Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 39 of 39
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I'm browsing through the Berklee Book of Jazz Harmony. For all possible chords, a chord-scale is given. If I understand correctly, the chord scales listed there are really more like these are the basic notes plus all the tensions you could possibly have in the chord, and not really a 'scale' to play over the chords. Would that be at least sort of accurate?

    I understand how the main modes fitting over their respective chords works, but where I start to get lost as far as which scale to play over which chords is:

    1) when you alter a tension, like a G7b9 in major key. I understand that the b9 is coming from the parallel minor key, but that b9 makes me want to play a Mixolydian mode but while flattening that 9, so not standard Mixolydian.

    2) when you have tritone substitutes and secondary dominants going on. There are different chord-scales listed for just about every secondary dominant and tritone substitute. V7/IV has a normal 9 and 13 option, but V7/VI has a b9, #9 and b13 option. The tritone substitutes seem to be the same way (but I need to take a look again...)

    The clarify further, I can grasp why we have these tension options -- that's explained pretty well in the book, but I'm still foggy on how to know which scales to play over a chord, or how to go about creating them. It seems like it could just be Mixolydian over all of them with the altered tensions substituting in for the normal diatonic ones, but some of these listed chord-scales have 8 notes in them.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thared33 View Post
    I'm browsing through the Berklee Book of Jazz Harmony. For all possible chords, a chord-scale is given. If I understand correctly, the chord scales listed there are really more like these are the basic notes plus all the tensions you could possibly have in the chord, and not really a 'scale' to play over the chords. Would that be at least sort of accurate?

    I understand how the main modes fitting over their respective chords works, but where I start to get lost as far as which scale to play over which chords is:

    1) when you alter a tension, like a G7b9 in major key. I understand that the b9 is coming from the parallel minor key, but that b9 makes me want to play a Mixolydian mode but while flattening that 9, so not standard Mixolydian.

    2) when you have tritone substitutes and secondary dominants going on. There are different chord-scales listed for just about every secondary dominant and tritone substitute. V7/IV has a normal 9 and 13 option, but V7/VI has a b9, #9 and b13 option. The tritone substitutes seem to be the same way (but I need to take a look again...)

    The clarify further, I can grasp why we have these tension options -- that's explained pretty well in the book, but I'm still foggy on how to know which scales to play over a chord, or how to go about creating them. It seems like it could just be Mixolydian over all of them with the altered tensions substituting in for the normal diatonic ones, but some of these listed chord-scales have 8 notes in them.
    Regarding the first one, Berklee also teaches the Harmonic Major scale or Major b6 scale, as some call it. You can call it Mixolydian b2 or b9 if you want to.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    One of my teachers would simply call this a "G7b9 scale". So, you start with a G7 scale (Gmixo) and you add a b9 (Ab).

    For secondary dominants, another teacher just taught being aware of the tonal center. Say you have a 36 25 in G. For the E7 you think chord tones and draw extensions from the tonal center. E G# B D and F# G C. E9#5#9 more or less. Want a different sound? Alter the extensions by ear, referring to changes in the 5 and 9, most often. I left out the 11. The 13th can work, but, depending how you use it, that C# may make it sound like you're in the key of A. Of course, it's jazz, so that may or may not be good.

    Same approach for the D7. You get D F# A C and then you can add G B E. The notes sound like D13. Handle the G with care.

    This isn't quite the same thing as the Berklee book, but I think it's a viable approach. You consider the chord tones, the extensions within the tonal center and then the rest of the notes. A little less nomenclature to learn. But, it's more loosely organized, which can be a disadvantage. If you're looking to end up with scale fingerings for each case, you'd probably be better off Berklee's way.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thared33 View Post
    I'm browsing through the Berklee Book of Jazz Harmony. For all possible chords, a chord-scale is given. If I understand correctly, the chord scales listed there are really more like these are the basic notes plus all the tensions you could possibly have in the chord, and not really a 'scale' to play over the chords. Would that be at least sort of accurate?
    I think it is implied that those are also the suggested scales for those chords. When you put all the chord tones and tensions in order inside the octave, you obtain the scale.
    Suppose a piano player played a big chord with all the 7 notes, then wouldn't any of these 7 notes work in the solo? In fact pretty much any other note is likely to clash with such an explicit chord.
    Now imagine 4 out of the 7 notes are played by the comping instrument, then the book is saying that the other 3 notes of the suggested chord scale are implied or at least they are the easiest notes to work with in that context. That naturally applies to note choices in the solo.
    Of course there are other choices, but chord scales they suggest are mainly the choices that avoid the clashy b9 interval while preserving the underlying tonality according to the authors and they give justifications for these choices.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 11-02-2019 at 01:27 PM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by thared33 View Post
    :

