Dom Scales Visual Aid

[cosmic gumbo]

An interesting presentation of relationships of intervals.

http://antonjazz.com/#/2012/11/dominant-scales/

[MarkRhodes]

Interesting. I hadn't seen it that way before.

[JonR]

Pretty old stuff for me, mostly.

Here's how an old jazz tutor of mine (15-20 years ago) laid out the various dom7 options:

     Dom7 chord: 1  .  .  .  3  .  .  5  .  . b7  .  1
     mixolydian: 1     2     3  4     5     6 b7     1
lydian dominant: 1     2     3    #4  5     6 b7     1            
         HW dim: 1 b2    #2  3    #4  5     6 b7     1
      wholetone: 1     2     3    b5    #5    b7     1         
        altered: 1 b2    #2  3    b5    #5    b7     1

And it occurred to me some years ago that lydian dominant was the tritone sub for altered (I don't think I read it anywhere, although it's not a difficult realisation ).
Here's how that works:

     Dom7 chord: 1  .  .  .  3  .  .  5  .  . b7  .  1  .  .  .  3  .  .  5
        altered: 1 b2    #2  3    b5    #5    b7     1 b2    #2  3    b5
lydian dominant:                   1     2     3    #4  5     6 b7     1

That site has a few nice extra ideas (such as the sparse and dense major 3rds) - and of course it looks very cool (nice piece of design), but one obvious omission - as he admits - is good old mixolydian! (He doesn't mention that the reason for that is probably its "avoid note", the P4.)

[cosmic gumbo]

It's not new information, just presented a little differently. I like the circle charts. I'm used to seeing it presented rather dryly as above. I'm all for anything that will help others better see the logic and symmetry involved. Hope it helps someone.

[bako]

Love the logical organization and the graphics. I look forward to see the rest of the book should he write one.

Jon,

Mixolydian was excluded because it didn't fit the symmetrical (ma3 ma2 ma3 ma2) division of the octave model.
The idea of an avoid note was never discussed.

Dominant chords as a family accept virtually every note.

1
b9
9
#9
3
sus4
b5/#11
5
#5/b13
13
b7

7 is the only non chord tone, however it's the leading tone to the root,
a very useable melodic note in a dominant context.

Maybe the comprehensive version would look something like this:

1 ----------------- b7

with the instruction:

Add some notes in between.

Now to make that visually captivating and easy to understand.

[JonR]

Love the logical organization and the graphics. I look forward to see the rest of the book should he write one.

Jon,

Mixolydian was excluded because it didn't fit the symmetrical (ma3 ma2 ma3 ma2) division of the octave model.

The idea of an avoid note was never discussed.

Yes, but what was the point of that model in the first place? Unless it has a practical origin - due to some issue with sound - then it's arbitrary. Some stupid game with symmetry (and I don't think he's stupid ).
IOW, the only sensible reason for excluding mixolydian is the avoid note - whether or not he chooses to explain that.

Dominant chords as a family accept virtually every note.

1
b9
9
#9
3
sus4
b5/#11
5
#5/b13
13
b7

7 is the only non chord tone, however it's the leading tone to the root,
a very useable melodic note in a dominant context.

Right, but you can say the same about any other chord. All 12 notes are usable at any time, on any chord, at least melodically. But harmonic choices vary, according to context.

What's missing - although maybe taken for granted - is the notion of function.

Maybe the comprehensive version would look something like this:

1 ----------------- b7

with the instruction:

Add some notes in between.

Now to make that visually captivating and easy to understand.

But to be understandable, the dominant function of the chord has to be understood first. The whole point of any note on a dominant chord is resolution to the tonic.
It's a pile of variable tensions, to be sure, but they're not just pretty sounds on the chord itself. The tensions have a purpose, a tendency. The tensions on a V7 chord will be a different mix (probably) from those on a bII7 or bVII7.

I don't have any quarrel with what he's saying (and his opening paragraph is good), but it's only by excluding mixolydian (with no explanation) that he can begin with that cute symmetrical octave division.
This is one of those abstract theoretical musings that is all about what you "can" do, with no clue as to when or why you might want to make any of those choices - no connection with how dominant chords actually work. It implies you "can" do pretty much anything you like on a dom7 chord - which may be true, but what use is that?

The essential ideas are:
1. the important notes in a dom7 are root, 3rd, 7th.
2. altered and lydian dominant are tritone subs for each other.
3. HW dim scales are transposable 4 ways (because of their symmetry).
4. wholetone scales are transposable 6 ways (because of their symmetry).

The rest is displaying the connections in pretty diagrams - admittedly helpful in some ways (I like visual aids myself). But the missing element - the 5th essential idea - is that further extensions or alterations on a dom7 are about voice-leading to the next chord. That will govern which mix of extra notes one might use - whether it's one of those four complete scales (or 5 if you include mixolydian), or just one or two additional notes.

It's quite true that V7 chords usually do present any of those 4 (5?) scale options, at least in major keys -although context might still affect the choice. But other uses of dom7-type chords (not functioning as V) are more limited. (Altered scale doesn't tend to work too well on bII7 chords.)

Again, this is not about what one "can" and "can't" do (a set of prescriptive rules). It's about the sounds that each choice makes - understanding how each one works in context: knowing those sounds, and choosing them according to the sound one wants to make.
And in jazz there are "common practices". We start from what most jazz musicians traditionally do, or we sound "wrong". It's a language; there's grammar, syntax, accents, conventions. (That's where the above 4 scales come from in the first place, although the distinctions are a little arbitrary.)

IMO, one can't start examining dominant chord-scale choices without first explaining what dominant chords are for. Eg, why are "root, major third and minor seventh ... essential to all dominant scales"? What does "dominant" mean? Why is the chord special? Why are there (apparently) more scale choices on this chord?

(Sorry if I'm labouring the point. I actually like the page myself. I like that he admits it's "reverse engineering" the scales: looking at what we've got and discerning some apparent patterns there (regardless of whether the patterns have any meaning, and regardless of where the scales came from). It's a well-designed, good-looking site, and the ideas are well presented. It's not what he's saying that I have a problem with, it's what he's not saying; but then I guess he's not in the business of explaining fundamentals.)

[bako]

Mixolydian, minor and major blues scales was how I first learned to address V7 situations.
From a few scattered lessons, a pretty mundane H.S. theory class and obsessive music listening, I developed a general sense of a V chord resolution. I also learned about secondary dominants as borrowing a major 3rd from another major scale to provide the stronger melodic resolution to chords in the key other than the tonic.

I became aware of 7th chords with various alterations and the general idea that they derived from other scales.
My problem was I didn't really know these scales on the guitar yet beyond the formula.
I learnt a few stray voicings from books and friends but melodically, for the most part, I had to fend for myself by my early edition hearing skills and random luck. I feel that his explanation at that time of my development would have expedited my progress and I'm guessing it might do the same for others now.
By drawing the connection to the symmetrical chord 1 3 b5 b7, he offered a simple method to generate the 4 most common altered dominant scales. Wow, that would of been helpful. When I was learning this stuff, I viewed each scale, each chord color as an individual singular event.

You and I both pointed out some things that were missing from the presentation,
me: other dominant chord scale choices
you: an explanation of dominant function.
My feeling, not every explanation has to set the stage, it is ok to assume some pre-requisite knowledge and no one example will cover everything.

One short coming that emerges by understanding harmonic colors through association with a related scale/extension is the fact that there are times when the harmonic movement rapidly moves through notes that derive from different scales. I believe it was in a Ronny Lee book on chords that I first saw such sequences of D7#9 D9 D7b9 Gma7 and
G13 G7+ G7 G7b5 Cma7. The melodic necessities exceed the content of any one scale choice.
Understanding dominants from a chromatic perpective is helpful in those situations.

Right, but you can say the same about any other chord. All 12 notes are usable at any time, on any chord, at least melodically. But harmonic choices vary, according to context.

While this is true and one can successfully use 12 notes on any chord the dominant family is the most all embracing. Here's an imperfect attempt to describe the 12 notes in relation to major chords.

1
#1 leading tone to 2 or b2 resolution to 1
9
#2 leading tone to 3 or b3 resolution to 9
3
sus4
#11
5
#5 leading tone to 6 or b6 resolution to 5
6/13
b7 resolution to 6 or #6 resolution to 7
7

The family of major chords contain perhaps 8 notes to address the standard collections of major harmony
and 4 non chordal auxiliary notes. For the dominant family the score was 11+1.

[JonR]

I feel that his explanation at that time of my development would have expedited my progress and I'm guessing it might do the same for others now.

Sure. Hence my first response, because the way my old jazz tutor charted out the scales in a very similar way (but including mixolydian) stuck in my mind. I was offering that as a similar kind of view, maybe expressed more simply.

By drawing the connection to the symmetrical chord 1 3 b5 b7, he offered a simple method to generate the 4 most common altered dominant scales. Wow, that would of been helpful. When I was learning this stuff, I viewed each scale, each chord color as an individual singular event.

OK - I came from the other direction. I didn't encounter chord-scale theory - the idea that each chord could be a separate event - until I'd been playing (and improvising) for some 25 years. It's true I'd never really dealt with modern (post-modal) jazz in all that time. All the folk, blues, rock, R&B and jazz I was experienced in was functional (disregarding any argument about the "modality" of some blues or rock ). I learned my soloing strategies by copying records; learning melodies, embellishing them, etc.
When I started jazz lessons, CST intrigued me, and I saw straight away how it belonged to the modal jazz I was encountering. But my improvisation instincts were still melodic, phrasing across the chords, voice-leading, etc. - even in modal jazz that seemed to work. While I liked the idea of chords as individual sonorities, isolated harmonic events, I couldn't quite connect it to how I played - nor could I connect it to how I heard others play. I think I probably had a blind spot (deaf spot?) to players who worked in that way. I never liked Coltrane for example, he just made no sense to me. I couldn't hear the point of it.
Naturally that made me feel somewhat of an outsider for a while, surrounded by other students who enthused about that sort of stuff. (Not that I was a dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist: I loved Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, and young British players like Django Bates.) But my soloing was still OK; people liked it. I felt I understood what worked.
When it came to the altered scale, I got it intellectually, but not in practice - until I realised how all the half-step voice-leading worked. Once I could slot it into a movement across 2 or 3 chords, it made sense.
Then, somewhat later, I started encountering experienced jazz voices criticising chord-scale theory, and outlining improvisation strategies that were exactly in line with how I'd always worked! (Of course there were other fancy terms like "linear" or "horizontal", but I understood it immediately.) So I felt vindicated, as if I'd accidentally hit on a good way of doing things (well, not quite accidentally, as I'd just copied what I heard, as best I could). I'd always felt that there was nothing complicated or difficult about improvising, and it seemed I was right.
I've never been confused about what to play, on any kind of music - once I knew the tune and the chords. You take what's given and see where you can take it.
And yet I was seeing all these beginners (and some intermediates) constantly confused, trying to make sense of modes and chord-scale theory: how to "apply" this or that arcane concept. It sometimes seemed as if it was all a plot to get students to pay to have it explained to them!

You and I both pointed out some things that were missing from the presentation,
me: other dominant chord scale choices
you: an explanation of dominant function.
My feeling, not every explanation has to set the stage, it is ok to assume some pre-requisite knowledge and no one example will cover everything.

Right.

One short coming that emerges by understanding harmonic colors through association with a related scale/extension is the fact that there are times when the harmonic movement rapidly moves through notes that derive from different scales. I believe it was in a Ronny Lee book on chords that I first saw such sequences of D7#9 D9 D7b9 Gma7 and
G13 G7+ G7 G7b5 Cma7. The melodic necessities exceed the content of any one scale choice.

Right!

Understanding dominants from a chromatic perpective is helpful in those situations.

Well, what I see when I look at those sequences is simply a chromatic line moving through the chords (F-E-Eb-D in the first one and E-D#-D-Db-C in the 2nd one). No need for scales at all. One chord (G7) with a moving chromatic line imposed on it.
I can't see any point in trying to identify a different scale for each variation - unless maybe there was at least two bars on each one.

While this is true and one can successfully use 12 notes on any chord the dominant family is the most all embracing.

Agreed. And there are good functional reasons for that.

Here's an imperfect attempt to describe the 12 notes in relation to major chords.

1
#1 leading tone to 2 or b2 resolution to 1
9
#2 leading tone to 3 or b3 resolution to 9
3
sus4
#11
5
#5 leading tone to 6 or b6 resolution to 5
6/13
b7 resolution to 6 or #6 resolution to 7
7

The family of major chords contain perhaps 8 notes to address the standard collections of major harmony
and 4 non chordal auxiliary notes. For the dominant family the score was 11+1.

I wouldn't dispute that, but I have a slightly different view - maybe a different perspective on the same thing.
I begin with the chord function, and then judge which notes contribute to (enhance) that function, and which disrupt it. I call the two kinds "in" and "out".
Where I agree is that dom7 chords have a much bigger choice of "in" notes, because their very function is dissonance. The only "out" note is the major 7th, because that fights the essential minor 7th (harmonically that is - melodically it's OK as a passing note).

On a major chord (non-dominant), the "in" notes are: root, 3rd, 5th, maj7, 9th, 6th (13th), #11. "Out" are the other 5 pitches (b2, #2/b3, 4, #5/b6, #6/b7), because they all contradict the chord function in some way. They can all be used melodically, but need to resolve to the nearest chord tone. The 5 "out" notes form a major pentatonic a half-step above, which is a handy way of remembering it.

With a V7 chord, we expect dissonance, so to hear - eg - a b9 on it (even in a major key, where it's chromatic) is no problem. We don't feel the need for that to resolve back to the chord root (or up to the M9) - as we might on a tonic chord - because we're expecting it to resolve on the next chord. It's "out" in relation to the I, but not to the V - because the V7 itself is "out" relative to I (or rather, has at least one note - the b7 - which is out, being the 4th of the I).
What all the jazz scale choices on V7 offer is additional tensions, alongside the b7. (Maybe one reason we need those extra tensions is that we regard the leading tone of the key as a consonant note on I (maj7), which classical harmony doesn't. So on an unaltered V7 we're left with the b7 as the only source of tension. Bring on the altered 5ths and 9ths! )

[cosmic gumbo]

There we go, as it should be. Personal codex. Everyone must organize and relate all this information in a way that actually works uniquely for them. Each individual mind has to deal with abstract logic differently. The reason why many college trained jazz musicians sound similar, is because jazz programs codified everything for them.

Years ago I read an old timers simple manifesto on what constituted jazz.
1. rhythm
2. harmony
3. improvisation
4. personal codex

In other words, the way that is right for you, is the right way. Jazz musicians are supposed to have individual voices. Embrace it all, everyone is correct.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I see some long posts here: tl;dr. Now those circle charts, on the other hand...

[JonR]

There we go, as it should be. Personal codex. Everyone must organize and relate all this information in a way that actually works uniquely for them. Each individual mind has to deal with abstract logic differently. The reason why many college trained jazz musicians sound similar, is because jazz programs codified everything for them.

Years ago I read an old timers simple manifesto on what constituted jazz.
1. rhythm
2. harmony
3. improvisation
4. personal codex

In other words, the way that is right for you, is the right way. Jazz musicians are supposed to have individual voices. Embrace it all, everyone is correct.

Right. It's a common language, but we all speak it with our own voices, our own accents.

(BTW, what's missing from the above list is melody. That was the old timers' guide for improvisation.)

[JonR]

I see some long posts here: tl;dr. Now those circle charts, on the other hand...

"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.

(IMO that's the problem with the charts)

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.

(IMO that's the problem with the charts)

I agree with you that the blog was incomplete (voice leading/resolution), but if he's writing a book, I assume this will be augmented. At the very top of the blog he sets Mixolydian aside.

[JonR]

I agree with you that the blog was incomplete (voice leading/resolution), but if he's writing a book, I assume this will be augmented. At the very top of the blog he sets Mixolydian aside.

Yes, I saw that, and I realise it's only a blog (albeit a very nicely designed one). It's a shame he didn't explain why he set mixolydian aside, but I'm sure he had good reasons which (along with voice-leading etc) would be well explained in any larger dissertation. He gives the impression of being experienced enough to know all that stuff well.

[lintos]

JonR have you considered, or are you already, writing a jazz theory book? I read 9our posts with great interest as you have excellent points of view which you argue in a very cogent and accessible manner. I would certainly buy your collected thoughts on playing and learning jazz. If you are not about to do so, do keep up the contribs here.

[JonR]

JonR have you considered, or are you already, writing a jazz theory book? I read 9our posts with great interest as you have excellent points of view which you argue in a very cogent and accessible manner. I would certainly buy your collected thoughts on playing and learning jazz. If you are not about to do so, do keep up the contribs here.

I'm flattered, but:

(a) better theory books than I could write have already been done (Levine, Rawlins, etc). OK, they're flawed, but mine would be even more flawed... ; you can even get better advice online, at http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/forum...y-and-Analysis
(b) I'm really a beginner at jazz (been dabbling in it for around 40 years, but only as a sideline), and can't really sustain enough interest to get any deeper into it. Whisper it, but actually I don't really like jazz that much....
(c) I'm either too busy, or too lazy (not one of life's natural competitors);
(d) no publisher has offered me an advance (and I can't imagine any serious publisher would do so);
(e) I'm aware that popularity on a few websites doesn't amount to the commercial level of demand that a book requires.
(f) of course, I could self-publish on the internet, but... er, what was it?... oh yes, I'm too lazy.

Rock or pop theory - now you're talking. There may be a gap in the market there. But maybe that gap in the market is because, er, nobody is buying...? (Unlike jazz, rock and pop get by very well with minimal knowledge of theory.)

[edh]

"(b) I'm really a beginner at jazz (been dabbling in it for around 40 years, but only as a sideline), and can't really sustain enough interest to get any deeper into it. Whisper it, but actually I don't really like jazz that much.... "

[JonR]

... maybe I should say there is some jazz I like. But I like it simple. I don't want it intellectually challenging (if I wanted music like that, I'd listen to classical... and I don't).
Compared to most jazz fans I know, I'm an outsider. I don't have a big jazz record collection. A bunch of Django LPs - and some cheap jazz guitar compilations I never play - is about it. (The rest of my collection is folk, blues, rock, some reggae....)

I made an exception for albums by an old friend of mine, the guy who first introduced me to live modern jazz, an ear-opening experience. He used to be in the same band as me, playing Hot Club style clarinet, but when he formed his own band, it was way up beyond anything I understood. But he was great to talk to - or rather listen to him talk. He was same age as me, but about 20 years ahead of me in how he thought. In fact, make that 30, 40 years... I never met anyone as passionate about music. He was even more passionate than me about art, his hobby and my profession then.
He made me realise jazz is a life-time obsession - at least to do it properly it has to be. For me, it ain't. Jazz is fun sometimes, but I can't say I ever caught the bug. (As mentioned above, I dabbled in workshops for several years, along with other adult amateurs...)
Music itself was always merely a hobby for me, as I had no childhood "talent" for it. I like to say I have a love affair with music, but it's an unrequited one. I've been stalking music since I was a teenager. It hasn't complained (it's a generous artform), but remains aloof. Occasionally it's even invited me in, but there's always lots of other admirers around...
You know what it's like when you're infatuated with someone who's unattainable: you find out everything you can about them...

Apologies for further derailing the thread.... At least you know how seriously to take any of my advice.

[AlohaJoe]

And it occurred to me some years ago that lydian dominant was the tritone sub for altered (I don't think I read it anywhere, although it's not a difficult realisation ).

Uh... yeah right, I knew that.