Scales or no scales?

[MarkRhodes]

You keep citing these musicians inferring that they played only from chord tones and didn't know their scales..

Wrong on both counts.
First, I never said (or inferred) they played only chord tones.
Second, I also never said they didn't know their scales.

I said they thought chordally and I made clear (or tried to) that that did NOT mean 'just playing arpeggios' (or chord tones). Just read books by and about early jazz players and you'll see.

Willie Thomas---still alive, playing trumpet and teaching into his 80s---was in the Army with Wynton Kelly and they jammed in the barracks. Willie asked Wynton lots of questions about scales and what he was thinking when he played. Wynton told him, "It's not what you name them but how you organize and play them." He showed Willie a simple system that uses "pentatonic pairs" (the 5 and the 6 are one pair; the 1 and the 2 are another: think "I Got Rhythm") and how to make "melody chains" that weave through changes. This is the system Willie still teaches. (It grows more complicated at higher levels but the foundation is simple as pie, and he learned it from a guy who played for Miles AND Wes!)

Another way was to learn the 'choral scale' and play off the notes of triads. (Also, stack triads: for G7: G Bminb5 D min F A min C E min G.) This involves knowing how tunes and chord substitution works. (Abminor9 is G7, that sort of thing.)

[MarkRhodes]

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.
.

I dispute this. First, you're mistaking picking up something here and there for a method (-a way to Rome). Second, Wes started out playing Charlie Christian solos note-for-note. His jazz roots are easy to see. I would like to see your evidence that Joe Pass learned via several different methods. (I wonder if Pass even thought there were several different methods when he started out.)

It helps to step back and think of other instruments. Charlie Parker and Paul Desmond grew up on the same method books, just as thousands of other sax players of their day (and for all I know, many still do) but they didn't sound alike. Players of other instruments seem to have less need for new methods.

[mike walker]

Wrong on both counts.
First, I never said (or inferred) they played only chord tones.
Second, I also never said they didn't know their scales.

I said they thought chordally and I made clear (or tried to) that that did NOT mean 'just playing arpeggios' (or chord tones). Just read books by and about early jazz players and you'll see.

Willie Thomas---still alive, playing trumpet and teaching into his 80s---was in the Army with Wynton Kelly and they jammed in the barracks. Willie asked Wynton lots of questions about scales and what he was thinking when he played. Wynton told him, "It's not what you name them but how you organize and play them." He showed Willie a simple system that uses "pentatonic pairs" (the 5 and the 6 are one pair; the 1 and the 2 are another: think "I Got Rhythm") and how to make "melody chains" that weave through changes. This is the system Willie still teaches. (It grows more complicated at higher levels but the foundation is simple as pie, and he learned it from a guy who played for Miles AND Wes!)

Another way was to learn the 'choral scale' and play off the notes of triads. (Also, stack triads: for G7: G Bminb5 D min F A min C E min G.) This involves knowing how tunes and chord substitution works. (Abminor9 is G7, that sort of thing.)

Ok..... I'll try this again.... I'm trying to be clear here, so no-one reading it can misunderstand.
You have no problem with scales. You have no problem with folks that think ( as Tony so rightly says 'in the practice room' ) Chordally, Triadically, Intervalically, within the landscape of a Scale all over the neck, connected in a myriad of ways to produce melodies of all shapes and sizes, that nod in the direction of many idioms and genres from many eras, that don't rely on stock licks, but tips the wink to the creative process, whilst at the same, paying homage to the tradition?

Is that fair, ya think?

Jeez, I have read so many books on Jazz. Last one was Stan Getz.
Love reading books on the lives and thoughts of Jazz musicians. did you read the one on Jarrett? Ian Carr, I think.
Read a cracker on George Russell, too, just last month. Check it out.

[mike walker]

I dispute this. First, you're mistaking picking up something here and there for a method (-a way to Rome). Second, Wes started out playing Charlie Christian solos note-for-note. His jazz roots are easy to see. I would like to see your evidence that Joe Pass learned via several different methods. (I wonder if Pass even thought there were several different methods when he started out.)

It helps to step back and think of other instruments. Charlie Parker and Paul Desmond grew up on the same method books, just as thousands of other sax players of their day (and for all I know, many still do) but they didn't sound alike. Players of other instruments seem to have less need for new methods.

