I-VI7-ii-V7 question

[pamosmusic]

I don't trust people who say kind of thing, no matter who they are. You need scales but it depends how they're used, especially in conjunction with chords and chord shapes.

Usually those who say don't bother with scales are people who know their scales very well but use them in a different way. Not the beginner's way of learning patterns and then wonder how to connect one pattern to another, but seeing them as connected to certain chord shapes. Then, using the chord shapes, produce lines that connect very well.

But PB is very, very good at chords and his comping ability is virtually instant and way above most peoples' level. And if you check out his transcriptions you'll see that the melodic lines he plays over the same chord in different songs and keys aren't the same, they correspond to the key. To do that, you must know the key, major or minor, and know the notes required. It's not that he sees a chord like D7 or F and plays the same thing over it regardless. You can't do that unless you know your notes.

But it's also possible that bediles (sorry!) didn't understand what he meant completely.

Not sure this is true. I mean I’m 100% sure Pete knows his scales, but I would believe he could go a few days without thinking of them.

I doubt he has it codified in the same way, but I know he heartily endorses Jordan’s way of going about things. And Jordan’s is no Bernstein clone but he’s very Bernstein-esque in interesting ways … angular in ways that sound similar, rhythmic, sparse. So I might take Pete at his word on that one.

[ragman1]

I mean I’m 100% sure Pete knows his scales

So am I. That's good enough for me.

I doubt he has it codified in the same way.

The same way as what? Or who?

[bediles]

I don't trust people who say that kind of thing, no matter who they are. You need scales but it depends how they're used, especially in conjunction with chords and chord shapes.

Usually those who say don't bother with scales are people who know their scales very well but use them in a different way. Not the beginner's way of learning patterns and then wonder how to connect one pattern to another, but seeing them as connected to certain chord shapes related to certain keys. Then, using that, produce lines that connect very well.

PB is very, very good at chords and his comping ability is virtually instant and way above most peoples' level. And if you check out his transcriptions you'll see that the melodic lines he plays over the same chord in different songs and keys aren't random, they correspond to the key. To do that, you must know the key, major or minor, and know the notes required. It's not that he sees a chord like D7 or F and just plays the same thing over it regardless, it fits the song. You can't do that unless you know your notes.

But it's also possible that bediles (sorry!) didn't understand what he meant completely.

I just thought it was funny! He said it in jest, really. But also as a way to break away from thinking scales /modes as the initial thing to improvise with. There's vids of him saying similar on YouTube (hear comes the chord change, oh wait let me get out my sack of scales, oh should I use this one.. maybe this one.. oh wait someone else is soloing) He studied lots of scales/patterns etc w Ted Dunbar (jonny smith 3 octave scales for ex) but I believe he wasn't that interested in mapping or non musical exercises the neck and just wanted to get to the music. That involved more of an intuitive and ear based approach for lack of a better way to describe it. I've met and played with plenty of folks who have done the same (not to the success of PB but hey).

[ragman1]

Sounds right, you've explained it well :-)

I was just checking it out. Try this at about 8.12 and 14.05. And you may as well go on to Part 4 because it continues :-)

[pamosmusic]

The same way as what? Or who?

I will note that you added a period to my sentence where there was actually a comma, followed by the answer to this question.

But yes, he obviously knows them. Probably just doesn’t think they’re terribly useful to think about.

For what it’s worth, I find people like that kind of fascinating because I don’t know what I’d do without scales to practice.

[ragman1]

I will note that you added a period to my sentence where there was actually a comma, followed by the answer to this question.

Uh? I didn't add or alter anything as far as I know, not consciously anyway.

I'm not sure you answered my question. You said he might not codify scales in the same way. So I said the same as what or who?

[pamosmusic]

I doubt he has it codified in the same way, but I know he heartily endorses Jordan’s way of going about things. And Jordan’s is no Bernstein clone but he’s very Bernstein-esque in interesting ways … angular in ways that sound similar, rhythmic, sparse. So I might take Pete at his word on that one.

above

[ragman1]

I don't really know what we're talking about. Past my bedtime.

[rpjazzguitar]

A few of us like to respond to the question asked by the original poster, which in this instance was: "Why would you play the harmonic minor scale over an A minor chord?" As usual, most respondents chose to overlook the question and opine instead on other topics that have been discussed here ad nauseam, such as: what they'd play if the chord(s) were different, what other scales could be played over the chords, why there's really no such thing as an "avoid note," etc., etc. The end result is more of the same advice that we've all heard before, and that few here would be able to apply to making music (least of all those who asked the questions).

The OP asked two questions, one of which alluded to how people think about it.

[Christian Miller]

I tried to extract a micro-lesson from this recording, which is worth studying.

