How to practice Scales & Modes?

[Agilulfo]

You should try to think of scales and modes as they relate to the chords they originate from. For this reason, it's best to refer to all types of scales as "chord scales". What this means is that a dorian scale, for example, should be thought in terms of a IImin or IImin7 chord in a major context and a mixolydian scale as a Vmaj or V7.

Basically, when you think of a scale, you should think of the chord it represents. You should also be able to see and hear that chord (major, minor, dominant, etc.) within the scale while thinking of the other notes as passing diatonic tones from one chord tone to another.

[JTE]

FIrst, the critical bit of advice here is to SING WHAT YOU PLAY. And sing the note BEFORE you play it. The idea is to get the sound of that scale into your head so that your hands are following your head, not the other way 'round. I have found so little utility of modes that I pretty well ignore them now. Yeah, I know that A dorian is different from G major. But even playing a modal vamp, I'm still thinking of my note choices as G major, but focusing on the A, C, E, and G of the Amin7 chord. And if I'm playing changes, modal thinking only adds a layer of complexity that's not needed. If the key center of Amin7/D7 is G, and I'm targeting chord tones as my main notes, I'm automatically playing A dorian then G mixolydian without having to shift gears. And if you're trying to create music by thinking and playing modes root to root, I submit you've already missed the point of playing music.

But the key factor is to LISTEN to the sound of the scale, and own it before your hand plays the next note.

jte

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by Agilulfo

You should try to think of scales and modes as they relate to the chords they originate from. For this reason, it's best to refer to all types of scales as "chord scales". What this means is that a dorian scale, for example, should be thought in terms of a IImin or IImin7 chord in a major context and a mixolydian scale as a Vmaj or V7.

Basically, when you think of a scale, you should think of the chord it represents. You should also be able to see and hear that chord (major, minor, dominant, etc.) within the scale while thinking of the other notes as passing diatonic tones from one chord tone to another.

I think you have to have context to think of scales as originating from chords. You can't really play a chord and say "well this scale belongs to it". You need to have a harmonic context to apply it to.

Yes, if you have a ii chord, or ii7 chord as the case may be, one option might be that playing a dorian scale over it will work, then again so would a lot of other scales. It's not necessarily correct to assume that everything adheres to a diatonic resolution. Even by designating something as a ii7 chord you still have a lot of options if you don't know the context of the tonal centre. It doesn't necessarily have to be major and based on the major scale.

I think when you are making decisions about applying chords to scales you have to realise that you need to look at the harmonic context and also realise that there is a certain amount of ambiguity involved. I would refer you to George Russell's "Lydian Dominant Theory" for a start.

[Johnny StingRay]

Originally Posted by Johnny StingRay

I've argued with people about practicing scales and modes. I think it is a waste of time. When I play my bass, I play according to the chordal progressions of the song. I may use connecting notes between chordal tones that may be from some type of scale or mode, but who cares. I've been playing for over 30 years and the majority of the time a song's melody is from the major, harmonic minor, or melodic minor scales. Blues, you will use the blues scale, but not for every friggin' song! The modes are nothing but the major scale begun and ended on different notes. Whoopdeedoo!!! Wow, how hard is that to remember?
If you were my student, I'd have you learning the arpeggios and how to connect them to each other as they progress through a song. I'd have you read standards charts and move through a song chordally, not by running through a bunch of useless scales.
It is better that you get your ear used to hearing chord changes, and playing through them with impeccable time and rhythm, than to memorize a bunch of boring scales.
That's my opinion. I practice chord changes, hearing them, making them habit so I don't have to think about them, just play them. That way I am free to create without just mindlessly riffing through a noncreative scale.........
Memorizing scales are for melodic instruments........piano, guitar, etc..........but the bass????????????? Keep the rhythm solid, be like a clock on the timing, and lay down the solid chordal tones so that the melodic instruments can take care of the melody and any melodic improvising they want to do.
That's just my opinion.
Peace, Johnny

I would like to apologize for this entry into this forum. I should qualify that I play old school jazz standards, which is chordally based. I forget that most people are rockers, modal jazzers, new wavers, etc. on this forum and that scales and modes are very important in their music. So I apologize . I come from a Carol Kaye background and she does not teach modes and scales in her lessons. Please forgive my ignorance to how other forms of music use scales and modes.

