Aphorisms, Piano and Musical Relativity'

[christianm77]

Hi everyone,

I waiting at the bus stop and a thought plonked intelf into by limited 8 bit brain. Which is firstly that jazz is often tought using short aphorisms (as Hal Galper pointed out):

'Why don't you stop playing all those fancy notes and just play a melody?'
'Tell a story'
'Swing is putting the notes in the right place'
and so on

In any case I should probably do another post at some point where everyone can post their favourite jazz educational one liners, but one thing I though interesting was a practical piece of advice:

'play the piano'

It seems obvious in a way, but I would contend that chord/scale theory only really comes into its own on the piano. In fact most systems for learning jazz harmony (such as Barry Harris's approach) are based around the piano. Many horn players I have spoken to think of the piano keyboard when they play. Guitarists maybe not so much - how many here have a basic command of jazz harmony on the keyboard?

One thing that comes to mind when I play piano is how the instrument allows you to instantly change what I think of as musical reference frames. Let me give you an example.

Say you are playing the tune 'Someday My Prince Will Come' and you are interested in playing scales on the progression Bb D7 Eb.

If I follow the standard scalic practice I might choose:

Bb - Bb major
D7 - D altered
Eb - Eb lydian

If I play these scales on the guitar, I might need three different scale shapes (which is where another jazz aphorism for guitar - 'practice in positions' is useful.) However on the piano, once I've done the initial working out it is manifestly obvious how the scales work from the point of view of the key.

In physics terminology we have used relativity to convert reference frames - in English we start with reference frame of the moving chord roots, and convert to the reference frame of the key, in this case Bb major.

Right away we can appreciate that D altered (Eb melodic minor) requires two flats in the key of Bb - Gb and Ab. We can also see that Eb lydian and Bb major possess the same notes.

In any case, I have found by putting things on the piano it's changed the way I deal with scales. For example, I can think of a G7 bebop scale in C as having the notes 1 7 b7 6, but in terms of the key the notes G F# F E, which are 5 #4 4 3 which is more useful in some ways.

On the piano, all of this would be patently obvious.

What do you think?

[Broyale]

My question is, what is it with jazz and quotes, aphorisms, and all that? Why do jazzers need the validation of some dead person to learn our craft? Thats what it seems like. If I want to know what Coltrane thought about improv-I'll listen to his records.
When I took jazz improv at school, the first 45 minutes were devoted to our teacher spewing quotes and name dropping all these jazz musicians over the topic of improvisation. I was like, "I came here to learn how to play with other musicians, not to hear you waste my time quoting other musicians. I really don't care what Miles, Liebman, or any of these other guys have to say, just get on with the class, please."

[mr. beaumont]

I rant often about aphorisms, or what I call in modern vernacular--"sound byte wisdom." So I won't rant too much here...but yeah, the piano.

Everything makes sense on the piano because it IS the most logical instrument, really. Think about how many places we can play the same note in the same octave on the guitar...think about the visualization of a note that is sharp or flat--it's friggin' COLOR CODED on the piano. It's a fantastic instrument, and one that even my very limited ability of playing has helped me tremendously. I can't really "play" piano, certainly not to any extent that I'd ever perform on it outside of my living room--but I can "see" things on a piano,and that's almost enough.

So as far as one liner wisdom goes, "play the piano" is a pretty damn good one.

The other one, that I'm discovering is so true more and more, is "All the answers are inside the music."

Which I like, because that puts plenty of the other ones to rest. So really the key to jazz pedagogy is not what beat to tap your foot on or to use one person's "shapes" over another or the age old question of scales vs. arpeggios vs. both vs. Godzilla, the only thing that really matters is finding what key lets YOU in the door of the music personally.

[MarkRhodes]

I agree with Samuel Johnson on the subject of aphorisms:

"He is a benefactor of mankind who contracts the great rules of life into short sentences, that may be easily impressed on the memory, and so recur habitually to the mind."

And Cervantes, who said "A proverb is a short sentence based on long experience."

[destinytot]

My question is, what is it with jazz and quotes, aphorisms, and all that? Why do jazzers need the validation of some dead person to learn our craft? Thats what it seems like. If I want to know what Coltrane thought about improv-I'll listen to his records.
When I took jazz improv at school, the first 45 minutes were devoted to our teacher spewing quotes and name dropping all these jazz musicians over the topic of improvisation. I was like, "I came here to learn how to play with other musicians, not to hear you waste my time quoting other musicians. I really don't care what Miles, Liebman, or any of these other guys have to say, just get on with the class, please."

