Dorian conversion?

[pamosmusic]

People sometimes object to the idea that you have to keep ‘converting’ to minor when you play, but this isn’t how it works. After a while you don’t think about it, the ideas are just sounds and shapes that you can hear as minor or dominant as the context demands.

Yeah this is a really important point, I think. And it applies to basically all the rules people tend to object to. The idea is not that they be observed as rules when you play. They’re supposed to be observed as rules when you practice so that you train yourself to hear a new set of sounds or see the fingerboard somewhat differently or whatever. When you play you apply the old Charlie Parker rule and “just blow” … the practice does its work incrementally and over time. When the rule becomes less useful or interesting, you move on and try another. Not because it’s the end-all-be-all or because the other was a waste, but just because it’s time to look at stuff a different way.

I think this is a hugely important part of practicing that folks sometimes miss when they get exasperated about rules and the like.

[ragman1]

They’re supposed to be observed as rules when you practice

They're not rules to me, they're just a way of doing things that I can take, leave or modify. Where are you getting this idea of rules from?

[pamosmusic]

Not really this thread in particular. Just generally … rules, systems, etc sometimes get a bad rap because they’re generally misunderstood to be “things you should do all the time in order to sound good.”

[ragman1]

Playing guitar is optional, it's not like chess or driving a vehicle. I mean, there are 'rules' in one sense otherwise we'd all be playing nonsense but they're not the sort of rules that demand obedience or else. You just tend to be ignored by the listener :-)

[Tal_175]

I'm not really big on conversions because I like to cultivate a fretboard view where on each chord, the fretboard becomes a large grid of intervals relative to the root of the chord. Every note becomes a 3rd or a b6th or a9th or the root etc.

There are several advantages to this view (aside from the fact that it matches how we hear notes). It's equally applicable to chord voicings, lead lines and chord melody. So it provides a unified view where growth in each aspect of jazz guitar reinforces the others. You can drive new chord voicings or voice leading patterns on the spot (at least in the practice room) by moving voice to another interval and that new possibility is also imbedded in the scalar view of the fretboard. So it makes your scalar view stronger and it becomes an idea usable in lead lines. You also never have to memorize a voicing as a grip. Not mention, it also makes it instantly obvious how notes of tunes relate to the chords.

Of course that doesn't prevent sometimes treating ii-V's as just V's. In that case you just have two bars of the V chord. I'd never want to do superimposition math to reorient line ideas. Like on the V chord play your maj from the 3rd idea based on the minor from the 5th, etc. I don't get why some people prefer that instead of just thinking the chord of the moment. It's neither easier nor does it match how you hear the notes in relation to the chords.

[MarkRhodes]

Could this simply be a case of fretboard organization more than harmonic theory?

I think that's the main thing, really.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Curious: what is Pat thinking over a major I chord?

[pamosmusic]

Curious: what is Pat thinking over a major I chord?

Not sure but that’s kind of the fun thing about systems like this …

If he’s thinking A minor then there’s all these G# and F# implications … if he’s thinking E minor then there are D# and C# implications along with the usual upper extensions.

That’s kind of wicked. You can play line cliche stuff over and A minor for example and find sounds you wouldn’t come to by way of just playing the change the way it’s written, even if you’re thinking of those upper structures. By thinking of the minor tonality, you get some different stuff. Which is super cool.

Does Pat actually think that way? No idea.

But those are the implications I see when I think of an idea like this.

[buduranus2]

Like I said, the purpose of conversion to minor is to give the music an overall aesthetic, tonality, and vibe. It is the phenomenon of although you're playing the same notes as the parent scales, the intention of how they're delivered and phrased makes it sound differently.

If you don't care for getting that Pat minor sound, then don't use it. Just use the standard approach of directly associating scales/colors to chords.

I prefer having a pallet of tonalities or colors to use how I want in different situations. So I would never use the Pat approach exclusively. Although I do think it sounds cool to my ear when I listen to him.

If you listen to the first part of his lesson, he says the purpose of it is that he likes it aesthetically. Then he goes into explaining the mechanics of it. But the purpose is the minor aesthetic and overall vibe.

A lot of this was either over my head or went by too quickly. What I did get out of it, though, was to think of the chords within the chords which dovetails nicely with my recent exploration of which chords are in which scales.

[buduranus2]

I'm not really big on conversions because I like to cultivate a fretboard view where on each chord, the fretboard becomes a large grid of intervals relative to the root of the chord. Every note becomes a 3rd or a b6th or a9th or the root etc.

There are several advantages to this view (aside from the fact that it matches how we hear notes). It's equally applicable to chord voicings, lead lines and chord melody. So it provides a unified view where growth in each aspect of jazz guitar reinforces the others. You can drive new chord voicings or voice leading patterns on the spot (at least in the practice room) by moving voice to another interval and that new possibility is also imbedded in the scalar view of the fretboard. So it makes your scalar view stronger and it becomes an idea usable in lead lines. You also never have to memorize a voicing as a grip. Not mention, it also makes it instantly obvious how notes of tunes relate to the chords.

Of course that doesn't prevent sometimes treating ii-V's as just V's. In that case you just have two bars of the V chord. I'd never want to do superimposition math to reorient line ideas. Like on the V chord play your maj from the 3rd idea based on the minor from the 5th, etc. I don't get why some like that instead of just thinking the chord of the moment. It's neither easier nor does it match how you hear the notes in relation to the chords.

As I mentioned in my OP I'm just an intermediate level player. So if it's a two-measure ii V7 I'll play a measure of ii and a measure of V7. If it's a one measure ii V7 then I'm more likely to play just the V7. That said, your method is very intriguing. After repeated readings, though, I don't have the requisite knowledge nor capacities to process and implement it. Even so, it's great to encounter someone whose concept is so advanced.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Not sure but that’s kind of the fun thing about systems like this …

If he’s thinking A minor then there’s all these G# and F# implications … if he’s thinking E minor then there are D# and C# implications along with the usual upper extensions.

That’s kind of wicked. You can play line cliche stuff over and A minor for example and find sounds you wouldn’t come to by way of just playing the change the way it’s written, even if you’re thinking of those upper structures. By thinking of the minor tonality, you get some different stuff. Which is super cool.

Does Pat actually think that way? No idea.

But those are the implications I see when I think of an idea like this.

I know Pat has these symmetries -- he can lump the dominant tonalities G7/Bb7/Db7/E7 together...

And for major tonalities he can lump CMaj7/AbMaj7/EMaj7 together. If you continue and consider the ii and vi chords of each of those major chords, things get out there!

[Tal_175]

As I mentioned in my OP I'm just an intermediate level player. So if it's a two-measure ii V7 I'll play a measure of ii and a measure of V7. If it's a one measure ii V7 then I'm more likely to play just the V7. That said, your method is very intriguing. After repeated readings, though, I don't have the requisite knowledge nor capacities to process and implement it. Even so, it's great to encounter someone whose concept is so advanced.

Let me put it this way. A typical entry to jazz guitar (even for skilled players in other styles) is to learn some scales as 5 position or 7 position dot patterns along the fretboard. Then comes learning some chord grips. Maj7, Maj6, Dom13, Min9 etc. etc. Amazingly, although most people conceptually know how scales and chords are constructed, on guitar at least this scale and chord knowledge can still remain as compartmentalized, black box or grip patterns, and grow separately overtime.

The concept is simple. When you hold a chord shape, that shape is a collection of intervals, right? The 3rd, the 7th, the b9th etc. Around these intervals, there are other intervals that belong to other types of voicings of the chord, 13th, #11 etc. All these intervals in that area of the fretboard also constitute the scale notes that the chord comes from. In other words, your lines are also built with these notes. So, compartmentalizing the fretboard references as "grips" and "scales" more than doubles the work that you need to do eventually. I say "more than double" because harmonic view and line view reinforce each other if you don't compartmentalize them. Of course the initial learning curve is steep. For this to happen you have to abandon the "grip view" and always view chords by the intervals in them. Moreover view lines also as these same intervals. It gets easier overtime.

I haven't met a skilled jazz guitarist for whom this unified view is not a second nature (not saying that's impossible to exist). I mean players still utilize the visual information, but what's inside of them is always accessible.

[Christian Miller]

Not particularly relevant but Jerry Bergonzi has this bebop scale thing he does, where for each mode he adds the half step between b7 and 1 when there’s a flat 7 and adds the half step between 5 and 6 when there’s a natural 7. So you’d get …

D E F G A B C C# D for the Dorian.

I thought it was cool and wrote it down and haven’t really found it to be practically useful for myself. But still.

if you think that’s cool wait till you properly dip into the Barry added note rules. It’s like that on steroids. The possibilities are endless.

(Btw paul chambers plays that 8 note Dorian scale as a bassline.)

Any way I see you 8 note dorian and I defeat in a Pokémon battle with

D C# C D B Bb A Ab G Gb F G E Eb D

BOOOM. That’s some vol II moves I’m laying on you right there

thats not EVEN my final form

[Christian Miller]

I mean just the minor from vol I is lovely

C B A Ab G F Eb F D Db C

its the minor version of
C B A Ab G F E Eb D Db C

you put the next note higher (4) between b3 and 2 because there’s no note between b3 and 2 (unless you are Jacob collier…)

but it makes it into a LINE!

[pamosmusic]

if you think that’s cool wait till you properly dip into the Barry added note rules. It’s like that on steroids. The possibilities are endless.

(Btw paul chambers plays that 8 note Dorian scale as a bassline.)

Any way I see you 8 note dorian and I defeat in a Pokémon battle with

D C# C D B Bb A Ab G Gb F G E Eb D

BOOOM. That’s some vol II moves I’m laying on you right there

thats not EVEN my final form

Oh I’ve been into this stuff for a while. I ran across this passing note stuff a few times and eventually was like … wait this is genius.

and that was my way into this whole universe.

[PMB]

if you think that’s cool wait till you properly dip into the Barry added note rules. It’s like that on steroids. The possibilities are endless.

(Btw paul chambers plays that 8 note Dorian scale as a bassline.)

Any way I see you 8 note dorian and I defeat in a Pokémon battle with

D C# C D B Bb A Ab G Gb F G E Eb D

BOOOM. That’s some vol II moves I’m laying on you right there

thats not EVEN my final form

I don't remember reading about that BH-style descending chromatic line expressed in this manner but I see/hear it as a kind of fractal version of the so-called (not by Barry) 'dorian bebop scale' whereby instead of just chord tones appearing on the beat, we have all the scale tones:

D C# C B A G F E D
D C# C D B Bb A Ab G Gb F G E Eb D

[grahambop]

If we’re getting into descending chromatic lines, here’s my all-time favourite, from the beginning of Pat Martino’s ‘Just Friends’ solo:

[pamosmusic]

I mean just the minor from vol I is lovely

C B A Ab G F Eb F D Db C

its the minor version of
C B A Ab G F E Eb D Db C

you put the next note higher (4) between b3 and 2 because there’s no note between b3 and 2 (unless you are Jacob collier…)

but it makes it into a LINE!

Yeah this is also one of those things that you see immediately when you know what you’re looking for … all those second generation bebop hard bop dudes … Dexter, Hank Mobley, Sonny Stitt, Clifford Brown.

I can’t remember where I saw it first but I pegged it as kind of a useful tool for articulation. But when you start fiddling with it there’s kind of no bottom to it. Just keeps on going.

[Christian Miller]

I don't remember reading about that BH-style descending chromatic line expressed in this manner but I see/hear it as a kind of fractal version of the so-called (not by Barry) 'dorian bebop scale' whereby instead of just chord tones appearing on the beat, we have all the scale tones:

D C# C B A G F E D
D C# C D B Bb A Ab G Gb F G E Eb D

Yes! Exactly

In the same way as you can use neighbour tone patterns on scales as well as arpeggios (big Barry thing, but a big everyone thing really.)

in the advanced added note applications you use half steps to highlight whatever notes you want within the scale. The basic chord is just a starting point for learners. This scale would probably be understood as G7 starting on 5 in fact. You can start that scale on any bold note on the beat, and if you want to start on an upbeat, remove or add an extra note in….

[GuyBoden]

Some players use a Mix/Dom conversion, some players use Dorian/minor conversion.

Martino plays a lot of chromatic notes with his minor conversion, he doesn't always use chord tones on the downbeats.

His first book "Linear Expressions" had some great lines or "Activities" as he called them.

[buduranus2]

Let me put it this way. A typical entry to jazz guitar (even for skilled players in other styles) is to learn some scales as 5 position or 7 position dot patterns along the fretboard. Then comes learning some chord grips. Maj7, Maj6, Dom13, Min9 etc. etc. Amazingly, although most people conceptually know how scales and chords are constructed, on guitar at least this scale and chord knowledge can still remain as compartmentalized, black box or grip patterns, and grow separately overtime.

The concept is simple. When you hold a chord shape, that shape is a collection of intervals, right? The 3rd, the 7th, the b9th etc. Around these intervals, there are other intervals that belong to other types of voicings of the chord, 13th, #11 etc. All these intervals in that area of the fretboard also constitute the scale notes that the chord comes from. In other words, your lines are also built with these notes. So, compartmentalizing the fretboard references as "grips" and "scales" more than doubles the work that you need to do eventually. I say "more than double" because harmonic view and line view reinforce each other if you don't compartmentalize them. Of course the initial learning curve is steep. For this to happen you have to abandon the "grip view" and always view chords by the intervals in them. Moreover view lines also as these same intervals. It gets easier overtime.

I haven't met a skilled jazz guitarist for whom this unified view is not a second nature (not saying that's impossible to exist). I mean players still utilize the visual information, but what's inside of them is always accessible.

Thank you for taking the time to break down your concept. I'm well aware (and guilty of) the limitations of "dots in boxes. Same with grips, although lately I've been exploring the chords within chords and scales. My thing starting out in jazz a few years ago was to assimilate some of the foundational sounds and chord sequences to wind up with something that sounds like "jazz."

In this regard I believe I've been successful. For example, adding chromaticism to create forward motion, scale choices for a given chord or sequence, beginning/ending phrases on the upbeat, and developing a tone that is resonant and appropriate for the style.

I kinda somewhat understand what you're recommending. I think (hope?) what you're saying is that a chord (or interval) exists in the context of a scale and that the non-chord scale tones connect the chord tones to form lines. I can see where "abandoning the grip view" is helpful because by looking at the actual notes and intervals there are more possible positions, inversions and combinations, perhaps, for example, relating to shell voicings and inversions that suggest other chords and then scales. I think.

In closing, you've given me a lot to work with and, as I mentioned, I've taken some small steps in this regard, more of a toe in the water rather than a cannonball in the deep end. Appreciate you!

[pamosmusic]

Let me put it this way. A typical entry to jazz guitar (even for skilled players in other styles) is to learn some scales as 5 position or 7 position dot patterns along the fretboard. Then comes learning some chord grips. Maj7, Maj6, Dom13, Min9 etc. etc. Amazingly, although most people conceptually know how scales and chords are constructed, on guitar at least this scale and chord knowledge can still remain as compartmentalized, black box or grip patterns, and grow separately overtime.

The concept is simple. When you hold a chord shape, that shape is a collection of intervals, right? The 3rd, the 7th, the b9th etc. Around these intervals, there are other intervals that belong to other types of voicings of the chord, 13th, #11 etc. All these intervals in that area of the fretboard also constitute the scale notes that the chord comes from. In other words, your lines are also built with these notes. So, compartmentalizing the fretboard references as "grips" and "scales" more than doubles the work that you need to do eventually. I say "more than double" because harmonic view and line view reinforce each other if you don't compartmentalize them. Of course the initial learning curve is steep. For this to happen you have to abandon the "grip view" and always view chords by the intervals in them. Moreover view lines also as these same intervals. It gets easier overtime.

I haven't met a skilled jazz guitarist for whom this unified view is not a second nature (not saying that's impossible to exist). I mean players still utilize the visual information, but what's inside of them is always accessible.

I get this but I think sometimes there’s a mythology to “ditching the shapes” that goes a little further than reality. Great guitarists transcend the shapes and think of chords in a fluid way that draws from the prevailing harmony more than folks who just have “grips” or whatever. But shapes are kind of a guitarists primary advantage over other instruments. Simple memorizable patterns that are incredibly malleable.

I had a lesson with Bernstein once and was doing a bunch of fancy chord stuff and he was like … “gtfo w that sh** just play shells.”

He was saying most of what he does is shell voicings with side slipping and the like. He obviously also uses intervallic stuff and interesting chord patterns and all kinds of things, but the point is a good one. You have to get past it eventually, but tons and tons and tons of mileage can be got from simple voicings, *applied musically.* And all the other stuff with that rhythmic and musical stuff isn’t worth much anyway.

[Tal_175]

I get this but I think sometimes there’s a mythology to “ditching the shapes” that goes a little further than reality. Great guitarists transcend the shapes and think of chords in a fluid way that draws from the prevailing harmony more than folks who just have “grips” or whatever. But shapes are kind of a guitarists primary advantage over other instruments. Simple memorizable patterns that are incredibly malleable.

I had a lesson with Bernstein once and was doing a bunch of fancy chord stuff and he was like … “gtfo w that sh** just play shells.”

He was saying most of what he does is shell voicings with side slipping and the like. He obviously also uses intervallic stuff and interesting chord patterns and all kinds of things, but the point is a good one. You have to get past it eventually, but tons and tons and tons of mileage can be got from simple voicings, *applied musically.* And all the other stuff with that rhythmic and musical stuff isn’t worth much anyway.

Of course shapes are useful. Intervals are shapes too. The visual reference of shapes is essential in realtime playing. The question is how transparent the shapes are. In other words whether shapes are black box entities or whether they are emergent entities that reflect some of the possibilities at the disposal of a musician. So it's a mental attitude towards the instrument that's cultivated over the years. It's really orthogonal to how many fancy chord shapes or sophisticated voice leading patterns a musician uses.

[Christian Miller]

The top professionals are in my experience generally to busy playing music to be doing with that purist stuff

[Tal_175]

The top professionals are in my experience generally to busy playing music to be doing with that purist stuff

As I said, I have never met a competent jazz guitarist who saw lines and chord voicings just as black dots and didn't have a transparent intervallic awareness of their instruments (or who would consider that abstract purism as opposed to just a natural way of that music maps on their instruments). But it's possible we have been exposed to different types of players. I don't know very many musicians in Gypsy jazz tradition for example.