Ideas for Improvising on Stablemates

[jordanklemons]

Happy New Year everyone!

I was hesitant to post this analysis. Last time I shared one of these, it about started a riot. But it is the new year and time for new beginnings.

The gist of what I'm doing here is analyzing the tune to find the melodic progression. The real book gives us the harmonic progression, but in most tunes, there is actually a unique progression being implied by the melody. It's generally built on triads and gives a very particular contour and character to the arch of the tune.

The bottom clef is the basic real book info. Melody and changes... straight from the book.

The top clef is my analysis. I went through and picked what, to me, seemed liked the best triad choices over each chord/measure. This was based on the notes in the melody, where I felt the gravity and momentum of the melody moving, and the chords underneath them that had to be able to support these 'melodic triads'.

In the top clef you'll see the 4 notes notated out. You'll also see above that the name of the triad with the tension note added next to it in parenthesis. That's just to make it a little quicker and easier to work through.

Try improvising ONLY using the 4 note structure. They're almost like mini-pentatonic scales... made specifically for this song to accentuate the melodic contour of the piece even when you're improvising. If this is really hard for you, go slow. Maybe just play in quarter notes or half notes. Go as slow as you need to in order to be able to voice lead nicely in and out of these. The idea isn't to shred arpeggios through the changes. The melody on this tune doesn't sound like any of that. It just sounds like a melody. See if you can play a lyrical, melodic statement through the changes using these shapes. If it's easy, and you're killing it naturally...try adding in chromatic side stepping and approach notes the way Benny did in the head.

Looking forward to hearing what everyone thinks!

Just a few ideas. If they're something you're interested enough in to try out, I'd love to hear your thoughts... or better, a video of you playing through the changes using the 4 note groupings! If you have questions, hit me. I love this stuff.

Remember, the goal is to get away from sounding like we're running scales, arpeggios, or riffs and to really play melodies... and melodies that have a similar contour and arch to them that was originally written in as part of the personality of this tune. So if it's hard and you're struggling with it... that's good. It means you're being forced in the right direction, away from what you know. Just go slow and listen. Don't be too hard on yourself. This stuff gets easier the more you do it. And this is an exceptionally challenging piece to start with.

Happy Practicing!
Jordan

[eh6794]

Good stuff.

I'm not sure what the riot was all about, but to be blunt, I think a lot of successful teachers get upset when someone comes along with a brand new way to teach.

When we first start learning to sound like a jazz musician, we are told to play scales; then after a year of that, they say don't play scales, but few people really explain what that means. Don't play scales?

Your technique seems to skip the scales, and you teach how to accomplish that successfully.

[grahambop]

It's about time we had another riot, things have been pretty quiet round here.

[destinytot]

Thanks very much indeed for this, Jordan - and Happy New Year! (Another to 'copy, print, save to PDF' - and to study.)

[jordanklemons]

It's about time we had another riot, things have been pretty quiet round here.

Yeah, it's really not in my nature to enjoy rocking the boat. But you know... sometimes we must sacrifice ourselves to keep others happy.

Good stuff.

I'm not sure what the riot was all about, but to be blunt, I think a lot of successful teachers get upset when someone comes along with a brand new way to teach.

When we first start learning to sound like a jazz musician, we are told to play scales; then after a year of that, they say don't play scales, but few people really explain what that means. Don't play scales?

Your technique seems to skip the scales, and you teach how to accomplish that successfully.

The 'riot' - as I was sort of playfully referring to it - was just some drama that got started last time I shared an analysis like this. Some people seemed interested... at least enough to want to have a good dialogue. A few people really didn't like my ideas and things got a little... heated.

What can you do?

Your analysis of me and of my analysis is actually really spot on and interesting. I learned to play music the 'traditional' way. I learned all the theory, I listened to the records, I transcribed stuff, I new all my scales and tons of patterns and groupings within them, I new my arpeggios... you know... the way everybody says to do it. It took me to a pretty good place. I could play music. I didn't love everything I played, in fact, often times it seemed like I could never quite find the sounds I wanted to find... but I could still play music. And I knew I was doing something right, because the caliber of musician who would call me for gigs was steadily increasing. But still, something always felt off to me.

The technique I'm sharing here is not something I invented. A teacher I studied with during my masters program got me hip to thinking this way. I've taken his ideas and run with them and tried to find ways to put them on the fretboard... but the initial concept was received from him. And a lot of the sounds I was after earlier in life that I couldn't seem to find, this has helped me find. And when I listen to my teacher play, he has a TON of the elements I'm after, just on a different instrument.

