Key Centre vs Modal approach
Gared Haus
I just got a copy of Don Mock's Melodic Minor Revealed book and he
writes a very interesting bit in it about the "Key Centres vs Modes"
approach.
He writes:
"Playing over these two chords (Am and D7) is our first lesson in the
two approaches you're faced with when dealing with scales. The "modal"
approach would have yo memorize the D7(b5) sound as a new scale or
mode. Even though you are still playing an A melodic minor, you would
learn it starting on "D" as a different scale with a different name.
In face, all seven notes of melodic minor scale become roots with the
modal approach, which forces you to "think" there are seven new scales
(new names) to learn. Using the "key centre" approach, you simply
superimpose your original A melodic minor scale over the D7 (or the
many other possible chords it works over). It's not necessary to think
of seven seperate scales. The trade off to using the simpler key
centre approach is you must become proficient at controlling the scale
well enough to play lines that reflect the sound of the chord you are
superimposing it over. It also requires a good knowledge of chord and
arpeggio substitution.
You've probably figured out by now that I'm a firm believer in the key
centre approach. I've seen students able to play with more confidence
over chord changes a lot sooner, with a lot less confusion, using key
centres rather than modes. To me, if makes more sense to learn only
one scale instead of seven. There are so many things to learn about
music anyay, the more you can "streamline" your learning, by keeping
things simple, the better. I should add, however, that the end results
of using eitehr the modal or key centre approaches will eventually be
the same."
So, what do you guys make of this?
Does anyone here use this particular method in their playing and they'd
like to talk a bit about how they use it and think about it?
If you're using the key centre approach do you think about chord tones as much?
I'm looking forward to reading some opinions on this topic :)
Gared
Phred
My advice is listen to Don - he's a monster and he knows what he's
talking about. Why does anyone want to make a complex system more
complex by thinking of different modes? - the parent scale is what's
important. I feel like all the "mode pedagogy" was an excuse for all
the guitar playing magazine to fill space in the back of the
magazines. Ask a saxohpone player about this and they will chuckle. If
they just told everyone to learn the Major Scale, Jazz Melodic Minor,
Harmonic Minor and Harmonic Major that would be basically the end of
the story.
Good luck.
SB
Travis
ga...@haus.com says...
I would certainly listen to Don Mock as he is such an accomplished
player.
That said, I had never heard of him when I started playing jazz on my
own. Initially I tried a key center system. It did not work for me,
especially when more complicated tunes were attempted that had rapid key
changes. The key center system seemed to be forcing one key over
another and the resultant dissonance was unappealing.
Instead, I worked on a vertical approach (your modes I think) which
naturally emphasizes the underlying chord tones. With this system my
notes were always consonant.
Later I learned substitutions and then some of the key center system to
add controllable levels of dissonance. I freely confess I never analyze
a tune for key centers but I do look for familiar chordal patterns and
failing that, I just play over each chord and try to string them
together in a story.
IMO it seems that one must learn both systems and more to be an
accomplished player.
--
Travis
terrasbeest
>
> - Show quoted text -
+1.
TD
If any musician has a good idea, no reason to 'mock' him. There are
many ideas, but it's best to shoot for simplicity: Point A to Point B.
Yet, as an aside, leaning always on a single approach is like
frequenting the same restaurant al the time.
-TD
Gared Haus
So true!
Some good thoughts put out here so far. I'd still be interested to see
what a few others have to say about the topic. :)
Gared
jimmybruno
I agree with SB. Phred plays ssoooooo Goood!!!!!!!!!!!
jimmybruno
Gared, try both ways and see which one makes music. One will , the
other won't
Gared Haus
I have tried both and I go for the Key Centre approach. I just wanted
to get some thoughts from others on the approaches. :)
Gared
Joey Goldstein
[So here I go again, eh?]
The problem with Mr. Mock's exposition is that, based on the comments of
his that you just posted, he doesn't seem to really understand what a
"key centre" is, what a key centred approach would be, or what the modal
chord-scale approach actually is.
First off. The melodic minor scale is not a "key" or a "key centre".
It's a scale. Scales and keys are not the same things.
Secondly, most folks faced with an Am D7 progression would not jump to
immediately using the a mel min scale on both chords. Most folks would
use the G major scale.
