting your fretboard skills together.

Mark.. I'm only using your example because it's already posted and works well to show the differences between concepts and applications.
Just as someone using a mechanical system of using a scale with transpositions could have worked. Not meant to be directed at you personally.

Jeff the spending hours a day playing changes thing...will work, I usually like to have an idea of what I'm playing through and how I want to organize my playing. Practice using one concept, or more if you have the skills... and then there are pretty standard organizational methods and concepts for soloing. Both with basic "Form of"... very physical space organization... and a little more complicated... "Form in"... that space... melodic and harmonic developmental techniques.

Again... you need to play live... even if your simply playing for free for audience of one... or just video your self. There is a extreme difference between playing, practicing ... on the clock or off.
Reg

I do agree with Jeff, I spent 7 hours playing through changes yesterday... two long trio gigs.

[docbop]

I think spending hours running changes is one of the few ways to get to the point where you can hear the possibilities for creating a melody that addresses the chords.

Just another example of how jazz isn't rocket surgery...it's more like jogging...anybody can do it, but you gotta work if you're gonna be any damn good.

Amen Brother!

All this stuff scales, arp's, guide tones, triads, approach notes, and on and on are all things we have to spend time with at some point. How we use that mashup of approaches becomes our sound.

[fumblefingers]

agree that jazz ain't rocket science (or rocket surgery, whatever that is )

and yes, many can do it. (although i wouldn't say anybody could do it).

but merely surviving improv and thriving with improv are two different things, at least to my ears. one might say "the difference between art and fart" (OK, i just made that up)

put another way, the more we sound like a "mashup", the smaller the audience.

but this is really another topic.

[docbop]

put another way, the more we sound like a "mashup", the smaller the audience.

Actually that is using modern slang to quote the old masters who said learn it all then forget it and play.

[MarkRhodes]

What many don't seem to understand... there are differences between those improvisational concepts, which are applied to the material you choose to solo with.
For example Marks, or Carls' use of mechanically derived enclosures of chord tones of A min triad. What harmonic concept is being used... or are you not worrying about the harmonic implications... letting the mechanical pattern be in control. Personally the harmonic implications are more important than the simple mechanical aspect. That mechanical pattern is one of the many technical skills... we should have already trained ourselves to play from getting your fretboard skills together.

Mark.. I'm only using your example because it's already posted and works well to show the differences between concepts and applications.
Just as someone using a mechanical system of using a scale with transpositions could have worked. Not meant to be directed at you personally. .

Right, Reg, I don't take it personally. It was a good idea to use an example familiar to everyone following this thread. But I think you pull a fast one when you went from a simple pattern over A minor to "letting the mechanical pattern be in control." It's not about the PATTERN being in control at all. The player is in control, the player is choosing the pattern, and how to play it (--all the simple patterns that the greats have used 'down through the ages' can be varied all sorts of ways to suit the needs of the moment.)

I will admit that I don't think in terms of "harmonic concept". I'm not even sure what that means. I play in a narrow range---blues, rhythm changes, and old standards---so much of what is necessary for you to play all that you handle would be of little use to me in the sandbox I play in. My main interest is playing things that sound like the cool things I hear on my favorite records. Not the same licks or lines--though I learn some licks and lines--but things that sound like "jazz" to me (-here meaning, "the jazz I dig and most want to play," which is not a knock on anything or anyone else, just my preference.) I prefer jazz from the fifties to most of what's being played now. The only modern guitar player I own anything by is Scofield---loved his organ trio thing, "Groove Elation," but every other record he makes strikes me as unlistenable. (I don't buy him anymore; I get things from the library. Loved his Ray Charles tribute, though.) There's not much after Kenny Burrell that I have a keen interest in, frankly.

[Reg]

Ah.. we're getting closer to what we're talking about, that soloing thing...
Sure as docbop said, docbop from woodshed, that is way too cool. Anyway... yea learn it then throw it away. But most don't learn it, you can't throw away what you don't have.

Granted for most it doesn't matter, who cares etc... But I am a pro, I can cover... there's tons of players that I dig more than myself, and I'm sure many of you also would rather listen to someone else... but I can walk into any situation and not only cover the part... I can contribute...some may not like my style... the part where I throw what I know away... but I understand music, can read, hear and have good technique on a few instruments... I have and still do put in the time...

We're not playing gigs here... not even making much music... We're talking about playing jazz guitar. So once you figure your thing out, your sound as docbop said.. now you need to be aware of everyone else... there sound.

You can recognize or hear an application or you can recognize or hear a concept.

When Mark talks about the pattern being used over triads, that patterns represents a harmonic application... yes as Mark said the player is in control. Buy if your unaware of what your playing, how in control are you. All those variations of patterns represent or imply a few things... which we as jazz players should hear and react or interact to... (or not)... but we also hear and make choices. Jazz isn't start the backing track and let her blow...

There are different levels of interaction... generally they fall into...
1)"form of" discussion... The physical space and actual time or...
2) "form in" discussion...what we use to fill those spaces.

When your aware of all these levels of control... you have the freedom to play in the moment.

If you have incredible talent... very, very few, (not me), you can almost fake it... your ears are so hip... you don't need to understand.

Or like most of us... you need to understand and put in more time, and more time and more time... that incredible talent approach doesn't work for most. I could drop all the hip analogies... who cares.

The other cool thing about understanding what your playing or could play... you can read audiences and this may sound like shit but... you use approaches that work with the audience.

Obviously we all have areas where we won't go. But to me personally the audience is part of playing Jazz. Again there is always a balance... and it's strange how $ can tip the scale.

Reg