Phrygian Dominant is a Bad name for 5th mode of Harmonic Minor Scale

[Paul]

The regular Phrygian already has a flatted 7th, so I'm
not sure how they came up with this name.

A much better name is the Phrygian Major scale, which
emphasizes the only difference: the natural 3rd.

[thomas]

We don't need a name to learn it or use it. The only function the name serves is to make conversation possible. And when I read "Phrygian dominant", I knew immediately what it sounds like even though I've never heard that name before. The same for Phrygian major. Either one communicates the necessary. The rest of the argument is academic.

[Paul]

On 7/16/2013 7:27 PM, thomas wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:44:18 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
>> The regular Phrygian already has a flatted 7th, so I'm
>> not sure how they came up with this name.
>>
>> A much better name is the Phrygian Major scale, which
>> emphasizes the only difference: the natural 3rd.
>
> We don't need a name to learn it or use it. The only function the name serves is to make conversation possible.

True, they are only names. But one of them is better than the other.

And when I read "Phrygian dominant", I knew immediately what it sounds
like even though I've never heard that name before. The same for
Phrygian major. Either one communicates the necessary. The rest of the
argument is academic.
>

Incorrect. "Phrygian dominant" is redundant, because the regular
Phrygian from the major scale already has a flatted 7th, so "dominant"
does not give you more information.

Phrygian Major is the correct, and more accurate label.

[Bill Godwin]

Hmmmm right or wrong I tend to think that there are three sounds, Major, minor and dominant. So in that context I think I like the Phrygian Dominant label slightly more. Actually I think of it more as a sound than a label like that.

Never would have thought about it : ) Thanks for the post!

[Paul]

Agreed there are three main scale sounds, but BOTH the regular
Phrygian and the so-called Phrygian Dominant have flatted 7ths, so
there is not distinction in the two names.

Phrygian Major gives you the real difference: The Natural Third.

Phrygian Major is the correct name.

[AR]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:44:18 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote:

Actually, considering the alternatives - or lack thereof, It's a pretty darn good name.

First of all, like the Mixolydian mode in the context of a major key, it functions as the dominant for the related minor key (major third and minor seventh required). Secondly, the salient quality that distinguishes the Phrygian mode from its next closest relative (the Aeolian mode) is the flatted second. Voila! The Phrygian Dominant Scale.

By extension, the name "Phrygian Major" suggests a scale similar to the major scale but having a flat second. That scale sounds like this:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16496153/Suryakant.mp3

Or, the name also conjures as scale with a Phrygian lower tetrachord and a Major upper tetrachord (AKA the Neapolitan Scale) which sounds like this:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16496153/Kokilpirya.mp3

[TD]

**Both are acceptable**. First of all, any scale or mode combination with a flat 2 is deemed a type of Phrygian. The fifth mode of Harmonic Minor Scale is a dominant mode. This is most likely why *some* theorists tag the word insignia "dominant" on to it's title. The word dominant is utilized more or less to indicate function. Major does not clearly indicate dominant as function. Some theory guys dub the mode as Phyrgian Major. Others, Phrygian
Dominant. "You say tomatoes..."

Still others, dub it as Phyrgian "natural 3rd." Yet MOST theory buffs do not call the 5th mode of Harmonic Minor Scale as any type of "Phrygian", even though it is. They dub it as it **functions**: "Mixolydian (b9, b13)". In a parallel fashion, the 5th mode of the more useful Melodic Minor Scale as "Mixolydian (b13). Following suit to what this thread indicates, some one may as well call that particular 5th mode, "Phyrgian Natural 2." Now wouldn't that sound dumb?

Now before any notion of modes were inducted into the Berklee foundation, that Phyrgian type mode was simply referred to as the "Spanish, Gypsy" Scale.

I would tell some one to put far less importance on a name and to make sure of an ability to sing the mode without the instrument or a book as a crutch. Names go into the toilet there of.

There is no wrong or right way to name the 5th mode of the Harmonic Minor Scale, if observing the criteria presented on this thread.

[Joey Goldstein]

[For some reason my ISP's Usenet server won't allow me to post to Usent for the last two days so I'm using GoogleGroups instead. Yech.]

At Berklee, in the 70's, as I recall, they called it "the b9 scale".
I.e. The most common scale for dom7b9 chords.
I've seen it called "Phrygian Major" before too.
The other common name is of course "Mixolydian b2b6".

But they also taught a rule of thumb that whenever a b9 is appropriate on a dom7 chord a #9 will also usually be appropriate.
(Of course there are exceptions to this "rule" though.)
But that creates an 8-tone scale that I've never seen a decent name for.
I used to call it "Mixolydian b2b6 (add #2)" but that's a little bit unwieldy.

On C7 it'd be: C Db Eb E F G Ab Bb
You might see it as being equivalent to the Fm7 bebop scale (F G Ab Bb C Db Eb E F) starting on C.
If you want the benefits of being able to run the scale in 1/8 notes while always having strong notes on strong beats, when you start it on F you get all the notes of Fm7 on the strong beats.
If you want that effect on C7b9 from the same scale, start it on E G Bb or Db.

The only "avoid-note" in that 8-note scale on C7 is the F and if you leave it out you have a less unwieldy 7-note scale with no avoid-notes that turns out to be the 3rd rotation/mpde of Ab harmonic major.
I never came up with a decent name for this scale either but "C phrygian b4" fits somewhat.


--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/AudioClips/audio.htm>

[Robby R]

It fits on a dominant chord, implying both a major 3rd & b7, so 'dominant' seems to be the clearest way to imply that in a title. 'Phrygian' refers to the b2 & b6- as Phrygian & Locrian are the only modes of the major scale to have those is is a good shorthand for those.

