Hi there,

I have several "walking bass" instruction books, but I'm fuzzy on one key point. I understand there are various ways to construct a line (approach notes, target notes, etc.). My fuzziness is with the "scale" approach.

My question is: Does scale refer to the song's KEY or the CHORD I'm playing?

Example: If I'm in the key of F and I'm playing a C chord, would a "scale approach" include a natural B (as in a C scale) or a flattened B (as in an F scale)?

I'd be grateful for any thoughts on this!
Thanks,
Rob

B flat.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
In the key of F, the V7 chord is just that, a dominant. C E G Bb. But you could just as easily have a C-7, a C-7b5, a Cmaj7 in the tune. In other words, just because the song is in the key of F major, doesn't mean all of the chords in the song function in the key of F major.


Ya, I wrote a psalm setting for a friend last year (or was it the year before? I can never remember) which was in F, but it was an F lydian, so the V was a M7 rather than dominant. There's something really nice about just moving from IM7 to VM7 and back that sounds so nice.

I should dig that piece up some time...

-dh

To simplify; All chords have a scale from which they are dervied. This is the scale that you want. There may be other scales that can be superimposed as well, such as a dimished scale superimposed over a mixolydian chord (dominant), i.e., C# diminshed scale over a C7, which would hint at a minor V7, resolving to a major F chord (Ionian).

If you're reaching for a piece of pita at this point, I can slow down a bit.

Thanks for all the comments. As suspected, this is more complicated than I thought! (It sure was easier just reading notes on a page.)

Modes and functions aside, I think my question was basically answered: (1) The song is in a specific key (2) the chords in the song relate to that key (3) so regardless of the chord's name, use the key to "scale" between chords (unless there's a conflict with the notes in a chord, which I presume should take priority).

Well, it's a tad convoluted, but it'll work - for now. I must say I'm enjoying writing walking basslines. Jazz is relatively new to me and man, it's a hoot to play!

Thanks again,
Rob

A song is in a key, but the changes are not likely all from that key. Tunes frequently jump from key to key within the form. So, what we're saying is that you have to learn to analyze changes so that you know in what key a certain progression is.

If you'll care to post a tune that you're working on I'll give you an analyzation of it as an example.

Originally posted by Rob Hunter
key (2) the chords in the song relate to that key (3) so regardless of the chord's name, use the key to "scale" between chords (unless there's a conflict with the notes in a chord, which I presume should take priority).


I'm with Ray and I think the consensus is NO in this case - you can't just take notes from the key. You have to know what a chord is doing there and only then can you associate a scale with it.

Of course you could just stick to basslines built from the notes in the chord itself and throw in a few chromatic passing tones - especially on the 4 before a chord change - and most people won't notice! ;)

Wow - as I thought, this is going to take more study on my part! Thanks for all the responses.

Wow - I get the feeling this has been made to look a lot more complicated that it needs to be. For a walking bass line, the scale you use should be based on the chord, not the key of the tune. Simple as that.

The key signature is only useful for reading a written melody, and has nothing to do with walking a bass line or improvising over chord changes.

For example, a C7 chord will always have the same notes and the same chord scale associated with it, no matter what key the tune is written in.

Functional analysis will certainly help, but the short answer is: ignore the key signature when you're soloing or walking a bass line. Follow the chords.

ummm...

I gotta disagree with jflack on this one if you see a Magor7th cord annd you dont know if its the 1 or the 4 cord (or....?)you will have a hard time representing the harmony.wich is your role when walkin
Analysis is good:cool:
AJ

Originally posted by ANDREW JONES
ummm...

I gotta disagree with jflack on this one if you see a Magor7th cord annd you dont know if its the 1 or the 4 cord (or....?)you will have a hard time representing the harmony.wich is your role when walkin
Analysis is good:cool:
AJ

True, but where are you going to look to figure out if your Maj7 chord is functioning as a I or a IV? You're going to look at the chord changes, not the key signature. Like I said, analysis will help, but the question that started this thread was simple: do you follow the chords or the key signature? The answer is just as simple: follow the chords.

For example, a C7 chord will always have the same notes and the same chord scale associated with it, no matter what key the tune is written in.

I just feel this could be a little oversimplyfing it even though I mostly agree with this when your talking about a dominant 7th chord I feel you choose the one chord that approach works the best with. If you play one four in a minor key your gonna use the same scale for each ?
Isnt "looking at the chords " annalysis? and if your not that expierienced comparing the chords to the key signature will give you the first steps.
I have a bunch of thinking about chord games that simplify my brain when needed but I just didnt like the particular example you chose

Sorry about the spelling
AJ

AJ - I don't think we're in disagreement here - analysis can only help.
Just out of curiosity, what would you do differently on an Fmaj7 chord if it was acting as a IV chord instead of a I chord? Would you be more likely to play B-natural on an Fmaj7 if the key sig. dictated it?
Also I'm curious about your chord games...

A C7 has at least two chord-scales that come to mind, a keyless scale, and three pentatonics, ..., depending on its function. I won't tell ya, though -- you either know the answer or will have to do some homework.

Just talking diatonic harmony the C7 would have one mode scale mixolydian but a C-7 chord could be Aeolian Phygian or dorian and the C mag 7 could be lydian or Ionian this is what I ment by the one chord I mostly agree with.
Jflack if you were gonna play autumn leaves in c youd have somethin like

D-7/g7/cmaj7/fmaj /b-7flat 5/E7/a-7/a-7....

try playin the 1,3,4,5 in each chord as a line

play a b flat as the 4 on the fmaj7 chord then try a b natural
how does it sound?
as far as ways of thinkin to try to make things easier I do things like... if you d-7 g7/cmaj7 you could think g7/cmaj7 or...If you think play a e-7 cord over a c major chord you are play the 3,5,7,9 of a c chord so you just hang on the shapes patterns that you might allready have under your fingers but they sound different in this context they are a million of these types of things you can do to tray to think your self into learnin new sounds that hopefully youll become able to hear.

AJ

C7 could be mixolydian, phrygian, or melodic minor ( F mm in the case of C7).

The point that I am trying to get across is that it's best to (drum roll, please) get a good teacher to show you the path through all of this.

And you can get C7 out of the 8-note diminshed scale.

Hello:)I might get in trouble for saying this.Check out Paul Chambers ,giant steps lay bird almost every thing he did .write his bass lines out note for note, and study his choice of note's in the chords.He really mix it up better then any one in my opinion. Oscar Pettiford,Mingus,Ray Brown,isreal crosby also.Ron Carter ,Jimmy Garrison.There so many more Grats bass players.Just transcribe and study what they are doing .
Good luck:)

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

I'm getting a much better result from working at hearing the harmony (from working on 4 part chords) and working with improvisational exercises on specific harmony...


Would you mind expanding on the 4 part chords bit?

Ed Fu Yung -

I thought that you might be talking about chord tones, but since I'd never heard them referred to as parts before, I assumed that there must be something else to that. (Although I'm guessing there probably still is...)

Granted that this is all relatively new to me, I have been learning to walk from a 'which scale might work superimposed over which chord' approach. If you're willing to go into it, I'd love to hear more about the approach that you seemed to be hinting at in your reply to Lonnie.


...There are several different kinds of exercises to help work on hearing these chords and how they function, is that the kind of thing you're looking for? Splain me more what you mean.

Yeah I'd definitely like to hear more about this as well, although I'm not sure that I can splain you more on what about exactly.


P.S. Yes - I know - I am looking for a teacher... I swear.

Can anyone lpease more clearly explain how a IV "functions" differently, in say a 12-bar blues, than a I ?

Is this a tension/release thing or ... ?

Also, what would be a clear path of study to being able to overstand what this thread is about?

I have done time in a blues band, and might have to fill in shortly on a gig of theirs as their bassist attends an emergency, and I've been of the "sound like I could play without really getting close to actually improvising/playing stuff I was hearing" school all along.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

There are several different kinds of exercises to help work on hearing these chords and how they function, is that the kind of thing you're looking for?
Splain me more what you mean.Mr. Fuqua -

Sorry for being so vague. That is exactly what I'm looking for. Exercises to help me more clearly hear each of these chords as distinct so that I can recognize them easier and to then be able to better understand a particular chord's role in a given context.

