What's Wrong With Practicing Guitar Scales?

[targuit]

I'm still mystified by questions regarding "what scale over this chord" approach? When you sing the melody to
All The Things You Are, do you think about the scale or do you "hear the melody" and sing those notes? I would venture that 99% of musicians would say the latter. If melodies are composed of scales, why would Jerome Kern be any different? Can you imagine this prolific composer of jazz melodies sitting at his piano sifting through various scales to find the immortal notes of this melody? This approach seems to presume that the composer (improviser) is choosing notes in the melody like diamond rings out of a jewelry store case. "Oh! I like this one! What scale is it from?"

In reality, I believe composers and improvisors think more in terms of harmonic context of the phrase they hear and notes that sound both logical and inevitable in that context. Melodies are generally composed of stepwise intervals of a second or a third and larger intervallic "leaps". In the opening melodic phrase, "You...are...the promised kiss of spring time...", the initial Ab of the Fm7 chord is followed by the Db note of the Bbm7. Both notes are the third interval of their respective chords. Imagine him singing a C instead of the Db, thinking "what sounds wrong here?" But that same C note could sound fine if you are playing the phrase with the guitar and incorporate the C as an approach note. Ab (Fm7) - Bb - C - Db7 (Bbm7).... In this instance the Ab, instead of being a whole note would be a dotted half note, with the Bb and C as eighth notes. Now try flattening the C a half step to B natural.
It just doesn't sound right.

To me it's all about hearing the intervals. The ears are king. What scale to play over what chord? That is analysis. But just my 2 cents to kick off a new year of CST controversy. Happy New Year!

jay

[princeplanet]

I agree with the visualization, as Jeff mentioned. I am also a strong advocate of saying the intervals as they're played. Take a look at this chart below. It'll show you an arp, then in the next grid to the right, it highlights the chord, then in the next grid to the right, it defines the arp, the major diatonic scale and also the available tensions. It's all done in the third position with the "2nd finger never moves" rule. The staff and the tab below gives you the fingerings for each grid above it.

Then, on the lower grids, it defines the lydian IV in the same position.

The grids to the far right is ultimately how you should be "visualizing" it . . as it superimposes all of the fingerings in one position. If you speak the intervals while you're practicing them . . it opens up a whole new world of understanding.

There's another graphic that should be added to the right of these 3, the chromatic scale! Using all 12 notes but stressing chord or color tones with control requires deep understanding of the endless ways with which to apply chromatic connections via passing notes or enclosures / dithering etc. I spend way more time working on these than straight scales, which I rarely use in improv despite knowing them very well in all positions - but as mere reference points.

[jster]

So, if I'm understanding you guys, you all approach those chords differently. David says Dorian then Phrygian. Randall says melodic minor then Phrygian. Henry says Dorian then Dorian.

So Dana, that was the point I was getting at. The pros diverge on what the inside choice is. So the melody and harmony often don't tell us which scale to use.

I myself like choices. Where I get hung up, as in the Parker tune, is when I am really developing some pattern and I don't have time to stop and ponder which scale I want to use. But if I go for the technically correct inside choice, then as Randall mentions, I sometimes end up at harmonic major. Which makes me feel weird and pretentious.

[AmundLauritzen]

My chord changes say Dbm7 Gb7 Abmaj7 Bbm7 Cm7 Bdim

To me, that Db minor chord stronly implies melodic minor. It's the IV minor sound. Most people add the Gb7 after it to create a II-V, also known as the "back door cadence". I hear the Cm7 in question not as a lone chord, but as part of a turnaround to II. Because after this section there is a II-V-I and then finally the III7#5 to set us up for the VI at the top of the tune.

like to conceptualize by hearing whole progressions, because that facilitates hearing complete ideas, if that makes sense.

Abmaj7 Bbm7 Cm7 Bdim is a turnaround to II. All chords are diatonic to the key of Ab so that makes it simple for me, I think a key center approach in a situation like this. Then I address the Bdim appropriately, if the line demads it. I can play Ab major all the way through and disregard the dim chord altogether.

So for the whole sequence in question, I might only think two different scales: Db melodic minor and Ab major. Passing tones are "attached" to those scales and are connected to ear and muscle memory.

[targuit]

My chord changes say Dbm7 Gb7 Abmaj7 Bbm7 Cm7 Bdim

To me, that Db minor chord strongly implies melodic minor. It's the IV minor sound. Most people add the Gb7 after it to create a II-V, also known as the "back door cadence". I hear the Cm7 in question not as a lone chord, but as part of a turnaround to II. Because after this section there is a II-V-I and then finally the III7#5 to set us up for the VI at the top of the tune.

like to conceptualize by hearing whole progressions, because that facilitates hearing complete ideas, if that makes sense.

