Scales or no scales?

[Tony DeCaprio]

Uh, are you seriously asking whether boxers set up punches? Yes, they do. They're also hyper-vigilant about The Other Guy's best punch and how to guard against it. They look for openings while keeping themselves defended. Boxers spend a lot of time trying to distract their opponents, jabbing with one hand hoping to create an opening for a punch with the other. It's a fast sport, and boxers spend hundreds of hours training for a fight that might last less than a half-hour.

Not what I meant at all. Boxers train themselves for that instinct, just like musicians train themselves. We do not *think* about it, we do it spontaneously; just like a boxer is spontaneous after hundreds of hours in the gym. The players you mentioned did not think of "scales" during improvisation, which is obviously what the OP was asking. Licks, if anyone chooses, is another story and also instinctual as is language. It is not calculated. We can leave my boxer association out of the picture altogether, if that should comfort you. You can change the meaning of the thread as you desire, if this is also what you wish. Point is: the ear cannot be hidden or pretended to be listening. You might say, the ear pulls no punches.

[mike walker]

It's a fast sport, and boxers spend hundreds of hours training for a fight that might last less than a half-hour.

I'm not quite getting the fact that you make this statement whilst
talking about 'thinking' scales.
Scales are a means to an end. Joe pass knew his scales.
He spent 'hundreds of hours' learning his scales all over the neck so that he could hold a conversation about baseball, whilst he was playing his scales.
It is a complete myth that Parker, Montgomery, etc etc didn't know their scales.
They did.
The analogy is a good one. Anyone who looks like they were born to dance has been sweating the fundamentals in some room somewhere to get to the point that they look like they were born to dance.

The scales, modes arpeggios chord tones intervals etc etc are not the problem. How one chooses to use them (or not) is where problems occur.

Again, just re-iterating what you said a few posts ago, you cannot get into the subtleties of different sounds by singing the outskirts of the changes (usually the upper voices). The inner stuff is a much trickier affair by ear.
You're gonna have to feed that ear with some knowledge if you want to sing some of the inner melodies.
I think it's the same debate that comes up on many forums and so many make blanket statements that are really just reflections of their own listening habits.
It's when those listening habits, often locked into a certain era, become the backbone of a more general 'what one must do, or not do in order to be a better jazz musician'.

It's akin to saying 'you need my narrow view of what I like about Jazz'.

[frajazzamico]

No, but it's important to know how scales fit into chord changes...

[AmundLauritzen]

You can at least quote my whole thought. Or thoughts...I've been pretty clear on my opinion in this thread.

The point is, everything needs to be internalized. If you're trying to think as you play, you're asking for trouble. You should be trying to hear...if you can do both, more power to you...I ain't that good

Absolutely. That's pretty much the bottom line. It's the conclusion that can be reached from several points of view, which is what the discussion is all about. Many ways to it, but in the end it comes down to internalized vocabulary. Bits and pieces of this and that become components of an endless variety of lines.

This is why I am against choosing one approach over the other. None of them are mutually exclusive when it's all internalized.

[Tony DeCaprio]

I'm not quite getting the fact that you make this statement whilst
talking about 'thinking' scales.
Scales are a means to an end. Joe pass knew his scales.
He spent 'hundreds of hours' learning his scales all over the neck so that he could hold a conversation about baseball, whilst he was playing his scales.
It is a complete myth that Parker, Montgomery, etc etc didn't know their scales.
They did.
The analogy is a good one. Anyone who looks like they were born to dance has been sweating the fundamentals in some room somewhere to get to the point that they look like they were born to dance.

The scales, modes arpeggios chord tones intervals etc etc are not the problem. How one chooses to use them (or not) is where problems occur.

Again, just re-iterating what you said a few posts ago, you cannot get into the subtleties of different sounds by singing the outskirts of the changes (usually the upper voices). The inner stuff is a much trickier affair by ear.
You're gonna have to feed that ear with some knowledge if you want to sing some of the inner melodies.
I think it's the same debate that comes up on many forums and so many make blanket statements that are really just reflections of their own listening habits.
It's when those listening habits, often locked into a certain era, become the backbone of a more general 'what one must do, or not do in order to be a better jazz musician'.

It's akin to saying 'you need my narrow view of what I like about Jazz'.

"I think it's the same debate that comes up on many forums and so many make blanket statements that are really just reflections of their own listening habits."

Precisely, and if that in and of itself was keener realized as "thought", there would be a lot less bickering and much more "listening."

[frajazzamico]

In my opinion improvisation is movement. You seed a small germ and you develop it...scales must help you do that...but thematic development is the ultimate goal...

[MarkRhodes]

The players you mentioned did not think of "scales" during improvisation, which is obviously what the OP was asking.

