How was Joe Pass able to play so good without knowing much theory?

[MarkRhodes]

My view is best captured in the ponderous word "heuristic." A good band-stand oriented music theory helps us know what might be initially a fruitful path to try.

I like the term "heuristic." (Daniel Kahneman is one of my favorite living thinkers and he gets a lot of use out of that term.) But that is not what music theory is.

Thinking on the bandstand (--that is, thinking about how one might solo while soloing) is a sign one is in trouble. It is a state to be avoided, not cultivated. Once when Joe Pass was asked what he was thinking about during a particular solo, he said, "I was thinking I had to pick up some milk on the way home."

[matt.guitarteacher]

I've had trouble with the numbers for years, but I've found stopgaps and managed to learn some nice melodic-minor lines - based on melodic-minor modes.

I've just realised that I can name those modes if I actually need to, and that there are three melodic-minor modes which I use (or perhaps 'overuse', as much out of habit as by design/conscious choice) and whose sound I not only 'hear' but also 'like'.

I like melodic-minor sounds for the 'colour' they add to chords - mostly (altered) dominant, Mi(Ma7) or Maj7#5 sounds.

For me, 'liking' can make a virtuous cycle of what might otherwise be a vicious one (a kind of mocking deluge of numbers and abstractions). I get hungry for more of the good stuff.

With regard to colour, I find it helpful to think - and hear - 'chord tone/extension//alteration' rather than count 'scale' (though there are instances where I've resolved to do the latter in order to make the former possible).

Those sounds are probably easier for me to demonstrate than to describe.

I used try to do the mental number-wheel thing, and it was seriously frustrating. "Dominant = Altered = MM up a half step from the root....let's see, which string?. If I'm fingering it as melodic minor, I'm shifting up.....falling into theory coma....."

Lately, it's been to just live in one dominant chord for a little while and really practice the "resolution moments", where it goes to the target chord. Also, I'm trying to simplify and streamline thought processes. Below is kind of a visualization of some of my thought process. It looks more cumbersome than it is, because it's verbal symbolic, and I just don't think completely like that while playing/practicing. It's more like: "ERMMM HRRRMMM"... :-)

One thing is, I have a kind of reference voicing which fits in with the scale fingering in each position. So, for D altered, I've got a basic D7#5 which I find useful to "get me to" MM or the D altered scale/note pool. It shifts my first finger down a fret, as the first finger barre in this voicing requires. I also put the white notes in there for the b9, #9 and 3rd, as that was initially an important melodic reference for me to connect the scale with the chord. It's a hack, but I've always done better in the context of a chord voicing.

So, D on the 3rd string was an initial reference, in my old way of thinking, of relating to the MM scale. It's still somewhat helpful, especially on the melody end of things, as I'm still grokking all of this. But in recent days I'm trying to streamline the mental part. So, I'm back to the Reg 2nd finger thing.

With that, I'd be thinking of my (completely non-verbal) idea of what could be described as an Ab Lydian Dominant scale "position". Again, in text/verbally/symbolically, that's more complex, but that's not the way we "think" kinesthetically. For example, I know Lydian from the 6th string 2nd finger. I don't have to start from any given root or from any given note to know where the others are (like I might with a new MM scale, thinking from various roots). I know where all of the pitches are on all strings. Therefore, If I want to take my new MM out for a spin, it's actually easier to think of that as being my reference point, rather than Eb MM (as a fingering concept), especially when those two scales aren't exactly in the same position. (If you take strings 6 thru 2 starting on the Ab, there's only one altered note, on what is basically the simplest scale to play on the instrument.)

At the same time, I'm trying to begin thinking of the note names of the pitch set and the chords/arps themselves, in terms of D7, as opposed to Ebmm. (The Gb is on the 6th string is really an F# in your D7. It's also cool that it's played with the finger in both scales and their corresponding arps, even though they're in different positions). But at earlier stages, you just know one better than the other. In the end, typing everything out just makes it look more complicated than it is in real time, but you've got to start somewhere with talking about things I guess.

Anyway, this is just another student's perspective on the "unexplainable", I guess. Interested in others' thought processes as well....
Altered 2.pdf

[lawson-stone]

I like the term "heuristic." (Daniel Kahneman is one of my favorite living thinkers and he gets a lot of use out of that term.) But that is not what music theory is.

