What Scale/Mode to Play With a Given Chord

[zigzag]

I'm not exactly new to guitar, but I still have a beginner/intermediate skill level, and I'm working to get to the next level. I know enough theory, scales, and chord building, and I'm learning arpeggios. I also know that the best improvisations reference, in some way, melody(s) from the tune. I'm currently reading Ligon's Connecting Chords with Linear Harmony, but it is a slow process (I'm trying to absorb and digest every concept), and I'm only up to the third chapter.

I'm trying to figure out what needs to be going through my head while I'm doing an improvisation. My question is: When I have, say, an E-7 chord, how to I determine whether some permutation of a dorian or aeolian scale, or even some mode of melodic minor, would work best? Do I look to the melody for common notes from the scales or arpeggios? Or do I just forget all of the theory and sit down and work out variations of the melody within the chordal structure, throw out what sounds like crap, and keep the stuff that sounds good?

I really like the chord progressions in My Funny Valentine and Round Midnight, so I'm working on those tunes.

Edit: I just re-read the "What's Wrong with Practicing Scales?" thread and realized that my question is similar as are the potential responses. I guess that the problem I have with the responses I have read is it seems that we are too much a slave to scales and not enough to melody.

[pierre richard]

Check out Jamie Aebersolds "free" booklet...Jazz Aids....

Bert Ligons site is very good....Bob Kellers Jazz Page...

time on the instrument...

[nick1994]

I would try to separate chords from scales and see the chords as just arpeggios. Using scales just gives you an idea what can work over a certain chord, but using scales just requires more effort. I would suggest learn your arpeggios like the back of your hand. Improvising with scales gets messy because people get into a certain "mode" and focus only on note choice and forget about phrasing, which is the most important part of improvising.

[zigzag]

I have a book teaching arpeggios. I'm thinking that rather than learn rote memorization of arpeggios from a book, the best way to learn arpeggios is to know the intervals from the root for each note in all 5 scale positions, esp. the thirds and sevenths, next the 5s and the 9s. What say you?

[nick1994]

Yeah, that would be a good way to practice them, but the whole idea behind arpeggios for me anyway, is to discover all of the neck, so that you aren't limited to positions when playing over changes. When practicing arpeggios, be sure to play them the next octave up.

[AmundLauritzen]

Depends on the current key. Take Fm7 for instance. It is a II-chord in the key of E-flat, in that case dorian. It is a VI-chord in the key of A-flat, in that case Aeolian. In the key of Db, it is the III-chord, hence phrygian.

When a chord functions as tonic minor, you can always play dorian or melodic minor over Aeolian. Most jazz players prefer that sound over the Aeolian which I think creates a bit too much of a "serious business" kind of vibe.

Melodic minor has different uses.
Other than the use for tonic minor, the other modes might be used:

Locrian #2 as a substitute scale for regular locrian. So when you encounter for instance F#m7b5 followed by B7, you can use Locrian #2 on that minor seven flat five.

For ANY major chord, you can play Lydian Augmented if your lines has integrity. It is a major scale with the #4 and #5.

Lydian dominant is a good scale for non resolving dominants. If you have a G7 resolving to C7 and not Cm7 or Cmaj7, you can play lydian dominant.

Superlocrian, AKA the altered scale is a valid scale for any resolving dominant chord.



Always look what comes before and after a chord. That will help you determine the scale choices.

[zigzag]

To nick: That sounds good. It seems to me that the goals behind all of these exercises are to know the fretboard instinctively and to develop my own vocabulary. We can probably debate whether having a more scalar or melodic approach sounds better. I guess I am trying to determine the best way to reach these goals.

To Amund: Thanks for the input. I'll need to think about that for a while. At first glance, it appears to be the exact answer I was looking for.

[henryrobinett]

Arpeggios/chords derive from scales. There's no separation. There's delineation.

[nick1994]

Henry, the problem with scales, is that it presents notes that supposedly work over a chord, but a well experienced player can make any note work over any chord, making scales obsolete. Someone trying to learn how to play over chord changes should always stick to the bare bones material, which I think are arpeggios. I like to think of scales as elaborated arpeggios, They only suggest different sounds.

[henryrobinett]

The problem isn't the scales. The problem is not understanding the scales. You're not supposed to PLAY scales. The scales are there to be used and referenced. But if they are your be all and end all it's not going to sound good. Articulate with the arpeggios. But all arpeggios don't sound good either. There are notes around the chords that sound good IF you know which scale they belong to. There are passing notes and chromatic notes which not only reference the chords but the scales.

[nick1994]

But, scales aren't a necessity to improvising. Though I do agree that they are reference points, but I find that before you approach scales, learn the arpeggios first. That's just my opinion.

[henryrobinett]

That's fine. For me they're all the same thing. I don't separate them. They're all of a piece. If I'm playing ATTYA or The Way You Look I see the chords/arpeggios outlined inside the scale patterns. One doesn't come before the other, from my way of looking. There's no either or. That way I can see the bigger picture as well as the smaller one. Without scale reference it's harder to see the target of the dominant and tonic. How do you know where you're going? The chords aren't separate and alone, each on their own. They are related to the structure of the scale and key(s). Then how would you know not to play D on the Fm7 for ATTYA?