(Can't resist the mischievous thought of a school curriculum with life-lessons from jazz musicians at its core. Thing is... I'd hang on their every word.)

Drink from the source.

I completely agree with Broyale's disciplined focus, which I applaud, and which reminds me of no-nonsense educational values upheld by my Jamaican family (on my father's side) - practical, relevant, germane.

I'm taking the liberty of copying and pasting a link to a (magnificent) learning resource generously shared by Dave Woods, who acknowledges his teacher Rector Bailey:
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/impro...y-changes.html

It contains the aphorism 'Always learn the melody and the lyrics', and it shows how (i) a classical guitarist, (ii) Wes, and (iii) Django would finger a 'pool of tones'. It tells you not to play the next tone until you hear it in your head, then proceeds to exemplify the application of fingerings to a standard. For me, the process amounts to more than the sum of CAGED and position-playing. I love it.

[GuyBoden]

Hi everyone,


If I follow the standard scalic practice I might choose:

Bb - Bb major
D7 - D altered
Eb - Eb lydian

What do you think?

Is this similar to just playing the available note choices in an area of the fretboard.

Example, if I was foolish enough to start on Bb, my available note choices would be:

Bb C D Eb F G A Bb - for Bb Major
Bb C D Eb F Gb Ab Bb - for D Altered
Bb C D Eb F G A Bb - for Eb Lydian

I just alter the notes in Bb Major scale.

This comes from Practicing improv over the whole song in one position, I think it's a common technical practice routine.

[christianm77]

Is this similar to just playing the available note choices in an area of the fretboard.

Example, if I was foolish enough to start on Bb, my available note choices would be:

Bb C D Eb F G A Bb - for Bb Major
Bb C D Eb F Gb Ab Bb - for D Altered
Bb C D Eb F G A Bb - for Eb Lydian

I just alter the notes in Bb Major scale.

This comes from Practicing improv over the whole song in one position, I think it's a common technical practice routine.

This is quite alien to the guitar in a lot of ways. A lot of guitar practice - such as practicing intervallic structures through the mode, and practicing scales in position seem to me to be exercises to emulate the piano in some way. The piano is still much more obvious for all of this material, especially if you transpose everything to C/Am (I'm a terrible pianist, BTW)

It all depends how you map it. Many players go by the chord shape system, and have gone a long way with this. These players perhaps are less interested in using chord/scale thinking?

In any case - I've started to do as you say 'alter the Bb major scale' simply because then it's much easier. In fact as that a succinct, could we say aphoristic way of summing up my rambling post :-)

[christianm77]

I will defend the use of aphorisms in education.

These days, people are spoon fed scales, harmony and everything else at music college. This information is far too great in density to be assimilated immediately of course, but a jazz course has to look academic and be accountable.

I think these elements are some of the less attractive elements of jazz college, and I know many great players who have studied jazz at conservatoires and throughly disliked these elements.

I can't imagine people like Charlie Christian or Wes Montgomery being able to flourish in such an environment. Or Monk, or Ornette.

Anyway - cards on the table - I'm self taught, ultimately, as I think many musicians are even if they did go to college! I've never had a continuous teacher, except at the very early level - classical. This has held me back I'm sure in many ways, but I really enjoy exploring and finding things out for myself. I find aphorisms an interesting part of this process. These quotes don't of course, have to originate from dead people.

*disengages Rant mode, takes deep breath*

In any case, an aphorism of this kind actually acts as a spur for you to go on a journey yourself. The point of education is not to spoon-feed people information, but to as the original meaning of the word states 'draw something out' of the student, suggest an area for exploration.

That for me is much more interesting than any amount of jazz theory, but it is hard to talk about here, because it's a very personal journey.

I try to give my students some control over their learning, but it's easier said than done... Especially when students want you to do everything for them.

[christianm77]

PS: it's been mentioned quite a few times - by Clark Terry among others - how back in the day information was very hard to come by. Musicians would give little or no help to younger players or active misinformation, and as a result they had to figure it out themselves from recordings. Dizzy Gillespie and others were notable because they wanted to share ideas IRC.

