Chordal Jazz theory VS Scalar Jazz Theory

[buddyro57]

I would have to agree with Mr. Saunders; "I think it's extremely self-limiting to view these as mutually exclusive concepts". Right... Its all the same material- its just whether you are looking at it vertically or horizontally. I would say that any work you can do at the piano will help alot. Get Jerry Coker's Basic Jazz Piano, start there.
Actually its pretty easy to start to develop a simple scaler language to accompany the 4 most common chords used in the Amercian Songbook literature: Maj7, min7, dom 7 ( and the endless alterations of that chord) and half diminshed. Start working with songs with slower harmonic rhythm- I used to like " Tune Up", "Song for my Father", "So What", there are many good tunes out there which are somewhat manageable. Also, the ideas of learning cliches and applying them to common chord conventions is a really good one, you get to learn jazz vernacular that way. Of course, the most important component is listening- Its a life-long pursuit, so get after it.
Jon

[Howard K]

I'm probably the least experienced player here.. I'll summarize with an already used example. I think of it like this; D-7 contains four notes DFAC, all of which will sound 'in' when played with the chord. Of course some will lend themselves to being played on bass more than others (e.g. I find 5ths are tricky, especially in a II-V-I) but all are there in the chord.
So, ANY other notes choices are entirely down to the context and what you hear.. b6, natural 6, both? The D-7 in Blue in Green 'fits' a b6 to me.. a b6 and natural7 sound OK in latin tunes, but I find it hard to hear melodic minor in the any context.. I hear a natural 9 in lots of latin basslines, I get that, but a b9 on a minor chord, nope!!
I think of it as nothing more than "what I hear in context".. what chord came before and I guess more importantly what comes next. Decades of work ahead here </waffle>

[Marc Piane]

I don't know Howie. Sounds like a pretty great way of looking at it to me.

[jgbass]

Originally Posted by Howard K

I think of it as nothing more than "what I hear in context".. what chord came before and I guess more importantly what comes next. Decades of work ahead here </waffle>

Howard, I hope this all won't take decades. Sounds great that you are thinking about what you hear and you have a good ear too, also kind of analyzing chords and deciding what they are and figuring out some familiar chordal progressions.

Maybe it would help to be aware of some chord substitutions, i.e. Dm = Fmaj7 and G7 = Fmaj7.

I don't know what methods you are studying, but Carol Kaye's book Jazz Improv for Bass has a whole page recap of chordal subs and a page of lines you can play for ii V7 I. Too much to even write about here, but that book is an inexpensive investment that I could study for a long time.

Here's a foundation of what she teaches from the beginning --the chordal scale. This really gives a foundation for how chords work together. If you go to the piano, you will notice they are all white keys.

In C: CM7 - Dm7 - Em7 - FM7 - G7 - Am7 - Bm7b5 - C

Start playing: (up) C E G B (down) C A F D (up) E G B D (down) E C A F and so on Bm7b5 is B D F A

That's a phrase in so many tunes. I was playing Body and Soul and at the bridge there it was, and, because I know this scale in many keys, it was easy to play. Band leader wanted me to do a solo there, and that was also easy because I knew the right notes to play.

[Howard K]

Maybe I underplayed my learnings to some degree, I've spent a fair amount of time looking at and running scales and arpeggios on paper, on the fingerboard and singing in the car. I'm familiar with harmonization of major scale, some basic chord subs, what's in what's out... but that was a few years ago. Right now I've pretty much given up working on theory until my ears start to hear more, I figured it was best to let them lead rather than fill my head with too much theory. I found all this stuff I'd learned on paper was worth pretty much just the paper it was written on.. and who needs paper anyway

All that said, how'd you sub G7 with FMaj7, there's only one note shared and quote a few tensions there?

[Howard K]

...that's not to say the paper isn't hugely valuable of course.. but the ears have to come first. I'll defo check out Carol Kaye's book.
Thing is, I tend to buy loads of books and not use any of them properly, I guess a lot of folk do the same

[sk8terguy316]

Howard K as I am the thread starter, I am obviousley not entirely sure on which is better etc, but I believe that the reason G7 equals Fmaj7 is because it's in the extended triads.
If you use stacked triads off of G7 you get Gmaj, Bm7b5, Dm, Fmaj, Am, Cmaj, Em. Now Carol Kaye is a hater of modes and scale jazz and it will become quite apparent if you visit her website. Now, I am inexperienced compared to her, but I believe that what she is trying to do is drill a mindset in to you. When you teach people that A Dorian goes over a ii then you have people blazing up and down scales. She is trying to get you to aim for the notes that count, the key notes. Weather or not she realizes it what she is doing is somewhat scalar and modal. If you look at what she is doing all the notes of a G mixolydian are there, but they are just layed out differently. So I suppose that without knowing she is going into modality almost by using a Fmaj7 as a G7 sub. The exteneded triads thing is as she advertises it though. She bases her studies off of bop and more 50's jazz soloing, using phrases that were popular and If you have ever listened to Scott LaFaro,Hampton Hawes, Oscar Peterson, or almost any other older jazz player you have definatley heard them running up the extended triads. Well, that's all i have to say


