Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 78
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    This is a very common scale in jazz. "A" Phrygian dominant with an added #9.

    Whenever you use the Phrygian dominant scale you can always add the #9 to fill minor third interval. Then you got both the b9 and #9 in the scale.

    It's spelled starting from D because D is the key (or target) in this context. A7b9 -> D minor.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    have a look at the musical example. It’s not that kind of vibe.

    Which raises an interesting point; it’s not the notes always, often it’s the emphasis.
    I'd say some scales (or in general theory conceptions) are associated with particular contextual application and it does not seem correct to use the term abstractly.

    Some are just more abstract like most CST stuff

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    have a look at the musical example. It’s not that kind of vibe.

    Which raises an interesting point; it’s not the notes always, often it’s the emphasis.
    No musical example just notes.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    No musical example just notes.
    Musical examples of this scale is everywhere. Check out the bar 12 of Donna Lee (F7b9):
    https://d29ci68ykuu27r.cloudfront.ne...large_file.png

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    No, was not a test but if it makes it more fun that’s OK.
    Yeah, you said spell it any order or mode what is it? and so I did...and it looks like it's going to be fun.

    [ F G A Bb C C# D E F ] F major6 dim scale

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I'd say some scales (or in general theory conceptions) are associated with particular contextual application and it does not seem correct to use the term abstractly.

    Some are just more abstract like most CST stuff
    Yeah. I think that's it.

    Chord scales should be called harmonic palettes or colour pitch sets or something, really.

    But there is a historical connection there with jazz language as well so its more complicated.

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    No musical example just notes.
    See post #4.

    And what is a "Maj6 Dim scale"? I've never heard of that. A Barry Harris coined name?

    Anyway, I believe we established that it was a mode of a bebop scale, didn't we? And who coined the term "bebop scale" for that matter? Is the Maj6 Dim scale the same as the bebop scale discussed previously?

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    See post #4.

    And what is a "Maj6 Dim scale"? I've never heard of that. A Barry Harris coined name?

    Anyway, I believe we established that it was a mode of a bebop scale, didn't we? And who coined the term "bebop scale" for that matter? Is the Maj6 Dim scale the same as the bebop scale discussed previously?
    I think this is exactly what I and christian77 meant...

    as you notices 'maj6 Dim scale' and 'bebop scale' have the same notes. And as you also noticed 'maj6 Dim scale' is associated with Barry Harris a lot... but 'bebope' scale became much more general and much more abstractly used (though of course associated with bebop a lot).. and some also may associate it with David Baker methods.

    So this is the case where naming evokes a whole world of conceptions, contexts etc.

    I always believe that we name things not only for the purpose to put it in catalogue in alphabet order... I guess how we name it is partly how we understand it...

    Actually to me it is even quite stupid to get comforted with: 'This scale is called ...' what sense does it make?
    After all it does not matter how you call it - it is importnat what you can do with it... so lets make the name speak

    So it can be quite an open issue .. and a good topic for discussion... and often for useful discussion.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

    That’s Shakespeare

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

    That’s Shakespeare
    No, it's Dante!

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    To me a scale is a useful limitation of all pitch possibilities. Let's take the scale in OP:
    D E F G A Bb C C#

    That is D Harmonic minor with an added b7 or as I said above A Phrygian dominant with an added #9.
    So from that scale I can get line ideas to play over A7b9:

    I got the arpeggios of:

    A7
    C# dim 7
    E half dim 7
    G Min7

    Also all these arpeggios in triad forms. Different rhythms, added half notes etc.

    Then I got that C (#9) note to throw in maybe together with Bb (b9), ideosythactic bebop reference. Whole a lot of bebop phrases open up with that note. Lot's to shred and expand vocabulary with.

    It so happens to be the case that I'm already very familiar with that scale. I'm sure many here are also but didn't recognize it immediately.

  13. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I think this is exactly what I and christian77 meant...

    as you notices 'maj6 Dim scale' and 'bebop scale' have the same notes. And as you also noticed 'maj6 Dim scale' is associated with Barry Harris a lot... but 'bebope' scale became much more general and much more abstractly used (though of course associated with bebop a lot).. and some also may associate it with David Baker methods.

    So this is the case where naming evokes a whole world of conceptions, contexts etc.

    I always believe that we name things not only for the purpose to put it in catalogue in alphabet order... I guess how we name it is partly how we understand it...

    Actually to me it is even quite stupid to get comforted with: 'This scale is called ...' what sense does it make?
    After all it does not matter how you call it - it is importnat what you can do with it... so lets make the name speak

    So it can be quite an open issue .. and a good topic for discussion... and often for useful discussion.
    Terms are important in music. Terms are important in any field or practice that is wide and deep.

    I'm certain that "Bebop scale" is more common than any term that Barry Harris personally coined, at least to date. Barry is pretty influential though, and was/is a bona fide recording artist, so that may change over time.

    I don't follow him but it seems that he came to the Jazz Ed profession pretty late in life/career. I am aware that he has a devoted following, perhaps even a bit cult like. Has he penned any texts and are they well respected? He likes to criticize theorists but now the world is expected to see him as one?

    Isn't jazz interesting.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Terms are important in music. Terms are important in any field or practice that is wide and deep.

    I'm certain that "Bebop scale" is more common than any term that Barry Harris personally coined, at least to date. Barry is pretty influential though, and was/is a bona fide recording artist, so that may change over time.

    I don't follow him but it seems that he came to the Jazz Ed profession pretty late in life/career. I am aware that he has a devoted following, perhaps even a bit cult like. Has he penned any texts and are they well respected? He likes to criticize theorists but now the world is expected to see him as one?

    Isn't jazz interesting.
    I am not BH follower though I really appreciate the beauty, elegance and true musicality, and occasionally use some of it.
    Socially... I also have a bit of a 'sect' feeling about it.. (I hate to say it but somewhere deep in my mind I have a feeling that his influence can be more controversal results in the future than it may seem now.

    I'll take risk to say..
    There is something in all that movement (in how it goes around and all) that goes against the spirit of jazz as I understand it ...not the bebop language of course - no problem with it - but the spirit...

    But to be honest I do not care if he wrote something or not (I even estimate oral teaching higher) and how much academic environment receives him or not...
    I appreciate how he arranged it all in his theory. At least his theory is all directly about playing music, it is very practical. This is very important.... especially for untalented students. Good democratic educational too.

    As for bebop scale.. well now it is more common.. but considering BH growing authority... who knows?

    And again his Maj6dim scale is totally different thing than bebop scale as it is used by David Baker for example.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Yeah Barry Harris devotees are a scary lot.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Terms are important in music. Terms are important in any field or practice that is wide and deep.

    I'm certain that "Bebop scale" is more common than any term that Barry Harris personally coined, at least to date. Barry is pretty influential though, and was/is a bona fide recording artist, so that may change over time.

    I don't follow him but it seems that he came to the Jazz Ed profession pretty late in life/career. I am aware that he has a devoted following, perhaps even a bit cult like. Has he penned any texts and are they well respected? He likes to criticize theorists but now the world is expected to see him as one?

    Isn't jazz interesting.
    You probably have that impression because he has recently gained a lot of internet fame. But I was going to his classes twenty years ago and no one knew who he was outside of NYC.

    Barry Harris has been teaching since his youth. in the 1950s in Detroit he was already considered a go to guy for theory. Highly influential in the Detroit jazz circle, which was greatly influential on Hard bop and Blue note.

    it’s sometimes hard to disentangle students from associates and friends, learning was often informal back then, but those who Barry could have been said to have taught to some extent include;

    Paul Chambers
    James Jamerson
    Joe Henderson
    Tommy Flanagan
    Kenny Burrell
    Mark Levine

    Lee Konitz was attending Barry’s classes shortly before his death.

    Paul Berliner notes Coltrane went to Detroit to check out what Barry was doing, probably influenced by Paul Chambers.

    Oh yeah, he used to be roomies with Monk

    As a musician, Barry has played with most of the greats. You might want to check out his recordings with Lee Morgan, Dexter Gordon and Sonny Stitt, as well as many others including Warne Marsh, Lee Konitz and Wes Montgomery. There’s also a fun date with the Basie orchestra sans Basie (‘the Basie-ties’)

    And he is a brilliant, instantly identifiable player on all of those dates.

    Most of the jazz musicians in NYC passed through his studio at one point or another.

    In any case it’s easy to see why a sort of sect element has coagulated around him. He is one of the few legit greats of the bop era left alive, and he teaches! What a cache.

    It’s also perhaps easy to appreciate why someone like that might be at odds with certain education institutions. As I understand it (well this is a story he tells himself) he did a seminar at Berklee once and told the students everything they were being taught was wrong. He wasn’t booked again.

    There are other legendary jazz educators of the era; Tristano, Sandole, Banacos... but they have all sadly passed on...

    In terms of Barry’s terminology; it’s specific, precise, well thought out and completely different to mainstream jazz edu. That can be a barrier for newbs. (But TBF mainstream jazz edu terminology is a bit of a mess, perhaps inevitably.)
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-11-2021 at 03:58 PM.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I am not BH follower though I really appreciate the beauty, elegance and true musicality, and occasionally use some of it.
    Socially... I also have a bit of a 'sect' feeling about it.. (I hate to say it but somewhere deep in my mind I have a feeling that his influence can be more controversal results in the future than it may seem now.

    I'll take risk to say..
    There is something in all that movement (in how it goes around and all) that goes against the spirit of jazz as I understand it ...not the bebop language of course - no problem with it - but the spirit...

    But to be honest I do not care if he wrote something or not (I even estimate oral teaching higher) and how much academic environment receives him or not...
    I appreciate how he arranged it all in his theory. At least his theory is all directly about playing music, it is very practical. This is very important.... especially for untalented students. Good democratic educational too.

    As for bebop scale.. well now it is more common.. but considering BH growing authority... who knows?

    And again his Maj6dim scale is totally different thing than bebop scale as it is used by David Baker for example.
    I think that’s fair, and sort of describes why I have moved away from the Barry orbit a little.

    I’ve found his teaching to be incredibly helpful for one specific thing - mastering bop vocabulary. At that it is the best stuff, bar none. I do mean to revisit David Baker at some point but people who know both say there’s no comparison.

    Anyway, I’m more interested in apply the spirit, the meta aspects, of what he teaches and trying to apply what I learned from him within my own framework (hopefully one accessible to newcomers without misrepresenting his work.)

    There are a few like Chris from TILFBH and Isaac Raz who are happy to represent Barry’s teaching as accurately as they can, and they know more about it than me anyway.

    I also think a lot of people who haven’t been to his classes don’t really understand what his teaching is really about. Quite a lot of it is aural; the theory is secondary really. And it’s FAST; aural learning at tempo. Read Berliner’s account in Thinking in Jazz for more info.

  18. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    You probably have that impression because he has recently gained a lot of internet fame. But I was going to his classes twenty years ago and no one knew who he was outside of NYC.

    Barry Harris has been teaching since his youth. in the 1950s in Detroit he was already considered a go to guy for theory. Highly influential in the Detroit jazz circle, which was greatly influential on Hard bop and Blue note.

    it’s sometimes hard to disentangle students from associates and friends, learning was often informal back then, but those who Barry could have been said to have taught to some extent include;

    Paul Chambers
    James Jamerson
    Joe Henderson
    Tommy Flanagan
    Kenny Burrell
    Mark Levine

    Lee Konitz was attending Barry’s classes shortly before his death.

    Paul Berliner notes Coltrane went to Detroit to check out what Barry was doing, probably influenced by Paul Chambers.

    Oh yeah, he used to be roomies with Monk

    As a musician, Barry has played with most of the greats. You might want to check out his recordings with Lee Morgan, Dexter Gordon and Sonny Stitt, as well as many others including Warne Marsh, Lee Konitz and Wes Montgomery. There’s also a fun date with the Basie orchestra sans Basie (‘the Basie-ties’)

    And he is a brilliant, instantly identifiable player on all of those dates.

    Most of the jazz musicians in NYC passed through his studio at one point or another.

    In any case it’s easy to see why a sort of sect element has coagulated around him. He is one of the few legit greats of the bop era left alive, and he teaches! What a cache.

    It’s also perhaps easy to appreciate why someone like that might be at odds with certain education institutions. As I understand it (well this is a story he tells himself) he did a seminar at Berklee once and told the students everything they were being taught was wrong. He wasn’t booked again.

    There are other legendary jazz educators of the era; Tristano, Sandole, Banacos... but they have all sadly passed on...

    In terms of Barry’s terminology; it’s specific, precise, well thought out and completely different to mainstream jazz edu. That can be a barrier for newbs. (But TBF mainstream jazz edu terminology is a bit of a mess, perhaps inevitably.)

    You're correct, I didn't know that he had been teaching that long. Interesting that he is all the rage NOW. Is his stuff written down somewhere? (like in a book/books). That would be great.

    I heard him on Sirius XM Real Jazz not too long ago, an old recording, he sounded great. I didn't know it was him until the DJ mentioned it. I recognized a classic line that sounded a lot like a cliche that Joe Pass used a lot.


    So how would one characterize his theory (if we may be allowed to use the term) relative to more "mainstream" jazz edu? (And I don't mean Berklee specifically). I am vaguely aware that he has his own take on 8-note scales and different harmonic thinking/naming. And I am under the impression that he is very bebop centric.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Barry says there is no such thing as the bebop scale:


  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    You're correct, I didn't know that he had been teaching that long. Interesting that he is all the rage NOW. Is his stuff written down somewhere? (like in a book/books). That would be great.
    Alan Kingston
    Barry Harris harmonic method for guitar.

    It does not cover his linear approach though.

    It is very concise but I think it covers the essence

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    Barry says there is no such thing as the bebop scale:

    Good post there, grahambop.

    As a member of the "cult" mentioned above I have to say, why would I limit myself to singular concepts associated with chord / scale relationships.

  22. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Alan Kingston
    Barry Harris harmonic method for guitar.

    It does not cover his linear approach though.

    It is very concise but I think it covers the essence
    Thanks. Not available at Amazon (which may not mean anything), but maybe at this link?

    https://www.jazzschoolonline.com/ind...d=520#appendix

    It mentions scales but not "lines", to your point.

    Anyway, thanks.

  23. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    Barry says there is no such thing as the bebop scale:


    Laughable. Barry doesn't "feel" that there is such a thing as a bebop scale.

    Well guess what? There is if people play it. The end.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Laughable. Barry doesn't "feel" that there is such a thing as a bebop scale.

    Well guess what? There is if people play it. The end.
    "feel" = misinterpreting this scale as a singular limiting idea i.e. playing one idea over a chord
    instead of seeing it as stated above as a "rhythmic" placeholder for numerous iterations.

    Why so hostile?

  25. #49
    Hostile? Lol. That's far from hostile. I could likewise say.... "why so iconoclastic?"

    So, how about... critical?

    Seriously, I don't care what people "feel" when they set out on a course of logical argumentation. Feel/schmeel. (Something I told a relatively inexperienced Ivy League boss once. He didn't really appreciate it, but he knew he was weak on the point).

    The thing is, David Baker's books have the "student" doing a lot more than just playing the bebop scales (plural) ascending/descending by rote.

    But to Barry's point - there is more than just those scales. People can throw in chromatics all over the place, and they do. So Barry has a point, and he his favorite 8-note scales too, right? Or at least chromatic passages for a range short of a full octave? How about Joe Pass? How about Dave Liebman?

    So, is there any practical reason to create "synthetic" 8-note scales? (again, plural).

    I can think of one. Musicians practice sales.

    I can think of another. Telling people to practice diatonic scales (and arpeggios) - but - "also throw in some chromatics, and go from there!" probably won't cut it.

    So, are there patterns in what the masters did/do? Was/is there repeatability? If the answer is yes, then creating some drills (and yes, even "scales") that build skills along those lines seems like a practical thing to do.

    In the end it's not enough though, right? There is the music. That's why transcription is advised. Or shall we call it copying/stealing?

    Imitate-Assimilate-Innovate.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Hostile? Lol. That's far from hostile. I could likewise say.... "why so iconoclastic?"

    So, how about... critical?

    Seriously, I don't care what people "feel" when they set out on a course of logical argumentation. Feel/schmeel. (Something I told a relatively inexperienced Ivy League boss once. He didn't really appreciate it, but he knew he was weak on the point).

    The thing is, David Baker's books have the "student" doing a lot more than just playing the bebop scales (plural) ascending/descending by rote.

    But to Barry's point - there is more than just those scales. People can throw in chromatics all over the place, and they do. So Barry has a point, and he his favorite 8-note scales too, right? Or at least chromatic passages for a range short of a full octave? How about Joe Pass? How about Dave Liebman?

    So, is there any practical reason to create "synthetic" 8-note scales? (again, plural).

    I can think of one. Musicians practice sales.

    I can think of another. Telling people to practice diatonic scales (and arpeggios) - but - "also throw in some chromatics, and go from there!" probably won't cut it.

    So, are there patterns in what the masters did/do? Was/is there repeatability? If the answer is yes, then creating some drills (and yes, even "scales") that build skills along those lines seems like a practical thing to do.

    In the end it's not enough though, right? There is the music. That's why transcription is advised. Or shall we call it copying/stealing?

    Imitate-Assimilate-Innovate.
    Well... 'feel' is quite soft word... I do not think Barry says that.

    Artisic critic and theories are not quite as much scientidfic: it is quite possible that the scale exists for one and does not exist for the other.
    Theories describe first of all the way we percieve artistic world and language...
    And great personalities can often bring it to the extremes.

    Ruskin made his own classification of orders that seem much more convincing for me than traditional historical classification, Bach hardly litterally thought in terms of functional tonality but the theory of funciotnal tonality describes the semantical world of his musical language very well...

    If you use 'bebop scale' it brings in a conceptionof 8-note scale... it implies some equality of notes, some abstracy of scale idea to certain degree..
    BH uses in line approach majo/minor/dom scales with added chromatics between particular tones... in particular places.
    This is a different thing. Chromatics is always secondary to the scale note... scale is more referential to harmony here - and stays melodic at the same time and so on.

    it does not exclude for me David Baker, it does not exclude transcribing...

    But it also does not make me kill myself beating my head against the wall and trying to prove to Barry or his followers that 'bebop scale' exists... especially only because someone plays it (it is not experimental physics, this kind of proof does not work in artistic area).

    What is important for me and what is vivid this is waht exists... Barry Harris approach is interesting thing.

    And again Maj6dim scale is a harmonic tool - and though it has the same notes as 'bebop scale' it presumes totally different conception.


    I also think that before really criticizing something with strong point you shoudl (yes I think you really shoul) go a bit further than just reading the contents page of the book... give it a try.

    Of course BH is often agressive - I do not like what he says about Bill Evans... and I think Pat Metheny hardly exists for him too)
    But this is not the main point of his method