Dispute away, man. It's fact. Joe's method is widely known. Wes was a Dorian angel and Lyd dominant demon though didn't call them as such. And you're right he 'Started out' using the chordal method but moved on from there pretty sharpish.
Charlie Christian absolutely played around chords as you say. And this is the point. It was the order of the day, whilst pushing some boundaries at the same time. It was cool.
He played great.
Check out the 'Joe pass Guitar Method'. It's all in there.

I'm not quite sure what your debating here, to be honest.

[JohnRoss]

Players of other instruments seem to have less need for new methods.

Players of other instruments generally learn more proper music in the early stages of the game. Beginning and low-intermediate guitarists, especially but not just self-taught guitarists, tend to learn 'put your fingers there and there and a nice sound will come out.' Whereas, shoot, even kids learning nursery-rhyme level things on the recorder will have a music stand in front of them, with proper music, with proper notation, as well. So they have less need for methods in general, not just 'Play-in-a-Day' things (and, hey, I'm a super-admirer of the late Bert) or (God save us) - tab.

[Tony DeCaprio]

Ok..... I'll try this again.... I'm trying to be clear here, so no-one reading it can misunderstand.
You have no problem with scales. You have no problem with folks that think ( as Tony so rightly says 'in the practice room' ) Chordally, Triadically, Intervalically, within the landscape of a Scale all over the neck, connected in a myriad of ways to produce melodies of all shapes and sizes, that nod in the direction of many idioms and genres from many eras, that don't rely on stock licks, but tips the wink to the creative process, whilst at the same, paying homage to the tradition?

Is that fair, ya think?

Jeez, I have read so many books on Jazz. Last one was Stan Getz.
Love reading books on the lives and thoughts of Jazz musicians. did you read the one on Jarrett? Ian Carr, I think.
Read a cracker on George Russell, too, just last month. Check it out.

There is an obvious misconstruing concerning wording on this thread. "Method" and "Way" to get through chord changes with the over all tune in mind are not necessarily the same thing. Once again, although we are obviously being forced to succumb to the inevitability of the tangent, the OP speaks of THINKING ( of scales...meaning any thinking...vertical included). There can be many ways to get through the changes (whilst practicing at home) while sitting on one method. How could anyone rest on one way? In addition, jazz as evolved so much since the bebop era.

The introduction of reharms and the use of compound harmony alone negates the one way anal opinion. If the arguer is talking "beginner" as criteria, this is a totally different story, but to say that an intermediate student cannot utilize more than one way at a time? I have no further comment on that one. Did we mean all ways at the same time? Certainly not. Having stated that, a student can absolutely utilize more than one method at a time. To say it is impossible to learn efficiently? I have no further comment on that.

And I find it quite humorous that some posters feel the absolute necessity to consistently name-drop. I assume the name-droppers knew the names personally. Pass and I, for example were friends. Joe used several ways to get through changes. We have played together. Herb Ellis and I have played together, as well. Joe taught in a limited fashion, because he didn't read music is all. In addition, the teachings of many jazz greats (Joe included) were geared towards what each of them thought the certain student could easily grasp; some could grasp small increments and others had a wider palette from the get-go. Barry Galbraith knew this well and taught accordingly. In such cases, more than one way was introduced. This by no means connotes that they used one "way" to get through changes. I can see how a rock guitarist may not be able to understand this. The ambiguity lies in a very integral factor: You don't know it, if you ain't lived it.

Sorry, but I find this a lame argument and now I will depart from it. I intended to make a small contribution is all. Those who know me, know that too. My message to young players? Leave absolutely no stone unturned and do all that you can to develop your ears in the process. Talk is easy; playing is hard.

In addition, any one interested in a free introductory Skype lesson on the subject of ways to improvisation, feel free to contact me. I will try to coordinate the time zones.

[mike walker]

There is an obvious misconstruing concerning wording on this thread. "Method" and "Way" to get through chord changes with the over all tune in mind are not necessarily the same thing. Once again, although we are obviously being forced to succumb to the inevitability of the tangent, the OP speaks of THINKING ( of scales...meaning any thinking...vertical included). There can be many ways to get through the changes (whilst practicing at home) while sitting on one method. How could anyone rest on one way? In addition, jazz as evolved so much since the bebop era.

The introduction of reharms and the use of compound harmony alone negates the one way anal opinion. If the arguer is talking "beginner" as criteria, this is a totally different story, but to say that an intermediate student cannot utilize more than one way at a time? I have no further comment on that one. Did we mean all ways at the same time? Certainly not. Having stated that, a student can absolutely utilize more than one method at a time. To say it is impossible to learn efficiently? I have no further comment on that.

And I find it quite humorous that some posters feel the absolute necessity to consistently name-drop. I assume the name-droppers knew the names personally. Pass and I, for example were friends. Joe used several ways to get through changes. We have played together. Herb Ellis and I have played together, as well. Joe taught in a limited fashion, because he didn't read music is all. In addition, the teachings of many jazz greats (Joe included) were geared towards what each of them thought the certain student could easily grasp; some could grasp small increments and others had a wider palette from the get-go. Barry Galbraith knew this well and taught accordingly. In such cases, more than one way was introduced. This by no means connotes that they used one "way" to get through changes. I can see how a rock guitarist may not be able to understand this. The ambiguity lies in a very integral factor: You don't know it, if you ain't lived it.

Sorry, but I find this a lame argument and now I will depart from it. I intended to make a small contribution is all. Those who know me, know that too. My message to young players? Leave absolutely no stone unturned and do all that you can to develop your ears in the process. Talk is easy; playing is hard.

In addition, any one interested in a free introductory Skype lesson on the subject of ways to improvisation, feel free to contact me. I will try to coordinate the time zones.

Well..... if ya needed a horses mouth.... (no offense) then here it is.
I can only cite my own ears when I listen to the likes of Joe and Wes etc.
But this cat has shared the stage and a beer or two I'm betting.

I think we just have to be clear on this stuff. It may seem a touch pedantic to
kick it around so..... but many hereabouts are eager to learn and what's good
for the goose, is not always, necessarily, good for the gander.

I really feel we have to cultivate a more open attitude to learning music.
Music is just too big for the narrow view.

[frajazzamico]

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.)

Social anxiety can be linked to multiple factors. Learning to relax while performing is key. Studying and expanding your boundaries will never harm anybody. However, it's important to understand when it's time to practice and when it's time to play.

[MarkRhodes]

Dispute away, man. It's fact. Joe's method is widely known. Wes was a Dorian angel and Lyd dominant demon though didn't call them as such. And you're right he 'Started out' using the chordal method but moved on from there pretty sharpish.
Charlie Christian absolutely played around chords as you say. And this is the point. It was the order of the day, whilst pushing some boundaries at the same time. It was cool.
He played great.
Check out the 'Joe pass Guitar Method'. It's all in there.

I'm not quite sure what your debating here, to be honest.

I wasn't debating at all. I stepped in to clarify that "thinking chordally" did not mean playing arpeggios or just playing chord tones. I never said the chord-scale approach was wrong. (Or any other approach.) I never said there was only one way to learn. I did say, if not on this thread then in another, that, historically the chordal approach came first and the scalar approach is much more recent. (This doesn't mean that early players did not know scales; it means that's not how they organized their improvisation.)

I'm familiar with "The Joe Pass Method." Obviously, that is what Joe taught but it is not how he learned to play that way.

David Baker's "How to Play Bebop," which is a fine series, is not how ANY of the early bebop greats learned to play that way. Baker's book was an analysis of what those players did; it was not a book about how those guys learned to play that way. When Bird said "it was all done with books" he meant the common method books for horn players. Earl Hines--who hired Bird and Diz said they took their method books to gig and in-between sets would take them out and try to figure out how to fit that material into the tunes they soloed over. Bird thought in terms of chords; it doesn't mean you have to.

For all the reading you mention you've done, you left out the source for your claim that Joe Pass learned to play from several methods. I hope you'll give it next time; I'd like to check that book out.

[MarkRhodes]

And I find it quite humorous that some posters feel the absolute necessity to consistently name-drop. I assume the name-droppers knew the names personally.

A more reasonable, adult assumption would be that some people have found out what players they admire have said about how they learned and how they play(ed) and made especial note of it. I make no apology for thinking more highly of Herb Ellis's views on improvisation than I do yours.

[mike walker]

I wasn't debating at all. I stepped in to clarify that "thinking chordally" did not mean playing arpeggios or just playing chord tones. I never said the chord-scale approach was wrong. (Or any other approach.) I never said there was only one way to learn. I did say, if not on this thread then in another, that, historically the chordal approach came first and the scalar approach is much more recent. (This doesn't mean that early players did not know scales; it means that's not how they organized their improvisation.)

