Diminished Scale: Whole-Half for Dim, Half-Whole for Dominant

[VKat]

Please educate me:
- why is it a Whole-Half diminished scale used over fully-diminished chords and
- why is it a Half-Whole diminished scale used over seventh chords?

Sometimes I see it's said as "commonly used" meaning that there are no rigid restrictions on usage of the diminished scales over specific harmonies, however I understand that common trends are a result of common practice which in turn is a result of what is commonly referred to as simply as "it sounds good".

Example: W-H C-dim scale = C-D-Eb-F-Gb-Ab-A-B-C over C-dim7 = C-Eb-Gb-A
H-W C-dim scale = C-Db-Eb-E-F#-G-A-Bb-C over C7 = C-E-G-Bb

As far as I understand the key to the rationale for using one or another scale over particular harmony lies in the arrangement of half steps over chord tones.
For instance, if using W-H dim scale over C7 harmony the following conflicts will arise:
- F = a half-step over M3rd = E
- Ab = a half-step over P5th = G
- B = a half-step over m7th = Bb

In comparison, the C-Altered scale would only have one obviously conflicting note, Ab = b13th over C7 which is not so bad. I'm not sure how Db = b9 qualifies in terms of conflict with the Root of C7. It's obviously a conflicting note but I don't see it mentioned anywhere as such.

When applying the H-W C-dim scale over diminished harmony the conflicts with the C-dim chord tones are everywhere:
- Db a half step above C = Root
- E a half step above Eb = m3rd
- G a half step above Gb = dim5th
- Bb a half step above A = dim 7th

However when starting the scale on a chord tone all those conflicting notes fall on up-beats making them no worse than mere passing tones. Doesn't sound to me as bad.
As such there are no real conficts present other than the half steps go opposite the normal tendency to resolve to the next chord tone when used in an ascending motion.
However if used in a descending motion over the dim harmony the H-W dim scale sounds just as good as the W-H dim scale in the ascending motion.
I wonder why it isn't mention anywhere? In other words I see no real preference in using W-H or H-W dim scales over dim chords. Moreover usage of one or another is logically connected to the direction of scale run and I assume any patterns that will be associated with the chosen direction.
When the direction is changed however the choice of accidentals could be adjusted (wchich goes against the law of muscle memory and as such leaves us with one scale of preference). It's interesting to know in this respect: what diminished patterns are favoured more, ascending or descending?

However I'm still not sure about usage ristrictions of W-H dim scale over C7. It doesn't look (sorry! - sound ) to me so bad. Besides F-B is a nice tritone that would probably nicely compliment the naturally built-in E-Bb one if used skillfully. 7th chords are all about tension to the highest degree of their potential so I don't see why W-H dim is a no-no as a valid scale choice for them. However I already mentioned possible usage restrictions and they look (sorry again! - sound) reasonably justified.

P.S. Feel free to correct any mistakes I made counting half and whole steps. No wonder these scales cause so much confucion.
P.S.P.S. I don't know how to get rid of all those "however's" in my post. Is it bearable as is?

[christianm77]

Understand the relationship between diminished chords and dominants and all this stuff drops into your lap.

Namely, the dim7 chord is Dom 7 chord with its root raised by a half step

And the Dom 7 is dim7 with one of the notes lowered.

Now think about for the ramifications for scales. You can take any scale with 1 3 5 b7 and get a dim 7 scale by raising the 1 a half step.

So the one I use the most is say a C mixoldyian scale with the C raised to a C# on a C#o7 chord which also works with A7b9, but you can think of loads of modified scales using this logic.

In the case of the half whole scale, we already have a b2 so we use the whole half scale, the other mode on dominant and vice versa.

[christianm77]

Ps play whatever sounds good to you. Obviously :-)

[VKat]

Understand the relationship between diminished chords and dominants and all this stuff drops into your lap.

Namely, the dim7 chord is Dom 7 chord with its root raised by a half step
...

Christian, let me extend your idea a little further.

If we take a dominant chord C-E-G-Bb and add a commonly used extension (basically a "must" in Bebop context) - b9, we get a C-E-G-Bb-Db = C7b9, one of the mostly familiar sounds.
This chord consists of the two chords relevant to our discussion:

C7: C-E-G-Bb
Edim7: E-G-Bb-Db

Following the commonly accepted practice we most obviously use:

C H-W dim scale = C-Db-Eb-E-F#-G-A-Bb-C for the lower part, C7 and
E W-H dim scale = E-F#-G-A-Bb-C-Db-Eb-E for the upper part, Edim7

Eurica!
But... it doesn't give me any rationale. That's just a trick.
Rationale please!