No-one wants to go back to that, I think it's an interesting perspective.

[christianm77]

(Can't resist the mischievous thought of a school curriculum with life-lessons from jazz musicians at its core. Thing is... I'd hang on their every word.)

Drink from the source.

I completely agree with Broyale's disciplined focus, which I applaud, and which reminds me of no-nonsense educational values upheld by my Jamaican family (on my father's side) - practical, relevant, germane.

I'm taking the liberty of copying and pasting a link to a (magnificent) learning resource generously shared by Dave Woods, who acknowledges his teacher Rector Bailey:


It contains the aphorism 'Always learn the melody and the lyrics', and it shows how (i) a classical guitarist, (ii) Wes, and (iii) Django would finger a 'pool of tones'. It tells you not to play the next tone until you hear it in your head, then proceeds to exemplify the application of fingerings to a standard. For me, the process amounts to more than the sum of CAGED and position-playing. I love it.

Thanks for the interesting lesson.

It's a bit of a nitpick - but I suspect Django and Wes wouldn't have done a tremendous amount of position playing, I very much doubt Django in particular would have used these shapes.

The three/two fingered thing seems best suited for diagonal positions, where you don't have to awkwardly shift back towards the nut onto the next string. You might disagree though, but that's what it looks like to me in videos there is a lot of motion along the neck.

I learned Bright Size Life in position. This is not how he plays it. With Metheny it's of course very possible he might have looked into position playing at some point, but he doesn't seem to do this in his playing.

I notice he is a largely three fingered player, like Wes.

I think of these guitarists as being non-pianistic if that makes any sense.

[christianm77]

When I took jazz improv at school, the first 45 minutes were devoted to our teacher spewing quotes and name dropping all these jazz musicians over the topic of improvisation.

That doesn't sound enormously helpful TBH :-)

[matt.guitarteacher]

My question is, what is it with jazz and quotes, aphorisms, and all that? Why do jazzers need the validation of some dead person to learn our craft? Thats what it seems like. If I want to know what Coltrane thought about improv-I'll listen to his records.
When I took jazz improv at school, the first 45 minutes were devoted to our teacher spewing quotes and name dropping all these jazz musicians over the topic of improvisation. I was like, "I came here to learn how to play with other musicians, not to hear you waste my time quoting other musicians. I really don't care what Miles, Liebman, or any of these other guys have to say, just get on with the class, please."

Yeah. I taught high school and middle school for several years. I think there's probably a false assumption among those outside of the classroom that teachers drop funny comments, quotes and stories etc. because it's helpful to the student. However, for many in the profession, there's apparently much to be enjoyed for one's own sake in telling wonderful stories about oneself and one's thoughts and opinions in front of an audience that can't necessarily complain openly about it.

I don't think college professors are thinking only in terms of pure educational value. For some it's probably more about just feeling entitled to an audience and fully enjoying the richness of who they are and the beauty of every blessed word they speak. Imagine if you could be paid for all of the great stories you tell on these forums and everyone mostly agreed with you and treated you like the guru. It's all very different when you're not enshrined and have to earn each student as well as their continued tutelage.

Of course, that's not all of them. I taught school myself and had mostly excellent teachers, but some people like to hear themselves talk.

[christianm77]

Yeah. I taught high school and middle school for several years. I think there's probably a false assumption among those outside of the classroom that teachers drop funny comments, quotes and stories etc. because it's helpful to the student. However, for many in the profession, there's apparently much to be enjoyed for one's own sake in telling wonderful stories about oneself and one's thoughts and opinions in front of an audience that can't necessarily complain openly about it.

I don't think college professors are thinking only in terms of pure educational value. For some it's probably more about just feeling entitled to an audience and fully enjoying the richness of who they are and the beauty of every blessed word they speak. Imagine if you could be paid for all of the great stories you tell on these forums and everyone mostly agreed with you and treated you like the guru. It's all very different when you're not enshrined and have to earn each student as well as their continued tutelage.

Of course, that's not all of them. I had mostly excellent teachers, but some people like to hear themselves speak.

Yes. I think that's basically the vibe. Which is not to say that aphorisms aren't useful if their use is centred around what the student needs.

