Melodic Minor Courses Online? or Favorite Book Must Have

[pamosmusic]

A long time ago I found it was useful to combine scales. The attached file includes triad chord voicings for a combo of the harmonic and melodic minor scales.

b). Combined D Melodic & Harmonic Minor scale chord forms. [Scale is: D-E-F-G-A-Bb-B-C#].
Over Db7 supplies all altered tones plus 6th (13th). Can also play over: G7, Em7b5/ A7/ Dm(#7), et. al.

Chords: I = Dm6/#7/9; II = Em6/7 & Em7b5(b9/13); III = FM7b5/#5 (13);
IV = Gm6/7/9, Gm7b5, G7(#9/#11) & G9(#11/13); V = A7(b9/b13) & A9(#5);
bVI = BbM6/7, Bbm6/#7, Bbdim.7 & Bbdim.#7; VI = Bm7b5 & Bdim.#7;
VII = C#m7b5(b9), C#dim.7 & C#7b5/#5 (b9/#9/13).

Where do you apply this?

[Mick-7]

That’s information overload for me. I’m learning with horse blinders on these days. I can only take in so much

They are just triads, you can keep it as simple as you like, use only the voicings that have the broadest application, I only use a few of them routinely.

Where do you apply this?

Well, over the chords listed in the file. But frankly, I have not looked at it for years, this thread reminded me of it, so I'll have to review its applications.

[pamosmusic]

They are just triads, you can keep it as simple as you like, use only the voicings that have the broadest application, I only use a few of them routinely.



Well, over the chords listed in the file. But frankly, I have not looked at it for years, this thread reminded me of it, so I'll have to review its applications.

Honestly, I'm not even sure I understand how the fingering charts are laid out

[Mick-7]

Honestly, I'm not even sure I understand how the fingering charts are laid out

All adjacent chord tones in each position, if that makes sense. It is rather messy, I'll try and clean it up.

[kris]

Barry Galbraith
"Daily Exercises.In Melodic and Harmonic minor modes"

[Mick-7]

Honestly, I'm not even sure I understand how the fingering charts are laid out

So, the the harmonic/melodic minor chord scale file I shared is a chord scale dictionary of sorts. However, a simple approach to building chord scales is to take the notes of a 7 note scale and think of it as a combination of two chords; a triad and a 7th chord. Then you can just move the two chord voicings up and down the fingerboard, makes it easier to visualize and remember them.

Here's an example of that, using two different types of chord voicings. When there are two notes on a string, it means you can play either one, e.g., the first chord below could be a Dm triad [F-A-D] or Dm#7(F+) [F-A-C#]. These could be played over G7, Db7, and any other chords derived from the scale.

[rpjazzguitar]

Since there seems to be some interest in this, I'll continue.

This time, let's look at comping over the first four chords in All of Me. Cmaj7 E7 A7 Dm.

And, let's try to use the fourth voicings as far as possible.

First two bars are Cmaj7. The melody starts on a C, so I'm going to put that on top of my first chord. You don't have to, but you can.

Three beats (more or less, you have to make it swing): xx7788 then quickly up to x x 9 9 10 10 and back. Another xx7788 a half beat before the E7 (again, timing is approximate).

Now, for E7, you could play xx6757. But, we're trying to use fourths, so you could play xx6677. Pluck the open low E to hear it with the right harmonic function. Well, at least to my ear it works. Theory? It's a 4th stack from Amajor or Bm. Slide it up a half step and back to keep the motion going.

Now we're up to A7. If I alter it to A7#11 then it becomes a chord from Emelmin. I went with x0544x to xxx645.

Then, I went straight on the Dm to give it a rest. But, you could run xx223x up the scale. xx345x xx556x xx778x xx99 10x.

The next chord is E7. I can hear it as Fmelmin. xx2133 xx3554 xx6788.

Next up Am, and Amelmin sounds good to me.

Anyway, hopefully that communicates the idea.

I fairly certain that I've fudged some theory here. But, somewhere around the tenor player's sixth chorus it might start to make sense.

[Christian Miller]

A long time ago I found it was useful to combine scales. The attached file includes triad chord voicings for a combo of the harmonic and melodic minor scales.

b). Combined D Melodic & Harmonic Minor scale chord forms. [Scale is: D-E-F-G-A-Bb-B-C#].
Over Db7 supplies all altered tones plus 6th (13th). Can also play over: G7, Em7b5/ A7/ Dm(#7), et. al.

Chords: I = Dm6/#7/9; II = Em6/7 & Em7b5(b9/13); III = FM7b5/#5 (13);
IV = Gm6/7/9, Gm7b5, G7(#9/#11) & G9(#11/13); V = A7(b9/b13) & A9(#5);
bVI = BbM6/7, Bbm6/#7, Bbdim.7 & Bbdim.#7; VI = Bm7b5 & Bdim.#7;
VII = C#m7b5(b9), C#dim.7 & C#7b5/#5 (b9/#9/13).

This is the minor-6 diminished scale (what you get when you add a Cm6 to a Bo7.)

A few people have independently arrived at this scale. A good sax player buddy calls it the Lester Young scale.

I haven’t spent as much time exploring all of its mysteries as I probably should, but it’s a rich scale. Howard Rees points out that the altered (tritone’s minor in Barry land) application (Ab minor on G7 say) of this scale gives you the common 13b9 chord, so that’s nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AllanAllen]

The vid is out

Nice video, I even use a few of these moves already.

[Mick-7]

This is the minor-6 diminished scale (what you get when you add a Cm6 to a Bo7.)

That would be the C melodic/harmonic minor scale, D m/h minor is: Dm6 + C#o7.

But it's also G9 + Bb dim (triad) or C#7#5b9 + E dim (triad), and A9 + Bb (triad). Might be other common chord combos.

I have a habit of thinking of dim. 7th chords as rootless 7b9 chords, e.g., C#o7 as C7b9 (no root), I always convert the former to the latter when I see it on a chart. Makes it easier for me to think of the relevant dim. scale for the dom.7th chord.

[wolflen]

I have a habit of thinking of dim. 7th chords as rootless 7b9 chords, e.g., C#o7 as C7b9 (no root), I always convert the former to the latter when I see it on a chart. Makes it easier for me to think of the relevant dim. scale for the dom.7th chord.

I do that also it gives the dim chord a more defined function as a dom chord..also the study of symmetric harmony opens the dim scale and its chords up
to be part of harmonic movement and extended chord color..though some of it may be a bit crunchy (al la Scofield).

I find using all flat notes used in naming dim chords helpful and easier to see chordal relations. YMMV

[Mick-7]

So... I think that for the combined Harmonic/Melodic Minor scale it would be better to construct it with two 4 note chords as Christian mentioned. Here are the key ones....

[Tal_175]

There is also a downside to the upper structure/substitution thinking. It's an oversimplification of the lines played by Charlie Parker, Grant Greene etc. Chord-scales address that shortcoming. Whether Charlie Parker was organizing his approach around something equivalent to chord scales is a speculation and not that relevant. He didn't have the shortcoming I am referring to. What's the shortcoming, you might ask.

Let's take a concept that was in Christians video and was part of the discussion in this thread. The diminished arpeggio from the third of a dominant, Bdim over G7b9. There are two very different sounds buried in there depending on other note choices. B diminished can come from C harmonic minor or the diminished scale. Depending on the choice of these other notes, you might be playing G7b913 or G7b9b13. These evoke different moods. G7b13 has a more augmented feel that wants to resolve to a minor. G7b913 has a more diminished feel that expects a major target. Of course you can target major or minor with each of them which adds to the effect of the note choices. That Grant Greene line in Christians video implied G7b9b13, not G713.

Chord-scales organize these sonarities as diminished or Phrygian Dominant scales. This helps you work on your lines and train your ears in a more systematic way for these sounds so you have more artistic control over the effect you are going for.

[Christian Miller]

Shortcoming? If you say so chief. It’s up to you what notes you add in there. I don’t see much point in arguing about it. It’s an approach and I find it useful.

Not everything has to be approached the same way all the time. Not everything needs to be fitted into some overall concept - in fact I would say such tendencies are a waste of energy and time.

That said I don’t think I can think of an example of a bop player using the 13b9 tonality, for this era it is mostly framed in terms of diatonic minor harmony. So that counts for Grant as well as bird. It’s Bach etc etc. Western music.

I would say the 13b9/half-whole tonality enters the picture a bit more with Coltrane. But I’m sure I’ve overlooked something somewhere.

Maybe you can think of an example? I haven’t transcribed all the bop lol.

To connect to Mick 7’s post listen to how often diatonic minor lines are finished with a terminal major sixth - the REAL Jazz Note - I include several examples in the video. It’s incredibly common. Barry used to demonstrate a Coleman Hawkins line that did this; it’s a specific turn of phrase. You can only learn that type of thing by listening and it’s specific and idiomatic, not the sort of thing that can systematised into chord scale systems. Music is about the details.

Giving people chord scale options is a bit like telling people ‘Shakespeare used the letters of the Roman alphabet as well as verbs and nouns.’ True but also loose and probably unhelpful.

Crazy thing is for some that’s all they need. But it’s all in the ear. There needs to be more and that’s listening.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

So... I think that for the combined Harmonic/Melodic Minor scale it would be better to construct it with two 4 note chords as Christian mentioned. Here are the key ones....

These are real questions, not an effort to start an argument. I know, from reading posts for years, that this sort of thing is taught and applied, but I don't quite get it.

How do players use information like this? How do you get it organized in your mind? What is the advantage over simply thinking about the chords/tensions/extensions?

For example, G A Bb B C# D E F looks a lot like G13#9#11. So, my simplistic way of thinking about it would be "G dominant with two alterations". I know what those notes sound like against G7, and I know where they are on the fretboard, so am I done or am I missing something?

And, thinking about scales seems to me to be the long way around to deciding whether to play an E vs an Eb on G7b9.

In other words, why not just think about the chord?

[Christian Miller]

These are real questions, not an effort to start an argument. I know, from reading posts for years, that this sort of thing is taught and applied, but I don't quite get it.

How do players use information like this? How do you get it organized in your mind? What is the advantage over simply thinking about the chords/tensions/extensions?

For example, G A Bb B C# D E F looks a lot like G13#9#11. So, my simplistic way of thinking about it would be "G dominant with two alterations". I know what those notes sound like against G7, and I know where they are on the fretboard, so am I done or am I missing something?

And, thinking about scales seems to me to be the long way around to deciding whether to play an E vs an Eb on G7b9.

In other words, why not just think about the chord?

Tbh If I find myself thinking too much about this stuff it means it’s time to hit up some records and see what my favourite players have to say on the matter.

But yes, you should be able to sing an E or and Eb on the G7b9. You have to have to hear it? Listening to music will help.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

These are real questions, not an effort to start an argument. I know, from reading posts for years, that this sort of thing is taught and applied, but I don't quite get it.

How do players use information like this? How do you get it organized in your mind? What is the advantage over simply thinking about the chords/tensions/extensions?

For example, G A Bb B C# D E F looks a lot like G13#9#11. So, my simplistic way of thinking about it would be "G dominant with two alterations". I know what those notes sound like against G7, and I know where they are on the fretboard, so am I done or am I missing something?

And, thinking about scales seems to me to be the long way around to deciding whether to play an E vs an Eb on G7b9.

In other words, why not just think about the chord?

That's actually an important question because if you tend to music nerdism (as I do), you can end up spending too much time analyzing music rather than playing it.

So for me, it's: (a) harmonic reference material (as I said earlier, like a chord dictionary), and (b) a means to see the big harmonic picture, i.e., the intersection between scales and chords, and chord families and relationships, which helps me see good ways to connect chords, find repeating or symmetrical chord forms, create smooth chord passages, etc. For example, in my first example, only two chord forms, Bm7b5 (=Dm6) & Bbo7 (=Dbo7/Eo7/Go7), can be used to play every note in these scales, you don't need a half dozen or so different chord voicings to master the harmony.

[AllanAllen]

G13#9#11 is a 7 note chord, so thinking of the chord is thinking of a scale. A dominant with a b3 and b5 screams blues to me. So I’m pretty sure I could simplify it AAALLLL the way down to C and nobody would notice.

[rpjazzguitar]

G13#9#11 is a 7 note chord, so thinking of the chord is thinking of a scale. A dominant with a b3 and b5 screams blues to me. So I’m pretty sure I could simplify it AAALLLL the way down to C and nobody would notice.

If you start with the chord, it gives you the scale.

If you start with the scale, it could be a lot of different chords.

So, where I end up is, if I start with the chord, which I do, why do I need to think about the scale? That is, unless I have to think about a scale or pattern to find the notes on the fingerboard.

[pamosmusic]

If you start with the chord, it gives you the scale.

If you start with the scale, it could be a lot of different chords.

So, where I end up is, if I start with the chord, which I do, why do I need to think about the scale? That is, unless I have to think about a scale or pattern to find the notes on the fingerboard.

Apparently you don’t need to.

I guess for myself the obvious answer is that sometimes I play stepwise stuff and the scale organizes the notes in stepwise order, whereas a chord doesn’t.

Also worth mentioning that guitar can rarely voice chords in thirds, which is the way that we play single notes. So scales are more flexible for me to think about than chords and extensions.

[rpjazzguitar]

Apparently you don’t need to.

I guess for myself the obvious answer is that sometimes I play stepwise stuff and the scale organizes the notes in stepwise order, whereas a chord doesn’t.

Also worth mentioning that guitar can rarely voice chords in thirds, which is the way that we play single notes. So scales are more flexible for me to think about than chords and extensions.

Thanks for the response and explanation. Makes sense.

The way I do it (or, at least, I think I do it, because I'm trying to play without thinking like this) is that I'm aware of the tonal center and I'm aware of the chord tones, extensions and tensions (most of them, anyway). Since tonal center is kind of an imprecise target at times, my system leads to the occasional clam if I'm trying to go too fast.

[pamosmusic]

Thanks for the response and explanation. Makes sense.

The way I do it (or, at least, I think I do it, because I'm trying to play without thinking like this) is that I'm aware of the tonal center and I'm aware of the chord tones, extensions and tensions (most of them, anyway). Since tonal center is kind of an imprecise target at times, my system leads to the occasional clam if I'm trying to go too fast.

I don't know.

There's Barry Harris who is pretty explicit about how "chords come from scales and not scales from chords." And he'd have some sense of how the later bop guys were approaching this stuff.

Then there's Jim Hall, who I don't think talks about it much. But I've transcribed a ton of his earlier stuff and would be surprised if he weren't sort of "playing around the chord."

So both make good music. Maybe different music though?

I'll also say that I think a LOT about chords, and when I talk to some really excellent saxophone and trumpet players I know, that approach doesn't really click with them. They think more linearly, for fairly obvious reasons. Piano players seem to as well, for sort of the opposite reason -- just how accessible all those out and extended diatonic sounds are on a keyboard. Jordan Klemons found that his way of thinking clicked in really well with how Stefon Harris was thinking on vibraphone, but that a lot of folks in the same class just didn't really see the possibilities. Which I thought was really interesting. Piano players might not see the necessity at all, and saxophonists might not see the possibilities, or might see the chordal mapping as a limitation.

So it's worth considering that thinking of chord tones and stuff might be intuitive to you, and perfectly understandable to me and others here, but the majority of musicians wouldn't come to that sort of thinking straight away, necessarily, because of the nature of their instruments and their role in a group.

[rpjazzguitar]

I don't know.

There's Barry Harris who is pretty explicit about how "chords come from scales and not scales from chords." And he'd have some sense of how the later bop guys were approaching this stuff.

Then there's Jim Hall, who I don't think talks about it much. But I've transcribed a ton of his earlier stuff and would be surprised if he weren't sort of "playing around the chord."

So both make good music. Maybe different music though?

I'll also say that I think a LOT about chords, and when I talk to some really excellent saxophone and trumpet players I know, that approach doesn't really click with them. They think more linearly, for fairly obvious reasons. Piano players seem to as well, for sort of the opposite reason -- just how accessible all those out and extended diatonic sounds are on a keyboard. Jordan Klemons found that his way of thinking clicked in really well with how Stefon Harris was thinking on vibraphone, but that a lot of folks in the same class just didn't really see the possibilities. Which I thought was really interesting. Piano players might not see the necessity at all, and saxophonists might not see the possibilities, or might see the chordal mapping as a limitation.

So it's worth considering that thinking of chord tones and stuff might be intuitive to you, and perfectly understandable to me and others here, but the majority of musicians wouldn't come to that sort of thinking straight away, necessarily, because of the nature of their instruments and their role in a group.

I think some of it has to do with how you learn the basics.

I learned to read all over the neck before improvising.

But, otoh, I could never get anything out of looking at a bunch of dots on a fingerboard diagram.

And, there's a whole bunch of jazz vocabulary stuff that I love when I hear it, but I never could hear it in my head while playing.

So, I concluded, after a long time, that individual style is formed substantially by what you can't do. And, how you compensate. I guess that was a digression.

Your point about very different approaches among great players is well taken.

[Christian Miller]

Guitar isn’t naturally a scalar instrument while piano is. Guitar is naturally a shapes and chords instruments.

Many of the classic era guitarists I believe approached the guitar from a shapes perspective which doesn’t mean they didn’t play scales at all but it’s quite clear from their playing that they were thinking this way.

OTOH pianists and horn players were a lot more scalar.

These days everyone learns scales at Jazz Skool so it’s kind of a moot point, but it’s worth noting that things that are trivial on piano can be rather hard to learn on the guitar (and vice versa). One example is naming notes on the neck. Trivial on piano, something that takes time and effort on guitar.

It’s also worth noting that all the influential theorists in mainstream jazz education are most often pianists and rarely guitarists. So the modern guitarist is interacting with a pianist’s mental world in a way that might not have been true in the bebop era.

Just a thought.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kris]

Guitar isn’t naturally a scalar instrument while piano is. Guitar is naturally a shapes and chords instruments.

Many of the classic era guitarists I believe approached the guitar from a shapes perspective which doesn’t mean they didn’t play scales at all but it’s quite clear from their playing that they were thinking this way.

OTOH pianists and horn players were a lot more scalar.

These days everyone learns scales so it’s kind of a moot point, but it’s worth noting that things that are trivial on piano can be rather hard to learn on the guitar (and vice versa). It’s also worth noting that all the influential theorists in mainstream jazz education are pianists and sometimes horn players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about Pat Martino and his few brilliant books and videos?