-
I'm an intermediate level player. A more advanced player recommended Pat Martino's concept of converting to dorian. I've surfed around and have found a lot of threads on the topic, including here. Having done my best to grasp the concept I still can't figure out the benefits. To me it seems like adding some extra mental gymnastics, i.e. for a C7 play G dorian. The gentleman I referenced above said this way all I'd need is a vocabulary of dorian licks that can be applied over a variety of chords. The problem is that I don't have a vocabulary of "dorian licks" per se. I can handle altered/secondary/non-functioning dominants comfortably using a variety of modes derived from melodic and harmonic minor. So I'm just not seeing the benefit of converting to dorian. If anybody can explain the benefits of dorian conversion on a level I can understand I'd greatly appreciate it.
-
11-11-2023 01:00 PM
-
Gm over C7, heard of it. Dorian conversion, never heard of it :-)
-
Pat Martino - Jazz Minorization over dom chords - Theory Discussions on theFretBoard
not always Dorian
Pat seemes to like the concept of ‘Minorizing’ generally
that idea works for me
eg over G7
play some Dminor stuff
or
play some F minor stuff
or
play some Ab min stuff
for a more altered sound
Only use this thinking if
it works for you ….
you probably get the same results with another mindset
which is totally cool
-
Pat Martino "converted to the minor" as a tonal preference, but it is wrong to say that he converted to the Dorian mode. For example, he would use a minor substitution in place of a major chord (e.g., Amin9 substituting for Cmaj7)- the natural minor scale is a straight substitute and is the sixth mode of the major scale (Aeolian mode or submediant). He certainly did use the Dorian mode as well as the Phrygian mode, Aeolian mode, harmonic minor scale, jazz minor scale, diminished scales, augmented scales, etc. He published instructional videos and there are a number of interviews and such on YouTube of him explaining this approach. I find his verbal descriptions to be so opaque and indirect as to leave me more confused than I was just listening to him. On record everything he plays is straightforward, unlike his explanations.
Thinking you can play jazz using a collection of Dorian licks isn't exactly "it," anyway. Jazz is not reducible like that. That was not good advice, IMHO.
If you want to "sound" like a jazz player, I don't think there is a better and more straightforward route to that than Barry Harris. Lots of stuff on YouTube and elsewhere, including structured courses to get there. I believe one of our forum members has written a book or something adapting Barry Harris's approach specifically to the guitar. Personally I hate "licks" anyway – we're supposed to be improvising new melodies and singing through our instrument. You'd be well advised to learn a bunch of melodies to jazz standards and develop the ability to play them in any key by ear, through hearing and understanding the interval relationships of the melodies. Start with figuring out how to play "Happy Birthday" in all 12 keys to get the idea- then, starting in any position up and down the neck. Play it on one string, two strings, three strings, four strings, etc. tedious and boring? Yes; but essential for learning how to play melodically and getting out of the rut of playing licks.
When I listen to jazz recordings, I find far too many solos that are technically virtuosic but musically unremarkable. It sounds like they're reciting the alphabet rather than writing a story. This often includes well-known players and particularly afflicts saxophone players and guitarists. I have heard a lot of seemingly impressive jazz solos but relatively few that are musical enough that I am humming it in my head the next day. Oddly enough, the same is not true for many rock and pop songs, which often have memorable and musical sounding solos. There is a number of Steely Dan solos, for example, that are both technically virtuosic and musically appealing and engaging. But the solos on rock and pop records are often carefully worked out in advance, rather than being improvised on the fly.Last edited by Cunamara; 11-11-2023 at 03:03 PM.
-
Neither am I. Because, apart from its probably being a Martino space-age cosmic theory term, it's more a severe limitation. Knowing that one can play the ii over the V is hardly new, certainly not invented by Pat. And from there, ascending in m3rds, the Fm and Abm give their own particular flavours. The Abm is, of course, the altered scale...
Originally Posted by buduranus2
And just as one plays the Ab melodic minor to get the altered effect, there's no reason to only play the Gm7 as G dorian (ie. F major scale) because it adds nothing to what one might ordinarily do anyway.
In fact, it would seriously hinder the opportunity to play some nice end phrases with colour notes. So you can play, not only dorian, but melodic minor as well. Not harmonic because that's not the right pitch set for F major.
So, don't undergo any conversion therapy, explore the marvellous possibilities available over your 2-5-1's!
-
Could this simply be a case of fretboard organization more than harmonic theory?
Like: the Dorian 'shape' on the fretboard can be used on just about any chord someplace on the neck. Not talking about playing Dorian Mode. Just the diatonic pattern on the fretboard in different positions.
Might be more of a guitar thing. I've heard of guitarists who find it natural to organize 'the grand unified pattern' of diatonic notes in all the fretboard positions by mode name.
In that case, saying G Dorian on C7, is pretty much the same as saying C Mixolydian for EG. I don't know why Dorian would be the winning name. 'Conversion Theory' seems like a bit of a contrivance. Is anything being converted in the end? But if it works for someone it's OK with me.