Peace, Johnny

[HaVIC5]

Originally Posted by Johnny StingRay

I would like to apologize for this entry into this forum. I should qualify that I play old school jazz standards, which is chordally based. I forget that most people are rockers, modal jazzers, new wavers, etc. on this forum and that scales and modes are very important in their music. So I apologize . I come from a Carol Kaye background and she does not teach modes and scales in her lessons. Please forgive my ignorance to how other forms of music use scales and modes.

Peace, Johnny

Tell me, where do those chords and arpeggios and extensions come from, historically? From where did harmony evolve? How did it evolve? Did it come out of thin air? Did Carol Kaye grace us with them in the Beginning?

Well in case you didn't know, Western music up until the 18th century was principally modal and melodic. That's about a 1000 years of music without a concept of functional harmony. Before that, harmony was created by using consonant intervals as defined purely by the scale, or mode. All through the Renaissance you had the traditional church modes applied to harmonic situations that arouse purely because of the composer's understanding of how pitches within the mode functioned (dominant, subdominant). If you ever listen to Josquin DuPres, the harmonic depth is staggering, but he never thought in terms of chords, or arpeggios, or any of that stuff that the Carol Kaye/bebop enthusiast claim to be the be-all-end-all of music. Just modes. Bach himself did not utilize the concept of a "I" chord or "ii" chord, or "V" chord, but rather had an ingrained sense of melodic "dominant", "tonic" and "subdominant" created by manipulation of intervals within the mode.

It was with Rameau that we first had the theory of functional harmony established. But even still, composers well into the 19th century were firmly ingrained with Johann Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, the counterpoint text which dealt in music in the style of Palestrina, the Rennaissance composer who wrote modal music based purely on melody. By the 20th century, composers were playing with all sorts of bizzare new modalities and melodic systems. Early jazz was based largely on collective improvisations over scales and pentatonic patterns. It was bebop, a very complex system of harmonic densities, that eliminated long-scale melodic constructs in favor of harmonic progressions of the moment, and from then on, all of music history was forgotten as far as bebop players were concerned. Chords were everything, melody was nothing. Even if it was something other than a tertian construction, it wasn't what you were supposed to learn. It's an exceedingly narrowminded viewpoint on an exceedingly specialized stylistic form of playing to force an "arpeggios-only" viewpoint on all of music pedagogy.

I find the contempt of the "old-guard" of jazz musicians towards scales frighteningly ignorant, and its these sorts of views that make figuring out the big picture that much harder.

[Dr_Funkdamental]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

Tell me, where do those chords and arpeggios and extensions come from, historically? From where did harmony evolve? How did it evolve? Did it come out of thin air? Did Carol Kaye grace us with them in the Beginning?

Well in case you didn't know, Western music up until the 18th century was principally modal and melodic. That's about a 1000 years of music without a concept of functional harmony. Before that, harmony was created by using consonant intervals as defined purely by the scale, or mode. All through the Renaissance you had the traditional church modes applied to harmonic situations that arouse purely because of the composer's understanding of how pitches within the mode functioned (dominant, subdominant). If you ever listen to Josquin DuPres, the harmonic depth is staggering, but he never thought in terms of chords, or arpeggios, or any of that stuff that the Carol Kaye/bebop enthusiast claim to be the be-all-end-all of music. Just modes. Bach himself did not utilize the concept of a "I" chord or "ii" chord, or "V" chord, but rather had an ingrained sense of melodic "dominant", "tonic" and "subdominant" created by manipulation of intervals within the mode.

It was with Rameau that we first had the theory of functional harmony established. But even still, composers well into the 19th century were firmly ingrained with Johann Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, the counterpoint text which dealt in music in the style of Palestrina, the Rennaissance composer who wrote modal music based purely on melody. By the 20th century, composers were playing with all sorts of bizzare new modalities and melodic systems. Early jazz was based largely on collective improvisations over scales and pentatonic patterns. It was bebop, a very complex system of harmonic densities, that eliminated long-scale melodic constructs in favor of harmonic progressions of the moment, and from then on, all of music history was forgotten as far as bebop players were concerned. Chords were everything, melody was nothing. Even if it was something other than a tertian construction, it wasn't what you were supposed to learn. It's an exceedingly narrowminded viewpoint on an exceedingly specialized stylistic form of playing to force an "arpeggios-only" viewpoint on all of music pedagogy.

I find the contempt of the "old-guard" of jazz musicians towards scales frighteningly ignorant, and its these sorts of views that make figuring out the big picture that much harder.

Wow you really showed him.

[Agilulfo]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

I think you have to have context to think of scales as originating from chords. You can't really play a chord and say "well this scale belongs to it". You need to have a harmonic context to apply it to.

In tonal harmony, which applies to 99% of western music played today, scales are derived from harmony. Every chord has its "proper scale" or the scale that one would use to play "inside" the harmony. What it means is that if you have a Min13 (min7 with natural 9, 11, and 13) this chord is exemplified by one chord scale: Dorian. In other words the Dorian scale is the chord scale of a min13 chord. In tonal harmony, the function of this chord is that of a IImin.

Of course one can play more than one scale on any given chord, in order to play "outside", but here we are getting in the realm of chord substitution which is, I believe, a step beyond what the OP had asked. Nevertheless, when one substitutes a scale, one is substituting a chord, thus one is still using chord scales.

For example. If one plays a Mixolydian b9 b13 on a V7 chord resolving to a Major chord, one is implying (substituting) a V7b9b13 by using the chord scale of that particular chord.

[Johnny StingRay]

Originally Posted by Dr_Funkdamental

Wow you really showed him.

Yes, he really did show me.............and I greatly appreciate it!!! Ever since I read HaVIC5's post I have been browsing the net for all the information I can get about modes and modal jazz! I've been playing for 30 years and I feel like someone just came along and pulled my head out of the sand!!! This is a breath of fresh air to this old plodding bass player! I mean I've known about modal jazz for a very long time, but I always let pride get in the way and say, "Hey, I'm old school and that's how it's supposed to be. To hell with everyone else. They're wrong, I'm right!!" WELL! After reading HaVIC5s post, I realized, that I'm a closed minded old fart!!! He has really opened my eyes and I'm having a blast learning about modes, scales and applying them in a real creative sense. Yes, he did show me!!!! And I'm loving it........it's like a new life for this old bassist!!! Well, back the studies.......I'm so excited about this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Johnny

[jgbass]

Whoah, I can totally understand what Johnny, the poster above, is talking about in that my mind is kind of blown by information I am starting to learn about scales and modes. I too was brought up on the Carol Kaye concept of how to play jazz. I found this thread because I was looking for information on modal jazz. Everyone else in this class I was in today seemed so comfortable with how to play modally. I felt like I was just getting by and faking it. I wanted to figure out what I am missing about this.

Mark Levine's book, The Total Jazz Pianist, says it succinctly:
"Until the mid 1950's, most jazz musicians thought vertically instead of horizontally--chords instead of scales." So, with my training, I mainly learned to think vertically. That's OK for 50's jazz, but what about the rest?

Its not that I cannot play all these post 50's tunes, its just that I really have no real understanding of what I am playing and how to play it well. I am just getting by, probably because I have been thinking vertically. I am missing a big chunk of jazz history and theory knowledge, and I am so excited about delving in and learning all about this and I have already been browsing the net looking for info on modal jazz and pulling out some jazz theory books that have been gathering dust.

Hey Johnny, how's it going with the scales and modes?

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by Agilulfo

In tonal harmony, which applies to 99% of western music played today, scales are derived from harmony. Every chord has its "proper scale" or the scale that one would use to play "inside" the harmony. What it means is that if you have a Min13 (min7 with natural 9, 11, and 13) this chord is exemplified by one chord scale: Dorian. In other words the Dorian scale is the chord scale of a min13 chord. In tonal harmony, the function of this chord is that of a IImin.

Of course one can play more than one scale on any given chord, in order to play "outside", but here we are getting in the realm of chord substitution which is, I believe, a step beyond what the OP had asked. Nevertheless, when one substitutes a scale, one is substituting a chord, thus one is still using chord scales.

For example. If one plays a Mixolydian b9 b13 on a V7 chord resolving to a Major chord, one is implying (substituting) a V7b9b13 by using the chord scale of that particular chord.

No, you have it back to front. What you are saying is based on a paradigm. In all of the examples you give you are giving a context to make those scales fit the harmonic context. That is not true for general tonality.

You don't take a Maj7 chord and say "This is the chord for Ionian" when it could fit any number of scales besides just lydian and ionian. On the other hand you do look at the major scale and derive the teritan chords based on the scale, for example.