So to me, Phrygian Dominant quickly 1b23 b6 & b7. The 4 & 5 are natural in Phryg. so that gives you the whole scale.

Honestly in practice I usually think of this scale in terms of the harmonic minor of the minor it typically resolves to it typically resolves to, not in terms of its scale degrees. But the above makes sense to me in terms of nomenclature.

Phyrgian Major would be ambiguous to me, as to whether it implies a natural or flat 7.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:44:18 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote:

[TD]

Phrygian b4 would be accurate for 3rd mode of Harmonic major, but I think any added notes and tangential scale talk merely extends the already weak boundaries of this thread. It blabs only about the 5th mode of the Harmonic Minor Scale.

[Paul]

On 7/17/2013 11:05 AM, Robby R wrote:
> It fits on a dominant chord, implying both a major 3rd & b7, so 'dominant' seems to be the clearest way to imply that in a title. 'Phrygian' refers to the b2 & b6- as Phrygian & Locrian are the only modes of the major scale to have those is is a good shorthand for those.
>
> So to me, Phrygian Dominant quickly 1b23 b6 & b7. The 4 & 5 are natural in Phryg. so that gives you the whole scale.
>

Ok, actually, when you put it that way, that the Dominant chord
implies both natural 3rd and flat 7th, then it's a usable name.

> Honestly in practice I usually think of this scale in terms of the harmonic minor of the minor it typically resolves to it typically resolves to, not in terms of its scale degrees. But the above makes sense to me in terms of nomenclature.
>

Can you give me an example? Just curious.

> Phyrgian Major would be ambiguous to me, as to whether it implies a natural or flat 7.
>

You have to think of the regular Phrygian first, which has the
flatted 7th, and then simply make the 3rd natural. Viola!

For me, this is still a better name, because as I've said,
BOTH these Phrygian scales already has the flatted 7th. The
only difference is the 3rd, which is quickly addressed with
the term "Major".

[Paul]

Yes, here they call it Phrygian b4:

http://docs.solfege.org/3.21/C/scales/ham.html

I'll have to experiment with that one.

Thanks.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think "C7b9#9b13 scale"

Maybe not a sufficiently sophisticated approach, but it satisfies the KISS rule for me.

[Mike Neer]

Phrygian Major implies a major 7th.

[Paul]

You could argue that, but more importantly, it implies
a natural third.

The bottom line for me is, only one note is different
between these Phrygian scales, and Phrygian Major
differentiates these scales better for me.

YMMV.

[TD]

I am sorry, but that is an incorrect statement.

[Mike Neer]

I see that now.

[TD]

Not always. Lydian Minor scale has a major third (no minor third). Neapolitan Major scale has a minor third (no major third). You are welcome to call your mode Major, but to say that it is a better name is also incorrect. One note "differentiation" as criteria presents mono-dimensional reasoning especially where surrounding elements are concerned. Now, that can be alright if it is "better" for you. It may not be best for others.

[Paul]

On 7/19/2013 7:23 AM, TD wrote:


>
> Not always. Lydian Minor scale has a major third (no minor third). Neapolitan Major scale has a minor third (no major third). You are welcome to call your mode Major, but to say that it is a better name is also incorrect. One note "differentiation" as criteria presents mono-dimensional reasoning especially where surrounding elements are concerned. Now, that can be alright if it is "better" for you. It may not be best for others.
>

You are correct, but that only shows how arbitrary the naming of
scales can be.

You've got to admit these are examples of poor nomenclature. What
better way to confuse people than to call something with a major third
a "minor" scale, and vice versa?

Which is the crux of this thread: Some names for the scales
were poorly chosen. Some names are better than others at highlighting
the differences between the scales.

[TD]

That is the problem. That you automatically presume by nature the names were chosen arbitrarily when the real situation is within your arbitrary interpretations. There are serious musicians on this NG. Sure, such names may confuse the less knowledgeable, but so do many things in life.

[Paul]

It's like when you see how a city is laid out, you can point to
all sorts of things they could have planned out better, but hindsight is
20/20.

Likewise, some of these scale names are piss-poor.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/19/13 11:46 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> Likewise, some of these scale names are piss-poor.

Hopefully I'm just stating the obvious, but the names don't really matter.
It's the sounds available from the scale that matters and the resources
that that pitch collection affords.
The names are just mnemonics.

[Paul]

On 7/19/2013 9:02 AM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 7/19/13 11:46 AM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> Likewise, some of these scale names are piss-poor.
>
> Hopefully I'm just stating the obvious, but the names don't really matter.
> It's the sounds available from the scale that matters and the resources
> that that pitch collection affords.
> The names are just mnemonics.
>

That's very true. We shouldn't get hung up on the names,
good or bad.

But from a learning perspective, ideally you make the
names as descriptive as possible.

And since we have multiple names for each scale,
why not use the names that work best for us.

[Gerry]

When speaking or writing with others, it's good when words have the
same general meanings for all participants.
--
Those who wish to sing always find a song. -- Swedish proverb

[Paul]

Of course that is true, but who is going to enforce
a standard?

If I had my way, Phrygian Major would be the only label
to use for this mode, but clearly not everyone agrees with me....

Aww, it's no big deal anyways.....just use the Goddamned scale!

:)

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-19 17:02:19 +0000, Paul said:

>> When speaking or writing with others, it's good when words have the same
>> general meanings for all participants.
>
> Of course that is true, but who is going to enforce a standard?

Enforcement is preposterous. Particularly when, with words such as
"liberal", "pro-life", "academic" and thousands of others, the specific
intent can be to confuse and distort meaning.

