Too dumb for jazz? That may be me...

[Tal_175]

I can't be sure if OP is sarcastic or serious but his post, to me, very clearly shows that he doesn't have a clear understanding of how the concepts of modes and chord-scales are applied in teaching and practice by someone like Gary Burton rather than calling some like him dumb.

But than a lot people have a strawman understanding of chord scales and that's why they very confidently think their approaches are less formulaic than chord-scales.

[Tal_175]

The teachings of people like Barry Harris, Mike Stern and Pat Martino are all versions of chord-scales (despite calling Mixolydian, dominant scale for example). Yes they apply certain systems and scales formulaically as part of the learning curve. Memorizing licks and applying them in predetermined harmonic situations is also formulaic at first.

[pamosmusic]

I read the OP more as sarcastic commentary on people promoting formulaic theory-derived prescriptions for how to improvise than as an expression of actual confusion. The fake folksy spellings and indications that he actually knows plenty about modes and scales seem like dead giveaways to me. It's more like he's calling people who stress theory in unhelpful ways dumb than he's actually calling himself dumb. Seems to me, some of the commentary sort of proves his point.

Yeah you’re almost certainly right. It’s also possible that some people got the joke and just didn’t think it was terribly funny or insightful. After all, it’s hard to go a day on this forum without someone complaining about how jazz is too intellectual these days (by which they usually mean the 1970s or something).

[Tal_175]

I think it is too sophisticated interpretation. I understand what you mean but in real application 'mode' (in modern sense) and 'chord-scale' is the same thing for most people.

I don't think it is. There is also modal jazz and modes as they are used in progressive rock genres. That's a distinct concept than chord-scales. This adds to the confusion for a lot of people who hear these terms in viral youtube videos and are curious if they are missing out of something. I think having clear distinctions is useful especially when talking about subjects that tend to have a bad signal to noise ratio.

[TF]

No, it's actual confusion!

[Mick-7]

The definition of "modal scale" is clear to those who understand chord/scale theory but what makes a tune "modal" is more vague... what are the defining characteristics of a modal tune?

[Aiq]

The way our brain sees, the learning opportunities that come our way, associations and experiences all affect the path.

Yes modes aren’t music but seeing D dorian over Dm7, G mixo over Gdom, C ionian over Cmaj7, and all contained in the general scheme of C major is a way to see.

All roads lead to Pismo Beach eventually.

[Tal_175]

People may or may not like the chord-scale theory. But I am under the impression that when someone criticizes the chord-scale theory, they almost always seem to have a very strawman-ish understanding of what it is.

In their minds this is someone who is playing a solo using the chord scale theory:

OK playing the changes here ... the two chord is approaching get ready ... it's Dminor coming up ... Here, OK play Cmajor from the second degree... du ba du ba du ba ... G7 coming up play Cmajor from the 5th degree... OK, go .. du ba du ba du ba ...

That's the kind of picture they paint. Yeah that would be bad, no kidding.

The chord-scale approach is taught by isolating different types of chords as 7 note scales that correspond to the chord tones and common extensions and practicing getting good at coming up with good lines with these scales. Once you can play good phrases then you work on connecting them. Get good at each chord first then get good at voice leading them.

This is, for example, how Mike Stern shows how to play over altered dominants. For each scale he asks you to learn the scale. Then play all the intervals of the scale. Now work on coming up with lines using the intervals with the scale. Then learn arpeggios of the scale. Then work on playing good lines with these arpeggios. Then learn some licks that are based on the scale. Learn to use the licks with the other material. The learn to sequence some patterns through the scale. Then practice connecting all these material to come up with lines. Now apply these to blues etc. etc.

This is not that different than, for example, Barry Harris's ABC's and how he teaches to play dominant lines.

Once you get good at a chord-scale, meaning you are not just playing it up and down, you can apply it one-to-one or play the chord scale over an entire pattern (like ii-V). These are just different harmonic applications of chord-scales.

Again not everyone would want to approach improvisation this way, I get it, but it is more nuanced than how they often talk about it.

[emanresu]

Hm, when theory comes first as a guideline for choosing a bunch of notes, then the theory is only there to mimic something that has happened and been approved - you sound generally as promised(note-wise), as this or these guys those days.
Happy time is when you figure out your bunch of notes that would sound nice and fresh on a bar or two, and somehow stumble on something like "oh, bu thats the #$5 scale" afterwards. But often it's not even a scale or a mode. Just can stick all kinds of labels - don't mean so much.

[BWV]

Not just you, imagine what old JS Bach could have done if he knew what mode to play over a ii chord

[ragman1]

The problem here isn't modes or modal music, it's trying to talk to someone who has already decided against them. I wouldn't bother, personally. We'd be here all day and get nowhere.

[Christian Miller]

There’s different ways to learn. If you want to play straight-ahead jazz, modes aren’t especially useful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonah]

The definition of "modal scale" is clear to those who understand chord/scale theory but what makes a tune "modal" is more vague... what are the defining characteristics of a modal tune?

To me in jazz context it is a tune with harmonic structure - so there are audible vertical harmony/chords present - and these chords are often very consonant triadic chords or quite stable colorful clusters that do not aim strongly for resolutions.
Harmony is often very consonant and even sweet - because in the realm where there are no strong resolutions, there is also no strong tension

And the important point is they have no functional tonality relations on the level of form.

There can be local turnarounds that seem functional (mostly ii-V's and similar) but no keys really present on the higher level, no real modulations from key to key.. just shifting between tonal centers

The switch between chords or turnarounds can often seem 'occasional' and quite free (not determined by harmonic tensions) and built on parallel shifts or some voice - leading. So overall it is often guided by the melodic movement: intervals, repetitions etc.

Tonic centers are implied very often with repetition (if you sit on Dm chord with D Dorian long enough it will sound stable), by melodic movement: line ascends and then descends or big interval followed by short interval or short/long notes etc.
Sometimes even just by force of performance: articulation or dynamic accents.

Many of these are typical also for other modal traditions.

But it is vague indeed... so a vamp on one chord can sound modal and tunes with lots of changes like Falling Grace or Along Came Betty also sound modal though they have a lot of functional turnarounds that create local movement (But not on the level of form)

General feeling for me is that this music has no clear directions pre-determined by harmony. Functional tonality is always much more tight, sometimes it is enough 1-2 opening bars and you already understand how it can develop to the very end, there is a lot of information in it. With modal tune it can go wherever the player wants.

[Cunamara]

Modes complicate things when playing over functional harmony like a standard or a blues. They work fine over 16 bars of Dmin7, like "So What" or "Impressions," but IMHO too much calculation is involved playing over Autumn Leaves and even worse when playing something more complicated that has a lot of two chords or more per bar.

"The Dorian scale should generally be your go-to jazz scale choice on a minor seventh chord. It’s a minor mode with a flattened seventh but a natural sixth, and you can work it out by playing any major scale starting on the second degree."

So if I am playing over a C chord, and I want to play in the Dorian mode, I should play notes from a Bb major scale.

Over a Cmin7 chord, yes. C Dorian = Bb major starting from the 2nd (C D Eb F G A Bb). Over a Cmaj-anything (Cma7, C6, etc.) chord, no, because the Eb and Bb will clash with the 3rd, 6th and/or major 7th of the chord.

But to complicate things, you can get away with C Dorian over a C dominant chord with a bluesier sound due to the Eb in the scale being a blue note. C Dorian = C D Eb F G A Bb. C Blues scale = C Eb F Gb G Bb. See the similarity? If you want to sound like you are playing blues, use notes chosen from the blues scale; if you want to sound like you are playing jazz-blues, use notes chosen from the Dorian.

Or if I'm playing over a Cm7 chord and I want to play in the Lydian mode, I should play notes from an F scale.

No. The Lydian is the IV of any key and C is V in the key of F. The C Lydian mode would have the E in it, clashing with the Eb in Cmin7. C Lydian (C D E F# G A B) would come from G major. Use it over Cmaj7#11 (also known as the "C lyd" chord on some lead sheets.

Or... maybe I want to play a Mixolydian scale, and I'm sitting there THINKING... and then the song is over. WTF?

That is the problem with modes in a nutshell. Now, some people are able to memorize the chord-mode relationships and not have to do the math when playing. The problem is that playing scales generally doesn't sound like playing music- it sounds like playing scales. I see a lot of YouTube videos where it sounds like practicing scales instead of improvising melodic structures. I have fallen into that trap so many times I can't begin to tell you. There are people who can do it in a musical way and sound brilliant and I am jealous, but after nearly 50 years with the guitar I have finally figured out the scalar approach is not something I am successful with. It's just not how my mind works. I think of and hear harmony before melody, IDK whether that is good or bad but it just seems to be how I roll- to the extent that I'd rather comp than solo.

I learned something from Pete Bernstein in a video that I found helpful: a pianist puts their fingers on the keys to play a chord, can wiggle them and there's their line. They can add or remove some notes, but the chord is still under their fingers and there's their line, directly tied to the harmony. Scales and chords are really the same thing and it is instantly obvious on the piano. But we tend to teach chords and scales as separate things on the guitar, like using different parts of our brains and our awareness. As soon as I think scale patterns when soloing, my solo goes to pot pretty much instantly. When I think of using chord forms as the building blocks of my lines, adding or subtracting notes as sounds good to me, my solos sound much more musical and it's a lot less confusing to play.

So I no longer try to use modes.

Ah, just let me play my Bird and Louis licks in a graceful way over the changes, and then I can get paid...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole bit about superimposing one scale over a different chord is WAY over my head. I can still read music, sound good and cooperate with the leader, that's the important thing. But I may be too dumb to be a jazz musician. 60 years a player, 60 years a moron...

The more we try to teach people how to play jazz through pedagogy, the harder it gets. Unfortunately the real way to learn jazz- on the bandstand with masters showing you how it's done and learning by absorbing through example- is just no longer available to the vast majority of people who want to make a very poor economic decision and play jazz. We can learn from recordings, but you can't ask the recording any questions afterwards.

[Litterick]

Scales can really hang you up the most. Thinking in modes is made easier if you do not think of them in relation to scales but as things in themselves.

[Stevebol]

Rich Beato has a nice refresher on modes. The Phrygian is common in some styles of EDM;

[PMB]

Aesthetics aside, I think that the problem here is that we are usually taught to play modes on the guitar in a 'derivative' manner. By that I mean, we derive each mode stepwise from a parent scale. This seems to make sense with guitar in particular where the fingering of the L.H. remains fixed (unlike piano, for instance where each ascending mode generally begins with either the 1st or 2nd finger). For example, if we take the major modes played from G in the 3rd position, we learn that G major from the 1st step/2nd finger is called G Ionian, from the 2nd step/4th finger is called A Dorian etc.

The downside is that it's easy for this procedure to become a purely digital exercise without us internalising the sound of each mode. In terms of audiation, each step of the ascending modes seems to bear little relation to the one that follows. Furthermore, if we apply them over chords, there's a conversion required: "the chord is Em7, so that's G Ionian (which is the same as G major) from the 6th step, so that's E Aeolian".

In my experience as both a performer and teacher, it's more beneficial to hear and treat modes in a 'parallel' manner. For the major modes at least, I suggest internalising modes via degrees of bright to dark (subjective terms but a useful handle). Unlike the 'derivative' method, each mode changes by small increments and retains these changes with each successive move. The process reminds me of word ladder games where single letters of a certain word are incrementally exchanged for another, eg FAST, LAST, LOST, LOOT, LOOM. This allows us to compare the native colour of each mode and also apply it directly to a chord sharing the same root.

To facilitate this process, we rearrange the modes in a cycle of descending 4ths. For anyone who has never tried learning major modes in this way, you may find it something of a revelation!

[PMB]

Incidentally, on the topic of word games, mathematician Jon McLoone of Wolfram Research set up a computer to play a few million rounds of Hangman and determined that the word it was least likely to guess, regardless of the number of attempts was "jazz". It's the notes you don't play...

[ragman1]

That was quite fun :-)

[Aiq]

I’m not really on a crusade for modes but one more thing.

When I was first beginning to look at “jazz” methods I found an exercise taking ii-V-I with dorian, mixo, and ionian through all 12 keys: C, F, Bb, etc.

Covers the entire fretboard and mastering that helped me know any note my finger landed on and solidified key sense.

I still use it as a warm-up or refresher since these days I seem to be playing in the horn keys all the time.

[lammie200]

I take the easy route. I find the chords that I feel work with the melody that I am letting be exposed. Then I find the scale notes of the melody or support structure for it. I never really think in terms of modes because it seems too tedious to me and kind of unnecessary. Once I retire I plan to spend time writing out compositions in standard notation suitable for piano. I think that that may reorganize my thinking about modes, but I ain’t in a hurry to get there.

[Tal_175]

It's not very useful to have this conversation out of the context of a tune. Let's take a simple standard, Summertime. It's a tune written in the 30's by Gershwin, it's by no means a modern tune. I am curious how people who don't like chord-scales and do not think they are useful for straight ahead jazz approach this tune. I suspect most use some variation of chord-scales but they don't call it that, but I could be wrong. Of course you can play A minor blues scale over the whole tune. The melody is pentatonic after all. But if you were to play the changes in mostly 8th notes and triplets in the jazz style, your note choices will depend on how you approach the harmony.

Here is one obvious chord-scale approach to the main sections of the tune in the key of A:
A Dorian (or Aeolean) for the i chord.
A Harmonic minor or some sort of Bmin7b5 and E Alt's (tritone dominant scale or altered scale perhaps)
D Dorian for iv
C major or Lydian for the relative major (That may depend on your scale choice for the tonic chord. A Dorian = C Lydian or A Aeolean=C major. But you can also mix and match).
Of course there are other possibilities.


When I check out transcriptions of straight ahead players like Pat Martino, Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery, I see a lot of 8th note lines over chords that fall naturally to this type of broad analysis. That is not to say they are just playing the scales up and down (though sometimes they do), but it's obvious that the phrases are built on these choices. So I am genuinely curious why some consider this type of high level organization a non-starter? How would they approach this tune in way that avoids any scale mapping over any chord?

[rpjazzguitar]

One approach is to think of the tune as almost all in C/Am tonal center. Then, as the changes go by, adjust what you're doing to give due consideration to the chord of the moment. So, you might choose to emphasize D F A and C when the chord is Dm7. And, when the chord changes to Cmaj7, emphasize C E G and B. In either case you could extend to the 9th or 13th, so it could be D F A C E and then C E G B D A.

When an E7 comes up, you think C tonal center, but if you adjust it raise G to G#, it will sound like you're outlining the changes, which is because you are. If all you do is raise G to G# that produces the same notes as A harmonic minor.

Ealt can be more complicated because there are four alterations, b5 b13 b9 and #9. The notes would be Bb C F and G. Three of these are in the tonal center. You have to decide what to do with G and G#. But, at least it's only one or two adjustments from the C tonal center. One is raising the G. The other one is probably raising the A to Bb.

That gets a little complicated until the note names become automatic. You can also cover Ealt by thinking Fmelmin or Bb7 and sharp the Eb to E.

The idea is you think tonal center and chord tones. It ends up being pretty much the same thing as if you thought in modes, at least for this tune.

[Chris236]

I can do a lotta stuff, but understanding modes eludes me. The bit about starting a scale on a different note, that is.

In the abstract, I get it: to quote from a jazz edumacation site:

"For example, if we play the notes of C major but starting on a D we get the Dorian mode, which has quite a different character to the original major scale. Similarly if we start on an F we get the Lydian mode, which sounds different again."

and,

"The Dorian scale should generally be your go-to jazz scale choice on a minor seventh chord. It’s a minor mode with a flattened seventh but a natural sixth, and you can work it out by playing any major scale starting on the second degree."

So if I am playing over a C chord, and I want to play in the Dorian mode, I should play notes from a Bb major scale.

Or if I'm playing over a Cm7 chord and I want to play in the Lydian mode, I should play notes from an F scale.

Or... maybe I want to play a Mixolydian scale, and I'm sitting there THINKING... and then the song is over. WTF?

Ah, just let me play my Bird and Louis licks in a graceful way over the changes, and then I can get paid...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole bit about superimposing one scale over a different chord is WAY over my head. I can still read music, sound good and cooperate with the leader, that's the important thing. But I may be too dumb to be a jazz musician. 60 years a player, 60 years a moron...

You should start by memorizing the notes in all keys….everything is an intellectual abstraction until you’ve made that essential first step in your (intellectual) understanding. After that, understanding chords/scale relationships is very simple. Start with your 3rd’s and 5th’s….good luck!

[pauln]

So I am genuinely curious why some consider this type of high level organization a non-starter? How would they approach this tune in way that avoids any scale mapping over any chord?

Emoji-scale theory?


Seriously, if you play nice chords
5x45xx 7x67xx 8x79xx 7x69xx etc
nice lines will come of their own.