What I did was learned all the scales and THEN stepped back away and tried to figure out how to play melodies. What his system allows is to START by learning to hear and play melodies and THEN build your way up into scales. The added 4th note for tension can grow into an added 5th note, and all of a sudden you have a set of unique pentatonic scales, developed specifically for a given sound. You can then add a 6th note or a 7th note as well. But honestly, even with 20+ years of theory and playing and scales under my belt, I've spent the last year JUST working with the 4 note structures and continue to find really interesting things that can be done with them. If I follow the roadmap I have written out for myself, I expect to stick with the 4 note structure for around 2-4 years before moving on to adding the 5th note. There is so much freedom and flexibility with just 4 notes.

Anyways... interesting points EH. Thanks for sharing. Would love to hear your thoughts if you try and play through the changes with the structures.

[eh6794]

Yes, I like this study very much. As always, it opens my thinking

[grahambop]

Jordan, your stuff is always interesting even if I don't always understand it! Anyway it's better to provoke a riot than no reaction at all.

It probably means you're onto something - think of Stravinsky and the notorious Rite of Spring affair!

[jordanklemons]

Jordan, your stuff is always interesting even if I don't always understand it! Anyway it's better to provoke a riot than no reaction at all.

It probably means you're onto something - think of Stravinsky and the notorious Rite of Spring affair!

Haha... that's hilarious. I guess I just need to find a window I can climb out through if things turn for the worse here.


Sorry if it was confusing. The idea is actually to bring our stuff closer towards simplicity. And I think that's easier to demonstrate and show with my students who I meet with in person. It's proven difficult to type it out in a way that doesn't make it seem complex.

Feel free to ask questions if you want. I've finished teaching at NYU and my masters program is over, so I have more free time now and would be happy to try and provide any clarity I can.

[grahambop]

Haha... that's hilarious. I guess I just need to find a window I can climb out through if things turn for the worse here.


Sorry if it was confusing. The idea is actually to bring our stuff closer towards simplicity. And I think that's easier to demonstrate and show with my students who I meet with in person. It's proven difficult to type it out in a way that doesn't make it seem complex.

Feel free to ask questions if you want. I've finished teaching at NYU and my masters program is over, so I have more free time now and would be happy to try and provide any clarity I can.

No, I think I get this actually (I guess it's on a similar principle as your previous Body and Soul analysis). I will go through it and have a go - Stablemates is a tune I really like but I have not really tackled it properly.

[jordanklemons]

Oh cool. Glad it makes sense. It's the same concept as the B&S analysis. I think I talked more about the name of the particular tonalities in that one and left that out here. For instance, in this tune (and in B&S) the first chord is written as a basic min7, but the melody is really accentuating the 9 as a resolution note... melodically. I hear the melodic progression as having a B minor triad there.

If you sat at the piano and played the 1-b3-b7 of E-7 in your left hand, and played a B minor triad in your hand... we could call that an E-9 chord. And while the G note of the Emin chord is a chord tone, and an important one (3rds and 7ths and all), it will actually function as a tension note when played against an E-9 chord.

I think I was pushing those ideas a little more in the B&S analysis. Here I left that stuff out. It's basically the same concepts, just one is focusing on how best to harmonize the melody and embrace it into the chords, and one is about how to improvise melodically in a way that follows the vibe of the tune. I see them as two sides to the same coin. But they yield different byproducts (chords vs melodies).

I hadn't been thinking with this approach for all that long when I first shared the B&S analysis. That was one of the first tunes I'd done. I knew it worked well because I'd heard my teacher play and can see where all of this is headed... but I was still wrapping my mind around exactly how best to analyze things and how best to write out and share those ideas. But I'm about a year into this stuff now, and it's making so much sense to me. Simplifies everything down. To me.

[jordanklemons]

Huh, so I just noticed something interesting.

I was listening to Benny Golson and the Philadelphians playing this, and his tenor harmonies and counter melodies (except for two passing/tension notes) all exist inside of the melodic progression triads I listed. He has Lee Morgan playing the melody on trumpet. He's doubling the melody an octave lower, but at times breaks away to play a harmony line or to fill empty spaces in the melody...and it's all more or less within these triads.