-
Thanks for your reply. Well, "minorizing" it is. That said, I just don't see the benefit as mentioned in my OP. Maybe there's some unifying thread that makes it easier to "minorize" but I'm just not seeing it. Originally Posted by pingu
-
The main reason Pat did his conversion to minor is to achieve his signature sound and tonality.
If you were to consider an approach like this, the main benefit would be you want to achieve an overall tonality like that.
-
I really appreciate your comments and perspectives. I agree that "a collection of dorian licks" isn't it. The Barry Harris concept is beyond my grasp at the moment. As far as I could get it had something to do with "sixth diminished." (One of my all-time favorites BTW along with Hank Jones.) Originally Posted by Cunamara
I certainly understand and agree, to an extent, with your aversion to "licks" in general. At the same time, what's licks to us is just music to the audience. I would disagree that "we're supposed to be" anything. If I'm having fun on my instrument and the audience is enjoying it then we're all indifferent to whether some (many/most?) of what I play is prefab. As for "technically virtuosic" solos that are unsatisfying, I remember seeing John McLaughlin a long time ago. Really remarkable playing but I didn't take one note home with me.
Lastly, as I mentioned in my OP, I'm an intermediate-level player. That said, I'd go so far as to say I "sound like a jazz player." But then maybe it's not for me to say:
-
Pats thing isn’t super unlike the Barry Harris thing. It’s definitely different and will result in a very different sound, but there’s some common ground in the way they use some slightly roundabout harmonic ideas to streamline their melodic stuff. If you’re using minor vocabulary over everything then you don’t have to worry about collecting a bunch of odds and ends that work in different situations, you just get more and more and more creative with that one tool, and learn how to apply it in harmonically inventive ways. So it doesn’t end up pigeon holing people so much as it frees them up to pursue more melodic vocabulary than if they were chasing other changes. Originally Posted by buduranus2
Again … the end result won’t be the same as Barry Harris stuff (and in my still early experience with his stuff I’d agree with Cunamara that it feels like an incredibly efficient path to common practice jazz language) but I see some similarities in the philosophical approach.
-
Well, if that's representative of your playing, I think you're clearly beyond "intermediate." If I had any critique to make it would be about phrasing and "breathing" a little more; note choice is good, tone is excellent. I wish my tone was that good.
Song choice is good, too- "Misty" is often avoided because it was a hit and thus some see it as corny, but it's a beautiful song with an inspired combination of melody, lyrics and harmony.
At some point the route forward is playing with people, learning from experience how things fit together and from the response of your peers* as to what's good and what isn't. Do you play jazz regularly with others?
*I just reminded myself about a Pat Metheny interview in which he commented about his time playing with Gary Burton. Apparently after the gig, Burton would ask questions like "on the 13th bar of your solo on "General Mojo's Last Request" you played an Eb. Was that intentional?"
-
I really appreciate your praise and encouragement. I've been learning to play jazz for about six years now. It's really very challenging but ultimately satisfying when I can play something that sounds "authentic." I especially appreciate your compliment on my tone. Originally Posted by Cunamara
As for the clip itself, it was a study piece for me. I hear a lot of room for improvement, not the least of which is some timidity about making a "mistake." Which, on reflection, is a "mistake" in itself.
I'd like to be able to play jazz with other people but have only done so five or six times. Without those opportunities everything I play is basically "proof of concept." By that I mean to say, for example, well OK I can play rhythm changes, this that or the other 32-bar standard, etc ad infinitum.
The Gary Burton quote reminded me of a remark possibly attributed to Monk about making the "wrong mistakes." In closing, I again express my sincerest thanks and appreciation for your perspectives and encouragement.
-
Barry Harris (in a nutshell here) is going to tell you to play the dominant scale over the minor chord whereas Martino is telling you to play minor over the dominant. Two paths to the same end, I guess. There’s a lot more to Barry Harris than the minor sixth chordal stuff but it’s a whole approach that you sort of have to buy into and practice the bejeebus out of.
-
Yeah, that's it in a nutshell isn't it? It's more than just saying D dorian is the same thing as G mixolydian. More like: stress Dm7 chord tones over G7 vs stress G7 chord tones over Dm7. Now, 11ths over m7 can be cool, but over Dom7 not so much (for me at least). This is why my own personal take on the whole thing is to, wait for it, convert to half diminished ! Originally Posted by wzpgsr
Not because B locrian = D dorian = G mixo, but because the chord tones of Bm7b5 are perfect for both Dm7 and G7.
Sure you can call it "convert to m6" (Dm6) - same thing, whatever helps you conceptualise it best. For me it's not complicating it, but simplifying it, absolutely!
The main thing is to view ii and V as a single unit, whether you call it "Dom", "m6" or "half dim". It links in with the whole T/D thing (ie, things are either Tonic or Dominant qualities when reduced).
-
The operative idea here us ‘chunking’. It’s helpful to chunk the ii V into a unit and then work on that. This is a very widespread practice, whatever you call it.
In terms of the Barry harris stuff we can play anything we want from the dominant scale (and related scales) so in practice what comes out might not be much to do with g7 chord tones.
-
I will just make two pointsmore advanced player recommended Pat Martino's concept of converting to dorian. I've surfed around and have found a lot of threads on the topic, including here. Having done my best to grasp the concept I still can't figure out the benefits. To me it seems like adding some extra mental gymnastics, i.e. for a C7 play G dorian. The gentleman I referenced above said this way all I'd need is a vocabulary of dorian licks that can be applied over a variety of chords.
1) not everything that works for one player - and especially such as Pat who is quite unconventional personality imho - works for other. I believe if one cannot build up his own approach he just needs something conventional that would be applicable to any musical concept more or less. Great playes often have their own setup that reflects a lot their own mentalityt, vocabulary, style of playing.
2) simplification (this way all I'd need is a vocabulary of dorian licks that can be applied over a variety of chords) is not always the way. Yes, jazz guitar approaches are often overcomplicated. But the other way around is not always good. Ok, you have Dorian licks for everyhting. But does make you good at making music? And does it not limit your creative potentials easpecially if you try to approach this way if you are not really secure yourself about fundamental stuff?
After all you do music and you build up your vocabulary yourself.
Personally, I would advise in conventional functional music to stick more to the functional tonality relationship and build up the vocabulary by ear based on how you hear the harmony (tension/resolution)
With scales - at least at the beginning - I would use them only for real modal harmony music and in this situation it is also possible to build it up by ear using maybe a basic scale theory as a support.
-
Yes, this is what I've done since I started learning jazz six years ago. I call them the various component parts. Most recently I've been exploring the various modes of melodic minor and, to a lesser extent, harmonic minor. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
I very much appreciate your perspectives and recommendations. I remember taking a lesson from Dave Creamer, who had just left the Miles Davis band. He said I could get some cool sounds by playing melodic minor a half-step up, which is true. But in the long run that turned out to be just more mental gymnastics and complication. Why not just say "here's the altered scale, this is what it is and here's why it works"? So, as I mentioned in my OP, I don't really see the benefit of minor conversion. Originally Posted by Jonah
I guess I've taken a more conventional approach, which is to, first, get a sense of what I'd like to hear and see if there are scales that include those tones. Further in this regard, a lot of advanced players disparage CST but I find it very helpful. Sure, it's not an "improvisational method" but it's helped me develop an intuitive grasp of functional harmony.
As an aside, I don't really play modal music, so maybe that's why I don't have a pre-fab vocabulary of dorian licks as advised elsewhere. Ultimately I'm trying to play something that is resonant and evocative of a mood and era. So, as we agree, it's all about, as you say, making music.
-
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. Originally Posted by buduranus2
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.
Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 11-13-2023 at 12:19 AM.
-
Not sure this is what he meant. Originally Posted by buduranus2
By working out all of his vocabulary as it relates to the minor, he’s able to kind of work around the need for the various modes of different scales. Transposing the minor stuff up a minor third sort of stands in for the harmonic minor so that you don’t have to learn a whole new tonality and can just use your old vocabulary in a different orientation. That way you can just focus on accumulating more vocabulary rather than starting from scratch every time you want a different sound.
That’s particularly common advice with respect to the minor ii-V. I’ve heard Sheryl Bailey mention it. Pretty sure it’s part of Barry Greenes stuff. It’s part of Barry Harris’s thing.
-
I’m with Pat on this. I’ve always found minor lines easy on the guitar, maybe because of coming from playing rock first, where I was always playing blues/pentatonic minor stuff. Also the layout of the guitar just seems to invite it.
The dominant chord stuff in jazz was less easy for me to improvise on at first (I think Pat said something similar), so the idea of playing minor on the 5th (for ‘unaltered’ dominant) or on the half-step (for altered) was easy for me to implement. I think Emily Remler explained it too in one of her videos, in fact I may have got the idea there first.
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.
By the way I don’t think my playing sounds anything like Pat Martino’s (!), I don’t think that’s the point of it either.
-
I studied Charlie christian and he’s a heavy IIm6 on V dominant guy. So I thought in terms of minor conversion for years. Still do.
Again remember that if you do choose to go down the Barry harris path this is all part of the dominant scale…. There’s also minor conversion too (important minor.)
It’s a matter of what software runs best for you. The results may not be very different.
Case in point
- D bebop Dorian is a Dorian with an added 3
- G bebop dominant (or one of the BH added note scales) is a dominant/mixolydian with an added maj7
eg
G F# F E D C B A G
Play these and you will get much the same results… it’s just a different framing.
I’d say the Barry harris system is the most worked out pathway into bop language I’ve ever encountered. If that interests I would check it out.
But another key concept here with both BH and Pats approach is applicability. It’s important to learn it’s not necessarily about learning a new thing to play on each different chords - it’s about playing what you have learned in every possible situation. Maximising the use of what you already know.
There’s lots of ways to do this, but it seems a common theme among advanced players.Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-13-2023 at 09:17 AM.
-
Thats good to know. Honestly though I don’t know much about Pat. The “he” I was referring to was Christian. The OP had quoted Christian but I think misunderstood what he’d meant by “chunking.” Originally Posted by djg
-
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 … Originally Posted by Christian Miller
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.
-
Absolutely. Originally Posted by grahambop
Reply With Quote
Melody between melody
Today, 03:25 AM in Chord-Melody