I'm also curious what you meant by hearing the harmony from those 4 part chords.

All -

With a min6 the 6 is not flat - theoretically and/or in your respective experiences then, does the 7 (when played here as a color tone) have a tendency to be flatted more often than not or does it solely depend on what else is going on around you?

And I know that "what's the difference?" is a pretty weak question but I'm also curious how you all distinguish between a min/maj7 and a dom7?

Thanks.

Originally posted by TJC
Mr. Fuqua -

Careful, if you start calling him that, his ego gets all inflated and he starts getting his head stuck in doorways and stuff. Just FYI...


And I know that "what's the difference?" is a pretty weak question but I'm also curious how you all distinguish between a min/maj7 and a dom7?



A mi/Ma7 chord is a minor triad with a Major 7th added. A Dominant 7 chord is a Major triad with a minor 7th added.

Careful, if you start calling him that, his ego gets all inflated and he starts getting his head stuck in doorways and stuff. Just FYI... :eek: Sorry about the slip - that was careless of me...

-

And sorry about the typo, Chris. What I meant to ask was how one might distinguish between a min/maj7 and a min6 - a follow up related to the question just above it (to flat or not to flat the 7?). I know that it comes down to whether the 6 or 7 gets the chord tone. But if someone were playing a min6 and throwing in the 7 as a color tone couldn't it also be heard as a min/maj7 with a 6 thrown in? Or would that just be called a min/maj13 instead?


Is that what those durn extensions are for?

Originally posted by THC
:eek: Sorry about the slip - that was careless of me...

-

And sorry about the typo, Chris. What I meant to ask was how one might distinguish between a min/maj7 and a min6 - a follow up related to the question just above it (to flat or not to flat the 7?). I know that it comes down to whether the 6 or 7 gets the chord tone. But if someone were playing a min6 and throwing in the 7 as a color tone couldn't it also be heard as a min/maj7 with a 6 thrown in? Or would that just be called a min/maj13 instead?


Is that what those durn extensions are for?


Sort of. They can be used to show specific colors that would be difficult to describe otherwise. But you have to remember that all of these chord symbols that you typically see in chord charts are going to be interpreted differently by different players of chordal instruments (usually pianists and/or guitarists). Some will add color tones that are not shown in the chord symbol, while others will tend to strip down the thickness of the chords at times by removing some indicated color tones.

Most chord charts are designed to fit the particular melody that they harmonize, which means that any note that is in the melody during the duration of any particular chord is a candidate to make it into the chord symbol. But when improvising over the chord changes when the melody is not present, you don't have to always keep all of the extensions of all the chords that pertained to the melody. For instance, if I were to answer your question

"And sorry about the typo, Chris. What I meant to ask was how one might distinguish between a min/maj7 and a min6 - a follow up related to the question just above it (to flat or not to flat the 7?)."


as a jazz pianist (which I used to be before coming over to the dark side), I personally would substitute the 6th for the 7th when voicing a mi6 chord, and often while voicing a mi7 chord. If you play the 6th in the voicing, it leaves the choice of 7th to the soloist. But if one or the other of the possible 7ths was in the melody of the song, I'd want to know that and be able to play it if that was what I was hearing at the time. And if a chord symbol read "miMa7" and there was a Ma7th in the melody, I'd make damn sure I wouldn't play the b7 in the voicing during the melody. But in the solos, nothing's written in stone...you kind of start with the color you're looking at on the page, and then let your ears tell you what you want to paint with it.

Then, once you are hearing what Ed is talking about you know what tools you can use. But, the only way to hear what Ed is talking about it to practice those tools. Pick the chicken or the egg. In your practice room.

A lot of times, what people are playing over a particular chord (usually a progression, not just a chord) comes from the mode from which the it was born. Other times, they are feathering over it a parrallel idea, other times they are substituting something completely different. Sometimes they're just lost. There's only one way to get through all of this and that's to use your ears.

When you hear things going on and you recognize what is happening, then you have more choices than when you don't know what is happening, in which case it's best to play safe and let the folks do whatever it is that they're doing. When you do recognize what is going on, the immature tendency is to follow along, which in a lot of cases may wreck the soloist's idea, so you have to learn when and when not to not follow along too closely with your lines.

Go forth, Grasshopper.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

'which scale might work superimposed over which chord...'

Well, I've typed relentlessly over my problems with this approach, you are taking your ear and your intent out of the picture whenever you decide before hand what notes you are going to play....

I've only been using that approach as a guide, but I am also understanding how limiting such a 'closed' approach could be...

Whatchoo talkin bout, Willis? Umm, you understand about how chords are built and how they function, right? The 7th has a tendency to be flatted on those chords that it's flatted in, but not in those that it doesn't. I'm not sure what you are trying to ask here.

I was talking about situations where the 7th is not part of the chord - as in a min6 - and is being used as a color tone. It was another way of asking about the whole modes superimposed over chords thing. I think that I understand. There are no such things as theoretical tendencies in that situation, because that would imply a closed (or strictly academic) system, right? Everything does depend on everything else.

TJC,

Don't know if this is redundant (you may already be past this point), but the following is a short article I give out at the camps to get people started on the whole "walking lines" concept:

http://www.talkbass.com/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=53

Good luck.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
DURRL - and a fine article it is, too.

Thank you, good sir. It has been brought to my attention that I promised a second chapter at the end of that one. It'll happen, but don't anybody hold your breath...

TJC - yes, everything does depend on everything else. But it mostly depends on what you are hearing. So if you are looking (for instance) at a C-6 chord (C Eb G A), in what instance (you ask) will you play either a Bb or a B? Well, where ya been and where ya going? What do you hear happening? What does your quarter note melody sound like?
It's not so much that an intellectual distinction is made (this approach is academic) as it is practical, you choose the notes you choose because that's what you hear when you are playing a specific tune with a specific group of people.

To take that a step further (or is it a step backward?), remember that in minor, the 6th and the 7th are actually variables most of the time during solos. One guy may choose to play a miMa7 kind of thing over minor, the next guy might go modal with it, the next guy might skip over the 6th and/or 7th entirely in his line. Or the same guy might do all three things on different choruses. Questions like this come down to COLORS of minor (or dominant, or major, locrian, etc...) in which there are many possible colors that could be played at any given time, and you have to kind of feel your way through it to find the right one. Sometimes you nail it, sometimes you don't. Oh well...tomorrow is another day. As long as you are keeping your ears open when you play, and your mind and ears open when you review the results of your playing, you'll be fine. UNLESS you wake up one day and decide that you've arrived, and don't have to work on it anymore - at that point, you're ****ed.

Most of the time I see a minor6 chord, it's in some older music/early standard/show tune kinda thing. And, most of the time, that progression is a C-6 to D7 to Gmin (generally tonic minor). So if you put on your Berklee glasses for a second, doesn't C-6 (C Eb G A) kinda look like Amin7b5 (A C Eb G) in 3rd inversion? So you're looking at a minor ii V?

Excellent point. The terms "min7b5" and "half-diminished" are newer than the music itself, and they used to be called things like, "man....you know...that C-6 with the 6th in the bass?". There's a translation that needs to be made there, and often the gist of the translation gets lost. Bottom line is that when you read changes, you always have to interpret what you see to make it better line up with what you're hearing. Sometimes the symbols you are looking at do a poor job of describing what the harmony should actually be for any given tune.

So put up the 8 bar phrase that this example came out of, everybody is gonna be able to be more concrete if we know exactly what we're looking at.


Good call.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

So put up the 8 bar phrase that this example came out of, everybody is gonna be able to be more concrete if we know exactly what we're looking at.


Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Good call.

:eek: Ya got me. The question really didn't come from anything specific that I had heard - just a hypothetical situation. Now I guess I'll have to go find something so that we can get more into this...

You can definitely work out of the scale for that key. If you have one bar each
C-7 | F7 | Bb-7 | Eb7
You can work out of Ab major to cover it all. Makes for an interesting effect.