Thinking on the bandstand (--that is, thinking about how one might solo while soloing) is a sign one is in trouble. It is a state to be avoided, not cultivated. Once when Joe Pass was asked what he was thinking about during a particular solo, he said, "I was thinking I had to pick up some milk on the way home."

We likely use the term "theory" differently. My use is derived from general science/research to mean a model for how various pieces of information fit together and mutually explain one another, illuminate previously obscure data, allowing anticipation of future findings and stimulating further investigation (i.e. generative of new hypotheses). I think that applies to music--we all have "a theory" of music in that sense.

But I realize now music schools do have a specialized use of "theory" that is something different.

I still kind of like mine...

[lawson-stone]

I like the term "heuristic." (Daniel Kahneman is one of my favorite living thinkers and he gets a lot of use out of that term.) But that is not what music theory is.

Thinking on the bandstand (--that is, thinking about how one might solo while soloing) is a sign one is in trouble. It is a state to be avoided, not cultivated. Once when Joe Pass was asked what he was thinking about during a particular solo, he said, "I was thinking I had to pick up some milk on the way home."

Remember Joe was a great one for pulling people's legs. We "think" on a number of levels in our awareness. There is extreme focal awareness at one extreme and at the other, tacit knowledge, where we know and think just as intensely, but unconsciously. I'm channeling Michael Polanyi here--since I know you are interested in stuff like this!

Anyhow, Polanyi talks about how knowing moves along that continuum from focal to tacit. Often something we "know" without knowing just how we know it comes sharply to the foreground. Other times things we have known and thought about explicitly so long become so planted that our "knowledge" is unconscious.

Add to this the kinesthetic connection between the ear, the eye, and the hands... there is tons of mental processing going on there, but it's happening at a whole range of levels in our awareness.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In one of his instructional videos he says that he simplifies his thinking about chords by separating them into three groups - major, minor and dominant - and doesn't bother analyzing them in depth. Easier to keep your mind uncluttered with that approach IMHO.

Its a relief to read this, for me. When I play extensions and alterations, I'm not thinking, "okay, I want to hear a dom 13 here" or anything like that. I'm either pursuing a melody as I'm chording, trying simple voice-leading, or most often both. My brain doesn't seem to work fast enough to apply conscious decision-making to the process. I have the knowledge of theory to explicate what's going on in a passage, but m mind is not so facile I can do it in real-time.

It's a long way of saying there's hope for me yet!

[MarkRhodes]

We likely use the term "theory" differently. My use is derived from general science/research to mean a model for how various pieces of information fit together and mutually explain one another, illuminate previously obscure data, allowing anticipation of future findings and stimulating further investigation (i.e. generative of new hypotheses). I think that applies to music--we all have "a theory" of music in that sense.

But I realize now music schools do have a specialized use of "theory" that is something different.

I still kind of like mine...

Well, no. Music theory is an old subject. Centuries old. I'm using "music theory" in the normal sense. You are trying to call something ELSE "music theory" and rationalize it by saying it is because you are an academic and use "theory" in another sense when pursuing another subject so why can't you use "theory" in the same sense when discussing music? For the same reason that you don't use "law" in the same sense when discussing Mosaic law and the law of large numbers. They ain't the same kinda law.

[NoReply]

Well, no. Music theory is an old subject. Centuries old. I'm using "music theory" in the normal sense. You are trying to call something ELSE "music theory" and rationalize it by saying it is because you are an academic and use "theory" in another sense when pursuing another subject so why can't you use "theory" in the same sense when discussing music? For the same reason that you don't use "law" in the same sense when discussing Mosaic law and the law of large numbers. They ain't the same kinda law.

or to quote the Jazz pianist Kenny Werner, "I don't know why they call it theory, it's just fact!"

[lawson-stone]

Well, no. Music theory is an old subject. Centuries old. I'm using "music theory" in the normal sense. You are trying to call something ELSE "music theory" and rationalize it by saying it is because you are an academic and use "theory" in another sense when pursuing another subject so why can't you use "theory" in the same sense when discussing music? For the same reason that you don't use "law" in the same sense when discussing Mosaic law and the law of large numbers. They ain't the same kinda law.

Gosh Mark, that's kind of harsh. I'm sorry if my post was worded in some way that offended you.

I yield the point. My habitual usage clearly comes from a domain that is not how the term gets used in music.

I do apologize for any offense or aggravation I've clearly caused you.

