Demystifying Altered dominants with Lydian Augmented

[christianm77]

Amaj7/F --> Bb is a perfectly legit cadence... Think Naima

But also consider a development of Bbo7/F Bb, or F+ Bb.

The rhythmic slant is all important, because without rhythm there can be no harmony... Rhythm and harmony act TOGETHER, which is why their separate study is a mistake.

The more different notes a structure has with the target the more cadentially efficient it is. That's much more relevant than some idea of extensions over static chords, this harmony is directional.

Sideslip stuff (so very guitaristic) is a good way to do this in fact, even better if you combine with some contrary or oblique motion... Peter Bernstein was trying to teach me that on Autumn Leaves...

[Durban]

Sideslip stuff (so very guitaristic) is a good way to do this in fact, even better if you combine with some contrary or oblique motion... Peter Bernstein was trying to teach me that on Autumn Leaves...

i did a post basically playing EbMb5 scale over F& blues, anyway i mentioned you can add some chromo/non-diatonic notes, i forgot the slideslip, especial over Blues, so yeah,

You and Peter Bernstein, good stuff, 80's was really the hey day for slide slip Fusion thing & modal,
even the R&B guys Smooth Larry Carlton early Mike stern

[christianm77]

i did a post basically playing EbMb5 scale over F& blues, anyway i mentioned you can add some chromo/non-diatonic notes, i forgot the slideslip, especial over Blues, so yeah,

You and Peter Bernstein, good stuff, 80's was really the hey day for slide slip Fusion thing & modal,
even the R&B guys Smooth Larry Carlton early Mike stern

Well, TBH, Django was doing that shit in the 1930s.

But yeah, I know what you mean.

Anyway, PB stuff

9x997x
8x888x
7x776x
6x666x
x4555x
4x334x

That kind of thing

x3133x
x4244x
8x886x
9x997x
8x888x

[christianm77]

The first one was a turnaround in Ab, the second was Cm7.

[matt.guitarteacher]

'Soloing has zero percent to do with scales and 100 percent to do with chords and with an understanding of chord tones.?'

I don't understand this part of dude's quote there. I think people who make this kind of statement don't understand the shorthand of "scales" terminology, as used by jazz musicians. They certainly aren't talking about playing the notes straight up and down.

It's analogous to saying:
'Soloing has zero percent to do with FACE and EGBDF and 100 percent to do with chords and with an understanding of chord tones.?'

Or 'biology has zero percent to do with cells and 100 percent to do with plants and animals and with an understanding of how they live.'

These statements more than anything illustrate that the speaker doesn't really know what he's talking about. "Scales", pitch collections, key centers, key signatures aren't "methods" distinct from chords. This is a crazy mixture of terms and classifications of different things.

Some are more like spelling or grammar. Others are more like methods etc. Guitarists get so hung up on this. I just can't imagine pianists sitting around talking about how music isn't about black keys or white keys. Of Course it is (in a sense), but at the same time, how important is that? What's the point in going there? Just confuses the conversation.

Apologize for not having time to watch the video again. Can't hear it as a passenger in this vehicle right now. The best I can remember it's on fretboard layout mostly. Remember it being really solid and almost exactly the way Reg talks about things. Anyway, I think fretboard layout and understanding is pretty important. Honestly, has nothing to do with musical PROCESSES, but it's a foundation toward UTILIZING them technically. Again, different subjects mostly.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[matt.guitarteacher]

I wish I could understand this thread better.

If it's all Gmelmin, why think about the other chords generated from stacks of thirds, like, say Bbmaj7#5?

It seems to me that Gmelmin gives you a pool of notes to use as, say, a starting point. You need to know the notes in the Gmelmin scale, which I sometimes think of as "all white keys, but Bb and F#".

When the tune gets to a chord for which you want to use some of those notes, you can find them.

And, if you want extensions for a dominant chord, if you know the chord tones and the altered 5s and 9s for that dominant chord, you can pick the notes you want easily enough.

