-
Robert,
Who asked and where is said list of scales? Can't find it. Thanks.
The note collections harmonically and melodically do transcend a single scale.
The melody notes combined with the chords provide starting reference note collections.
For instance, 1st measure A Bb indicate Dm with a b6 (DFABbC)
So what kind of E and G note is likely to be played.
The next chord C#o includes E and G making those the most likely choice extensions/passing tones for Dm7.
Against C#o, does C# replace C or can you use both (C/B#) as a #9 sound to A7b9/C#?
Against Cm6, if you play some type of B note, is it Bb or B? The descending chromatic line passes through both.
I hear Bb as more prominent based on the past but the next chord G7/B introduces B natural.
Etc......
A few non-CST observations:
A skeleton analysis of the melody moves gradually downward every 8 bars
1-8 A-G
9-16 G-F
17-24 F-A-F
25-32 F-E-D
Motivic ideas and shapes from the melody:
scale step up and down ABbA/GAG/FGF/ED
descending chromatic CBBbA/BbAAbG/GGbFE
or invent new motifs as a springboard for ideas.
How do you like to think about this tune?
-
12-19-2017 05:13 PM
-
And that's really, basically, it. Obviously the application is the crux of the biscuit, but it seems to me that people way overthink this.
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
For me, I think that might be too much information, at least at the outset. When I'm trying to learn new sounds, it's hard for me to think, "I'm going to learn the sound of scale X as it relates to chord Y." It works better if I just pick one note and see if I can find different ways to work with it. (Which means my bandmates get to hear me play, say, a #5 on every single dominant chord of every single tune, until I thoroughly grok the sound.) But it works better for me to do that than to try to, say, play a whole tone or altered scale off of every dominant chord. Once I've grasped the sound of the #5, I understand how it sits inside those scales, and the scales make more sense.
-
For this tune, of not really fast tempo and the most of the chords lasting for 2 bars each, yes, I think it's quite possible, if not common, to find people play thinking and using all the scales as suggested. BTW, where chord changes are faster, he suggests one scale over whole 251s and so on ... Originally Posted by Robertkoa
Also, I think, at least in that particular case, it was the most convenient and the most efficient way to communicate and answer the posed question, with the least amount of BS.
-
That's more or less my experience.
I don't think I have incorporated a single sound into my playing via a Scale X over Chord Y approach.
I can think of a couple of sounds based on Arp X against Chord Y, usually a minor a half step above a dominant. I got that, originally, from Bar 4 of a 12 bar blues, playing, example, notes of Bm against Bb7.
I can recall when I finally got b9s into my ears and then worked on #9, #11 and I still work on #5.
Hearing b3, 3 and 4 never seemed difficult. Maj7 vs b7 was always obvious.
And, there you have it. Variations in 3rds, 5ths 7ths, 9ths. You could argue that 6s matter too. But, however you think about 6s, that's the whole chromatic scale.
Is it really that complicated? If there's a chord symbol, you've already got 4 or 5 notes that are clearly in the chord and, usually, a couple that clearly aren't in the chord. So, say it's a 7b9 -- that's 5 chord tones and no natural 4, 7 or 9. Usually, if there's no natural 9, then #9 will work. Now there are three notes left. Two of them are altered fifths and, typically if you don't like the natural fifth, you get both the altered fifths. How hard is it to choose by ear?
Then, there's the 6. A little trickier because maybe you have to think about whether you're going to have both a 5 and a b13. Well, not really. How hard is it to deal with the 6 vs b13 by ear?
I think that where it gets more complicated is when you're trying to create bitonality. Side slipping, for example. Harmony stays the same, you play a lick and then play it again a half step higher. Most likely, trying to analyze the intervals created against the original chord is not appropriate. Other more advanced harmonic approaches as well. I recently analyzed a very outside sounding solo which I liked and turned out to be framed around an unexpected (to me) use of harmonic minor. Maybe CST would help creating some bitonal sounds.
-
Probably, but I think you can accomplish a lot of the same things with, e.g., triad pairs or something like that. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
I definitely got introduced to jazz through the whole Aebersold/CST process. But I also got introduced to guitar by learning B.B. King and Hendrix solos off of records. I think the way most people learn guitar probably bears more resemblance to an oral tradition than an academic one.
The best thing I ever did for my jazz practice was to start listening to the vocal jazz station on Pandora about 6 hours every day at work back in the mid-2000s. Totally changed my perception of standards. I hear them as pop songs now, not Aebersold backing tracks.
-
Yea ecj... listening is great advice. I still listening all the time.
I know we're on a net forum and basically all we do is BS... and I generally push more time on developing your techniques and skills.
I also think of playing tunes as one of those skills that needs to be practiced. How one decides to organize... or not organize how they go about playing tunes is up for debate etc... But having some type of balance between how much time one puts into developing technique and skills, (learning and performing tunes), really needs to be addressed.
Unless you already have your playing together... one needs to put more time into the time playing and developing your playing and performance skills.
I've probably posted a couple hundred vids on this forum, and will continue to do so... and will continue to BS on different threads. I know there are lots of great players and lots of beginners... but spend more time playing and practicing than BSing.
Post vids of your playing.... it will help your playing. You'll start to be able to hear... A cool use of CST is being able to hear basic harmonic references. Different players have different basic starting references for playing chord tones, scales etc... When playing tunes... there are different ways to organize... or hear... or feel etc... however you play.......when you record your playing, you can see or hear the difference between...
example, when playing, comping or soloing on minor tunes are you playing off natural minor. Are you using b6 or b13. Is that basic reference influencing other chords, chord tones and extensions... embellishments, licks.
If your using natural minor... generally your using b6 .... so I VI II V vamp or Chord Pattern would generally be I bVI II V. When you hear or use a natural VI or 6 or 13th... you would be implying a different relationship.
Or your using a tension resolve approach. As Robert pushes... how you rhythmically frame targets. My point is there are many approaches to performing... they all seem to work in the end, maybe not all contexts, but for many.
Spend enough time playing...
-
@Bako - in the Video I Posted if you scroll down all the way there will be people asking questions and The Player lists each
Chord with a Scale Reference - he is a very good Player ( with long fingers - lol ) and I am sure he did not mean it to be taken literally because he does NOT play that way.
I am on the Reverse side of the whole thing...because I have spent a huge amount of time ' woodshedding' then said .. Damn - I need to learn relearn Theory and map the Neck out for how I Play NOW...
So the basic stuff and *Arps and Keys and related Arps and scales that wrap around them ...THAT part of CST/ Basic Theory is vital to me even for 'cataloging ' Improv over a Specific Tune ...( mine eventually )- you know ...you Play way over your head and say ' Why does that work so well ?' And kind of Map Out what you did to re visit it next time or get it Studio or Stage Ready.
Also the Basic Stuff turns advanced when it is interpolated / superimposed/ transposed over existing Harmony..I tend to Play and think Vertically...for example 'borrowing' Chords and Structures from the bVII Key( linear ) over i Minor ...
Also - I should Post some ' Smart CST' because I hear that on Rick Beatto's Youtube Channel - he Plays Guitar like a Fusion Player ..no swing etc. but his ideas are very cool sometimes - I often find Advanced Theorists and Seasoned Jazzers to often be very Creative -so I am not a' Theory Sucks ' Guy ...
Without worrying about Terminology he uses too much- where he Plays the Patterns/Arps on Keyboard over the Chords - it sounds good and Unique IMO - and he applies it well.
Smart CST- although not Scales exactly - similar Methodology .
He has other stuff that sounds good and he's a definite Advanced Harmony CST Player/Teacher -not a ' Time ' Reference for Guitar Jazz/ R&B but cool, creative ideas.Last edited by Robertkoa; 12-20-2017 at 02:10 PM.
-
I've read this kind of thing over the last several years often, basically calling one overly-complex-sounding approach somehow "easier" vs a competing overly-complex-sounding approach. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Honestly I don't know how you can say that THAT many words - as a thought process - is "simple" or something. I also don't understand how "Arp X over chord Y" is THAT much separated from "scale X over chord Y". Why wouldn't you want to know the other three notes of the chord? Melodic minor and its modes can absolutely be a simplification for altered for example. For me personally, it helped a great deal. Of course it WASN'T that way at all, until I could PLAY some of it at a basic level. I think that's the real problem. At least it was for me.