Suppose the changes are Am7 D7 Gmaj7 Cmaj7.

Instead, one might play Am7 D7 Abm7 Db7 Gm7 C7

Sounds good. What happened?

Previously, I'd have thought of Gmaj7 as the resolution and Cmaj7 as a movement to the IV chord.

Instead, the Gmaj7 to Cmaj7 part of the progression is implied with the actual chords changing from major to dominant and then putting in some chromatic ii Vs. If the next chord is F#m7b5, both ways work, to my ear.

So, this raises a question. Can this be applied to ii V I in a lot of situations?

So, I tried it for a couple of simple tunes. First two chords of All of Me. I found I could start with C, but after a couple of beats I went to chromatic descending ii Vs starting with Cm,7 ending up at the A7. But, that's not exactly the same situation. Although it sort of worked.

I then tried Wave, the part with Am7 D7 leading Gmaj7 and Gm6. I replaced the G with a ii V starting on Abm7. Sort of worked, but my ear preferred the original Gmaj7.

So, not much progress yet, but, I do like the sound of harmonic motion and I'm always unhappy when I can't think of how to apply the concept. Maybe this will help a little.

That is, the idea of allowing a resolution point to be implied while you power through it with motion.

The A-7 D7 Ab-7 Db7 thing is the Wynton Kelly changes. It actually works as an alternative harmonisation of the melody.

In the Jimmy Raney Aeberosld he just plays AL as a series of descending ii Vs. I’ll try and dig it out.

Obviously it doesn’t work for every melody.

For comping you have more freedom but you do need to be listening to the soloist.

Peter is about staying off I as much as possible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Had a lesson over 10 years ago with PB and he was big into the soloing with chord shapes you already know thing. He also said fuck scales fwiw. Drove him around a bit and got to listen to some albums together was worried someone would rear end me and destroy his Zeidler.

Jim Mullen said that too haha.

People like to turn that into an absolute and then argue against it for some reason. I always took it to mean a preoccupation with scales is not helpful.

But that’s less pithy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Personally, I've no hesitation in blaming teaching resources. Teachers, books, websites, all of whom say you have to know scales and provide endless pictures of the fretboard with endless coloured dots all over them.

Then you're supposed to run them up and down, then in patterns and sequences, and all that. Then you might have a tune of some kind that says 'Here we play the major scale, here we change it to another major scale' and all that. And so it goes on.

Most of the questions we get here are from victims of these methods because they reflect a tremendous effort on the student's part to understand this stuff and just get miserably confused.

Far too much emphasis is placed on an intellectual approach to the whole thing, as though the practical issues of playing the instrument can be worked out the same way as a math problem or philosophical treatise.

Thank god I'm self-taught.

[Jonah]

Hi,
I was reading this book and it said that in the above progression, in G let's say: G-E7-Am-D7, that one should think of the E7 as the fifth of Am and, as such, play the A harmonic minor over the E7. Is that how you think of it? It seems strange to me because I don't think of that Am as a tonic minor but the ii of G. So does it make sense to play A harmonic minor there?
Thanks!

In my opinion application of HM in jazz is not that directly connected with Functional harmony (D-T) as in classical theory. In classical it is more about explanation of the G# in major dominant chord (so more vertical thinking). In the melodic ascending line it will be classical melodic minor (F raised to F# too - to avoid awkward interval of augmented 2nd).
there is a lot of post-factum analysis in this application. It is not a compositional tool (and I doubt it ever was)

In jazz - scales are applied as a practical tool for linear playing - melody. (So on the contrary to classical it is much more 'before you play it' rather then anyalyzing 'after it')
So if you choose Harmonic minor you will have F natural, melodic minor F# and G#, natural minor all natural etc.
Now the relate it to the main key (which is still G major) - G# will be in accordance with E major chord and increase its tension to temporary tonic (Am). F# depends on how you use it, it can be even stronger tension to Am (more classical MM application), or it can sound more or less as F# natural to G major key.
If you play HM - F nat can bring in bluesy touch (as it is still G major) etc.

So for me it is a combination of traditional classical thinking with jazz scale theory thinking...

Lots of things depend on how you personally hear it, and also ho much time you have, how quickly the harmony changes, how strong can be the feeling of a new temporary toni, and how you hear and apply it...

[Christian Miller]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a pianist say ‘forget scales’ - maybe I’m wrong

I think it’s to do with the layout of the instrument. We play a shapes instrument.

You could spend years mastering the notes and scales over the fretboard which on the piano would be relatively straightforward. And this knowledge might not come with a clear understanding of how they relate to chords or songs.

It’s probably no accident so many top jazz guitarists also play at least decent piano. It really does make more sense on keys.