Abmaj7 Bbm7 Cm7 Bdim is a turnaround to II. All chords are diatonic to the key of Ab so that makes it simple for me, I think a key center approach in a situation like this. Then I address the Bdim appropriately, if the line demads it. I can play Ab major all the way through and disregard the dim chord altogether.

So for the whole sequence in question, I might only think two different scales: Db melodic minor and Ab major. Passing tones are "attached" to those scales and are connected to ear and muscle memory.

Amund - could you specify where you are in the melody when you start that Dbm7 phrase? By specify I just mean where in the lyrics you are.

[Badge]

I'm still mystified by questions regarding "what scale over this chord" approach? When you sing the melody to
All The Things You Are, do you think about the scale or do you "hear the melody" and sing those notes? I would venture that 99% of musicians would say the latter. If melodies are composed of scales, why would Jerome Kern be any different? Can you imagine this prolific composer of jazz melodies sitting at his piano sifting through various scales to find the immortal notes of this melody? This approach seems to presume that the composer (improviser) is choosing notes in the melody like diamond rings out of a jewelry store case. "Oh! I like this one! What scale is it from?"

In reality, I believe composers and improvisors think more in terms of harmonic context of the phrase they hear and notes that sound both logical and inevitable in that context. Melodies are generally composed of stepwise intervals of a second or a third and larger intervallic "leaps". In the opening melodic phrase, "You...are...the promised kiss of spring time...", the initial Ab of the Fm7 chord is followed by the Db note of the Bbm7. Both notes are the third interval of their respective chords. Imagine him singing a C instead of the Db, thinking "what sounds wrong here?" But that same C note could sound fine if you are playing the phrase with the guitar and incorporate the C as an approach note. Ab (Fm7) - Bb - C - Db7 (Bbm7).... In this instance the Ab, instead of being a whole note would be a dotted half note, with the Bb and C as eighth notes. Now try flattening the C a half step to B natural.
It just doesn't sound right.

To me it's all about hearing the intervals. The ears are king. What scale to play over what chord? That is analysis. But just my 2 cents to kick off a new year of CST controversy. Happy New Year!

jay

Jay, I agree with you. You can analyze most art forms - visual, poetic, prose, music etc.. But don't let the tail wag the dog. Analysis is very useful, but the art came before it.

I'm finding it's all about the ears. Improvising, to me, is the ability to play what is in your head spontaneously on your instrument. Your guitar becomes your voice. Once you accept this premise (which I have) it is nonsense to spend huge hours on running scale or other patterns in the hope it will 'sink in'. Better to spend the time getting your ears tuned in, know the intervals and cliches in your head, and then work on the mechanics of playing them on the instrument.

[randalljazz]

Db minor is on "day".

the choice of melodic minor is based on the position of the chord--subdominant minor (borrowed chord) immediately following the Db major (subdominant)...a harmonic cliche from much earlier times. just flat the 3rd.

[jster]

Randall, are we using the same changes? I'm using the Real Book changes:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Un82phedwJ...gs+You+Are.jpg

There is only one Db-7 chord. Are you talking about playing Db melodic minor over that? So a maj7 over the min7 chord?

[pierre richard]

Good replies above..

It comes down to...it's not the scales but the way they are played....

You make them more musical instead of mechanical...

As said above....rhythmic variation will add life to them...

time on the instrument...

[Dana]

jster, from the way I’m reading your posts, you’re saying two different things. Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.

But how often can you really tell what scales the melody is drawn from?

When you said this, I thought you meant, 'what scales are being used to comprise the melody (the head) of the tune?" In my opinion, with a little research, one can figure it out.

For example; in the case of AATYA, the second note of the melody in bar 2 is Db. I don’t just relate that to bar 2 only. I see it in relation to the bars before and after bar 2. In bar 1, Db is the b6 in F-7 (Aeolian). The key signature is Ab, so in bar 2 Bb-7 would be Dorian. Eb7 is mixo, etc. I see the melody in the first 5 bars as Ab major.

So Dana, that was the point I was getting at. The pros diverge on what the inside choice is. So the melody and harmony often don't tell us which scale to use.

To me this is a different question than you asked earlier. I take this to mean “what scales do I use to improvise over chords.” That’s a different question than asking what scales a melody (head) is comprised of.

In the case of improvising, you do have more options. Often you hear the pros using different scales.