[matt.guitarteacher]

As far as piano, I look at it like a slide rule or calculator would be for an engineer, only it actually does the thing (plays music) as well. I had a college professor who I assisted in teaching non-musicians (education majors) in learning to play guitar. In that class, he taught them to figure out a fingering for any chord, in any key, by first drawing out a piano keyboard. It's very natural and probably the easiest way to answer the question "So, why do you have to have different flats/sharps for different keys anyway?". You always end up drawing a keyboard and talking about white and black notes in relationship to intervals etc.

Most instruments' shape and the way they're fingered is limited to things like physics and the way you manipulate air, strings etc. The playing surface of the keyboard is designed solely for its logic and the way it accommodates the human hand.

[JonR]

Hi everyone,

I waiting at the bus stop and a thought plonked intelf into by limited 8 bit brain. Which is firstly that jazz is often tought using short aphorisms (as Hal Galper pointed out):

'Why don't you stop playing all those fancy notes and just play a melody?'
'Tell a story'
'Swing is putting the notes in the right place'
and so on

In any case I should probably do another post at some point where everyone can post their favourite jazz educational one liners, but one thing I though interesting was a practical piece of advice:

'play the piano'

It seems obvious in a way,

Indeed... (Unless maybe you're using it to learn theory...)

but I would contend that chord/scale theory only really comes into its own on the piano.

It seems to infect guitar just as easily...

In fact most systems for learning jazz harmony (such as Barry Harris's approach) are based around the piano.

As are most systems for learning any kind of harmony, because the piano contains all the notes we'll ever need, laid out in front of us. No technique is required to play any chord you want. IOW, you don't have to be a piano player to learn theory and harmony from a piano.

Many horn players I have spoken to think of the piano keyboard when they play. Guitarists maybe not so much - how many here have a basic command of jazz harmony on the keyboard?

Good question...

One thing that comes to mind when I play piano is how the instrument allows you to instantly change what I think of as musical reference frames. Let me give you an example.

Say you are playing the tune 'Someday My Prince Will Come' and you are interested in playing scales on the progression Bb D7 Eb.

If I follow the standard scalic practice I might choose:

Bb - Bb major
D7 - D altered
Eb - Eb lydian

Sounds like you've been seduced by chord-scale theory...

If I play these scales on the guitar, I might need three different scale shapes

Well, maybe, if you think in scale shapes. If you think in scales, then only two (in many different patters or positions).

However on the piano, once I've done the initial working out it is manifestly obvious how the scales work from the point of view of the key.

Right... Goodbye chord-scale theory, hopefully....

In physics terminology we have used relativity to convert reference frames - in English we start with reference frame of the moving chord roots, and convert to the reference frame of the key, in this case Bb major.

OK...
Or you start with the "reference frame" of the key, and see how (if) the chords fit or differ.

Right away we can appreciate that D altered (Eb melodic minor) requires two flats in the key of Bb - Gb and Ab. We can also see that Eb lydian and Bb major possess the same notes.

Of course. The latter at least would be obvious if you started from the key rather than the chord-scale viewpoint. (Not every jazz tune is based on key principles of course, but for those that are, chord-scale theory serves no useful purpose, IMO. Not if you know your key principles properly, that is...)

D altered, of course, is an educated jazz choice.
A more direct approach would be to take the D7 chord tones and adapt the Bb major scale to fit. That means raising F to F#, giving you D Eb F# G A Bb C; aka G harmonic minor (reflecting the usual role of D7 in that key as V/vi).
Of course, you might feel G was an "avoid note", which is where altered dominant principles come in. You might also feel harmonic minor is too "Spanish" a sound, which again pushes you towards jazz orthodoxy.
Hopefully, in choosing D altered, you're aware of the resolution tendencies: the half-steps from there to Eb (and its lydian extensions). Eb being a "deceptive cadence" from D7 (if you want a classical theory term ).

In any case, I have found by putting things on the piano it's changed the way I deal with scales. For example, I can think of a G7 bebop scale in C as having the notes 1 7 b7 6, but in terms of the key the notes G F# F E, which are 5 #4 4 3 which is more useful in some ways.

On the piano, all of this would be patently obvious.