In order to learn how to use the G maj scale effectively on these chords
the student usually has to go through some sort of a process where they
study how the notes of the G scale sound and operate on each of the two
chords.
On Am7 (let's call it Am7, rather than Am, for now):
The G is the b7 of the chord.
A is the root.
B is a maj 2nd above the root and can also be used as chordal extension 9.
C is the b3 of the chord.
D is p4th above the root and is available as extension 11.
E is the chord's 5th.
F# is a maj 6th above the root and is available as extension 13.
By the time you've studied all of this, whether you're still calling the
pitch collection "the G major scale on Am7", "the A dorian scale" or
"Am7(9,11,13)" is irrelevant.
They are all the same *sound*.
1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7
1 b3 5 b7 9 11 13
*That* is how the pitches of "the G major scale" operate, vertically
speaking, on this particular chord in this particular progression.
If you only know this pitch collection as the G maj scale then you are
likely to miss all of that useful knowledge and experience above and
it's unlikely that you will understand the sounds being created.
And unless there's a Gmaj chord somewhere following the Am7 D7
progression, the music you'll be playing won't be "in the *key* of G".
[A "key" is a type of tonal centre with a major or minor chord
associated with it. Keys are not the only types of tonal centres. Modes
are another type of tonal centre. Keys have to have some formal
considerations and techniques involved in order for them to be bona fide
"keys", the most common being the V7-I (or Im) cadential progression.]
If the only chords that are played are Am7 and D7 (and in that order)
you'll be in some sort of key of A minor.
But it won't be a traditional minor key. It will be a minor key with a
dorian colour applied to it.
I.e. The key of A minor traditionally uses F nat, not F#.
Some folks, people who have not studied Medieval modal music for
instance, *would* call this "the a dorian mode" as opposed to "the key
of A minor with a dorian colour", as I call it. I try to not get caught
in that particular argument when possible.
So, just because you first learned this pitch collection as "the G major
scale" doesn't mean that it's always just "the G major scale". Sometimes
it's really A dorian, just as A C E G is sometimes Am7 and sometimes C6.
That doesn't necessarily mean that, as a guitar player, you need to
learn a new fingering for A dorian when you already know how to play G
major. [Often it's a good thing if you do precisely that btw.] But when
you're first getting started it's probably going to be less confusing to
milk that one fingering you already know for G major to the max.
In order to play well over the D7 chord with the G major scale, a player
usually needs to study the way the notes of the G scale sound like on
the D7 chord.
G is a P4th above the root. It's not suitable as an extension, 11, on
this chord because when sounded above the chord's 3rd, F#, it creates a
min 9th interval that is usually objectionable in most non atonal music.
[Right there is a good reason not to think of this as a "G scale".]
A is the chord's 5th.
B is a maj 6th above the root and is available as an extension 13.
C is the chord's b7.
D is the chord's root.
E is a maj 2nd above the root and is available as extension 9.
F# is the chord's 3rd.
By the time you've studied all of this, whether you're still calling the
pitch collection "the G major scale on D7", "the D mixolydian scale" or
"D7(9,13)(avoid4)" is most irrelevant.
They are all the same *sound*.
If you only know this pitch collection as the G maj scale then you are
likely to miss all of that useful knowledge and experience above.
You will also be much more likely to emphasize the note G on this chord,
and G is the weakest note in that scale on this particular chord.
If the progression does indeed progress to a G chord, thereby confirming
a bona fide key of G major, then it's also important to know how each of
these notes operates within that key. [G is the tonic, A is the
supertonic, B is the mediant, etc.]
So, a sophisticated player will be aware of both the vertical aspects of
this pitch collection on those chords, as well as the horizontal (i.e.
the key-related) relationships within the scale.
"In face, all seven notes of melodic minor scale become roots with the
modal approach, which forces you to "think" there are seven new scales
(new names) to learn."
In *reality* the seven notes of the melodic minor scale do have the
potential to be used as roots for seven different tertian (i.e. built in
3rds) 7th chords, as well as a few 4-note variants.
For example the C melodic minor scale contains the following 4-note chords:
Cm(maj7), Cm6, Dm7, Dm6, D7sus4, Ebmaj7#5, F7, F6, G7, G7sus4, Am7b5,
Bm7b5, B7#5, B7b5.
Any player wishing to play effectively over any of these chords with the
melodic minor scale will need to spend some time studying the vertical
relationships that exist within each of these chord-scale-relationships.
Whether or not the player is more comfortable naming the resulting
chord-scales from the root of the chord or from the tonic of the parent
melodic minor scale is his own business, and is largely irrelevant.
In my experience, in most musical settings that utilize mel min
chord-scale-relationships, it is more logical to think from the root of
the chord.
For instance, when I'm using A mel min on D7, as bVII7 in the key of E
major, it's important for me to know that:
A is the chord's 5th.
B is available as extension 13.
C is the chord's b7.
D is the chord's root.
E is available as extension 9.
F# is the chord's 3rd.
G# is available as extension #11.
A B C D E F# G#
5 13 b7 1 9 3 #11
or
D E F# G# A B C
1 9 3 #11 5 13 b7
or
D F# A C E G# B
1 3 5 b7 9 #11 13
They're *all* the *same* thing.
I just find the one's that start on D to be more useful, more practical,
more telling, and more logical.
On D7, as bVII7 in E major, it's also important to me to know that:
D is a lowered 7th scale degree of the key-scale.
E is the tonic of the key.
F# is the supertonic of the key.
G# is the key's mediant.
A is the subdominant of the key.
B is the dominant of the key.
C is the lowered 6th scale degree of the key-scale.
Etc.
So, what Mr. Mock appears to be really advocating is not really a
"key-centred approach".
What he's advocating is thinking of a limited number of parent scales as
opposed to all the potential modal variants of those parent scales.
For me, that was fine when I was a beginner, and I think I would have
been completely overwhelmed if I had to deal with every possible modal
variant when I was staring out. But at some point, we all have to study
the vertical relationships that exist on the actual chord we're playing
on. How you go about naming those relationships is really up to you.
I think it's good advice that when you notice several accomplished
musicians advocating one way to do things and another group of
accomplished musicians advocating doing the same thing in a different
way, that you learn to do it both ways - and then decide for yourself
which way works best for you. If you're like me, you'll probably find
that each methodology has its own merits when applied to various musical
problems.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me put it this way, if the Sun was the tonal center, and the moon
was the dominant, then the Earth can flourish, with all it's oceans
and land masses for the artist to consume. Without the focal point and
energy of the Sun and the gravitational pull from the moon for balance
and letting us know we are alive, we'd have no vitamin D and sure as
hell no moon shine; Earth will fold up like a giant dying clam.
Don covered his one key center idea quite thoughtfully with: "The
trade off to using the simpler key
centre approach is you must become proficient at controlling the
scale
well enough to play lines that reflect the sound of the chord you are
superimposing it over. It also requires a good knowledge of chord
and
arpeggio substitution."
D7b5 (more accurately as related to AMM, D7#11) makes a weak cadence
change to Gmaj7 or G-7. The fifth is altered, plain and simple. The
beginner wil have to address the vertical or head for parallel
horizontal territory (mainly reverted back to major scale harmony and
even more modes to wiggle and juggle). D7#11 makes a cool back door
cadence chord to Emaj7 type voicings or a good tritone sub down to
C#-7 type voicings as opposed to Gmaj7. i think that individual modal
thinking has it's place in studying at the coffee table without the
guitar, which is like taking apart a watch to see how it ticks, but
unless you have 11 more lifetimes in this lifetime, you will come up
with diminishing returns rather than augmented. The augmented (lydian)
major is already in the melodic minor sauce. Just throw in the pasta
and lets eat!
In jazz, we have little tendancy to do a Santana for 32 bars by
jerking off on A-7 to D7. That D7 sooner or later is likely to resolve
itself. Keep it simple, focus on the sun and the moonshine.
-TD
jimmybruno
we all have 12 notes to play. It's all about note choices through a
harmonic backgorund
Keith Freeman
> trade off to using the simpler key
> centre approach is you must become proficient at controlling the
> scale
> well enough to play lines that reflect the sound of the chord you are
If the "key centre" approach leads you to run e.g. a Gmaj scale over A- D7
then it ain't going to give you any sense of forward motion or
tension/resolution.
As I keep saying, there is a simpler way to approach this - use the chord
notes/arpeggios first! Once you can improvise over a set of changes using
those, you can start introducing other diatonic and chromatic notes to make
your lines more melodic.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
Paul K
this advice to a student who can imitate muddy waters but wants to move
towards Charlie Christian. The advice might be completely different and
contradictory to what he might tell someone who can imitate jimmy Raney
and wants to sound like Kurt Rosenwinkel.
Where you are and what you want to do are important in deciding what to
practice next.
In my case, I don't think of key center and modes as competing ideas,
but as two out of many approaches I can take when improvising.
When I started, I found chord tones and arpeggios as a good first thing
to concentrate on, then chromatic approach techniques as the next thing
to study, so I'd recommend that, but I have no idea what works for
others. But modes and key centers didn't become that useful until
later. Probably transcription is the fastest route.
In any case, you'll never suffer from having too much knowledge. You
dont need to insert everything you know every time you play. But the
more you know, the more options you have.
--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
Gared Haus
Great post, Joey!! I'm gonna have to read this a few times to get my
head around it. :)
Gared
pmfan57
In the beginning it might be better to have a simplified approach.
Filling in the names of everything later.
TD
I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
The chords themselves are related to a *tonal* center ( although
chords unrelated to the tonal center can be brought into the scene for
effect; parallel effect, planing, etc), but not necessarily a
particular scale. As we said at various times, all chords are not
governed by scales. What a player (namely a beginner) needs to know is
that individualizing modes for every little nook and cranny of a chord
change, as if each change was a "vagrant", is dangerous (meaning it
can lead to things non-musical or at best, bland as a mofo; example, I
don't always dig certain things lydian or augmented sounding as the
prevailing color; sometimes I do, sometimes I don't). And as you say,
the beginner must address the verticals. We "can't take it all by
lying down." As JB says, the surrounding architecture is a "key
factor." Are we good architects or bad architects with these 12 tones?
Beginner talk here, anyhow. All this crap amounts to a hill of beans
in real life playing.
-TD
Paul
This sounds not unlike modal thinking. You are using the same
notes of the G Major scale, but when playing over the A-7,
you will emphasize the 1, b3, b7 of A. It's not difficult to see the
patterns of all the modes, ESPECIALLY on guitar! It's a hell
of a lot harder to memorize all the modes in all keys on other
instruments, like the piano. You can go quite a ways knowing
the 6th and 5th string roots of all the modes, and it's super
easy on guitar, because you just move the scale pattern up and
down.
For me, it's faster to just think the Locrian scale over
any m7b5 chord, instead of thinking: "the Major scale 1/2
step above". And the Locrian scale has a certain "flavor"
to it, that I wouldn't play if I was only thinking of it's associated
Major scale.
So for me, modal thinking makes tons of sense.
But on the other hand, there are often certain songs
where you can simplify your thinking, so that you don't
really think about modes as you are playing the song.
Jazz is still a "play-by-ear" type of music, where
you can alter your usage of one scale, to fit the chord
changes, by ear ALONE, without thinking about modes
at all!
Pupkin
Great response, Gared!
--
-- Findley Quality Network --
Quality really is our middle name!
rpjazzguitar
I learn scales by knowing which notes are in them.
I learn arpeggios the same way -- one note at a time.
So, when I see a chord symbol and think of the chord I want to play
(like maybe seeing D7 and deciding to play D13), I know where the
chord tones are on the fingerboard.
So, if I see, say Dm7 G7 C, I'll realize I'm using "all white keys"
for a very inside sound. I differentiate between the chords by knowing
the chord tones not by thinking of each chord as a separate scale. I
deal with extensions by thinking of a superimposed or reharmonized or
extended chord (I don't know what to call it)... that is, I see G7 on
the page, and think maybe G13b9 and I think about those chord tones.
So, it's like I'm thinking, "all white keys but with an Ab".
If I see something more complex, I might not be able to identify a
tonal center, in which case I think about chord tones and, from
context, the extensions that are likely to sound good. I generally
have a pretty good idea of what each note is to the root.
I do not study fingerings.
Of course, a lot of this is second nature by now and I'm not
consciously thinking this way on simple material, but that's where it
began.
This approach has strengths and weaknesses. It is not great for
developing a style with long streams of eighth notes at high tempo.
Practicing fingerings may be more useful for that. Although, since I
don't do it, I'm not really sure. It takes a lot of work to learn the
notes in all the scales as automatically as you know Key of Cmajor.
But, it always seemed to me that it was harder to learn fingerings.
Also, using this approach it doesn't matter where you are on the neck.
You can play anything at any fret starting with any finger and moving
in any direction.
Per Arne Brandal
"Gared Haus" <ga...@haus.com> skrev i melding
news:4d58fcd7$0$27819$c3e8da3$33a0...@news.astraweb.com...
I learned to improvise over jazz tunes by playing the major scale that
represented the key centre (over dm7 G7 C I played C major scale, over the
changes in Autumn Leaves I played G major scale and and the e blues scale,
Over the dom7 I played the e harm min). This approach made it esay to find
the "right notes" to play. I think this method works best with fusion,
latin...
When I tried to play more bop and swing tunes, I felt I needed to know every
third, seventh, b 5 etc of every chord in the tune, so now I try to combine
the key centre approach with a more vertical approach (chord tones,
arpeggios) and chord/scales approach.
When I don't know a tune well I use the key sentre approach (easy). When I
know a tune well, I try to use other strategies as well.
Per
jimmybruno
> "Gared Haus" <ga...@haus.com> skrev i meldingnews:4d58fcd7$0$27819$c3e8da3$33a0...@news.astraweb.com...
didn't take long for this to turn into useless shit. Use notes NOT
words. I have to bow out of this thread
Per Arne Brandal
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> skrev i melding
news:d4c2d$4d59616f$adceeee3$73...@PRIMUS.CA...
Thank you for sharing. Very useful.
Per
Mr Maj6th
<ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
>didn't take long for this to turn into useless shit. Use notes NOT
>words. I have to bow out of this thread
Don't sugar-coat it Jimmy, tell us what you really think.
Maj6th
TD
Well you know, it gets to be like a man bragging religiously to a
woman about how fabulous he is in bed ( he may even have a method and
he cam't miss), and when she finally agrees to it, it's 'Paul peters
out on Mary.'
-TD
Mr Maj6th
wrote:
You knew Pass, as I'm sure you remember, he had nothing but disdain
for the guitarists coming out of GIT, he used to say they put out
guitarist with a cookie-cutter; they had the knowledge but not the
experience. He would say; just play anytime, anywhere, and as much as
you can. That's how you get good.
Maj6th
Mr Maj6th
wrote:
This being said, I do believe that if a person memorizes every word in
the English dictionary, and every grammatical rule and exception, they
will become a great novelist.
But that's just me.
Maj6th
paul s
I studied with Don for several months (many years ago) and he talked
about this approach, which worked well for me at that point.
To further refine things does seem to require some combination of
good ears, understanding of chord tones/harmony and "vocabulary". Don
spent countless hours listening to Benson, Wes, Martino, etc
developing his ears and learning vocabulary. He mentioned falling
asleep with headphones on. He was an inspiring teacher.
Paul S
335
this is interesting, but I think the main thing is being able to play
a melodic line over the chords. whatever way of thinking facilitates
that is probably the best way. Just knowing the possible scales that
could fit will confuse the issue if you don;t have a melodic line with
a strong rhythm. Focusing on just a parent scale can sound bland if
you haven't studied how to emphasize the important notes.
Personally I think getting your arpeggios real strong and then working
on melodic embellishment techniques will go a long way to helping you
improvise. Eventually you need to do more. But appogiaturas, passing
tones. escape tones, approach notes, surrounds, adding half steps to
lines etc. are all extremely important in adding chromaticism to your
playing. Clifford Brown and Bird did a lot of that. btw...I'm not
advocating not learning scales and modes, merely stating the obvious
that melodic development and chromaticism are extremely important in
jazz. That idea tends to get lost when people start talking about the
right scale or best scale.
Bg
> dont need to insert everything you know every time you play.
> Paul
Some good words there!
Bg
TD
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:32:41 -0800, Mr Maj6th <maj...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 14, 3:37 pm, Mr Maj6th <maj...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:54:36 -0800 (PST), jimmybruno
>
> >>> <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> >>> >didn't take long for this to turn into useless shit. Use notes NOT
> >>> >words. I have to bow out of this thread
>
> >>> Don't sugar-coat it Jimmy, tell us what you really think.