> If I had my way, Phrygian Major would be the only label to use for this
> mode, but clearly not everyone agrees with me....

As with all such things it's a matter of who you intend to communicate
with. With an unusual word, or one without a generally agreed-upon
meaning, it's just a matter of adding a few clarifiers: "The Minor
Bleen scale. You know--the one with the minor this and the major that."

> Aww, it's no big deal anyways.....just use the Goddamned scale!

No, it's a word that intends to describe a scale.

[TD]

Unfortunately, that only works in horseshoes. Although, I may not be getting your meaning here. There are reasons why major is called major and minor called minor in places where one may be flabbergasted as to why. If all was generalized, the learners will be ultimately mislead. More time should be spent on study, hearing, realizing and applying rather than quibbling over the earth being round or flat.

And I believe that study has to be earned to really have meaning and do it's job. But, that's just me and I yield to others who think they may need all handed to them. It's just that I didn't come up that way. If anyone wants to rant and rave because they say the earth is flat, I am not part of that scene. I respect people who study and pay dues. Having everything handed to them for free and approaching the quest by cleverly starting a ruckus over trifles, is not the way to learn. I am not saying that was done here, but it can look that way, just as major can look minor and minor might look major.

[rpjazzguitar]

On a related idea ...

I have studied with a reasonably well known and successful arranger who would say things like "play a C7#11 scale".

Identifying the scales that way, at least for dominants, makes sense to me. But, since the material isn't usually taught that way, presumably I'm missing something.

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain it. Here is what I'm talking about.

If I want C D E F# G A B, I can call it a Cmaj13#11 scale. The name tells me exactly what notes are involved. Or, I can call it C Lydian.

If I want C D E F G# A B, I can call it a Cmaj13#5 scale. That name tells it it's like the other scale, but with a different alteration. Or, I can call it C harmonic major -- a name which bears no obvious relationship to the name Clydian.

If I want C D E F# G A Bb, I can call it C13#11 or C Lydian Dominant (either one is easy enough). Or I can call it fourth mode G melodic minor.

If I want C D E F G# A Bb, I can call it C13#5. This scale doesn't seem to have a common "Greek" name. It's close to fifth mode Fmelmin C D E F G Ab Bb, but it isn't the same.

Perhaps that last one is not really relevant to jazz because of the F natural. If I want C D E F# G# A Bb I can call it C13#11#5. It is simply a C7 but with the fifth altered in both directions. It doesn't have a name that I can find, although it's close to a WT scale.

Anyway, the idea is this. Say I'm looking at Gm7 C7 Fmaj7. I decide to play the first chord as Gm9 so I think maybe Gm13 scale (minors are more complicated so this may not be specific enough for every situation). I then decide to drop the A to an Ab for the C7, so I'm thinking C7#5. Simple enough. Do I really want to think of it at Fmelmin? Is that really helpful. Maybe it is. But then, on the next chorus I decide to go from Gmin9 to C7#11 Fmaj9. Now I've got a moving voice, A to F# to G. Do I really want to think G dorian Clydian dominant (or 4th mode G melmin) to Fionian.

My point is, if I think chord names it's obvious that I'm moving the same voice both times. If I think Greek, I'm bouncing from dorian to Lydian dominant to Ionian. Or dorian to a nameless scale to Ionian. A minor change in my voice leading brings in a completely different Greek word.

I just don't see why the Greek way is better. What am I missing?

[TD]

Very simple, you don't speak Greek.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/19/13 2:38 PM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> On a related idea ...
>
> I have studied with a reasonably well known and successful arranger who would say things like "play a C7#11 scale".

I've been playing professionally with most of the best musicians in
Canada since the late 70s.
I also studied at Berklee for 3.5 semesters in the mid 70s.
I've never heard anybody else talk about "a C7#11 scale".
But based on my experience I have a pretty good idea what it probably means.
If I really needed to know what it means I'd have to ask the guy who
said it to me.

> Identifying the scales that way, at least for dominants, makes sense to me. But, since the material isn't usually taught that way, presumably I'm missing something.

Doesn't make sense to me.
C7#11 can take all of the following scales quite nicely:
C whole tone
C altered
C dim half-whole
C lydian b7
In order to know what someone means when the say "a C7#11 scale" you'll
need to ask them "Which one?".
A better name would be "the C7(9,#11,13) scale".
But everybody else calls it "C lydian b7" or "C lydian dominant".
Your life would be much easier if you'd just do the same.

> Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain it. Here is what I'm talking about.
>
> If I want C D E F# G A B, I can call it a Cmaj13#11 scale. The name tells me exactly what notes are involved. Or, I can call it C Lydian.
>
> If I want C D E F G# A B, I can call it a Cmaj13#5 scale.

On Cmaj7#5, the maj 13th is usually treated as a non-harmonic tone (aka
avoid-note).
I.e. Cmaj7#5(13) is a quite dissonant sound and is not normally used in
day to day music making in my experience.
I can't see any logic in naming a scale that way.

> That name tells it it's like the other scale, but with a different alteration.

No it doesn't.
You haven't defined yet what you would mean by "a Cmaj13 scale" and that
appears to be your default scale generator from which all variation will
proceed.
I'll guess that what you would mean by that is "the C major scale", so
why not just call it that so that everybody else you talk to will
understand what you're saying?

>Or, I can call it C harmonic major -- a name which bears no obvious
relationship to the name Clydian.

It's not C harmonic major.
It's A harmonic minor.
C harmonic major is C D E F G Ab B C.

> If I want C D E F# G A Bb, I can call it C13#11 or C Lydian Dominant (either one is easy enough). Or I can call it fourth mode G melodic minor.

