Using The Jazz Minor Scale

[richb2]

>>If you play a iim7b5-V7alt-i, you could use mode VI of jazz minor on the iim7b5, mode VII of jazz minor on V7 and jazz minor on i. Imagine how frustrating that would be!

Why would that be frustrating? Where is the video?

[merseybeat]

Rich, one thing that I as well as others said earlier on this thread, you shouldn't really be thunking in terms of scales, but rather sounds.

So true!

Just another quick JM question ? Do any of you guys use the up a 4th idea (Mixolydian b6)?
Its pretty inside sounding . I love it on sweet Georgia Brown! Its not too outside but the flat 6 is so cool (Yes my Aug 5th )

The reason I ask is there is not much written on it except in "Classical Music"

Thanks in advance

Eddie

[FatJeff]

So true!

Just another quick JM question ? Do any of you guys use the up a 4th idea (Mixolydian b6)?
Its pretty inside sounding . I love it on sweet Georgia Brown! Its not too outside but the flat 6 is so cool (Yes my Aug 5th )

The reason I ask is there is not much written on it except in "Classical Music"

Thanks in advance

Eddie

IIRC, Levin basically dismisses the use of this mode altogether. His claim is that it's rarely used...not that I can dispute that, but why? Like mersey pointed out, it's a dom-7 sound with an augmented 5th.

I believe John Stowell advocates the use of this mode, but I can't remember the exact details.

[merseybeat]

Thanks Jeff

There seem to be a fair amount of sax players talking about it (Googled it!)

To my ears the 7b13 chord has a very strong sound to it! I love using it because it wants to resolve! So to my ears the Mixolydian b6 is the the ideal choice to add a little tension to a dominant chord?

Eddie

[Aristotle]

I found the Remler lesson on Youtube and the Mock book free on line.

This jazz minor is confusing, both in terminology and use.
Someone posted here, “arbitrary/non-resolving 7th chord (dominant),” and Remler said, “a Dominant-7 that doesn’t resolve down a fifth.”
Two things were true back in the day,
1. dominant was a chord FUNCTION, not a chord type. And it took some adjustment for me to recognize that she technically meant a non-dominant 7th.
2. The D Jazz Minor was the G Lydian-Dominant, and it was not necessarily avoided because the G7 was resolving to C.

I am wondering what the advantage of jazz minor based on four different degrees of the scale is. Less finger patterns to learn? Fast runs?

Say I am playing against G7. I start out a melody line on the second beat, eighth notes G,F. Then, I could go to E or Eb.
If I go to E, my ear is probably going to send me to D. Then, say I go C#, E D. I could stop there, but right now, I feel a low G finishes the phrase.
So, I go G,F,E,D,C#,E,D,G - that’s a D jazz minor?
Say, I go to the Eb instead. I play G, F, Eb, B,D – and that’s the C jazz minor?
Say instead, I go G, F, Eb, B, Bb – and that’s the Ab jazz minor?
Say instead, I go G,F,E,Bb,Ab,G – and that’s the F jazz minor (or is that the diminished scale)?

Am I missing something, because it seems easier to construct melodies using the # and b 5 and 9, that trying figure out which jazz minor scale it is?

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Say I am playing against G7. I start out a melody line on the second beat, eighth notes G,F. Then, I could go to E or Eb.
If I go to E, my ear is probably going to send me to D. Then, say I go C#, E D. I could stop there, but right now, I feel a low G finishes the phrase.
So, I go G,F,E,D,C#,E,D,G - that’s a D jazz minor?
Say, I go to the Eb instead. I play G, F, Eb, B,D – and that’s the C jazz minor?
Say instead, I go G, F, Eb, B, Bb – and that’s the Ab jazz minor?
Say instead, I go G,F,E,Bb,Ab,G – and that’s the F jazz minor (or is that the diminished scale)?

Am I missing something, because it seems easier to construct melodies using the # and b 5 and 9, that trying figure out which jazz minor scale it is?

1. Your D jazz minor example has a b5 (C#) but E instead of a #5 (Eb) and no ninths.
2. Your C jazz minor has a nat5 (D).
3. Ab jazz minor is the same as the altered scale (#5,b5,#9,b9).
4. Your F jazz minor has E instead of a #5 (Eb).

Of course, one could start with G mixolydian, add the altered notes (#5,b5,#9,b9) and toss in the leading tone (F#) for good measure -- nothing wrong with the chromatic scale!

[Aristotle]

Thanks for taking the time, Big Daddy, but I don't understand your response.
For example, you say, "Your F jazz minor has E instead of a #5 (Eb)." As described by Remler, Mock, and posters here the F Jazz Minor has an E not an Eb.
Also, I don't see where you address my core question of how one uses this one scale pattern starting on four different degrees of the major scale as a path to building better melodies. Why is this this better than just a straight study of melody?

FWIW, there is also a YouTube by Coryell on Jazz Minor, which I find to be more useful demonstration than the Remler Tube.

[gingerjazz]

a great book to helpanyone struggling with the jazz minor scale is an introduction to jazz soloing by the musicians institute this explains why you can relate altered chords back to the parent melodic minor scale this works because there are no avoid notes in melodic minor harmony

[FatJeff]

I found it easier to just learn the altered scale (7th mode of MM) starting on different scale degrees (R, #9, b5, #5, 6), rather than think "melodic minor starting on the b9". Starting on the b9 always sounded funky to me, and starting on the root and just playing the altered scale worked better for me at first, and I found my ear "locked on" to the MM sound faster that way. The altered scale gets outside pretty fast anyway, so I found there was no need for me to start on the b9.

To be honest, after you shed the MM scale in various inversions in various places on the fretboard enough, the sound just gets into your head and fingers, and you don't really think "altered scale" or "lydian dominant" anymore when playing. You just play it. Seemed to take longer than the major scale, but then again, I'd been playing that one for years.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Thanks for taking the time, Big Daddy, but I don't understand your response.
For example, you say, "Your F jazz minor has E instead of a #5 (Eb)." As described by Remler, Mock, and posters here the F Jazz Minor has an E not an Eb.
Also, I don't see where you address my core question of how one uses this one scale pattern starting on four different degrees of the major scale as a path to building better melodies. Why is this this better than just a straight study of melody?

I guess I misunderstand your previous post. You seemed to be saying "why all the jazz minors, why not just use altered notes?" The answer is that utilizing different jazz minor scales will open you up for some different sounds.

As for why this is better than the "straight study of melody", nothing is better than anything else, but some things are different.

[wizard3739]

Hey FatJeff, I agree with what you are saying about melodic minor. After I practised melodic minor scales, arps & intervals in all keys and positions for a couple of years, I began to automatically use them when improvising and now the improvised solos sound more natural to my ear than playing over changes with major scales, arps, etc.... I think I may have stated this process poorly, improv lines sound better to my ear when based on melodic minor concepts.

wiz

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Hey FatJeff, I agree with what you are saying about melodic minor. After I practised melodic minor scales, arps & intervals in all keys and positions for a couple of years, I began to automatically use them when improvising and now the improvised solos sound more natural to my ear than playing over changes with major scales, arps, etc.... I think I may have stated this process poorly, improv lines sound better to my ear when based on melodic minor concepts.

I agree. I may be on the wrong trail in trying to reduce it to something "atomic", but:

1. The melodic, or jazz, minor scale has two tritones versus one for the major scale: C jazz minor has A-Eb and B-F, compared to C major's B-F.
2. The jazz minor has an augmented triad which the major scale lacks: C jazz minor has Eb-G-B.

Tritones and augmented arpeggios in an improvised line sounds instantly jazzy to me.