Right. I am not against scales. Some people learn to play jazz that way and sound good. More power to them. I prefer the chordal approach. My main concern in this thread is to clarify that "the chordal pattern system" (as some call it, but many have just called it "chords") does not mean playing arpeggios. It's a way of thinking about how songs work and how chords move. Why Abminor9 works over G7 whenever the next chord is any flavor of C, or how to substitute augmented chords for minor chords, that sort of thing.. Once learned, it becomes "spontaneous." (Someone once asked Joe Pass what he was thinking about during a particular solo and he said, "I need to pick up some milk on the way home tonight.")

I think this system is much simpler and more intuitive than a scalar approach, but the other way clearly works for some players and again, more power to them.

[mike walker]

Right. I am not against scales. Some people learn to play jazz that way and sound good. Why Abminor9 works over G7 whenever the next chord is any flavor of C, or how to substitute augmented chords for minor chords, that sort of thing.. Once learned, it becomes "spontaneous."
I think this system is much simpler and more intuitive than a scalar approach, but the other way clearly works for some players and again, more power to them.

Some learn the 'Chordal way' and the scalar way and the arpeggio way. They see it all as one family.
Some would say playing over G7 whilst thinking Abmin is less simple than thinking G7alt......
I'm personally glad that I worked on seeing stuff from the root...
especially on progressions like ;

E7#9 C#7#9 | F#m6 G#7#5 | Dbma9 F#9#11 | Fm11 Bb13b9 | Cm11 |

I see all those from the root. I know I can think Fmm Dmm etc etc.....
But that to me, is needlessly circuitous.

[Tony DeCaprio]

[QUOTE=MarkRhodes;268623]Right. I am not against scales. Some people learn to play jazz that way and sound good. More power to them. I prefer the chordal approach. My main concern in this thread is to clarify that "the chordal pattern system" (as some call it, but many have just called it "chords") does not mean playing arpeggios. It's a way of thinking about how songs work and how chords move. Why Abminor9 works over G7 whenever the next chord is any flavor of C, or how to substitute augmented chords for minor chords, that sort of thing.. Once learned, it becomes "spontaneous." (Someone once asked Joe Pass what he was thinking about during a particular solo and he said, "I need to pick up some milk on the way home tonight.")


"My main concern in this thread is to clarify that "the chordal pattern system" (as some call it, but many have just called it "chords") does not mean playing arpeggios."

Once again, all well and good, but I fail to see the relevancy with the thread heading. The idea of "thinking" of a way to get through the changes seems to be the motif of the OP's question, **unless I have missed something**. At home, the sky's the limit concerning general study, which includes myriad ways to study and assimilate negotiation though changes, while developing the concept of good form and "story-telling" within improvisation. The student can look at things vertically, horizontally, overlapping via remembering what came before, as well as anticipation; superimposing utilizing compound harmony ad infinitum, but addressing all of this **now** is merely deciding upon invoking a tangent.

The motif of this particular thread is "thinking" while improvising. Again we think at home. We listen and react ( the surrounding elements are crucial and all the more involves the ear in an arena where calculation falls far too short) on the gig. Nonetheless, any person can do as he/she pleases. Personally, I can only offer advice, but I like to address the initial question without the detours.

[frajazzamico]

I believe that the right approach comes from mastering as many improvisation approaches as possible...Then while playing relaxing and forgetting about everything will put everything together...

[MarkRhodes]

I believe that the right approach comes from mastering as many improvisation approaches as possible...Then while playing relaxing and forgetting about everything will put everything together...

This may be biting off more than one can chew. It's work enough to master one approach to improv. (If it were easy, there would be more masters.) Exposure to different approaches can be liberating but it can also end in confusion. (Barry Schwartz---not a musician---describes the paradox of choice: the more we have, the more paralyzed we tend to become. Psychologists used to think shy people could think of nothing to say in a social situation but it turns out, they think of too many things to say once and while they are deciding on one, the other persons drifts away.)

I think one reason people still use Mickey Baker's first book is that he gives the student a lot to play but not a lot to think about. You're learning a lot more than you realize but not in a way that confuses you while you're playing.

[mr. beaumont]

I think the important thing to do is stop looking at different organizational systems as "methods" that are "antithetical."

People are too hung up on what a scale or arpeggio "says" they can play over a chord. The visualization doesn't call the shots--YOU do.

[Tony DeCaprio]

I believe that the right approach comes from mastering as many improvisation approaches as possible...Then while playing relaxing and forgetting about everything will put everything together...