On the other hand playing out of chords has always worked extremely well on guitar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AllanAllen]

Personally, I've no hesitation in blaming teaching resources. Teachers, books, websites, all of whom say you have to know scales and provide endless pictures of the fretboard with endless coloured dots all over them.

Then you're supposed to run them up and down, then in patterns and sequences, and all that. Then you might have a tune of some kind that says 'Here we play the major scale, here we change it to another major scale' and all that. And so it goes on.

Most of the questions we get here are from victims of these methods because they reflect a tremendous effort on the student's part to understand this stuff and just get miserably confused.

Far too much emphasis is placed on an intellectual approach to the whole thing, as though the practical issues of playing the instrument can be worked out the same way as a math problem or philosophical treatise.

Thank god I'm self-taught.

If you're self taught then how do you know all this stuff about teachers confusing their students? Were you a music teacher?

This stuff is confusing by nature, even more confusing on a guitar, but one must work through the confusion to understand. It's just like algebra, nobody is inherently bad at math, they just don't try.

[AllanAllen]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a pianist say ‘forget scales’ - maybe I’m wrong

Whenever I ask the big band pianist a question he explains the answer with scales. I feel like he's got the instrument mapped out in scales and picks chords from them.

[pamosmusic]

If you're self taught then how do you know all this stuff about teachers confusing their students? Were you a music teacher?

This stuff is confusing by nature, even more confusing on a guitar, but one must work through the confusion to understand. It's just like algebra, nobody is inherently bad at math, they just don't try.

Yeah. Actually self-taught usually means “learned from books and videos.” And if you’re doing books, you might get “100 ii-V-I licks you just have to know” or you might get Randy Vincent, depending on where you look.

If you’re looking at videos, you might get Christian or Nathan Borton, or you might get absolute swill.

And a lot of people transpose their negative experiences with the bad parts of those resources onto “Education” which usually means unwarranted criticism of jazz programs at universities or people who teach jazz privately. And sure there are lots of criticisms to level there that would be totally reasonable, but also it’s a very pedagogically diverse group and usually way less dogmatic than people tend to think. Especially now. Probably more so thirty years ago.

[AllanAllen]

I saw an instagram ad "Intermediate jazz guitarists, are you tired of playing the same 3 licks over every song?!?"

I was surprised to learn that I'm an advanced guitarist. LOL

[Christian Miller]

In my opinion application of HM in jazz is not that directly connected with Functional harmony (D-T) as in classical theory. In classical it is more about explanation of the G# in major dominant chord (so more vertical thinking). In the melodic ascending line it will be classical melodic minor (F raised to F# too - to avoid awkward interval of augmented 2nd).
there is a lot of post-factum analysis in this application. It is not a compositional tool (and I doubt it ever was)

In jazz - scales are applied as a practical tool for linear playing - melody. (So on the contrary to classical it is much more 'before you play it' rather then anyalyzing 'after it')
So if you choose Harmonic minor you will have F natural, melodic minor F# and G#, natural minor all natural etc.
Now the relate it to the main key (which is still G major) - G# will be in accordance with E major chord and increase its tension to temporary tonic (Am). F# depends on how you use it, it can be even stronger tension to Am (more classical MM application), or it can sound more or less as F# natural to G major key.
If you play HM - F nat can bring in bluesy touch (as it is still G major) etc.

So for me it is a combination of traditional classical thinking with jazz scale theory thinking...

Lots of things depend on how you personally hear it, and also ho much time you have, how quickly the harmony changes, how strong can be the feeling of a new temporary toni, and how you hear and apply it...

Rather than talk about scales and functions, I'd rather look at this sort of thing in context. And there does seem to be a through line to me. Jazz did not develop in a musical background, and the Western Canon was a big influence on it.

. Here is an example of a thing called a Fonte by the 18th century theorist Josef Riepel. I think it can be best understood as a voice leading device with a certain rhetorical and formal role. I think of it as a type of 'development' phrase. It would be typical for the beginning of the B section of a binary form piece for instance, such as a minuet. However, it can be found in many other places.

It's a clear two step melodic sequence and uses specific alterations to the prevailing key (b7 and #1 in modern terms) to tonicise the second degree. Obviously a jazzer would understand the first two bars to be 'D (or II) harmonic minor.'



More info on the schema here, from Ewald Demeyre

The Fonte: The Basics – Essays on Music

So we can see the leading tones in the bass and a scalar descent from the b7 (or the b9 of the fundamental bass) down to the third in the next bar. This can be run into a single line and used to imply harmony in two parts.

An example from Bach, who often inverted this basic schema (B section Minuet II from Cello suite no1 transposed and in treble clef), chord symbols are obviously mine haha
Notice that Bach puts this effectively into root position, with the root placed on the first beat.

A jazzer would of course call this a VI II V I line, and identify the first bar as belonging to the harmonic minor. Obviously at no point do we have an augmented second, as the arpeggio avoids this. We might also avoid it by octave displacement, which is something we commonly see in C18 music, and very much in bebop lines. Grant Green loves it.

But thinking about the specific voice leading formula, we do see things like this. Robert Gjerdigen, Mr Gallant Schemata himself identifies the bridge of Alone Together as an example (transposed to the same key). The Ab is something one finds in Mozart for instance (I'll need to find an example), but not so much Bach to my knowledge.

Riepel himself described it as a 'Hermaphrodite Fonte', rather disapprovingly. (Mozart did like the minor/major admixture and of course we see it more and more in C19 music,)


This includes only the melody part of Riepel's schema, unlike the Bach.

but for one written by a jazz musician we have a Night in Tunisia.

Notice how the contrapuntal skeleton remains identical and even though it is articulated with more complex rhythms. Notice that includes both the bass and melody parts of the schema and the aug 2 is managed by octave displacement. Extremely common in bop lines as I have noted.



We also have baba's first bebop. Phrases of this type are actual quite hard to find in the wild in actual improvised bebop solos. I think players thought sequences in general sounded good in heads and tunes, but not in solos.


I'm not 100% sure if this is of great use to anyone, but I would say there's a definite through line on this schemata stuff. I've got a bunch of them in a pdf, naturally.

[Christian Miller]

to the OP, gor bless him, the TL;DR is YES

[ragman1]

If you're self taught then how do you know all this stuff about teachers confusing their students? Were you a music teacher?

Allan, for a bright guy that's not a very bright question. Self-taught doesn't mean in isolation, looking at nothing beyond oneself. It's impossible in any case. On the contrary, it means you look at everything, read everything, listen to everything.

How many questions by OPs have you seen here that want clarification on what a book or teacher is telling them? Lots, I assure you. Then others come in and the poor OP, confused already, can't understand what they're told.

Don't take what I'm saying literally. Tragically, to be honest, I'm waiting for that sort of response. Looking at everything doesn't literally mean every possible thing. Nor does it mean no one is ever helped here, they definitely are. But the point is there's enough of the other stuff to make it worth mentioning.

nobody is inherently bad at math, they just don't try.

Oh, lovely, and totally untrue.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah. Actually self-taught usually means “learned from books and videos.” And if you’re doing books, you might get “100 ii-V-I licks you just have to know” or you might get Randy Vincent, depending on where you look.

If you’re looking at videos, you might get Christian or Nathan Borton, or you might get absolute swill.

And a lot of people transpose their negative experiences with the bad parts of those resources onto “Education” which usually means unwarranted criticism of jazz programs at universities or people who teach jazz privately. And sure there are lots of criticisms to level there that would be totally reasonable, but also it’s a very pedagogically diverse group and usually way less dogmatic than people tend to think. Especially now. Probably more so thirty years ago.

There's clicks in being anti-establishment and anti-academic. I do play around with it a bit on YouTube, but it's meant to humorous. I do get a lot of comments like 'no-one ever taught me this' on stuff which is to me quite basic. Not sure what their specific background is.

I was more this way in earnest a few years ago (djg quite rightly more called me out on it), especially before I did my Masters project on jazz guitar student's experiences with YouTube.

What I found is that no advanced jazz players would be caught dead admitting that they used YouTube instructional videos haha.

I also found that they were mostly pretty happy with their courses and a great deal of playing, listening and community seemed to encouraged, and they had it impressed on them that that was the most important thing. That kind of changed my perspective on it.

OTOH there seemed to be a lot of stereotype chord scale/theory centred teaching at the less specialist jazz schools.

It's a little hard to say, my sample size wasn't very big.

[Christian Miller]

Whenever I ask the big band pianist a question he explains the answer with scales. I feel like he's got the instrument mapped out in scales and picks chords from them.

I think this is usually the case, and if you spend even a little time with a piano it becomes clear why.

The most influential jazz theorists have been pianists.

It is possible to view the guitar like this, but it takes a LOT of work. OTOH working from grips and shapes is a time honoured way to approach jazz guitar. If you work on chord melody as well, it gives you a good understanding, and you might play all that chord scale goodness without ever working on a scale.

OTOH - Ritchie Hart says that chord scales were introduced to explain harmony to horn players - ie those that couldn't play chords.

[Sam b]

So A Harmonic minor is kosher, gotcha. Thanks!

[ragman1]

Yes, but it's how it sounds in context. If you think context for all these sorts of questions you won't go far wrong.