[nick1994]

But, why think what notes to play and what notes to avoid, rather think what notes to highlight and what notes subtly slip in and out. I don't think in terms of wrong notes, they're all right, phrase them in a way that sounds right to you.

[bobby d]

Chords (and arps) are derived from scales. Amund in post #6 has a good answer to the OP. It's good to know chord/scale theory so you'll know the difference between which notes are diatonic and which are passing tones.

Finding out the tonal centers helps to put it all together so that you won't have to think of a different scale with each chord so much.

Do I look to the melody for common notes from the scales or arpeggios?

Yes

[henryrobinett]

But, why think what notes to play and what notes to avoid, rather think what notes to highlight and what notes subtly slip in and out. I don't think in terms of wrong notes, they're all right, phrase them in a way that sounds right to you.

Look, I don't understand what we're arguing about. I can only guess you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm essentially saying the same thing. BUT the source of chords is the scale. They COME FROM scales. To understand them you must relate them to scales.

I play arpeggios all day. I arpeggiated my solos. But they are SOURCED from scales. I highlight the notes of the chord in my solos. I'm not playing scales outright. But the scale is always the fundamental of what I play. I'm talking about me. But I do think it works best. Transcribe Bird, Coltrane, Miles, Evans, Corea, Rollins, Dexter, Brecker, etc. they are playing out of scales. Sometimes - often - they play lines straight out of scales. There's A LOT of other stuff going on too, enclosures, subs. They are THINKING CHORDS, but as they're referenced from scales. And then those scales can move or be substituted.

I'm not talking about running scales. When I hear players run scales it sounds awkward. They're not done figuring it out yet. Learning to play is a process. A long journey. You shouldn't AVOID scales. You should learn how to play them or use them might be a better term.

I have a jazz piano student who did this, because it's easy for piano players to just arpeggiate their solos. But it sounds awkward. I got him to transcribe a lot and recognize the notes in between the chords from various scales and enclosures and tritone subs. And NOW he's playing MUCH better.

But whatever floats your boat. Whatever works best for you and your style, works best for you.

I'd like to hear an example of you playing this way- not playing any scales at all or applying them in anyway. I just think it'd get a little old. But maybe not.

[zigzag]

I have another question. Obviously, melody also comes out of scales. How much allegiance do you pay to the melody? Is your focus to play interesting groups of notes out of the scale as defined by the chord (IMO, the scale and the chord have a mutual relationship) and assume that you are playing a variation of the melody, or is your arpeggiation shaped by the melody?

[henryrobinett]

Are you talking to me? Who? I embellish the melody during the melody sometimes. But when I solo it's generally a take on the harmonic and rhythmic structure and I leave the melody behind. Sometimes I reference the shape. But that's just me. Not right or wrong.

[zigzag]

You and anyone kind enough to respond. I love this place!

A couple of people have touched on the importance of rhythm in an improvisation. It seems to this relative neophyte that everything is dictated by melody- chords, scales, phrasing, and rhythms. Often, in an improvisation, the only vestige of the melody is the rhythm/meter. But for me, the best improvisations maintain some reference to the melody, and in an improvisation, I like to go on a journey, and like all journeys, I enjoy coming home.

[randalljazz]

playing the melody (recognizably) during solos is very old fashioned. to me it disturbs the symmetry of form, weakening the release of the out head. (bass players get a pass if they don't overdo it.)

[zigzag]

Ah, but see, I'm an old school guy. It is refreshing and liberating, though, to know that it is alright to totally escape any reference to the melody and not feel like I'm playing another song.

[Rsilver]

Scales are a practice-time activity, not a performance-time activity. That is, you practice scales to get relationships between chords and certain types of (scalar) melodies into your head and hopefully to stimulate your musical imagination. At performance-time, you only have time to imagine (hear) melodies inspired by the chords and play them by ear. Any thinking along the lines of "what scale belongs with this chord?" could be counterproductive at performance-time because you don't have time to think. I know this is idealistic, but that's my 2 cents...

[henryrobinett]

That's more than idealistic. Its true and real.

[bobby d]

"what scale belongs with this chord?" could be counterproductive at performance-time because you don't have time to think.

The scales' patterns and what they sound like are OK to think of, but thinking of the scale's name is stiffling. Howard Roberts said only to play scale riffs up or down only 3 or 4 notes then go to something else (arps, interval jumps etc). That will prevent your phrases from sounding like scales.

[nick1994]

I'm not saying to avoid scales, just that I was taught to learn arpeggios before scales. When you analyse solos, do you look for references to scales? if you saw a C# and E played over a Cmaj7 for 2 bars, would you say, "they must be referencing double harmonic major scale", or "they are resolving from the b2 to maj3"? I find scales useful for certain things, but not for all things.

[henryrobinett]

I think and reference chords. Db in a CMaj7 chord I'd think of as a C Maj with a flatted 2 or 9th. I might stick an A triad or a Db half dim arpeggio on top. But it all depends on context. Now I'm talking about playing. Analyzing is again dependent on context.