(I apoplogize for the many grammatical errors, I was in a rush)

[Howard K]

Thanks I have to say, as an example, that makes absolutely no sense to me. I mean, I understand the words, but not the point? I'll check out her website/ some material

ta
H

[philip sirois]

easier..



Fmaj7- F(7th of G7), A (9th) C (sus4) E (13th or 6th)

It's kind of an extended G7sus 4 chord with no root (and no 3rd).

the important thing to remeber with this direct substitution stuff is that it's still about playing what sounds right and good, regardless of whether it's a "sanctioned" sub or not. You can't randomly substitute these chords wherever an opportunity pops up. I think it's an okay shortcut to hearing more interesting harmonic choices but it's no substitute for hearing things more deeply in general. For me it just makes things more confusing.

[jgbass]

I have been approaching the substitution thing very slowly. The only one I use consistently, or am at least aware of using, is the diminished chord played a half step higher when playing the dominant 7th, expecially in ii V7 I. But, yes, a lot of this is based on the principle of stacked triads and what sounds good. It is spelled out in Carol's book. Confusing, yes, sometimes it is, but one concept at a time.

[philip sirois]

I'm not saying I find the concepts confusing, although I have to say the Carol Kaye book is the worst written book of all time, and in serious need of an editor, but that all these concepts, for me, don't really clarify that much.

That being said, players a lot better than me have gotten places with this stuff, so who am I to say. Anything that helps you hear and play new things is a good thing, I guess.
I guess I'm just not sure calling an extended G7 chord an FMaj7 chord gets me anything new.

[Howard K]

Originally Posted by philip sirois

easier..



Fmaj7- F(7th of G7), A (9th) C (sus4) E (13th or 6th)

It's kind of an extended G7sus 4 chord with no root (and no 3rd).

the important thing to remeber with this direct substitution stuff is that it's still about playing what sounds right and good, regardless of whether it's a "sanctioned" sub or not. You can't randomly substitute these chords wherever an opportunity pops up. I think it's an okay shortcut to hearing more interesting harmonic choices but it's no substitute for hearing things more deeply in general. For me it just makes things more confusing.

Sorry, I mean, I get the theory behind it from the previous explanation, but I find it confusing to think of it this way. That said, I played about with this yersterday and Fmaj certainly makes an interesting sub for G7 in a bog standard II-V-I, although it's essentially just staying on the II for longer to my ears. It's a much softer reoslve. B-7b5 in place of the G7 in the same progression is cool tho

[phippsyg]

This is a great thread, and something I have been thinking about a bit lately. The question you asked is more what is happening in your head rather than what you are playing. Let me clarify-a D-7 chord we can say play D Dorian. I however would prefer to "think" root, min 3rd 5th b7 9 11 13. These are the same notes that make up D Dorian, however, in my opinion this is in a more musical context, ie as a chord. Regardless it is just what is happening in my head and once your ears are tuned into playing melodically the effect on your playing will hopefully not be determined to how you are thinking. Given though that in the early days thinking in a scale context makes your lines more linear. I think neither way is necessarily right or wrong. I like to think (for a tune I don't know and to be safe) about the notes in the chord D F A C and let me ears determine what other notes I'm going to play. As long as I return to these "safe" notes, on simple terms, it will work.
Not to totally disregard your question music is about the sound it makes, not what your thinking. If a painter was to sit and think about colour theory I don't think he could be very expressive.
Just some thought (I did ramble a bit!)
By the way The Jazz Theory book is good, but very big, and full of good examples that most likely had nothing to do with what the soloist was thinking when they were playing.

[jgbass]

Originally Posted by phippsyg

Let me clarify-a D-7 chord we can say play D Dorian. I however would prefer to "think" root, min 3rd 5th b7 9 11 13. These are the same notes that make up D Dorian, however, in my opinion this is in a more musical context, ie as a chord. Regardless it is just what is happening in my head and once your ears are tuned into playing melodically the effect on your playing will hopefully not be determined to how you are thinking. Given though that in the early days thinking in a scale context makes your lines more linear. I think neither way is necessarily right or wrong.

I'm with you on this. I would prefer to think root, min 3, 5th, etc. vs. D Dorian, but it is interesting that in Mark Levine's book on jazz piano he talks about how scales evolved because there was the idea that scales would be easier to remember than the specific positions of a chord. Well, being grounded on Carol's chordal approach, I find that scale thing cumbersome, but I find that the majority of people I play music with have knowledge of the scalar approach and communicate in that language. So, I need to have a basic understanding of this approach in order to communicate with them more readily.

What I learned from Carol's approach and her thoughts on the scale approach is that playing too many linear lines can start to sound really boring after awhile. I've noticed this with a pianist I play music with. He knows the scales inside and out, but sometimes his solos sound like scales and they can be boring. I'd like to hear more pattern stuff built off of chords from him. Also, it is amazing how lslowly his ear has developed from studying scales. He needs a chart to play even simple jazz blues tunes, even though he can also play complex Bill Evans types of tunes very well. Studying the chordal approach has really developed my ear, but I also know my scales. So, for me, its not either/or, I see value in both.

But, besides these approaches, one of the biggest learning experience is listening to recordings, getting ideas from listening, playing along, really getting the feel and phrasing of how the walking lines and solos are played. When I go to play, I don't particuarly think in any method, I think about what sounds good, and, hopefully, all that stuff I practiced, the patterns, the scales, what I learned from listening, whatever it is, becomes a part of my playing naturally.

[clothsnake]

i think the day we all understand jazz is the day it will disappear..!
i love jazz too much to deconstruct it... and i am all ears

it's like life... we can theorise about that too... but it doesn't help me get through the 'interesting' end of it.

[DocBop]

I think over the course of studing Jazz improv it is necessary to study both approaches. Both get used depending on the situation. For me playing a tune for first time chordal is my safety net as the chorus' goe by and I get more familiar with the tune then I have time to think scalar and key centers. Ultimately I'm thinking in color tones and shape of the solo.

I say study all approaches, used what you can of each, and eventually you we melt them together into your own approach.

[PocketGroove82]

It's pretty obvious to me that the best improvisers don't play every/outline every chord change in a tune. They can if they want to, but this can sound fragmented and disjointed if it's a fast tune with many chords flying by.
So, rather than think "chord/chord/chord/chord"...it's better to put on your thinking cap and analyze the tune's harmony and melody, in hopes to reduce all those chords into the key centers. At that point, you can be free to play over the changes rather than through them, and hopefully melodies come out, rather than shapes, arpeggios, and chord scales.

So what I like to do when learning a tune is play though the harmony using chords/arpeggios/chord scales and then memorizing the melody until I have the "in" sounds in my ears and under my fingers.

Then I try to reduce all those changes into the key centers. Then try to actually "say something" or have an idea in those key centers, using call and response, motific development..etc..etc.

You can hear examples of this kind of stuff when you listen to ray brown solo, and how the band totally drops out. You can hear the harmony in his solos, but he isn't just outlining the "1-3-5-7" of each chord structure.

So for me, this is how I understand the old jazz cliche about
"learn the changes/scales and then forget them".

Really memorizing a tune will set you free, and remember an "approach" is merely that. An Approach.

[bassbuddie]

I agree with pocket groove, learn the melody, learn the chords, learn the scales. MEMORIZE THE SONG.

I recently played a gig and I was soloing on a song. I tought that I was completly off because my mind could not follow the changes while I was soloing. I tought I was wrong.

Someone came to me after, he is a Chef d'orchestre (band leader in english?) and said to me that the best part of the show was my solo. The thing is that I was following the changes, I had internelize the song. So I could play completely free of mental noise.

Sorry for the english, I speak french.

[Mark Perna]

There are many approaches. For tunes that I know well, I don't think about the scales or chords anymore. I try to play little melodies over the changes or sometimes, and I don't think anyone mentioned this one yet, I'll play little variations around the melody using up or down approach notes. If I can work it in I'll quote fragments of the melodies to other tunes as well.

The only time I really think about the chords or the associated scales anymore is when I'm playing a new tune that is harmonically sophisticated and I can't cop it immediately by ear.

mark

[stedtale]

Originally Posted by DocBop

I think over the course of studing Jazz improv it is necessary to study both approaches. Both get used depending on the situation. For me playing a tune for first time chordal is my safety net as the chorus' goe by and I get more familiar with the tune then I have time to think scalar and key centers. Ultimately I'm thinking in color tones and shape of the solo.

I say study all approaches, used what you can of each, and eventually you we melt them together into your own approach.

+1