I first learned that I could apply Gmelmin on a tonic Gm, usually the minmaj7 or m6. Then I learned I could use it as a an altered scale against a Gb7. Then I learned that I could use it as a lyd dominant against a C7. Then against m7b5 a minor third up. I learned to distinguish situations in which alt vs lyd dom were used.

Later, Mark Levine's book showed me that they were all the same chord and could be used interchangeably. Which I now think is almost true.

Still later, I learned to apply it to the maj7#5, although that doesn't come up much and it may be easier to think major scale and sharp the 5.

So, in reading this thread I end up confused ... why is it helpful to think about the melmin scale from a different root?

Actually, I feel more or less the same way about thinking about the major scale from different roots. My feeing is that, if you know the chord tones and you know the tonal center, you already have the sound. The trick is to think of the scale as an unordered pool of notes, not an A B C D etc sequence.

Would anybody be kind enough to explain what I'm missing here?

Couple of things. First, you can actually imply different qualities with the same pitch collections. C7#11 (Lydian dominant) and F#alt might as well be the same thing, if you PLAY them the same way, but really good players hear them as being different and actually PLAY them differently. For me personally, it's helpful to play analogous vocabulary over each to develop an ear for it. You can learn to do the same with groups of voicings, used more melodically. It's a distinction to refer to "groups of voicings" though. If simply insert "any G Mel. minor voicing" in place of a would-be F#alt, then, yeah, you're mostly going to hear that as F#alt, simply because of the context.

To me though, that's only ONE side, and not the most important probably. Developing all of these chord types and scale degrees as their own entities teaches you a ton about jazz chord subs. Analogous to the family of four type relationship, but different , in that the chords common to a single melodic minor scale share completely different would-be "reference" key centers and relationships etc.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

Couple of things. First, you can actually imply different qualities with the same pitch collections. C7#11 (Lydian dominant) and F#alt might as well be the same thing, if you PLAY them the same way, but really good players hear them as being different and actually PLAY them differently. For me personally, it's helpful to play analogous vocabulary over each to develop an ear for it. You can learn to do the same with groups of voicings, used more melodically. It's a distinction to refer to "groups of voicings" though. If simply insert "any G Mel. minor voicing" in place of a would-be F#alt, then, yeah, you're mostly going to hear that as F#alt, simply because of the context.

To me though, that's only ONE side, and not the most important probably. Developing all of these chord types and scale degrees as their own entities teaches you a ton about jazz chord subs. Analogous to the family of four type relationship, but different , in that the chords common to a single melodic minor scale share completely different would-be "reference" key centers and relationships etc.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

I appreciate the responses.

I can see what you're talking about.

I think I'm just limited with it. I couldn't even do that with major scales. Well, at least, not quite that way.

I ended up learning the chord tones and making the adjustments by ear. And, yes, I can play iiim, Vmaj7 and vim over Imaj etc. If you know the chord tones and tonal center, I'm not clear there's that much left.

Now, melmin is different, per Levine. It's all interchangeable. Which may give so much freedom, you don't know where to begin.

I have to learn things one sound at a time, and, almost always, from a tune.

But, it's still 7 notes, and you know, in any given situation, which ones are chord tones and which ones are within the melmin equivalent of tonal center -- and the remainder being extensions or tensions or whatever you want to call them (I think consonant, less consonant and watch-out). So, you can think chord tones to stay inside the tune's meaning and pick the rest by ear.

I think there are players who could see it as 7 different chords and cycle through the individual arps (give or take a few notes) and make music with that approach. Maybe that's the usual goal. It would be analogous to playing Dm and Fmaj triads over a G7. It comes out differently if you think about two triads than if you think about a G13. More structure, if you like that sort of thing.

So, thanks, I'm clearer on the meaning of some of the posts.

Speaking only for myself, I think my practice time is spent more profitably learning lines than thinking about theoretical constructs which may lead to lines. To me, it's all about getting the sounds in my ears and that's a one-sound-at-a-time slog. My backlog is already longer than my expected life span.

[rpjazzguitar]

Forget it, hope you're better. At least you talked jazz with someone. Well, an amazing number of people all told!

I have a confession, I hadn't tried the B lyd aug. I mean actually playing it and hearing it as a mode in its own right. I can see that it fits very nicely over G7#5#9. Also that it resolves well to C maj or min.

I don't find a BM7b5 arpeggio easy to play although it may be simple lack of familiarity.

As for beginners, I'm not sure that it would be simpler than just playing Ab mel, to be honest. Although they could graduate to it.

Anyway, onwards...

I guess I don't get "mode in its own right".

It's the same notes as Abmelmin, which I've been using over G7 (with alterations) heading towards Cmaj -- for years. It isn't an Abmelmin scale in the sense that I would play Ab Bb B etc. Rather, it's a pool of 7 notes to be played in any order, depending on the tune, what went before and what's coming after.

If I think of that as Blydaug, I get the same pool of notes and the same result. I don't see why thinking Blydaug is any better than thinking Abmelmin over G7-something and playing any notes therein to make a decent sounding line -- which would include starting on B.

In fact, isn't the logical extension of all of this that you learn not only the lyd aug, but the other 6 chords generated from melmin by stacking thirds, and all their applications ... and, when you're finally done, it comes back to knowing the tone pool within Abmelmin and picking the notes you want for a given situation?

[matt.guitarteacher]

I guess I don't get "mode in its own right".

It's the same notes as Abmelmin, which I've been using over G7 (with alterations) heading towards Cmaj -- for years. It isn't an Abmelmin scale in the sense that I would play Ab Bb B etc. Rather, it's a pool of 7 notes to be played in any order, depending on the tune, what went before and what's coming after.

If I think of that as Blydaug, I get the same pool of notes and the same result. I don't see why thinking Blydaug is any better than thinking Abmelmin over G7-something and playing any notes therein to make a decent sounding line -- which would include starting on B.

In fact, isn't the logical extension of all of this that you learn not only the lyd aug, but the other 6 chords generated from melmin by stacking thirds, and all their applications ... and, when you're finally done, it comes back to knowing the tone pool within Abmelmin and picking the notes you want for a given situation?

If you run a typical chord tone soloing patterns, analogous to major and straight dominant counterparts, from the 7th degree of melodic minor , you AREN'T going to get a great altered sound. Takes a lot of listening to other players and learning to deal with it from the root that way. It's its own thing. (The root and 3rd of altered end up being on 1 and 4 of that 7th mode. things don't line up the same way for targeting. You'd have to learn to target the fourth instead of the third. Anyway, it's just easier to learn to do it from straight melodic minor , and you learn to target seventh instead of the root . Makes your third and #5 like up better.)

Lydian augmented, run from ITS root, yields strong chord tones relative to altered (and non-chord tones for targeting them) and therefore works with basic diatonic targeting patterns that you might use on a straight dominant chord or major/minor, in regular Major Key targeting language.

Anyway, 99% of the above has nothing to do with PLAYING actual music, but it's some of the answer to the question you're asking, and it's kind of a theory thing...

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

If you run a typical chord tone soloing patterns, analogous to major and straight dominant counterparts, from the 7th degree of melodic minor , you AREN'T going to get a great altered sound. Takes a lot of listening to other players and learning to deal with it from the root that way. It's its own thing. (The root and 3rd of altered end up being on 1 and 4 of that 7th mode. things don't line up the same way for targeting. You'd have to learn to target the fourth instead of the third. Anyway, it's just easier to learn to do it from straight melodic minor , and you learn to target seventh instead of the root . Makes your third and #5 like up better.)

Lydian augmented, run from ITS root, yields strong chord tones relative to altered (and non-chord tones for targeting them) and therefore works with basic diatonic targeting patterns that you might use on a straight dominant chord or major/minor, in regular Major Key targeting language.

Anyway, 99% of the above has nothing to do with PLAYING actual music, but it's some of the answer to the question you're asking, and it's kind of a theory thing...

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

Again I appreciate the response. It makes sense, IF you were running a scale or mode in order starting from a particular note. Is this a way to learn the sounds? I agree with you that it has little to do with actually making music.

Here's an alternative. If you want to learn the sounds, look at the upper structure chords. Here's an example. If you want to learn the sound of Galt, start by playing the notes of Abm(add9) against G7 going toward Cmaj, in the context of a song, until you can hear it.

Or try this. You want both altered 5s and 9s. Put in the R, 3 and b7 to give it context. Now, play around with those notes, in the context of a song. Use the R 3 b7 as an anchor and the altered 5s and 9s to stretch the ear a little. Play some ii V Is make up some lines and WRITE DOWN the ones you like.

The notes, for a ii V I in C, will be, against G7, G B Db Eb F Ab Bb. That is, of course, an Ab mel min. Focus on the role/sound of each note.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Yeah. Arps are the entry point always for me. But again the 7th degree diatonic arp isn't really the thing. It's half diminished. It's more like running the 1 of melodic minor from ITS seventh. 3rd degree of melodic minor, Lydian augmented, works out-of-the-box a little more for altered sounds, even for the arpeggio.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[christianm77]

Yeah. Arps are the entry point always for me. But again the 7th degree diatonic arp isn't really the thing. It's half diminished. It's more like running the 1 of melodic minor from ITS seventh. 3rd degree of melodic minor, Lydian augmented, works out-of-the-box a little more for altered sounds, even for the arpeggio.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

Yeah I think it’s good that it emphasises B which is one of the important notes of G7.

The Bmaj7#4 (no 5) arp is not an actual melodic minor sound BTW

But people group stuff that doesn’t have the melodic minor sound under melodic minor concept these days.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Yeah I think it’s good that it emphasises B which is one of the important notes of G7.

The Bmaj7#4 (no 5) arp is not an actual melodic minor sound BTW

But people group stuff that doesn’t have the melodic minor sound under melodic minor concept these days.

Yeah. I have been assuming #5 throughout, at least for basic arp/chord-tone. I missed the sharp 4 part of discussion apparently... :-)

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[matt.guitarteacher]

I swear. Here we go again. Yes, the terminology is super confusing, ...IF... you DON'T know the material In a musical context . Or maybe if you've never bothered to think about it that way. Who cares?

Terminology is not the problem. Guitarists , especially jazz guitarists, are obsessed with equating terminology, vocabulary words, names of things etc. etc. ..with things like process , methodology , creativity, and an understanding of how to play music. Of COURSE they're separate things! But what has THAT to do with ANYTHING? Is it harder to UNDERSTAND melodic minor modes than it is to PLAY them? The fact that it is more difficult to understand them if you CAN'T play them is somewhat beside the point. There's no point in talking so much about something which you can't play or don't connect with.

I'm sure that if I sat down with Albert Einstein and a group of physicists that I would very likely be LOST for much of the conversation, assuming they were talking as physicists and not to unlearned folk like me. I suppose then, being a guitarist, I could point to the confusing nature of the TERMINOLOGY which the physicists are using as the source of the PROBLEM, rather than the simple fact that I DON'T know what they're talking about on a more basic level. I suppose I could tell them that Galileo or Newton did pretty well without a lot of the terminology that they're using I'm sure that that would go over well.

Or I could just accept the fact that it's always going to be difficult to USE terminology in a subject of which I have less knowledge. Beyond that, and more importantly, there's no PURPOSE in talking about terminology and debating terminology which I have no ability to USE in the first place. Again. Doesn't matter, I guess. But if you have to stop and think about this stuff mathematically and calculate it, it's silly to assume that everyone ELSE is doing the same, and therefore, it is just incredibly difficult and impossible in the moment.

You have to stop and consider the fact that you're possibly like the third grader who is just getting irony for the first time and is busy retelling every joke to adults who aren't laughing. I mean, you never understood jokes until just NOW. Maybe it's possible that they aren't "getting it" the same way that you weren't before now? Maybe if you just explain it slower...

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[matt.guitarteacher]

You learn all of these minor scales at the age of 12 or 13 years old on saxophone or trumpet, and in 12 keys. You don't learn them by "changing a note here and there". You learn them cold , so that you can play them in your sleep . Then you forget about them. Same with arpeggios of all types.

You don't learn them for the purpose of having them be their own "method " of improvisation. You don't worship the idol of scales or something. They are just basic rudiments music that all musicians on all instruments, ......except guitar apparently, learn.

Drummers need a break from being the butt of "stupid musician" jokes I guess. I guess we give them that.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[matt.guitarteacher]

i will give a proper reply to this at some point. it's an interesting topic. but physics is more like music theory than music if that makes any sense...

It was a purposefully extreme example. :-)

I just think that our ability to abstract specific things into theories and concepts which can be applied more broadly is the most compelling thing about what makes us human. I love the idea that you can plan the moon mission or the Mars mission etc. and do it without having practiced it several times. I mean, you only get one shot, right? Very compelling. And of course physics is orders of magnitude more complex.

But it's fundamentally the same thing which makes Barry Harris's scale rules really compelling. Being able to take Harris concepts and use bebop lines as somewhat of a "proof" of their validity - justification of the abstraction. Pretty cool.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

If I had anything better to do right now, I'd be doing it ... <g>

There's a fundamental difference between physics and the aspect of music we've been discussing.

Physicists spend a lot of time constructing mathematical models of aspects of reality. They do this so certain things can be quantified and because making a mathematical prediction which can be verified with an experiment is the way that knowledge advances in that field.

They have reality on one end- which may not be easily observable, confirmation on the other end and math in between.

Music has artistic endeavor on one end and a possibility of consensus on the other- recalling, of course that genius level creativity may be reviled at first. In between, you have the reality that some players widely acknowledged to be great did it entirely without theory (Andres Varady is my favorite example) and others did use theory. And, even as an advanced player, you have no way of knowing what it would have been like to have taken a radically different approach.

One thing I'm convinced of is that no matter how a great player did it, there's an equally great player who did it some other way.

So, I'm arguing that there is no right or wrong.

That said, if you need to think "G mixolydian and then fourth mode Dmelmin" to go from G7 to G7#11, you're taking the long way around, IMO.

[matt.guitarteacher]

That said, if you need to think "G mixolydian and then fourth mode Dmelmin" to go from G7 to G7#11, you're taking the long way around, IMO.

No. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Terminology isn't a METHOD, and I don't know that ANYONE is saying that it is, at least in this thread.

Imagine that anytime you mention that there's a C E G in Am7 someone comes along behind and talks about how ridiculous it is that you "have to think about" the letter names to play that. I mean you probably don't "have to".

But most of us probably CAN think about the letters names after-the-fact pretty easily . Probably of little consequence also to think about them WHILE you're playing . Probably not a big deal to think about numbers relative to the chord , and at the same time, to know what they are, relative to the key. Most of us have the ability to do ALL of these things at the same time, and it's really not a huge accomplishment, even though it might actually take us much longer than the "moment" we're playing in to verbalize all of these things. That's really a separate issue.

You see, it really has nothing to do with "have to ". If you don't know the terminology and can't think about it that way in real time, that's fine. It's not a problem. But it's silly to imagine that EVERYONE would have to think about it the same way you do. The human mind absolutely has the ability to think about complex subjects (which may out may not have long verbal descriptions) much faster than we could ever THINK or SAY the words or descriptions of them. But again, that's two separate issues. We can then turn around and write out the description after-the-fact if we need to. It's not a big deal.

It doesn't matter at the end of the day. I mean, you can take it or leave it, but what you're presenting is a fantasy.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

No It doesn't matter at the end of the day. I mean, you can take it or leave it, but what you're presenting is a fantasy.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as a fantasy. The approach I'm describing has a lot in common with what Joe Pass talked about in interviews. And, playing great guitar with no theory whatsoever is absolutely real. Check out Andres Varady and read his GP interview in which he reports not knowing any theory whatsoever.

Is it a fantasy that developing guitar players sometimes get involved in the weeds of theory to the point where they neglect ear training? I'll offer myself as an example.

Now, I'm not arguing with the notion that you can get to the sounds via the theory. But, there are multiple approaches that have been taken successfully.

Apparently, discussions of this topic can get surprisingly heated. So, I'll make this my last post on it.

Best,

Rick

[matt.guitarteacher]

I'm not sure what you're referring to as a fantasy. The approach I'm describing has a lot in common with what Joe Pass talked about in interviews. And, playing great guitar with no theory whatsoever is absolutely real. Check out Andres Varady and read his GP interview in which he reports not knowing any theory whatsoever.

Is it a fantasy that developing guitar players sometimes get involved in the weeds of theory to the point where they neglect ear training? I'll offer myself as an example.

Now, I'm not arguing with the notion that you can get to the sounds via the theory. But, there are multiple approaches that have been taken successfully.

Apparently, discussions of this topic can get surprisingly heated. So, I'll make this my last post on it.

Best,

Rick

No. I was referring to the "alternative" you're presenting of "having to think X".

That said, if you need to think "G mixolydian and then fourth mode Dmelmin" to go from G7 to G7#11, you're taking the long way around, IMO.

I don't think there is a have-to. I think this notion is largely a myth. Terminology isn't methodology. They are separate things.

Grammar doesn't inhibit your ability to speak. It's a completely separate discipline for analyzing speech (which may be spoken , WITHOUT any knowledge of grammar). As with music theory, the very fact that knowledge of a little grammar may help in avoiding errors is almost a DISTRACTION . It's still mainly a separate discipline, and the primary discipline, the use of language that is, is the same regardless . They are related, but one is not necessarily dependent on the other in such a strong way.

There's a distinction between knowing that a word IS a noun vs "HAVING to think " about it being a noun. Not even a difference. It's myth, a misunderstanding of what's really going on. You can think about all these things at the same time, there's no conflict.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

[christianm77]

Hmmm... I think we might actually be drilling down into something quite important here...

It's quite complicated but I kind of agree with both of you.

I don't see Barry's teaching as a fully worked out theoretical system BTW - it is a hands-on way of making up jazz (bop) phrases from raw materials such as scales, patterns and so on. It has some theoretical application in that I can look at a page of Bud Powell and say 'aha, this is how this line was constructed' and it works very well for that.

Barry is the kind of person who is a problem solver, mathematician, code breaker, so views music that way. (BTW I once met a guy whose father was both a code breaker and a bebop musician in Paris after WWII. Played with Bird etc by night and was breaking Soviet codes by day... It kind of fits lol.)

OTOH, it's obviously not the Big Ole Theory of All Jazz Ever (tm) and as soon as something comes along that pretends to be that, I am skeptical of it.

So, we mostly use similar language ABOUT jazz to communicate. A related question would be for those that do not 'know theory' - Varady, Birelli, Wes (possibly), Django etc - did they have a theory of their own, a systematised way of thinking? I would think so, but I don't really know. In any case it doesn't appear that they found discussing it very interesting.

[Durban]

boys this getting bitty, everyone has a point.


There are just some things you commit to memory and dont really have much to doing with playing. intellectually too complex whilst improvising, however can make the process of internalizing chord/scale relationships easier.


i can see why people commonly rename confuse or mix etc etc

keeping it Simple

Lydian Augmented is Lydian and can be derived from Harm & Melodic Minor.


remember WHAT context is it being used or referred to, when taken out of context, can be confusing & complex.