[monk]

or to quote the Jazz pianist Kenny Werner, "I don't know why they call it theory, it's just fact!"

Best "to the point" post in this thread.

It probably should be called Music Fact.

[PMB]

In terms of chord-shapes, if I play a traditional C9 chord in the first position, the identical shape (minus the C note on the 5th string) is also the Gmin6. Are you saying that these guys would play lines over C9 assuming harmonically the Gmin6?

That's right, Lawson. Some people call it "minorizing" the dominant.

It sounds like your a visual learner who likes to internalize melodic and harmonic functions via shapes so why not pick up your guitar and try taking that same concept a little further. You've stated that you get the tritone sub idea. For instance, with a ii-V-I progression in C (Dm7, G7, C) if you're looking for some harmonic tension, the G7 could be expressed as Db7, right? You've also noticed that if you extend that Db7 into a 3rd position Db9 chord shape, it's pretty much identical to an Abm6 (apart from the transfer of the root from the 5th to the 6th string). So for Db9, minorize the dominant and play Ab melodic minor. Now change the root of your Abm6 chord down a semitone to G and you have a G7#5#9 or G7 altered chord. Drop that root altogether and you're left with an Fm7b5 or F half diminished.

So effectively, Abm6, Db9, Fm7b5 and G7alt are the same chord shape. There's your connection between the four most important modes of the melodic minor scale: Mode 1 - Ab Melodic Minor, Mode 4 - Db Lydian Dominant, Mode 6 - F Half Diminished scale and Mode 7 - the G Altered scale:

[lawson-stone]

That's right, Lawson. Some people call it "minorizing" the dominant.

It sounds like your a visual learner who likes to internalize melodic and harmonic functions via shapes so why not pick up your guitar and try taking that same concept a little further. You've stated that you get the tritone sub idea. For instance, with a ii-V-I progression in C (Dm7, G7, C) if you're looking for some harmonic tension, the G7 could be expressed as Db7, right? You've also noticed that if you extend that Db7 into a 3rd position Db9 chord shape, it's pretty much identical to an Abm6 (apart from the transfer of the root from the 5th to the 6th string). So for Db9, minorize the dominant and play Ab melodic minor. Now change the root of your Abm6 chord down a semitone to G and you have a G7#5#9 or G7 altered chord. Drop that root altogether and you're left with an Fm7b5 or F half diminished.

So effectively, Abm6, Db9, Fm7b5 and G7alt are the same chord shape. There's your connection between the four most important modes of the melodic minor scale: Mode 1 - Ab Melodic Minor, Mode 4 - Db Lydian Dominant, Mode 6 - F Half Diminished scale and Mode 7 - the G Altered scale:

Hey that really helps. Thanks for putting my miscellaneous and disorganized observations together. I think I've got an idea now on how to proceed with this.

Seriously, I'm a ridiculously hard person to teach because my learning styles are so crazy and largely driven by my own predilections. You've turned a light on here for me.

Many thanks! Today on the forum has been worth it.

[PMB]

Good to hear! It may also help to see that G7 altered scale up an octave so it's clearly the 7th mode:

[destinytot]

I used try to do the mental number-wheel thing, and it was seriously frustrating. "Dominant = Altered = MM up a half step from the root....let's see, which string?. If I'm fingering it as melodic minor, I'm shifting up.....falling into theory coma....."

Lately, it's been to just live in one dominant chord for a little while and really practice the "resolution moments", where it goes to the target chord. Also, I'm trying to simplify and streamline thought processes. Below is kind of a visualization of some of my thought process. It looks more cumbersome than it is, because it's verbal symbolic, and I just don't think completely like that while playing/practicing. It's more like: "ERMMM HRRRMMM"... :-)

One thing is, I have a kind of reference voicing which fits in with the scale fingering in each position. So, for D altered, I've got a basic D7#5 which I find useful to "get me to" MM or the D altered scale/note pool. It shifts my first finger down a fret, as the first finger barre in this voicing requires. I also put the white notes in there for the b9, #9 and 3rd, as that was initially an important melodic reference for me to connect the scale with the chord. It's a hack, but I've always done better in the context of a chord voicing.

So, D on the 3rd string was an initial reference, in my old way of thinking, of relating to the MM scale. It's still somewhat helpful, especially on the melody end of things, as I'm still grokking all of this. But in recent days I'm trying to streamline the mental part. So, I'm back to the Reg 2nd finger thing.