Absolutely, because the subject is called "improvisation" and all roads lead to Rome; not merely one road. One road can be dangerous and easily fall prey to an ambush. Merely mastering a single way can, paradoxically speaking, turn out dead wrong during the graduation ceremony (the one way man's feeling of achievement). The "key" is within the *balance*. Otherwise, it's like a body-builder just working on his upper body while expecting the rest of his body to "follow suit." Very experienced players all know this, so there is no need to name-drop about who did what, when or where. Leave no stone unturned but balance your studies. Be able to hear and sing everything while you are at it.

[monk]

Can you whistle or hum or vocalise a melody in tune? Lots of people can do this without thinking about it. They just do it. This happens because there is no barrier between thinking of the melody and producing it. We/they produce the correct pitches naturally.

When we learn to play guitar (or any other Instrument) the means of producing the melody now lies outside of our bodies. In order to spontaneously produce melodies with the guitar, we have to narrow and eventually erase the barrier between our minds and the instrument. The goal is to connect the brain and the guitar so that they function as effortlessly as the brain and voice do naturally.

The path that we choose, in that some of us find arpeggios the logical means of acheiving this goal while others swear by scales or still others use intervals, may be influenced by the music we want to play, a hero we wish to emulate, a teacher who placed us a particular path or possibly the individual architecture of each of our brains.

What ever means we use to bring us closer to the goal of removing the barrier between our brains and our instruments should not preclude the possibility that we may have to use more than one method to acheive results.

I practiced scales for years without ever being able to craft an acceptable melody over a simple chord progression, except by accident. The accidents were always frustrating because I was left thinking "What the hell did I just do?". When I began to employ chord tones and arpeggios as a means to craft a line, the facility that I had gained from practicing scales and sequences helped speed my progress.

Understanding one's personal goals is important. If one wishes to play swing using Charlie Christian as a role model their choices are likely to be different from someone who wants to play like Kurt Rosenwinkel. However, someone who wishes to play like Rosenwinkel would be well advised to spend some time with Christian's music. Jazz has a history that should not be ignored.

Regrdless of what we wish to play, the result is more important than the "method" we choose to get there. If we are not getting the results we want, it would then be prudent to examine other ways of reaching our goals. That's what I had to do.

Regards,
Jerome

[Tony DeCaprio]

Can you whistle or hum or vocalise a melody in tune? Lots of people can do this without thinking about it. They just do it. This happens because there is no barrier between thinking of the melody and producing it. We/they produce the correct pitches naturally.

When we learn to play guitar (or any other Instrument) the means of producing the melody now lies outside of our bodies. In order to spontaneously produce melodies with the guitar, we have to narrow and eventually erase the barrier between our minds and the instrument. The goal is to connect the brain and the guitar so that they function as effortlessly as the brain and voice do naturally.

The path that we choose, in that some of us find arpeggios the logical means of acheiving this goal while others swear by scales or still others use intervals, may be influenced by the music we want to play, a hero we wish to emulate, a teacher who placed us a particular path or possibly the individual architecture of each of our brains.

What ever means we use to bring us closer to the goal of removing the barrier between our brains and our instruments should not preclude the possibility that we may have to use more than one method to acheive results.

I practiced scales for years without ever being able to craft an acceptable melody over a simple chord progression, except by accident. The accidents were always frustrating because I was left thinking "What the hell did I just do?". When I began to employ chord tones and arpeggios as a means to craft a line, the facility that I had gained from practicing scales and sequences helped speed my progress.

Understanding one's personal goals is important. If one wishes to play swing using Charlie Christian as a role model their choices are likely to be different from someone who wants to play like Kurt Rosenwinkel. However, someone who wishes to play like Rosenwinkel would be well advised to spend some time with Christian's music. Jazz has a history that should not be ignored.

Regrdless of what we wish to play, the result is more important than the "method" we choose to get there. If we are not getting the results we want, it would then be prudent to examine other ways of reaching our goals. That's what I had to do.

Regards,
Jerome

“...using no way as way, having no limitation as limitation” -Bruce Lee

[monk]

A great quote from a great source, Tony. But lest there be confusion in some of the Western minds participating in this forum who are not familiar with Eastern thought, I'm including the explanation from the Bruce Lee Foundation's website.

"Many people have misinterpreted this phrase to mean, "Use any way you wish and be limitless in these ways". This is not correct.


"Using no way as way" means do not presuppose a way. Be in the moment. Be present. Be open to the best way to meet the moment in which you find yourself, rather than planning before hand what way will be best.


"Having no limitation as limitation" means keep an open mind. Do not limit yourself or your thinking. Do not let your beliefs or your style limit your experience."

In order to fully capitalize on Mr. Lee's quote there must be rigorous preparation. While he may not have said it, Mr. Lee certainly lived his life in accordance to the following quote.