I hate to lay another book on you but if you can, check out Cornell Wiley's "Book to Understand the Book of Electric Bass"

Don't be put off by the title. Cornell is the best scaler player I ever heard.

He was a student of Petiford and really took it to the limts. It seems as though he works out of a scale for days.

Let me know if you need more info.
Dave

If you are a beginner to jazz and walking I would suggest you stay away from the scaler/modal approach to walking and concentrate on developing your chordal approach. This will help develop you ears to the sound of the particular chords and the harmonic cycles of the tunes. In my opinion walking lines and solos based on scales/modes tend to be boring and unimaginative. The chordal approach will develop your ear and take you away from thinking about what scale to use over which chord. You will hear how the chords function within tunes. Then you can start looking at chordal substitutions, cycling, extended triads etc.

In a nutshell - learn the chords and the chordal progressions forget about the scale/mode approach..

Neither approach, by itself, is intrinsically "boring and unimaginative"....it is only the execution that makes it so. Either approach without the other is incomplete. In my opinion.

Chris is right about the execution making the difference. My point in the previous post was that you can, in many situations, cover sets of changes with a single scale. I think this is contrary to the idea that you'd be thinking in terms of what scale to play over each chord.
The short of it is, if a player dislikes one approach or the other, it's probably because they are personally uncomfortable with it.
I have heard fantastic players who play chordal, fantastic players who play scaler, and fantastic players who mix and match.

I assume Bach's ears were pretty well developed

Its all good. Explore and experience.

Dave

The statement I made was aimed at the beginner to walking and soloing. Its far more useful to the development of a beginner to approach things in a chordal rather than a scaler manner.

The chordal approach leads to ear development and internalization of the music thereby allowing you to express youself, your soul and your emotions...rather than running a note scale when you see a particular chord or group of chords(sic)
Of course thats not to say that the notes your soul/emotions/lifestyle/history/education/heart etc. decides to spew forth wont be a scale of some sort!!!

Sorry Jimmy but I don't think chords necessarilly develop your ears any better. Beginner or not.
To me, a scaler approach is not about running scales. It is about selecting notes from a scale.
The player has all the freedom in the world to change the pattern including skipping notes (producing chord arpeggios)

For the sake of soloing, a scale is realy no more than a chord (or part of a chord) that includes suggested passing tones.

I really think developing the ear is more about listening then anything else.

Dave

Originally posted by Dave Irwin
To me, a scaler approach is not about running scales. It is about selecting notes from a scale.
The player has all the freedom in the world to change the pattern including skipping notes (producing chord arpeggios).


For the sake of soloing, a scale is realy no more than a chord (or part of a chord) that includes suggested passing tones.




DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!!!!

Thanks Dave - that last statement was beautifully and pithily put. I'll be using that very statement with improv students from now on. Where should I send the royalties?

Thanks Chris. I've been working on my Pith so I can send emails to the O'Reilly Factor.


Dave

Well, here's a little something to throw into the mix. I was reading a Red Rodney interview the other day (from just before he died), in which he swears that Bird didn't know chords. Talking with a tenor-playing buddy the other day, he was doing a "compare and contrast" with Pres and Coleman Hawkins. He figures that Pres probably didn't know half the chords that were going on either. Maybe he's out to lunch, I don't know.

What both Red and my buddy were trying to say is that Pres and Bird thought melodically. They were not merely selecting tones from a pallette of scale and chord tones. They were saying something that made sense to them. The harmony suggests things that might be said, and provides a context against which they are said, but it doesn't dictate what you say.

Not to belabor the point - since FLOG EDHORSE and I have been through this whole "scale vs. chords" dance before - but whenever I hear a chord in the context of a piece of music, I'm also trying to hear what notes (almost always stepwise notes) fit in between the chord tones. Sometimes I use theory to help with this, but mostly I use my ears. The reason I like to be aware of what fits in the spaces is that, to me, MELODY consists of both chord tones and non chord tones. Granted, the chord tones are what make the non-chord tones sound the way they do in terms of tension and color, but I don't think I would ever play a walking line or a solo that consisted of ONLY chord tones or non-chord tones. Melodies almost ALWAYS contain both, so I feel it's important to be aware of both when improvising.


Also, I believe that the last paragraph of MAKIN' WHOOPEEAU's last post bears repeating, as it makes an excellent point.

Much scale yes/no questions depends on the speed and style of the music and the duration and direction of the changes. Also the fundamental issue—how good are you at making a melody? How high do you value your skill at determining this? Or someone else you respect? If you found out that you were making ass-kicking solos without ever playing a scale (that is 7 pitches in a row, in stepwise sequence up or down) would you care?

This probably explains why some established masters, referred to in this post may not have had a cohesive knowledge (at least outwardly) of the very language they were speaking. Obviously it didn’t prevent them from speaking very forcefully. The more one refers to the mechanics—the more pedantic the speaker. They might bristle at scale analysis for this reason. It doesn’t negate the mechanics. It just means you have to arrive at your innate sense of the scales and harmony by listening and trial and error. You also have to codify your own language—so it has an impact. Once you find a strong phrase you have to build upon it—reinvent, make variations and find others in the same spirit—or of contrary spirit. The musician has to feel inspired to transmit that. You also need live situations to try them out--no quicker way to learn. The practice room can be a strange haven--where curious ideas are given more due then they deserve:)


Sometimes you play more scales at faster tempos—because it is difficult to think and you have to generate rhythm and force with your hands. The few indications of thinking involve grouping the scales and arpeggios together in meaningful and distinct rhythmic accents and harmonic groups. -this is the challenge. Honestly the only way to handle this is by noodling incessantly and transcribing until you come up with a mix of ideas that cut across the changes with a certain amount of zip and style. But noodle with intent! Ha ha

If your scales do not accurately convey the changes moving through time or make a repeatable melody—you will sound like you don’t know what you’re doing. Suffice to say—that if you can generate enough variety rhythmically, harmonically, intervallically—make interesting shapes, target key pitches at pivotal points in the harmony and retain a vocal quality in your instrumental solos you’ll be able to be figure out how scales figure in—or they will be there already without you asking. Not so hard right? Ha

Jon

Ed, Look, There's not much I can say that can't be placed in a negative context.

But to try to address your concerns...

"Well, here we go. So how do you select the notes? What's the governing intent?"
The intent is to play the notes you hear in your head. If you don't have anything to say, swallowing an encyclopedia of chords, scales, or transcriptions won't help. I personally think starting with the options presented with scales is a good place to start finding those sounds in your head.

I really think developing the ear is more about listening then anything else. "OK, listening to what? And listening how? " . There are plenty of listening excercises but I was referring to listening to anything and everything to inspire the student's own ideas. When once asked about influences, Bela Fleck responded TV. (specifically the diminished and augmented chords from old horror movies)
That kind of openess to all things musical is what I'm talking about.

a scale is realy no more than a chord (or part of a chord) that includes suggested passing tones. "And a piece of chocolate cake is no more than the molecules that make it up."
The point is the scale is the parts and it's up to the player to make it more than the sum of its parts.

Dave

This topic can confuse the sh*t out of players who are just learning. I think it's important to point out (again, probably) that people have different ways of understanding the music. There's 12 notes, right? Whether you're thinking in terms of scales, chords, modes, whatever, you're applying a conceptual template for grouping a set of notes and their relationships. You do this to organize your thinking and to grok it somehow; at some level, you can't help notdoing it. If we compare close enough, we can all find differences in our templates.

So, newbies, don't go thinking that one of these ways is right and the other wrong. Everyone likely agrees that you should play the music you're hearing. We all hope it's musical.

Having said all that, this thread's about walkin' bass, not soloing or playing melodies. You know: walking your way through the changes of all those great American songs where the walk fits. Your job as a bass player here is to keep the time and to know what the $%*# is going on with the harmony. You gotta be a good functional bass voice in the ensemble, thumping out enough roots so the horn players know where the *^@% they are in harmony land. And, you know, you gotta fill out the rest nice (melody, chords, scales -- getcher template out and go to it).

Me, I'm a chord man. It was a template that clicked with me way back when and now my brain works that way. It's just a way of approaching a tune, really, of starting out with it; it stops mattering very much once the tune's internalized. I have to be able to hear the melody in those changes, so I try to sing it or whistle it if I can while working with the changes on the guitar. The walking bass needs to have the stuff hinted at above (drive, support, taste, etc, etc), so when I'm first "building it" on the instrument I'm looking for all the exciting ways I can explore the interconnections of *those* changes with *that* melody. It might be scalar, it might be a "passing tone" kinda idea, maybe it's a substitute chord type idea that leads me somewhere (trouble, likely.)

Just another guy's way of describing it, newbies.

Sorry for cutting in at the middle-which got off topic on walking lines--newbyish of me

I was just horning in on my bassist's (ED) board:)
I will try to respond my organ left hand bass point of view

I read the original question again. In reference to what to do about Fmajor 7 from a walking point of view-Bb or B:

For the beginner--appliying absolute scales to walking lines-will probably result in little success and it has little application in real time situations. The longer the duration of the chord the more creative you have to be about which notes to pick. Bass players over Fmajor 7 will more often skip G in their lines on their way up and play both Bb and Bnat to get to C. An running arpeggios up and down sound amateurish and are distracting to the soloist. If you invert the intervals to get an up-down motion it will help ;then when you add neighbor tones around important pitches (ie F and C) it helps even more. The best results will definitely include leaps, reversal of direction, some chord inversion and upper and lower neighbors. The effect of the intervals you play up or down--from a momentum point of view-plus the feel is probably more important than the notes. The washtub bass player would probably agree--faking the correct notes in favor of good rhythm.

I think Dave baker books linking the bebop scales to building bass lines, plus the Ron Carter transcriptions and instruction books might round out the original poster's study. I've seen some of RC's arpeggio studies written for a few of his students when I was at City College 20 years ago. They were masterful (regardless of what some of you might think about mr RC)

Also what Lonnie P mentioned about Paul Chambers is absolutely true. I was checking out C jam blues from Red Garland and was first checking the piano solo when I became enthralled with Mr. PC's solo and then just his walking lines on the opening head.
He used a lot of 4th and 5th motion--staying away from repeating certain pitches--almost running through a chord cycle--while Garland was on the same chord. He did this w/o you realizing it. In the hands of someone else this might get in the way. Some of this may have to do with that he gets the right touch, duration and dynamics for the lines that he plays.

... thanks for the "make the walking lines melodic" point, Ed. I was gonna make it myself, but I EDITED it out. The classical guys may jump on me for imprecise use of the term, but I think counterpoint when I'm putting a walk down. It should sound good on it's own, but it should really kick when it's mixed in with the rest.

Yeah, yeah, there's real work to do over here too. I like to keep this little mojo wire running throughout the day to break up the bad brain syndrome that arises if I don't.

Originally posted by BREAD FUNGUS


"I personally think starting with the options presented with scales is a good place to start finding those sounds in your head." It wasn't for me. Until I started hearing the harmony I was just speaking gibberish. And my background was coming at it from a chord/scale perspective. Now DURRL is sorta coming outa that same background (although with his background in piano I have to think that he's got more going on with a chordal approach than he talks about sometimes) and I heard DURRL play and he's got some good stuff going on. So despite how he got into it, he's on the right path. And because I've heard him, it's OK to say "Well, it dint work for me, but it worked for you, so we'll just take it from the second A".

Thanks for the vote of confidence. And you're right about the piano thing... when you're comping for yourself (especially in a functional harmony setting), you already know what the chord tones are because you're usually playing them in your left hand. And I hear what you're saying about the chord/scale thing as well - it's just that I hear a lot of young players trying to ARPEGGIO their way through changes (I call these attempts at improvisation "ARPEGGISOLOS"), and it sounds every bit as lame and unmusical to me as someone wandering around aimlessly in a scale. But the main point is, everybody's trying to get to the same place (hearing great stuff, and playing what they hear), and just taking different paths to get there, all of which is good.

Cause again, I've heard more people who do the scalar approach not making any sense than I have the converse. Well that's not exactly precise. I have heard more cats who seem to have trouble conveying meaning in their line and solo who have approached playing through scales.
So join in the fun. Send something out in the Johnson Exchange Program, many of us have. There was even some talk of a compilation CD that was being bandied about.




I'm definitely still into this, and I'll be happy to put it together. If enough people are into it, I'll be happy to get on it starting in May (when the schools are out). With any luck, I'll also be putting a website up this summer that I could host some clips on. So anybody who's into the idea, chime in, and then start thinking about what cut you'd like to go on the disc. I'll be happy to do the compiling and burning (my new G4 will burn the copies at 24x speed :) ). If too many people get involved, I may need to ask for some bread for postage, but other than that, I can supply the rest of the materials.

I have to add at this point that the Johnson Exchange program has been one of - if not THE - most valuable parts of my experiences here at TB. I hope we can find a way to continue it, and even expand it. We're all here to talk about music anyway, and the direct constructive criticism I've gotten on the stuff I've sent out has been great in helping me move forward. Also, I get to hear a lot of other great players from other places who do a lot of things that I might not have thought of. All in all, the Johnson Exchange is a winner.

Originally posted by HERESTHATRANEYDAY

I read the original question again. In reference to what to do about Fmajor 7 from a walking point of view-Bb or B:

For the beginner--appliying absolute scales to walking lines-will probably result in little success and it has little application in real time situations.

Very true. What to play over FMa7 will always depend on the context that chord is used in, who's playing the changes, what the piano player had for lunch/dinner before the session, etc...

The longer the duration of the chord the more creative you have to be about which notes to pick. Bass players over Fmajor 7 will more often skip G in their lines on their way up and play both Bb and Bnat to get to C. An running arpeggios up and down sound amateurish and are distracting to the soloist. If you invert the intervals to get an up-down motion it will help ;then when you add neighbor tones around important pitches (ie F and C) it helps even more. The best results will definitely include leaps, reversal of direction, some chord inversion and upper and lower neighbors. The effect of the intervals you play up or down--from a momentum point of view-plus the feel is probably more important than the notes. The washtub bass player would probably agree--faking the correct notes in favor of good rhythm.




Agreed. I hate getting bogged down in the whole "Chords vs. Scales" debate, because I have real problems with both "methods". Jamey teaches beginners that there's a scale that goes with each chord, and I have serious issues with some of the "passing tones" that get included in this method....and yet, when I hear him play, I hear a guy with great ears playing what he's hearing, even on those occasions when the piano and bass players start taking the changes out a bit. I remember once after teaching an ear training session at the camps, he remarked to me that he wished he could just put "sing what you hear, and then play what you sing" beneath the changes in all of his play alongs, but then he worried that beginners might feel cheated.

I think that a lot of the confusion and debate on this topic has to do more with information that is given out to relative newbies as a way to get them started than it does for folks who are out there playing all the time and using their ears. It's funny, as many times as this has come up here at TB, Ed always says, "learn to hear the chords", I always say "learn to hear the chords, THEN learn to hear what's between the chord tones in that particular situation", and then it somehow comes off as some kind of big debate when we're really saying the same thing.

Maybe we could just sum it up by saying "learn to hear, and then play what you hear?", and leave it at that? When I hear FOGHORN play, I do hear a more chordal approach to some things than I use, but what I notice more than that is the bounce with which all of those notes are played. When the bounce is happening, it's almost like the notes barely matter.

Yes- Chris

This is the eternal debate. You want to give less advanced good instructional info--a shortcut- what have you. But then you find what you have offered is not precisely the way you learned it. You used a combination of techniques. And did a lot of work that the student has yet to do. You don't want to hold out and say "you just hear it" etc. but at the same time--you have to a do a lot of work and not do any one thing to the exclusion of others.
Trial and error is really more important than anyone would care to admit. Transcription is really important too. Again there are enough masters out there that have admitted to dutiful transcription of their idols- without sacrificing their originality. It's like getting a live example in an instruction book--hey wouldn't that be a great idea. Digital instruction books with mp3 snipits? demonstrating the concept? Then a few years down the road--you can click the virtual hologram master link--who can pop out of the book and sub for you when you're panicking and don't have your **** together. Anyway I digress

aside-- Chris were you the bass player I saw playing with Tim Whelan in 1995? when I came to town?