It's all basic traditional harmony stuff... 1-3-5-7. But it also works within the triads I wrote out. For instance, over the pickup melody notes he descends from a D down to a B note. Those are, of course, in the E- harmony... but they're also in the B- triad. And notice that he chose the B note (5th) instead of the more colorful and often talked about 3rd of the chord. In jazz101, we're usually told 3rds and 7ths are best to outline the chord. But he didn't do that here.

There's any number of reasons as to why that might be, but following the logic in the idea of the melodic progression, we could say he chose the B note instead of the G simply because it worked better, given the flow that he was obviously hearing when he wrote the tune. Had he landed on the G note, it would have created a stronger and more intense rub against the melody note. Which we want sometimes. But if he was trying to create the B- melodic tonic (even if it was unintentional and he wasn't consciously thinking that way), the G note would have sounded like an unresolved note... like a b6 wanting to resolve down to the strong, stable 5th degree.

That what I love about this stuff. It's so simple that it can be applied to just about any aspect of the music. I've used it to develop new chord voicings on the guitar, I've used it to compose melodies over progressions, I've used it to help me improvise through changes, I recently recorded a bunch of new original music with my nonet (5-piece horn section) and used these ideas ALL OVER THE PLACE to work out my horn section arrangements. I used to need the piano and HOURS to get those ideas worked out. Now, I usually just voice everything out following these rules really quickly, then sit down at the piano to double check the work. 99 times out of 100 it's perfect as is.

And Benny Golson just showed me that it can be used to write two part harmony and countermelodies too. Love it! Thanks Benny.

[christianm77]

I like your substitutes. I would probably choose similar ones, I think in most cases, but a few of them are a step further out.

I see the A section of Stablemates as essentially quite simple - it's an embellishment of an old school style progression, to whit:

Em7 A7 | Ebm7 Ab7 | Dbmaj7 | C7+ |
Abm7 | Db7 | Gbmaj7 | Gm7b5 C7+ |
Fm7 | Bb7 | Ebm7 | Ab7 | Dbmaj7 | % |

My analysis:

A7 | Ab7 | Db | Ab7+
Db7| % | Gb | Go7
Db | Bb7 | Ebm | Ab7 | Db | % |


So

bVI7 V7 I
V7+ I7 IV #IVo7
I VI7 ii V7 I

Yeah, you think you so bad Stablemates A section. You ain't so big now are you??? YOU AIN'T SO BIG NOW!!!

Soloing wise, I would reference the following to some extent:

G | Gb | Fm | C(+) |
G | Gm | Fm | C |
Db | Abm | Ebm | Gb (Gbm) | Fm | %|

(you have an option for F over Db in the last 2 bars of the A in yours - so a possible Dbmaj7+ sound? Ab/Db is a nice one too, I've started using that for comping on maj7 chords.)

I think of these as 'floating subs' - that is they don't use leading tone resolutions in ii-V's etc so have a more floating character that I really like...

That said, I think your subs would sound better as pure triads, because you want some upper structure in your b7 subs (IVm over iim V7 is an absolute classic - see Honeysuckle Rose FFS.)

Once you have that you are free to add some triadic chromatic voice leading - which is pretty intuitive with 3 note structures I think...

Over the first three bars, A --> F --> Db could be fun

Triad superpositions work great for any era of jazz, that's one of the beauties of them.

[christianm77]

Actually - that was a little OT. Looking at the actual staff notation and reading what you wrote more carefully - I see I missed the point completely.

I'll leave my post up anyway, 'cos why not.

It's too late here to run this now but I'll play through it tomorrow. I like the look of it... The logic seems pretty clear.

[jordanklemons]

Ah, ok. I was a little confused by your earlier comment... but I see now. I thought I was missing something. I actually really like your harmonic break down of the A section. I've never thought to look at it that way. But you could do that AND my melodic breakdown simultaneously if you wanted to. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's a melodic analysis more than a harmonic one. You could still (and I do sometimes) just outline the basic harmonic structures. But it leaves my lines sounding like I'm just doing that... outlining chords. This has helped me do something similar, because there's such an overlap between harmony and melody, but it seems to accomplish it in a more subtle, lyrical way.

I'll be curious to hear what you think after you try it. I'm going to check out your harmonic analysis of the A. Looks cool.

[mr. beaumont]

So honestly, it makes nothing simpler for me-'it's the exact opposite of how I think. But I like it. It's different, and I see how it could be a simplification, if you were wired like this, or worked at it. Just the the B and S one you posted some time back. Cool stuff, man, keep it coming.

[jordanklemons]

How's it the exact opposite Jeff? I've heard you play a good bit in videos, but I don't really know your approach. And I'm having a hard time imagining what the opposite of utilizing the melodic content of a tune to fuel improvisational ideas would look like. You mean like not worrying about what is happening in the melody, and improvising just based on the chords? Or is there some other aspect to the way you think?

[matt.guitarteacher]

I'm pretty solidly in the amateur column, Jordan. So, my not understanding doesn't really mean much, but I have no idea how you arrive at these triads based on the melodic content. I'd appreciate any perspective on how you arrive at them. Maybe a break down of a 2-4 measure phrase our something? I'm always interested in how non guitarists approach.

Always enjoy your playing and posts.

[eh6794]

I have a little more time to work on this and I have two points:

1. "I was hesitant to post this analysis. Last time I shared one of these, it about started a riot. But it is the new year and time for new beginnings". New Year, new opportunity to start another riot. HAHAHHAHA

2. So based off of your work, I am now looking at new way to build a harmony and or solo, behind a melody.
For example, BB Blackbird, which is a song I like, is in the Real Book with 4 bars, all in Fmaj, and some real static melody notes - mostly A's, B's, G's and F's.

I can take the first bar, 3 quarter notes of F(A), then the last at A-(A), then move on to something for the next bar, like D(Bb).

That may not be the best sounding work, but if I have the idea down right, I can come up with a million new examples for my own playing.

Are you picking any particular triad? For my example, there is no implied triad, so I just found one, then added the tension note. Does that work?

[nick1994]

digging it Jordan

[jordanklemons]

I'm pretty solidly in the amateur column, Jordan. So, my not understanding doesn't really mean much, but I have no idea how you arrive at these triads based on the melodic content. I'd appreciate any perspective on how you arrive at them. Maybe a break down of a 2-4 measure phrase our something? I'm always interested in how non guitarists approach.

Always enjoy your playing and posts.

Thanks Matt!

Man... I'm going to try and answer this, but it's not the easiest thing to type about. If we could sit together at a piano so you could really hear the things I'm talking about, it would be super obvious to your ear. But explaining verbally (or worse in typed word) just sounds like a big, overly-complicated, theory textbook.

But I'll try.

First and foremost, I came up with these triads because I spent about 8ish months studying harmony (and its relationship with melody) with a pianist/vibraphonist. He made me learn all the upper structure triad stuff. Like I had to be able to play any chord type in all 12 keys at the piano. He would just shout random chords... EMaj7#11#9 ... C#7b13#9 ... D-13#11,9 ... and you just had to know them, quickly. So my knowledge of what triads work well when superimposed over any given chord is pretty solid.

When I look at a tune, I'm analyzing what the melody notes are over any given chord... and I'm also looking for melodic weight, or gravity. Where is the melody pulling us? What notes are giving us a sense of stability? In the first measure over the E-7 chord, the pickup notes land on an F# note (Gb). That note just has a pull to it. Benny even leads us into it with a leading tone. And he holds it out. So I give that note a lot of melodic respect... it takes the priority for me. So then I ask myself which triads do I have that can work over an E-7 chord that contain the F# note. There's a few. And several of them also contain the D note (which is never played during the E-7 but starts the pickup notes leading into it and is played again just a beat after we switch to the V chord... so it feels like another important note to me, and it doesn't feel all that tense... even over the A7 chord coming up next it feels very strong and stable to my ear).

Once I have my options of which triads work (all of the ones that contain D and F#), I sit at the piano and play the fully extended chords (basic chord in left hand, triad in the right hand), and see which one sounds right. Sometimes I'll sing the melody while playing them, sometimes I'll listen to the recording and see which one matches. Generally one of them pops out as the strongest candidate. In this case it was the B- triad.

Over the A7 chord in that measure is the same D note again and an F natural note. But I hear that F natural note as an anticipation of the next chord, so I don't worry about it. However, the Gb/F# note is still hanging over. So we have the same two notes over the A7 chord that we did over the E-7. Because there's a D note in the melody, I decided to think of this as a sus chord. Any of the triads that work over a sus chord that contain the D and F# would work, but I chose to keep it simple and utilize the same triad.

Not sure if this is making sense or not. It's basically asking myself, if I were a GOOD piano player (which I'm not) and could play these tunes at the piano, what triad would I be using in my right hand to best harmonize the melodic content, superimposed over the basic 1-3-7 chord structure in my left hand.

A good test I use to see if I'm on the right track is to play the tune and leave out all the melody notes that are NOT in the triads I'm using. You'll notice if you try it that the majority of the composition stays in tact. We have to leave out some notes, but you can still hear the overall arch of the melody. The really cool thing is that when you add in the 4th tension note that I have notated, that fills in a good chunk of the other notes. So if you played the melody but were only allowed to use the 4 note structures I wrote out, you'd only have to drop 14 notes to make that happen. And of those 14 notes, 8 of them are just little chromatic approach notes, leading tones into a stronger sound. That's a good sign to me that my analysis is pretty solid. And different people may analyze it differently. There are multiple triad options over different chords, and some people may disagree with which notes I gave the priority to. That's cool. I don't believe there's ONE correct melodic progression just like there's not ONE correct harmonic progression. People alter stuff.

This tune was an exceptionally challenging one for me. Definitely the hardest one I've attempted to analyze yet. I spent about a week chipping away at this thing until I found something I was happy with. But just like anything else, it gets easier with practice. MOST simpler, less bop-ish tunes I can pretty much spot the melodic progression immediately. It's getting to point where I can probably sight read a ballad and voice my chords all around these triads as I'm reading. But I've been working on this stuff for about a year... and with guidance from a musical genius... so that was very helpful for me. About 2 months into my time with him, I stopped and called him out. I told him what he was talking about made no sense, was too complicated, and that I didn't need or want it. He promised me it would be worth it and encouraged me to relax and keep trying. I trusted his word because he plays on a level that I want to play at one day. And I'm so happy I did. Within about another month things started clicking and making sense. And now, 8ish months later, it's getting harder for me to remember how I used to think and hear things before.

[jordanklemons]

I have a little more time to work on this and I have two points:

1. "I was hesitant to post this analysis. Last time I shared one of these, it about started a riot. But it is the new year and time for new beginnings". New Year, new opportunity to start another riot. HAHAHHAHA

2. So based off of your work, I am now looking at new way to build a harmony and or solo, behind a melody.
For example, BB Blackbird, which is a song I like, is in the Real Book with 4 bars, all in Fmaj, and some real static melody notes - mostly A's, B's, G's and F's.

I can take the first bar, 3 quarter notes of F(A), then the last at A-(A), then move on to something for the next bar, like D(Bb).

That may not be the best sounding work, but if I have the idea down right, I can come up with a million new examples for my own playing.

Are you picking any particular triad? For my example, there is no implied triad, so I just found one, then added the tension note. Does that work?

Ha... aside for this being hilarious and giving me a great laugh!

You're kind of on the right track with what my own process is, but you're sort of pointed sideways... maybe checking out some pretty flowers just off the road. I'll try and respond to you more in depth tomorrow when I'm not so tired.

There's A LOT of ways it could be done, and a lot of nuance involved. Perhaps reading the LONG response I wrote to Matt might shed a little light. There's nothing arbitrary or random about any of it. It's more like excavating down inside the tune to see what's there. And the tension note is found with a set of 'rules'. So they're not random either.

I'll try to give you a better answer tomorrow.

[mr. beaumont]

How's it the exact opposite Jeff? I've heard you play a good bit in videos, but I don't really know your approach. And I'm having a hard time imagining what the opposite of utilizing the melodic content of a tune to fuel improvisational ideas would look like. You mean like not worrying about what is happening in the melody, and improvising just based on the chords? Or is there some other aspect to the way you think?

Exact opposite is probably hyperbolic on my end...but I like big chord symbols, and triads aren't really a way I map anything.

So basically, I like to take the melody and see what it is in relationship to the chord, and if it's an extension or tension as opposed to a chord tone, that alters the way I see the chord. So I look for whole "pools" of notes I can play, and, without getting too hippy dippy, the important ones sort of "light up."

What I like about your method is I can see it working on tunes I don't know so well. The way I do things, I have to know a tune quite well before I'm really comfortable...not that it stops me from playing tunes I don't know as well

[yaclaus]

To me it seems like Jeff and Jordan look at it similarly, the pool of notes with Jordan is just limited. Also all the triads in the analysis are built of the melody.

I gave it a shot improvising over Ebm7 - Ab7#5 - DbM7 with the suggested quadrats of measures 11-14.

It helps hearing what you play. It helps giving you motives and making you think rhythmically. Its easier to hear the difference between tension and resolution notes. I do miss the big lines going up and down you hear from the bebop masters like mr.Brown here from 0.49. In the beginning of starting this approach it feels pretty intellectual to me. Sometimes I hear notes I wanna play but they're not within the quadrat.