For me, when in doubt, I use Dorian for most minor 7 chords. Unless...
* The melody has a note that indicates something else (b2, b6)
* The key signature indicates otherwise

AATYA: For C-7 in bar 31 my first choice would be Phrygian because C-7 is the III-7 chord in Ab major (the key signature). They key word being choice since Dorian and Aeolian could work.

I myself like choices.

I take my hat off to you. When I'm on the bandstand all I want to know is what is going to work..

I'm looking at the Aebersold Real Book, which has the following changes in the last 8 bars.

Dbmaj7 - Gb7(13) - C-7 - Bdim7
Bb-7 - Eb7 - Abmaj7 - Gm7 C7b9

[randalljazz]

Randall, are we using the same changes? I'm using the Real Book changes:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Un82phedwJ...gs+You+Are.jpg

There is only one Db-7 chord. Are you talking about playing Db melodic minor over that? So a maj7 over the min7 chord?

if you are asking about comping, i would play Dm6, not D-maj7. it will fit over melodic minor or dorian. you would need to listen to what those you are playing with are using (henry thinks dorian, for example).


i thought you were asking about scales. Db-Eb-Fb-Gb-Ab-Bb-C, for the previously stated reasons.
.

[jster]

That’s a different question than asking what scales a melody (head) is comprised of.

Yes, they are different questions. But I was and still am understanding you as saying that you can easily determine which scales the melody (head) is comprised of. But if that is so, then it seems the scales that the melody (head) is comprised of should furnish the most inside choice for improvisation. So then I asked about ATTYA, because in 90% of tunes, there always seems to be a few bars, often towards the end, where I don't know what what the inside choice is.

[henryrobinett]

Wow. I think some of you guys are getting way too complicated. You can analyze all kinds of things but what are you going to PLAY?

Amud - I don't know about those changes for the coda, or whatever. I've played this tune countless times with all kinds of people from the west coast to the east coast to Germany and Vienna and I don't recall those changes. Doesn't mean they're not right!

Targuit - singing the melody is important as is composing it. Good points. However when improvising most people want a wide range of "correct" note choices and possibilities to choose from. If you were scatting like Ella where would your notes choices come from? If you're improvising a solo you're not going to continuously restate the melody I hope. That'd get kind of boring. You want contrast in speed and color. Those notes come from arpeggios, extensions, altered tones, scales, enclosures, substitutions, happy mistakes, chromaticism, side stepping, modalism, guide tones, etc.

Even the composer is aware of these other notes choices, 9 times out of 10.

[Patrick2]

There's another graphic that should be added to the right of these 3, the chromatic scale! Using all 12 notes but stressing chord or color tones with control requires deep understanding of the endless ways with which to apply chromatic connections via passing notes or enclosures / dithering etc. I spend way more time working on these than straight scales, which I rarely use in improv despite knowing them very well in all positions - but as mere reference points.

This is an excellent point princeplanet. I do uses chromatics (don't we all?) . . but, I do not use them when practicing the actual fingerings referenced in the grids I've shown. My concern was clouding the fingerings and thus having it become a total chromaticism. But, I do like the usage of framing and enclosures. It would definitely be useful to start incorporating some of those chromatics, in a methodical approach, into my practicing. Thanks!

[ecj]

I don't post enough to stay engaged in this stuff, but it's a great discussion!

I really disagree with the folks who don't think the composers were picking notes from scales. I can't imagine that Kern did not understand, mechanically and theoretically, what he was doing with ATTYA. The key center shifts are so deliberate and perfectly constructed.

I don't see anyone in classical circles arguing about CST. It's just taken or granted that that's how composition works. For some reason jazz guys get all up in arms about it, for reasons I don't really understand.

ATTYA is a pretty complicated tune, but go look at Autumn Leaves. The whole thing is just scale based licks going between the relative major and minor. They even use the traditional melodic minor ascension from common practice period theory. I mean, can anyone really think of a head to a songbook tune that doesn't have at least one scalar grouping?

[targuit]

Henry, this issue of "note choices" is the nut for me. Twelve tones - I use them all. But I don't give a rat's ass whether the note is part of a scale, in part because I know that every note of the twelve can be a part of a scale. Who cares? I play extemporaneously. I read notation fluently, so if a composer or producer wants, I can sight read a score. But if I know the melody, I improvise around the melody. I hear the extensions, flats, sharps, approach notes, enclosures....I honestly don't need a pool of special notes to choose from. Of the twelve tones, some sound good to me, others don't. I know why, but I don't care if the "note pool" is lydian or martian! If it sounds good, I play it. There is a vast difference between not knowing or understanding a concept or analytical tool and not needing it.

