How many tonalities or colors do you try to utilize in a tune?

[Jimmy Smith]

It's easy to get locked into patterns i.e scales. They kind of get taught as a formulaic way toward achieving a certain sound and so it's easy to get tunnel vision and neglect other possibilities that are within that framework, right under your fingers, like chord tones or passing tones.

Maybe I'm off base, and undoubtedly I have crap theory understanding since I quit theory once we started doing four part harmonies, yuk, but I want a 7th as a passing tone in my blues scale. Same for #5 since it's right under my fingers. One could argue it's kind of a "bum" note but so is the b5 but somehow it's included? Or how about a 3rd since it's part of the I chord arpeggio and functions as a passing tone when it's not the I chord? Also right under my fingers. Same for a b9. Add some of them and you get a scale pattern that flows a little more smoothly, at least, to my ears on a guitar. Also offers more ins and outs and general lick-age within the pattern.

It's likely my theory is more piss poor than I already imagined it was but I still wonder why so much is omitted on a basic blues scale, especially for guitarists considering many of the fingering patterns where these notes are right under where my fingers are already headed.. Could've saved myself a lot of time and experimenting if I could've had the whole enchilada from the get go.

Imo, the whole enchilada as far as melody is scales, arps, intervals, and chromatics. So if you faf with those along with your mojo and ear, you can't go wrong.

[Lionelsax]

Imo, the whole enchilada as far as melody is scales, arps, intervals, and chromatics. So if you faf with those along with your mojo and ear, you can't go wrong.

For me it's going from a point A to a point B, the colours stand between these two points. As I said, a form.

[ragman1]

Jimmy -

How many tonalities or colors do you try to utilize in a tune?

I answered this before but I'll repeat it. It obviously depends on the tune, there's no particular formula. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by tonalities. Do you mean different scales? Or moods? Or outside sounds? I'm finding this confusing because I don't really think like this, I just play what the tune seems to need.

Anyway, as I said before, if you give me a tune I'll tell you how I'd do it and you can count the tonalities. Bearing in mind that another tune might be completely different. And maybe other versions of the same tune might be different too.

I'm taking your question seriously but I can't discuss practical stuff theoretically, I don't understand that sort of thing.

[Jimmy Smith]

Well I'm not understanding why this is causing so much of a fuss.

Playing jazz lines is literally blending different tonalities together. It isn't wanking 1 scale like in rock. Nor is it wanking to your ear's gratification and thinking you're good.

Yes, mostly scales. But they can be applied in any way.

If you run blues scale over a major blues. That is a color outside of the key.

If you run whole tone scale over a 7 chord, that is a different color.

If you run melodic minor over a tonic minor, that is a different color.

If you run lydian over major, that is a different color.


I am going to take Litterick's advice and just analyze solos and see what they do.

DawgBone: Here's my teacher and I think he basically uses 3 here on a bluez like you were talking about. Just mix, bluez, and side slipping into the 4 chord. That's basically all I heard. Oh yeah he does do lydian at the end.

[ragman1]

Okay, I see what you mean by tonalities. Got it!

But, I've got to repeat, doesn't it depend on the tune you're playing? Also on the amount of stuff you know? You can't formulate it. I mean, obviously some tunes need more tonalities than others, like modal stuff.

I could discuss this quite a lot really. I could probably reduce almost any tune to a couple of major scales. Seriously. On the other hand the same tune could be complicated beyond belief. It might sound better; equally it might not, it depends.

Give me a tune, something obvious. Or, if you're shy, I'll pick one!

[Jimmy Smith]

I think it does depend on the tune. For example a down home - ish jazz blues like in the clip. You want to keep it kind of spare. While on other tunes you'd play it differently. Say a modal tune where you're running pents. Or Monk where you want it spiky and hit angular stuff like whole tone. I absolutely want to try to formulate it because I think it sounds awesome when I hear players taking advantage of it.

This is the tune my teacher gave me to work on for the week. I asked him about the colors he was using and he was using jazzy stuff even though it has kind of a modal feel to it. He told me: bebop, dim, aug, melodic minor. I want to practice some shifty pent stuff and surprise him. I don't think I've heard him play that.

[Litterick]

I hope you share your discoveries here.

[ragman1]

I absolutely want to try to formulate it because I think it sounds awesome when I hear players taking advantage of it.

Ah... depends what you mean by formulate, doesn't it? If you mean you want to see what he's playing over what, then that's fair. But no more than we'd all do with a tune. We do need to know what goes with what otherwise it'll sound ghastly. It has to make musical sense.

But if you mean - and I don't think you do - setting certain sounds over certain chords in a certain setting in stone, then I'd say that's a trap.

The tune you've linked to is too fast and complex to just do here for me. But I bet you that, if it were all slowed down and analysed, your man is just using the usual stuff BUT played on the fly and with a ton of experience behind it.

While I was waiting for your reply I just did this. No warm up, straight in. It's the chords to Summertime because I suspect you like bluesy sounds. But it's also modal. And it's also a ballad.

As I'm typing this I have very little idea of what I did. A couple of things come back to me, that's all. It wasn't just 'play the blues pents'. There was more than one melodic minor, there were a few chord substitutions (like a Bb7 arp over E7+), there might have been a whole-tone scale in there over the Am, some dorian (C maj) over the Dm, there was lydian over one of the CM7's... etc, etc. But, of course, I know this tune very well.

But that was now, today. Tomorrow it wouldn't be the same. Perhaps a little because the tune is the tune, but not much.

[ragman1]

FWIW, I know the key to this. Play, play, play, practice, practice, practice, experiment, experiment, experiment. And never stop.

[mr. beaumont]

Well I'm not understanding why this is causing so much of a fuss.

Because it's a really odd way of thinking of things.

Let's take a tune and break it down. The answer is "all are fair game" on pretty much every tune with functional jazz harmony. But there's so much overlap too...things can be analyzed but not necessarily be correct as to what the player was thinking...if the player was thinking at all...the end goal of course is to internalize enough things to where they just come out...

Which leads me back to something somebody said to me once, and that I repeat a lot because it was the single best bit of advice I've ever gotten:

Better to know 5 things and REALLY know them inside out-- than to "know of" fifty.

[Jimmy blue note]

Jimmy -


I'm taking your question seriously but I can't discuss practical stuff theoretically, I don't understand that sort of thing.

I was reacting in agreement with your post. 'always respect what you have to say.
The question was for the OP to whom you were reacting.
Thanks for the response as always.

Gotta say, over time, these kinds of questions became less important, and even irrelevant on some level as the indescribable process of actually playing took on its own way.
The more complete I am as a player, the more answers are provided by doing.
If I went back to my younger self, I'd tell me "The truth is in the playing. You learn that it takes away from good practice and growing time by over thinking it." But I probably wouldn't have listened to me. We all need to fumble and stumble to learn to walk effortlessly.

[ragman1]

Probably everybody overthinks at the beginning, and along the way too. This jazz stuff is hard, which is why it needs to be approached very, very simply. But you know what people are like, they want to be flash right NOW; they want the brilliance without the work. Can't be done.

I don't entirely disagree with formulas because everything is a formula. I was teaching someone once and he said 'This is all formulaic!'. The trouble was that he could play already, blues mostly but not jazz. I said boiling an egg is a formula, tying your shoelace is a formula, your name is a formula. Things are broken down so we can grasp them more easily, that's all, but once that's done then you can use what you know to express your feeling. That's not a formula, and if it is it's no longer creative.

So, sure, break it down but then go beyond it. What Jeff up there was saying is right, it has to be internalized before it really comes to life. And that means work. Which means time and patience. We should be more gentle with ourselves, it's not easy.

[mr. beaumont]

Honestly, to go a bit further-- and I'm not calling out your teacher or anything, because I'm not saying this is necessarily what they are doing to you--

The "laundry list" of pre-requisites for playing jazz is really damaging. I see so many people think "we'll, once I know my MM in all 12 keys I can work on HM...but I still need to memorize my drop 2's and 3's and arpeggios...THEN maybe I can play "Autumn Leaves."

Maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe it's not...

[John A.]

I guess I’d put the topic in different terms, more along the lines of

“what devices do you use to vary your note choices from the key of the moment?” or something like that. It would never occur to me to count them or come up with an algorithm to optimize their use.

First and foremost I’m almost always reaching into blues and Martino-ish conversion to minor devices, but this is pretty reflexive. It’s pretty much just how I hear things by default from having played a lot of blues.

But I do practice other devices, such as borrowing from parallel keys, chromaticism, displacement, altered dominant and Lydian dominant palettes, tri-tone subs, hw and wh patterns and other interval patterns, pentatonics, etc. Bits and pieces of it come out in actual playing.

[ragman1]

Maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe it's not...

I don't think so, not really.

[Vihar]

Academic jazz is its own genre now. It tastes like saltless food.

[pauln]

What a great thread, people really digging into
themselves, revealing what and how they play!

Of course interpreting the descriptions is going
to be challenging because different approaches
to understanding music will read quite different.

For example, which of these three pictures most
closely represents how you grasp playing music?

[Vihar]

What a great thread, people really digging into
themselves, revealing what and how they play!

Of course interpreting the descriptions is going
to be challenging because different approaches
to understanding music will read quite different.

For example, which of these three pictures most
closely represents how you grasp playing music?

Put it up to a pub(l)ic poll.

[mr. beaumont]

Here's mine:

[Jimmy Smith]

What a great thread, people really digging into
themselves, revealing what and how they play!

Yes great thread. This will be the last time I ever create a thread. People seem to think that if I create a theory thread, it's an open invitation to bust in and be a pos, self aggrandize about their elevated approach, and straw man that I don't understand the topic or that I'm doing math problems and can't hear or play. Although I did get productive contributions from Litterick, DawgBone, and ragman.

[Jimmy Smith]

Because it's a really odd way of thinking of things.

Let's take a tune and break it down. The answer is "all are fair game" on pretty much every tune with functional jazz harmony. But there's so much overlap too...things can be analyzed but not necessarily be correct as to what the player was thinking...if the player was thinking at all...the end goal of course is to internalize enough things to where they just come out...

Which leads me back to something somebody said to me once, and that I repeat a lot because it was the single best bit of advice I've ever gotten:

Better to know 5 things and REALLY know them inside out-- than to "know of" fifty.

What's so odd? From listening to recordings of the pros I realized that I like it when there are concise harmonic approaches. From listening to my recordings, I realized that it does sound acceptable to have the harmonic approach just be intuitive, but not always, and that it's something I can improve on with focused practice.

Honestly, to go a bit further-- and I'm not calling out your teacher or anything, because I'm not saying this is necessarily what they are doing to you--

The "laundry list" of pre-requisites for playing jazz is really damaging. I see so many people think "we'll, once I know my MM in all 12 keys I can work on HM...but I still need to memorize my drop 2's and 3's and arpeggios...THEN maybe I can play "Autumn Leaves."

Maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe it's not...

My teacher didn't suggest this to me, it's something I realized on my own and decided to have a discussion on it. I agree with what you're saying here. You don't want to study an encyclopedia first and then try to play second. However fundamentals and some focused practice on advanced topics is good.

[Jimmy Smith]

I guess I’d put the topic in different terms, more along the lines of

“what devices do you use to vary your note choices from the key of the moment?” or something like that. It would never occur to me to count them or come up with an algorithm to optimize their use.

First and foremost I’m almost always reaching into blues and Martino-ish conversion to minor devices, but this is pretty reflexive. It’s pretty much just how I hear things by default from having played a lot of blues.

But I do practice other devices, such as borrowing from parallel keys, chromaticism, displacement, altered dominant and Lydian dominant palettes, tri-tone subs, hw and wh patterns and other interval patterns, pentatonics, etc. Bits and pieces of it come out in actual playing.

More good stuff. I love the Martino approach. I'm not sure if I would put in the work to be able to use it, but I certainly like listening to him.

[Jimmy Smith]

Ah... depends what you mean by formulate, doesn't it? If you mean you want to see what he's playing over what, then that's fair. But no more than we'd all do with a tune. We do need to know what goes with what otherwise it'll sound ghastly. It has to make musical sense.

But if you mean - and I don't think you do - setting certain sounds over certain chords in a certain setting in stone, then I'd say that's a trap.

The tune you've linked to is too fast and complex to just do here for me. But I bet you that, if it were all slowed down and analysed, your man is just using the usual stuff BUT played on the fly and with a ton of experience behind it.

While I was waiting for your reply I just did this. No warm up, straight in. It's the chords to Summertime because I suspect you like bluesy sounds. But it's also modal. And it's also a ballad.

As I'm typing this I have very little idea of what I did. A couple of things come back to me, that's all. It wasn't just 'play the blues pents'. There was more than one melodic minor, there were a few chord substitutions (like a Bb7 arp over E7+), there might have been a whole-tone scale in there over the Am, some dorian (C maj) over the Dm, there was lydian over one of the CM7's... etc, etc. But, of course, I know this tune very well.

But that was now, today. Tomorrow it wouldn't be the same. Perhaps a little because the tune is the tune, but not much.

I'm hearing it. I agree, you don't just play the bluez over the tune, you add other harmony in the lines and it adds to the sound. Still has a decided effect even if the listener doesn't understand the fundamentals of it or if the musician came to play it intuitively.

[mr. beaumont]

What's so odd? From listening to recordings of the pros I realized that I like it when there are concise harmonic approaches.

Right but...is the player dictating the approach, or is the tune informing it?

Sometimes we can get hung up on making something "fit." That's why I've been having a problem conceptualizing your idea here, because I can't sit down and say "I'd like to use 4 different concepts on this tune" without knowing the tune. Some songs are open to a lot. Others command a more direct approach.

Now some pros have an over-arcing "concept" in general, where lots of different devices can fit into...for example, George Benson pretty much sees everything as I and V. But there's dozens of sub concepts that fit into what "I" and "V" are.

[Vihar]

Now some pros have an over-arcing "concept" in general, where lots of different devices can fit into...for example, George Benson pretty much sees everything as I and V. But there's dozens of sub concepts that fit into what "I" and "V" are.

How cool is that. I think many times it's a deliberate simplification to take the edge off of complex music and free up the mind, which comes handy especially at breakneck tempos.