[vsaumarez]

I use the diminished scale sparingly. It always sounds so contrived and clumsy to me, but that is a personal thing. I think in terms of b9s sometimes in combination with dim arpeggios. You actually don't have to play busy, or anything. You could just punch in the chord.

[christianm77]

Christian, let me extend your idea a little further.

I wish it were my idea! Barry Harris again.

If we take a dominant chord C-E-G-Bb and add a commonly used extension (basically a "must" in Bebop context) - b9, we get a C-E-G-Bb-Db = C7b9, one of the mostly familiar sounds.
This chord consists of the two chords relevant to our discussion:

C7: C-E-G-Bb
Edim7: E-G-Bb-Db

Following the commonly accepted practice we most obviously use:

C H-W dim scale = C-Db-Eb-E-F#-G-A-Bb-C for the lower part, C7 and
E W-H dim scale = E-F#-G-A-Bb-C-Db-Eb-E for the upper part, Edim7

Eurica!
But... it doesn't give me any rationale. That's just a trick.
Rationale please!

That is what I was trying to say, haha.

Rationale? Well what more do you need?

[christianm77]

I use the diminished scale sparingly. It always sounds so contrived and clumsy to me, but that is a personal thing. I think in terms of b9s sometimes in combination with dim arpeggios. You actually don't have to play busy, or anything. You could just punch in the chord.

Dim chords aren't played that much in standards changes these days (they often get subbed) and they used to be everywhere, so some of the art of playing through them elegantly has been lost. The diminished scale is kind of weird sounding, and can be very cool but is not the simplest solution.

Yeah, the old scale way to run a scale through it is to use this scale, so back to C7:

C D E F G A Bb - Dominant Scale

C#o7 = C7 with a raised C

So raise the C

C# D E F G A Bb - the scale the fits the diminished scale with the least fuss and change to the key.

(Now - that scale is also mode VII of D harmonic minor whatever that's called - the locrian diminsihed or something flipping stupid like that? Ee don't need to know that.)

Now let's take the changes to a tune like Bewitched, or it Could Happen to You.

C | C#o7 | Dm7 | D#o7 | Em7

Run the following scales

C | C7 (raise C to C#) | Dm7 | D7 (raise D to D#) | Em7

So (last note is a 1/4 other notes are 1/8ths each time)

C D E F G A B | Bb A G F E D C# | D E F G A B C | C B A G F# E D# | E F G A B C D

Notice with the last chord, we are still thinking in the key of C

Give that a whirl, and see what you think. Classic Barry.

This relates closely to how we would play through secondary dominants going to minor and is the approach used by musicians of the bop generation, Bird, Bud, Dexter, Miles etc. (See also 'Reg' minor the proto-altered scale.... )

[fep]

Thinking simply with Guitar Geography:

A7 xx3334

Bbdim xx3434, = A7b9 (no root)

notice the half step difference on the third string between those two chords... there you go.

[VKat]

Ok fellows, before I read everything you already posted above here is what one 'saxontheweb' forum member pointed out to me and it's so simple that I wonder how I wasn't thinking about it first. I feel being really silly:

'pontius' from saxontheweb:

"My limited understanding for the reason the HW sequence works well on Dom7 chords is because it contains all the alterations possible to the extensions (9,11,13), This is an area I also have been trying to better understand and hear lately.

For instance if you use the WH over a C7 you miss the b9 which is historically used a ton in Jazz. Not to mention you miss the 3rd and 5th and b7."

I only added to his post that obviousy there is only b13 missing from the H-W diminished and otherwise all chord tones and most alterations are there.

[VKat]

Since it's so obvious why to use H-W dim over dominant 7th I'm still guessing why not to use both scales over fully dim 7th.
Both scales work and W-H works nicely in the ascending motion approaching the chord tones from a half-step below while H-W would work nicely in the descending motion approaching the chord tones from a half-step above.

I got an idea!

We don't just run scales up and down when we improvise? - I hope not
Then the answer must be very simple. Because approach from the half-step below is so much more common in Jazz the W-H dim scale is a much better candidate for soloing ideas. Is it that simple?

It doesn't matter if we ascend or descend because when building a lick or pattern the 'half step below tone' will be there available to us.

[VKat]

Christian - reading your posts I get a feeling that you are very well familiar with the soloing ideas of Barry Harris. Where does your knowledge of his approach come from?
The only method pertinent to his teaching available in print is Alan Kingstone's book "The Barry Harris Harmonic Method for Guitar". I never had a chance to go through it even briefly.