It ought to be equally obvious on guitar. But the problem with guitar is that the fret patterns are seductive, and addictive. You (we!) can end up "seeing" instead of hearing, relying on pattern rather than key awareness. But then I guess piano has its own visual distractions (white and black notes, at least).

What do you think?

I agree piano is a great way to understand scales, chords, etc, especially if your main instrument is something else.

[JonR]

Yeah. I taught high school and middle school for several years. I think there's probably a false assumption among those outside of the classroom that teachers drop funny comments, quotes and stories etc. because it's helpful to the student. However, for many in the profession, there's apparently much to be enjoyed for one's own sake in telling wonderful stories about oneself and one's thoughts and opinions in front of an audience that can't necessarily complain openly about it.

Yes, but I'm sure most of them think they are also helping the student.
If they were only interested in impressing the students, they'd just have to play their instrument. That ought to contain enough wow factor for any class.
(But I don't disagree there are some who feel their skill and years of experience don't count for enough in the real world, and use teaching as a way of getting the respect they feel they deserve.)

I agree that aphorisms, pithy one-liners, appeal more to advanced players (and teachers) than students, but that's because they cut through all the crap. They express how simple jazz really is (to those players), while students tend to think it's horrendously complicated. So the purpose of a cute aphorism is to say "don't worry, it's really not that hard, if you look at it this way".
Which, of course, doesn't help anyway. As a student, it IS hard! (Mind you, it's not as annoying as those improv "teachers" who say "just play what you feel" (often adding "man", to be extra irritating).)

As a teacher myself, I'm occasionally guilty of talking too much, but it's always in the (doomed) attempt to simplify an idea, to help students understand. When you're higher up the mountain than another climber, it's easy to feel the climb is not that hard (because it does get easier), and to shout down "helpful" tips and instructions to those sweating below you - forgetting how hard you found it when you were down there (and how irritating those smug bastards higher up could be...).

[christianm77]

Indeed... (Unless maybe you're using it to learn theory...)
It seems to infect guitar just as easily...
As are most systems for learning any kind of harmony, because the piano contains all the notes we'll ever need, laid out in front of us. No technique is required to play any chord you want. IOW, you don't have to be a piano player to learn theory and harmony from a piano.
Good question...
Sounds like you've been seduced by chord-scale theory...
Well, maybe, if you think in scale shapes. If you think in scales, then only two (in many different patters or positions).
Right... Goodbye chord-scale theory, hopefully....
OK...

Gah, whaaaaat? Splutter! Outrage!

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with a melodic minor mode between friends (they're great sounds), but I don't really see chord/scale theory as a particularly central way to build jazz lines.

That said, I do think the system works much better and with less work on the piano.

Which might be why it seems that many top players (guitar) have a bit of a complicated relationship with chord/scale theory (or at least that's how it seems to me.)

In any case, it's a useful thing to have in the tool set.

By the way I ahd a probably very pointless and boring pub discussion about the move D7-->Eb. The guy I was chatting to insisted that the D7 'came from' Eb melodic minor because that's what he was told in a lecture.

I don't believe that's right -like you I see it as a deceptive cadence. the melodic minor is just a mode we can put on after that sounds nice. Chord/scales tell you nothing about why one chord follows another in tonal harmony.

It wasn't so much that we disagreed with me but was quoting what somebody said in a lecture as the totality of his argument. I find that sort of thing quite lacking in curiosity, but that's me, and it doesn't necessary mean anything playing wise.

By the way, what you said in your post is pretty much how I deal with harmony most of the time.

[christianm77]

I and I don't buy the harmonic minor is too spanish for jazz thing, it pops up all the time in bebop. Start it on the 7, b6 or 2 over one of those 7 chords (G harmonic of D7 say) and it sounds great, especially if you enclose a chord tone of the next chord on beat 1.

If people feel it is too old fashioned and they'd rather use melodic minor harmony by default then that is a more modern style, but potentially it might mean that everyone basically sounds the same.

[destinytot]

Chord/scales tell you nothing about why one chord follows another in tonal harmony.

The language-learning analogy has become a pet topic for me. Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb...

To my mind, Chord-Scale Theory is to Grammar-Translation what Chord Tones are to Functional Grammar.

In a communicative context, the latter determines Fluency whereas the former determines Accuracy. And in communication, Fluency matters most.

However, the study of Chord-Scale Theory corrects 'Impeding Errors' (and helps minimize 'Slips'). It's also great for melodic composition.

[Reg]

Interesting thread... yes

What's also interesting is how ... when you compose music, on paper for years, you begin to see and hear music from the chart, not just from the piano or guitar perspective. When I write music, I hear the music for different instruments. Maybe a pn rhythm section and melody arranged for Gui and flute or standard Tpt and sax.

As far as the theory or harmony... you need to have a reference for what ever organization you choose to call the basis for rules or guidelines. One set or understanding of music...doesn't cover everything.

Almost anything will work in a one time performance, most personal playing, small gigs etc...when you orchestrate or arrange for large ensembles that are recorded... more that one listen. You need to have much more organization... the personal approach generally becomes a train wreck.


So christian.. I think Jon was just saying you only need two scales and their shapes to perform the notes of Eb melodic Min and Bb maj or ionian would also cover Eb lyd.

I'm assuming you referring to Harmonic min with respect to Maj/min functional harmony and traditional usage of Har. Min for deriving dominant function in related minor tonal settings.

It is very interesting to see how different understanding of music result in very different approaches to performance.

[christianm77]

The language-learning analogy has become a pet topic for me. Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb...

To my mind, Chord-Scale Theory is to Grammar-Translation what Chord Tones are to Functional Grammar.

In a communicative context, the latter determines Fluency whereas the former determines Accuracy. And in communication, Fluency matters most.

However, the study of Chord-Scale Theory corrects 'Impeding Errors' (and helps minimize 'Slips'). It's also great for melodic composition.

The thing is there are quite a few of these 'errors' in everyday usage that are to some extent idiomatic. So the analogy holds (even though I'm not sure if I understand all the terminology.)

Melodic composition - chord/scales? One tune that I wrote that everyone seems to like was basically me trying to work out how to use scales on dominant chords (this is going back a bit.)

IMO for melodic writing, chord/scales have the same issues as they do for improvisation, and the same strengths. A mixed approach, I think, produces pleasing results.

[christianm77]

Interesting thread... yes

What's also interesting is how ... when you compose music, on paper for years, you begin to see and hear music from the chart, not just from the piano or guitar perspective. When I write music, I hear the music for different instruments. Maybe a pn rhythm section and melody arranged for Gui and flute or standard Tpt and sax.

I often compose away from the guitar, so I do see what you mean. That said, the keyboard does resemble written notation more than any other instrument in its layout.

As far as the theory or harmony... you need to have a reference for what ever organization you choose to call the basis for rules or guidelines. One set or understanding of music...doesn't cover everything.

Yes! It took me a depressingly long time to realise there is no 'one theory to rule them all.'

Almost anything will work in a one time performance, most personal playing, small gigs etc...when you orchestrate or arrange for large ensembles that are recorded... more that one listen. You need to have much more organization... the personal approach generally becomes a train wreck.

Again, I have done relatively little work with large ensembles, I'd love to do more. It's an interesting tension, between large ensembles and improvisation. It's significant perhaps that in the history of European music, improvisation started to decline as the ensembles got larger and the harmony more adventurous.

So christian.. I think Jon was just saying you only need two scales and their shapes to perform the notes of Eb melodic Min and Bb maj or ionian would also cover Eb lyd.

Well, yes, I would say obviously, except, in fact, on the guitar it's actually not obvious. To know this on the guitar, you require either the theoretical knowledge, or perhaps positional practice, as mentioned above.

Personally, I learned this by going through the modes of the major scale by rote until I memorised them, about 20 years ago.

On the other hand while I am a beginner jazz pianist, I can see right away where the sharps and flats are as soon as I'm done going T T S T T T etc.

So again, keyboard is your friend.

I'm assuming you referring to Harmonic min with respect to Maj/min functional harmony and traditional usage of Har. Min for deriving dominant function in related minor tonal settings.

I guess so, bebop and previous music (swing era) do make use primarily of maj/min functional harmony - 'the harmony is classical' Barry Harris - but they also make some use of extended chords (or superpositions) on major and minor triads. However these were yet to be systematised into chord/scales, so while we might say - e.g. 'here, Charlie Christian uses the A lydian dominant' - that's a retroactive understanding. Anyway, I digress.

Yes this type of what I think of as 'Bachian' use of the harmonic minor sound crops up a lot in bebop and swing (although actually Bach very often used the melodic minor for this V-Im type or secondary dominant type function - so I guess you would say he would write Mixolydian b6 on a dominant chord, although he certainly wouldn't have understood it this way.)

It is very interesting to see how different understanding of music result in very different approaches to performance.

I think so, too :-) I really like when people come to their own understanding, based on their own taste and interests.

[destinytot]

Thanks for the interesting lesson.

It's a bit of a nitpick - but I suspect Django and Wes wouldn't have done a tremendous amount of position playing, I very much doubt Django in particular would have used these shapes.

The three/two fingered thing seems best suited for diagonal positions, where you don't have to awkwardly shift back towards the nut onto the next string. You might disagree though, but that's what it looks like to me in videos there is a lot of motion along the neck.

I completely agree. I'm experimenting with arpeggio up + line down (and vice versa).

[JonR]

Gah, whaaaaat? Splutter! Outrage!

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with a melodic minor mode between friends (they're great sounds), but I don't really see chord/scale theory as a particularly central way to build jazz lines.

Right.

That said, I do think the system works much better and with less work on the piano.

Which might be why it seems that many top players (guitar) have a bit of a complicated relationship with chord/scale theory (or at least that's how it seems to me.)

In any case, it's a useful thing to have in the tool set.

I can't say it better than Mr Galper:

By the way I ahd a probably very pointless and boring pub discussion about the move D7-->Eb. The guy I was chatting to insisted that the D7 'came from' Eb melodic minor because that's what he was told in a lecture.

There you go. He was told it in a lecture. He didn't hear it in a jazz tune.

I don't believe that's right -like you I see it as a deceptive cadence. the melodic minor is just a mode we can put on after that sounds nice. Chord/scales tell you nothing about why one chord follows another in tonal harmony.

Exactly. And whether melodic minor (and which mode? IV or VII? ) "sounds nice" is going to depend on how you resolve it.
Melodic minor harmony is certainly an interesting topic, but it's relation to altered dominants (and their tritone subs) is really coincidence. Those chords are not harmonised from melodic minor. They are altered in certain ways to aid voice leading (provide chromatic interest), and the resulting notes happen to match modes of melodic minor.

It wasn't so much that we disagreed with me but was quoting what somebody said in a lecture as the totality of his argument. I find that sort of thing quite lacking in curiosity, but that's me, and it doesn't necessary mean anything playing wise.

I think it's not so much a lack of curiosity, as a readiness to accept what one is told (or reads in a book) by an apparently authoritative figure, without evidence from actual jazz recordings.
It's just too damn tedious and time-consuming to listen to 100s of jazz recordings to discover strategies for what to do on various dom7 chords - right, kidz? That's the appeal of jazz theory short cuts.
When I first began studying jazz theory (I mean, after playing jazz - on and off, semi-seriously - for some 25 years) chord-scale theory appealed to my curiosity. Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory Book" was intellectually fascinating, well written, and the quotes from jazz recordings seemed to support his view pretty solidly. Hard to argue with the "evidence" .
I never actually managed to apply any of it in my soloing, but then I felt that was my problem, I was just too lazy to properly practice all those scales.
It was a few years later when I started to read critiques of his approach (Robert Rawlins, Ed Byrne), and found that the opposing views expressed - pretty much - the way I'd always approached improvisation. Then I looked back at Levine and realised that most of his quoted passages could easily be interpreted in other ways; they weren't evidence for chord-scale theory at all. (Many aspects of Levine's book are valuable and worthwhile, it's just too focussed on the CST angle, at least in the beginning.)
Then I found Hal Galper, of course, and almost leapt out of my seat when I heard his rant at the beginning of that video. Yes! Hallelujah, brother!
Of course, it's still only one view - and a view based largely on the pre-modal era (bebop and the Great American Songbook). For any jazz post-1960, a chord-scale viewpoint can be extremely valuable, if not essential.
(But I still found my habits of playing on functional harmony tunes transferred very well to modal tunes. It's still all about constructing melodic, rhythmic phrasing, using the material presented in the tune.)

By the way, what you said in your post is pretty much how I deal with harmony most of the time.

Cool.

[destinytot]

Really helpful post, JonR - thank you!