[destinytot]

How's it the exact opposite Jeff? I've heard you play a good bit in videos, but I don't really know your approach.

Nothing to contribute* except applause. No flattery intended - so suck it up, buttercup!

Seriously, and to explain, what I really like is the way in which you habitually use probing questions to get past emotive statements, personal preference and opinion - statements that defy challenge (or cause riot). I think you - and others - are the very model of well-intentioned participation.

*On second thoughts, perhaps I do (I'm self-taught, but I can improvise OK).

But I'm also an experienced teacher of languages - and that's what I usually draw from when a tune or song 'speaks to me' the way Stablemates does. (Sorry, but I take music is a language' to be more than just a figure of speech.)

With any foreign language, I listen for contextualization cues: e.g. vocabulary choice, prosody, paralinguistic signs (pausing and hesitation, or tone), code choice, formulaic phrases... Contextualization cues are context-embedded and are learned in the context of on-going activity. Inferences about them are largely subconscious. Different cultural groups - even groups that speak the same language - learn different contextualization systems.

Your idea of 'triad +1' speaks to me too - loud and clear ('chunking' always does) - and I want to study this. Thank you!

[jordanklemons]

Exact opposite is probably hyperbolic on my end...but I like big chord symbols, and triads aren't really a way I map anything.

So basically, I like to take the melody and see what it is in relationship to the chord, and if it's an extension or tension as opposed to a chord tone, that alters the way I see the chord. So I look for whole "pools" of notes I can play, and, without getting too hippy dippy, the important ones sort of "light up."

What I like about your method is I can see it working on tunes I don't know so well. The way I do things, I have to know a tune quite well before I'm really comfortable...not that it stops me from playing tunes I don't know as well

That actually sounds surprisingly similar to what I do and what interests me Jeff. The only difference seems to be that I'm looking for a triadic organization to those pools. I also love big chord symbols, and often times (but not always) the triads I utilize are upper structure... sometimes they're made up entirely of extensions.

I think the biggest difference is that when we both use the word tension, we may be referring to different things. Usually it tends to be spoken about harmonically, like a tension note might be equivalent to an upper extension in the way you mean it? For me, when I say a tension (in this context) I'm referring to melodic tension.

A funny thing happens when you organize upper extensions into a triad... those upper extensions actual become the melodic tonic. It's something that I don't think I ever would have noticed or fully understood had I not been forced to try this stuff at the piano, when my ear could hear the fully extended chord and improvise over it simultaneously. But those upper extensions (which are often referred to as tension notes) actually become the most stable melody notes when played against that chord.

In measure 2 of the bridge we have a Gb7 chord with an Ab note in the melody. Some people would simply refer to that as Gb7, they don't care about the extension. Others (myself included) would want more specificity and would label that chord Gb9. They want the extension as part of it. But in my ear, there are other extensions being implied over that chord. Not stated in the melody, but implied based on what's happening in the previous measure and the overall vibe of the bridge. So I'm treating that chord as an Ab triad over a Gb7 chord. Which I know turns it into a Gb13,#11,9 chord. I didn't bring the names up in this analysis for a few different reasons. But that's what that particular chord is. So what's interesting about that chord is that those 3 notes, the Ab triad notes become the most stable. The 'tension' note I added to it was Bb, the 3rd. I treat the 3rd as a tension note. It's a chord tone, yes. But melodically, if you play against that chord, it will be functioning as 'Re' and it will feel unstable.

I think we're after similar things. I just like organizing them into triads because it creates a sense of melodic direction and momentum in my ear. Which I hear in tunes also. I want to be able to improvise as melodically as great players write tunes.

The earlier stages of this way of thinking are best accomplished by applying these thoughts to tunes and sticking to what the melody offers. But that's just to train the ears, fingers, eyes, and mind to organize things this way. Once the ideas make sense, we can mix and match things at will, if we want to. Just like with anything else. First you have to learn these basic chord ideas, then you can learn these basic scale ideas, then every time you see this chord symbol you use this basic chord and this basic scale. But then you get good enough at that that it gets boring and you want something new so you mix it up. Same thing happens here. The goal here for me is simply to learn to organize the pools of notes in a way that embraces both the harmony and the melody equally, and that gives me greater control over how colorful I wish to make my chords and lines.

Anyways, it's not for everyone, that's cool... but I think we're actually almost on pretty much the same page. It seems that way to me at least.