Phrygian Dominant Add #9

[rintincop]

Phrygian Dominant Add #9 Scale...

Barry Harris gave detailed instructions on the usage of something slightly similar "Over G7 play the Bb7 Dominant scale down from its 7th (Ab) to B the 3rd of G7."

[FwLineberry]

Phrygian Dominant with a #9 is already called Spanish Phrygian in some circles. That may not suit your intentions, though.

.

[rintincop]

But does Spanish Phrygian Add #9

[ccroft]

This guy has a few names for it. I'm not an academic type, but Major Phrygian makes sense to me. He may not have studied much Barry Harris though:

(after seeing this I may avoid using this scale entirely from now on :-)

[jazznylon]

How about Phrygian add b4?

[Tal_175]

Aeolian bebop scale starting on the fifth.

[pauln]

Looks like you are taking a G H-W diminished flat sixth scale
and asking how to call it as Bb something... here we go, how
about Bb H-W diminished flat tri-tone (E moved to Eb)

[rintincop]

Just thinking about a name

[FwLineberry]

I think the Spanish Phrygian does not Add #9

Some folks call the regular Phrygian dominant the Spanish Phrygian scale. Others call the Phrygian scale with both the major 3rd and minor 3rd (#9) the Spanish Phrygian scale.

One Source

[Christian Miller]

I always understood the Spanish Phrygian to include both b3 and 3

[Christian Miller]

Just thinking about a name for a scale approach that Harris taught that he didn't seem to have a specific name for.
I don't know how many times I have to quote him: "Over G7 play the Bb7 Dominant scale down from its 7th (Ab) to B the 3rd of G7."

At Berklee they would call it G7 Phrygian Dominant Add #9. Why all the naysayers?

Nay! At Berklee they would call it Mixolydian b9 b13 add #9

which is offensive to me on so many levels

[Christian Miller]

I think the Barry approach is different because it is a process, while a Berkleeoid chord scale is a pool of notes used more or less at liberty (excepting avoid notes) to create harmonies and lines. I think if you applied this cst approach you’d end up with different results even with the same theoretical pitch set. The striking thing about Barry’s approach is that unlike CST, it produces bebop language from scales, whereas in mainstream edu this usually has to be learned separately as ‘language’ via transcription and lick learning.

the other advantage as I see it of using the ‘down to the 3rd of the dominant approach’ is that it allows you to play lines on minor ii Vs using only the dominant/mixo scale and a small modification of it. So it applies knowledge you already have into a new context rather than requiring the learning of a new scale to deal with a new situation.

In Barry line building you have a small number of scales that are applied in lots of ways (eg G dominant goes on G7, Dm7 and Bm7b5 etc) rather than many scales applied in a one to one way over each chord (eg G mixo on G7, D Dorian on Dm7, B locrian on Bm7b5 etc)

So Barry’s line approach hinges on
1) constructing and practicing idiomatic things to play using a limited number scales - especially dominant
2) internalising various ways to apply this limited number of scales on changes.

As compared to CST which involves learning a very simple one of one mapping between scale but requires the practicing of patterns etc in a large number of scales. Adam Rogers appears to view the world that way for instance as do many players coming up since the explosion of jazz education.

(of course it’s not that cut and dried - Mark Levine introduces the idea of using a limited number of scales in application in his books, and Mick Goodrick discusses the two approaches to scale use in his book the Advancing Guitarist.)

(It’s so sad to be reminded that we’ve lost those three in the past few years. Anyway.)

I think these would have to remain regardless of changes to the terminology to make it more familiar to preserve the soul of the technique, and it’s those things that differentiate it from standard scale use. By constructing a new scale from a different root and a different chord quality (the G7b9b13 instead of the Bb) you lose that.

Maybe it’s different for piano. I honestly think piano works so different to guitar, we should really teach applied improvisation theory differently on guitar.

[rpjazzguitar]

Why must it have a name? It's Bb7 (mixo) down to the third of G7.

[Reg]

Yea... I still just think, Harmonic Min. Implied... Dominant chord, the V7 chord of old school but adding the #9 to get rid of the awkward min. 3rd between the b9 and the 3rd.

That's the way I learned back in the 60's playing gigs... if you still wanted the nat. 5th. and blue notes.

Later in early 70's at Berklee... I learned and began to hear other options, as far as CST BS...

There is still Harmonic maj. and even worse... Diminished. LOL But typically it just depends on whom your working with and how musically organized you can hear and understand what your hearing.

Altered .... implies Melodic Minor. Which still is about the 5th degree or chord tone. So yea... Phrygian Dom. add #9
Has always seem natural to me, has been pretty standard for 50 years... Blue Notes... but almost any organization works, it's generally more about how well one uses it.(LOL)

I'm from old school, took Pn lessons from Ray Santisi, eventually he let me bring in a guitar. Then took some lessons with James Williams...(learned what Blues were about). ( also more modern approach, at least back then)

I took Herb Pomerory's Line writing and in style of Duke, Double Dim. etc...classes and in his ensembles at berklee in the 70s and later read this article which might be of interest to some,LOL.
2 parallels: Herb Pomeroy - Yuzef Kon.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Nay! At Berklee they would call it Mixolydian b9 b13 add #9

which is offensive to me on so many levels

[rpjazzguitar]

Nay! At Berklee they would call it Mixolydian b9 b13 add #9

which is offensive to me on so many levels

One of my teachers would have called it a G7b9#9b13 scale. Perhaps inelegant, but very clear as to the notes.

[rintincop]

.....

[GuyBoden]

I had a play around with this scale last night over a few different chord types. Sounds good over some other chords too, not just dominants.

This was my simplistic thinking:

C Major Mode 3 = E Phrygian = E F G A B C D

E Phrygian add a G# – E F G G# A B C D

I'm not sure about a name, but it's just adding a note to the Phrygian scale, the Major Mode 3.

[Christian Miller]

One of my teachers would have called it a G7b9#9b13 scale. Perhaps inelegant, but very clear as to the notes.

As you probably know I’m a fan of this type of nomenclature. If you are going to embrace chord scale theory, it makes no sense to name the scale differently to the chord. Learning the silly names is just busy work.

[Christian Miller]

Argh the #9 b9 demonic major blah blah brigade are out again lol

Seriously, the point of doing the Barry harris minor ii V down to the 3rd of the dominant thingy is not to think harmonically but to apply familiar language in a useful context. The harmonic side of it actually super vanilla. You’re aiming for melodic fluency through changes when you do this, not super hip bop harmony (he had ways into that.)

I never heard Barry talk about that this stuff in improv class except occasionally (like putting the major 7 on the dominant when using tritones which warranted a sidebar from him; or that he preferred to number intervals within the octave instead of using 9,11,13 etc .)

if it’s flowing you are focussing on larger chunks such as backdoor, important minor, tritone, tritones minor and so on, and whether the individual notes are b9s or b13s or whatever isn’t really something one focusses on. You can analyse a line for that stuff if you want, but it’s not the primary concern.

In fact I would consider it almost a hallmark of the way Barry taught linear improv to not spend time analysing individual notes but instead focus on shapes, lines and gestures within a scale. He never even mentioned the ‘chord tones on the downbeat’ thing when I was there, though maybe others might have heard him say it.

The harmonic side of this specific example is literally just what happens when you play the dominant of the minor key - you raise the seventh or the third of the dominant chord to make it into a major. (That’s how they teach harmonic minor in classical theory). In more than three hundred years it never occurred to classical theorists to give it a separate name in fact other than harmonic minor - it’s just the minor key. The only point of divergence with Barry is he’s looking at Bb7/mixo instead of C natural minor because by the time we get to minor ii V I’s we’ve just spent a load of time practicing cool things to play on the dominant chord.

CST people might feel the need to map to a scale to satisfy their approach (mapping scales one-one to chords), but this has nothing to do with Barry’s approach.

if you are (I try to) trying to pass on this stuff the process and the WAY Barry taught it is important here (it’s not like he didn’t know what a harmonic minor scale was.). Im not a Barry purist - it’s the spirit that’s most important and we can tweak the terminology to make it more accessible, but for me that aspect has to be kept imo because that’s the bit I think is really useful.

Barry wasn’t about theory - he was about teaching people to play bebop real good.

[Reg]

So why not just call it as it's used... A Dom chord going to a Tonic Minor.

It's another option for adding the #9 to a Dominant chord with implied resolution to a Tonic Minor.

Like I believed I said it's a standard approach for staying with old school Natural Minor V I harmonic Functional implied movement, or melodic voiceleading etc... and having the #9 and a Nat. 5th.

There is nothing wrong with not including BH in everything... or including BH in everything. But using #9 on old school harmony and melodic development is great way to use a Blue Note.

I mean bebop uses b13 (#5) as Blue Note on Maj. as well as Maj 7th on Dominant chords and maj 3rds on Minor.
all in the typical rhythmical 8 note collections.

Verbally can be taught how ever one chooses..... what are the results? Never meet a good bop player who couldn't play the blues.

[mr. beaumont]

Yeah, trying to call this a new "scale" seems to put equal weight on everything, or that every note can be used the same way...

It's just playing over a dominant...I mean, what notes DON'T work?

[Reg]

I know I'm old... but back in the late 60's and 70's.... I mean who didn't use on a, ex. G7#9...

G Ab Bb B C D Eb F F# G ....

Fret pattern low 6th string up. Usually with Pent patterns and usually burnin, LOL

6th...3 4 6
5th...2 3 5 6
4th...3 5 6
3rd...3 4 5
2nd..3 4 6
1st...3 4 6

[Christian Miller]

So why not just call it as it's used... A Dom chord going to a Tonic Minor.

It's another option for adding the #9 to a Dominant chord with implied resolution to a Tonic Minor.

yeah, that is the main difference to classical stuff. Tbh I just think it’s naturally emergent from the fact that jazz is improvised, but an obvious written example is Blue Bossa.

Really, it’s a b3 in this context. But G7addb3 probably looks a bit funny to people

One of the last things I learned from Barry was that a lot of the time it’s good NOT to go to that 3rd.

Like I believed I said it's a standard approach for staying with old school Natural Minor V I harmonic Functional implied movement, or melodic voiceleading etc... and having the #9 and a Nat. 5th.

There is nothing wrong with not including BH in everything... or including BH in everything. But using #9 on old school harmony and melodic development is great way to use a Blue Note.

My point is not that daddy Barry rules all jazz theory (although I don’t think there’s anyone like him in terms of teaching how to get from scales and arpeggios to actual jazz language), more to say there’s a very good pedagogical rationale for doing things the way he does them, and if you follow through his reasoning it makes absolute sense.

If the aim is to teach his approach I think it’s important to understand why he taught it the way he did (which is to maximise the utility of stuff you already know, provided you’ve already spent time learning his approach already, which is centred around dominant language

if you are a Pat Martino style everything’s minor guy you probably wouldn’t find it so helpful. Or Tristano. Or whatever.

You can’t really take a pick and mix approach to this stuff, there’s a through line with it. That’s why most Barry casuals get hung up on the eight note scales. I did for ages, but I feel it’s the improv stuff that’s helped me the most in the end Fwiw, and it took me a long while to see the validity of it. And I had to follow it through to get something out of it.

The scale itself is - well you’ve talked about it as a precursor to altered before on this forum. It’s commonplace.

It is a bit of a mistake imo to try and understand it through a different approach. You kind of have to go through the process and see if it works out for you without wanting to make it sound too mysterious and culty.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah, trying to call this a new "scale" seems to put equal weight on everything, or that every note can be used the same way...

It's just playing over a dominant...I mean, what notes DON'T work?

Anything works if you can play and nothing works if you can’t…