Luck favors the prepared mind-Louis Pasteur

[MarkRhodes]

Absolutely, because the subject is called "improvisation" and all roads lead to Rome; not merely one road.

I see the more common problem being trying to take "all roads" at the same time. That doesn't work. Take whatever road you're on and get to Rome. Once you're in Rome, no one cares how many roads you took to get there. You're not more "there" if you took six or any less "there" if you took the shortest, safest route.

(Perhaps the Rome analogy is ill-chosen.)

[Vladan]

Oh man, I'have to spend more time on this forum. Is there any other place where people will quote Bruce Lee for such a good pourpose? I strongly doubt. I loved it.

[Tony DeCaprio]

I see the more common problem being trying to take "all roads" at the same time. That doesn't work. Take whatever road you're on and get to Rome. Once you're in Rome, no one cares how many roads you took to get there. You're not more "there" if you took six or any less "there" if you took the shortest, safest route.

(Perhaps the Rome analogy is ill-chosen.)

Not for me. Was wisely chosen.

[mike walker]

This may be biting off more than one can chew. It's work enough to master one approach to improv. (If it were easy, there would be more masters.) Exposure to different approaches can be liberating but it can also end in confusion. (Barry Schwartz---not a musician---describes the paradox of choice: the more we have, the more paralyzed we tend to become. Psychologists used to think shy people could think of nothing to say in a social situation but it turns out, they think of too many things to say once and while they are deciding on one, the other persons drifts away.)

I think one reason people still use Mickey Baker's first book is that he gives the student a lot to play but not a lot to think about. You're learning a lot more than you realize but not in a way that confuses you while you're playing.

This is fine. For you. But why should it be true of someone else by default?
I agree with frajazzamico..... check out what ya can.... give it a fair shake.... see if you can tie it in to other ways you might be looking at the fretboard, or harmony... or vocabulary etc etc... if it's feeling good, then absorb the hell out of it.

[MarkRhodes]

This is fine. For you. But why should it be true of someone else by default?

I didn't say it was. (Though it seems to have worked well for three generations of guitar players, which is no small feat.) I never said everyone should do the same thing or play the same way. If something else works better for you, use it and rejoice.

[Tony DeCaprio]

I see the more common problem being trying to take "all roads" at the same time. That doesn't work. Take whatever road you're on and get to Rome. Once you're in Rome, no one cares how many roads you took to get there. You're not more "there" if you took six or any less "there" if you took the shortest, safest route.

(Perhaps the Rome analogy is ill-chosen.)

And again, you seem to miss the mark. I did not say "all roads at the same time." I mentioned an inherent danger in taking one road and I spoke of balance. The "ambush" analogy is what will happen if you take the one road. The "safeness" factor is what you will think is safe, but you will run into many obstacles, if you learn only one route. Yes, they all get to the city, but the art exists in the many routes. Any professional jazz musician knows what I refer to. You might get to Rome via the one road but you may end up in a one room flat there; bland and boring. Take your one road, though, it's your choice. I tell others here to avoid that choice. Just that.

[mike walker]

I didn't say it was. (Though it seems to have worked well for three generations of guitar players, which is no small feat.) I never said everyone should do the same thing or play the same way. If something else works better for you, use it and rejoice.

So when you say regarding taking many roads to Rome 'That doesn't work' you mean 'That hasn't worked for me' ??

Also, as I have alluded to before, 3 generations of guitar players knew their scales. Backwards, sideways and more besides. You keep citing these musicians inferring that they played only from chord tones and didn't know their scales. They did. A handful maybe couldn't tell you what they were, but they knew the terrain thoroughly.
Joe pass used to advocate a way of practicing that involved playing the Scale followed by the arpeggio followed by the Chord.

I don't see a problem with that at all.........

[MarkRhodes]

So when you say regarding taking many roads to Rome 'That doesn't work' you mean 'That hasn't worked for me' ?? .

No. I said you can't take them all at the same time. One can only travel one road at a time.

[mike walker]

No. I said you can't take them all at the same time. One can only travel one road at a time.

Ok, so that's what i said. I said that's cool for you. But that doesn't mean it's cool for everyone by default.
It wasn't cool for Joe Pass, or Wes or Jim hall or a ton of others.
The analogy is a good one. As open minded musicians we can have many roads on the go at the same time. You might take it literally and say we can only physically walk one at a time, but that's a little (forgive me) off the beaten track. We can switch roads at any time. As long as we see how these paths cross, how they eventually integrate, how one road can lead to another etc etc...

Another analogy might be seeing trees (chords or maybe chord tones) in isolation, and not as part of a landscape (Scale).... I like the to see the whole picture, as well as the parts that make up the picture.