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

[Christian Miller]

Christian, You don't have a PhD in philosophy, do you? If not, I think you deserve an honorary one from a major university.

P.S. - That's meant as a compliment, I say that because folks here often seem to misinterpret my remarks - must be my delivery.

Haha thanks. I do have an MA in music education, but I’m not inflicting me doing a PhD to my friends and family.

PhD candidates do seem to have two main hobbies
1) avoiding doing their PhD work
2) complaining about how much PhD work they have to do, usually over drinks

Also I don’t have any money

[Christian Miller]

You have a choice. You can learn the G7alt scale or you can apply Abmelmin. Better, for this case, to know the alt scale and be thinking about the root.

But, then you'll have to do the same for whichever modes of melmin you use. So, now, when you see, say, Bb7susb9, you have to know that scale (mode?) and not just apply Abmelmin again. It seems easier to memorize 7 rules of thumb (eg mel min a step below 7susb9) than seven different scales. But, it sacrifices thinking from the root.

There is an argument that thinking from the root is overrated, since it's a pool of notes to select from, not an ordered list. If you know the sounds that works fine, but if you already know the sounds none of this math is necessary.

Alt, I think, is the worst example because the chord name is unwieldy. Galt, for example is G7b9#9#11b13 (somebody will probably correct my spelling), which is a brainful to think about.

But, for the rest of the modes, it's simpler. Take G7susb9. You can start in your mind with mixolydian and make the adjustments indicated in the chord name. Chord tones are G C D F Ab. There are only two other notes in the parent mel min (Fmelmin) and those are Bb and Eb. You sort of get the Bb for free, since the #9 and b9 usually both work. There's no avoid note in melodic minor, but if there was one, it might be this Eb. A common way to play G7susb9 on guitar is xx6533 (Ab C D G). If you raise the D to an Eb, the chord becomes Ab C Eb G which is our old friend Abmaj7. Not the same sound.

For Abmaj7#5, it's the same sort of thing and so on through the modes of melodic minor.

So, it's my usual point. If you just think scale name and the most consonant extensions, you usually end up with 6 eyebrow-normal (not raised) notes, give or take. A few of the others are "arched eyebrow" and the rest are more easily usable.

Then, you put those 6 (and whichever others you want) in the context of the harmony of the tune and make melody. This much theory gets you in the non-clam ballpark and then you use your ears.

Or you could play cool minor melodies a half step up from the dominant, sound awesome and never learn an altered scale or melodic minor in your life. I know people like this, quite a few actually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

It is one thing to memorize the rule, it's a whole another thing to be able to improvise over Bb7susb9 with good sounding ideas while connecting to other chords in the progression.

People talk about this derivative MM application as if it is free lunch. Like just learn MM in 7 positions (or however number of positions), then memorize 7 application rules, off you go. But that's not what happens in real life.

If you want to use the second mode of MM to improvise over Bb7susb9 chords, a lot drilling has to happen before one can use the concept in real performance. In my experience, thinking from the root doesn't slow down this drilling process, be it applying language to the right interval of the chord or working with arpeggio/scale type of line construction. It's almost like you get root orientation for free if you choose view from the root while drilling language.

You’re still talking about scales.

Anyway if the person saying it’s a fee lunch is meant to be … no it isn’t?

It’s funny, 2nd mode melodic minor? Just go and transcribe Charlie Christians rose room, first few bars will do it. This is not about what people do in the abstract. If you learn jazz by listening to jazz this concept arises naturally. Because that’s how people did it most of the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

You’re still talking about scales.

Anyway if the person saying it’s a fee lunch is meant to be … no it isn’t?

It’s funny, 2nd mode melodic minor? Just go and transcribe Charlie Christians rose room, first few bars will do it. This is not about what people do in the abstract. If you learn jazz by listening to jazz this concept arises naturally. Because that’s how people did it most of the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you missed the point of what I said. I didn't imply that 2nd mode of melodic minor cannot be used musically. Who is saying that it's free lunch, I'd like to ask them a few questions.


The reason I am talking about scales is I was originally responding to a post where you said you prefer the master scale approach.

[Christian Miller]

I think you missed the point of what I said. I didn't say 2mode of melodic minor cannot be used musically. Who is saying that it's free lunch, I'd like to ask them a few questions.


The reason I am talking about scales is I was responding to a post where you said you prefer the master scale approach.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I think you missed the point of what I said. I didn't say 2mode of melodic minor cannot be used musically. Who is saying that it's free lunch, I'd like to ask them a few questions.


The reason I am talking about scales is I was originally responding to a post where you said you prefer the master scale approach.

What I’m saying is that this type of debate seems a bit academic to me because it’s on the records. The way Charlie uses m6 sounds is a very good example and very clear. Later, Parker and so on….

It’s also the way most of those guys taught and learned.

Parallel thinking also clearly exists. A good simple example might be the alteration of a riff to fit a blues, but I wouldn’t say there so much obvious modal thinking…

the relative concept for me came from learning from records, and going back to Barry just confirmed and vastly extended what I’d already seen for myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Usually at this point someone says they never wanted to learn bop anyway, but want to play contemporary jazz like people who wear plaid shirts. In which case, fair dos. I do think plaid shirt wearing correlates with a higher incidence of parallel/root based thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

What I’m saying is that this type of debate seems a bit academic to me because it’s on the records. The way Charlie uses m6 sounds is a very good example and very clear. Later, Parker and so on….

It’s also the way most of those guys taught and learned.

Parallel thinking also clearly exists. A good simple example might be the alteration of a riff to fit a blues, but I wouldn’t say there so much obvious modal thinking…

the relative concept for me came from learning from records, and going back to Barry just confirmed and vastly extended what I’d already seen for myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To me, parallel vs derivate is about how one organizes harmony on the fretboard. It's mostly practice room thing as you said. I'm by no means advocating for one or the other. I'm just genuinely curious about why do some people prefer the derivative approach (view everything from the parent scale) as it seems counterintuitive to me.

I do get your point that derivative notions do exist on the records. But the derivative application of harmony is very specific to an individual players approach in my experience. I don't think it's easy to make generalizations about the situations in which the derivative approach is used across the style even within a period.

[Christian Miller]

To me, parallel vs derivate is about how one organizes harmony on the fretboard. It's mostly practice room thing as you said. I'm by no means advocating for one or the other. I'm just genuinely curious about why do some people prefer the derivative approach (view everything from the parent scale) as it seems counterintuitive to me.

I do get your point that derivative notions do exist on the records. But the derivative application of harmony is very specific to an individual players approach in my experience. I don't think it's easy to make generalizations about the situations in which the derivative approach is used across the style even within a period.

I actually struggle to understand how anyone could learn bop thinking the other way, but presumably some must. I mean I love Adam Roger’s straightahead playing and he’s a modes guy… so, life’s rich tapestry and all that.

A lot of modern modal players do sound modern and modal on standards, which is cool… it’s a different accent.

Otoh plenty leant to apply bop language by transposing etc at college but may not know these ways into m7b5 chords and so on and have to practice those separately (heaven forfend!) so it’s not black and white. I don’t know tbh. I’m constantly surprised at the things they don’t teach at some of the places, but they seem to produce people can play, who cares I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

One thing I was addressing is pros and cons of thinking Galt vs Abmelmin. I do see it as pros and cons.

In my playing, if I see Galt, I can do it thinking from the root or from the parent melodic minor, Abmelmin. But that's because it comes up a lot on the G root.

If I saw D#alt or Gbalt, I don't have the note names instantly available. It would be a good thing, but I haven't drilled it enough. I could think about note names, but it would take too long. I know the intervals (half whole half, then whole tone) which would work, although I might be root bound as I searched for them. More efficient would be thinking about the parent melmin scale, because I instantly know the note names in all of those (same as major, but flat the third).

So I end up preferring knowledge and use of the chord names but, as a practical matter, where my knowledge is spotty, the parent melmin is easier for me. That's because I haven't done the work on alt scales to get them instantly available in 12 keys and several additional enharmonic spellings. Or, by fingering pattern. Or by intervals without having to think too much about the root.

That D#alt is pretty easy if you think Emelmin. Or Em(add9). It would be nice to instantly know the chord tones (which I'd have to laboriously work out for this post). Or you could think half step whole step half step whole steps which becomes D# E F# G A B C#. Even as I look at that now, I can't instantly pick out the chord tones. R 3 #11 b13 b7 b9 #9. Oh.

For the purpose of teaching improvisation, I am reminded of what Jovino Santos Neto reported about how Hermeto Pascoal taught him. Apologies to both of them if I've gotten any of this wrong.

Fans might recall that Miles Davis once called Hermeto "the most impressive musician in the world", or so it says on the Internet. Hermeto is on Live Evil.

Hermeto had the students write in several alternatives to each chord in the chart.

That is, if the chord was Cmaj7, they'd write in several different chord names in the white space above the chord symbol and then use them, initially at random, but, presumably, more deliberately as they learned the sounds.

So, for Galt, for example, you'd have a series of alternatives including, I would think, Abm(add9), G7b9b13, Bbm7, Db13 and many more possibilities.

Some of them would have the G root, some not. You'd have a choice. Abm(add9), for example, is Ab B Eb Bb which you could choose to write as G7b9#9b13. It's not a bad idea to think of it that way -- and it will be even better when you have as many G7b9#9b13 licks under your fingers as you do for Abm.

Hermeto's approach also has the advantage of teaching all of this in the context of a song. He also apparently taught this in a group setting with lots of time on the charts trying everything out.

[rpjazzguitar]

It seems like you also use a parallel approach of sorts. In your earlier post I was under the impression that you were suggesting thinking melodic minor from the 7th to be the easier way but maybe I misunderstood it.

I was drawing a distinction between alt, which includes 4 alterations and other chords from melodic minor which have a more manageable number of alterations. I don't find it difficult to think of sus and b9, but I find it more difficult to think of both altered 5th and both altered 9ths. This is because I've frittered away precious practice time being involved in other pursuits, like work and family.

[GuyBoden]

I actually struggle to understand how anyone could learn bop thinking the other way, but presumably some must. I mean I love Adam Roger’s straightahead playing and he’s a modes guy… so, life’s rich tapestry and all that.

A lot of modern modal players do sound modern and modal on standards, which is cool… it’s a different accent.

Otoh plenty leant to apply bop language by transposing etc at college but may not know these ways into m7b5 chords and so on and have to practice those separately (heaven forfend!) so it’s not black and white. I don’t know tbh. I’m constantly surprised at the things they don’t teach at some of the places, but they seem to produce people can play, who cares I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Christian, I think you were an exception, I don't know how you avoided learning modern playing techniques at Jazz college.

[Christian Miller]

Christian, I think you were an exception, I don't know how you avoided learning modern playing techniques at Jazz college.

Simples.... I didn't go to jazz college.

[Christian Miller]

One thing I do know is that 'jazz college' is not a monolithic entity. Different institutions do teach differently. Even individuals within institutions teach different. Ritchie Hart's approach being very different to Mick Goodrick's, and so on.

[Tal_175]

Parallel thinking also clearly exists. A good simple example might be the alteration of a riff to fit a blues, but I wouldn’t say there so much obvious modal thinking…

As I said in earlier posts, in this context what I mean by parallel thinking is not a compositional technique, it is root oriented harmonic organization of the fretboard. Root oriented in the sense of that Mike Stern quote.

[Christian Miller]

As I said in earlier posts, in this context what I mean by parallel thinking is not a compositional technique, it is root oriented harmonic organization of the fretboard. Root oriented in the sense of that Mike Stern quote.

Root or bass?

So you see the chord D/C - what are you thinking?

My thoughts are that the concept of root as independent from bass is starting to disappear in contemporary jazz. Parallel thinking tends to erode the conception of root - so we see D/C - we think lydian. We write Bbm7b6, and think of it as Aeolian rather than Gbmaj9/Bb and there Gb Major and so on. There are solid reasons of practicality why this is helpful for "non functional music" and has become widely adopted - like that of Kurt Rosenwinkel. But the idea of root in this case seems to be mostly equated with bass. (Although Evan and Allan considered that music in relative terms.)

And that is parallel thinking really. Understanding music from the root is a form of applied or relative thinking by definition.

In some ways this is more like the old way of dong things. One thing that has forced me to think more in parallel is figured bass and taking sequences through the key. In the baroque conception like the modern jazz understanding, D/C is indeed a chord on C with a #4 in it.

I haven't done that much of it in bebop because to be honest, there's not a huge amount of it. There are very few - basically no - diatonic sequences in Charlie Parker. Even like the examples I give in some my videos, such as in my diminished video. Parker didn't play that stuff.

So yes, it does depend on the music.

[Tal_175]

Definitely root, not bass. As in, the root of G7alt is G, not Ab. Regardless of the inversion or voicing. Otherwise (if the implied root is not G) it's not G7, it's functioning as something else. We are talking about functional harmony in this context of course.

[Christian Miller]

Definitely root, not bass. As in, the root of G7alt is G, not Ab. Regardless of the inversion or voicing. Otherwise (if the implied root is not G) it's not G7, it's functioning as something else. We are talking about functional harmony in this context of course.

If you see G7alt, both the bass and the root are G. You might choose to play an Ab melodic minor over it, but the bass player will be playing G as the most important bass note and presumably the guitar player if there's no bass.

OTOH in my experience G7alt/Ab is not common as chord symbol. I can probably find an example in the New Real Book somewhere, but I'd have to look. I actually think something like Abm11(maj7) is more common. Wouldn't swear by it though... .

So something like D/C would be a better example.

Root is a problematic concept anyway. Which is the 'true' root of an Am7b5 chord - A or C? You could make a theoretical argument for either, but it is not obvious. (Barry had a discussion with some music theorists over this one time apparently). Ultimately I would say the root of that chord is a matter of expedience, not objective truth. Many people 'trained properly' would say Am7b5 (that's the mainstream position AFAIK) but usually their arguments boil down to 'that's what I was told' - more sophisticated arguments might include the cycle of fourths or constructing chords in thirds (Rameau etc) both of which I could argue against.

90% of the time modern jazz charts the bass is the root and vice versa. This wasn't always the case, even for standards. Many more inversions in earlier styles of harmony.

[pamosmusic]

Christian, I think you were an exception, I don't know how you avoided learning modern playing techniques at Jazz college.

Heres an interesting thing …

did I learn the sort of modal parallel thinking in college? Yes.

did it help me play bebop? I don’t think so.

[pamosmusic]

One thing I do know is that 'jazz college' is not a monolithic entity. Different institutions do teach differently. Even individuals within institutions teach different. Ritchie Hart's approach being very different to Mick Goodrick's, and so on.

This might be overly generous. Jazz colleges with a deep bench of working jazz musicians teach differently, but that’s a pretty small minority of jazz colleges.

I could be wrong, but I think there is some uniformity. Which for the record is a bummer.

[Christian Miller]

I mean modal parallel thinking doesn't even require more music theory. It's an exercise in nomenclature.

I say that because if you can construct a chord at the piano, you can construct a scale. If you know what notes are altered in the chord, you can build the scale (with the exception of half dim chords).

I suppose there's a few rules of thumb with things like shorthand - C7alt chord symbols etc - and the diminished scale and so on, but these are rules of thumb just as much as the tritone sub and so on. I wouldn't call them theory per se. It's just knowing stuff; street knowledge if you like. Specific cases.

The thing that may take a bit longer is learning the standard names for the scales. You know my feelings on that, but that's the way of the world haha.

The main bit of music theory in it is the Berklee criteria for avoid notes, and that's wrong anyway. So you may as well just use your ears.

Straightforward on piano. I'm terrible at piano and I can do it. 'Arranger's piano' they call it, don't they?

The problem for the guitarist applying this stuff is essentially intervallic fretboard mapping, which is not trivial. I think it takes a year or two of focussed study - did anyone get it done quicker? I like to teach students to derive other chord qualities from major 7 chord forms etc, and then build up to scales.

[pamosmusic]

I like to teach students to derive other chord qualities from major 7 chord forms etc, and then build up to scales.

Tell me more

[Tal_175]

If you see G7alt, both he bass and the root are G

In my experience G7alt/Ab is not common as chord symbol. I can probably find an example in the New Real Book somewhere, but I'd have to look. I actually think something like Abm11(maj7) is more common. Wouldn't swear by it though... .

G is the root and the implied bass. Obviously one doesn't have to bang G and only G on every beat in the bass voice for the G7 function to be realized.

I think we have moved far away from the original discussion into the post modernist harmony. I'm happy to have a discussion about harmony being just a story we all chose to believe in because it has utility despite it being a crude approximation of the reality at best (which is no different than anything else we believe in, including counterpoint, lol).

But the original discussion we were having was the relative merits and shortcomings of the master (or parent) scale vs root oriented mental organization of the fretboard for chord specific playing (playing the changes). Be it internalizing a lick vocabulary or building lines that outline chords.

The two approaches in their pure form:

- Learn one or two (or three) master scales really well. Memorize licks, phrases that are organized around these scales and then drill superimposing this vocabulary based on the right interval of the chord in the moment. For example, learn the major scale really well. On the first chord of blues, think major scale from the fourth of the chord etc. (I actually know good jazz players who think that way). If you're playing altered dominant, think melodic minor from the b9 etc.

vs

- Always work on your chord vocabulary, lines, arpeggios with respect to the root of the chord so that the way you view your note choices correspond to the intervals that will be heard against the chord. So for example when you're playing G7Alt, you view Ab as the b9, not as a place holder for melodic minor material orientation.

[djg]

i was lucky. when i started out in the 80s, a buddy gave me a video tape on modes "john scofield on improvisation". it sounded nothing like the jazzmusicians (bird, rollins, wes) that i just recently had discovered. i thought it was complete rubbish. and it is.

edit: judge for yourself. the columbian marching powder certainly did not help...

[GuyBoden]

Christian, I think you were an exception, I don't know how you avoided learning modern playing techniques at Jazz college.

Simples.... I didn't go to jazz college.

That explains a lot about your Jazz thinking.