Hmm. I thought that's what you were calling the "C7#11" scale.
lol
What *are* the notes in "a C7#11 scale" then please?

> If I want C D E F G# A Bb, I can call it C13#5.

Again... On a C7#5 chord the maj 13th is an avoid-note.
The scale you cite here is not a common scale used by anyone that I am
aware of.
It has 2 consecutive semitones (G#-A and A-Bb) and is therefore not part
of the standard chord-scale system.
Doesn't mean that that pitch collection can't be used on a C7 chord, but
most folks don't do that and if and when they do they're probably not
thinking about it as that particular scale.

>This scale doesn't seem to have a common "Greek" name. It's close to
fifth mode Fmelmin C D E F G Ab Bb, but it isn't the same.
>
> Perhaps that last one is not really relevant to jazz because of the F natural.

That's not why.

>If I want C D E F# G# A Bb I can call it C13#11#5. It is simply a C7 but
with the fifth altered in both directions. It doesn't have a name that I
can find, although it's close to a WT scale.

Another scale that would never be used on a chord that would never be used.
Of course "never" is a long time and sure, someone might want to use
those sounds sometime and might even have reasons to notate them that
way, but it would be a 1 in a million and the effect, if so desired,
would likely be fairly dissonant.
But if used in a way similar to the way that "bebop scales" are used it
could be quite effective as an 1/8 note run over C7#5.
I.e. If the A is used just as a chromatic passing tone between G# and Bb.

> Anyway, the idea is this. Say I'm looking at Gm7 C7 Fmaj7. I decide to play the first chord as Gm9 so I think maybe Gm13 scale (minors are more complicated so this may not be specific enough for every situation). I then decide to drop the A to an Ab for the C7, so I'm thinking C7#5. Simple enough.

>Do I really want to think of it at Fmelmin? Is that really helpful.

Might be.
Might be better to call it C Mixb6 like most everyone else does.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what you call it.

> Maybe it is. But then, on the next chorus I decide to go from Gmin9 to C7#11 Fmaj9. Now I've got a moving voice, A to F# to G. Do I really want to think G dorian Clydian dominant (or 4th mode G melmin) to Fionian.

I would.

> My point is, if I think chord names it's obvious that I'm moving the same voice both times. If I think Greek, I'm bouncing from dorian to Lydian dominant to Ionian. Or dorian to a nameless scale to Ionian. A minor change in my voice leading brings in a completely different Greek word.

This is one reason why people like Gary Burton at Berklee came up with
the idea of naming chord-scales from the root of the chord.

> I just don't see why the Greek way is better. What am I missing?

It's got nothing to do with Greek.
Geez.
It's got to do with standard usage within the musical community.


What you're missing is that there is already a reasonably
universally-used common practice for all of this.
It's not perfectly logically consistent but it is mostly logically
consistent and it's unlikely to be revised anytime soon.
If you want to be well understood by other musicians you talk to then
you need to use the same terms that they are using or you'll need to
waste time explaining your own terms to them.

[Paul]

On 7/19/2013 12:30 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:

> A better name would be "the C7(9,#11,13) scale".
> But everybody else calls it "C lydian b7" or "C lydian dominant".

See, "Lydian Dominant" is a scale name that makes complete sense:
Just take the regular Lydian and flatten the 7th.

Too bad all the names aren't this logical.....

[TD]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 2:38:49 PM UTC-4, rpjazzguitar wrote:

Again, it is a matter of function and function opens up to perspective. Another thing to do is to sing the scale and play the scale (or "mode"). The aural aspect will be closest to the answer; an answer much more valid than 12 opposing opinions concerning names written in different books. Next, how is it functioning? If, it is functioning as part of a list from a book, that's one function. It will be named according to that function. For example, it may inherently fall into the gravitational pull of a certain leading tone. This may warrant an entirely different name. Generalizing is OK, but it's a rose that doesn't come without thorns.

[rpjazzguitar]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I'm aware that there is a common language. I'm not arguing the point. I'm just curious as to why things evolved that way. Usually, it's Darwinian, so I'm trying to appreciate why the current system is the "fittest".

> A better name would be "the C7(9,#11,13) scale".

I like it. Or C13#11, for short (that's the way I think about it -- the arranger I mentioned called that C7#11). I know that everybody else calls it C lydian dominant (and I do too when I'm talking to people). It's easy enough now that I already know it, but from the point of view of the student, it seems to add an unnecessary bit of jargon.

Or take CHW. C Db Eb E F# G A Bb. I learned that in terms of alternating half and whole steps. Made it easy to find on a single string. But, when I actually had to apply it, it helped to think of it as a C dominant with altered ninths, raised 4th and natural 5 and 6.

I've played with ideas for a completely different naming convention, more consistent with the way I think about chord construction. Slash chords aside, there's root, thirds, fifths, seventh and ninths. Then you pick the notes in each category, more or less. I came up with an idea for depicting the alterations with dots on a little grid, but I couldn't pronounce them!

[thomas]

C7#11 works well for me. It's clearly a lydian dominant. Whereas C13 is less clear, because it could be either lydian -- C7(#11, 13) -- or diminished -- C13(b9).

[rpjazzguitar]

>
> C7#11 works well for me. It's clearly a lydian dominant. Whereas C13 is less clear, because it could be either lydian -- C7(#11, 13) -- or diminished -- C13(b9).

If somebody says C7#11 I expect that they're expecting C D E F# G A Bb.

I started to think of it as a C13#11 because that chord symbol specifies every note in the scale.

So, in my mind the b9 would have to be specified, as in C13#11b9. That would be
C Db E F# G A Bb. That scale doesn't have a name, probably because it's usually played with an Eb along with the E, making it a C13b9#9#11. That comes out the same as C HW.

Well, I can see that it's awkward, 10 characters instead of 3 (Chw). So, maybe that's why it isn't used. But it does have the advantage of telling you exactly what the alterations are, with no need to learn an arcane name, and then, if you change one note by a half step, the name only changes slightly, instead of becoming a completely different Greek name.

I don't need to be reminded that it's not the standard means of communicating these ideas. I am curious as to why not. Is it just the unwieldy names?

[SB]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:44:18 PM UTC-7, Paul wrote:
> The regular Phrygian already has a flatted 7th, so I'm
>
> not sure how they came up with this name.
>
>
>
> A much better name is the Phrygian Major scale, which
>
> emphasizes the only difference: the natural 3rd.

My opinion is to throw all of academic beginner bullshit in the trash. Yes, learn the basics well, such as scales like the harmonic minor, melodic minor, etc. and their degrees. Learn your instrument well and just play with your heart. Phrygian dom-7 ? Really ? Am studying for a test or playing music ? In the end the arbitrary names for scales won't matter a bit if the ear is developed. There are some great ear training apps out there. If players focus on the basics plus ear training, the academia quickly evaporates into a groove of great improv: it is all ear. Scales sound contrived and boring in improv because they are meant for practicing. Anyone interested in improv ? Ear training is the answer.

SB

[paul s]

exactly, thank you.

Paul S

[TD]

Why do you presume the C7#11 needs the b9 in your scale? Where is the chord change resolving to? It's either C7#11 or C7(b9,#11,13)according to what I am reading from you (unless I am reading wrong). So much depends on where you are resolving to. But, if you are imply confronted with a chord symbol, you won't have to automatically assume the added alterations. If it is the latter change, than the scale if from C, produces an automatic "neapolitan" (phrygian inclusion) and that tells me Db diminished scale is a good source for that particular voicing.

Yes, Eb natural is in the scale and that's OK. Otherwise you are producing a hybrid scale and that would be for a particular reason (usually a slash voicing). And if you should need a hybrid scale, then you can name it after your favorite car or pet. Db diminished (C HW, as you said) will cover it, otherwise. Eb does not have to be present in the chord change for the scale to meet the chord voicing requirements. The chord instills a neapolitan into the scale or mode and this opens itself up to chromatic harmony ( or at minimum--symmetrical harmony) jurisdiction. Another way to look at why Eb is cool from the scale is to check out the important tone, the 5th (G). The harmonic root of G is Eb. Sing part of Twist and Shout beginning on Eb. Get my drift? It's about resonance. Every cotton pickin' resonating pitch won't be written out and needs not. Only one thing left to do against your fully loaded voicing (go ahead and leave out Eb) is to play Db dim scale (or C HW if you must begin on the chord root) against it. Sing it too. What do you hear and feel? Let me know? I took the time to write this.

Now if the voicing is of the former: C7#11 or C7+4, Than yes, that takes Bb Lydian Augmented scale. We do not automatically assume the extensions unless 1: It is designated or 2: the point of resolution warrants them. We do not have to name a scale necessarily from the root of the given chord. Names are superficial and all too often they are superficial in concept. Sources are more vivid and ears are best.

[thomas]

On Saturday, July 20, 2013 8:41:33 AM UTC-4, TD wrote:
>Names are superficial and all too often they are superficial in concept. Sources are more vivid and ears are best.>

I agree that ear training is the single best answer to all improv questions, but...

There is the condition of needing a large band to run down a new chart on sight. In that one context, it helps to be able to communicate accurately and succinctly. Chord symbols and occasionally scale names can be relevant in making a chart happen right away.

[TD]

Well, I said a whole lot before my last sentence. The ear thing is thrown in for "good measure" as it always should be.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/19/13 8:33 PM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful response.
>
> I'm aware that there is a common language. I'm not arguing the point. I'm just curious as to why things evolved that way. Usually, it's Darwinian, so I'm trying to appreciate why the current system is the "fittest".

It's not "the fittest" system.
It's just the one that's already there.

Scales with Maj 3rds, P4ths and Maj 7ths are usually named as some sort
of variant of the Ionian scale or the major scale.
E.g. Ionian, Ionian Augmented, Harmonic Major.
[BTW The latter name is really based on then idea that the scale is
comprised of 2 tetrachords an harmonic tetrachord (e.g. G Ab B C) and a
major tetrachord (e.g. C D E F).
Another logical name for it would be Ionian b6.]

Scales with Min 3rds, Maj 6ths and Min 7ths are usually named as some
sort of Dorian variant.
E.g. Dorian, Dorian b2, Dorian b5.

Scales with Min 2nds, Min 6ths and Min 7ths are usually named as some
sort of Phrygian variant.
E.g. Phrygian, Phrygian Major.

Scales with Maj 3rds and #11s are usually named as some sort of variant
of the Lydian scale.
E.g. Lydian, Lydian augmented, Lydian b7, Lydian Diminished (aka Lyd
b3), etc.
But there are several other scales, related to dom7#11 chords that are
not named as Lydian variants.

Scales with Maj 3rds, P4ths and Min 7ths are usually named as some sort
of Mixolydian variant.
E.g. Mixolydian, Mix b2, Mix b6, Mix b2b6.

Scales with Min 3rds, Dim 5ths, and Min 7ths are usually named as some
sort of a Locrian variant.
E.g. Locrian, Locrian #2, Locrian #6.

Scales with P5ths, Min 6ths and Maj 7ths are usually named as some sort
of Harmonic Minor variant.
E.g. Harmonic Minor, Harmonic Major.

Scales with Min 3rds, Maj 6ths and Maj 7ths are usually named as some
sort of a Melodic Minor variant.
E.g. Melodic Minor, Melodic Minor b5 (aka Lydian diminished).

Etc., etc., etc.

That's the gist of it as far as I know it.
Many exceptions to these "rules" exist as well.
The important thing when naming a scale for yourself is that you
remember the scale.
The important thing when naming a scale within a discussion with another
musician is that they understand what scale you're talking about.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/20/13 10:51 AM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> The important thing when naming a scale for yourself is that you
> remember the scale.
> The important thing when naming a scale within a discussion with another
> musician is that they understand what scale you're talking about.

And as far as what you do with any scale that you are aware of as an
improviser or as a composer, that's your own business.
I'm just talking about their names.

[thomas]

No disrespect, my man. Between you and Joey, the archives of this ng constitute a master class in jazz guitar.

[TD]

Cool. Thanks. Is good to know that if I contribute, it is for some good.

[Tomek Sphere]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:44:18 PM UTC-7, Paul wrote:
> The regular Phrygian already has a flatted 7th, so I'm
>
> not sure how they came up with this name.
>
>
>
> A much better name is the Phrygian Major scale, which
>
> emphasizes the only difference: the natural 3rd.

I don't see this at all. Like many have said before, 'phrygian major' would imply a major function, meaning a major third and a major seventh. A dominant function requires a major third and a minor seventh. The characteristic phrygian sound in a minor second, not a minor seventh. So 'phrygian dominant' describes the note collection really well. Unlike 'phrygian major'.

[GuyB]

On Saturday, 20 July 2013 06:47:04 UTC+1, SB wrote:
> My opinion is to throw all of academic beginner bullshit in the trash. Yes, learn the basics well, such as scales like the harmonic minor, melodic minor, etc. and their degrees. Learn your instrument well and just play with your heart. Phrygian dom-7 ? Really ? Am studying for a test or playing music ? In the end the arbitrary names for scales won't matter a bit if the ear is developed. There are some great ear training apps out there. If players focus on the basics plus ear training, the academia quickly evaporates into a groove of great improv: it is all ear. Scales sound contrived and boring in improv because they are meant for practicing. Anyone interested in improv ? Ear training is the answer.
>
> SB

I agree, it's a good ear that really matters with improvised music.

Guy

[TD]

Major does not automatically assume large 7th. And in some cases major does not automatically assume minor third. Both names are acceptable. In some theory books, if you need documentation, Phrygian Major is the title of the 5th mode of the Harmonic Minor scale. You do not have to use "Phryg Major." I don't. I call it an altered Mixolydian. But all three are acceptable. By the way, "dominant" chords are not the same as dominant scale here. The idea of Phrg Major is to connote that a mode with a b2 is being utilized in the dominant circulation of the mother scale. Dominant here is used as reference.

As far as chords go, the real definition of dom7 chord is a V7 chord going to Imajor or Iminor or an adjusted I chord change. It is accepted that all chords containing the small 7th are dominant. They are not really. They are "dominant like." Furthermore, any V chord to I chord is dominant and such a chord does not need the small 7th in it's voicing. We just prefer the tritone there.

[TD]

** I meant to write that in some cases Major does not always assume major third.

[Joey Goldstein]

This could lead to a discussion about what it is that various people
mean when they say they're "playing by ear" when they improvise.
I'll bet that most folks you ask that to will have quite different
answers as to what that means to them.

I'll wait and see if anybody else volunteers on this first because I
fear that my own take on it will be different and may even cause some
tsuris.

[TD]

Tsuris of scales and melodic patterns?

[Joey Goldstein]

> Tsuris of scales and melodic patterns?
>

lol

[thomas]

On Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:44:07 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>

> This could lead to a discussion about what it is that various people mean when they say they're "playing by ear" when they improvise.
>
> I'll bet that most folks you ask that to will have quite different answers as to what that means to them.
>
> I'll wait and see if anybody else volunteers on this first because I fear that my own take on it will be different and may even cause some
>

I'm going to guess what your take is: When "playing by ear", most improvisers are combining and recombining sounds that they can already hear. Novelty usually arises from new combinations of well-worn ideas, or from trying to get out of something unintended. By studying theory, the improviser can learn to hear new sounds and thereby expand his vocabulary of what he can play by ear.

I agree, although I would note that listening to music is the best way to expand your vocabulary, and that theory would come second.

[TD]

There is a middle area that lies sometimes mysteriously between the two extremes, if they are perceived as such. That is,that the breaking away from the ear's sense of criteria is absolutely positive, as long as the ear remains involved in the process. We don't just look up the formula (or have it lectured to us) and practice it every which way on the guitar without being able to sing it all away from the guitar. I mean some can and some will and what I write is not that important. It is important to me. This is one example of the ear's participation. There are several. This is the real study that amounts to assimilation. If we are to utilize the pyramid for example, one base side can be intellect and the other side, mechanical. The apex is aural. There is really no argument, because no ear worthy person will deny what may go into the ear. There is no need for extremes to make a false argument. All has to be heard and understood anyhow.

[SB]

Wow.. great post. Well said TD, great writing too I might add. IMO, the goal of improv is to play in "auto mode" : create melodic lines by ear. Yes, the base is both theory and technique (mechanical patterns), both of which involve learning music theory, and practicing the basics of the instrument itself. The magic appears when left brain memory and right brain creativity co-join in what I call "auto mode": the ear. Jazz improve is spontaneous, temporal, and sometimes works and other times does not work. The ultimate success is achieved by the ear. Naming scales and chords is fine for analysis, teaching, and practice. But if the note combinations work in improve it is because they sound good and not because of their names. So many times great music appears due to un-namable sounds, both in chords and scales, which means that they are not in need of academic correspondence at the moment of creation. They just work: because of the ear that the player has developed; unrestricted by academic rules.

[Joey Goldstein]

Well, that's a pretty good stab at some of the things that I might say.
I.e. At first glance I agree with most of what you've said I would say.

But there's more to it.
Lot's more.
And again, I hesitate to get into this for a number of reasons including
skepticism that I'll be able to explain myself adequately and/or that
I'll have the time to do so here on this ng.
But I guess I'm gonna try...

So, at it's simplest, playing something completely by ear has to involve
first being able to hear it in your mind's ear prior to executing it.
The development of this in a musician seems like it has to start with
him (or her) listening to someone else's music, assimilating that in his
ear and developing the ability to repeat those pitches in the same
sequence as the original.
I don't know how anyone can play anything at all by ear if they have not
already developed that ability to at least some extent.
Thus the importance of doing lifts when you want to become a jazz
musician, or any kind of a musician that improvises.

But this is not improvising.
The process of improvising something *of your own* involves a great many
other steps.
Some of those steps are to compose things yourself, work with them until
you can hear them, learn to play them on your instrument and then try
various ways to consciously plug them into your improvisations.
This is one of the steps in the process where good music theories might
help to guide you towards intervallic (or rhythmic) things that hang
together nicely so you can experiment with them *until you can hear them*.
But ultimately, when you're really performing and not merely practising,
you'll also have to learn how to let those ideas come out naturally,
without consciously trying to plug them into your solos (or comping).
I.e. We have to practise not practising too. lol

But there's still more involved...
What I just described is not really improvising in the truest sense.
It's just regurgitating things that you've already worked out.
In order for this process to turn into real improvising you'll need to
do a whole lot of the above so that you've got a really large palette of
musical sounds that your ears and your hands are familiar with and then
you'll need to develop the ability to seamlessly switch from one
familiar sound to another, often on the note-by-note level.
I.e. Ultimately, IMO, this becomes about hearing things on an
interval-by-interval basis, not always in whole phrases or in larger
chunks - like chord-scales or voicings or familiar chains of chords.

But there's still more...
It's one thing to play something that you hear, but what if it doesn't
fit what then rest of the band is playing?
I often use the example in my own development of trying to "play by ear"
on min7b5 chords when I made my first attempts at jazz playing while at
Berklee.
I was playing things that *I* heard, but I hadn't learned how to hear
min7b5 chords yet or how my own note choices mixed with the sound of
that chord.
So I had to spend some time studying min7b5 chords before I cold hope to
have any success with any of this.

But there's still more to it....
Mick Goodrick does this great random chord exercise with his students
where he'll play random chords, usually for a pretty long duration,
while the student tries to solo over those chords without knowing what
they are.
If the student plays a note that sounds funky on the chord-of-the-moment
he is encouraged to first resolve that note by 1/2 step before leaping
away to some new note.
FYI There's almost always a 1/2 step resolution (sometimes up, sometimes
down, sometimes either) available for any inharmonic note on any chord.
But in order for a student to be able to do this even remotely
successfully he has to already be familiar with the norms of which notes
happen to fit which chords, otherwise he may be unable to judge whether
the note he's playing "fits" or not.
E.g. To some novices a b9 on a dom7 chord sounds totally wrong.
But this exercise trains you to be in the moment more than any other
single exercise I've ever come across.
And being able to hear and spontaneously resolve these types of rubs on
the fly as you're performing is essential to being an improviser IMO.
No matter how much you've worked on and assimilated various sounds into
your own playing, you have no control over what the other guys in your
ensemble are going to play.
If the piano player plays a min7 chord with the b3 on top and you
happened to hear a maj 9th on that chord in the same octave as his b3,
there's going to be a rub and you'll probably want to be aware of that
as you're hearing it (of course you have to be listening)and be able to
resolve your note up a 1/2 step for a more successful line.
And you don't need to be aware what he's playing or what you're playing.
You just have to be listening and reacting, but reacting within a
certain framework of musical experience.
Etc., etc., etc.

But there's more....
Sometimes my fingers lead me somewhere that my ear is not really sure of.
I've been playing guitar long enough that I have a pretty good idea of
what something will sound like in that millisecond od 2 just before I
strike the note.
Sometimes this allows for good results.
But sometimes it leads me into a clam, and then Mick's random chord
exercise training kicks in and I can still save the day.
And these accidents are really the spice of jazz, as Miles himself has
been quoted as saying (in his own words of course).

So, ultimately, for me, "ear training" is really just musical experience.
The more things you've played, tried to play, listened to others play,
etc., etc., will set the basis for what it is that *you* can hear.

Back to theory again briefly...
Theory just allows you to methodically check out the way that certain
sounds hang or don't hang together.
What you do with those sounds, after you've lived with them, is your own
creative business.

But wait, there's more....
What if you can "play what you hear" with no effort all the time but
it's just not very good?
Well then you've gt some more listening, learning, thinking and
soul-searching to do.

