Modes and chord-scales revisited

[christianm77]

This one has a couple of maj7s in.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qlJPxpkk7...u/poorb003.jpg

So one fulfils my expectation - Imaj7 goes to straight I major. The other breaks my expectation - Imaj7 moves to another dissonant chord, III7#5. I would think that to be fairly idiomatic voice leading for that type of popular song. Pretty nice, actually, very pre-war sweet dance music vibes.

Note the melody note on the Abmaj7 chord is actually the ninth each time, resolving downward by step. Modern editors would no doubt write Abmaj9.

But in any case, it's not a given at any point the basic major or minor chord has four notes. So, these tunedex charts seem to confirm my suspicion that the standardised system of 4 note chords + for jazz came in much later, certainly post modal, and perhaps even as late as the '70s.

That would also give the impression the original Berklee Real Book is more standardised in its notation than it actually is. I suspect that's been tidied up for later editions.

Anyway, tunedex is vanilla song book stuff, not really jazz at all. For what the musicians actually played, well, it's earhole time. And to my ears, no one was playing maj7's as default major in the 1940 and early 50s, while by the 1960s it seems to be much more of a thing. Again I haven't checked out everything obviously, and my ears are often faulty, so input from other listeners very welcome.

[ragman1]

I'm fairly sure many of the discussions hereabouts are conceptual rather than actual, like arguing semantics in language. If someone said to me 'What do I play over the Dm in a 2-5-1 in C' I'd tell them. It's not complicated. Then, after the simple version, I'd say 'You could put this note in or that note, or sub it with another chord (FM7)' and so on. Work up to it.

Frankly, what it's all called according to this method or that teacher, or this book or that college course, is of very secondary interest. If you start with theory you probably end up with theory. But if you start with practicalities then you can put the words in later. If you so wish.

[rpjazzguitar]

My first teacher, Sid Margolis, taught out of that tunedex fakebook.

He was a big band player, 30s to 50s.

But, from the first tune, he taught embellished chords. The chart was only a starting point.

[christianm77]

Well, again I think it's very actual if jazz players are thinking (as I used to) that simple major and minor chords didn't somehow count as jazz harmony, when you listen to pianists playing them all over the place on 1950s jazz recordings.

The whole way we teach basic chord construction is pretty messed up, and is a massive oversimplification. I still teach it though lol. It works well enough for beginners.

But that's OK, because we have the records and we should be developing the sensitivity to hear all these different sounds anyway. Committed jazz musicians will check out what's going on and pick up on the details whatever the textbooks say. Those that don't will be able to get through a lounge gig just fine.

[christianm77]

My first teacher, Sid Margolis, taught out of that tunedex fakebook.

He was a big band player, 30s to 50s.

But, from the first tune, he taught embellished chords. The chart was only a starting point.

More info please.

[rpjazzguitar]

More info please.

Not sure which aspect you want more info on ... but I'll give it a shot.

Sid started with a simple introductory book and then Mel Bay 2.

After that, it was Colin and Bower's Rhythms, a book called Advanced Dance Rhythms, a clarinet book with Paganini's Moto Perpetua, and Pasquale Bona's book.

For chords, he wrote out sheets of basic grips and then ...

I got the tunedex fake book and he began with Don't Blame Me. By then, I could read the melody and I had some basic moveable grips, what Sid called muted string chords. Like 3x231x for C7. He'd circle the root so I could move the voicing. But, for Don't Blame Me, he taught chord melody. The first chord was 8x798x to get the G melody note at the top. The next one was 686786 to get the Bb and so on.

For comping, he taught alternating maj7 to 6th. He had some fill in progressions for static major chords. Mostly muted string chords - a reflection, I think, of his big band era background. You don't have a high E string ringing, and lowest note isn't too close to the next lowest note. Rhythm was a la Freddie. You can see how that approach could cut through and drive a band.

Then we did Moonglow, Stars Fell on Alabama (introducing passing chords) and more. Each time, he'd teach a chord melody, write out the chords on grids, circle the root and tell me to learn them in 12 keys.

Sid played with Enoch Light among others. Jack Wilkins studied with Sid for a year or so. Sid was the CBS studio radio guitarist on the Arthur Godfrey show -- which was very popular at the time, 50s.

I once played Sid's arrangement of Don't Blame Me, and somebody came up and told me that it reminded him of his mother listening to the Arthur Godfrey show when he was a kid. Good call. That was Sid, and I was playing Sid's arrangement.

I don't recall much about soloing, although Sid could certainly solo. He might have written out some grids with lots of dots, calling them "runs" and telling me I could pick notes more or less at random. But, I can't recall. It was a long time ago.

One last point. Sid played two late 30's L5s. One that was stolen and the replacement for it. The first one was returned to him by Jack, as I recall the story. Those were the two best sounding acoustic archtops I ever heard.

[christianm77]

I require ALL the info :-)

No that's great... I really dig the oral history.

[Tal_175]

No-one ever sat around worrying about calling a ii-V "Dorian mixo". Those are just introductory terminologies for when you later learn to substitute other colors. You can use Dorian in other contexts, and you can also sub a lot of other sounds in place of mixolydian , but the EASIEST starting point for at least developing that terminology, is to start with basic diatonic .

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

Welcome back to the thread Are you now saying that ii-V "Dorian mixo" is just a training wheel?
Anyway I think you're just arguing for argument sake at this point. I explained why I believe ii/Dorian, iii/Phyrigan kind of thing to be superfluous already. A lot of people would defend something just because it's been there for 50 years and think there must be really deep reason for it even though they cannot quite articulate what that is. Nobody really gave a good reason to favor that thinking over chord tone/parent scale one. Quite a few people said the opposite.
Chord scale type of thinking when scale played over a chord doesn't match the parent scale (case 3 in OP), has more practical purpose to me, but still think chord tone alteration view is more natural in these cases.

[christianm77]

ii-V "Dorian mixo"- do people actually teach that?

I mean just pick one or the other FFS

[Tal_175]

ii-V "Dorian mixo"- do people actually teach that?

I mean just pick one or the other FFS

That would be an unfortunate consequence of fanatic CSTing I guess.
But is Phrygian over iii even any better?

[christianm77]

That would be an unfortunate consequence of fanatic CSTing I guess.
But is Phrygian over iii even any better?

Well obviously not, IIIm chord ain't a thing.

But seriously, do people think that way? Is it just a strawman?

I mean I don't mean to be rude but it's a bit braindead.

[Tal_175]

Well obviously not, IIIm chord ain't a thing.

But seriously, do people think that way? Is it just a strawman?

I mean I don't mean to be rude but it's a bit braindead.

There is a suggested equivalence between the iiim chord and the Phrygian mode. Otherwise what's the point of bringing the Phrygian into the analysis of a functional progression in Major.
It's possible that it's not an automatic oh look iii, play phrygian. I mean the main reason of my posting this thread was to understand if there is a deeper point to this. Otherwise it does seem to be quite an unnecessary "contribution".

[John A.]

If someone said to me 'What do I play over the Dm in a 2-5-1 in C' ...

Ooh, ooh, I know this -- F#!

John

[christianm77]

There is a suggested equivalence between the iiim chord and the Phrygian mode. Otherwise what's the point of bringing the Phrygian into the analysis of a functional progression in Major.
It's possible that it's not an automatic oh look iii, play phrygian. I mean the main reason of my posting this thread was to understand if there is a deeper point to this. Otherwise it does seem to be quite an unnecessary "contribution".

Yeah I understand what it means, I just think it's a pointless thing to think about. But maybe there is a deeper point. I play I on IIIm, unless it's been tonicised.

[Tal_175]

Yeah I understand what it means, I just think it's a pointless thing to think about. But maybe there is a deeper point. I play I on IIIm, unless it's been tonicised.

I don't think it's pointless to think about what CST people are really talking about or if there a deeper meaning to it. Not anymore pointless than anything else being talked about on this forum

[rpjazzguitar]

I probably shouldn't even bother to say this, but ...

I've never really understood the emphasis placed on dorian - mixo - ionian or things like that in a ii V I, or similar, situation, except maybe as a way of presenting improv to a beginner. And maybe not the best way.

Say the chord is an Am. You consider aeolian, dorian, phrygian. That's all white keys, or raise the F, or lower the B.

Or, maybe you think melodic minor -- raise the F and the G.

If you can't hear that stuff, you need more ear training. If you can hear it, you don't need three or four different names.

Scale names drive me a little crazier. Gmixo, sure, white keys.

Change the C to a C# and now, instead of calling it a G7#11 (or G13#11) scale, it's now "lydian dominant".

Change the Gmixo by flattening the E and now it's 5th mode C harmonic minor, not G7b13 scale.

Change one note and the name changes to something else entirely.

I feel like a naming convention should make things easier. But, there's a history and it's not going change any time soon.

For truly modal playing on modally oriented tunes, maybe I can see more point to it, since it refers to a specific, identifiable, sound.

[cosmic gumbo]

CST guru

Choosing a Chord Scale - Making Scale Choices in Real Time | Coursera

[ragman1]

Ooh, ooh, I know this -- F#!

John

There are people here who'd have you believing that's exactly the right note to play. And they'll tell you why and have you believing it.

Unless you're half-awake, that is.

[John A.]

There are people here who'd have you believing that's exactly the right note to play. And they'll tell you why and have you believing it.

Unless you're half-awake, that is.

Half-awake? That's a bit ambitious for me.

john

[wolflen]

my overview of this thread...

folk music (Dylan) was my draw to getting a guitar..a year or so later I meet so guys who knew entire beatles albums..and could play Hendrix note for note and knew Clapton and Bloomfield solos..and these were 16-18 yr old guys who were playing for 5-6 years already..I absorbed a lot of chords licks and tunes..the word theory was mentioned every now and then but it sure sounded like "school stuff" the word "jazz chords" was also a puzzle..

Now I watched Billy Taylor on local TV doing the jazz mobile and he would break down some tunes and name chords and do scales and I found it fascinating .. so later when the term Jazz chords was mentioned I tried to connect it with Billy Taylor..

I got into blues and learned 9th chords and minor 7 and 6 chords..some scale runs and a bunch of chords that I could only play in progressions and had no idea how to use them or where they came from..

I grew tired of "not knowing" I took theory and harmony classes and along the way discovered "Mickey Bakers jazz guitar vol 1"..so that's what a 13th chord is..

now up to this point I have not heard the term "mode" used in any way that made something go "click" ...if its a scale..why call it a mode??

met some very talented musicians and began to learn jazz tunes..and realized there was a lot more to learn..I learned who ted greene was and he was accepting students...and I studied with him for two years

fast forward...I am still referring to some of the "tear out" sheets ted gave me for specific studies and examples .. I asked him about modes..he said .."do they confuse you..?" well..kind of yeah.. "..that's their job" he said ..he gave me a brief history and played church modes and some Bach for me to give examples of how they were used way back when..and a quick study on how they are used in a jazz context..via Miles..and told me to explore it further as he did not think they were all that crucial to understanding harmony as it is applied to jazz..but the harmonic and melodic minor scales were a good start to find the most common used ones

so yeah..a Lydian dominate could also be an overtone scale and you can play it over a dominant 13#11 .. now does that help you with Green Dolphin Street ??

[ragman1]

I asked him about modes..he said .."do they confuse you..?" well..kind of yeah.. "..that's their job" he said ..

[Tal_175]

For those of you who suspect some of the concrete statements about CST might be straw man or CST is for really advanced players, this is from Levine Chapter 3, top of p.37 verbatim:
"To sum up, these are the modes to play over D-7, G7,Cmaj7, the II-V-I progression in C:
o On a D-7 chord, play the D Dorian mode.
o On a G7 chord, play the G Mixolydian mode.
o On a CMaj7 chord, play the C Ionian mode.
"
As I said I'm not an expert in CST but I can't help but observe that this is literally what the man's sayin.
And he goes on the say that, you do this instead of just thinking C major scale because there are "avoid notes". Meaning, you might think, hey I can surely play F if I am using C major scale, but then you would clash with the C major chord.
This is basically what I said in the OP as the justification given for CST thinking when the parent scale is the same as the modes. (respecting chord of the moment)
I think CST does get more interesting when mode played over a chord does not match the parent scale (which is mostly altered dominants).
However CST with the parent scale modes to me is pretty silly.

Edit: BTW this is not a comment about the author of the book, he is in the business of writing text books, he is not writing new theory. He is just codifying what he believes people are teaching in jazz schools.

[christianm77]

For those of you who suspect some of the concrete statements about CST might be straw man or CST is for really advanced players, this is from Levine Chapter 3, top of p.37 verbatim:
"To sum up, these are the modes to play over D-7, G7,Cmaj7, the II-V-I progression in C:
o On a D-7 chord, play the D Dorian mode.
o On a G7 chord, play the G Mixolydian mode.
o On a CMaj7 chord, play the C Ionian mode.
"
As I said I'm not an expert in CST but I can't help but observe that this is literally what the man's sayin.
And he goes on the say that, you do this instead of just thinking C major scale because there are "avoid notes". Meaning, you might think, hey I can surely play F if I am using C major scale, but then you would clash with C major scale.
This is basically what I said in the OP as the justification given for CST thinking when the parent scale is the same as the modes. (respecting chord of the moment)
I think CST does get more interesting when mode played over a chord does not match the parent scale (which is mostly altered dominants).
However CST with the parent scale modes to me is pretty silly.

Edit: BTW this is not a comment about the author of the book, he is in the business of writing text books, he is not writing new theory. He is just codifying what he believes people are teaching in jazz schools.

Yeah I thought I remembered that. It’s been a while since I looked at that book.

I think the idea that the note C is an avoid note on G7 is the biggest exception I take to this approach, along with the fact that you start to think of every chord as it’s own independent entity, instead of what they are movements towards a tonic.

To me it’s perfectly sensible to draw a distinction between D Dorian or G mix and C ion because the F is a really active note on C, but to separate ii and v is a big mistake.

Why? Well it’s up to you if and when you choose to use the notes B or C in the cadence. If you transcribe enough lines that becomes very clear.

Most bop players block the harmony down to either a V or IIm7 scale only, with room for subs etc.

I’d rather teach the family of four or the chords of the dominant scale. Simpler, more modular and less piecemeal.

Plus it makes the point that ii V is an embellishment of v rather than a basic module of harmony. On top of that, you might start seeing links to IV-I progressions and so on.

Further more the C area itself is of less interest as we will start our line construction by focusing on cadences into the c chord.

But in general I have issues with the book, although in some ways i think it’s really good.

[christianm77]

Anyway I’ll put why I don’t like this approach into two words.

Rhythm Changes

[dot75]

A minute of your time...

https://youtu.be/HSeJSWwEyoE?t=49m54s