Ed--stop goofing around
don't you have anything better to do than write these treatises on company time?
ha ha

Ed, I see your point but I dont think it is exclusive of mine. I'll try it this way, I see chords and scales as being analogous to words and the alphabet.

Trying to learn a large vocabulary word by word without applying our knowledge of the alphabet would be very difficult to say the least.

So why not apply our knowledge of scales to musical phrases we want to create. Consider the following practice pattern.

played and spoken w/ a metronome in all 12 keyes (ofcourse) along the cycle of 4ths
1 3 5
1 3 5 6
1 3 5 7
1 3 5 b7
1 3 5 2
1 3 5 4

This is a great excercise for learning scales and developing the ability to quickly spell chords. Spelling any chord becomes using one of the above patterns or altering a couple of notes by a half step.

Developing walking lines and solos by experimenting with scales works fine. It seems like when people talk about chordal playing, they're really just taking their knowledge of the scales for granted.

Kind of like me writing this long winded saga of a post without counting each letter in the alphabet with every character.

Dave

There's some kind of conceptual, point of view difference going on here. It's in the language, what we're calling chords, scales, etc.

Dave, I look at your example and from my framework of understanding I see that it asks me to "arpeggiate" (surely this is not a real verb, is it?) a major triad (1-3-5) with another note thrown in with the triad (in all but the first example.) In all the examples but one, that fourth note jumps to a non-neighbour note. So, the fourth note is a 6, a 7, a flat 7. Put together with the triad, I call these arpeggios of four part chords, Dave. I don't see anything I call scalar going on, except possibly for the second last example where you ask for a 4 (neighbour to the 5 -- see my theoretical genius here?)

They're chords, man. Spell out the notes individually and they're arpeggios.

Gotta run and make supper for the kiddies...

After supper edit: OK, there's another example in there that's "scalar" in the sense I used above: your major 6th arpeggio.

Damon I agree the excercise is about chords. It is also about scales and the point I'm trying to make is that chords are not studied in a void, that knowledge of scales are very important.

The pattern is spelled out using scale degrees. We don't think of an e as the second note of a c major chord, we think of it as the 3rd of the chord because we relate it to the scale.

So chordal vs. scaler really isn't an issue to me. Scales are required to understand chords unless you want to memorize every note of every chord as if each chord was unrelated to the next. (sort of like whole word instead of phonetics)

I never said just run up and down scales which is what I think "chordal" proponents think "scaler" is.

So back to Chris's point about execution. No, you can't just run up and down scales. And you can't just run up and down chords. Either can be boring.

If I might interject here.

The question is how applicable is a particular exercise in a real situation? In this case walking; if immediate, great. The more pressed for time you are the better it would be to learn a scale or note sequence that would permeate immediately into your automatic. Bassists use a great deal of habitual motion in walking. Your practice might literally be trying to broaden what you do out of habit. You have to pick the best possible notes in the shortest amount of thinking time.

For example, my beginning ensemble had a bassist who really didn’t know what to do. He was trying to play walking lines and was arpeggiating the chords as his walking line—and repeating the same positions-it sounded pretty bad. That is, arpeggios played straight up. Inverted creatively it might have sounded better—but that’s a whole another world to be able to interlock your arpeggios in different positions with the closest common tones. When he walked 1-5-1 on the chords it sounded better. This is a rank beginner ofcourse. So his practicing arpeggios didn't help him so much because they didn't sound good as walking material- at least not yet- the way he was doing it.

When he managed to get more creative and mix up whether he went down a fourth (to the fifth) and back up again or down another fifth to the root (completing the octave) it sounded better. As he got more creative he would play and 8ve first then down to the fifth and back up to the 8ve. He then through trial and error managed quick double ups on a swung eighth note. Over time, thirds started coming in. I gave him a few tips on sample lines that used inverted intervals.. For example on F blues: F-C(up)-F(up)-A(down)-Bb(up)-D(down)-F(up)-C(down)-F(up). As an alternate finish I told him to try to change the Bb chord with this bass line cliché that uses chromatics: Bb-D(down)-D#-E-F. I asked him to pick which he liked better. Although he never did it, with the incorporation of variety he was now in a better position to transcribe a master bassist because transcription ability increases when you can liken what you play to others who do it better than you.

The creativity and urge to practice comes from trying to flesh out the simplest material. Trying to get the most out of simple things—reversing direction, adding a third, a chromatic neighbor, a diatonic one, etc. Eventually the person would study all arpeggios—in all positions and interval sequences to avoid excessive repetition (as mentioned above). The facility to move through keys can be just as important as the chord knowledge. Your brain finds it hard at first. But making difficult things suddenly do-able is at the very heart of practice and mastery. Which is why real time key cycle practices is particularly good for bassists.
Also incorporating variation—immediately—has the most application to a real time situation, because your brain is constantly looking for ways of applying more creative solutions. This is at the heart of feeling like you know what you are doing. You are working within your means but you have an eye on pushing yourself a little. Also—the metronome! You have to get that flow going. You adjust the duration and the feel of the notes you play for the optimum sense of forward motion.

Just another perspective

Thanks, nyp, for playing the root for us. Never forget that all this is about playing music. Don't confuse tools (theory, technique, concepts) with music. Two different things.

And, while we're talking "how-to" details, don't forget that it's also part of the gamebook sometimes to play the same note consecutively in your walk. Particularly on older, faster stuff, you'll often hear "root-root-move-move, root-root-move-move."

Sometimes repetition is cool, and sometime's it's boring. Takes musical taste to know the difference, and you gotta have it or develop it to know the difference.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
Scales are required to understand chords unless you want to memorize every note of every chord as if each chord was unrelated to the next. Sorry, I don't agree with that. I don't have to "memorize" every note, I have to hear function and relation. You hear A C E you're not just listening for interval relationships (OK up a minor third and then up a major third OR up a minor 3rd and then to the 5th) you're listening for function (which is a chordal concept) ; is that a tonic minor, a tonic major6 chord, a ii chord, a iii chord, what chord are you hearing and what notes are you hearing against that that will support the soloist (if a walking line) or continue to melodically move the tune forward (if soloing). And once again (and here's where I'd like a little more clarity and sourcing on that Red Rodney quote) when Bird talks (in that famous DownBeat interview) about his "breakthrough" in his approach, he doesn't talk about scales. He says that "by approaching the upper extensions of the chords as a new progression" he was able to get to those sounds he was hearing.

I think our Earnest Young Lad/Ladettes are going to be better served by learning to hear a progression than by learning which scale to play over a dominant chord.

As a pianist myself, I agree with Ed here, on the chords issue.

I knew the Red Rodney thing would be a bit inflammatory. I'm not saying I agree with him by the way. But he was Parker's pal and they played next to each other for four years, I believe.

Talking Jazz -- An Oral History, by Ben Sidran. I've got the expanded edition published in '95 by Da Capo. The Rodney interview is pp. 45-54.

To save you the trouble of digging it up, I'll type out some quote material (and hope that it counts as fair use from a copyright perspective; I believe it does.)

So, on pp. 48-9 when Red first broaches the topic:

"...I always felt that Bird didn't really play with the knowledge of chord changes. His instinct was so great, and his ear was so great and his ability on his horn was so great that he really didn't have to know. But I caught him a couple of times. I asked him, 'Where does the bridge go?' Like on 'The Song Is You'. And he said 'B flat seventh". And I looked at him, like 'what'? And I saw that Al Haig was laughing. And I thought, 'Wait a minute, is he putting me on or what?" And it happened two or three more times on different tunes, and it was always 'B flat seventh'. You know, it might have been F sharp minor seventh or something, and I said, 'Oh oh, maybe he doesn't know'. [...] But what's the difference? He never played wrong. He always played beautifully."

At the end of interview (p. 54):

"I said that I suspect he didn't know the changes, formally. He didn't know that B flat minor seventh went to E flat into A flat. He didn't know that. I think. I'm not sure I'm right... Yes, I am sure I'm right, because many times I asked him where we were, what chord that was and he always gave me that off-the-wall answer."

Make of it what you will. Sounds to me it's just as likely that Bird and Haig were pulling his leg. On the other hand, give Red some respect. They were together night and day for four years. Red knew a thing or two about music himself, and that was a thoughtful Red at the end of his road, happy, sober, teeth fixed, and making the music he wanted to after many years slaving in Vegas pit bands.

It's an OK book, BTW, but nothing too exciting in there. It's cool to hear musicians talk in their own voices about themselves and the music. GREAT Sonny Rollins interview -- that guy just doesn't talk much, so that's rare air.

I wish Sidran wouldn't talk so much...

So, Ed: will that suffice for a reference?

And, fer chrissakes, Bird was a f*cking musical genius if anyone deserves that label. An exception if there ever was one, not a rule.

Sorry Ed, I missed that you asked for an example. Hard for me to offer one because I don't think any one example really covers what I'm saying.
Take any line you want and I can show how the scaler perspective applies.

We're not talking about opposing ideas. Knowledge of the scale helps you identify the "function" you mentioned. Thinking of a scale does not mean you can't think about how the chord notes will resolve.

If a student has little experience improvising lines, knowing scales helps the student find the notes belonging to the chord. If it helps, I'll concede that the scaler thought is in support of the level of thought you're talking about.

If I can revert back to the english analogy, scaler is like sounding out words where chordal is like learning whole words and sentences. Learning in whole sentences or phrases comes in time as his/her vocabulary grows.

I still think we're taking scaler thought for granted. When you mention ii's V7's and I's your refering to scaler thought. When someone says "I vi ii V" that's scaler thought, even though the character of the chords do not necessarily adhere to the I's major scale.

And now I'll play right into the negative stereotype of scaler by offering a line that is nothing but running the G major scale to cover the turnaround on I'll Remember April.

This is for
A-7 | D7 | B-b5 | E7b9 |
ABCD|EF#GA|BAGF#|EDCB

A-7 | D7 | GM7 | */*||
|ABCD|EF#GA|GF#ED|CBAG|

Conventional thought says this line is wrong in the 2nd, 6th, and 8th bars (especially the 8th)
But it works and makes for a novel alternative of a line.
(feel free to play broken 3rds when comming down from the G in the 7th bar... :)


Dave

Dave:

I would have to side with Ed on this one. Although scalar refers to the material it’s still a question of functional harmony not scales. There is even a theoretical basis for functional harmony being the father of scales. I read somewhere that the scales were arrived at by a 17th century analysis –that the most predominant chords used were I,IV & V. If you combine the notes of the three chords and remove the duplicates you get the major and the natural minor scales.

Your example works but I wouldn’t like to hear it too often as a pianist. You would give me the impression you’re playing pantonally behind me. I’m sure you just put down the ex. to prove a point though. Your ear forgives the E in bar two on the down beat because you give me enough D7ish pitches. Without the strong B arrival note on the downbeat of the next bar however you might catch a “ray” from me. (Ed is familiar with this phenomenon of light) I also would rather hear Fnat than F# on the way down. This is where functional harmony comes in—bVII-VI. I like to call that “bII” of VI.

At the risk of being longwinded, I think of like this. The 7th chords formed from the major scale- give the basic “expected qualities” for each chord. That is—I is maj7, II is minor7 etc. But if tunes and the composer’s harmony never altered this—it would get pretty boring. Secondary dominants substituting dominants for minors–II7(Vof V) III7(V of VI) etc actually serve to strengthen the key by providing strong arrival points away from the root—then establish motion back to the root. It’s a paradox somewhat- or perhaps related to physics. You establish more momentum to the root by moving away from it.

In your defense—if you had heard that scale while you were playing it—and heard that it would fit the chords ahead of time that would be ok. But—you would be using Ed’s principle though. That is you could hear both parts in your imagination- the harmony and the line contrapuntally.

It sounds like we're back to the misperception of scaler.
The bassline I posted was a novelty demonstrating logical extreme of only using a scale.
I wouldn't want to hear it often either (but it's fun to see how far it can go every once in a while)

As I said before that example (or any other 1 example) could represent my point because it would lock me into whatever pigeonhole the example might fall into.

But back to the point, I learned to spell notes chords by first learning scales. There is an obvious linear relationship between A and B.

Now there some lucky folks who don't need to know a single note but can instantly pick out exactly what they hear in their head on the instrument. These players don't need scales, chords or the ability to distinguish a dotted eighth
from a whole note. They just hear it.

For the less fortunate, there are labels to the sounds we hear. I think using a scale as a point of reference to access those sounds is as valid as memorizing chords.

I'm not saying the scale has to dictate the notes you play. They're just a point of reference.

Some of this is generational too. It seems to me more modern jazzers lean more toward an open air-y
sound in the bassline as opposed to a more driving bassline (which comes with a more linear line)

Maybe that's it. If you want to say your taste is a more mutidmensional line vs. a linear line. I can see that. I still wouldn't discourage students from thinking about scales because of it.

Dave

Originally posted by Dave Irwin

Some of this is generational too. It seems to me more modern jazzers lean more toward an open air-y
sound in the bassline as opposed to a more driving bassline (which comes with a more linear line)

Dave, I would say the more traditional bass lines derived from the standards of the 40s,50s,60s played by the great bassists Chambers, Brown, Carter et al may have been linear but they were all firmly based on the chords and not scales. The scaler way of thinking was a product of the rock era and has been applied to standard type tunes through ignorant teachers, misinformed teaching methods and a lack of understanding of what chordal theory really is about.

Not wishing to be pedantic, but rather asking the question, as it may be a US/UK thing - isn't it scalar?

Originally posted by GUMMYJIZZ

The scaler way of thinking was a product of the rock era and has been applied to standard type tunes through ignorant teachers, misinformed teaching methods and a lack of understanding of what chordal theory really is about.



From Todd Coolman's The Bottom Line, on the subject of the use of scales and chords in bass line construction:


"CHAPTER 3: FUNDAMENTALS OF BASS LINE CONSTRUCTION

The three essential components of bass lines are derived from scales, chromatic passing tones, and chord tones. These subjects are discussed later in Chapters 5, 6, and 8. However, whether you are a beginning, intermediate, or advanced level bassist, the fundamental purpose of the bass line in all styles of music is to define root motion."


"CHAPTER 5: SCALAR BASS LINES

Before you begin this chapter, you should be reminded that a complete understanding of common jazz chord/scale relationships is essential.

Scales are just one element of good bass line construction and by no means the only one, as we will see in the later chapters. However, scales are very useful because their stepwise motion results in a graceful, flowing line. Learning to incorporate scales into the bass line is therefore important."


You may want to contact Todd and let him know that a major portion of his approach to bass line construction is "a product of the rock era and has been applied to standard type tunes through ignorant teachers, misinformed teaching methods and a lack of understanding of what chordal theory really is about". His email address can be found on his website at: http://www.toddcoolman.com/ . After all the years of work and study he's put in, I expect he'll be devastated to hear this news, so be a sport and break it to him easy, willya? :)

Originally posted by Jimmyjazz

Dave, I would say the more traditional bass lines derived from the standards of the 40s,50s,60s played by the great bassists Chambers, Brown, Carter et al may have been linear but they were all firmly based on the chords and not scales. The scaler way of thinking was a product of the rock era and has been applied to standard type tunes through ignorant teachers, misinformed teaching methods and a lack of understanding of what chordal theory really is about.

That can't be true for something like "Kind of BLue" or other Modal Jazz records of the late 50s/early 60s - as on many pieces there were no chords and only modes or scales specified.

So Chambers' lines on KoB have to be scalar!! ;)

I took a little advice from the board over the weekend and transcribed some Paul Chambers stuff. You only have to listen to the first 8 bars of "Four" to hear scalar stuff, arpegiatted stuff, and the use of passing/connecting tones.

This scales versus chords thing is getting old.

Originally posted by FLAMIN' FONDUE

This scales versus chords thing is getting old.

Word. It's like asking, "What's more important if you want to be a professional football player: Strong arms, or strong legs?" Unless you're a kicker, the answer is obvious.

I took a little advice from the board over the weekend and transcribed some Paul Chambers stuff. You only have to listen to the first 8 bars of "Four" to hear scalar stuff, arpegiatted stuff, and the use of passing/connecting tones.



That's what I'm saying, too. You need all of this stuff - arms AND legs.

Forgive me for beating the dead horse but my old teacher is a big scalar guy and he learned it from Oscar Petiford.

The whole anti-scale vibe is starting to sound like
the anti-peavey movement :)


Dave

I totally agree that any way the student makes it happen is cool. I think I said that too many posts ago.
By the way, I have a rare T-40 autographed by Oscar I'll sell you cheap. It was his favorite axe.

Dave

Bump.

First off, allways play the chord tones on beat 1 and 3 (well almost allways)

and second off, play somthing else between them.

If it's in the key and not the scale for the chord (you can think of each chord as being it's own key change), that's cool, it sounds a little more "in" while appearing "out".
Do whatever makes you happy.

Listen listen listen.

bump.

This is one of the threads, where after the 2nd page, I couldn't remember what the original question is, and after the 3rd page, I couldn't remember if everyone have agreed on an answer!


Example: If I'm in the key of F and I'm playing a C chord, would a "scale approach" include a natural B (as in a C scale) or a flattened B (as in an F scale)?


Since there are opposing views (Chords vs Scales), would it help if a poll is created for this?

bump.
Since there are opposing views (Chords vs Scales), would it help if a poll is created for this?


Well in the example given, it doesn't matter.

What is C functioning as? IF you really really really are in the key of F, then C is functioning as V, so the Bb can be used to approach the C root, OR you can use Bb as a chord tone, and then use B natural as an approach tone. they are both correct.

Because jazz tends to modulate really quickly, I find that it's easier to think in terms of Chords than scales. The scales you should know the shapes of and the note names for every chord, for every mode. Usually when you play minor, you play dorian, although aolian sounds hip too with the b13... er flat six... And V is Mixo, and I is Ionian. you could play any minor mode over a minor chord, if you are using the tones in that chord to approach the next chord tone. (And of course each scale tone is really a chord tone as well, 2=9, 4=11, 6=13)

So really, just LISTEN. What sounds good IS good. That's becuase you're trying to make music. Keep that in mind.

So really, just LISTEN. What sounds good IS good. That's becuase you're trying to make music. Keep that in mind.

I have to agree. It actually doesn't matter which notes you play as long as you play them in time and they sound good. Remember, the BASS DETERMINES THE CHORD AND ITS FUNCTION. It's an awesome responsibility. If you listen to the great players, it's sometimes hard to tell what note they are playing and it doesn't matter because it sounds good.
As far as the "correct" notes to play, that depends on the tonal center established by the ii-V-I sequence. It also depends on the function of the chord. For example, C7 can be the V of C major or C minor depending on the tonal center established in this case by the ii chord. It can be a secondary dominant in Bb, where it functions as the V of V temporarily tonicizing the V of Bb. It can be a IV chord in a G blues. If your in the key of C and you play a C7 it usually means your going to F because the b7th is not in the key of C, so the C7 in the key of C functions as the V to move the tonal center to F.
Most Western harmony, for the last 400-500 years, has to do with the half step movement of 3rds and 7ths. For example, in the key of C, the 7th(F) of the V(G7) moves a half step down to the 3rd(E) of the tonic(C). It's that old tension and release thing.

Most Western harmony, for the last 400-500 years, has to do with the half step movement of 3rds and 7ths. For example, in the key of C, the 7th(F) of the V(G7) moves a half step down to the 3rd(E) of the tonic(C). It's that old tension and release thing.

This is true, and it's where the tonal justifications for some really cool changes come from. Not all changes are strictly V I relationships, but there is often some sort of tonic relation ship in there. Like mediants for example. If you move by a third, the five of three is the 5^ (^ meaning scale degree) of I, so there's a sort of V/I in a mediant relationship.

Alot of Jazz changes come from Impressionist music. Art Tatum is a good example of a jazzer who dug imprerssionists and helped to shift the direction of jazz.

if you study Debussy's "sunken cathedral" most of the mediant relationships involve a V/I in the bass, with the completion of the voicings fo the chords in the right hand being of a chromatic mediant relationship.

Somthing used even in bach's time is indirect resolution, or "deceptive cadence" which usually means going to vi. However, you can use a combination of a minor ii V i with a chromatic mediant relation ship to go to a half diminished vi (six on the major instead of natural minor six). Alot of times you'll hear jazz tunes end with a ii V7 I7, ii V7 I7, ii V7 IV13, or somthing like that as well, which is basically the same thing. Extended tertain harmony allows you to voice two chords simultaneously, while adding a whole new world of color.

Study chord relationships, and this will allow you to improvise on a set of changes given to you, not just within the changes, but to reharmonize as you go.

As a bassist you can end a cheesy soudning ii V I sound cooler by going to IV in the bass, while the rest of the band, unawares will go to I7, combining to make a IV13 in incomplete voicing, which is very cool. I figured this out on accident during a jam. It's a pretty standard reharm ending thing too, so try and find new ones for sure!

I'm still getting used to this right now, so those two are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head (and the only two I've had work on a gig, and both were on accident, but I was listening so I kept it, and then did the theory AFTER... okay well I did a little theory right on the spot, but I didn't figure out why it worked, just what the change i'd created was by playing what I had against the change given.)

The other thing is tritone substitutions. These are way cool, and while they sound more "out" than the extended tertain stuff (to me anyways), I think they are way easier to think about because you can isolatie them from the other changes and just play without having to thinking vertically. Tritone subs are really cool. They tend to be tritone subs for V7, built on b2, but coltrane did alot of stuff with them, changing the standard
I, iv, ii, V7, I into I biii, biv, bII7, I, as well as tons of other stuff that I have no idea about yet. They work really well for circle of fifth progressions, which is why you so often see those descending changes, like in the C section of Autumn Leaves... that tree that goes down by step is a iii7, V7/ii (or VI), ii7, V7 with tritone subs on every other chord.

Tritone subs are all based around the 7th and 3rd, which in a Dominant chord are a tritone apart, and which are the two common tones between tritone substitution and chord for which the substitution is being used. You still have the " ti do" relationship in the V/I, but the ti is really the 7th of the tritone sub, and the 3rd of the sub is the 7th of the V which goes down by step. Clear as mud? Sit down and play a V7 and then a V7 a tritone away, and see which notes you keep in common, and how voiceleading works for both of them and you'll get the idea.

So yeah, the reason any of this theory is around is just ways to justify and rationalize the use of sounds that players and composers have used. What it really all boils down to is music as heard, so LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN.

So really, just LISTEN. What sounds good IS good. That's becuase you're trying to make music. Keep that in mind.

I thought the whole point of theory is to understand why a piece sounds good and not? No?

We can play 8 notes ascending and think, hmm this sounds good! And later found out that this is called the Major scale. Then after that, we learned that if we stick to the notes in the Major scale, we will sound good. Well, that's a pretty rough example.

I guess sometimes the "what sounds good" technique is more for the professional players than the beginner players (like myself), where what sounds good to myself might not even be music at all in the professional's ears. And if something sounds good in everyone's ear, it must be in some sort of "standard" right?

I thought the whole point of theory is to understand why a piece sounds good and not? No?


That's absoloutly correct, and is great for use when alalyzing solos and charts and stuff. YOu can steal alot of licks or cool changes that way. But it's dangerous to approach music from a theory standpoint instead of a hearing standpoint-- when composing, and *especially* when playing. It's really easy to force music using theory, and it often will sound exactly that-- forced.


We can play 8 notes ascending and think, hmm this sounds good! And later found out that this is called the Major scale. Then after that, we learned that if we stick to the notes in the Major scale, we will sound good. Well, that's a pretty rough example.