With that, I'd be thinking of my (completely non-verbal) idea of what could be described as an Ab Lydian Dominant scale "position". Again, in text/verbally/symbolically, that's more complex, but that's not the way we "think" kinesthetically. For example, I know Lydian from the 6th string 2nd finger. I don't have to start from any given root or from any given note to know where the others are (like I might with a new MM scale, thinking from various roots). I know where all of the pitches are on all strings. Therefore, If I want to take my new MM out for a spin, it's actually easier to think of that as being my reference point, rather than Eb MM (as a fingering concept), especially when those two scales aren't exactly in the same position. (If you take strings 6 thru 2 starting on the Ab, there's only one altered note, on what is basically the simplest scale to play on the instrument.)

At the same time, I'm trying to begin thinking of the note names of the pitch set and the chords/arps themselves, in terms of D7, as opposed to Ebmm. (The Gb is on the 6th string is really an F# in your D7. It's also cool that it's played with the finger in both scales and their corresponding arps, even though they're in different positions). But at earlier stages, you just know one better than the other. In the end, typing everything out just makes it look more complicated than it is in real time, but you've got to start somewhere with talking about things I guess.

Anyway, this is just another student's perspective on the "unexplainable", I guess. Interested in others' thought processes as well....
Altered 2.pdf

Such a thoughtful and detailed post. I enjoyed that immensely - thank you, Matt!

[christianm77]

That's right, Lawson. Some people call it "minorizing" the dominant.

It sounds like your a visual learner who likes to internalize melodic and harmonic functions via shapes so why not pick up your guitar and try taking that same concept a little further. You've stated that you get the tritone sub idea. For instance, with a ii-V-I progression in C (Dm7, G7, C) if you're looking for some harmonic tension, the G7 could be expressed as Db7, right? You've also noticed that if you extend that Db7 into a 3rd position Db9 chord shape, it's pretty much identical to an Abm6 (apart from the transfer of the root from the 5th to the 6th string). So for Db9, minorize the dominant and play Ab melodic minor. Now change the root of your Abm6 chord down a semitone to G and you have a G7#5#9 or G7 altered chord. Drop that root altogether and you're left with an Fm7b5 or F half diminished.

So effectively, Abm6, Db9, Fm7b5 and G7alt are the same chord shape. There's your connection between the four most important modes of the melodic minor scale: Mode 1 - Ab Melodic Minor, Mode 4 - Db Lydian Dominant, Mode 6 - F Half Diminished scale and Mode 7 - the G Altered scale:

I'll mention again that I do not think in fact 'minorising the dominant' is the same thing as playing melodic minor modes. You come out with different melodies. At least that's how it seems to me.

It might seem silly because there is no difference between them in term of notes, but there is a difference in the process.

I used to think there wasn't a difference but I've changed my mind. I think a few other people have mentioned similar thoughts on the forum.

EDIT: I think the minorising the dominant thing is the more traditional way to do it (going back to the early days) so will probably suit Lawson really well, I would think. I'd go with that approach for swing/bop playing.

[edh]

"Minorising the dominant". Isn't that what Pat Martino does/teach?

[christianm77]

"Minorising the dominant". Isn't that what Pat Martino does/teach?

I think Pat Martino teaches 'minorising everything'

[PMB]

I'll mention again that I do not think in fact 'minorising the dominant' is the same thing as playing melodic minor modes. You come out with different melodies. At least that's how it seems to me.

It might seem silly because there is no difference between them in term of notes, but there is a difference in the process.

I used to think there wasn't a difference but I've changed my mind. I think a few other people have mentioned similar thoughts on the forum.

EDIT: I think the minorising the dominant thing is the more traditional way to do it (going back to the early days) so will probably suit Lawson really well, I would think. I'd go with that approach for swing/bop playing.

Fair enough. I should have more clearly made the distinction between Lawson's recognition of the similarities between the G-6 and C9 shapes and use of the melodic minor to express that change. Having said that, I associate "minorising the dominant" with Pat Martino (did he ever use that term or was it someone else's explanation of his thought process?) even though that idea was around way before Pat came on the scene. PM quite freely moves between various minor scale types. The lines in his book Linear Expressions make that quite clear - lots of melodic minor over G-7 despite the presence of the b7 in the underlying chord. Perhaps due to the wealth of available minor scale choices with their various combinations of altered 6th and 7th degrees, that whole area seems more negotiable than many care to admit.