Any other Barry's educational material you can think of?

...
Give that a whirl, and see what you think. Classic Barry.

This relates closely to how we would play through secondary dominants going to minor and is the approach used by musicians of the bop generation, Bird, Bud, Dexter, Miles etc. (See also 'Reg' minor the proto-altered scale.... )

[matt.guitarteacher]

Roni Ben Hur book titled "talk jazz guitar " is Harris-based stuff. Honestly, I don't know that I would get that one without first purchasing Barry Harris's DVDs though. Just my opinion.

The Harris DVDs come with print material as well I think?

[christianm77]

Christian - reading your posts I get a feeling that you are very well familiar with the soloing ideas of Barry Harris. Where does your knowledge of his approach come from?
The only method pertinent to his teaching available in print is Alan Kingstone's book "The Barry Harris Harmonic Method for Guitar". I never had a chance to go through it even briefly.

Any other Barry's educational material you can think of?

it comes from Barry Harris.

The DVD's are the next best thing. $ tho

[christianm77]

Sorry I'm being a bit flippant.

Some of my knowledge comes directly from Barry in his workshops, but I wasn't able to attend the full courses due to other commitments when he was over - so far - and I would describe myself as far from the most able in any of his workshops.

Most musicians who are serious about the Barry Harris approach and are not in NY and can't drop by every week prepare themselves with the Barry Harris DVD sets. These DVD sets are awesome and exhaustive. Fantastically well organised, fast moving, and very importantly, they have Barry and his students running through the exercises exactly as they would in class. This is really important because it's the whole experience - how this stuff is practiced as well as what is practiced.

If you are interested in mastering the bebop language, this is kind of a one stop shop. There are other ways into it, and many great books and videos on the subject of bop, but the BH distinguishes itself in its completeness and organisation. I can't think of anything else quite like it.

My own development with this stuff has kind of been off-and-on. TBH I wasn't always that interested in bebop, and it wasn't until I made a concerted study of that music by learning heads and transcribing solos by ear that I started to notice certain things that related very strongly to those BH concepts that I had learned about years before.

I would hear Parker running harmonic minors over secondary dominant b9 chords, for instance, and then go to Barry and find that he had an elegant way of describing it, the way I have given above. My BH fixation has really happened in the last 3 years or so. And now, I find myself applying Barry's ideas in a more general way. I'm sure it won't be long before I am back to the source - there are so many patterns and devices to learn and they all sound fantastic!

The Roni Ben Hurr stuff is great (covers improvisation), as is Alan's book (covers more harmony) but the DVD's are really where it's at if this kind of thing appeals to you. It's a financial commitment for sure, though.

Alan had some video lessons up online - forget the name - that taught me some of this dim7 stuff.

[VKat]

Great post, just quoting a little.

When I read your post on raising that C to turn the dom7 into 'C# D E F G A Bb' and your suggesting that that's how all BeBoppers were actually thinking I thought that it was simple in terms of implementation (action) and somewhat complicated in terms of realisation (thought).

The idea of common tones is obviously widespread in the improvisation circles but the problem is always to approach it methodically.
I see now how Barry Harris' method can probably help seeing (and hearing) BeBop lines from a different perspective (if that's what you are talking about).
Are there quite a few more "tricks" in Barry's bag?

...
I would hear Parker running harmonic minors over secondary dominant b9 chords, for instance, and then go to Barry and find that he had an elegant way of describing it, the way I have given above.
...

[christianm77]

Great post, just quoting a little.

When I read your post on raising that C to turn the dom7 into 'C# D E F G A Bb' and your suggesting that that's how all BeBoppers were actually thinking I thought that it was simple in terms of implementation (action) and somewhat complicated in terms of realisation (thought).

I have no idea how they were thinking, but this represents their note choices, and I like the C-C# thing as a concept.

I'm not quite sure if I'm with you on the implementation/realisation distinction. How do you mean?

The idea of common tones is obviously widespread in the improvisation circles but the problem is always to approach it methodically.
I see now how Barry Harris' method can probably help seeing (and hearing) BeBop lines from a different perspective (if that's what you are talking about).
Are there quite a few more "tricks" in Barry's bag?

A few! But it's about applying all this stuff thoroughly through everything.

[VKat]

I have no idea how they were thinking, but this represents their note choices, and I like the C-C# thing as a concept.

I'm not quite sure if I'm with you on the implementation/realisation distinction. How do you mean?
...

Sometimes trying to sound smart in English does't do me any good
By 'implementation' I mean the actual adjustment of the pitch collection for specific purposes.
By 'realisation' I mean the thought process that allowed one to arrive at the implementation.