-
Things that seem straightforward conceptually often end up being long winded when written down.
My own personal experience was that it was useful to go through a period of being more an arpeggio guy, because scales need a bit of work to be used a source of melodic material. You need to also work with them to be able to outline harmony (in the conventional functional sense, rather than the upper extension hippy shit sense.)
If I had a central point to make, it would probably be that scales are not the same things as chord scales. Scales were in use in music centuries ago, and were certainly part of pre-modal jazz.
In fact, patterned, organised use of diatonic scales to create melodies leads to many of the functional progressions we see in both tonal music generally and jazz standards in particular. Take for instance melodic sequences starting on descending notes through the scale - a common technique in Baroque music, and most obviously seen in the melody of Autumn leaves. That use of the G minor key (both natural minor and melodic minor) suggests the changes so strongly it's basically built in.
This is true of many standards melodies.
Treating the minor key not as separate modes but a composite of different scales that can make up melodic lines is also for me, traditional. In the bebop/swing context, I don't really see melodic, natural and harmonic minors as separate things, and in fact make up melodies freely on for instance a minor key cadence or turnaround, using those scales without really considering what chords I am playing on. In this sense a minor scale is not a 7 note scale at all, but a 9 note one.
I know that the b6 is dissonant on the I and suggests movement for instance, and that the 6 is more of a 'colour' sound on the I, and that the former will suggest a subdominant/dominant quality and the latter a tonic quality.... And each note in a line can be viewed as a chord in microcosm, or (as I find easier) chords can be thought of as notes with clear melodic tendencies combined together.
From then on, it's a matter of instinct. I think Pat Martino's ideas are like that - just combine the minor scales together in melodic lines and play them on everything using relationships.
These ways of using scales, to me, are very different to the modern jazz CST idea of scales being a source of vertical stacked harmony consisting (usually) of 7 note scales and agreeing the two hands of the piano (harmony and melody) so to speak.
The idea that there is a unity between the chord symbol - C7#11 say, and the scale, C lydian dominant, and that the melody line creates that relationship through the use of an F# in melody. Unification.
As opposed to - here is the chord C7, and the melody line has F# because it is the IV7 chord of the G major key, and the melody is diatonic, while we have a Bb chromatic note, probably due to voice leading, in the accompaniment, and the chord symbol C7(#11) is written as a simplification of that harmony with the (#11) present to ensure the harmonist doesn't clash with the melody by playing a C7(sus) C7 or something.
That is, I think, the key difference, and to me defines what CST is. It is the reification of the chord symbol, in that sense.
I also appreciate that there is a move to understand more traditional scale use in CST terms, including functional tonality.... I do find this a bit odd when the existing classical theory works well for these things... (usually things to do with the composition of standard songs - such as - what scale does the melody of Beautiful Love belong to, and what is the Eb7 chord in Darn That Dream doing, etc)Last edited by christianm77; 12-20-2017 at 03:04 PM.
-
Yeah it's a sound I like as well. It's intervallic CST playing. Practice your chords scales in all the intervals, and practice adding them together. Originally Posted by Robertkoa
Certainly not a traditional thing.
That's the sort of thing I play when I am really going out of my way to do the CST thing....
-
I think it's that way for a lot of things. People think differently. One person prefers one explanation, another person prefers another. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
For me, it's usually easier to think of chord tones first and then add other notes by ear. Probably because I did it that way for decades before I learned the names of many things. I haven't found that thinking natural minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor, phrygian minor, dorian minor, is easier than just picking the 2 6 and 7 on the fly.
And, I still bristle at the notion that changing a single note should completely change the name of the overall scale. Just me. Obviously, it works for many other people.
As for the arp vs scale issue. I'm aware that in a case where a V7 is leading to a I major, I can play a melodic minor scale a half step up. That is, for G7, I can play Abmelmin. But, when I want that sound, I can get right to the important notes (to me) by playing an Abmin9 arp. I can hear it in my mind more easily that way, and then find the notes, than if I think about the entire melodic minor scale -- even though, for other situations, I do use the entire melodic minor scale.
-
With Gb/F#? Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
I think for straight-ahead jazz/bop as well, there's a fairly simple set of chord subs you can play to access the 'upper extensions' on the chords. 3-9 arpeggios (4 note arpeggios) are a common strategy, but obviously there are others.
One way I teach is with three chord types:
min7
min6
dim7
And relate them to chords like this:
C --> Am7 ---> D7(sus4)
F#m6 --> Am6 --> D9 --> Ab7alt
D7b9 --> F7b9 --> Ab7b9 --> B7b9 --> Ao7
Or,
Dm7 G7b9 Cmaj7
Dm7 Abo7 Am7
Dm7 Do7 Am7
Bm7b5 E7b9 Am6
Dm6 Fo7 Am6
Dm6 Do7 Am6
etc
It's then a relatively simple matter to extend these arpeggios into full scales. m7--> dorian, o7 --> diminished W-H, one note at a time.
In the case of min6 this could be melodic minor (but also dorian) - in fact a mixed dorian/melodic minor sound is somewhat traditional.
There are a few things that are missed out of this scheme, but I think it's a good gateway into it. I certainly think it's a great gateway into using scales the Barry Harris way. In this scheme, some of the naming conventions are different (for instance we think m7 not 6th, dorian not dominant)
This system works very well on guitar IMO
This could also be extended to Reg's pentatonic scheme
m7 - 1 b3 4 5 b7
m6 - 1 b3 4 5 6
Now, a lot of CST people are going to say that this means you are not hearing the chord/scale as mode - but as related to a basic scale (melodic minor, etc) - I don't see that as a problem at all for bop etc.
-
Good question. I had to think about what I actually do. I realized that I usually omit the F# and play 9 R 5 b3 in situations where I don't have anything more creative going. There was a thread recently about Wes' use of the F# in that situation. So, it's more an Abminor triad with an added 9th.
-
It's funny how people worry about this, lol. (I blame CST.) Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
F# on G7b9 is the best bit. Barry Harris identifies it as a positive feature of the tritone sub dominant scale.
Try it, you might like it. I often play this sound - particularly VIImaj7 or VII7 resolving to I. Tasty!
-
I've always related to apps as well. Trying to reconcile with full 7-note counterparts more recently. Superimposing arps is much less mind-numbing for this for me personally. 3-9 arps and 6-5 arps.
iii-7 is much easier to hear/visualize when superimposed with Imaj7 for me. Way better than memorizing the formula etc. Kind of get seven notes "for free".
-
Extensions on dominants are different
One area where I part company with conventional jazz theory is that I do not think the upper extensions on dominant chords function anything like the same way as the upper extensions on a major or minor chord.
The reason is that the extensions of a major or minor triad are based in acoustics. (Also non-functional 7sus4 type chords.)
OTOH the extensions of a dominant seventh chord are based on voice leading - that is setting up a tension to be resolved into an acoustic sound in a static chord (one reason I hate the way the words tension and extension are used interchangeably in jazz theory.)
We should not be fooled that we write chord symbols in a standard way. These chords are different. You can also bear in mind that extensions and dissonances were in common use on dominant chords long before added notes on major and minor chords - take Wagner, for instance.
(Add to this the fact that the altered scale does not actually share its structure with the other 7 note chord/scale in the CST system, because its basic 4-note chord is a m7b5 not a 7b5... )
Efficient Cadences
To me, the altered scale is an example of the second most efficient chromatic cadence to a major chord... What does that mean?
Efficient melodic cadences move be half steps - for instance, F-E B-C. For this reason G7-C is a diatonic cadence that is as efficient as you can get.
We can add more efficient melodic cadences by including borrowed minor notes. For instance:
G7b9 - C adds Ab-G
G7b9b13 - adds Eb-E
G7b9#9b13 - adds Bb-A (or Bb-B)
Now the altered scale adds a note not found in the minor mode - the b5. This note adds a total of 6 efficient melodic cadences into a C6 chord.
But it is not the most efficient cadence.
The most efficient chromatic cadence to a major 6th chord
Is the bII mixolydian. It has all the notes that are not C E G A in it, basically. It's a complete enclosure of the C6 chord in scale form.
Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb B (Cb)
And resolves thus:
Db - C
Eb - E
F - E
Gb - G
Ab - G or A
Bb - A
B - C
-
No. No theological issues with it. :-) Just wouldn't think of it as Ab melodic minor. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Yeah I think we just lump the melodic minor and dorian in together. It's fine. Take a look at the melody for Night in Tunisia. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
Sometimes, in the midst of an abstract discussion, I feel like I lost track of what we're talking about. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I guess we're discussing some notes against G7 when the G7 precedes a Cmaj.
You can think Ab mel min: Ab Bb B Db Eb F G. That's b9 #9 3 #11 #5 7 R.
Or, you can think Abmin9 or Abmin add 9: Ab B Eb Bb and maybe Gb. That's b9 3 #5 #9 and maybe b7.
Which to use is a matter of taste. The notes I usually want to hear are, from the point of view of G7, the #5, b9 and #9. Eb Ab Bb. Why those? Well, maybe it's because I learned, long ago, to use Db9 played xx3444 and/or xx3446 as a sub leading to G7 and I learned that sound.
Why not the F#? Probably because I never really got that sound into my ears in the same way. Maybe if I regularly played x5756x to x4444x to x3543x, I would know that sound better, but that isn't on my list of go-to ii V alternatives.
Might be worth working on. Noting that even this simple variant is going to take some effort. What I should do is think Dbsus9 (or similar) leading to G7. Then, practice it, all over the neck, in a few different tunes in 12 keys. Then, at my next jam, find some tunes to use it in, and try to get comfortable.
What I probably will do, instead, is find the handful of ways that I used Abm over G7 and add an F#. And then practice that in 12 keys.
I find myself dismayed when I read posts which detail dozens or more juxtapositions to create different sounds. How can I deal with dozens, when even a slight variation of something I know well, takes so much work?
I admire players who can do that, but I'm not one of them.
-
Don't be dismayed. Ignore them, and concentrate on what you find useful. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
One thing that's tough here is that the info the student needs is specific to that student at that point in time.
-
For Dorian, Mel Min and Natural Minor, you're playing 1 2 b3 4 and 5. Then you have to pick a 6 and 7.
nat 6 nat 7 = melodic minor
b6 nat 7 = harmonic minor
b6 b7 = aeolian (natural) minor
nat 6 b7 = dorian minor
Interestingly, there's another commonly used minor scale
1 2 b3 4 b5 b6 b7. This one is 6th mode melodic minor and is used commonly against m7b5.
And, then there's phrygian with a b2.
Arguably, there's a value to naming these things to keep your mental lists organized. I find it easier to simply pick the 6 and 7 by ear. I am conscious of the use of melodic minor a b3 higher against a m7b5. So, for example, for Dm7b5, think the notes of F mel min. Or, just think minor, flat the 5 and pick the 6 and 7 by ear. The b7 is a chord tone, so no mystery there. The choice between b6 and 6 seems to me to be purely a matter of taste with the b6 maybe more consonant.
I don't consciously use the phrygian minor and it should probably be on my to-do list.
-
Right, me too, but that's the whole point of learning melodic minor completely in its own right : all of the arps/positions etc... Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
... because once you know them, you can apply them in almost endless ways.
I personally think referencing altered chord tones from major/mixolydian perspective is the long way around. I think most keyboardists and horn players use melodic minor to teach themselves altered. Eventually you can see it both ways, but I don't know if that's necessarily the starting point. I actually agree that the other way would probably take forever.
As guitarists, I think that we simply THINK and TALK too much about things like melodic minor /altered etc. Talk about them a great deal in abstraction, and then determine it's too cerebral and difficult or whatever. But that's mostly because we can't PLAY it. Majorscale diatonic is pretty easy to talk about in abstraction, mostly because we can actually play it on guitar.
Think about it. If you play G and F-sharp over a G major seven chord your ears/fingers know exactly what the implications are in terms of diatonic major. There's nothing really cerebral about it. It's visceral, tactile , wordless , thoughtless, if you will. At that point, you can also probably talk about it in whatever way you see fit, but it's mostly secondary.
Melodic minor is the same, if you can actually PLAY it. Once you play two or three notes around something altered, your ears and fingers know the implications in terms of where you are and what you can play. As guitarists we compartmentalize this stuff and assume that somehow a thought process which is difficult always will be or whatever.
Basically anything we don't know at a basic level is abstract though. Doesn't mean it HAS to be.
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions