Seeing scales as added notes to arpeggios

[bako]

I have gradually evolved or devolved to what I think of as a note collection mentality,
striving for increased awareness of chromaticism through the examination of smaller
subsets. Through my studies of traditional jazz scales/modes, I learnt much about hearing and accessing brighter and darker variations of different chord qualities. Increasingly
I have gravitated towards examining smaller note collections individually and in combination.
Note collection study for me is ear training and also increases my contextual fingerboard awareness. Adding a note(s) to a 3 or 4 note chord is an easy way to instantly connect
to a real life musical situation. Many ways to play such games. For me, I don't like to
place limitations on what my starting reference structure might be although the
common triads and sevenths are a great place to start.

[Irez87]

An idiosyncratic view, I suspect:

I don't have a strong opinion about whether you should get to Galt by thinking Db lyddom vs Abmelmin). Because, in my view, it doesn't matter very much. They're the same notes. You need to get the sounds in your ears, at which point you can make new melodies with the harmony you can now hear in your mind. If you do it one way vs the other, you're likely to end up at exactly the same place.

If I had to pick an approach for a beginner I might suggest thinking about Galt as its own thing. The potential disadvantage is that you'd then probably have to learn Abmelmin and Db lyddom (and the other mel min modes) as if they were different pools of notes. That makes it harder to recycle fingerings, but maybe that's actually a feature, not a bug. And, my suggestion (a minority opinion to be sure) is to do it by note-name, not geometric pattern. The advantage is that you don't have to worry about where you start the line because haven't practiced them as a pattern. The disadvantage is that it can be easier to play really fast with a pattern based approach.

I know the intervals in the arps, scales and modes I use, but that knowledge has not proved particularly helpful (others undoubtedly have a different take) . What is helpful is to be able, in the middle of a solo, to pre-hear the note I want and then play it without thinking, as if my fingers found the right sound on their own.

If you think of that as the goal, it breaks the task down to 1) pre-hearing interesting lines and 2) being able to play them instantly. This approach does not involve seeing a chord symbol and plugging in a lick/scale/mode/arp (although good musicians make that approach sound great too).

Prehearing interesting lines is probably best accomplished through 1) transcription, learning the transcribed material and maybe 2) applying specific devices while practicing with backing harmony.

Learning to play ideas instantly probably comes from lots of time on the guitar. Practicing playing melodies you know starting on a random string/fret/finger might help.

To wrap up this post, it may seem off topic. But, I'm trying to place the discussion in context. I think the approach I'm describing is the traditional one in jazz. A big dose of jazz-ear training via transcription and a smaller dose of theory.

I'm aware that most of the discussion on here takes what seems like a very different approach. I think that you can often tell when you hear a guitarist which way he approached learning the instrument. If so, you can pick the one that sounds best to you. There are, of course, players who transcend this sort of thing and, however they learned, make great jazz.

Exactly! For the longest time, I knew the theory behind altered chords and tri-tone subs. But I could never play convincing altered lines or tritone sub lines. Why? It's built around a very specific vocabulary that you can only really get once you transcribe a bunch of players using those colors. I'm still looking for good examples, but my lines over these devices have improved because my language and inner ear have improved.

I hate to say it, but the theory is the easy part. The musical application is the challenge.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Scales aren't METHODS. Nobody really said they are, but we always debate that imagined premise here.

Arpeggios aren't methods either. Licks aren't really. The major scale isn't a method. Listening to records isn't a "method", as a stand-alone entity. Are all of these things WORTHLESS because they aren't "methods"?

Every superstitious thing which is said about melodic minor could basically be said about the major scale.

Too many imaginary debates involving things which were never said. For every great player who didn't play scale X, there are others who talk about it as a thing. We mostly ignore that and marginalize thought and knowledge.

Barry Harris talks scales and theory a great deal. ...So did a great many respected teachers who can actually PLAY and who played with other greats...

What are we actually talking about again?

[Irez87]

What are we actually talking about again?

I dunno. Some jazz stuff again...

Anyone got any good July 4th plans... sorry Chris'77, you're excluded from this conversation.

At least you don't have to worry about flying babies with weird hair pieces

[matt.guitarteacher]

I dunno. Some jazz stuff again...

Anyone got any good July 4th plans... sorry Chris'77, you're excluded from this conversation.

At least you don't have to worry about flying babies with weird hair pieces

Going to see my dad with my wife and 2 of my grown kids. He's a talker/philosopher. Don't know where I get it from... :-)

[Irez87]

What does a new father do on the 4th of July?

Change Diapers?

She's smiling a lot more, and she wants to crawl...

My baby girl's gonna be a trouble maker!

No fireworks... maybe, I dunno.

I like philosophy!

[christianm77]

Scales aren't METHODS. Nobody really said they are, but we always debate that imagined premise here.

Arpeggios aren't methods either. Licks aren't really. The major scale isn't a method. Listening to records isn't a "method", as a stand-alone entity. Are all of these things WORTHLESS because they aren't "methods"?

Every superstitious thing which is said about melodic minor could basically be said about the major scale.

Too many imaginary debates involving things which were never said. For every great player who didn't play scale X, there are others who talk about it as a thing. We mostly ignore that and marginalize thought and knowledge.

Barry Harris talks scales and theory a great deal. ...So did a great many respected teachers who can actually PLAY and who played with other greats...

What are we actually talking about again?

I would say where Barry differs from many is that he does in fact offer a method for building bop lines. That’s pretty handy for a student and educator because we are often (it seems to me) expected to puzzle out how the language is constructed ourselves.

[Tal_175]

What are we actually talking about again?

What I was originally talking about was actually a very pragmatic point. Nothing deep or philosophical. It's about physically relating to the fretboard from the point of view of chord tones.

Look at any chart, you'll see, minor chords, major chords, dominant chords, diminished chords, half diminished chords. That's it! You can even merge some into one group. Diminished and half diminished are sometimes just a flavor of dominant. Some minors can be seen as also part of also dominant. Whether you do that or not still you got really a handful of chords. There are a lot of discussions about different scales to learn, different positional systems, fingerings and how to practice running these scales into each other. Chords are not only simpler structures but there are a lot fewer of them in music. The backbone of any tune is its melody and movement of it's core chord tones. All the possible substitutions, note choices in solos, chord scale mapping, they're all implied in reference to that basic backbone.

When you consider these 4 notes chords, fingering and positions are very simple. The idea is to see scales as just different choices of color notes (2 4 6) that fit over these chord shapes depending on the harmonic context.
One can even just think chord tones and fill the other notes completely aurally. That leads to a much simpler and elegant (I think) way to relate to the instrument. It also helps with most fingering decisions. Of course there will be exceptions. Susb9 chords or some color notes that lead to awkward stretches when uses same position as arpeggio shapes, but these will be easy to isolate and adjust to separately. For example if you add augmented chords to basic chord forms then wholetone scale is also covered.

[Jazzstdnt]

What I was originally talking about was actually a very pragmatic point. Nothing deep or philosophical. It's about physically relating to the fretboard from the point of view of chord tones.

Look at any chart, you'll see, minor chords, major chords, dominant chords, diminished chords, half diminished chords. That's it! You can even merge some into one group. Diminished and half diminished are sometimes just a flavor of dominant. Some minors can be seen as also part of also dominant. Whether you do that or not still you got really a handful of chords. There are a lot of discussions about different scales to learn, different positional systems, fingerings and how to practice running these scales into each other. Chords are not only simpler structures but there are a lot fewer of them in music. The backbone of any tune is its melody and movement of it's core chord tones. All the possible substitutions, note choices in solos, chord scale mapping, they're all implied in reference to that basic backbone.

When you consider these 4 notes chords, fingering and positions are very simple. The idea is to see scales as just different choices of color notes (2 4 6) that fit over these chord shapes depending on the harmonic context.
One can even just think chord tones and fill the other notes completely aurally. That leads to a much simpler and elegant (I think) way to relate to the instrument. It also helps with most fingering decisions. Of course there will be exceptions. Susb9 chords or some color notes that lead to awkward stretches when uses same position as arpeggio shapes, but these will be easy to isolate and adjust to separately. For example if you add augmented chords to basic chord form to be learned than wholetone scale is also covered.

That's a good start, but that's all it is. It doesn't address post-bop and forward. That would be 1959 forward...

[rpjazzguitar]

What I was originally talking about was actually a very pragmatic point. Nothing deep or philosophical. It's about physically relating to the fretboard from the point of view of chord tones.

Look at any chart, you'll see, minor chords, major chords, dominant chords, diminished chords, half diminished chords. That's it! You can even merge some into one group. Diminished and half diminished are sometimes just a flavor of dominant. Some minors can be seen as also part of also dominant. Whether you do that or not still you got really a handful of chords. There are a lot of discussions about different scales to learn, different positional systems, fingerings and how to practice running these scales into each other. Chords are not only simpler structures but there are a lot fewer of them in music. The backbone of any tune is its melody and movement of it's core chord tones. All the possible substitutions, note choices in solos, chord scale mapping, they're all implied in reference to that basic backbone.

When you consider these 4 notes chords, fingering and positions are very simple. The idea is to see scales as just different choices of color notes (2 4 6) that fit over these chord shapes depending on the harmonic context.
One can even just think chord tones and fill the other notes completely aurally. That leads to a much simpler and elegant (I think) way to relate to the instrument. It also helps with most fingering decisions. Of course there will be exceptions. Susb9 chords or some color notes that lead to awkward stretches when uses same position as arpeggio shapes, but these will be easy to isolate and adjust to separately. For example if you add augmented chords to basic chord forms then wholetone scale is also covered.

I understand that this is an alternate route to finding the forms for various chords and scales. As I understand it, the idea is to start with several basic arps and then add in color notes, which ends up being about the same thing as working on scales. It has the advantage of some additional structure of chord tones and colors. Do I have that much right?

It's the next step that confuses me a bit -- and my confusion applies equally to the more common scale based approach. What is the strategy for making music? Say you're in a jam and somebody pulls out the chart of an original. Leadsheet, say. How are you going to apply your approach? Or even if it's a simple standard. If the tune is All of Me, how are you going to use this system to relate to the C E7 A7 Dm E7 etc sequence? Are you going to think about an arp for each chord and then think about which color tones to use? Or, is your system just designed to get some sounds in your ears? If it's the latter, is it really going to be more efficient than a scale based approach? And, I could ask that question in the opposite direction -- I'm not assuming that one is better than the other.

I know this is a very basic question and maybe everybody else on here already knows the answer. But, it seems as if people talk about a plug and play approach. See the chord symbol, pick the scale/arp/mode and maybe cycle a melodic cell through the changes. But, other players hear the harmony (however they learn it) and think melody and jazz vocabulary without this kind of math.

Thoughts?

[Tal_175]

I understand that this is an alternate route to finding the forms for various chords and scales. As I understand it, the idea is to start with several basic arps and then add in color notes, which ends up being about the same thing as working on scales. It has the advantage of some additional structure of chord tones and colors. Do I have that much right?

Yes. That is the basic idea. I know a whole bunch of scales on the guitar in 5 or 7 positions as positional shapes. But knowing these shapes and truly internalizing them to be able apply them to tunes/changes in non-noodling ways are different things.
Since I started looking at the fretboard (and music) more arpeggio (triad or 4 note) centric way, note choices, even the use of scales got a lot more manageable. It forces me to be more aware of notes and intervals rather then juggling shapes. Fretboard mechanics got simpler because it imposes a simpler structure over a larger and more cumbersome scale notes. More on this below.

It's the next step that confuses me a bit -- and my confusion applies equally to the more common scale based approach. What is the strategy for making music? Say you're in a jam and somebody pulls out the chart of an original. Leadsheet, say. How are you going to apply your approach? Or even if it's a simple standard. If the tune is All of Me, how are you going to use this system to relate to the C E7 A7 Dm E7 etc sequence? Are you going to think about an arp for each chord and then think about which color tones to use? Or, is your system just designed to get some sounds in your ears? If it's the latter, is it really going to be more efficient than a scale based approach? And, I could ask that question in the opposite direction -- I'm not assuming that one is better than the other.

Realistically (and thankfully) I'm never in a situation where someone just puts a new piece of music in front of me and expects me to improvise over it. Only in rehearsals that happens with new tunes, then I rely on a mixture of ear and quick analysis to bullshit my way out of it with unremarkable results. But I'd never pay to go see someone play a tune they don't know. One must know the tune to improvise in their best abilities. May be a player with 20+ years of jazz performance experience and knows 200 tunes inside out can get close. I already worked on the tunes I play in jam sessions and gigs.

So it's a matter of how to work on tunes to me. In your example, first I make sure I know the melody really well and able relate it to the harmony. I analyze the melody, do simple chord melody arrangements, comp and sing etc. Then I play chorus after chorus after chorus various chord tone based ideas. 10th intervals, triads moving vertically, horizontally, embellished. Target different chord tones and ascend triad inversion, guide tones, play chord tones and voice lead them etc. I'm also very aware of the melody notes as they related to the chord tones. So I mix playing embellished melody notes and chord tone based approaches on the fly (sometimes they are the same things). This is all just with metronome on 2 & 4, non-stop dozens of choruses. I typically start with say the first 4 bars. Attack small chunks at a time. Until I can do that for the whole tune.

What I'm getting at is, I do all these chord tone (and embellishment) stuff before thinking scales. The next step is playing scales, but at this point I can already access the chord tones, know the notes and their intervals as they apply to the (key of the) tune. So I don't shift my thinking to play scales, I just think what choices of color notes are appropriate per each chord with standard chord-scale analysis or Barry Harris. I just locate these new notes in relation to how I was practicing the chord tones for the tune.There is more to working on improvisation for a tune such as, transcriptions, working on and integrating language etc. but what I described above is the part that's relevant to the thread.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I understand that this is an alternate route to finding the forms for various chords and scales. As I understand it, the idea is to start with several basic arps and then add in color notes, which ends up being about the same thing as working on scales. It has the advantage of some additional structure of chord tones and colors. Do I have that much right?

It's the next step that confuses me a bit -- and my confusion applies equally to the more common scale based approach. What is the strategy for making music? Say you're in a jam and somebody pulls out the chart of an original. Leadsheet, say. How are you going to apply your approach? Or even if it's a simple standard. If the tune is All of Me, how are you going to use this system to relate to the C E7 A7 Dm E7 etc sequence? Are you going to think about an arp for each chord and then think about which color tones to use? Or, is your system just designed to get some sounds in your ears? If it's the latter, is it really going to be more efficient than a scale based approach? And, I could ask that question in the opposite direction -- I'm not assuming that one is better than the other.

I know this is a very basic question and maybe everybody else on here already knows the answer. But, it seems as if people talk about a plug and play approach. See the chord symbol, pick the scale/arp/mode and maybe cycle a melodic cell through the changes. But, other players hear the harmony (however they learn it) and think melody and jazz vocabulary without this kind of math.

Thoughts?

It's all ear training. 100% woodshed vs in-the-moment bandstand mostly. Just because someone has a term for something doesn't mean that they're using a mechanical process INSTEAD of using their ears.

I just don't think anyone is talking about a formula as a REPLACEMENT for ears.

It's like anything in music. If you learn the note names and learn to play a major scale, at the end of that process, you know how to hear it and you also know what it's called. The names aren't cumbersome, and they aren't an "extra" process or formula.

I suppose you know basic note names? What would you say to someone else who fretted over the fact that you "have to" think about note names... that you're tied down to that "formula"? Is that REALLY your experience, or would that just be the misunderstanding of someone else, who happens to be imagining your process as being more convoluted than what you actually experience?

[Tal_175]

It's all ear training. 100% woodshed vs in-the-moment bandstand mostly. Just because someone has a term for something doesn't mean that they're using a mechanical process INSTEAD of using their ears.

I just don't think anyone is talking about a formula as a REPLACEMENT for ears.

It's like anything in music. If you learn the note names and learn to play a major scale, at the end of that process, you know how to hear it and you also know what it's called. The names aren't cumbersome, and they aren't an "extra" process or formula.

I suppose you know basic note names? What would you say to someone else who fretted over the fact that you "have to" think about note names... that you're tied down to that "formula"? Is that REALLY your experience, or would that just be the misunderstanding of someone else, who happens to be imagining your process as being that convoluted?

I agree. The process I use that I described in the previous post is all ear training for the harmony of the tune.
I can (anybody can) strum a chord and sing a melody over it that fits. You work on a tune and get it's harmony in your ears well enough so you can hear and anticipate the harmony when you're playing over the changes. In reality it becomes a mixture of practice habits and aural connection. Hopefully the more you know the tune the more it becomes aural, less muscle memory.

[Tal_175]

Improvisation is like sight reading in a very loose sense. The first time you read a piece it goes very slow (for me). The more you know the tune, the faster you read. Because your ears start pre hearing and your eyes start anticipating what's about to happen. You still rely on the sheet but in a way less so than before.
The similarity is, when improvising our conscience knowledge of the form and current chord, the next chord etc is like the sheet music. You rely on thinking about the chords and what material to play over it. But the more you know the tune the more you can trust your ears and relax about your note choices.

[rpjazzguitar]

It's all ear training. 100% woodshed vs in-the-moment bandstand mostly. Just because someone has a term for something doesn't mean that they're using a mechanical process INSTEAD of using their ears.

I just don't think anyone is talking about a formula as a REPLACEMENT for ears.

It's like anything in music. If you learn the note names and learn to play a major scale, at the end of that process, you know how to hear it and you also know what it's called. The names aren't cumbersome, and they aren't an "extra" process or formula.

I suppose you know basic note names? What would you say to someone else who fretted over the fact that you "have to" think about note names... that you're tied down to that "formula"? Is that REALLY your experience, or would that just be the misunderstanding of someone else, who happens to be imagining your process as being more convoluted than what you actually experience?

Of course, nobody is going to say anything is a replacement for ears.

That said, there are experienced players who think about the math during every solo, even on tunes they know well. I know some and we've discussed it. The great players don't report that -- they usually report thinking about nothing during a solo, or perhaps thinking about color or energy level. That depends on who you ask - it's very individual.

My earlier post was about how the math transforms into music. I hear plug and play (X arp/scale/mode into Y chord) regularly in saxophone, piano and guitar. Maybe a little less in trumpet, but maybe that's just the guys I play with. But, I can also tell when a player has either avoided that, or transcended it. More melodic, less mechanical, fewer lines based on cycling a short melodic cell through a scale, more melody and more feeling. That comes from a trained ear. That's not to say that I don't also like players who do it the other way.

So, what's the best way to improve? What's the most effective way to think about all of this? I think it depends on the individual. People vary in how they analyze things. What works best for one musician may not work as well for another. It also depends on what you're trying to sound like. And, it depends very substantially on the quality of your ear at that moment.

If I were starting all over again, I would do it the old fashioned way. Learn solos off records. Learn tunes off records. But, also learn to read, learn the notes in the scales/modes/chords you use. Learn the fingerboard by note-name, absolutely cold. Try to understand the devices used by the players you listen to as a way of cementing the knowledge. I would de-emphasize practice of arps/scales/modes except in the context of tunes. And, every time I started thinking about math, I'd put on a recording and try to get something out of it by ear.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Of course, nobody is going to say anything is a replacement for ears.

That said, there are experienced players who think about the math during every solo, even on tunes they know well. I know some and we've discussed it. The great players don't report that -- they usually report thinking about nothing during a solo, or perhaps thinking about color or energy level. That depends on who you ask - it's very individual.

My earlier post was about how the math transforms into music. I hear plug and play (X arp/scale/mode into Y chord) regularly in saxophone, piano and guitar. Maybe a little less in trumpet, but maybe that's just the guys I play with. But, I can also tell when a player has either avoided that, or transcended it. More melodic, less mechanical, fewer lines based on cycling a short melodic cell through a scale, more melody and more feeling. That comes from a trained ear. That's not to say that I don't also like players who do it the other way.

So, what's the best way to improve? What's the most effective way to think about all of this? I think it depends on the individual. People vary in how they analyze things. What works best for one musician may not work as well for another. It also depends on what you're trying to sound like. And, it depends very substantially on the quality of your ear at that moment.

If I were starting all over again, I would do it the old fashioned way. Learn solos off records. Learn tunes off records. But, also learn to read, learn the notes in the scales/modes/chords you use. Learn the fingerboard by note-name, absolutely cold. Try to understand the devices used by the players you listen to as a way of cementing the knowledge. I would de-emphasize practice of arps/scales/modes except in the context of tunes. And, every time I started thinking about math, I'd put on a recording and try to get something out of it by ear.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "thinking math"?