Bebop Scales and their creation

[princeplanet]

Jazz emerged from musicians who were culturally connected to learning music through an oral tradition where improvisation and variation were the norm. Even when reading music, it wasn't approached as a literal frozen artifact,
document of the only story to be told.

Much of the after the fact analysis of bebop, such as "nailing chord tones on the beat", "adding chromatics to chord tones" although based on some observable events in the music and might indeed teach some useful lessons in a players development, don't accurately reflect the conscious thinking of the original creators of this music.

It is my best guess, that what went down was variation and ornamentation of melody that became over time more elaborate and further afield from the source material as the notion of taking a solo evolved in jazz.

I am not a historian, but I would love to see some actual quotes from the originators detailing their thinking on their playing details. What I've observed in my reading is a strong mentor system and the detailed study of inspirational players with a commitment to idea of an original voice. I would love to be pointed towards some quotes to support all these contentions of what bebop and other historical jazz artists were thinking. Phil Schaap, are you out there?

Closest I've found to having it straight from the horse's mouth.

Thinking in Jazz : The Infinite Art of Improvisation (Chicago Studies in Ethnomusicology Series): Paul F. Berliner: 9780226043814: Amazon.com: Books

[bako]

Paul Berliner was born in 1946. That would make it like the mid 60's before he could legally enter most jazz clubs.
Late but with still enough time to interact with surviving musicians of the bebop era.
Bird died in 1955. Clifford Brown died in 1956. Bud Powell died in 1966.
Paul's jazz book came out in 1994, while his book "The Soul Of The Mbira" was published in 1978.

Paul is a very detailed researcher. I haven't read his jazz book, but I remember it receiving both praise and criticism
from the jazz press. (business as usual). I'll see if I can get it from the library to check it out.

Which horse's mouth was Paul quoting, and what is the gist of what was said?

Thanks,
Bako

[zutty]

well... maybe it is different now. instead of learning in a community of musicians we now go onto the internet and learn lord knows what and call it bebop. so the only real point is that the word bebop is a popular marketing technique for someone's youtube video. hence we have "microcosmic bebop scales" and "rootin tootin tooty fruity bebop scales" etc. etc...... please do not get me started on "enclosures"....

[zutty]

I think something must be said about david baker. someone has mentioned his learn to play bebop books. these are interesting but they were really secondary to the man himself. he would have a roomful of people and they would all be playing the "bebop scale" and tossing in arpeggios as baker would shout out variations and pivot points to them. after baker left little groups of students would gather and discuss baker's approach and make up their own variations. a lot of people would be excited for a year just to get back to one of baker's classes at an abersold camp. it is interesting that both baker and barry harris liked to work in groups to encourage independence in their students whom they might prefer to call colleagues. baker and harris are very special people.

[OPherman47]

Thinking in jazz is a great book... I also recommend "to be or not to bop" also excellent about diz.. hard life and "high times of Charlie parker" also good.. as is treat it gently about Sydney bechet

[princeplanet]

Paul Berliner was born in 1946. That would make it like the mid 60's before he could legally enter most jazz clubs.
Late but with still enough time to interact with surviving musicians of the bebop era.
Bird died in 1955. Clifford Brown died in 1956. Bud Powell died in 1966.
Paul's jazz book came out in 1994, while his book "The Soul Of The Mbira" was published in 1978.

Paul is a very detailed researcher. I haven't read his jazz book, but I remember it receiving both praise and criticism
from the jazz press. (business as usual). I'll see if I can get it from the library to check it out.

Which horse's mouth was Paul quoting, and what is the gist of what was said?

Thanks,
Bako

Gary Bartz, Lou Donaldson, Tommy Flanagan, Lee Konitz, Wynton Marsalis, Max Roach, Red Rodney, Fred Hersch, Kenny Baron etc All up, I think he interviewed 50 players, some of which relayed information passed on to them first hand from the greats that preceded them. Not good enough? Need in depth interviews with Satch, Prez, Bird, Trane, Miles etc? Yeah, I'd like to see that book too, but it doesn't exist.... Try googling "Charlie Parker's approach to soloing". Interestingly you'll find people have written many books and dissertation about it, but from the man himself, sadly, very little. It basically amounts to something like "First, learn your instrument and rudiments, then forget that shit and just wail".....

People who did cop some of Charlie's moves directly from him, (Red Rodney, Jackie McClean etc) never really went on record (to my knowledge) to give away the "thinking" behind many "Birdisms"... kinda like Magicians not liking to give away their tricks, especially not to other Magicians! But if you listen to the way McClean appropriated some Bird, he took more than just the notes. I feel certain that Bird sat down with the ever inquisitive young Jackie (who in turn was "used" by Bird for many favors) and explained a way or two to apply some thinking for some of the concepts. I listen to a lot of Jackie and can hear some of Bird's elasticity and exuberance, where as I certainly don't hear these qualities when I listen to someone like Stitt, who was probably a better technical player with a larger vocab.

Could this be because of having a different approach to how to use the vocab they each picked up from Bird? Maybe, being "shown" something is quite different to reading or transcribing. But then again, you can say that Cannonball learned Parker through transcription alone also, yet he certainly also found a way to apply his Birdisms in a way that were elastic, supple, surprising and, well, joyous ! In fact, with his straight Bop stuff, Adderley, IMO, even superceded Bird with his Bird like lines. Everyone knows Kind Of Blue, and Something Else (his Autumn Leaves solo!!), but there's dozens of recording from the 50's that Bird himself would surely have envied, had he lived long enough t hear it....

Hmmm, what was my point again? Oh yeah, I wanted to say that man to man learning was the right, or even best way to learn the Bop language. But perhaps not the only way as The Cannonball example might attest to, although the man was quite the freak, as Bird himself was......

[JonR]

Paul Berliner was born in 1946. That would make it like the mid 60's before he could legally enter most jazz clubs.
Late but with still enough time to interact with surviving musicians of the bebop era.
Bird died in 1955. Clifford Brown died in 1956. Bud Powell died in 1966.
Paul's jazz book came out in 1994, while his book "The Soul Of The Mbira" was published in 1978.

Paul is a very detailed researcher. I haven't read his jazz book, but I remember it receiving both praise and criticism
from the jazz press. (business as usual). I'll see if I can get it from the library to check it out.

Which horse's mouth was Paul quoting, and what is the gist of what was said?

Thanks,
Bako

There are 52 names in his list of artists interviewed for the book. I don't know how many are actually quoted in the book, and some may only have offered brief comments, but they include Kenny Barron, Doc Cheatham, Lou Donaldson, Art Farmer, Barry Harris, Lee Konitz, Melba Liston, Wyton Marsalis, Emily Remler, Max Roach, Red Rodney.
I couldn't possibly summarise the gist of what was said! The paperback version is 500pp of text, 250 pp of "music texts" (notated examples), 50 pp of notes, as well as a lengthy discography and bibliography. It's an impressive piece of serious work.

[zutty]

"BAILEY'S LOST NON-CHORD TONE"


O.K. i have been frustrated by how certain "self proclaimed authorities" present the bebop scale. i think everyone here has done good but there are some well known people presenting partially baked theories. so now i will explain it for you so that we never have the problem again....

people say that the "chord tones" of the bebop dominant scale need to be on the beat. this is only half true. the real reason is that the "non-chord tones" need NOT to be on the beat. in the F dominant bebop scale the chord tones are said to be F A C and Eflat. the non-chord tones are G Bflat D and E. the non-chord tones are easily percieved as a rootless C dominant seventh with a ninth. now if we emphasize that on the beat we are emphasizing a dominant chord other than F so we are not doing what we set out to do.

if you look at the "non-chord tones" you can see that they can all move stepwise to a "chord tone" one way of saying this is that we are aproaching the tones of F dominant seventh from the tones of its dominant C.


now here is my criticism of sheryl baily's "microcosmic bebop line": in effect she is creating an oscilation between many of the "non-chord tones" and the descending bebop dominant scale. for example she might descend Eflat D C Bflat A G F E and then arpegiate up Eflat G Bflat D and then "resolve to the chord tone" C. the simple point is that she arpegiates to a "non-chord tone" and then "resolves to a chord tone". unfortunately she does not seem to recognize that her choice of arpegios does not reflect this. she states that the arpegios are A minor seven flat five, C minor seventh, Eflat major seventh and Fdominant seventh. anyone can see that the last of these ends on a "chord tone" (on an upbeat at that) and defies her own logic.

several people have pointed this out to her but she does not seem to get it. i would suggest that we can make her arpegios agree with her underlying logic of the bebop dominant scale by using an F major arpegio in place of the F dominant thereby rescuing "bailey's lost non-chord tone" of E.

[bako]

I gave these two as examples of one liners tossed out as if drawn directly
from the inner workings of early innovator minds.

"nailing chord tones on the beat" "adding chromatics to chord tones"

I couldn't possibly summarise the gist of what was said!

Jon,

Yes, that would be a lengthy post even for you.
Fortunately, that was not my request.
Sorry if that was not clear.
I was asking for the gist of one applicable quote from a single horse's mouth.

[princeplanet]

"BAILEY'S LOST NON-CHORD TONE"


O.K. i have been frustrated by how certain "self proclaimed authorities" present the bebop scale. i think everyone here has done good but there are some well known people presenting partially baked theories. so now i will explain it for you so that we never have the problem again....

people say that the "chord tones" of the bebop dominant scale need to be on the beat. this is only half true. the real reason is that the "non-chord tones" need NOT to be on the beat. in the F dominant bebop scale the chord tones are said to be F A C and Eflat. the non-chord tones are G Bflat D and E. the non-chord tones are easily percieved as a rootless C dominant seventh with a ninth. now if we emphasize that on the beat we are emphasizing a dominant chord other than F so we are not doing what we set out to do.

if you look at the "non-chord tones" you can see that they can all move stepwise to a "chord tone" one way of saying this is that we are aproaching the tones of F dominant seventh from the tones of its dominant C.


now here is my criticism of sheryl baily's "microcosmic bebop line": in effect she is creating an oscilation between many of the "non-chord tones" and the descending bebop dominant scale. for example she might descend Eflat D C Bflat A G F E and then arpegiate up Eflat G Bflat D and then "resolve to the chord tone" C. the simple point is that she arpegiates to a "non-chord tone" and then "resolves to a chord tone". unfortunately she does not seem to recognize that her choice of arpegios does not reflect this. she states that the arpegios are A minor seven flat five, C minor seventh, Eflat major seventh and Fdominant seventh. anyone can see that the last of these ends on a "chord tone" (on an upbeat at that) and defies her own logic.

several people have pointed this out to her but she does not seem to get it. i would suggest that we can make her arpegios agree with her underlying logic of the bebop dominant scale by using an F major arpegio in place of the F dominant thereby rescuing "bailey's lost non-chord tone" of E.

When non chord tones are used as part of arpeggios, then they can sound like extensions. Eg, against G7, Baileys arps are G7, Bm7b5, Dm7, F maj7. Consider the F maj 7; it's a, c, and e tones are all non chord tones, but because you hear them as part of an f a c e sequence, then the result is an "extension" sound. There is no diatonic wrong note against any diatonic 13th chord!

Bailey's "Microcosmic" thing is just her way of describing what countless boppers were doing, from Bird to Wes.....

[christianm77]

"BAILEY'S LOST NON-CHORD TONE"


O.K. i have been frustrated by how certain "self proclaimed authorities" present the bebop scale. i think everyone here has done good but there are some well known people presenting partially baked theories. so now i will explain it for you so that we never have the problem again....

people say that the "chord tones" of the bebop dominant scale need to be on the beat. this is only half true. the real reason is that the "non-chord tones" need NOT to be on the beat. in the F dominant bebop scale the chord tones are said to be F A C and Eflat. the non-chord tones are G Bflat D and E. the non-chord tones are easily percieved as a rootless C dominant seventh with a ninth. now if we emphasize that on the beat we are emphasizing a dominant chord other than F so we are not doing what we set out to do.

if you look at the "non-chord tones" you can see that they can all move stepwise to a "chord tone" one way of saying this is that we are aproaching the tones of F dominant seventh from the tones of its dominant C.


now here is my criticism of sheryl baily's "microcosmic bebop line": in effect she is creating an oscilation between many of the "non-chord tones" and the descending bebop dominant scale. for example she might descend Eflat D C Bflat A G F E and then arpegiate up Eflat G Bflat D and then "resolve to the chord tone" C. the simple point is that she arpegiates to a "non-chord tone" and then "resolves to a chord tone". unfortunately she does not seem to recognize that her choice of arpegios does not reflect this. she states that the arpegios are A minor seven flat five, C minor seventh, Eflat major seventh and Fdominant seventh. anyone can see that the last of these ends on a "chord tone" (on an upbeat at that) and defies her own logic.

several people have pointed this out to her but she does not seem to get it. i would suggest that we can make her arpegios agree with her underlying logic of the bebop dominant scale by using an F major arpegio in place of the F dominant thereby rescuing "bailey's lost non-chord tone" of E.

If you end up on a non chord tone on the beat, you use Barry Harris's other added note rule - use 0 or 2 passing tones. See BH material for info.

So, for F7 (for example)

F A C Eb, D C Bb A G F Eb D, C Eb G Bb
or -
F A C Eb, D C Bb A G Gb F E, Eb G Bb D

You can see here how the F7 scale 'rights itself' towards the end and regains balance in time for the ascending arp

There are, I suppose other possibilities

F A C Eb, D Db C Bb A G F E, Eb

For example, gets you there faster.

Perhaps I haven't fully understood the post. I don't think bebop scale stuff is meant to be an all inclusive theory, just a tool for making bebop lines. Sheryl is very good at doing this IMO!

[docbop]

Perhaps I haven't fully understood the post. I don't think bebop scale stuff is meant to be an all inclusive theory, just a tool for making bebop lines. Sheryl is very good at doing this IMO!

Exactly everyone has the own way to look at this material. I been some material on the same topic from a sax player with another approach of adding the extra note(s) based on starting note being chord tone or non chord tone. What he note is if you start with it the non-chord tone added note, it automatically turns into the chord tone version.

Bottom line to all of this is read various points of view and then spend time working with it, and come up what makes sense for you.

Agreed Sheryl is great at playing and teaching, she was recently promoted to Professor at Berklee.

[christianm77]

BTW I've been playing around with bebop scales on the piano today, and it strikes me how classical they can sound.

Mozart used a lot of chromatic neighbours in his melodic writing, of course, and would have had the same problems to solve as boppers when writing scalar runs. He doesn't want the chord tone to end up on the upbeat - probably even less than a jazz musician!

As BH says - 'the harmony is classical'

So what I'm saying, is what we think of as bebop scales as a specific technique is actually just a special case in the general technique of Harmonic Melody. As docbop points out, there are quite a few ways you can go about that.

I think in previous eras, jazz players came straight from a harmonic vibe - they understood common practice harmony, had to play harmonic music and some, especially the pianists, had some classical training and repertoire and could draw their own conclusions (like BH, for example.)

The technique of vanilla harmonic improvisation, as far as I can see, is less familiar to us because popular music and jazz has changed a lot. Therefore people talk about 'bebop technique' when actually a lot of it is just learning how to play scalic melody lines that bring out the changes. Needless to say, people have been doing that for hundreds of years, although it's arguable how well this was understood by pre bop jazzers (I think it varies from player to player personally.)

[zutty]

one point that often gets ignored is that chords are built by alternating tones not thirds. in octatonic scales the pattern of alternating tones is exhausted before using all the tones. hence building "chords" with thirds is not what is happening in octatonic scales. bailey's "arpeggios" sometimes skip one or two tones without an apparent logic and they do this in disregard of the goal of keeping the "chord tones" on the beat and the "non-chord tones" off the beat. in other words her "arpeggios" are not all "arpeggios" according to the octatonic scale, hence I recommend the use of l major seven instead of bailey's l dominant seven.

[zutty]

[QUOTE=christianm77;522485]If you end up on a non chord tone on the beat, you use Barry Harris's other added note rule - use 0 or 2 passing tones. See BH material for info.

I just want to point out that I was not speaking of barry harris' pedagogy. I am aware of his work and respect it highly and your point is true to mr. harris' pedagogy. but I was not speaking of that.

[christianm77]

[QUOTE=zutty;522701]

If you end up on a non chord tone on the beat, you use Barry Harris's other added note rule - use 0 or 2 passing tones. See BH material for info.

I just want to point out that I was not speaking of barry harris' pedagogy. I am aware of his work and respect it highly and your point is true to mr. harris' pedagogy. but I was not speaking of that.

Well it's a solution to the problem you posed. I don't know enough about Sheryl Bailey's pedagogy to know what her solution is. TBH, I take what information I can from wherever I find it, although the BH school is a good one to follow as it's pretty complete.

I have a friend who studies online with Sheryl, and seems to be making great progress, though.

I don't think it's worth getting too wound up about whether x person has a 'good' theory. Sheryl can play her ass off and is a professor at Berklee, I would jump at the chance to study with her if it came up.

[zutty]

[QUOTE=christianm77;522732]

I don't think it's worth getting too wound up about whether x person has a 'good' theory.

i am not wound up. i am presenting an explanation that you seem incapable of understanding. i do not have the time right now but i will present a further explication later. there is an underlying logic that is missing in bailey's presentation. the answer to this has already been explained but i will post an alternative explication.

[zutty]

i have stated earlier that spelling "chords" in an eight note scale is
different from spelling chords in a seven note scale, so before i start i
ask that we leave our enthusiasm for thirds at the door...

let us start with Bailey's "eflat major seventh arpeggio" that she likes in an F dominant bebop scale. in terms of the bebop scale the chord is Eflat
(skip E skip F) G (skip A) Bflat (skip C) D. so the pattern is
play a note skip two notes play a note skip a note play a note etc. for
her C minor seven chord the pattern is play a note skip a note play a note
skip two notes play a note etc. this would lead one to suspect that the
pattern for the cord built on F would be play a note skip a note play a note
skip a note play a note skip two notes, in other words a "chord" that
looks like F major seven.

Bailey is confusing "chord" building in a seven note scale with "chord"
building in an eight note scale. to see a manifestation of this try and
play an F dominant arpeggio and at the top E flat try and descend downwards
with an F dominant bebop scale. now try it from the top e of an F major
seventh arpeggio. which one provides the best voice leading?

interestingly this logic i present is in complete accord with the Barry Harris
method. most people do not follow Harris into the dominant bebop scale
since he often starts with the major. but the Bailey method has the error
of logic i have pointed out. unfortunately Bailey has maintained that her
"microcosmic bebop line" is a device to logically explain several things.
i think she is wrong and has made a simple error.

[christianm77]

i have stated earlier that spelling "chords" in an eight note scale is
different from spelling chords in a seven note scale, so before i start i
ask that we leave our enthusiasm for thirds at the door...

let us start with Bailey's "eflat major seventh arpeggio" that she likes in an F dominant bebop scale. in terms of the bebop scale the chord is Eflat
(skip E skip F) G (skip A) Bflat (skip C) D. so the pattern is
play a note skip two notes play a note skip a note play a note etc. for
her C minor seven chord the pattern is play a note skip a note play a note
skip two notes play a note etc. this would lead one to suspect that the
pattern for the cord built on F would be play a note skip a note play a note
skip a note play a note skip two notes, in other words a "chord" that
looks like F major seven.

Bailey is confusing "chord" building in a seven note scale with "chord"
building in an eight note scale. to see a manifestation of this try and
play an F dominant arpeggio and at the top E flat try and descend downwards
with an F dominant bebop scale. now try it from the top e of an F major
seventh arpeggio. which one provides the best voice leading?

interestingly this logic i present is in complete accord with the Barry Harris
method. most people do not follow Harris into the dominant bebop scale
since he often starts with the major. but the Bailey method has the error
of logic i have pointed out. unfortunately Bailey has maintained that her
"microcosmic bebop line" is a device to logically explain several things.
i think she is wrong and has made a simple error.

I see. I think you are attributing a fundamental significance to the 8 note scale which isn't part of the theory. The extra note (7, b6 whatever) is there as an addition to the 7 note scale to make it 'come out right' when played stepwise. In other contexts, the normal 7 note scale would be used, such as a scale in thirds:

F7: F A G Bb A C Bb D C Eb D F etc

Bebop scales aren't a palette of notes you can use freely like in the chord/scale system, they are purely a 'fix' to get scales to work better rythmically.

You will find phrases like the Bailey microcosmic bebop line throughout the literature on bebop. David Baker springs to mind. Also BH teaches similar lines.

Where it might get a little confusing is in this case of the BH 8-note 6th-diminished scales, two of which superficially resembles the major bebop scale and minor bebop scales.

These are, in fact, differently used to the 'bebop' scales.

In BH theory there is a divide between the improvisation theory (using added notes in 7 note scales for improv etc) and the harmony theory (using the 8 note scale to generate voice movement etc.)

The fact that you can use 6th-diminished scales arpeggios in improvisation rather adds to the confusion!

BTW I'm hardly a BH authority, and there are some on this forum who are, so if I have it wrong I'd be delighted to be corrected. But this is what I understand from his workshops and the material available in print.

[JonR]

Bebop scales aren't a palette of notes you can use freely like in the chord/scale system, they are purely a 'fix' to get scales to work better rythmically.

I agree.

Where it might get a little confusing is in this case of the BH 8-note 6th-diminished scales, two of which superficially resembles the major bebop scale and minor bebop scales.

These are, in fact, differently used to the 'bebop' scales.

In BH theory there is a divide between the improvisation theory (using added notes in 7 note scales for improv etc) and the harmony theory (using the 8 note scale to generate voice movement etc.)

The fact that you can use 6th-diminished scales arpeggios in improvisation rather adds to the confusion!

BTW I'm hardly a BH authority, and there are some on this forum who are, so if I have it wrong I'd be delighted to be corrected. But this is what I understand from his workshops and the material available in print.

Can you spell out what these "6th-diminished scales" are? Not a concept I've encountered before. (Obviously I'm even less of a BH authority than you are )

[JonR]

Bebop scales aren't a palette of notes you can use freely like in the chord/scale system, they are purely a 'fix' to get scales to work better rythmically.

I agree.

You will find phrases like the Bailey microcosmic bebop line throughout the literature on bebop. David Baker springs to mind. Also BH teaches similar lines.

Where it might get a little confusing is in this case of the BH 8-note 6th-diminished scales, two of which superficially resembles the major bebop scale and minor bebop scales.

These are, in fact, differently used to the 'bebop' scales.

In BH theory there is a divide between the improvisation theory (using added notes in 7 note scales for improv etc) and the harmony theory (using the 8 note scale to generate voice movement etc.)

The fact that you can use 6th-diminished scales arpeggios in improvisation rather adds to the confusion!

Yes - seems to me they're really the same thing as the bebop major and minor scales, just with different potential applications. IOW, "6th diminished" is simply an alternative name, highlighting the non-scalar potential of the scale.
The underlying principle, after all, is the same, however you use them: interaction between chord tones and non-chord tones, "outside" resolving to "inside". Either you can do that with 8th note scale runs or - more interestingly - with arpeggios.
I don't see the need to name the scale(s) differently, or to build up whole new theoretical concepts. (Unless one wants to make extra money teaching them, of course... )

[zutty]

I see. I think you are attributing a fundamental significance to the 8 note scale which isn't part of the theory.

I have been making the same point in several different ways since some did not understand. the importance of the significance of the eight note scale ( which, I disagree with you, is a large part of the barry harris approach ) is that it (as does any even number scale) divides itself into two parts "the chord tones" if you will and "the non tone chords". which BH exploits beautifully on the major bebop with his oscillations between diminished (rootless V seven flat nine) and the tonic (major six). there is a similar oscillation in the dominant bebop scale. in Fdominant it is between F seven and a rootless C 9.

now baileys approach makes up some "arpeggios" which for the most part culminate in a top note "non-chord tone" which can "resolve" to a "chord tone" in the beop scale. she is not consistent in this. to make it consistent I offer the suggestion that you replace (in the F dominant bebop scale) her suggested F7 with F major seven.


( just in case anyone does not understand the distinction between "chord tones" and "non-chord tones" in an eight note scale I will here run through it again for sake of clarity. On the bebop dominant we pick every other note pick F (skip g) pick A (skip Bflat) pick C (skip D) pick E flat (skip e) pick F HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS REPEATING ITSELF WITHOUT EVER PICKING THE SKIPED NOTES. hence the eight note scale divides itself into two separate parts. most every approach to the bebop scales puts a large emphasis on this distinction.

[christianm77]

I have been making the same point in several different ways since some did not understand. the importance of the significance of the eight note scale ( which, I disagree with you, is a large part of the barry harris approach ) is that it (as does any even number scale) divides itself into two parts "the chord tones" if you will and "the non tone chords". which BH exploits beautifully on the major bebop with his oscillations between diminished (rootless V seven flat nine) and the tonic (major six). there is a similar oscillation in the dominant bebop scale in Fdominant it is between F seven and a rootless C 9.

now baileys approach makes up some "arpeggios" which for the most part culminate in a top note "non-chord tone" which can "resolve" to a "chord tone" in the beop scale. she is not consistent in this. to make it consistent I offer the suggestion that you replace (in the F dominant bebop scale) her suggested F7 with F major seven.


( just in case anyone does not understand the distinction between "chord tones" and "non-chord tones" in an eight note scale I will here run through it again for sake of clarity. On the bebop dominant we pick every other note pick F (skip g) pick A (skip Bflat) pick C (skip D) pick E flat (skip e) pick F HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS REPEATING ITSELF WITHOUT EVER PICKING THE SKIPED NOTES. hence the eight note scale divides itself into two separate parts. most every approach to the bebop scales puts a large emphasis on this distinction.

We appear to be talking past one another. Yes you can use an 8 note scale. Yes you can use a 7 note scale.

The BH 8-note scales are specific to the BH approach. This is really his 'thing.' I agree that the symmetry of the 6-dim scale with respect to arpeggios is really pleasing, but it's not the only resource we can use.

Adding notes to a 7 note scale for improvisation on the other hand are widely used in different schools of jazz education. Read David Baker volume 1, for example.

I have to say that the funny arpeggios that are giving you cause for concern sound good to me. For, example, the maj7 on the b7 - b7 2 4 6 - of the dominant scale is classic Parker.

In any case, I have been to a few of BH's masterclasses, and heard the man explain it. It is significant that he always divides his classes in 1) Harmony 2) Improvisation 3) Vocal Workshop.

1) Is movement concepts (including but not only applications of the 8-note 6-dim scale. Mostly this is of interest to guitarists and pianists.
2) Is generating bebop lines using scale material over a standard tune, including ways to play 7-note scales with and without added notes. Some musicians - horn players normally - turn up for 2) but not 1) and are perfectly able to understand what's going on. The two things are independent.

I still think you are a bit confused. I would suggest investigating Barry's approach to single note improvisation as opposed to his harmony theory in detail (if you haven't already done so), as I think it has the rigour and clarity you seek.

For myself, I've long abandoned the expectation that music theory by self-consistent and complete. BH gets pretty close.

[christianm77]

I agree.
Yes - seems to me they're really the same thing as the bebop major and minor scales, just with different potential applications. IOW, "6th diminished" is simply an alternative name, highlighting the non-scalar potential of the scale.
The underlying principle, after all, is the same, however you use them: interaction between chord tones and non-chord tones, "outside" resolving to "inside". Either you can do that with 8th note scale runs or - more interestingly - with arpeggios.
I don't see the need to name the scale(s) differently, or to build up whole new theoretical concepts. (Unless one wants to make extra money teaching them, of course... )

It could be. It's not the way Barry teaches it, from my experience. Again I've only been to a few BH masterclasses so it's possible I am talking out of my bottom, but there was always a sharp distinction between the two.

Although there is a difference with the dom7-dim scale:

1 2 3 4 5 b6 b7 7 1

from the dominant bebop scale (David Baker style):

1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 7 1

Furthermore, Barry dislikes the term bebop scale - and a BH improvising scale can have 10 notes, 9 notes, 8 notes or 7 notes per octave depending on the context. So they are pretty different.

[Boston Joe]

I worked with the David Baker books a bunch of years ago, and while I found them helpful, I also found that you can stick chromatic passing tones almost anywhere depending on what you're playing, so, for example, if you're playing on a dominant chord, the "non-diatonic" tone doesn't have to be the major seventh. Once you internalize some of the rhythms, you get a sense for where a chromatic note should be (or, at least for me, I can hear where the chord tone should be, and throw in a chromatic to get it to land in the right place). It turns out to be less of a scale to memorize than a feel to internalize. This frees you up a little because you realize you're not locked into one linear pattern. If you're moving from the 7th to the root, say, and you want that root to land on the downbeat, then yeah, you can use that major seventh on the upbeat of the 4, OR, you could use the 2 or the b2, or even a non-adjacent note. It's really the rhythm that's important there.

But in another situation, you might be wanting to land on the 5, in which case your chromatic note might be the #4 or the #5.

It's a valuable concept, but where I think people go wrong is thinking of it as a scalar/melodic/harmonic kind of thing rather than what it is, which is a rhythmic thing. (Which, of course, brings up the whole thing about why we tend to focus on harmony at the expense of rhythm - which is a whole other discussion in itself.)