[PMB]

Incidentally, a notable bop example of "minorising the dominant" can be found in the solo over the 1st chorus bridge to Parker's Moose the Mooche:

[christianm77]

Fair enough. I should have more clearly made the distinction between Lawson's recognition of the similarities between the G-6 and C9 shapes and use of the melodic minor to express that change. Having said that, I associate "minorising the dominant" with Pat Martino (did he ever use that term or was it someone else's explanation of his thought process?) even though that idea was around way before Pat came on the scene. PM quite freely moves between various minor scale types. The lines in his book Linear Expressions make that quite clear - lots of melodic minor over G-7 despite the presence of the b7 in the underlying chord. Perhaps due to the wealth of available minor scale choices with their various combinations of altered 6th and 7th degrees, that whole area seems more negotiable than many care to admit.

TBH I'm probably muddying the waters. What you are saying is basically what I would teach.

If the recordings are anything to judge by, the technique was in common use before WWII (Django, Lester, Charlie Christian etc). People like PM come from the deep tradition of changes playing.

I agree that you don't have to worry about the 7 etc.

[mr. beaumont]

Truthfully, if you know how to resolve well and you're pulling out these notes in pretty rapid fire succession, there's not to many true "avoid" tones.

[christianm77]

Incidentally, a notable bop example of "minorising the dominant" can be found in the solo over the 1st chorus bridge to Parker's Moose the Mooche:

That's a transcription I can respect... Lots of detail!

[PMB]

That's a transcription I can respect... Lots of detail!

Thanks, Christian. Here's the passage in context:

[Thumpalumpacus]

So effectively, Abm6, Db9, Fm7b5 and G7alt are the same chord shape. There's your connection between the four most important modes of the melodic minor scale: Mode 1 - Ab Melodic Minor, Mode 4 - Db Lydian Dominant, Mode 6 - F Half Diminished scale and Mode 7 - the G Altered scale:

I do a similar thing in sliding dom7s around a tritone at a time ... for me, it's cheap-and-easy subs which also impart melodic motion.

[Ricmolina]

I studied with Joe.
He used the C-A-G-E-D concept of organization across the fingerboard. He told me to play with fingers on the RH as much as possible and not to pay much attention to classical RH technique. Whatever gets the sound out is enough.
He stressed learning the correct melody and playing it in every key all over the guitar. To him the sound was either major, minor, augmented or diminished. He didn't talk about extensions but he played them all the time. They were melodic additions to the basic harmony.
He stressed moving the bass line in a stepwise motion when comping.
Melodies were to be played in thirds and sixths to add harmony.
He told me to only move to a new town only if I had a gig there.
He said he played countless gigs with bad drummers bassists and pianists but he always learned something from them so he kept his mouth shut.
He told the Blues were the backbone of all music and everything could be traced back to that form.
He was stern and surly at times. He was not a gentle teacher but he would teach for hours at a time in a very clear organized way.
I was lucky to spend these times in hotel rooms when he traveled through town. He was a genius of the highest order in his fluidity and melodic inventiveness. To watch him play effortlessly was a profound experience.
ricmolina.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[christianm77]

I studied with Joe.
He used the C-A-G-E-D concept of organization across the fingerboard. He told me to play with fingers on the RH as much as possible and not to pay much attention to classical RH technique. Whatever gets the sound out is enough.
He stressed learning the correct melody and playing it in every key all over the guitar. To him the sound was either major, minor, augmented or diminished. He didn't talk about extensions but he played them all the time. They were melodic additions to the basic harmony.
He stressed moving the bass line in a stepwise motion when comping.
Melodies were to be played in thirds and sixths to add harmony.
He told me to only move to a new town only if I had a gig there.
He said he played countless gigs with bad drummers bassists and pianists but he always learned something from them so he kept his mouth shut.
He told the Blues were the backbone of all music and everything could be traced back to that form.
He was stern and surly at times. He was not a gentle teacher but he would teach for hours at a time in a very clear organized way.
I was lucky to spend these times in hotel rooms when he traveled through town. He was a genius of the highest order in his fluidity and melodic inventiveness. To watch him play effortlessly was a profound experience.
ricmolina.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for sharing, great advice from the master....