I'm familiar with "The Joe Pass Method." Obviously, that is what Joe taught but it is not how he learned to play that way.

David Baker's "How to Play Bebop," which is a fine series, is not how ANY of the early bebop greats learned to play that way. Baker's book was an analysis of what those players did; it was not a book about how those guys learned to play that way. When Bird said "it was all done with books" he meant the common method books for horn players. Earl Hines--who hired Bird and Diz said they took their method books to gig and in-between sets would take them out and try to figure out how to fit that material into the tunes they soloed over. Bird thought in terms of chords; it doesn't mean you have to.

For all the reading you mention you've done, you left out the source for your claim that Joe Pass learned to play from several methods. I hope you'll give it next time; I'd like to check that book out.

Listen to the Catch me Sessions. Circa 1960. Joe is playing stuff that could drop right into his method.
Why would he play from one source rather than several? I'm not getting what your point is at all. It doesn't make sense, in a general way at least, whatsoever.
We can go way back, of course (70 years!!!!) and players were of course playing Chordally, but that was a long time ago and the idiom has taken on so many improvisatory methods since then, it's just bizarre to even talk about questions like 'Scales or no scales'.
It doesn't matter anyway if Joe learned at first to play Chordally.
That would have been, if it's true, his starting point.
The question is 'Scales or no scales'.... and Joe, if his Method book has any say in it, would answer 'Scales'.
As would Pat Martino, Pat Metheny, John Sco, or Art Tatum, or Oscar Peterson, or Wes or Jim Hall or.....
well, ya get the point.

Get Joe's book.
Also, Tony D played with Joe..... Tony confirms that Joe used several sources.... (not that I needed confirmation, I only have to listen to understand that) so maybe that'll sway you a touch.

[Tony DeCaprio]

A more reasonable, adult assumption would be that some people have found out what players they admire have said about how they learned and how they play(ed) and made especial note of it. I make no apology for thinking more highly of Herb Ellis's views on improvisation than I do yours.

I need no apology from you and I never asked for one. You can think highly of whomever you wish. If you also wish to name drop, that is your choice. It was never about comparing opinions of different players. It's about *your* statements is all, which have little to do with what I was saying all along. And since you have nothing left but to get personal, I will leave you alone to play with yourself on that. I am curious to know if you have any support here on the matter. I have not yet viewed any, but I do wish you luck and look forward in hearing you play.

[coolvinny]

Well...I am no great player by any stretch, but I can offer this based on my limited experience:
- good improv happens in the moment from listening, not thinking...thinking just kills it (and not in a good way); and
- after ditching scales for about a year or so and focusing chord tones, I'm now working scales back into my practice routine...I think one needs to be solid in many areas to really pull this improv thing off.

Full disclosure: I recently started taking Skype lessons with Tony DeCaprio. We have not specifically discussed scales (except maybe in passing) in our 2 lessons - my comment on scales is just based on my own experience and from finding holes in my playing (holes that are made much more apparent now that I am jamming with very good players). I am lucky enough to jam twice a week with a sax player who can play anything at any time at any speed and with any feel...I'm pretty sure he knows his scales!

[Shadow of the Sun]

Sorry to be blunt, but Ellis was a perfectly dreadful player. If you regard his music as being great in any way, then I'm afraid your ears have a VERY long way to go.

Making objective statements about subjective opinions is not exactly the best way to make friends.

[Jonzo]

I have looked through this whole thread, and I am not sure if people are talking about chord-scales (one chord-scale per chord) or scales over sections ("The A section is in Bb").

I like the idea of memorizing the smallest data sets possible, and expanding on them with consistent rules. Chord-scales seem like too much data.

If I am playing over a section that I know will work with a certain scale, that scale is going to give me a smaller data set to deal with than all of the chords tones in each measure. Otherwise I will rely on the actual chord tones to build around.

I'm just a beginner, but it works for me.

So what are the rules?

1. What does it sound like to be a half step away from a tone?
2. What does it sound like to be a whole step away from a tone?

You internalize these rules by improvising. Play a line over some chords. Listen. Think. What sounded good? Change something. Listen. Think. How is the new line different?

After a while you just know.

After a longer while, I suppose you are not thinking about scales or chords.

Now regarding how to practice arpeggios and scales, the key for jazz players seems to be constantly changing patterns, so that you can find any note in any context.

This is a little out of context, but there are some interesting parallels to learning a language, and this article might interest some of you.

What’s the secret to learning a second language? - Salon.com

[AmundLauritzen]

Sorry to be blunt, but Ellis was a perfectly dreadful player. If you regard his music as being great in any way, then I'm afraid your ears have a VERY long way to go.

It's one thing to say "I don't personally appreciate this player" but to slander his name like that is arrogant and bad character.

Oscar Peterson disagreed with you. You are basically implying his ears had a long way to go too.

[Tony DeCaprio]

I have looked through this whole thread, and I am not sure if people are talking about chord-scales (one chord-scale per chord) or scales over sections ("The A section is in Bb").

I like the idea of memorizing the smallest data sets possible, and expanding on them with consistent rules. Chord-scales seem like too much data.

If I am playing over a section that I know will work with a certain scale, that scale is going to give me a smaller data set to deal with than all of the chords tones in each measure. Otherwise I will rely on the actual chord tones to build around.

I'm just a beginner, but it works for me.

So what are the rules?

1. What does it sound like to be a half step away from a tone?
2. What does it sound like to be a whole step away from a tone?

You internalize these rules by improvising. Play a line over some chords. Listen. Think. What sounded good? Change something. Listen. Think. How is the new line different?

After a while you just know.

After a longer while, I suppose you are not thinking about scales or chords.

Now regarding how to practice arpeggios and scales, the key for jazz players seems to be constantly changing patterns, so that you can find any note in any context.

This is a little out of context, but there are some interesting parallels to learning a language, and this article might interest some of you.

What’s the secret to learning a second language? - Salon.com

For a "beginner", as you say that you are, you have presented a very good viewpoint towards coming to the aid of the OP and all those who are as curious. The question of "What do you think while improvising?", which in and of itself is a perfect contradiction (in it's purest sense), is a normal question asked by a learner; a non-improviser. The real improvisation is simply "improvisation." Improvisation means: A creation spoken or written or composed extemporaneously; that is *without prior preparation*. Having stated that, *all* musicians will become distracted here and there during improvisation (lose footing) and fall back to pre-prepared ideas or math oriented (scales, chord/scale, licks, patterns, "shapes", melodic and/or harmonic displacement, ad infinitum) ways of covering the ground. The gnosis (knowing) is extrapolated via separation. In other words, do not permit the gimmicks to become the main event, because if so, that ends of being artificial improvisation (trying to fake the audience out, besides yourself). The learner has to understand the separation and strive for pure improvisation albeit rarely attained. This is a direct parallel with the modus operandi of meditation: Impossible to clear the mind for too long, yet the the achievement that yields the fruit is within the TRYING. The gnosis is in the *striving.* The student tends to hit a junction, because he/she is not yet an improviser and it may automatically be assumed that the fail-safe approach is the only way. One of the real ways is simple: BALANCE WITHIN PREPARATION DURING PRACTICING AND STUDYING. Ahhh...but what does balance entail, usually?

One way to enterprise balance is to realize and surrender to the fact that groups of components of study must be studied (physically, mentally and aurally) on a daily and regimented basis. The way to "Nirvana" constitutes a vast network; a cross-current of roads, like the roads leading to Rome. Each road has to be maintained ( paved and re-paved, cleared of debris, fallen trees, etc, etc), because **the jazz exists within the network** and not the one road, because one road is "limited improvisation" at best. recall my analogy with the body-builder. Such components entail development of, for a few examples: Technique, Theory (in all it's splendor), lifting, transcribing, writing down ideas ( composed improvisation if you can read and write music, because this is a beautiful way to bring your own creativity to the surface while aiding in the development of your own mental faculties concerning how to improvise). EAR TRAINING...work on relative pitch each and every day as a must component, no matter what. I have mentioned one group of ways. There are several, but we should pick and choose a group that is workable and doable within the confines of the allotted time and rate of personal learning. Do not worry about how fast you can or cannot learn. The goal is in the assimilation. Recall the old Tortoise and the Hare story.

In the final analysis, it comes down to the ear. After all, it is an aural art, is it not? Books and theory are essential, but let's face it, they merely teach along the periphery of jazz. Do not make those the main event. And what I mentioned was one group of components to utilize at home. Parallel to all of that, and **if at all possible**, BEG TO PLAY WITH MUSICIANS WHO ARE BETTER THAN YOU. You must perform and using a drummer. It is no secret and there is no easy way. Most of us learned to play on the band-stand just like most soldiers became champ soldiers by actually seeing combat, and not merely one way: studying strategies.

As for advice from the players you (I say "you" in general), take into consideration that they are human. Humans say and do what humans say and do. This means that sometimes they say and do the opposite for whatever personal reasons. One good litmus test is easy to perform: Observe the myriad ways each worshiped name offers. You will likely discover a cross-current of contradictions. And even within that vast network of contradictions (which includes my advice, as well), the best learning takes place.

Jazz improvisation is no lark and even though as Tal Farlow once said, "It's a crummy way to make a living," it is wonderfully rewarding when your goal is actually achieved. Don't rush anything, but be humble about it and never restrict yourself to learning within a vacuum.

[JohnRoss]

If you also wish to name drop...

I only mention it because you seem to be something of a word lover, but that isn't really what "name-dropping" means, and neither does anything Mark has said. "Name-dropping" is trying to imply that you know someone to talk to, not quoting things you have read. I wouldn't have thought his preferring Herb Ellis's opinion to yours was particularly personal, either, though I admit you could read his phrasing as being slightly indelicate, if you were in a touchy frame of mind. As to whether he has any support, what's to disagree with? He has said nothing very controversial to anyone here, most of us began with the chord route, for example, and lots of us are still on it. The only thing is that you and Mike seem to find his "one thing at a time" approach objectionable, as opposed to your own "drink from all sources" - personally, I'd have thought you needed to do both, concentrate on one thing for a certain period of time, open your mind to other things for another. If you take Mark's argument a bit further, it admits very little argument: if you try to take on too much, you are very unlikely to succeed at anything. If a kid wanted to be a great footballer and a great tennis player and were promising at both, you'd probably advise him to pick the one he enjoyed most and concentrate on it. If he were set on becoming a first-class classical performer and a top-rate jazz performer at the same time, at some stage he'd have to choose or he'd never get anywhere as either, it's obvious. So Mark is right, you can't follow lots of roads at the same time.

Heck, I'm as guilty as anyone here of picking fights, and sometimes just for the hell of it, too, but this one is really unnecessary, no, let's have a better word - gratuitous.

[Tony DeCaprio]

I only mention it because you seem to be something of a word lover, but that isn't really what "name-dropping" means, and neither does anything Mark has said. "Name-dropping" is trying to imply that you know someone to talk to, not quoting things you have read. I wouldn't have thought his preferring Herb Ellis's opinion to yours was particularly personal, either, though I admit you could read his phrasing as being slightly indelicate, if you were in a touchy frame of mind. As to whether he has any support, what's to disagree with? He has said nothing very controversial to anyone here, most of us began with the chord route, for example, and lots of us are still on it. The only thing is that you and Mike seem to find his "one thing at a time" approach objectionable, as opposed to your own "drink from all sources" - personally, I'd have thought you needed to do both, concentrate on one thing for a certain period of time, open your mind to other things for another. If you take Mark's argument a bit further, it admits very little argument: if you try to take on too much, you are very unlikely to succeed at anything. If a kid wanted to be a great footballer and a great tennis player and were promising at both, you'd probably advise him to pick the one he enjoyed most and concentrate on it. If he were set on becoming a first-class classical performer and a top-rate jazz performer at the same time, at some stage he'd have to choose or he'd never get anywhere as either, it's obvious. So Mark is right, you can't follow lots of roads at the same time.

Heck, I'm as guilty as anyone here of picking fights, and sometimes just for the hell of it, too, but this one is really unnecessary, no, let's have a better word - gratuitous.

Thanks for your input. Are you a professional jazz musician? First of all I never imposed an argument and once again , I never said take on many things at the same time. I said take a group of things that can be handled at once as in striving for a balance. As for a lover of words? That I have no come-back. As being a bit "touchy", perhaps you are right when it comes to certain types advice being spat out without experience. As a musician of 50 years and having performed for and alongside some to the greatest names in music history (hoping that no one must construe this as but ego; but certain they will), and being an author and educator world-wide, I believe that my intent is viable and "note-worthy" and not loaded. I have nothing personal against Mark. As an after-thought about words, communication is essential especially within a venue where so much gets misinterpreted and hence detoured into "tangential-land." Whoops! There I go again.

[whatswisdom]

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.

Just a note for playing fast bebop lines... you need accents, which rhythmically helps organize your line... many times when you break down the line or pattern your playing... there is a simple collection of target notes , and you can connect them anyway you choose. much easier than memorization of entire lines... hey and your actually playing in a jazz style as compared to memorize and perform.

Great thread! 2 quotes that speak volumes. Just picked up Bird with Fats Navarro Live at Birdland with Bud Powell. Do yourself a favor and listen if you haven't heard it. Scales were learned and internalized by these players until automatic. Some of the fastest tempos I've heard--yet the lines are clean and the playing is beautiful. Best Round Midnight I've heard in a long time. There's no doubt that scales are an essential part of being a jazz musician.

[JohnRoss]

There's no doubt that scales are an essential part of being a jazz musician.

Sometimes people say things so categorically that right-thinking people simply have to disagree, more with the tone than with the content, and that is balderdash. To kill a second bird w.o.s. and answer Tony's question at the same, no, I'm not a professional, but I have scrabbled on the bottom rungs of the profession. And I have known lots of jazz musicians who could hardly play any scale at all, horn men, for example, limited to Bb, Eb and F, maybe C on a good day. (Dm? That's OK, they'll play in F). Now, am I talking about professional musicians? No, who said you have to be a pro to be a jazz musician? At least as much as the pros, it's the afficionados, the amateurs and the semi-pros, that really keep jazz going. Modern jazz players? No, Charlie Parker didn't invent jazz, Buddy Bolden might have. Jazz is quite big enough to accommodate lots of genres and lots of skill levels and it's still jazz. And if you put your solos together by connecting chord tones, as many of us do, well, if it sounds like jazz, then it is jazz, and blast the eyes of anyone who says otherwise.

[whatswisdom]

right-thinking people simply have to disagree.

I declare you the winner of the argument, right-thinking person.

[JohnRoss]

I declare you the winner of the argument, right-thinking person.

Hot diggety, that's ju-jitsu debating - use your opponent's force against him. So I declare you winner of the JR Award for Making the Winner Look Bad by Being Both More Polite and More Amusing than Him.

[Tony DeCaprio]

Sometimes people say things so categorically that right-thinking people simply have to disagree, more with the tone than with the content, and that is balderdash. To kill a second bird w.o.s. and answer Tony's question at the same, no, I'm not a professional, but I have scrabbled on the bottom rungs of the profession. And I have known lots of jazz musicians who could hardly play any scale at all, horn men, for example, limited to Bb, Eb and F, maybe C on a good day. (Dm? That's OK, they'll play in F). Now, am I talking about professional musicians? No, who said you have to be a pro to be a jazz musician? At least as much as the pros, it's the afficionados, the amateurs and the semi-pros, that really keep jazz going. Modern jazz players? No, Charlie Parker didn't invent jazz, Buddy Bolden might have. Jazz is quite big enough to accommodate lots of genres and lots of skill levels and it's still jazz. And if you put your solos together by connecting chord tones, as many of us do, well, if it sounds like jazz, then it is jazz, and blast the eyes of anyone who says otherwise.

\\

Once again, my question about you being a jazz musician was not a cut. It was out of curiosity all told, because it appeared to me that you misunderstood what I was writing and took it merely as "wordy." It was wordy too, but it contained musical terms leading to application. Once again, anyone can use any way to attain improvisation. To restrict the ways of learning down to one way and preaching that no two ways can be executed during practice, is a way that I, and maybe 300 of my closest friends, would simply advise against.

If there is a disagreement (without being misconstrued or altered simple for the sake of liking an argument) it is in the preaching that only one way at a time is the way. Balance is the way, because the other way opens the door to imbalance. It should be, I would in most cases admit, for a stone beginner. Again and again, it's about balance and giving your self a chance to be about yourself and developing your full potential you. Now I am rather new here, so if it is better that I exit through the door I entered, I have no problem with that. It's all cool.

[JohnRoss]

Now I am rather new here, so if it is better that I exit through the door I entered, I have no problem with that. It's all cool.

No, no, no, heaven forbid. I substantially agree with you, and even if I didn't, would cede to your superior knowledge, experience etc. I have defended another position and stand by what I have said, but I have no wish to insist, and no desire at all to drive you out of this or any other discussion, quite the contrary.