I hope this helps.

will do another thread but with some piccys my daughter brought my books in for me.

As the magazines the hospital has are Garden & Home Model railways magazines

I hate both Gardening & Models ha ha

The focus is on what you can play on a Altered Dominant examples and who the F--- does it.

[Jkniff26]

From Durbin:

will do another thread but with some piccys my daughter brought my books in for me. Garden & Home Model railways magazines in hospital is pure hell.



Cool , get well .....As you get a little older it’s the garden or maybe the basement where you build model trains ,that some find an escape ;we can review harmonies of scales etc as we work...I was going back to those mm -alt dom harmonies in my head as I worked in the garden yesterday. Forgot how cool some of the chords sound. For me , a basement hack, i love tools that help me explore possibilities and create little etudes with diatonic shit moving around
in the middle voices . Ted Green’s chord scale exercises can inspire a lot , especially the triad stuff; and all this mm mode-altered dom stuff was cool last night. So many possibilities depending on the way the first chord is voiced , then running 3 or 4 part harmony through the scale ...running scale harmonies against a drone is cool too.....Anyway the thread is interesting and it’s bound to move away from center, it’s just the way this stuff is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vladan]

... developing guitar players sometimes get involved in the weeds of theory to the point where they neglect ear training ...
Now, I'm not arguing with the notion that you can get to the sounds via the theory. But, there are multiple approaches that have been taken successfully.

No. I was referring to the "alternative" you're presenting of "having to think X". I don't think there is a have-to. I think this notion is largely a myth. Terminology isn't methodology. They are separate things.

Thing is, you both support the same basic idea of "how to get to what to play", only can not agree on the way to speak about it.

Definitely, it is about recognizing the moment that ask for a certain sound and knowing what moves to make in order to produce that sound, or it is realizing the opportunity to make certain moves that would produce certain sound ... and variations on theme ... In the end it does not really matter.

Will you say: "I raised/ lowered ...of ... to get ... and play ...", or "I played the ..., from ... of ..., to ... of ...", or "I used pool of notes that make ...#$%&986 ..."
It does not matter.

It does not matter if you came to those sounds and moves while noodling, or on a gig, or while reading text book on theory, or while contemplating over some ridiculous garbage found in forum posts ...

... by ear, or by muscle memory ... in the end,
it must be by ear, at least to a degree, or you could not decide if it was good, or bad sounding.
However, it had to be by muscle memory, at least to a degree, or you would not be able to play it.
No guaranties though that your ear, muscles and brains are good enough for the task.
At the same time, just because everybody say your musical ideas, decisions and execution are bad, does not mean you are not pure musical genius and they are just ... whatever ...

[matt.guitarteacher]

Okay. I just don't see 2 sides which are "competing methods". It really feels something like this to me: "I'm not really an EGBDF, FACE, treble clef kind of player. I'm more of a chord tone guy."

I don't believe you can actually have a debate about that, because there aren't competing ideas. it sounds more like a misunderstanding of what you GBD F, FAC, and trouble Cluff mean to a player who understands that. It's more like alphabet or vocabulary for discussion , while the other "side" may be something closer to an actual methodology.

I just feel like these conversations about using different Pitch collections always devolves into "but if you HAVE TO think that way".

Disregard the rest of this post if you don't analogy. Some people don't. But to me, this feels like teaching my daughter to drive. I somewhat verbalize the process, abstracted it, broke it down into steps which to be recited back. "Foot on the break, check your mirrors" etc.

At a certain point, I actually stopped to tell her "Understand something, now. You don't actually THINK all of this when you drive . It's not linear or verbal in that way. You just DRIVE."

At the same time, any good driver can basically break it down and talk about what they're doing in certain ways. At a certain level, verbal description is always going to be more clumsy , a little overly complicated, but that's beside the point.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk