How to play over Min7b5 (half diminished) chords, Gibson 175, FractalAudio

[Christian Miller]

Right but also for clarification, if you actually stack thirds off the “altered scale” it is a half diminished chord.

That reminds me.

The Tristano school had an interesting way of constructing the altered scale - they called it dominant III and it was basically constructed by stacking an Ab melodic minor on top of a G mixolydian mode. The third structure goes
1 3 5 b7 b9 3 b13 1

Notice - no prominent b5

Obviously the seven note altered scale with the Berklee spelling is unworkable in terms of its third structure. The enharmonically similar superlocrian (every note flat) scale is, well, a locrian, but, like, super.

Otoh I learned the other day that Gary Burton regards the altered scale having a natural fifth in as well as a b5. You do see this in the wild, plus bass players tend to play a natural 5th even on altered dominants. It’s in the Holdsworth solo I’m working on.

Anyway, thought that was interesting. I like these less standard ways of looking at it, they can suggest new ways of looking at and hearing things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

That reminds me.

The Tristano school had an interesting way of constructing the altered scale - they called it dominant III and it was basically constructed by stacking an Ab melodic minor on top of a G mixolydian mode. The third structure goes
1 3 5 b7 b9 3 b13 1

Notice - no prominent b5

Obviously the seven note altered scale with the Berklee spelling is unworkable in terms of its third structure. The enharmonically similar superlocrian (every note flat) scale is, well, a locrian, but, like, super.

Otoh I learned the other day that Gary Burton regards the altered scale having a natural fifth in as well as a b5. You do see this in the wild, plus bass players tend to play a natural 5th even on altered dominants. It’s in the Holdsworth solo I’m working on.

Anyway, thought that was interesting. I like these less standard ways of looking at it, they can suggest new ways of looking at and hearing things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I use the dominant-half diminished thing more in the reverse … like rather than using the scale over a half diminished chord, I really like using say a Gm7b5 over G7 … I think it sounds super cool. Honestly pure chord scaling though … not sure I ever found it in a transcription, though I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah I use the dominant-half diminished thing more in the reverse … like rather than using the scale over a half diminished chord, I really like using say a Gm7b5 over G7 … I think it sounds super cool. Honestly pure chord scaling though … not sure I ever found it in a transcription, though I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.

I like it too. The Gm7b5 to Cmaj7 cadence is stronger Bb-B rather than a lame common tone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

here's the updated video with melodic minor up a 1/2 step over the dm7b5 chord...

Yes, playing notes from the D Altered scale over the Dm7b5 sounds great.

Chord tones in bold.

D Altered scale
D-Eb-F-Gb-Ab-Bb-C

[Peter C]

So for Dm7b5, think of Fminor.
The second question I get is "which minor scale".
The two that I use most often are:
FMelodic minor (F G Ab Bb C D E) and
F Dorian (F G Ab Bb C D Eb).

Just responding to this part of the OP.

I'm self-taught, so whatever, but I would just treat that Dm7b5 as a Fm6, and Bob's your uncle.

Anyway, I hope to find time to try out a lot of your suggestions on this board. Thanks!

[pamosmusic]

Just responding to this part of the OP.

I'm self-taught, so whatever, but I would just treat that Dm7b5 as a Fm6, and Bob's your uncle.

Anyway, I hope to find time to try out a lot of your suggestions on this board. Thanks!

You know Bob? Small world.

[rpjazzguitar]

That reminds me.

The Tristano school had an interesting way of constructing the altered scale - they called it dominant III and it was basically constructed by stacking an Ab melodic minor on top of a G mixolydian mode. The third structure goes
1 3 5 b7 b9 3 b13 1

Notice - no prominent b5b3
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not clear how stacking Ab mel min on top of G mixo works. Is the one in this case G or is it Ab? If it's G I get b3. If it's Ab I also get b3. So, apparently, I'm not doing it the way you're suggesting. Explain please?

Or, stated another way, Ab mel min has a Db. How did Tristano get rid of it?

[rpjazzguitar]

Right but also for clarification, if you actually stack thirds off the “altered scale” it is a half diminished chord.

That's right. And, that altered scale also contains a major third. If you're planning on using the scale against a m7b5 that's worth remembering.