    1) when you alter a tension, like a G7b9 in major key. I understand that the b9 is coming from the parallel minor key, but that b9 makes me want to play a Mixolydian mode but while flattening that 9, so not standard Mixolydian.
    Parallel minor? You mean like G7b9 in the key of C major, for example?

    If you're talking about something like E7b9 in the key of C major, that would be a secondary dominant relationship, but "parallel minor" in this conversation can get confusing fast if we don't have context.

    Specifics, like "E7b9 in the key of C major" or "G7b9 in the key of C major" would be really helpful to the conversation.

  7. #6
    Are we actually talking about secondary dominants? Borrowing from parallelminor isn't necessarily the same thing as talking about secondary dominant relationships. There are relationships, but w one doesn't necessarily equal the other. I think this conversation is too confusing for the beginning level in which it was asked, and we're not really talking about secondary dominant.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Well, he probably means if he has a secondary dom in, say, a progression like Em7 - A7 - Dm7 - CM7, what does he play over the A7?

    To which the quick answer is D harmonic or A alt, etc, because A7 is the V(b9) of Dm.

    Same if he had E7 - Am7 - Dm7 - CM7.

    A7 - D7 - G7 - C6 might be tricky :-)

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    III VI II V Ima6 with all b9's

    X F G# B E X ..... X C# G Bb E X ..... X Eb F# A D X ..... X B F Ab D X ..... G X E A C X

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Great breakdown!

    I'd add another approach to thinking about this material.

    Each one of the scales implies a chord.

    C harmonic minor C D Eb F G Ab B C. That implies, to my way of thinking, G7b9b13

    G WH dim. G A Bb C Db Eb F G. G7b5#5#9

    G7alt.. G Ab Bb B Db Eb F --- G7#11 #5 b9 #9 (alt means both altered 5ths and both altered 9ths

    G wholetone G A B Db Eb F. G7b5#5.

    F mel minor F G Ab Bb C D E. G7b9#9.

    Bb pentatonic Bb C D F G. G7#9.

    etc etc

    The point is that each of these scales includes a different permutation of altering the 5s 6s and 9s. Some get their sound by omitting certain notes. The nomenclature is difficult at first, because (it seems to me) you have to get comfortable with completely different scale names to label changes of a single note or just a few notes. And you have to connect those scale names to the individual notes and the sound of the implied chord.

    Thinking about scale names can be an advantage though, which is why people do it. For example, a melodic minor scale implies at least 7 different chords -- and, arguably, if you know the scale you get 7 (or more) for 1.

    I think different approaches best suit different people based on how they learn/think/play.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thared33 View Post
    I'm browsing through the Berklee Book of Jazz Harmony. For all possible chords, a chord-scale is given. If I understand correctly, the chord scales listed there are really more like these are the basic notes plus all the tensions you could possibly have in the chord, and not really a 'scale' to play over the chords. Would that be at least sort of accurate?

    I understand how the main modes fitting over their respective chords works, but where I start to get lost as far as which scale to play over which chords is:

    1) when you alter a tension, like a G7b9 in major key. I understand that the b9 is coming from the parallel minor key, but that b9 makes me want to play a Mixolydian mode but while flattening that 9, so not standard Mixolydian.

    2) when you have tritone substitutes and secondary dominants going on. There are different chord-scales listed for just about every secondary dominant and tritone substitute. V7/IV has a normal 9 and 13 option, but V7/VI has a b9, #9 and b13 option. The tritone substitutes seem to be the same way (but I need to take a look again...)