And how do you turn off all the knee-jerk study habits you developed
when practising when you're actually performing?
Well, for me, that's only been possible when I really know the materials
of the tune I'm playing inside and out and it happens far less than I'd
like it to, especially these days because I'm not playing out nearly
enough anymore so every time I do I gig now it's like I've forgotten how
to play until maybe the 2nd set. lol
I.e. For me, I still need to tap into things that I know (or think I
know) will work until after I've had some time on an unfamiliar tune (or
even a familiar tune that I haven't played in a while).
Reacting well to my mistakes, ala Mick's exercise above, is key to this
being successful or not.
Even tunes with seemingly common chord progressions require their own
study because those tunes are not *exactly the same* as the other tunes
that I already know that use those same progressions, so certain note
choices are called for on one tune vs the other, etc., if that makes any
sense.

But wait, there's more....

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/25/13 4:20 PM, TD wrote:
>
> There is a middle area that lies sometimes mysteriously between the two extremes, if they are perceived as such. That is,that the breaking away from the ear's sense of criteria is absolutely positive, as long as the ear remains involved in the process. We don't just look up the formula (or have it lectured to us) and practice it every which way on the guitar without being able to sing it all away from the guitar. I mean some can and some will and what I write is not that important. It is important to me. This is one example of the ear's participation. There are several. This is the real study that amounts to assimilation. If we are to utilize the pyramid for example, one base side can be intellect and the other side, mechanical. The apex is aural. There is really no argument, because no ear worthy person will deny what may go into the ear. There is no need for extremes to make a false argument. All has to be heard and understood anyhow.
>

I think that's well put.

But wait, there's more....

[Joey Goldstein]

But wait, there's more....

To truly play well in the moment within an ensemble requires you to not
only hear what you're playing but also what the piano bass and drums are
playing too.
And it also requires that you've developed the discipline of listening
to them all while you're playing.

But again that will involve prior exposure of your ear to the various
intervallic combinations and rhythms that those guys are likely to play.
This can involve theoretical explorations or lots of listening and lifting.
Ideally it should involve both.
And it also involves getting out and playing with as many people as you
can as frequently as you can.

But wait, there's more...

[TD]

If we keep reading your but wait there's more, we'll never hit the woodshed.

[Bill Williams]

"Chicks and ducks and geese better scurry,
when I take you out in the tsuri"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss1CXo8QMi8

[thomas]

The classic jazz guitar version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtPUkCTvwe8

[Bill Williams]

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtPUkCTvwe8

That IS good.
Thanks, Thomas - never come across that album before.

[Joey Goldstein]

n'yuk n'yuk

[thomas]

Least I can do, considering that I first heard about it here myself a few years ago. It's a really good album.

[abstract....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 7:44:18 PM UTC-5, Paul wrote:
> The regular Phrygian already has a flatted 7th, so I'm
> not sure how they came up with this name.
>
> A much better name is the Phrygian Major scale, which
> emphasizes the only difference: the natural 3rd.

Simple wrong in standard music theory Jargon. You are not taking into account what the terms imply completely.

A Major scale not only implies the major 3rd BUT also the **major 7th!**

So when you say "Phrygian Major" you are implying a Phrygian minor scale with a major 3rd and major 7th. This is the Double Harmonic scale.

Phrygian [Minor] is mainly understood to be the b2 alteration in a non-diminished setting. The Minor part is understand since it is a minor as a mode in the Ionian scale.

Lydian, for example, implies a M3, +4 and M7 as intervals. Lydian Dorian would be a Dorian scale with the Lydian modifications/alterations. e.g., in this case, it would result in a Lydian scale with a b3 but it's better to call it Harmonic Dorian #4. Quality changes(the 3rd) do not transfer, else it changes the quality of the main mode. (e.g., we would want Lydian Dorian to be a type of Dorian scale, changing the b3 to a 3 would result in a major quality, which isn't wrong necessary but as you could see, this won't really help anything)

One can make a list for all scales. The first term being the modifier and the second being the base. This would give you a large list with a bunch of alterations sounding like chemical chemistry names.

The list can be significantly shorted to just around 7 names though. That's ultimately all we need. You could all all the alterations of the harmonic minor scale Blue, Black, Grey, Yellow, White, Orange, Red and it would work just as well. It's all just for memorization.


So Phrygian Dominant = Take the dominant scale = Mixolydian and modify it with a Phrygian alteration(the b2, not the b6 or the b7).

Why? Because any time you alter the 2 in a b2 in a scale it immediately gives it a feeling of Phrygian or Locrian. Locrian needs it the b5 too so, G Locrian Dominant would be something like a G7b9b5 chord (not a Gm7b9b3 since we can't modify the quality, we could have a b6 but that's more of the Aoelian's thing)

How do we relate the names of the modes with their alterations? Easy:

Lydian 1 2 3#4 5 6 7
Ionian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MixoLy 1 2 3 4 5 6b7
Dorian 1 2b3 4 5 6b7
Aoelia 1 2b3 4 5b6b7
Phrygi 1b2b3 4 5b6b7
Locria 1b2b3 4b5b6b7


So, as you can see, getting from one scale to the next in this list requires only one alteration, that alteration is special and describes that scale uniquely in this list. This list is special in that only rotation so fit will produce that result. I start with lydian because we can traverse from major to minor in a more natural way and if you were to hypothetically continue the list you can go from Locrian to Lydian by flatting the 1, which results in a key change but still to lydian.

In any case, the alterations in order are

b(#4), b7, b3, b6, b2, b5, (b1)

Start with lydian and the #4, make it n4 to get Ionian, b7 on Ionian to get Mixolydian, etc...

Pretty simple and very easy to memorize(note the alterations go in a cycle of 5ths because the list does too)


Regardless, if you choose to ignore these assumptions that are use by everyone you will be speaking a different language and confusion will arise. While one can argue if there are better systems out there, we can't argue that any system you come up with will probably be more complex. But to simplify this system further there is a hidden agreement between all musicians about what is going on(those that have a clue).