If you make it a minor third, it's good old fashioned locrian.

[Christian Miller]

I'm not clear how stacking Ab mel min on top of G mixo works. Is the one in this case G or is it Ab? If it's G I get b3. If it's Ab I also get b3. So, apparently, I'm not doing it the way you're suggesting. Explain please?

Or, stated another way, Ab mel min has a Db. How did Tristano get rid of it?

There’s a Db in the Ab melodic minor but it’s not included in the extended arpeggio

I can give you book reference - A Jazz Life, John Klopotowski, well worth a read. The two octave scales are pretty interesting. I did a vid on the subject a while back FWIW.

NB: the reference is actually to Warne Marsh who was his teacher. I assume it is a feature of the Tristano school, but maybe his own flavour on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

That's right. And, that altered scale also contains a major third. If you're planning on using the scale against a m7b5 that's worth remembering.

If you make it a minor third, it's good old fashioned locrian.

It’s a flat fourth, so if you to change it to be a locrian you would make it a natural fourth.

1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7
(Normally respelled
1 b2 #2 3 b5 b6 b7)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

There’s a Db in the Ab melodic minor but it’s not included in the extended arpeggio

I can give you book reference - A Jazz Life, John Klopotowski, well worth a read. The two octave scales are pretty interesting. I did a vid on the subject a while back FWIW.

NB: the reference is actually to Warne Marsh who was his teacher. I assume it is a feature of the Tristano school, but maybe his own flavour on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So “altered” without the b3/#9?

[rpjazzguitar]

[QUOTE=Christian Miller;1328790]It’s a flat fourth, so if you to change it to be a locrian you would make it a natural fourth.

1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7
(Normally respelled
1 b2 #2 3 b5 b6 b7)>>>

That certainly simplifies things.

[Tal_175]

Inevitable “derivative” vs “parallel” post. (Goodrick, the Advancing Guitarist.)

I’d stick my oar in for the derivative - that is “master scale” - approach, as you maximise utility of material (scales, voicings, licks etc) at the expense of a bit of mental arithmetic (that you need to drill a lot, in my experience).

But in your experience it still involves less drilling than orienting lick to the root so the notes are seen with the right intervallic relationships?
To me if you have to spend a lot of time to apply a lick/concept to a chord, you might as well see it in relation to the chord. Instead of relearning the fretboard down the line.

[Christian Miller]

But in your experience it still involves less drilling than orienting lick to the root so the notes are seen with the right intervallic relationships?
To me if you have to spend a lot of time to apply a lick/concept to a chord, you might as well see it in relation to the chord. Instead of relearning the fretboard down the line.

I suspect it probably takes the same amount of work. This is really about priorities and the answers to these questions will depend on where the student is with their playing. I would not advocate anything that makes students inflexible, but I have a strong view in what is helpful in nurturing learners who are not yet fluent jazz players. Especially adult students who don’t have 8 hours a day to throw at the problem.

the advantage of the relative/derivative approach is it allows you to use stuff you already know - in muscle memory - in many places, so for someone getting it together that makes it powerful. It’s a classic road map for learning changes jazz. You learn a few licks and drill them through standards. Voicings too. Transposition is a key jazz practice activity for this reason (but it goes beyond ii V though that’s a good start.)

It is developed from traditional practices based on rule-of-thumb substitution practices rather than formulated general theories of harmony which is why I associate it with ‘teaching by specific case’ rather than ‘teaching by general principle.’

Most of the players whose process I know well seem to employ some sort of relative/derivative approach at least in their teaching, but there are people who seem to view things more parallel, so it’s obviously not the only way to do things. Adam Rogers I know does this and I think Kurt may do it to.

In practice learning to adapt an idea to various modalities and chords (ie parallel thinking) is a pretty essential skill. So alteration of ideas rather than transposing. Let’s make this idea minor, dominant, half dim etc.

Going to the purist extreme on any idea if rarely a good idea.

But in practice for most things I think the three chord type model (major, minor, dominant) is entirety sufficient. You could boil everything two two chords (major and minor) but in practice as you say it is helpful to think of dominant as separate to major and minor.

It also depends what you are doing. Evan Marien who played with Allan (another derivative thinker) put it really well - in bop you focus on dominant (‘let the dominant dominate’ as Barry said) and in post-modal fusion on major and minor. So in Allan’s music everything could be considered major and minor chords.

But this is all about intervallic fretboard mapping. There’s also absolute pitch fretboard mapping which is the way I read - although I think in theory intervallic reading may be possible, I’m not sure if anyone actually does this. It would be cool for transpositions etc. it all has to be integrated at some point. I’m tempted to say this is especially hard on guitar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

I suspect it probably takes the same amount of work. This is really about priorities and the answers to these questions will depend on where the student is with their playing. I would not advocate anything that makes students inflexible, but I have a strong view in what is helpful in nurturing learners who are not yet fluent jazz players. Especially adult students who don’t have 8 hours a day to throw at the problem.

the advantage of the relative/derivative approach is it allows you to use stuff you already know - in muscle memory - in many places, so for someone getting it together that makes it powerful. It’s a classic road map for learning changes jazz. You learn a few licks and drill them through standards. Voicings too. Transposition is a key jazz practice activity for this reason (but it goes beyond ii V though that’s a good start.)

It is developed from traditional practices based on rule-of-thumb substitution practices rather than formulated general theories of harmony which is why I associate it with ‘teaching by specific case’ rather than ‘teaching by general principle.’

Most of the players whose process I know well seem to employ some sort of relative/derivative approach at least in their teaching, but there are people who seem to view things more parallel, so it’s obviously not the only way to do things. Adam Rogers I know does this and I think Kurt may do it to.

In practice learning to adapt an idea to various modalities and chords (ie parallel thinking) is a pretty essential skill. So alteration of ideas rather than transposing. Let’s make this idea minor, dominant, half dim etc.

Going to the purist extreme on any idea if rarely a good idea.

But in practice for most things I think the three chord type model (major, minor, dominant) is entirety sufficient. You could boil everything two two chords (major and minor) but in practice as you say it is helpful to think of dominant as separate to major and minor.

It also depends what you are doing. Evan Marien who played with Allan (another derivative thinker) put it really well - in bop you focus on dominant (‘let the dominant dominate’ as Barry said) and in post-modal fusion on major and minor. So in Allan’s music everything could be considered major and minor chords.

But this is all about intervallic fretboard mapping. There’s also absolute pitch fretboard mapping which is the way I read - although I think in theory intervallic reading may be possible, I’m not sure if anyone actually does this. It would be cool for transpositions etc. it all has to be integrated at some point. I’m tempted to say this is especially hard on guitar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For what it's worth, this is my "Parent scale or modes of the Parent scale" viewpoint.

At an early stage, if you have learned the all Major modes on the fretboard, in all positions, in most keys.

Changing one note in each Major mode will give you all the Melodic Minor modes.

Changing one note in each Major mode will also give you all the Harmonic Minor modes.

If you learned these Major modes from an early stage (as I did), you might as well use them.

Both methods obviously work, and in the long term give similar results.

But, IMO, a lot of younger guitarists, who started with Rock guitar, have learned the Major modes using the 7 pattern four notes per string method.

These are the seven common 3NPS Major Mode Patterns, that many young guitarists learn at an early stage.

Edit:
Below are the 7 patterns for the Ionian mode (Major), there are 7 patterns for each mode.
So, there are 7 patterns for each of the 7 Major scale modes. Equals 49.

[pamosmusic]

For what it's worth, this is my "Parent scale or modes of the Parent scale" viewpoint.

At an early stage, if you have learned the all Major modes on the fretboard, in all positions, in most keys.

Changing one note in each Major mode will give you all the Melodic Minor modes.

Changing one note in each Major mode will also give you all the Harmonic Minor modes.

If you learned these Major modes from an early stage (as I did), you might as well use them.

Both methods obviously work, and in the long term give similar results.

But, IMO, a lot of younger guitarists, who started with Rock guitar, have learned the Major modes using the 7 pattern four notes per string method.

These are the seven common 4NPS Major Mode Patterns, that many young guitarists learn at an early stage:

It sounds here like you’re referring to patterns and modes synonymously, which can also be super tricky.

All seven modes, of course, being contained with in every fingering you might have for a major (or any other) scale.

[GuyBoden]

It sounds here like you’re referring to patterns and modes synonymously, which can also be super tricky.

"It sounds here like you’re referring to patterns and modes synonymously"

I'm not, but, you are.

But, yes, that seems to cause some confusion with some players.

Each Major mode has 7 fretboard patterns.

7 Major modes, 7 Patterns each mode, 12 Keys.

7x7x12=588

[pamosmusic]

I'm not, but, you are.

Im rubber, you’re glue, I suppose?

[pamosmusic]

(Kidding, obvs)

[GuyBoden]

(Kidding, obvs)

Don't worry, many guitarists have confused the seven 3NPS patterns with the seven Major modes, it's a very common mistake.

I think maybe the confusion is because there are seven of both.

[pamosmusic]

Don't worry, many guitarists have confused the seven 3NPS patterns with the seven Major modes, it's a very common mistake.

I think maybe the confusion is because there are seven of both.

For the record, I very much know the difference. The way your post was phrased was a bit odd though. That’s all.

[djg]

588 patterns? i'm so glad i learned to play before the days of the internet.

[pamosmusic]

588 patterns? i'm so glad i learned to play before the days of the internet.

it’s only one a week for 10 years!

[Tal_175]

In practice learning to adapt an idea to various modalities and chords (ie parallel thinking) is a pretty essential skill. So alteration of ideas rather than transposing. Let’s make this idea minor, dominant, half dim etc.

The concept of "alteration" definitely captures the parallel view well but aside from alteration I also use the parallel view in a different way. This brings up an interesting point. Maybe parallel vs derivative is a very crude way to label different approaches.We can also add the "absolute" (or key signature) view as the third approach. It is possible that each individual has their own ways to apply derivative or parallel views.

Let's use a very simple Dorian minor lick idea to demonstrate what I mean by different parallel approaches. Let's say the simple dorian lick is the arpeggio from the third. For D minor 7, we play F maj 7.

First, how would this be used in the derivative approach? My understanding of the derivative approach is, if you were to apply this lick to G7, you would view the chord as "play your Dorian licks from the 5th of the chord". So, you'd superimpose your dorian view on the chord (from the 5th) and play the lick as if you are playing over the D minor 7 chord.

Here are the two parallel approaches:
1- Alteration: That means we play the arpeggio from the third of G7 but adjust it to the chord. So we play Bmin7b5.
2- Reorientation to the current root: We play the exact same lick but we think of the lick as arpeggio from the 7th of G7.

You are right that for a new student, it's much easier to learn a bunch of licks and learn to apply them to different chords as this maintains the muscle memory, the sound and the groove of each lick. Alteration would be a slower approach as it would require whole new fingerings and sounds. But reorientation has the same advantages of the derivative approach. It only differs in the type of mental gymnastics it involves but it paves the way not only to the alteration approach but it helps developing a fretboard organization that matches how this type of harmony is viewed and heard. Which of course opens door to many arrangement and composition tools down the line.

So why not use the reorientation based parallel view? I'm not saying this because that's the view I use for the most part, but I genuinely do not see why one would rather use derivative apprach instead.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah I think one thing here is people keep talking about scales, but I am talking about melodic material which is a much wider category. So you have something that you learned in the context of a minor chord for example, and then apply to dominants around the cycle, or to m7b5 chords - that sort of thing. This might be something out of the scale, or a chord tone/approach tone figure or something like a CESH line on minor. Doesn’t matter. It can all be applied using derivative/relative thinking.

This can be done with very little apparent theory apart from a few rules of thumb. You just do it by ear and eye physically on the fretboard until it is second nature.

See George Benson, Manouche jazzers etc. a lot of old school bop players did it this way, and would look at you funny if you talked about melodic minor modes. They just got really good at applying language.

The process of coming up with material from scales and arpeggios is separate. You don’t actually have to be able to do this to be a great jazz player and there’s no endpoint to the ‘applied language’ approach - but it IS a way to transcend the limitations of the first approach when you are already sounding good, that is you are a gigging - young professional - jazz player who wants to expand their musical resources.

At least that’s the way it used to work lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk