I was threatening to start a theory thread about a week ago and got enough responses that it seemed worth a shot. I've been working on a technique for teaching an introduction to basic melodic soloing concepts (mostly in a jazz context)for the past couple of years. I hope to eventually turn it into either a large handout or a small text for ease of use, but between now and then I need to get some feedback and criticism. So, if you're so inclined, pull up a comfortable chair, get some coffee, and perhaps have a good pillow handy in case I get long-winded and boring. This might take a minute...

Over the past 5 years teaching in university situations and at the Aebersold summer workshops, I've noticed a disturbing trend in methods of teaching beginner/intermediate level players how to deal with chord changes to standard tunes. What happens is that many instructors pass out the chord changes and then explain what scale corresponds to each chord, and then count off the tune and play. When the students can't figure out how to apply that knowledge, the typical response is "Okay, let's everybody play through the tune and play the first five notes of the scale (or the arpeggio 1-3-5-7 or whatever)". After everyone has done this, the tune gets counted off again, and then everyone fumbles through the first notes of each scale as they go by, and the solos still sound like scale exercises. Many students walk around practically begging for someone to show them how to play melodically, or how to tie all of the scale knowledge together to help them play melodies.

Over the past three years of the camps, I've done some version of the following in my (piano) master classes and combos, and it seems to help.

1) Define "Melodic" as "singable", and refer students who want to solo melodically to imitate melodic constructions of the actual melodies of jazz standards (as differentiated from many bebop heads, which ARE melodic, but which more resemble "frozen solos" in many instances).

2)Analyze various standard melodies (chosen by the students when asked to choose examples of tunes which contain beautiful or strong melodies) to determine how the composer made his/her note choices for the melody. Without fail (so far), when we do this we discover that 90 - 99% OF THE NOTES IN MOST STANDARD MELODIES ARE COMPLETELY DIATONIC when analyzed in the context of the harmonic modulations that the tune goes through.

3)Define the basic tonality that is happening during each harmonic or tonal "area", and assign a single "blanket scale" to cover the entirety of that area. When thought of in this way, the number of "thoughts per phrase or tune" is reduced dramatically when compared to the "normal"(?) way of learning it, which involves seeing each chord as a separate entity which must be covered each time it goes by.

Ex. "All The Things You Are" first 8 bars:

F- Bb- Eb7 AbMa DbMa D- G7 CMa


If you are thinking chord by chord (and, assuming you have your theory correct and know that ALL JAZZ MINOR CHORDS DO NOT DESIGNATE DORIAN SCALES!!!), you would have to think of playing: F aeolian, Bb dorian, Eb mixolydian, Ab ionian, Db lydian, D dorian, G mixolydian, and C ionian. 8 thoughts all in the span of about 16 seconds, (give or take)! How crazy is it to approach soloing this way? How creative can you be while thinking this much?

If you are thinking of playing motivic shapes within a blanket scale, you only have to think of playing out of Ab major for the first 5 bars, and C major for the last three. Most people find this a much more liberating approach.

I have found that almost all standard melodies/tunes can be approached in this way, and that students who start approaching tunes in this manner tend to start soloing in a more melodic manner immediately. When you reduce the number of thoughts/judgements required to get through any phrase or chorus, it's almost as if you are opening the gate to intuitive playing or creativity.

I'd like to write more, but this is getting pretty long already and my wife has her arms crossed and is starting to tap her toes which means....... well, you all know what that means. It means I gotta go. Thoughts, comments, questions, criticism, anyone? More later if anybody has eyes.

"Many students walk around practically begging for someone to show them how to play melodically, or how to tie all of the scale knowledge together to help them play melodies."

Thats exactly the group that I'm in right now, Chris.
I'm looking forward to more.

Pkr2

Thanks Chris. This is very helpful stuff. I have been struggling with analyzing each chord as the tune progresses. It will be interesting to start incorporating this into practice.

Thanks a lot, Chris!
I do appreciate your post very much.
Now, I'd like to get help on how to easily find those simple blanket scales from a chord change.

Thanks again!

Glad to hear this stuff is helpful to someone! One of the reasons I like teaching at the camps so much is that each week, there are 400 people who are really into jazz all packed into one building, and most of them seem really hungry for information - As opposed to the rest of the year, when I am lucky if I see even 200 people at a single concert (even one by a major player...this should change in Feb. - I hope - 'cause McCoy Tyner's trio is coming to town). :cool:

Finding suitable blanket scales for specific tunes to begin with is mostly a matter of knowing how chords fit together within larger tonalities. The melody will usually give you a solid clue, but beyond that, you've gotta be able to do some analysis. I'd be happy to go over some of that stuff if anyone wants - especially if anyone has a tune or some tunes that they are finding problematic: just post the changes, and we'll see what we can do. The key to the puzzle is almost always the same - instead of looking for differences between consecutive chord scales (i.e. - thinking of each scale on its own terms), look for SIMILARITIES, and get rid of the idea that each scale is rootbound...this will kill solos every time.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Finding suitable blanket scales for specific tunes to begin with is mostly a matter of knowing how chords fit together within larger tonalities. The melody will usually give you a solid clue, but beyond that, you've gotta be able to do some analysis.

A method that works for me is to record the changes in question using a piano or chords on the bass (10ths mostly) and then to take a four or eight or twelve bar section and experiment with what sounds good. I wrote an eight bar tune that started as a melody with chords evolving to support it. I was really beating myself up trying to play "through" every chord but two choruses of soloing over the recorded changes with no thought of analysis, only melody, made it obvious there were really only three chords the melody relied upon. The other chords I wrote were there to add motion and contrast to the melody rather than it having been derived from them. Analysis of it all after the fact to justify and better understand what's going on for me works a lot better than trying to hear something through analysis. The term "blanket scale" is something I'm gonna cop as it describes the simplification process very well. Wish I'd had you as a teacher twenty years ago Chris.

Originally posted by jeffbonny


A method that works for me is to record the changes in question using a piano or chords on the bass (10ths mostly) and then to take a four or eight or twelve bar section and experiment with what sounds good. [/i]

That's a great way to start...In my experience, intuition is always a more fertile breeding ground for melodic playing than thought. I came to use this system initially as a pianist, and I discovered it little by little in exactly the way you described.
[B]
I wrote an eight bar tune that started as a melody with chords evolving to support it. I was really beating myself up trying to play "through" every chord but two choruses of soloing over the recorded changes with no thought of analysis, only melody, made it obvious there were really only three chords the melody relied upon. The other chords I wrote were there to add motion and contrast to the melody rather than it having been derived from them. [/i]

In reality, I think that most tunes are written in exactly that way - with the chords supporting and coloring the melody rather than the other way around. And if that's true (I know that it's 100% true when I write songs), why would you attempt to create a melodic solo in a different way?

[B]
Analysis of it all after the fact to justify and better understand what's going on for me works a lot better than trying to hear something through analysis.

I hear you. On the other hand, it's nice to be able to "hear" your way through many tunes on first sight. I remember a gig last year where the piano player called "These Foolish Things", which is a tune I had played before as a pianist but never as a bassist. He had a chart in a different key than I was used to (before I always played it on gigs with singers). I did a quick mental read of the tune, figured I had nothing to lose, and accidentally played one of the best solos I had played in months! (We were recording the gig, so I was able to confirm later that I wasn't dreaming). The point is, I didn't even have TIME to figure out any "Fancy" stuff to play, so I kept it simple and within the larger tonalities of the tune, and the result was more melodic than most stuff I play. As I get better at this method, I hope to be able (maybe by the time I'm 60 or something) to use it to get through just about ANY new tune comfortably on sight.

Well, I can always dream, can't I?
:cool:

Let apologize in advance for the lack of forethought I'm putting into this.

I think an important part of improvising both solos and basslines is hearing what you're playing an instant before you play it, just as when you speak you think about your words before they come out of your mouth.

Scales provide a set of notes and knowledge of the modes is essential. But without an understanding of not only how each scale relates to each chord, but an understanding of how each mode and the related chord relates to a key you just have a bag of notes. Understanding that relationship is what allows the improvisor to use the notes in a musical way. We all know Cm7-F7 is a ii7-V7 in Bb major. Seeing that and understanding that Eb is the third in the Cm chord, the seventh of the F7, the fourth of the tonic and a fourth wants to resolve down a half step to D, the third of the tonic, might lead a soloist to do something different with that note than if all he knows is that it's a note in the scale. Does the soloist understand that Gb in this example belongs to the key of Bb minor, the parallel minor of the key and could be used to set up a suprise resolution?

Once a student understands voice-leading (leading tones and passing tones) they need an undertstanding of chromatic approach notes, notes that don't belong to the key but may be used to embellish and resolve into notes belonging to the key.

Finally, perhaps more importance should be placed on being able to solo over a broad tonal area before leading students into playing on modes or specifif chord-scale relationships. Using the the above example, get the student to play something interesting thinking of nothing but Bb major before telling him he'd better be thinking about C dorian.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski

I think an important part of improvising both solos and basslines is hearing what you're playing an instant before you play it, just as when you speak you think about your words before they come out of your mouth.

I couldn't agree more. I've studied more theory than I could shake a stick at, but none of it is worth a red cent until it becomes a feeling rather than a thought, a SOUND rather than a concept.

Scales provide a set of notes and knowledge of the modes is essential. But without an understanding of not only how each scale relates to each chord, but an understanding of how each mode and the related chord relates to a key you just have a bag of notes. Understanding that relationship is what allows the improvisor to use the notes in a musical way. We all know Cm7-F7 is a ii7-V7 in Bb major. Seeing that and understanding that Eb is the third in the Cm chord, the seventh of the F7, the fourth of the tonic and a fourth wants to resolve down a half step to D, the third of the tonic, might lead a soloist to do something different with that note than if all he knows is that it's a note in the scale.

Absolutely. The resolution of 7ths to 3rds, the movement from chord tone to chord tone (and the intentional suspension of the same) in a progression is what gives that sense of tension and release while soloing. And I would agree that there is nothing wrong with studying these things (god knows I did). At the same time, studying them as abstract concepts is only a part of the story : as we both agreed above, the real goal is to HEAR what you are playing BEFORE and AS you are playing it. And when I'm hearing things beforehand, I never think about what note-name the sound is, or how it functions...I "feel", for lack of a better word, whether the note I'm hearing is a tension tone, resolution tone, or color tone of some kind and then lead up to it accordingly. I end up playing lots of chord tones - suspended and otherwise - and resolutions and color tones anyway, but without really thinking about it in a theoretical way.

One exercise I like to have people do is to play from the blanket scale in very slow tones, and to listen for the "stability" (or lack of same) of the note they're on. If they feel the note is stable, I tell them to stay on it; if they feel it is not "stable", I have them move from it either up or down by step within the scale, which should result in a more stable note (i.e. - chord tone). When most of them do this for even a small amount of time, they learn to hear or "feel" what the chord tones are within the overall context of the blanket scale, and start playing with the tension/release aspect of their soloing immediately. For myself, when I intentionally play certain chord tones in a thought-out manner, I feel like I am listening to someone with intellectual "wanker's syndrome" when I hear the recording later because it feels so predictable. But if I play with tension and release in an intuitive way within the larger tonal area, I find that I am still playing 7ths resolving to 3rds, etc, but approaching them from a much more organic, musical place. Kind of like two roads leading to the same place, only one is a hell of a lot more scenic.

Once a student understands voice-leading (leading tones and passing tones) they need an undertstanding of chromatic approach notes, notes that don't belong to the key but may be used to embellish and resolve into notes belonging to the key.

Finally, perhaps more importance should be placed on being able to solo over a broad tonal area before leading students into playing on modes or specifif chord-scale relationships. Using the the above example, get the student to play something interesting thinking of nothing but Bb major before telling him he'd better be thinking about C dorian.

Actually, it sounds like we are pretty much on the same page on most of these issues...To my mind, the analogy that works best is that of how infants and toddlers learn to talk - they imitate, and they screw up, and they try again. Nobody would think of trying to teach a 2 year old to speak by applying abstract grammatical rules...that would be absurd, and probably cause the child not to want to talk at all. But sometimes I feel like music education does something similar when it teaches by making things more complicated rather than simplifying them and letting each person's intuitive sense play a bigger role in deciding what the "rules" are.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
[QUOTE]Nobody would think of trying to teach a 2 year old to speak by applying abstract grammatical rules...that would be absurd, and probably cause the child not to want to talk at all. But sometimes I feel like music education does something similar when it teaches by making things more complicated rather than simplifying them and letting each person's intuitive sense play a bigger role in deciding what the "rules" are.

Mark Twain said not to let your schooling get in the way of a good education. Ray Brown's Bass Method is so much better than any other for the simple reason that it is not in any way coercive in the way that most jazz education is.

I tend to do the same as Jeff and use my Roland Microcomposer to "programme" chords and practice soloing over them and find this helps me become more melodic and "smoother" in soloing. I think that basically though, it's just a question of experience and the more chord sequences you play over, the more you recognise what notes are available.

I go along to regular Jazz classes at my local University and we have done a lot of this sort of thing and the horn players are all into finding what scales they can use, but we are getting to the point where this seems to hinder rather than help.

There is a tendency for the parts with common scales to become a sort of "mush" with no shape and no rhythmic interest. So it's like - noodle a bit on this scale, then noodle a bit more on this one - etc. I think this is something that doesn't happen to bass players (and piano players) so much, as we are constantly going round the chords anyway. I am the only bass player in the class, so by the time everybody else has had their solo, the chord sequence is so firmly lodged in my head I can't get it out!

The cruel thing that has to happen then, is to get these soloists to play a solo with no comping and for it to outline the changes, so that it's a melodic and interesting solo, but everybody can still hear the song happening. It's funny but we have a very good drummer in this class and in his solos, I can hear the changes every time, but the horns have a lot more difficulty with this.

I have the feeling that the "blanket scales" thing is something you have to learn and then throw away, or at least put to the back of your mind - but I'm probably not explaining what I mean very well. I just try to play as much as I can and as many different pieces that are "challenging" as far as possible - I feel that by doing this and studying each piece it is much more likely that it will "stick" rather than just studying theory in isolation or "just" playing.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


There is a tendency for the parts with common scales to become a sort of "mush" with no shape and no rhythmic interest. So it's like - noodle a bit on this scale, then noodle a bit more on this one - etc. I think this is something that doesn't happen to bass players (and piano players) so much, as we are constantly going round the chords anyway. I am the only bass player in the class, so by the time everybody else has had their solo, the chord sequence is so firmly lodged in my head I can't get it out!


Yes, pianists and bassists (and drummers, if they're paying attention) DO have the advantage of being more constantly involved in the changes than horn players. But as far as the "mush" you're talking about, that could be more a function of their lack of motivic playing that their note choices...


The cruel thing that has to happen then, is to get these soloists to play a solo with no comping and for it to outline the changes, so that it's a melodic and interesting solo, but everybody can still hear the song happening. It's funny but we have a very good drummer in this class and in his solos, I can hear the changes every time, but the horns have a lot more difficulty with this.

Not to state the obvious, but if you are hearing the changes when the drummer solos, it isn't because of his note choices. ;) What you are more likely hearing is not an outlining of the changes, but an outlining of the form, and the use of rhythmic motives to either accent or displace important places in the form. This is actually one of the more helpful aspects of the blanket scale approach if you stick with it - because anytime you are thinking less about the note choices you have, more of your active mind (human RAM, if you will) is free to play motivically, playing with the rhythm of melodic shapes which can be transposed, sequenced, and inverted etc...much in the way that real melodies do. Playing with motivic shapes and their rhythmic variations and derivations is a very melodic way of playing even without the issue of note choices, as your drummer exemplifies.

Try this experiment: take the melody of any standard tune and divide it into two parts, "Notes in Sequence", and "Rhythm". Try to "stump the band" (or whoever you're playing with) by playing the notes to any melody completely out of rhythm. I find that if I intentionally play obscure rhythmic groupings with standard melodies, breaking up the phrases & playing long tones where the melody has short one & vice versa, I can often play the notes exactly right & in the right order and still not allow the guys I'm playing with not to be able to tell me what tune I'm playing. Next, take the notes away from the rhythm completely and retain only the shape of the melody with larger or smaller intervallic motion than the original had. If I play all wrong notes (even if the result is atonal) but keep the rhythm & motivic shapes intact, most of the time I find that whoever is listening can tell you what tune you are playing in less than 8 bars.

I find this very telling. Perhaps "outlining the changes" doesn't always have to be so much about playing arpeggios after all?

I have the feeling that the "blanket scales" thing is something you have to learn and then throw away, or at least put to the back of your mind - but I'm probably not explaining what I mean very well. I just try to play as much as I can and as many different pieces that are "challenging" as far as possible - I feel that by doing this and studying each piece it is much more likely that it will "stick" rather than just studying theory in isolation or "just" playing.

I completely agree. I find that "studying theory in isolation" does me little good. Also, I think that ALL theoretical concepts belong more in the practice room than on the bandstand. The bandstand is the place for their intuitive realization rather than their conscious application.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
[QUOTE] Not to state the obvious, but if you are hearing the changes when the drummer solos, it isn't because of his note choices.

I would beg to differ with this statement. Steve Gadd, Art Blakey and Jack DeJohnette are just a few drummers concerned with tuning. The logical assumption would follow then that they are also concerned with choice of notes. To my ears their playing bears this out.

I think in the particular case I was mentioning, that Chris is probably closer to the truth and this is something I think would be useful to discuss in our class. I am pretty sure I know what you mean by "Motivic" playing, but this term has never come up on any Jazz classes I have attended in the UK. Is this a generally-used term in the US and can you give a potted definition - juts to make sure I know exactly what it is, when I bring it up on Saturday?

Thanks!

Originally posted by jeffbonny
Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
[QUOTE] Not to state the obvious, but if you are hearing the changes when the drummer solos, it isn't because of his note choices.

I would beg to differ with this statement. Steve Gadd, Art Blakey and Jack DeJohnette are just a few drummers concerned with tuning. The logical assumption would follow then that they are also concerned with choice of notes. To my ears their playing bears this out.

I know what you're saying. Yes, good drummers are concerned with their tuning. But you can't "tune" any of the cymbals, and I doubt very much that most (if any) drummers tune their drums to a specific pitch and then only play that drum when a chord that supports that pitch is happening in a song. What happens when your snare is "tuned" to F? Does this mean you can't play your snare over an E maj harmony? Or that when you do, you're intentionally thinking of a Maj b9 harmony? I dunno...mostly, what I hear from "melodic" drummers is motives which use the various "high and low" tunings to suggest melodic shapes. If there are a lot of drummers out there who are playing "lines" by tuning their drums to specific pitches, then I guess I'll have to admit that I've been missing the boat as far as hearing that aspect when I listen, which is entirely possible. (If I tried to list the stuff that I was completely unaware of until somebody clued me in, that list would make "War and Peace" look like a post-it note.) :cool:

Bruce - I don't know if the term "motive" is a common term in Europe or not...perhaps it is an Americanization of the common musical term "motif"? I don't know if I can give a "potted" definition or not, but to me it means a short musical unit (smaller than a phrase) with a very distinct melodic shape and rhythmic identity, which gets repeated and transposed with variations while still referring to the basic shape. I don't know if I explained that very well, they're kind of like the building blocks that phrases are made of. For instance:

Beethoven III:... F...A.F...C.F.A.C..F...(transposed)
(Note Values)....H...Q.H..Q.Q.Q.Q.H...

Mozart 40: EbD.D...EbD.D...EbD.D...Bb
..................8.8.Q....8.8.Q.....8.8.Q...H

Autumn Leaves:..G.A.Bb Eb
..........................Q.Q.Q..W

I hope that notation wasn't too weird...trying to communicate musical ideas on a computer keyboard is like trying to waterski behind a rowboat...anyway, does the above help explain it better?


[Edited by Chris Fitzgerald on 02-05-2001 at 10:47 AM]

Ed,

Hey, welcome to the funhouse! I'll second that reccommendation on the Brookmeyer writings. I've only read the one email forward you sent, but I completely agreed with almost everything it said (esp. the "Giant Steps" part, which led me to formulate some lyrics to a typical Change-running GS solo). Is there more at the website? If so, how might a fella find it?

Yeah, Galper was a hoot the entire week. Because of his,...uh.... uninhibited manner of speaking, I can't post much of what he really said during the week, but most of it was pretty interesting, and even the stuff I didn't agree with/care for was sure entertaining as hell...

Chris, I think we are indeed saying the same thing. Unfortunately, in trying to write about this, one tends to sound very theoretical. Obviously, in real time there's no time to think about it. You hear it and do it. But having done the homework helps you to hear it.

And I agree about the motivic thing, Ed. When I'm able to find something and develop it, or use as a call and response is always one of my better solos.

Maybe the problem with teaching the scale thing is perhaps that it causes students to feel like they have to play all those notes, and that there is nothing inherantly melodic about scales. They need to learn how to manipulate the notes of a scale into melody.

Well I think our tutor is trying very hard not to take a very strong line because of the sort of worries that Ed mentions and he mentioned last time that Jazz "educators" are split on some things. Like we were looking at some minor II-V-s that didn't resolve and he was saying that a few years ago he might have said one thing but now the "accepted thinking" was just have to take each as a separate chord in its own right.

We were also saying how a lot of the people are looking for ways to play better solos and are sort of "in the middle" or torn between "blanket scales" and treating each cord separately.

Come to think of it, I have heard "motif" used a lot in discussing soloing - it's just the adjective "motivic" looks strange written down and I haven't heard it used like that. I think our tutor's view is rather than giving us a lot of "rules", to take as many tunes as we can that "illustrate" different challenges and to play these and discuss what difficulties we have, or what ideas we have for playing a solo on these.

Oh and can you point me to the Brookmeyer site - I get the feeling I have seen this, but could you point me to the web address?

[Edited by Bruce Lindfield on 02-05-2001 at 11:07 AM]

Hey, great discussion - very interesting thread, and clears up a more than few of my misunderstandings.

BTW, Richard Wagner was the inventor of the "leit-motif", in which an idea or a character is associated with a short phrase or melody, and he used this device extensively "Der Ring des Nibelungen".

- Wil

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
[QUOTE]I dunno...mostly, what I hear from "melodic" drummers is motives which use the various "high and low" tunings to suggest melodic shapes. If there are a lot of drummers out there who are playing "lines" by tuning their drums to specific pitches, then I guess I'll have to admit that I've been missing the boat as far as hearing that aspect when I listen, which is entirely possible.

I don't think you're missing much. My initial reaction was to argue some more on this even though I know that most folks would agree with you. After really thinking about it though I realize that I hear more in terms of melodic shapes than in terms of lines. This may largely explain why often I have a hard time understanding (beyond an intellectual level anyway) and an equally hard time being understood when discussing things like we are now. This is somewhat of a revelation for me. Gotta go out to Mendocino fer a few days, hope this one's still going on when I get back.

[Edited by jeffbonny on 02-06-2001 at 12:12 AM]

Thanks Ed - too obvious for me - doh! I have had a look at the "currents" which are pretty funny and interesting!

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
... it really all boils down to this: hearing a chord progression has got to trigger some sort of melodic response in your head and you have to be able to get it out of your head and into the air.

I don't see much use for anything that tries to replace an AURAL choice with an intellectual one.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the theme of this thread, but this seems like a good time to mention that easier access to motivic material was the reason I got involved in the whole "blanket scale" notion in the first place. It all started for me when I made the realization that, when I wasn't consciously thinking about the note choices available for each passing chord, I found it very easy to play in a motivic way, and that as soon as I started thinking instead of "hearing", everything I played went to hell in a handbasket.

The whole idea of the large tonal areas is not to try to unleash some kind of new "Jazz Schenkerian Theory" on the world, but to simplify the issue of "note-choices" for beginner/intermediate improvisation students who have been taught to think all the time about each passing scale to the point where they have become afraid to play anything for fear of playing an "incorrect note". I use it myself as an easy way to access new tunes, and I can say that it works for me almost all of the time. Maybe I shouldn't be trying to define/refine it as an actual method, but every time I use it to teach a bunch of new people, it seems to reach them in some way and allow them to feel like playing jazz doesn't have to be so technical and scary.

To me, it comes down to this: if part of your profession involves "teaching" improvisation, then methods are useful tools for getting your point across. And the most important point that I try to get across is that improvisation is supposed to be fun, and that it can also be the vehicle through which you discover a lot of things about yourself and the world around you. It seems to me that there is an awful lot of "teaching" going on out there that starts people off by putting obstacles in their way rather than pointing to a wide open road and saying, "drive over that way for a while, and make some observations about the things you see (hear)". The best analogy I can think of is a visual one - if you were a beginning painting student, would you find it more helpful to:

a) be given a bowl full of paint and a blank canvas and then be instructed to fingerpaint the general outline of a figure you are trying to represent, and then work to refine it, or

b) be given a small tube of black paint and a small, fine brush, and then have the instructor come in and say, "okay, today we are going to learn to paint eyelashes. Tomorrow will be fingernails..next week, we'll get to nostrils, noses, and toes,...and believe me, by a couple of years from now, you'll have all the tools to do a perfect portrait!"

Ed - Maybe it's just me, but I find method "a" both more intuitive and helpful. Of course, that may have something to do with the same reason I have three cats and a Mac instead of a two dogs and a PC, but...in a lot of ways I think we're saying a lot of the same things. Or maybe I didn't understand your last couple of posts right?

I've been watching the posts go up, but have chosen not to say anything.
I find that much of the time, my answer is "d. - all the above," and I don't want to come across as a smart-ass, or a nit-picker, etc. when I espouse a differing view.
Some of you know, and some don't, that I currently study with Michael Moore. 25% of the time is playing the instrument, 65% is jazz harmonic theory. "That only adds up to 90%", you say? Yes. We laugh our asses off for at least 10% We're close enough in age and taste to break up over the same things. The last thing I'm going to do is say about a topic "Michael says..." That's not where we are. In today's lesson, he made his case on one harmonic point, I made mine, and he agreed. On another, he asked me to send him a copy of a chart I brought in, and I know he and I are going to play the seventh differently in 2 spots in the 1st 4 bars. Most of the time, of course, he says, and I learn.

Michael plays piano while I play bass. Once, in order to let me know that my playing wasn't up to standards, he said "You sound like a bass player." His goal is that I play like Bob Brookmeyer, or Chet Baker, or Freddy Hubbard. And that's where his theory of harmony comes in.

There's too much up already for me to address all at once. When I feel I can articulate something clearly, I'll jump in. But only then.

Later....

Originally posted by Don Higdon
I've been watching the posts go up, but have chosen not to say anything.
I find that much of the time, my answer is "d. - all the above," .....


ditto all the above?
disagree with all the above?
death to all the above?
And if so, which above?
I've been hoping you'd jump in sooner or later. Sooner would be great. And any time you'd like to chime in with "Michael Moore sez...", I doubt anybody would complain. I know I wouldn't!


[Edited by Chris Fitzgerald on 02-08-2001 at 12:47 AM]

'd.-all the above' means that as much as I believe in rules, I break every one of them at some point. It's a delicate balance, and it gets into the area of taste, which can't be dictated.
Example: Dominant 7th going into key of C is G-B-D-F. Listening to a Tito Puente arrangement, I'm wondering what the hell is going on at the end in a tightly voiced chord. I realized that their V7 chord was G-B-D-F#, resolving to a C tonic. It worked at that moment. So I experimented with occassionally, sparingly, "majoring" the 7th in a conventional blues, which is full of 7ths which are minored. This can be a disaster if done wrong, and I guess I'm saying if it sounds OK, it's not wrong, even if it's wrong, and I don't know how to tell someone when doing it will be right/wrong rather than wrong/wrong.

When I was back in grad school studying theory/comp, my favorite description of the composition process was from Frank Zappa, and it went something like this:

How to become a composer:

1)Start a piece at some point in time.

2)If something sounds good to you, put it in your piece. If it doesn't, throw it out.

3) Keep doing this until your piece is finished. When somebody else complains that they don't like your piece, tell them to f**k off and go write another one using the above rules.


I had the original of this posted on my practice room door for several years, which led me into many very comical (and often very heated) discussions with any of the "Egghead" composition faction who happened to read it. I still swear by it to this day.

I hope the whole blanket scale thing doesn't come off like a bunch of rules - that is the last thing I want. I'm only working with the idea to come up with a way of thinking and teaching which leaves as much room for "personalized" playing as possible, a way for beginners etc. to feel like soloing can be easy rather than difficult. If you have ideas about ways to accomplish this, I'm all ears - that's what it's all about.

Originally posted by Don Higdon

Example: Dominant 7th going into key of C is G-B-D-F. Listening to a Tito Puente arrangement, I'm wondering what the hell is going on at the end in a tightly voiced chord. I realized that their V7 chord was G-B-D-F#, resolving to a C tonic. It worked at that moment. So I experimented with occassionally, sparingly, "majoring" the 7th in a conventional blues, which is full of 7ths which are minored. This can be a disaster if done wrong, and I guess I'm saying if it sounds OK, it's not wrong, even if it's wrong, and I don't know how to tell someone when doing it will be right/wrong rather than wrong/wrong.

Don, if it was G-B-D-F#, I have to argue that you can't call it a V7, it's not a dominant chord. The minor seventh forming a tritone with the major third is what gives a chord it's dominant (V7) function. What he did was Gmaj7->Cmaj7. I'm sure it not only worked but sounded great. I recently started working with a Salsa band. On some of those charts, 90% of the chords can't be explained diatonically. I tried and gave up. There's a lot of stuff much stranger than major 7 chords resolving up a fourth.

When you talk about "majoring the 7th", how are you handling the tone that makes you think of it as a major seventh and not just as a chromatic leading tone or passing tone. I do that on chords with minor sevenths, I also like using a sharp 9th to lead into the major 3rd. I don't see it as rule breaking.

Let me say I've never been one to be a stickler for rules. At least 80 or 90% of what I know/do in jazz I've learned on my own using my ear, figured out for myself (and reasoned what was going on), or just talking with some cats casually. So when I write about this don't think I'm a prickly rule-monger.

Ed,

all I have with Red is a duo CD with Roger Kellaway, and one with him & Jim Hall. I'd welcome any & all additions. Thanks.

On another note, (which should also work) I've gotten several emails from various lurkers about this thread, all positive in tone but seeming afraid to post for fear of seeming in too deep waters. Please post! No question or comment that comes from anyone other than Goth Barbie can be too basic or stupid to respond to. You know who you are, so post!

Ed Fuqua sez: Be free Daddio, play what you feel.

Let's not get stuck on grammatical exactitude and miss the greater point, which was to give the simplest example of a routine convention (the 7th is minor when going from V to I, especially when penultimate to ultimate) being bypassed without sin. I realize that in majoring the 7th, the V forfeits the right to call itself dominant, but then again, I didn't. My guess was that not everybody that requested this thread experienced my example.
Where I'm going with all this will come out over time. When I discussed this 7th business with Moore, he said Bird did that alot. I've seen it in Coltrane, too. Generally, horn players are ahead of bassists on this sort of thing.
I use the background scale approach that Chris started with. The revelation with Moore is in what scale he selects. Actually, it's scales, depending on context, but that's down the road.
Later...

I just saw Chris' post. I will pass on what a wiser man said to me: "The only time a question is stupid is when you don't ask it."
I absolutely do NOT want to be mistaken for an elitist. I don't know enough.

[Edited by Don Higdon on 02-08-2001 at 03:23 PM]

With this seventh thing; you're playing a lydian scale over a dominant chord?

Forgive me if I seem pedantic, I'm just trying to understand. I'm learning too.

That's the accurate way to describe it, but it's not the way I think when I'm playing. I just find myself sensing an opportunity to play an unexpected note - Brookmeyer described his style as finding the right 'wrong' notes. As you correctly pointed out, the ideal is to hear the note before you play it, and then go get it.
Personally, I rarely think to myself "I'll run a Phrygian here". It's one of those Michael Moore issues I'll get to later: right/brain-left/brain.
Again, personally, I suspect newer players fret too much about mode knowledge. There are ways around it.
[Doesn't Dorian Mode sound like the name of a character in a British TV series?]

I learn new things when I can. This is the history of jazz and pop and rock something new comes up everybody does it. Then someone figures out a theory to fit it. My approach is to listen and to learn something. I sing and play it against a chord as soon as I can. And then like a vocabulary word use it at every opportunity. Then forget the theory and the mechanics and and let it supprise you. "There are no wrong notes only wrong rhythms" I forgot whose quote this is maybe it was Bird.

Singing is the most important element of all. What's funny is, singing will get you to the same place as a lotta theory, but get you there in a better way. It's almost as if, when a person sings, they are already in the conditioned mode of hearing/responding/adjusting to begin with just in order to control their voice, so improvising melodies seems easy. My favorite players all sound like they are singing to me - and I bet that most of them really are on the inside.

The whole thing about the "right" wrong notes is a great topic.When you find one, it's always like a bright splash of color against a darker background ( or vice-versa). Kenny Werner said in a masterclass once that no note is wrong if you can resolve it, and then proceeded to demonstrate some of the most gorgeous wrong note passages I had ever heard in my life. These were not "licks", mind you, but rather ways of dealing with the overall tonality of a phrase which played both with and against it, like a cat toying with a mouse. It made a believer out of me. Brad Mehldau is another who finds the most amazing wrong notes I have ever heard.

Don - we could have used "Dorian Mode" in our recent failing effort at slueth work on the trail of the mythical Professor Moriarbie. He (she?) couldn't have been colder on the trail than we were...

Hey! Let's get this theory thread up and running again. I nned some ideas for shaping melodies. I played a duo gig with a guitarist last night and it seemed that after about four tunes, all my solos sounded the same. It may have been a bad night, but do any of you have any light to shed on shaping melodic solos (aside from ideas already threshed out)? How do you go about tension and release, motivic development, etc.

This is a great thread, let's keep going.

chad

Originally posted by Chad Ball
Hey! I played a duo gig with a guitarist last night and it seemed that after about four tunes, all my solos sounded the same. Do any of you have any light to shed on shaping melodic solos (aside from ideas already threshed out)?

I hear ya. Ruts suck wind. Also, aside from ruts, there seem to be "Sam-licks" that are hard for me to avoid. And worst of all, my composing is hampered by my relatively limited harmonic vocabulary, so if I'm not careful I really do write the same song again!

That said, here are a few suggestions for rut-busting, in no particular order:

a) Work with the melody of the tune in constructing your solo.

b) Play one-third as many notes as you "plan" to.

c) Make sure your tempos and keys vary on the gig.

d) Play tricks with tunes:

* Play familiar tunes in unfamiliar keys, or modulate in the middle of a song-form

* Play show-tunes in 3/4 and play waltzes in 4/4

* Play tunes at a substantially different tempo then usual.

For example, last Wednesday we accidentally found ourselves playing The Tricky-Pig Song ("Days of Swine & Ruses") as a slow waltz, and it was real cool. On the other hand, I doubt we'll ever do that again -- more than a little bit of this kind of stuff gets "cute" and sounds contrived rather than organic.

e) Play head-games while soloing
* See how long you can go without playing a tonic'
* Play a solo "like" Miles Davis (as if anyone could)
* Play a solo "like" Michael Moore (in yer dreams, Sam)
* Play a solo "like" Michael Brecker (you get the drift)

f) Work with motifs -- for example, see what it's like if you only approach a tonic after first playing a nine then a seven.

The bottom line is, listen to what's going on around you and react to it. It's harder to get stuck in a rut if you're really open to what's happening at that moment.

Sorry to be a space-hogger.

Chris, I'd like to see you stick to your guns here a bit a cite some examples and exercises that might help illucidate your point. I'm pretty certain that I know what you're doing as it seems that it is the same thing that I do and show students.

I would like to add that what I do right after I get students understanding how the key/major scale thing fits together and recognizing them easily, I get them practicing and using melodic chunks. For examples, 1, 2, 3, 5's -- 1 ,2 ,3's -- 3, 2, 1's -- 1, 3, 5's and things like that. I support motivic playing heavily and start students on this right away.

The way that I think of what you're doing is that you have under your fingers the entire scale that is the basis of a bunch of changes, and picture chord tones as standing out from that scale as the chords go by.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski [B]
Don, if it was G-B-D-F#, I have to argue that you can't call it a V7, it's not a dominant chord. The minor seventh forming a tritone with the major third is what gives a chord it's dominant (V7) function. What he did was Gmaj7->Cmaj7. I'm sure it not only worked but sounded great. I recently started working with a Salsa band. On some of those charts, 90% of the chords can't be explained diatonically. I tried and gave up. There's a lot of stuff much stranger than major 7 chords resolving up a fourth.


I'm just learning here as well...

Isn't there two aspects of a dominant 7th chord, one being the dissonance because of the tritone in question and the other because of it's place in the tonal soup i.e. the fifth?

Now back to soloing...

Chris, I find that if I know the tune i.e the melody and can have that going on in my head, I'm in a much better position to deliver something that sounds more reasonable than not. This could mean weaving in an out of the actual melody or creating a new melody based on the feel of the original one versus interpreting chord changes on the fly.

Originally posted by Phil Smith
This could mean weaving in an out of the actual melody or creating a new melody based on the feel of the original one versus interpreting chord changes on the fly.

This is how the early, early players approached it, most without much (if any) formal training.

Originally posted by Ray Parker
Chris, I'd like to see you stick to your guns here a bit a cite some examples and exercises that might help illucidate your point. I'm pretty certain that I know what you're doing as it seems that it is the same thing that I do and show students.

I'd love to do this, but I've found that examples of this kind are difficult to communicate over the net. In person, it's easy to sit down at a piano (or a bass) and talk it through with musical examples. On the net, you don't even have the option of notation - at least, I don't YET. This week I just got my new Mac G4 for my recording setup, and when I get some more bread together (hopefully, from selling a bunch of gear), I hope to get a scanner...at THAT point, it will be easy to post examples, and I hope to do so.

In the meantime, if you can think of an example of what I'm talking about that can be described verbally, I'd be happy to attempt it.

I would like to add that what I do right after I get students understanding how the key/major scale thing fits together and recognizing them easily, I get them practicing and using melodic chunks. For examples, 1, 2, 3, 5's -- 1 ,2 ,3's -- 3, 2, 1's -- 1, 3, 5's and things like that. I support motivic playing heavily and start students on this right away.

When you say, "1,2,3,5's", do you mean from the chord of the moment, or the key of the moment? Both approaches are good, but I prefer to have students play motivic shapes from the key center first, since I feel that thinking while playing is the root of most lameness in music. Thinking while practicing, on the other hand, is the root of all progress.

The way that I think of what you're doing is that you have under your fingers the entire scale that is the basis of a bunch of changes, and picture chord tones as standing out from that scale as the chords go by.

You just nailed it. For my piano students, I tell them to imagine that the "blanket scale" that they're playing within has all of it's keys lit from beneath, and that the chord tones should be colored in whatever color seems bright and unmistakeable to them. Most of them who practice this way report that soon, they begin to be able to tell the difference in sonic color between chord tones and color (scale) tones. It sounds much like what you describe.

Sorry it took me so long to find this...for some reason, the TB software no longer notifies me of new posts in this thread. Anybody have any idea why this is?

I lost notification for a while when the new server was isntalled, but I have it now.

1, 2, 3, 5's from the scale. 1, 2, 3, 6 would be Autumn Leaves, etc.

Originally posted by Ray Parker
I lost notification for a while when the new server was isntalled, but I have it now.

1, 2, 3, 5's from the scale. 1, 2, 3, 6 would be Autumn Leaves, etc.

Hmmm, this morning I got a notification again. perhaps I just needed to renew my "subsciption" by posting again?

On the Autumn leaves thing, how would you describe the second fragment?

(b)7,1,2,5
Gmi

or

1,2,3,.......3
(F7).........(BbMa7)


I start from the first way, since the second way is on a more specific and "thinking-intensive" level. By the time students get to this level, I want them to already feel entirely comfortable with making motivic shapes within the larger tonality of Gmi/BbMa.

Are we on the same page?

Originally posted by Phil Smith


Chris, I find that if I know the tune i.e the melody and can have that going on in my head, I'm in a much better position to deliver something that sounds more reasonable than not. This could mean weaving in an out of the actual melody or creating a new melody based on the feel of the original one versus interpreting chord changes on the fly.

Sorry, I missed this one as well. I think you are absolutely on the money with what you have said - a thorough absorption/understanding of the melody is critical to soloing. I guess the whole reasoning behind the stuff I started talking about in this thread is that we should learn to put our solos together in the same way that the melodies of these great tunes are constructed. I know that when I write tunes I almost always start by writing an interesting melody, and then "fit" the harmony to it, so in my mind at least, melody is what it's about.

I like to weave in and out of the melody at times as well, but if I'm playing well, the melody is always present in my ears even when I'm not making reference to it overtly. One of the nicest compliments I ever got was from Jamey, who remarked once (back when I was still terrified of him) that he could always hear the melody ringing in my head even when I was playing outside or obscuring the barlines with polyrhythms. He said that this was proof that I was playing "honestly" even if he didn't always agree with or like what I was playing at the moment. Kind of a backhanded compliment, but I'm not sure I've ever gotten a better one.

The first three phrases are all 1, 2, 3, 6 patterns from within the scale.

Originally posted by Ray Parker
The first three phrases are all 1, 2, 3, 6 patterns from within the scale.

Forgive me if i seem dense, but how are you defining "1" in the above example? In your method, are you using the designation "1" to describe whatever note you are starting from within a tonality?

Here, this should clear it up.

1, 2, 3, 5's -- Key of C -- Scale tones

cdeg
defa
efgb
fgac
gabd
abce
bcdf

On chord tones, CMaj7

cdeg
egbd
gabd
bcdf

These are what I call 'Melodic Tools' or 'Chunks'. Small pieces that can help you string together more organized melodic ideas...

I've been reading these posts with plenty of interest, because I find it very difficult to "sum up" the essence of a song and play to it. Instead I look at the chords and play a scale pattern or arpeggio off of it - no matter where the chord fits into the song or progression.

The blanket scale idea sounds great to me, because I need to know how to simplify the approach but adapt to the song specifically. I still don't know how to do that after reading these posts, but I see light ahead. I have general theory background, can play Major, Minor, 6th, & 7th scales. I understand the difference between chord tones and scale tones, and a little bit about there relationships in a particular key. However, I don't have much to go on for analyzing a chord progression and how to simplify some of my options within that particular context.

Something that came to mind, however, is that I am approaching this topic, not from a soloists perspective, but from the more fundamental (read basic) angle of the supporting bass line. It seems that the approach works the same, because when I hear great bass lines walking through chord progressions, they aren't just arpeggiating each chord. The notes go somewhere in relation to the song. I want to know how to do that! And I want to start with finger painting the whole picture rather than detailing the eyebrows.

Maybe there are big differences between this topic and walking lines, but the only thing that comes to mind is that a soloist will work more with the melody; the supporting bass line would support the melody, not play off of it. However, in either case, knowing the melody seems equally important.

I hope this helps, since I know there are many lurkers who might feel like this water is too deep to post. But it also feels like some wheels are beginning to turn for me. If some more ideas on how to simplify options for working around changes can be elaborated on, I'd be greatly interested.

I just recalled that Chris may have asked for specific examples, and I just happen to have a chart with me to go into.

Let's say I'm doing a walking line in "Stompin at the Savoy" and the progression for 8 bars is:
Db, Ab, Db, D dim, Ebm7, Ab9, Db, Ab9
How do I visualize that and simplify my approach?

I'll bite.

First, I'd like to comment that bass lines can be utilitarian, but they can also be approached as counter-melodies. In either case, you are eating fromt he same musical pie, so work on one is really work on the other.

Let me first spell out a key. I did this in another post somewhere, but I'm getting pretty fast at it:


Key of C

C scale:


C D E F G A B


Now here are modes. What a mode is. A mode is an inversion of the scale. For instance, the scale as above starts on the first note and stops on the seventh. The make things simpler, I'll start and stop on the same note:

C D E F G A B C


Now we'll play the first inversion of the scale, wherein I'll start and stop on the second note of the scale:

D E F G A B C D


Since there are seven notes in the scale, there will be seven modes. Each mode will have a distinct sound. I'll write two more out just to make sure that things are clear:

E F G A B C D E
F G A B C D E F

Now, to make a chord we will take every other note from a mode. Here are the chords from the first four modes that I have written out:

C E G B
D F A C
E G B D
F A C E

With all of the out of the way, here are the 'Family of Chords' and their accompanying modes and other helpful info:


Family of Chords in C

I - Ionian
C D E F G A B C
C E G B, C Maj7

II - Dorian
D E F G A B C D
D F A C, D-7

III - Phrygian
E F G A B C D E
E G B D, E-7

IV - Lydian
F G A B C D E F
F A C E, FMaj7

V - Mixolydian
G A B C D E F G
G B D F, G7

VI - Aeolian
A B C D E F G A
A C E G, A-7

VII - Locrian
B C D E F G A B
B D F A, B-7(b5)

Modes can and often are referred to by the damned senseless names given above. Eventually you'll have to learn them. The resultant chords, and sometimes the modes, are traditionally notated with Roman numerals.

Now, this is a lot of imformation and also a good insight into the real simplicity of learning theory this way. One thing it shows us is the tip of the iceberg as far as permutations of patterns in a set of only seven elements (remember to multiply everything by 12 for all of the keys!), and another thing that it shows us is how simple things can be. On any of the chords listed above you can putz around with the C scale and have all good notes. This is what the Blanket Scale thing is talking about.

Now, on to your question, 'What to do with the chords?'

The changes that you encounter in traditional harmony, particulary in the type of tune that you mention, is based on the most primal of the cadences, and that being V-I. (5-chord, 1 chord). To realize the real power in this movement, sing (and yes, I mean out loud) 'Shave and a Hair Cut', leaving off the last note. Makes you really want to hear that last note, doesn't it?


Now, here is an attempt to show the chords that go with the melody given the limited graphic capabilites that I have in this damned little edit box:


C G7 C
Shave and a hair cut | two bits


When you left of the last note of the tune the first time, you didn't let the melody indicate the resolution from the V7 to the I chord.

5? 1? What the hell is this you might ask. The one chords, in the key of C, is the first chord encountered in the family of chords above. The V is then, of course, the fifth chord. All of the chords in the Family serve either as tension chords or resolution. Some weaker, some stronger, and some quite compelling, like V-I.

Why all of this happens is quite a study, but to give you a quick reference, here are some of the common progressions that you'll encounter:

V I
II V I
I VI II V I
I IV III VI II V I

A tune will generally go through a lot of keys, so your next challenge is to be able to look at a tune and be able to tell what key a certain progression is in, and then you have the basic Blanket (or Major) scale that will give you access to the good notes.

So, here are teh changes that you asked about:

Db |Ab |Db, D dim|Ebm7 | Ab9 |Db |

First, let's move them down a half step (that's a semi-chicken or some such sh*t for Bruce) so that we can use our work above for reference:

C |G |C, C# dim|Dm7 | G9 |C |

Some of the chords suffixes that you listed above are an indication of voicing the chord for the chordal instrument, and some are incomplete, so ignore this for now and I'll straighten them out a bit:

C |G7 |C, C# dim|D-7 | G7 |C |

Now, for the sake of this, also forget about the C# dim. This replaces a VI7, which gets us into things that we don't want to deal with just yet. Other than that, look at the numbers that the changes represent:

I |V |I, (VI)|II | V |I |

Here's something that you can use. When you see a II V I, you can simply play the V chord over both the II and the V. You don't really want to know just now why you can right now, just trust me on this one. So now the resultant mess is just all V's and I's and the same major scale works for it all. You can use the scale and hover around and use chord tones as they pass by to help your melody line dance with the chords a bit.

It's late and I'm getting punchy, but I hope that I've helped.

Good stuff, Ray. That's exactly where all of this starts. Where it ends, nobody knows.

But somewhere in between, this whole process needs to become internalized so that these abstract concepts become concrete sounds, and the key to this is singing. Why singing? Because if you can sing it, it means you're hearing it. And conversely, if you can't sing it, it means you're not really hearing it.

A good exercise to do when trying to learn a tune is to treat the harmony as an intuitive vocal counterpoint exercise: Find or make a recording of just the harmony of the song you are trying to learn. Then, without thinking about what notes you are hitting, try singing only one note per chord change through the chord progression. Try to make your line relatively stepwise at first (the natural tendencies of the human voice will help you do this). In each measure, find one note that really seems to fit, and then try to anticipate a note that will fit over the next chord.

There's an old saying that you're never more than a half one step away from a right note, and this includes chord tones. It's common to do theoretical exercises to help you visualize how these chord tones can be connected, but the same thing can and should be done aurally and intuitively. One really informative thing to do is to record yourself while doing this. You might be surprised to find out that often, when this exercise is done well, you end up with a line of chord tones just as correct and probably more musical than the results of the same written exercise...only this time the results came from feeling, not thinking. When both roads lead to Rome, why not take the one with the view?

This is a nice thread I am learning a lot from it. Keep it up! I think I picked up more from this thread than I did in a year of music theory class, at least from the Bass point of view.

Now a question is what you all are talking about called figured bass?

Joe

I agree! So let's keep it up. Here's a question i've been hanging on to for a while....

What do you play on dominant seventh chords. I know this seems trite, but there's something there that i haven't mastered yet. Any suggestions?

OH WAIT! There's more.

My teacher has been going back and reworking things like rhythm changes (lots of dom 7ths). When we hit the bridge, he's been having me approach the chord by playing a fifth away for the first half. For example, if the given chord is F7 for 2 bars, i'm playing C half diminished for 1 bar, followed by something over the F -- say an F whole tone or h/w diminished (??).

Any takers for this?

What he's doing is 'splitting' the chords. You can take any I chord and play V - I or V chords and play II - V. This gives you an easy metal way to create and release harmonic tension in your line. I'll not delve in too much as this is starting to get off topic for this thread -- another thread maybe?

(A thread about blankets? Wouldn't it really be a blanket from threads?)

Then let's go to my initial question. What creative ways have folks been approaching dominant seventgh chords? I've tried a few different ones, with varied results. Really, it seems as though dom7s are just a breeding ground for healthy tension. It seems odd to say it, but playing a diminished line over a dominant 7 chord in a blues tune has made my quieter gigs a bit cooler...as long as it's not done too often.

The Blanket Scale answer would be to play the major scale from where to 7th chord is born. F major scale for a C7 as an example. You can go a step further and play the Mixolydian mode from the F scale.

Now, a more complicated answser.

How are the 7th chords functioning? In a blues and on a cycle bridge such as you were asking about, the 7th chords can act either as dominant chords or tonic, or either.

Some things you can play over dominant chords:

Major pentatonic
Minor pentatonic
Mixolydian
Dorian from the same key
the V (and II - V) from the parrallel minor key
Tritone subs and the things you can do there
whole tone
diminished
...

Yeah, that'll do it.
Since we're sticking to the idea of blanket scales (I diverted momentarily), I have this question. It seems basic enough, but I can never seem to get a concrete answer (if there is such a thing). :confused:

Could somebody outline the modes of melodic minor scale? I've been trying to use them to create a more linear approach to minor standards like Beautiful Love, but when I listen back, something doesn't seem to jive.

Anything you can add would be helpful.

Actually, I don't think the whole issue of dominant chords is too terribly off topic, since it deals with the whole "Blanket Scale" issue in reverse: Normally, I use this way of thinking to simplify a series of chords in a progression by tying them together under one tonality; but in this case, you can actually use the same method backwards to provide different color options for playing over a single chord.

If you take a regular garden-variety dominant 7 chord, conventional wisdom holds that you should play from a mixolydian sound based on the root of the chord. But if you think of a Dom7 chord as if it were in any one of several contexts that it might commonly be found in, you can derive added color and texture by superimposing material from chords which might normally surround it. I think this is what your teacher is talking about.

The whole Rhythm Changes matrix itself is an interesting example of one of the uses this way of thinking can lend itself to....remember, what jazz players now refer to as "Rhythm Changes" is actually a steroidally enhanced and reharmed version of the original tune. What started off as:

Bb..../F7..../Bb..../F7..../Bb7..../Eb..../Bb..../F7..../etc....


Was added to so that it became:

Bb...(G-)/C-...F7/Bb...(G-)/C-...F7/Bb...Bb7/Eb...(Edim)/D-...G7/C-...F7/etc...


Which was then morphed into:

Bb...G7b9/C-...F7/D-...G7b9/C-...F7b9/F-...Bb7/Eb...Ab7/D-...G7b9/C-...F7b9/etc...


After that, anything goes, and it's not at all uncommon to see things like the Giant Steps matrix stuck into the A section in the course of the progression. That's all well and good...but where I have a problem with jazz education is when beginning students are handed a chart like the last permutation above and then told something like, "Okay, play Bb Major for two beats, and then G diminished for two, then C Dorian for two beats, then F Mixolydian for...." yadda yadda. In my experience, this ALWAYS leads to "Deer In The Headlights Syndrome" for the student, who then becomes so afraid of not being able to "Make the Changes" that they can't play anything at all.

What's the Blanket Scale" approach to all of this mess? Well, the tune was originally about a whole lot of Bb with a short move to Eb in bar 6, and then back to Bb. So i always suggest starting there as a point of departure and adding in some of the other stuff WHEN YOU BEGIN TO HEAR IT, AND NOT BEFORE. Basically, the original melody doesn't depart from Bb in the A sections, so why should a beginning improvisation student be asked to cover a bunch of reharms in the beginning of their "Rhythm Changes" experience?

End Rant. :)


RAYON PARKA,

As an aside, I use the term "Blanket Scale" for lack of a better one. I used to use the term "Parent Scale" to describe some of the thingss I'm talking about in this thread, but that term implies the scale that all of the chords under it come from, which can be very misleading. If you have a better descriptive, I'm all ears.

Originally posted by Chad Ball
Yeah, that'll do it.
Since we're sticking to the idea of blanket scales (I diverted momentarily), I have this question. It seems basic enough, but I can never seem to get a concrete answer (if there is such a thing). :confused:

Could somebody outline the modes of melodic minor scale? I've been trying to use them to create a more linear approach to minor standards like Beautiful Love, but when I listen back, something doesn't seem to jive.

Anything you can add would be helpful.


CHARBROIL,

Can you be a bit more specific? In what way are you using the modes of melodic minor to play over "Beautiful Love", and what about it doesn't seem to work? I think I know where you're going with this, but I don't want to assume too much.

Assume in any way you C. Fitz.
I may be approaching this with some naivete. I look at it in much the same way I would with a diatonic major. For Beautiful Love, I see a D-7, so I think 'first degree, D mel.minor scale', or arpeggiate same. It doesn't seem to work sometimes, in that i'll play what I think (or have heard) is the appropriate mode, but it will just sound dead wrong. Assuming that the problem is not intonation, i'm left with the idea that i'm playing the wrong modes.

So, long story longer, what are the 'correct' modes of the melodic minor scale.

This is the best thread! It makes for some great reading. I can't wait to get off work to practice!

Originally posted by MASKED BALL
Assume in any way you C. Fitz.
I may be approaching this with some naivete. I look at it in much the same way I would with a diatonic major. For Beautiful Love, I see a D-7, so I think 'first degree, D mel.minor scale', or arpeggiate same. It doesn't seem to work sometimes, in that i'll play what I think (or have heard) is the appropriate mode, but it will just sound dead wrong. Assuming that the problem is not intonation, i'm left with the idea that i'm playing the wrong modes.

So, long story longer, what are the 'correct' modes of the melodic minor scale.



This is a good question, and I'm not sure I have the answer - in fact, I'm not sure there is a correct answer. What are the "correct" modes of melodic minor? Whatever sounds right to your ears, really....ask 10 different people, and you'll get 10 different answers. Mark Levine suggests in his "Jazz Theory Book" that you should play Locrian #2 for the half-diminished chord, Diminished/Whole Tone for the V7alt chord, and melodic minor for the min7 chord. These are all modes of melodic minor, it's true, but they are modes of melodic minor scales from three different keys! :eek: So I don't recommend starting with this approach at first, even though Mark can make this way sound great when you see him play because it's what he hears.

I'm sure I've posted this before somewhere - maybe even in this thread - but my approach to minor is to make a "Blanket Scale" out of the composite sum of all of the notes in the chords that comprise a standard minor ii-V-i progression, and then expand outward from there.

(From another thread)

A ii-7b5..... V7#9 (#5)...... i-7 in D minor contains the following chords: E-7b5,...A7#9,...D-7

Typical piano voicings for each (from the bottom up) are:

E-7b5.......G....Bb.....D.....E

A7#9.......G.....C......C#...F

D-7..........F......A......C.....E

Try this at the piano and add roots in your left hand. The result is your basic garden variety minor ii-V.

Next, arrange the notes of all those chords in ascending order, and you get the following scale:
D...E...F...G...A...Bb...C...C#...D

Next, consider that it is also common to play a minor6 voicing on the resolution chord, which gives us a B natural to throw into the mix. So now we have:

D...E...F...G...A...Bb...B...C...C#...D


Which functionally translates into:

1...2...b3...4...5...b6...6...b7...7...8


Played like this, the scale sounds pretty funny with all of the chromatic stuff in the upper half. But when you think about it, certain notes are more appropriate at certain times than others - for example, the B natural will sound crappy against the b5 of the half dim. chord and the b9 of the A7 chord, but the Bb sounds kind of nasty against the tonic chord. What's the way around this?

The way I usually teach harmony for improvisation over a minor ii-V progression is to think of the "Blanket Scale" like this:

1...2...b3...4...5...(b6or6)...(b7and/or7)...8

This gives you a solid sense of the parent tonality, and color options on the 6th or 7th. In fact, thinking of minor this way gives you all of the same notes you would get by taking the "Locrian/Dim-Whole Tone/Melodic Minor" approach with the exception of the #4 on the Dim-Whole Tone chord scale, which can be added later if desired. Plus, it has the added advantage of covering all of the most common types of resolution chords - min7, min6, and mi/Ma7 - by simply "toggling" the 6ths and 7ths of the Blanket Scale to accommodate what you are hearing at that point. Give it a shot and see what you think.

And speaking of practice, I think I hear my bass calling me from downstairs...

So much info, it's like Christmas, Gerald (that's the best I could do).
Yeah, that's great! Thanks to all for the info. I'm off work in 1 hour, so i'll go run this and update. I'm interested in how other lurkers make out with this, too.

I hope I don't get off topic on this one, but a question came to mind - unrelated to the last batch of posts on minor modes (good posts, by the way).

As I go over the breakdown of how the modes are composed and how the 4 note chords of the key are derived from those modes, I notice every chord is a 7th: Maj, Min, or Dom. Since only the V chord is dominant, then it seems easy to tell what key you are in if you see a Dom7 in the progression. And if you see two Dom7s (ie. C7 followed by D7) then you know the key is changed.

However, I realized that many times I don't see Maj7 or Dom7, but instead the chords are written as G, D, C, etc. (signifying triads, I suppose). Is there a difference between the I, IV, V chords when they are triads? For instance in the key of G, the I, IV, V would be G, C, D, but the D wouldn't always be written or played D7. Also, if it's a triad it wouldn't be a D7 anyway. Wouldn't it be a D? Does the distinction of the dominant/major chord go away when you are playing triads? If it helps, this question comes to mind from the perspective of playing guitar chords over a progression. I have always understood that in a G, C, D progression they are all major chords. So, in any key, the I, IV, V would be all major chords. I'm not sure how to understand the dominant chord.

I can tie all of this into the blanket approach, because it relates to identifying a chord progression and finding the right "blanket scale" notes to play, which means identifying the key. My question comes about, because I realized the V chord won't always be spelled out as a Dom7, and that I don't really understand the difference between dominant and major.

The difference between a dom7th and a major 7th is (you guessed it) the seventh tone of the scale. Say you are looking at a Cmaj7th chord -- to spell that one out in chord tones would be C, E, G, B (the major 7th). To turn that into a dominant seventh, simply lower the seventh (B) by half a step, making it Bb. To hear the difference, try holding a C on your A string, while playing it's major seventh on the G. Then, make it a dominant seventh. You should hear a difference in the tonal colour.

Pardon the algebraic notation:




M=major, 2 steps up from the root for third, half step below root for seventh
m=minor, 1 1/2 steps up from the root for third, whole step below root for seventh
p=perfect
f=flatted


R 3 5 7

X M p M = XMaj7
X M p f = X7
X m p f = X-7
X m f f = X-7(b5) or X half-diminished

Thanks. That helps.

If I can do the cyberspace equivalent of thinking out loud, there is no difference between major and dominant chords when playing a triad (root, 3, 5) except as a matter of identifying where the chord fits into the key (ie. semantics).

Originally posted by robw

If I can do the cyberspace equivalent of thinking out loud, there is no difference between major and dominant chords when playing a triad (root, 3, 5) except as a matter of identifying where the chord fits into the key (ie. semantics).

Correct, unless you are thinking of the implied chord scale (or mode, if you prefer) behind the chord.

Well now...it's been a while.
I've been employing this blanket scales with various degrees of success. My main shortcoming, it seems, is to make things sound interesting while maintaining the blanket scale. Does anybody have tips or thoughts as to the develop[ment of a melodic idea through this approach?

sure is hot outside.
cb

Originally posted by Chad Ball
Well now...it's been a while.
My main shortcoming, it seems, is to make things sound interesting while maintaining the blanket scale. Does anybody have tips or thoughts as to the develop[ment of a melodic idea through this approach?

sure is hot outside.
cb

Well,

This doesn't have anything to do with melodic development, but it has sure helped me. I'm FAR from a good soloist (it's easily the worst part of my bass playing), but a really good trumpet player once told me that you can play the wrong notes, and if they are played with a good rhythm they will sound ok. Phrasing and rhythmic concept comes from listening to other soloists. Bird was a master of phrasing. Sing while you play; even if the notes aren't the same, your rhythm may be better.

And most simply, Lynn Seaton drilled us all on "don't ignore the melody." Mix in parts of the melody with your scales and arpeggios. Bassists are the worst at learning heads to tunes; learn them and figure out where you can use them as quotes. Dexter Gordon quoted constantly, and it was always hip.

Just a little advice from someone trying to get there.

Monte

Here are a couple of way to help guide a melodic line that you might try.

First is to pick a note. Random will do, but easy ones to start with are root, third, 5th. Make this note the focus of your line. Start there, end there, tease it, follow it as it moves half steps here and there and it goes thorugh the changes.

Second is grab a motif. Say something like 3-1-2-3, with some rhythimic statement. Apply this pattern around here and there (and also starting it on different degrees of the scale). A couple of great examples of this are 'Autumn Leaves' and almost anything Michel LeGrand wrote...

Bump.

I agree with what you're saying here, Chris.

It's like, IIRC, Levine says - think key not chord. Focus on the tonal centres.

I think he used Giant Steps as an example of this. If you're trying to solo over this chord-by-chord, well, you're not gonna make it easy for yourself.

Whereas, if you look at tonal centres, it becomes much more manageable, and conducive to more melodic solos. And of course, there are only three tonal centres in Giant Steps - B, Eb and G.

Great thread and great advice Chris. I am trying to get into soloing and what I have done so far never seems to flow, and now I realise that's because I am playing the chords, not the tonal centre of the progression.

I've also noticed at the jazz band I play in, the conductor always tells the soloists the key of phrase which they solo over, not the individual chords. I should have noticed this earlier :rolleyes:

Anyway thanks for the great advice, keep it up:bassist:

bump.

About "The Chicken", the chords are as such
Bb7 Eb7 D7 G7 C7 Bb7

can I assume that the "D G C" phrase is in the key of G? and that I will use the G Major scale to play over (supporting, not soloing) the 3 chords?

I have another question, let say we have 3 chords in the key of G
G7 C7 D7

The 7th in the G chord is "F", when we come to the C chord, can we still use the "F" (4th of C[ionian] and minor 7th of G) instead of "F#" (4th of C[lydian] and major 7th of G)?

bump.

About "The Chicken", the chords are as such
Bb7 Eb7 D7 G7 C7 Bb7

What "chicken" might that be? Did I miss something?


I have another question, let say we have 3 chords in the key of G
G7 C7 D7

The 7th in the G chord is "F", when we come to the C chord, can we still use the "F" (4th of C[ionian] and minor 7th of G) instead of "F#" (4th of C[lydian] and major 7th of G)?

In the first place, three different dominant chords can't really be "in the key" of anything - they are going to contain chromatic note variations. In the second place, for anyone to give more of an answer to your question, you'll need to supply a lot more context than that. What you're asking right now is akin to, "should I use salt or sugar when I cook"?

What "chicken" might that be? Did I miss something?


I assume this :

http://www.lucaspickford.com/chicken.jpg


Courtesy of Lucas Pickford!! :)


Personally, in this tune, I tend to treat each new chord as a change of key centre - but I wouldn't like to say whether this is the correct "approach" or not....?

This is a great thread, I read it about a year ago and started using this theory. Now I feel like I need to bring my playing to the next level, add more chromatic passing tones, and get off the root (that is my one complaint about this method).
I know I need to hear what I play before I play it, I've heard that alot now. I will say I do hear a good percentage of what I play beforehand, but I also know that 85% of the time I need to hear a tonic or I'm not able to hear anything else.
What I'm asking for is something I can use in the practice room that would help.
Thanks

What "chicken" might that be? Did I miss something?


The chicken by Jaco Pastorius, as Bruce have given the links...


In the first place, three different dominant chords can't really be "in the key" of anything - they are going to contain chromatic note variations. In the second place, for anyone to give more of an answer to your question, you'll need to supply a lot more context than that. What you're asking right now is akin to, "should I use salt or sugar when I cook"?

The chords are found in "The Chicken", that was the context...

So, more answers? :D

p/s: My nick have nothing to do with kiwi, lemon or lime! :p Its an abbreviation of something (not my name)

The chicken by Jaco Pastorius, as Bruce have given the links...



The chords are found in "The Chicken", that was the context...

So, more answers? :D


Since the tune is really a funk blues, you can't exactly place it in a "key" in the classical sense (although the key center is pretty clearly Bb). However, where the "blanket scale/key" theory can help here is in the relation of one tonal center to the next. In the case of Dominants which resolve by 5ths, you end up with "scale" or "Key center" which alters by one pitch each time a chord resolves.

i.e. -

D7 = D E F# G A B ..C D
G7 = D E F ..G A B ..C D
C7 = D E F ..G A Bb C D

So rather than thinking of three completely different scales in this passage, you can think of one pretty simple key center with a bunch of common tones(D, E, G, A C - a.k.a. the Cma/Ami pentatonic scale) which happens to have one changing note each time the chord changes. Does that help at all?

D7 = D E F# G A B ..C D
G7 = D E F ..G A B ..C D
C7 = D E F ..G A Bb C D

So rather than thinking of three completely different scales in this passage, you can think of one pretty simple key center with a bunch of common tones(D, E, G, A C - a.k.a. the Cma/Ami pentatonic scale) which happens to have one changing note each time the chord changes. Does that help at all?

Wow, it took me like 20 minutes to understand what you are trying to say. It did bring some light... but also brought more questions! If the song is in blues with the same chords G7, C7 and D7, I would have think that I could just use the G major scale blanket. But you put it in such a way that the C major scale blanket should be used, I noticed its because of the 7ths involved...
:confused:

Wow, it took me like 20 minutes to understand what you are trying to say. It did bring some light... but also brought more questions! If the song is in blues with the same chords G7, C7 and D7, I would have think that I could just use the G major scale blanket. But you put it in such a way that the C major scale blanket should be used, I noticed its because of the 7ths involved...


OK, let's clear something up before we go any further: The term "Blanket Scale" doesn't really mean a "scale", it's more about a collection of notes that remain constant through a series of chords. It's not a scale with a root that you practice running up and down from and to, just a way of thinking of note collections. Does that make sense?

This song is not the best example to use when discussing the subject because it's not really "in" any key but is more of a blues tune with a bridge kinda thing. In the case of the section we were discussing, while the notes "C D E G A" remain constant through the three theoretical "chord scales", they are in many ways the least ineresting notes to play because they do not emphasize the changes.

But more importantly, the melody for that whole section is basically just a superimposed Bb major pentatonic scale (occasionally hints at Bb minor pent), so the chords are just being used for color anyway. If you want to look at the intent of the melody, the entire song is just a blues jam - take away the "A naturals" in the D7 measure, and the entire melody is just a mix of Bb Major pentatonic and the Bb blues scale...so if you're looking for an easy way to get around soloing on this tune, go back to the earlier "WDMD" (what does the melody do?) statement in the thread and start by treating it as a Bb blues and use those blues and pentatonic tonalities for soloing until you get bored with that. There's lot's to explore in that realm before you need to analyze the changes of a tune like this more deeply.

This song is not the best example to use when discussing the subject because it's not really "in" any key but is more of a blues tune with a bridge kinda thing. In the case of the section we were discussing, while the notes "C D E G A" remain constant through the three theoretical "chord scales", they are in many ways the least ineresting notes to play because they do not emphasize the changes.


That's exactly why I said : "I tend to treat each new chord as a change of key centre"...

This is a fun tune to play, as you have plenty of time to treat each chord change as a new tonal centre and still experiment with funky rhythmic displacements, motifs - that kind of thing.

Whereas, if it was a 32-bar bebop tune with two chords per bar going past at 270 - then I'd be thinking about which notes all the chords had in common and try to hit a few of those!! ;)

That's exactly why I said : "I tend to treat each new chord as a change of key centre"...

This is a fun tune to play, as you have plenty of time to treat each chord change as a new tonal centre and still experiment with funky rhythmic displacements, motifs - that kind of thing.

Whereas, if it was a 32-bar bebop tune with two chords per bar going past at 270 - then I'd be thinking about which notes all the chords had in common and try to hit a few of those!! ;)

And with all due respect, this is exactly how the above morphing of your name came to be in the first place. :D

In a tune like this, I think that the "blues" element is central to the character of the piece, and should be both the starting point and the point of departure. Since the melody is basically formed around pentatonic and blues in Bb, I hear that as being "home base" for the tune, and feel that as a soloist it is beneficial to have a solid sense of "home" before beginning your travels abroad. I think that outlining the changing chromatics in the "bridge" section is one nice option to get around that section of the tune, but I also feel it would be silly to focus too much on that before learning to "jam out" on the blues aspect as the melody does. As an analogy, I'd say that it's better to learn to construct simple sentences with short common words before attempting prose with longer more esoteric vocabulary and lots of subordinate clauses. But that's just me. :)

A good compromise might be focusing on the Bb blues tonality overall, and then working on emphasizing the two sets of chromatic resolutions within the "bridge" (F#-F-E, C-B-Bb) within that context before treating each chord as an entirely seperate tonality. You can take an American out of America, but try take the American out of an American, and that's an entirely different ball of wax. :)

Well,

This doesn't have anything to do with melodic development, but it has sure helped me. I'm FAR from a good soloist (it's easily the worst part of my bass playing), but a really good trumpet player once told me that you can play the wrong notes, and if they are played with a good rhythm they will sound ok. Phrasing and rhythmic concept comes from listening to other soloists. Bird was a master of phrasing. Sing while you play; even if the notes aren't the same, your rhythm may be better.

And most simply, Lynn Seaton drilled us all on "don't ignore the melody." Mix in parts of the melody with your scales and arpeggios. Bassists are the worst at learning heads to tunes; learn them and figure out where you can use them as quotes. Dexter Gordon quoted constantly, and it was always hip.

Just a little advice from someone trying to get there.

Monte



I will second this. My solos did not start to get interesting until I put more thought in to the rhythmic development of an idea. You could play a long phrase on only three or four notes and still make it hip. It makes a good starting point, anyway. Don't let this point make things worse by thinking "now I have more to think about". Just take the theory you do know and find some of the more simple tunes you can play well. Start with simple ideas, use lots of space. Focus on phrasing and "swinging hard". That's my $.02.

And with all due respect, this is exactly how the above morphing of your name came to be in the first place. :D

In a tune like this, I think that the "blues" element is central to the character of the piece, and should be both the starting point and the point of departure. Since the melody is basically formed around pentatonic and blues in Bb, I hear that as being "home base" for the tune, and feel that as a soloist it is beneficial to have a solid sense of "home" before beginning your travels abroad. I think that outlining the changing chromatics in the "bridge" section is one nice option to get around that section of the tune, but I also feel it would be silly to focus too much on that before learning to "jam out" on the blues aspect as the melody does. As an analogy, I'd say that it's better to learn to construct simple sentences with short common words before attempting prose with longer more esoteric vocabulary and lots of subordinate clauses. But that's just me. :)

A good compromise might be focusing on the Bb blues tonality overall, and then working on emphasizing the two sets of chromatic resolutions within the "bridge" (F#-F-E, C-B-Bb) within that context before treating each chord as an entirely seperate tonality. You can take an American out of America, but try take the American out of an American, and that's an entirely different ball of wax. :)


I know what you're saying about it being a Blues - but having heard so many Jaco versions over the years(as well our own Craig Garfinkel's !) - I can only think of it as funky R&B, where the important thing is the groove, subdividing the bar and adding some rhythmic interest - I'm thinking more James Brown than Muddy Waters!!! ;)

D7 = D E F# G A B ..C D
G7 = D E F ..G A B ..C D
C7 = D E F ..G A Bb C D


I just realized, by the notes that you give, we are supposed to assume all chords are of Ionian?

Oh yeah, what's the diff between R&B and Blues??