[FatJeff]

I agree. I may be on the wrong trail in trying to reduce it to something "atomic", but:

1. The melodic, or jazz, minor scale has two tritones versus one for the major scale: C jazz minor has A-Eb and B-F, compared to C major's B-F.
2. The jazz minor has an augmented triad which the major scale lacks: C jazz minor has Eb-G-B.

Tritones and augmented arpeggios in an improvised line sounds instantly jazzy to me.

Interestingly, I recently transcribed a Lester Young solo ("Mean To Me"), and I noticed "that sound" in one of his phrases. I analyzed it and lo and behold, it was an augmented triad. Now, it's anyone's guess as to whether he was thinking melodic minor, or augmented triad, or (more likely) was just playing over the changes like he knew how to.

In any case, the sound was très hip.

[Aristotle]

I guess I misunderstand your previous post. You seemed to be saying "why all the jazz minors, why not just use altered notes?" The answer is that utilizing different jazz minor scales will open you up for some different sounds.

As for why this is better than the "straight study of melody", nothing is better than anything else, but some things are different.

Although you sure seem to be implying playing these scales is better than something.
You say the scale has two tritones and the major scale has only one. OK, but the diminshed scale has eight. You say it is has an aumented triad and the major scale has none. OK, but the whole tone scale has six.


On the first point, how did I get to be closed off to different sounds and need opening up? There are only five "outside" notes. When I learned (and this is how I taught), first one learned to play and compose inside. Then the outside notes were studied one by one. Since the opening poster asked about using (D Jazz Minor), a scale with 6 modal notes and a C# against a G7. I would suggest it is better, by far, to listen to and play selected pieces - like Bernstein - that feature #11 as a stressed note. Then, begin with the proper tuteldge to create compositions and improvisations using the #11.

Eventually, that way, one masters composing and improvising melodies using all the "different" sounds.

I've been noodling around with these jazz minor scales for about 3 or 4 days now, and it's like - well - playing scales. I have been thinking out of the box for too long to get back in. Good luck with this.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I was comparing the major scale to the JM. Diminished and whole scales are cool, too, but their symmetry makes them qualitatively different from the JM to me.

But you do raise a point. Each diminished scale is closely related to four jazz minor scales.

Take G7 as an example. You can play the Ab diminished scale over G7:

G Ab Bb Cb C# D E F G

Four related jazz minors, written G-G:

Ab JM: G Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G
D JM: G A B C# D E F G
F JM: G Ab Bb C D E F G
B JM: G# A# B C# D E F# G#

In each case, you can get the JM scale from the diminished scale by replacing two notes with the bold note.

This is not my idea. I got it from Pat Martino.

[Aristotle]

But you do raise a point. Each diminished scale is closely related to four jazz minor scales.

Actually, every 7-note scale is "closely related" to every other 7-note (or 8-note) scale. There are only twelve notes. There is limited and finite number of mathematical possibilities. And yes, a dog running in a circle will eventually catch his own tail, or come close, in which case, he can then declare that he and his tail are "closely related."

Sticking with G7, consider the following simple scalar eigth-note line.
G-F-G-Ab-Bb-Ab-G-F

Which scale is that?
1. Ab jazz minor.
2, F jazz minor.
3. Eb major.
4. Ab major.
5. Diminshed.
6. The Cuckamongo scale
7. Why should I care?

I am still trying to discover how all this scale obsession and minutia will lead me to good melodies, in a way that a lack of scale obsession and traditional composition study won't.

----

Getting back to the opening post, let's stick with using C# over a G7, or the old Lydian Dominant, or now so-called "D-JM." Here are two measure of simple eight-note phrases over a G7 chord.
D-F-A-C-B-G
D-F-A-C-B

Contrast with
D-F-A-C#-B-G
D-F-A-C#-B

I am sure you could rattle off what "scale" those phrases supposedly are and how they are "related," but isn't the real objective to hear and understand the effect of going from C to C#? So that you can use the C# (and thus all #11's) effectively?

----
Am I the only one who noticed on the Remler Youtube that every phrase she plays with the D-JM "scale" is almost exclusively an arpeggio? That she is playing an upper extension arpeggio with a #11, and not any "scale?"

[FatJeff]

Actually, every 7-note scale is "closely related" to every other 7-note (or 8-note) scale.

You are aware that the term "closely related" has a very strict definition, right? Not just because A is "right next to" Ab. So I might take issue with your assertion that every scale is closely related to every other scale, at least 7-note scales, which define a key with their 7 notes. They key of B is most certainly not closely related to the key of Bb.

Am I the only one who noticed on the Remler Youtube that every phrase she plays with the D-JM "scale" is almost exclusively an arpeggio? That she is playing an upper extension arpeggio with a #11, and not any "scale?"

I noticed that too...although I attribute her arpeggiated lines to the fact that she was trying to clearly demonstrate to the viewer the "sound" of melodic minor. Those seemed to be some of her favorite licks within the MM scale, and she probably came about them by extracting them from millions of other possibilities found within the scale.

I am still trying to discover how all this scale obsession and minutia will lead me to good melodies, in a way that a lack of scale obsession and traditional composition study won't.

I don't think that focusing completely on scales leads to good sounding lines. I also don't think that focusing completely on arpeggios, or completely on the melody, or completely on the key center, or focusing on the outside notes, or superimposed triads, or any other single technique leads to good sounding lines. However, each is useful in its own way, and when taken all together, you can come up with very nice sounding and unique lines if you put in the time assimilating each technique. I don't think it's healthy to poo-poo the study of scales just because you may be beyond that in your playing. They are incredibly useful and plus, it's just plain fun to examine them and see how they all relate to other things.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

And yes, a dog running in a circle will eventually catch his own tail, or come close, in which case, he can then declare that he and his tail are "closely related."

A worm tunneling through loose earth bumps into the back of a worm. "Hey cutie, have I seen you around here before?" "Dummy, I'm your rear end!"

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I am sure you could rattle off what "scale" those phrases supposedly are and how they are "related," but isn't the real objective to hear and understand the effect of going from C to C#? So that you can use the C# (and thus all #11's) effectively?

I'm agreeing with you here. It doesn't matter what you call it when it sounds the same.

But take an example that wanders farther from G mixolydian -- the dog might catch its tail but it takes 5 flats to do so!

G altered/Ab JM: G Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G

phase:

%_ss_ssss_e_e_e_e_e_e
-------34-6-4-----3--------
-----46---------4---6------
%-46----------4------------
---------------------------
---------------------------
---------------------------

(This starts on an upbeat - % is a 8th note rest, s=16th e=8th note)

I don't get to the altered sound but adding one flat at a time, I get there by diving in the deep end of the pool.

[Aristotle]

I'm agreeing with you here. It doesn't matter what you call it when it sounds the same.

It took me two tries to get that. Remember post 56?

I think I am making some headway playing with this now, because the C-JM over the G7+5 soiunds very similar to stuff I might play. It's a very well-worn trail that includes the old Joe Pass books, where he talks of getting movement (tension and release) by superimposing the V-chord (G) over the I chord (Cm). But since I am not thinking "scale," I don't stay within it. On G7+ my line might go:
Eb-B-C-D-G-Bb-Ab. What is that? C-JM on the bottom, with F-JM on top? By the time I figure that out, the solo will be over. I might also trill that Bb up to a B and back, creating what seems like a C-JM sound on the bottom half of the phrase and a Diminished-scale sound on top. But I don't know what scales these are until after I play them and figure it out.

I learned outusde improv very differently than "scales." There was two guitars, where you couldn't see the other guy's hands. In turn you would add a note to the basic, third-fret G-F-B chord, and the other fellow would say what note was added and sing it. First, C#, E and D. You'd go back and forth, parroting each other. And you buld it up. The first player might throw in D-F-A at the fifth fret, then D-F-Ab, the Db-F-A etc. That's how I learned the "different" sounds. No "scales."

I can use the C-JM and D-JM now over the G7 a bit, because they are routine, and there is only one outside note..but it's confining. The F-JM bothers me, because if I play the Ab and Bb in the same phrase, my urge is to play a B natural somewhere soon. Now, the Ab-JM...whew. This reminds me of the old days with the "flat five sub," and it was called the Db Lydiam Dominant. This is giving me bad headaches, because that nice friendly B-natural becomes a dang Cb.

[Aristotle]

I noticed that too...although I attribute her arpeggiated lines to the fact that she was trying to clearly demonstrate to the viewer the "sound" of melodic minor. Those seemed to be some of her favorite licks within the MM scale, and she probably came about them by extracting them from millions of other possibilities found within the scale.

Well, maybe not her "favorite." Just the ones she was willing to give away.

I don't think that focusing completely on scales leads to good sounding lines.

But if you reread the first 20-or-so of this thread, and this was knew to you, what would it sound like? Focusing completely on this one magic elixir scale?

[FatJeff]

If you reread the first 20-or-so of this thread, and this was knew to you, what would it sound like? Focusing completely on this one magic elixir scale?

Beats me - my memory doesn't go back that far.

[bako]

Actually, every 7-note scale is "closely related" to every other 7-note (or 8-note) scale. There are only twelve notes. There is limited and finite number of mathematical possibilities. And yes, a dog running in a circle will eventually catch his own tail, or come close, in which case, he can then declare that he and his tail are "closely related.""

Bean counting tally of melodic minor common tones in relation to C melodic minor.


C D Eb F G A B

Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb C----------2

D E F G A B C#----------------5

Eb F Gb Ab Bb C D-------------4

E F# G A B C# D#-------------4

F G Ab Bb C D E----------------4

F# G# A B C# D# E#----------4

G A Bb C D E F#----------------4

Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G-------------4

A B C D E F# G#----------------4

Bb C Db Eb F G A----------------5

B C# D E F# G# A#-------------2

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I can use the C-JM and D-JM now over the G7 a bit, because they are routine, and there is only one outside note..but it's confining. The F-JM bothers me, because if I play the Ab and Bb in the same phrase, my urge is to play a B natural somewhere soon. Now, the Ab-JM...whew. This reminds me of the old days with the "flat five sub," and it was called the Db Lydiam Dominant. This is giving me bad headaches, because that nice friendly B-natural becomes a dang Cb.

1. Ab-JM ... also known as the G altered scale. One can analyze it as the skeleton of a G7 (1-3-7) plus b5, #5, b9, #9. I think of it as pure Joe Pass.

You can look at it as a b5 sub like this: the "most inside" JM over the dominant 7th is D JM over G7, right? A tritone away we have Ab JM over Db, so put that together and you've got Ab JM over G7.

2. The most challenging one of the quartet (D JM, Ab JM, F JM, B JM) over G7 is B JM. Very Pat Martino.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Aristotle
If you reread the first 20-or-so of this thread, and this was knew to you, what would it sound like? Focusing completely on this one magic elixir scale?

Beats me - my memory doesn't go back that far.

The operative word was "reread."

----

You can look at it as a b5 sub like this: the "most inside" JM over the dominant 7th is D JM over G7, right? A tritone away we have Ab JM over Db,

I could, but I won't. Before popular theory became Berklee-ized, I didn't want to look at it as Db Lyd-Dom, either. Same pain, no gain. I look at it as G7.

Also, do you think inside and outside are absolute terms (modal triads only) or relative terms (relative to the actual or implied harmony)? If the chord is G7#5#9, then the Ab and Eb will sound more "inside" to me that A and E natural.

As to the most inside, to my ear, it's C JM. I am on piano playing G7 to Cm, and G7+ to Cm (or just one of the G7's having played so many Cm's. All very inside notes. Even in that overdone scale theory you are immersed in, a C scale in the key of C ought to be pretty "inside."