    The clarify further, I can grasp why we have these tension options -- that's explained pretty well in the book, but I'm still foggy on how to know which scales to play over a chord, or how to go about creating them. It seems like it could just be Mixolydian over all of them with the altered tensions substituting in for the normal diatonic ones, but some of these listed chord-scales have 8 notes in them.
    These are all sensible questions... however I feel really torn when I see a question like this asked. My duty to teach someone I've never met.

    So as teacher just for a minute... do I give the information as transmission model education, or do I instead encourage you to become an active learner? Everyone here (including me on most occasions) are on heavy transmit. Problem is, most players agree there's a sharp limit to how much information you can assimilate into actual music.

    So I'm going to say this. You won't like it (maybe) the forum might not like it, but I'm going to say it because I think it's the correct information.

    Anyway like I said, I respect the question. I went and asked Charlie Parker by listening to his records and almost without exception he and Bud Powell play on the VI7b9 chord.... well that's for me to know and for you to find out. Wouldn't want to give the game away. And wouldn't you rather hear it come out of the horn of a master than this nobody?

    These might sound like the words of a complete and utter dick, but it's not meant with malice or arrogance. I simply want to share with you the process of how all the actually good jazz musicians I know learned, including the ones who went to Berklee. Ask yourself, do I want to be a musician or theoretician? If it's the former I say - go away and check out what your favourite players do on a VI7b9 or I7 or III7b9 chord or whatever, and tell me what you find. I'll tell you what I found. Deal?

    Also you might not like Charlie Parker that much, and prefer another player or era. And what you are drawn to and not drawn to will shape your approach and sound... Listening is a creative act.

    And this is why, despite all the syllabae and tomes of Berklee, there is no definitive answer. Look at the scale salad posted above. Answer is lots of options! Do you have an idea of their context within style or language? How they sound from this info? No. It's just a list of possiblities.

    Probably got all the notes in there save maybe the natural 7 (and that pops up in lines too.) So all 12 notes...

    So how to narrow it down? Emancipate yourself as a learner. Own your shit. Then look at the book and see if you think it's toilet paper or not.
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-01-2019 at 04:24 PM.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Of course Christians response is where the truth lies. However when you're first getting into jazz, that approach seems a bit slow. At least that's how I felt. When you know there is so much filtered down, generalized information out there by people who have already studied many players and records, doing that myself felt a bit like reinventing the wheel.

    Only when you directly go to the source however, you realize all these wonderfully crystallised, ready to consume educational material are bit removed from what really is happening in the music. Somethings get lost in translation. I have to say though they do a good job in preparing you for getting your feet wet. I've been studying jazz for 5 years, only now I feel ready and equipped enough to dive into the records as the main source education from this point on. May be my fears were baseless, I didn't need to study so much before making sense of the real music, but it didn't feel that way at the time.

    Anyway another method for finding chord scales is just to focus on the main chord tones and use your own taste and judgement to choose the extensions. Come up with lines while experimenting with different possibilities for the extensions (notes between chord tones). But then I'll be honest, I didn't do this enough. I feared that I would just be inventing a new language, not learning jazz.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 11-01-2019 at 09:53 PM.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    I gave it some more thought.

    Consider a ii V I in Cmajor. Play Dm9, G13, Cmaj7. x5355x 3x345x x3545x.

    Best to record a loop of the chords.

    Now, nice and slow start at x5xxxx and play an ascending Dm9 arpeggio. Play D F A C E G.

    Then, descend with a Gmixo (aka G7 scale).

    Do this over and over. Each time, alter the 5s and 9s of the G7 scale. Use every possible permutation. So, variously, use Ab A and Bb for the 9th. Use Db D and Eb for the 5th. For the 6th, play it, or omit it. After you're done with that, you can try raising the 3rd and seeing how that sounds. Then, you can try the descending scale with omitted notes.

    Plenty of options, and they all sound a little different.

    In the course of doing this, you will play every one of the scale options listed in the Berklee book and some that aren't listed but you may like.

    This is what they might call of V/I situation. You can do the same thing with secondary dominants by recording a loop of the chord progression and doing the same thing. Some options may sound like they don't fit that well. The good part is that you're using your own ear to figure out what you like.

    Is there a disadvantage? Maybe it's more work? Maybe you're less likely to use the scales that a lot of players have used -- but that might be a feature, not a bug. Ultimately, where you're trying to get to is being able to hear all of that and pick the notes you like on the fly on the bandstand. As we were discussing in another thread, naming things is mainly helpful when the names help you to learn the sounds.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Or you could listen to some music.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, or you could reference a really good book, see options listed, then experiment/compare the chord scale options in the context of the song in question. Choose the one you like best. It may be Bird's choice, or it may not be.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    The correct choice, presuming you wish to be a musician, is always to check out music.

    Books can be handy reference material to help you understand what is happening.

  17. #16
    I went digging through my books, and lo and behold, most of it is listed in vol.2 of Jazz Theory Resources by Ligon. It lists 9 possible scales to play over them and how they're built. It all depends on where you're resolving to. So that's a good starting point

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    The correct choice, presuming you wish to be a musician, is always to check out music.

    Books can be handy reference material to help you understand what is happening.
    That's what I said.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Yea... good starting point....But it's a little more complicated than just being aware of what's possible.... the simple rule of thumb for somewhat non theory people is to just be aware of whether there is a natural 5th or not in the chord. Generally most use the embellishment theory approach when performing... (that's a joke), but screwing up the 5th will drive good ears or knowledgeable musicians crazy.

    The next level of conversation is how you organized the use of...scales and chords and where you use them.
    Arrange some tunes or melodies for 7 or 8 voices. Voiceleading and resolving etc... is not theory, it's just personal choices of what one wants to hear. The organization for what note choices one uses is generally from, (tonal and modal) functional harmony.

    Common practice which creates "melodic licks" and "chord patterns" still have harmonic organization, they still have functional reference... The approach to becoming aware of and understanding all of this BS is through Analysis. Which takes some time and knowledge to get together... but can be worth the time. How much time is put into memorizing tunes, licks melodies... noodling on your instrument. If you want to get past that starting point.... or just some more rule of thumbs... just ask.

    Christians point is very valid.... you can still play and not understand what the hell your doing. Sometimes you'll have problems when performing with.... other musicians, live. But.... I'm a theoretician and I can play and perform with anyone... hell I can burn or play heart felt music...and don't have to know or memorize the music. Just BSing.... I suck. Just letting you know there are other approaches to becoming proficient musician besides the old school approach. (and I'm from the stone age).

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Yea... good starting point....But it's a little more complicated than just being aware of what's possible.... the simple rule of thumb for somewhat non theory people is to just be aware of whether there is a natural 5th or not in the chord. Generally most use the embellishment theory approach when performing... (that's a joke), but screwing up the 5th will drive good ears or knowledgeable musicians crazy.

    The next level of conversation is how you organized the use of...scales and chords and where you use them.
    Arrange some tunes or melodies for 7 or 8 voices. Voiceleading and resolving etc... is not theory, it's just personal choices of what one wants to hear. The organization for what note choices one uses is generally from, (tonal and modal) functional harmony.

    Common practice which creates "melodic licks" and "chord patterns" still have harmonic organization, they still have functional reference... The approach to becoming aware of and understanding all of this BS is through Analysis. Which takes some time and knowledge to get together... but can be worth the time. How much time is put into memorizing tunes, licks melodies... noodling on your instrument. If you want to get past that starting point.... or just some more rule of thumbs... just ask.

    Christians point is very valid.... you can still play and not understand what the hell your doing. Sometimes you'll have problems when performing with.... other musicians, live. But.... I'm a theoretician and I can play and perform with anyone... hell I can burn or play heart felt music...and don't have to know or memorize the music. Just BSing.... I suck. Just letting you know there are other approaches to becoming proficient musician besides the old school approach. (and I'm from the stone age).
    Nothing wrong being a theoretician. But you are undoutedly also a musician.
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-02-2019 at 05:41 PM.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    I recently went to hear a guitarist who, apparently, is a master theoretician.

    I was curious as to how that would play out on a gig.

    What I heard was great time, great chops and a rich vocabulary of classic jazz phrases. I didn't hear anything in his soloing that made me think, "what a great theorist!". Maybe I didn't understand the contribution of theory.

    Comping was different -- I heard a lot of great sounding passing chords (which also sounded like classic jazz vocabulary) played with great time feel. Maybe the theory came in there? If you've picked a harmonized scale to use and employ those voicings within a tune as passing chords, that seems like a good application of theory to me.

    I recently watched a lesson video by Chico Pinheiro - who has a very distinctive sound to his soloing. On the video he played a single scale all over the neck, all with his characteristic sound. In that case, I thought I heard a real confluence of theory and melodic gift.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    I don’t think theory has much of a contribution to ones actual playing.

    What it may do is provide a framework of ways you can work with material.... but that’s what you do in the privacy of your practice room.

  23. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by thared33 View Post
    I went digging through my books, and lo and behold, most of it is listed in vol.2 of Jazz Theory Resources by Ligon. It lists 9 possible scales to play over them and how they're built. It all depends on where you're resolving to. So that's a good starting point
    Volume 2? Did you see the section in volume 1, labeled "secondary dominants"? Basic, starter level. Not tons of choices.

    Assume harmonic minor (phrygian dominant), when the target chord is minor and mixolydian (or regulardominant) for targeting major chords. That's basically the "functional reference" for secondary dominants.

    There are other things used in common practice, but that's a good theoretical jumping-off point.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Volume 2? Did you see the section in volume 1, labeled "secondary dominants"? Basic, starter level. Not tons of choices.

    Assume harmonic minor (phrygian dominant), when the target chord is minor and mixolydian (or regulardominant) for targeting major chords. That's basically the "functional reference" for secondary dominants.

    There are other things used in common practice, but that's a good theoretical jumping-off point.
    A simple way to think of this is that G7 goes to Cmaj ... G7b9b13 goes to Cm (other alterations of the G7 work too - it's the Eb that makes it).

    For the latter, the chord name suggests G B D F Ab Eb

    G phrygian dominant is fifth mode CHM. G Ab B C D Eb F. Some of the Berklee materials refer to Mixo b9b13.


    The only difference is the C note. Arguably, it's an avoid note -- meaning handle with care.

    I find it helpful to make sure that I understand the chord name when I try to apply a scale.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Here is the funny thing. Every musician knows some theory. If you know what C major chord is then you know some theory because you know the music theoretical conception for that sound and it's theoretical name.

    Yet everyone also believes musicians should know exactly as much theory as they happen to know and not more. Because their theoretical knowledge is right at that magical sweet spot where any more theory would be too much and not useful but any less would be a short coming.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 11-03-2019 at 02:42 PM.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Here is the funny thing. Every musician knows some theory. If you know what C major chord is then you know some theory because you know the music theoretical conception for that sound and it's theoretical name.

    Yet everyone also believes people should know exactly as much theory as they happen to know and not more. Because their theoretical knowledge is right at that magical sweet spot where any more theory would be too much and not useful but any less would be a short coming.
    Haha good post.

    My exact feelings and thoughts are I hope reasonably summed up here fwiw:


  27. #26

    User Info Menu

    man christian... I love your vids... but, it took for ever to get to, The line is just borrowing from parallel minor. Many old school musicians just use basic tonal functional concepts.... like, Borrowing, relative and parallel and then simple subs. Very simple and very effective.

    ... yea theory is just a tool to help you be able to hear, understand and maybe even verbally have a discussion about as rp said, " great time, great chops and a rich vocabulary of classic jazz phrases".

    The other aspect of having an understanding of theory, well harmony, is the ability to hear and recognize where or what other players want to go musically. I perform with way too many vanilla musicians, where... I know some things are just never going to be heard, melodically, harmonically and the worst, rhythmically...and when they do... it's fairly limited. It's cool, I still dig performing, it's just what it is.... but there are many really good musicians that at least have jazz harmony and theory concepts together. Performing can really become fun... which usually is also entertaining.

    I think I posted above... or before, being able to make or have an analysis of what ever your playing, really helps. REALLY HELPS... that's not just some memorized versions. It's cool when playing gigs, during breaks... when talking about what we played etc... when something simple, harmonic/ theory BS... opens the door for some players, what they thought was working.... expands, maybe even become a better player. Although... we all have our style... what we like. I'm pretty simple.

  28. #27

    User Info Menu

    I wouldn’t disagree with that analysis Reg, and I think it’s the simplest, but I was trying to make different points in my video. I could have been talking about any phrase.

    The main one is that theory always simplifies what you are looking at. If it didn’t it wouldn’t be theory. My argument is that is what theory is - taking a quality from a passage of music and hanging a descriptor or name on it. ‘Altered scale’, ‘3:2 polyrhythm’, ‘ii v I’ etc

    Not every jazz musician would analyse the phrase the way you did for instance. And they wouldn’t be wrong per se (although i think your explanation makes the most sense historically speaking) but by abstracting it and simplifying it as a different thing.

    So you take that simplified essence of the phrase whatever that is, and then come up with music based on that idea. That’s what theory is in a jazz context, because theory has little use to an improviser if it’s not anchored in actual practice.

    So for you that would coming up with phrases in Bb minor resolving to the Bb major chord, or whatever.

    So theory and your own concept is based on the way you hear music. And of course one person can have multiple ways of hearing/looking at phrases.

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    Yea Christian... sorry if I over simplified. Your points are great. Generally when I make analysis of music, it's not in isolation, it has context and the result is simply the base reference. The starting point for where new relationships are created and developed.

    CST uses standard Functional Harmony guidelines and simple common practices of jazz, to realize typical complete note collections, (scales), for secondary dominants, (any V7 going to any Diatonic chord other than I), and the same with Tritone subs.

    It gets a little more complicated when we add extended II-'s and implied targets.

    A secondary Dom. implies a tonal target... it's temporary, doesn't change the Key of the moment. Key of the moment implies the expectation of a I chord. Secondary dominants generally don't imply modulation. (if you get into Dual function you can open the modulation door).

    The Functional harmony aspect could be... like I said, the use of borrowing, (not Modal Interchange), for expanding harmonic and melodic choices with the use of Relative and Parallel relationships. Which like you pointed out was very common during Wes's period... the classic user was Cole Porter standards. ( I dig Wes's approach better, but same thing).

    Any way... my point was... sorry if I jumped the gun.

  30. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Yea Christian... sorry if I over simplified. Your points are great. Generally when I make analysis of music, it's not in isolation, it has context and the result is simply the base reference. The starting point for where new relationships are created and developed.

    CST uses standard Functional Harmony guidelines and simple common practices of jazz, to realize typical complete note collections, (scales), for secondary dominants, (any V7 going to any Diatonic chord other than I), and the same with Tritone subs.

    It gets a little more complicated when we add extended II-'s and implied targets.

    A secondary Dom. implies a tonal target... it's temporary, doesn't change the Key of the moment. Key of the moment implies the expectation of a I chord. Secondary dominants generally don't imply modulation. (if you get into Dual function you can open the modulation door).

    The Functional harmony aspect could be... like I said, the use of borrowing, (not Modal Interchange), for expanding harmonic and melodic choices with the use of Relative and Parallel relationships. Which like you pointed out was very common during Wes's period... the classic user was Cole Porter standards. ( I dig Wes's approach better, but same thing).

    Any way... my point was... sorry if I jumped the gun.
    Hey Reg, I know you've listed them before , but I wondered if you might just list music theory books that you think are important for players of harmonic instruments.

    And then maybe extend that list to those eventually interested in more advanced /arranging type harmonic theory. I need to have this saved somewhere for my "someday/possibly" list.

    Thanks.

  31. #30

    User Info Menu

    Hey Matt,

    Stuart Smith's Jazz Theory is a good basic start, it free all over the web.

    Leon Dallin's Techniques and some of his other books are great for blending traditional theory and jazz theory... I was lucky to have some conversations back when I was at UCLA, he was at Cal St Long Beach.

    And for some more modern concepts check out this doctoral essy from Jared Hall at Univ. Miami

    http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu..._dissertations

  32. #31

    User Info Menu

    So how many answers are there, LOL! As much as its important to put time in on theory and practicing scales, it's more important to just play songs. Especially in the style you want to emulate .

    George Benson once said it really is just Major,Minor,Dominant,Diminished and Augmented. Sure there are more variables,but really it's a matter of listening and learning the Jazz vocabulary . Just learn songs especially the melody,song form and bass movememt.

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    Where is the OP, having asked the question? I really hate people who disappear!

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Where is the OP, having asked the question? I really hate people who disappear!
    Probably suffered brain shutdown from too much info

    ‘Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths...’

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

    The lick in your vid was quite interesting.

    The notes over the F7 and BbM7 were straightforward:

    F Eb C (1-b7-5 - (passing C#) - D (3rd of Bb).

    But the notes Ab-Gb over the Cm7 don't bear much relevance to a Cm7. That might seem confusing to some.

    I see that as Wes ignoring the Cm7 and playing the #9-b9 of the F7. A lot of players say just think in terms of the dominant, never mind the ii. I think that was Joe Pass' thing too.

    Although, of course, they both played lots of minor stuff over ii chords.

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    The lick in your vid was quite interesting.

    The notes over the F7 and BbM7 were straightforward:

    F Eb C (1-b7-5 - (passing C#) - D (3rd of Bb).

    But the notes Ab-Gb over the Cm7 don't bear much relevance to a Cm7. That might seem confusing to some.

    I see that as Wes ignoring the Cm7 and playing the #9-b9 of the F7. A lot of players say just think in terms of the dominant, never mind the ii. I think that was Joe Pass' thing too.

    Although, of course, they both played lots of minor stuff over ii chords.
    Could be. In this understanding Wes is bringing out the F7 altered sound. Or maybe a B7 sound by tritone substitution.

    Another angle is to look at that ii chord as a Cm7b5 and therefore an Ab7(9) as I mentioned in the video. The notes fit Ab mix/C locrian until we hit the D... so a backdoor dominant...

    Which is also Bb natural minor (reg.)

    There is no leading tone in the line (the third of F7, the seventh of the key Bb) so it gives it more of a floating subdominant quality.

    Wes often avoids the leading tone resolutions you find in explicit V-I Oktoberfest type revolutions instead playing IV-I plagal sounds (as do gospel choirs, but that’s another story, Wes would rather be in church than in the beer hall haha)

    Do you see what I mean? Lots of interpretations!

    Anyway that #9-b9-1 thing is unbelievably common in jazz lines. Name a jazz musician - not just boppers either.

    It crops up in the standards Green Dolphin Street, satin doll, Moonlight in Vermont....

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

    A further riff - Robben Ford sees that sort of thing, and the closely related 1-b9-#9-3 as relating to the F half whole diminished scale. He heard it from Miles Davis.

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post

    Anyway that #9-b9-1 thing is unbelievably common in jazz lines.
    Just what I think. Wes couldn't read music so he did it by ear. There will be lots of copying, I suspect.

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

    Anyway, it's almost time for Silent Night again...

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Just what I think. Wes couldn't read music so he did it by ear. There will be lots of copying, I suspect.
    Yeah sure, I mean that’s the dimension that gets overlooked in that kind of music theory - like all of the things I just posted. Jazz music until the college era was to my ears primarily a music of idioms.

    For instance Parker loved that device, and everyone copied Parker, so everyone played it. Parker himself was drawing form diverse sources - Prez, musical quotations, bits of Dixieland language, Stravinsky, Bizet, all sorts.

    To talk about scales and pitch collections is to overlook that side of it I think, which is why it’s generally necessary to learn the music by ear to be able to speak the language fluently....