I wonder if approaching Bebop lines could be as simple as making slight adjustment of some notes. That's why it's actually imteresting to know what those BebBoppers were actually thinking (and hearing).
When I look at Charlie Parker's transcriptions (sorry, I don't transcribe myself) I see various degrees of sophistication in his lines.
Sometimes it's simple diatonic stuff. Sometimes chromatics are added for arriving at a certain pitch on time.
Other times it's a complete out of key passage that perhaps still can be easily explained by using tritone substitution or Altered scale concepts.

I'm not quite sure where the Barry Harris' stuff with all his complicated concepts falls into the context of C.Parker's lines. Perhaps I'm quite far from understanding his ideas. Oh, I mean I know some stuff about his 6th dim scale that's also well explained in the Drop-2 Piano book by Mark Levine.
Sometimes I think of it as a "clever trick" to speculate on an old and well known concept of Dominant/Tonic relationship that's nothing new in the Music World.

What I mean is that apparently there are other ways to arrive at the same implementation but it takes time to conceptualize practical methods used in Bebop improvisation.
Alternative way is to use diatonic/chromatic/substitution concepts (with altered and dim scale added), sort of analytical approach.

[christianm77]

Sometimes trying to sound smart in English does't do me any good
By 'implementation' I mean the actual adjustment of the pitch collection for specific purposes.
By 'realisation' I mean the thought process that allowed one to arrive at the implementation.

I wonder if approaching Bebop lines could be as simple as making slight adjustment of some notes. That's why it's actually imteresting to know what those BebBoppers were actually thinking (and hearing).
When I look at Charlie Parker's transcriptions (sorry, I don't transcribe myself) I see various degrees of sophistication in his lines.
Sometimes it's simple diatonic stuff. Sometimes chromatics are added for arriving at a certain pitch on time.
Other times it's a complete out of key passage that perhaps still can be easily explained by using tritone substitution or Altered scale concepts.

Yeah that's a really good point. With Bird and the musicians of that generation I feel that they are really making alterations to the key to describe the changes and that's what these scales above represent. So you play through a VI7b9 be altering the key the minimal way you need to play the scale through it - you raise the 1 and lower the 7 of the key in this case.

The altered scale/tritone thing is obviously a step outside of that, but increasingly that's become the go-to sound for improvisers rather than the special case - not itself a 'bad thing', but if we are interested in bebop Parker is not always using a tritone sub/altered type tonality every time he encounters a 7b9, for instance.

Usually he will use some sort of major/minor interchange - play C (harmonic/natural) minor on the Dm G7b9 and C major on the C, (what Barry would describe as Bb7, raise Bb to B, resolve to C.)

Use of the tritone sub in bebop is actually quite sparing AFAIK.

The sound world of bebop is very similar to classical when it comes to expressing the sound of dominant chords. This often gets missed.

I'm not quite sure where the Barry Harris' stuff with all his complicated concepts falls into the context of C.Parker's lines. Perhaps I'm quite far from understanding his ideas. Oh, I mean I know some stuff about his 6th dim scale that's also well explained in the Drop-2 Piano book by Mark Levine.

Everyone gets hopelessly confused by BH's stuff because BH, unlike most theorists, draws a distinction between melodic improvisation and harmony. They are separate classes.

Melodic improvisation = the stuff I'm talking about here, added note scales, patterns etc.

Harmony = the 6-dim 8 note scale stuff, block chords, movements etc

The two theories are separate and different. Again, the DVD's will clear this up.

Sometimes I think of it as a "clever trick" to speculate on an old and well known concept of Dominant/Tonic relationship that's nothing new in the Music World.

Ha! Well quite. But in jazz it's DOMINANT!!!!!-(tonic)

What I mean is that apparently there are other ways to arrive at the same implementation but it takes time to conceptualize practical methods used in Bebop improvisation.
Alternative way is to use diatonic/chromatic/substitution concepts (with altered and dim scale added), sort of analytical approach.

Sure, that may work better for you, and I've worked on most approaches TBH, including those. I've got a lot out of Barry though.

[VKat]

Let me add one more thing to look at it from another point of view.

Charlie Parker was certainly not Mozart although I sometimes see this erroneous comparison suggested by someone here and there. He was very smart, very fast (I think he had quite an advanced processor in his head) and he had great ear of course.
When "inventing" Bebop he (and Dizzy) must've had some basic approach to constructing lines and then adding some previously "unknown" sophistication to make those lines hip.
What I doubt is that they used complicated harmonic methods to arrive at the "Rules of Bebop Language". That goes against common sense as neither Parker nor Dizzy were graduates of Music Conservatories.
I suspect that sophistication that they added to their lines came directly from what their ear suggested to them with a little help of basic harmonic knowledge that they of course had.
By saying that I don't want to diminish their tremendous abilities and achievements but I think it would be incorrect to try finding something in their approach that they didn't essentially conceptualize and how Bebop Language wasn't actually conceived.
However that's of course only what I think of that.

[VKat]

Christian, sorry, I posted my latest addition not seeing your post first. Maybe what I' added was already addressed in your post. Let me see...

Thank you Christian. Good food for thought is in your post(s). I'll try to think in these terms when looking at Bebop lines next time. Although, easier said than done of course.

[VKat]

Yeah that's a really good point. With Bird and the musicians of that generation I feel that they are really making alterations to the key to describe the changes and that's what these scales above represent. So you play through a VI7b9 be altering the key the minimal way you need to play the scale through it - you raise the 1 and lower the 7 of the key in this case.
...

Is that in line with my latest addition? I mean I see your idea about Beboppers making alterations to the original key would be a simple straight ahead approach (provided one's ear is well involved in the process) rather then inventing complicated impro mehtods using theoretical and analytical basis.

[christianm77]

I think Dizzy was heavily into harmony FWIW. They definitely were thinking about what they were doing theoretically to some extent.

But the primary innovation of bebop was in the phrasing and rhythm, and you don't read much about that.

[VKat]

I think Dizzy was heavily into harmony FWIW. They definitely were thinking about what they were doing theoretically to some extent.

But the primary innovation of bebop was in the phrasing and rhythm, and you don't read much about that.

Oh, sure I also heard/read about Dizzy being harmonically enlightened. The question is to what extent but let's leave it as we really can only guess about how much harmonic thinking was involved into their lines.

Concerning rhythm/phrasing: is there much to say about it? For instance I recently read a University thesis (well presented with good examples; it's freely available) comparing styles of C.Parker and Sonny Stitt. Both were great Beboppers.

Parker used to start and end phrases anywhere within the form like those ending in the middle of the dominant leading into tonic and starting his next phrase in the middle of that tonic. Uneven phrase lengths, unpredictable starts and ends.

Sonny on the other hand most often aligned his phrases with the form making it more even and predictable.

Rhythmically speaking looking at their transcriptions Parker's lines are more syncopated with high rhythmic sophistication unless it's 350 bpm where he tended to play mostly 8th which makes sense

Sonny Stitt's lines rhythmically are more simple with less syncopation and weird rhythmic figures.

Edit: I just realised you must've been talking about accents and articulation as well? Yes, in that resprect as I understnad Bebop was innovative in its use of scattered uneven accents which nevertherless were dependent on the particular musician's style.

I think that's one of the problems in the education materials: too often Bebop is being generalized as if it was a set-rules style without too much individuality. I think my example above of C.Parker and S.Stitt shows clearly they played their own distinctive Bebop species.

[VKat]

All talks aside, I play "some" trumpet although still being at a very fundamental level. I invested years in getting to that basic level.
I can probably improvise on a slow Blues, that's it. Listening to guys like Fats Navarro I can only appreciate their level of technique and musicianship on one of the most difficult instruments to play.
Honestly saying, I can't even imagine how it would be possible to play such Bebop on trumpet. I can imagine playing it on guitar, piano, vibes but trumpet... no.

[Runepune]

Since it's so obvious why to use H-W dim over dominant 7th I'm still guessing why not to use both scales over fully dim 7th.
Both scales work and W-H works nicely in the ascending motion approaching the chord tones from a half-step below while H-W would work nicely in the descending motion approaching the chord tones from a half-step above.

I got an idea!

We don't just run scales up and down when we improvise? - I hope not
Then the answer must be very simple. Because approach from the half-step below is so much more common in Jazz the W-H dim scale is a much better candidate for soloing ideas. Is it that simple?

It doesn't matter if we ascend or descend because when building a lick or pattern the 'half step below tone' will be there available to us.

The harmonic function of that dim7 is almost always of some leading/dominant kind. If you lower any of the notes in that dim7 chord you will get a dom7. This lowered note will be the root of the dom7. IOW, the dim7 is any of four 7b9's. H-W will seldom fit the dim7's harmonic function.

There are only three possible variations of this symmetrical scale, and the notes in a dom7 chord will only fit one of them. I don't think about this scale as W-H or H-W. I just see these three possible scales, and a collection of four d(i)om7 chords fitting each