I guess sometimes the "what sounds good" technique is more for the professional players than the beginner players (like myself), where what sounds good to myself might not even be music at all in the professional's ears. And if something sounds good in everyone's ear, it must be in some sort of "standard" right?

Well, growing up and listening to the music around you gives you an idea of what sounds good... it's a process of enculturation. In south america, traditional musicians-- they don't think of high notes as being vertically higher and vertically lower. They also don't think that minor sounds sad. They use tempo to specify the emotional quality (all their music is in minor modes).

Indian music uses alot of really weird scales that can change depending on teh direction you are playing them, and the chineese even have scales with many more than 12 chromatic pitches, with tones inbetween the pitches we know of in western music. I'm sure that this isn't anything new to you. What sounds good in traditional chineese song sounds HORRIBLE to me.

While using theory can be a great leaping point for a starting player, and is definatly an aid that everybody should have under their belt (I wouldn't be able to play alot of what I do without it) it can also be a huge stumbling block when you start playing with the theory that you know instead of listening and discovering new musical thoughts that are outside your bubble of music theory (which work out in theory just as well, but you probably wouldn't have thought to use if you weren't listening instead of thinking theory).

I guess sometimes the "what sounds good" technique is more for the professional players than the beginner players (like myself), where what sounds good to myself might not even be music at all in the professional's ears.
It's not going to happen that you'll play something you like and not have it be good. It doesn't mean a person knows what's good better than you do, just because they have more theory or experience under their belt than you. That just helps them know how to play something good, not to know something good when they've got it. Maybe it could be played better, but that's a technical problem, not a problem with the music itself. You have to trust your ears over all else.

And if something sounds good in everyone's ear, it must be in some sort of "standard" right?
Well, yeah, but I don't believe that there's any Universal Good Sound. There's always someone who won't like a particular tune, but you're the one playing, not them. Why don't they get out their bass? :) There's nothing wrong with playing to your audience, but chances are, you'll enjoy the same sounds they will, and so you'll play something they like.

Well, yeah, but I don't believe that there's any Universal Good Sound.

Totally! Not everybody likes Ornette Colman, or Charlie Hayden, or Coltrane, or George Russel, or whoever.

Differnt people all have differnt sounds.

Thought I'd add this piano walking (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4783605709812699578&q=Bass) video. I think It's a nice little basic video that we can take something away from.

P.S. I know more complicated things have been discussed in this forum but i thought it might be of some use.

A C7 has at least two chord-scales that come to mind, a keyless scale, and three pentatonics, ..., depending on its function. I won't tell ya, though -- you either know the answer or will have to do some homework.

Actually, if you are playing a walking line, the chord tones are going to be the same no matter what scale you are using. The purpose of the scale is to connect the chord tones. For instance, it really doesn't matter if you throw in a #4 on a C Major chord in the key of C if you place it in the right part of the measure. When you are first learning, it is perfectly acceptable to always use a C major scale on a Cmajor 7 chord and always use a b7 (mixolydian, if you will)scale on a C7 chord and a b3 and b7 on a Cminor 7. Is there more to it than that? Sure. However, you will find that an amazing number of good musicians will never notice much what you do as long as the chord tones are right. So get the basics down and you will be ready to get the fancy stuff.

Rob
http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/robreck

Wow - I get the feeling this has been made to look a lot more complicated that it needs to be. For a walking bass line, the scale you use should be based on the chord, not the key of the tune. Simple as that.

The key signature is only useful for reading a written melody, and has nothing to do with walking a bass line or improvising over chord changes.

For example, a C7 chord will always have the same notes and the same chord scale associated with it, no matter what key the tune is written in.

Functional analysis will certainly help, but the short answer is: ignore the key signature when you're soloing or walking a bass line. Follow the chords.

Would these chord changes be something along the lines (not pun intended) of say like Chorus, Bridge etc.?

Would these chord changes be something along the lines (not pun intended) of say like Chorus, Bridge etc.?


Most common (besides Blues) is 32 bars AABA - so 3 lots of A - 8 bars with slight variations and then a "contrasting", "Middle" 8 or "bridge".

Of course there are many other forms - 2 X 16 bars etc. etc.

I dont know if this of topic, but I have been lifting some walking lately, mostly PC and Percy Heath and it is really cool to see how different their approaches were. Everybody uses certain lines, but there is more than one way to walk for sure.

I dont know if this of topic, but I have been lifting some walking lately, mostly PC and Percy Heath and it is really cool to see how different their approaches were. Everybody uses certain lines, but there is more than one way to walk for sure.
Definitely. PC had an amzing way of developing chromatic tension and release motifs that eventually resolved.
Heath was also incredibly melodic.

This is afantastic discussion by the way.

Now Allan Holdsworth (the fusion guitarist) said of the whole chord scalar thing that an arpeggio is simply a scale with some of the notes left out. Which I think is a valid observation.
The two are inseparable and also able to analysed separately .
Thus a paradox that alerts us to the nature of music and walking bass lines themselves.

Now there are certain little tricks such as adjacent tones that fit within what camp. Is playing Bb-B-Bb-Bb over a Bb7 chord a scalar or chordal thing (or just bad bass playing) or a tension and release thing. A servicable bass line over a blues progression will function using this half step above or below approach ( at least for a while).
It gives a sense of jazz tonality, is ambiguous but it sounds OK and works. PC used these ideas all the time then incorporated a more chordal line to bring it back in.

How does Bb-B-C-B/Bb-A-Ab-B/ fit in with a chord scale dichotomy. I have heard this line used by many classic bassists and use it at fast tempos to give a static yet moving motion to the line.
Theoretically at first it appears nonsensical but it could be analysed as such. But it simply works.

I have to say, I learned everything I know in the first transcription I ever worked out - Relaxing with the MDQ. The bass on that album is in all ways perfact and easy to hear.
About the b problem:
1. I don't mind approaching any root by a half step above or bellow and that applies to all chords. I love approaching dom chords from a half step bellow. I just think it sounds cool.
2. Its probably a good idea to avoid Bb any way. The forths are always a bad idea. Of course there are exeptions. I distintly remember hearing one in Kind of Blue somewhere. You know, something like 431. And of course there's always 34#45. I can't think of an other reason to play a Bb on an F chord. I knew a bass player in school who though he was modern and played a lot of 4ths. Everybody hated playing with him because they never knew what chord they were on.
-Peace

I feel that walking, or soloing etc, is basically outling the tension and release of whatever the tonality of the moment is. Its all about the cadence. It doesnt really matter how you resolve, as long as you mean it, and at some point resolve. What I have also found is that thinking this way doesnt make for any less practice! I love this music and how simple yet difficult it can be:)

What type of music is this about again? Hoping that 5 years ago is not forgotten!!:eyebrow:

...if it's blues, then I have a reply...If it is anything else, please revert to previously posted replies (I think that there has been plenty covered there!!)


>>>Paul Haley

I can't think of an other reason to play a Bb on an F chord. I knew a bass player in school who though he was modern and played a lot of 4ths. Everybody hated playing with him because they never knew what chord they were on.
-Peace


LOL!:bassist:

Did anybody notice that Lonnie Plaxico posted to this thread on the first page?

Did anybody notice that Lonnie Plaxico posted to this thread on the first page?


That was in 2001 - he used to post around here then.

It was a smaller community and I learned a lot about Jazz bass playing from people on this site! :)

Nowadays the site has got so much larger and has so many more rules and things - people have come and gone and come back!! ;)

Back then it was more like a hobby site with a lot of Jazz DB players as a proportion - now this is just a tiny part of a bigger site!! ;)

That was in 2001 - he used to post around here then.

It was a smaller community and I learned a lot about Jazz bass playing from people on this site! :)

Nowadays the site has got so much larger and has so many more rules and things - people have come and gone and come back!! ;)

Back then it was more like a hobby site with a lot of Jazz DB players as a proportion - now this is just a tiny part of a bigger site!! ;)

Ahhhhh, who really knows what good or evil lurks in the shadows of the TB forums?:D