This morning I just started and completed a transcription / score for The End Of A Love Affair, for which I used a Tony Bennett performance in G. Scored in Sibelius. Beautiful song, with a slightly quirky melody in places. I did not think about scales once. Why bother?

ECJ - I am mystified as to why you would think that Kern would crack open his Piston book to find the notes to his melody. You are kidding, right? The point is you can create various pools of notes that can be a "scale". But the scale is not the source of the melody or harmony. It is an analytical tool.

Edit: Rereading this, it sounds a bit pedantic and opinionated, even cross! Not intended as such. Just an opinion...

Jay

[henryrobinett]

targuit - I don't give a rat's ass for that stuff either. But when I TEACH someone I have to give them references for a how-to method for finding those notes. It doesn't do him any good to just say "hear it." There are specific things like enclosures that are very common and give a common sound, and when I point it out guys who weren't aware of them go, "OMG! Thats what that is!"

I don't play modally unless the song is a modal song. But I find it helpful to teach intro concepts to this by pointing the modes out.

I consider myself maybe primarily a composer, so I relate to the process. I'm no Jerome Kern or Gershwin, but I understand the composer process. The more one knows the better one can compose. ATTYA practically has a melody made of guide tones. Very direct and it follows scales. I don't know the first thing about CST. I'm not a proponent of that system. I don't even know what it is, not being a Berkelee dude. But chords form a harmonic system based on the structure of their parent scales. You can shift them, substitute them, move them around. It's a harmonic system that works for me. Playing by your ear alone has it's limitations. It's hard to hear fast tempos and tricky harmonic stuff. It's better for me to know what I'm doing. My EAR rules the roost, but my mind sees the structure. It helps my ear and my ear helps the structure. YMMV and that's totally fine.

[vinlander]

I'm finding it's all about the ears. Improvising, to me, is the ability to play what is in your head spontaneously on your instrument. Your guitar becomes your voice. Once you accept this premise (which I have) it is nonsense to spend huge hours on running scale or other patterns in the hope it will 'sink in'. Better to spend the time getting your ears tuned in, know the intervals and cliches in your head, and then work on the mechanics of playing them on the instrument.

Exactly what playing music is for me...

[ecj]

ECJ - I am mystified as to why you would think that Kern would crack open his Piston book to find the notes to his melody. You are kidding, right? The point is you can create various pools of notes that can be a "scale". But the scale is not the source of the melody or harmony. It is an analytical tool.

I disagree strongly with this statement. The scale is absolutely the source of the melody. The common practice period developed a system of theoretical constructs that explained how to create something aurally pleasing. The way Mozart and all those guys learned to compose was very much a case of cracking open books and learning rules about harmonic and melodic relationships.

Take, for example, the melodic minor. A scale developed to create a smooth rising action for vocal lines. When you learn composition they teach you how to harmonize that approach, how to write it, etc. It's not the case that everyone spontaneously did the same thing because it sounded good. People learned about it and incorporated it.

Kern probably didn't have to refer to his books because I'm sure he learned that system thoroughly and internalized it. You can look at any of his tunes and pretty easily understand which scales he's drawing tones from. There's nothing mysterious about what he's doing. It's beautiful and impressive, but the theoretical basis can be understood.

Henry - I don't know if there's some specific system called CST. I thought it was just understanding that a ii chord, for example, can be understood as being built off of the second tone of the major scale. Maybe I'm wrong and there's something more to it than the basics.

[henryrobinett]

ecj - I dont know either. When I first came here, or was it on another site?, I questioned CST and someone said it was a specific Berkelee system developed by some instructor there. Chord -Scale - Theory indicates that it's a specific system. If all it i is the relationship of ii being the 2nd degree, yeah, that's pretty obvious. I don't know why anyone would argue against it. It's like arguing against the existence of air.

The more one analyses melodies and solos the more one recognizes those relationships. Hand in glove. I don't know what the argument is about. I too play by my ear and my heart and play what is spontaneously there. That's WHY I play jazz and why I decided to play jazz. But the more you understand the structure the better will you be able to play what's inside your head and heart. To me it'd be like wanting to only talk and write spontaneously what is in your mind and heart instantaneously, but refuse to learn an alphabet, or a dictionary or study essays or metaphors or grammar. It's almost impossible to fully express yourself with any fluidity without some fundamental knowledge. You only know half of what you to sing, speak or otherwise express if knowledge isn't acquired.

[AmundLauritzen]

Amund - could you specify where you are in the melody when you start that Dbm7 phrase? By specify I just mean where in the lyrics you are.

Bar 30. I think it's where the lyrics go "some day I'll know". I think "day" would be over the Dbm7. Then later "Divine" would be approximately where the Bdim chord is.

[kris]

Jay, I agree with you. You can analyze most art forms - visual, poetic, prose, music etc.. But don't let the tail wag the dog. Analysis is very useful, but the art came before it.

I'm finding it's all about the ears. Improvising, to me, is the ability to play what is in your head spontaneously on your instrument. Your guitar becomes your voice. Once you accept this premise (which I have) it is nonsense to spend huge hours on running scale or other patterns in the hope it will 'sink in'. Better to spend the time getting your ears tuned in, know the intervals and cliches in your head, and then work on the mechanics of playing them on the instrument.

You play what you learn...:-)

[targuit]

One would have to point out the notes of the tempered Western scale are the same for everybody. In Bach's time the actual keyboard instruments were not radically different from their modern equivalents.

Not to belabor the point, but theory is the explanation of why certain combinations of notes and intervals from a tonic sound good. One perspective here asserts that beautiful music is created out of scales. Another that it is the result of creativity and artistry. I cannot argue that any of the twelve tones can be fashioned into scales. I learned on the diatonic major and minor scales in all keys. Beyond that I certainly know other scales. I recommend every player become proficient in scales and especially that they harmonize them in all positions.

Yet, as good as one can become in playing scales and recognizing these kiddie note pools that somehow are indistinguishable to the untutored ear as 'good' versus 'bad', creating music from these tools available to all comes down to creativity, artistry, and ears.

What I find arguable is the presumption that the player who has integrated music theory and practice into his or her playing to the point that they respond intuitively by ear must somehow be an "untutored theory ignoramus". Quite the opposite is true. Not to say that a musical genius like Stan Getz cannot appear now and again who is said to have been musically ignorant. I have my doubts. But would you have the temerity to tell Stan Getz that he really was not so good because he didn't know where his melodies came from? Really?

I do understand that at a certain level of a musician's development, they might need to approach improvisation from this approved "kiddie pools" of notes rather than the commonsense "if it sounds good to your ear, play it" approach. I'm not a teacher, though I took formal lessons in classical guitar for years as a young teen. I learned more actual theory on my own. In any case not much in theory has changed radically from Bach's time unless you are talking serialism. Triads, counterpoint, scales - mostly the same these days as in Bach's era. The difference between Bach and most of us? I suspect it comes down more to creativity in weaving musical magic than the scales.

Jay

[christianm77]

Try singing them.

If you can sing a melodic minor in thirds that's a good start. Patterns are surprisingly difficult with this scale - I find it much harder than any of the major scale modes because of that whole toney bit from b3 up to 7. Harmonic minor is tough too.

Try doing them just over the chords. If you can sing an altered scale in 3rds over a dominant chord, I think that's going to teach more about that scale than ten hours of playing them up and down with a metronome.

Important thing is to remember that modes and scales are beautiful sounds but they are very much the icing on the cake of solid changes playing (i.e. triads etc.)

[christianm77]

On a more philosophical note, here's my beef with CST:

CST is very vertical - in it's most brain dead manifestation (the Aebersold approach) it means fitting a scale to each chord. If you are playing Little Sunflower that's fine but you are going to have practical problems on Rhythm Changes! There's a reason why present day jazz educators teach Little Sunflower before I Got Rhythm, despite the fact that this flies in the face of the history of jazz more or less completely.

So
- It is a poor for method changes playing
- It gives no indication structurally of why one chord might follow another or what the function of a particular chord might be (there are musicians who think Just Friends is in C because it starts on that chord)
- It distracts students the hearing, intuitive part of playing
- It overlooks rhythm (because 7 note scales are unbalanced rhythmically to start off with)
- It encourages students to play lots and lots of notes!

Modal sounds - as used by Miles, Trane, Wayne, Herbie etc etc are fantastic, but you have to have a strong basis in tonality to use them really effectively. I do not dispute for a second that these sounds exist within jazz - Django is using the Dorian mode in the 1930's for example. Nothing wrong with knowing some CST, provided you know the other stuff too.

Tonality really is classical harmonic theory - the stuff with the borrowed chords, secondary dominants and roman numerals I find pretty useful for understanding the structure of tin pan alley tunes. No surprise, these tunes where often written by classically trained composers.