>
> >>> Maj6th
>
> >>Well you know, it gets to be like a man bragging religiously to a
> >>woman about how fabulous he is in bed ( he may even have a method and
> >>he cam't miss), and when she finally agrees to it, it's 'Paul peters
> >>out on Mary.'
>
> >>-TD
>
> >You knew Pass, as I'm sure you remember, he had nothing but disdain
> >for the guitarists coming out of GIT, he used to say they put out
> >guitarist with a cookie-cutter; they had the knowledge but not the
> >experience. He would say; just play anytime, anywhere, and as much as
> >you can. That's how you get good.
>
> >Maj6th
>
> This being said, I do believe that if a person memorizes every word in
> the English dictionary, and every grammatical rule and exception, they
> will become a great novelist.
>
> But that's just me.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Understandable, from a guy who spends his days playing Nuages under
home made windchimes out of Darco string remnants. Any good deals on
frisbies out there these days?
-TD
Mr Maj6th
wrote:
>On Feb 14, 4:42 pm, Mr Maj6th <maj...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
I got your Frisbee right here, (grabs crotch.)
Maj6th
Tim McNamara
Gared Haus <ga...@haus.com> wrote:
I'll reply before I read anyone else's response. This is always a
contentious discussion along with those about its closely related cousin
chord-scale theory.
I use the key center approach probably 90% of the time (I was taught to
call it tonal center). This is what my first guitar teacher taught and,
when I was doing the Jimmy Bruno Guitar Institute thing that was what
Jimmy taught (at least in the first three levels). It's simple in terms
of the number of scales you need to know; on the other hand, it requires
you to think a bit more in terms of harmonic analysis. You have to be
able to identify the key center on the fly. You also have to avoid
being fooled by chord progressions that look like they shift key center
but don't necessarily do so.
With the chord-scale idea, if you see an Am7-D7 chord sequence, you can
play an A minor scale of some sort followed by some kind of D scale- you
don't really have to think of what key this is in. You just think of
what type sound you want: the A natural minor, harmonic minor, melodic
minor for example over the Am7 and then D mixolydian, D diminished, D
half diminished etc. over the D7.
But I also use a sort of reverse modal playing, which is to consider a
chord's alternative functions. For example, an Am7 can be the ii of G,
the iii of F or the vi of C. When I see one, I might shift into the F
major scale even though the primary key center is G (and may be very
well defined as such). I am not thinking of playing an A Phrygian scale
at the time, but effectively that is what I am doing (well, it's one way
what I am playing could be described after the fact, even though the
modal approach is not what I am consciously doing).
When I am playing arpeggios I don't really think about the tonal center
very much, and if I am not sure what's up with the tonal center in an
unfamiliar passage I often default to arpeggios with extensions.
But other people here are very adept with the modal/chord scale
approaches and can articulate those far better than I.
--
"It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may
judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their
own liberty ‹ to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who
are poorer or weaker than themselves." Samuel Adams
Rick Stone
> My advice is listen to Don - he's a monster and he knows what he's
> talking about. Why does anyone want to make a complex system more
> complex by thinking of different modes? - the parent scale is what's
> important. I feel like all the "mode pedagogy" was an excuse for all
> the guitar playing magazine to fill space in the back of the
> magazines. Ask a saxohpone player about this and they will chuckle. If
> they just told everyone to learn the Major Scale, Jazz Melodic Minor,
> Harmonic Minor and Harmonic Major that would be basically the end of
> the story.
> Good luck.
> SB
I agree totally with Sheryl on this stuff. While I know all the names
of these things, I really don't think about it AT ALL when I'm playing.
I do think about chords and see/hear the parent scales.
--
Musically Yours,
Rick Stone
Website: http://www.rickstone.com
Recordings: http://www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand
Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/jazzand
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
EPK: http://www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
Carl
>
>
Bravo to this author. After having struggled with modal approaches for
years, it was finally the tonal center approach that got through to me and
turned daunting theory into common sense.
I believe there are those teachers who believe that modal thinking is great
for the theoretical analysis of a piece of music and not as effective as a
method for teaching students to improvise. My personal learning style
supports that thinking, though I am painfully aware that there are adamant
supporters of modal teaching. And, of course, everyone learns in a different
way.
Thanks for posting this.
TD
> In article <4d58fcd7$0$27819$c3e8da3$33a08...@news.astraweb.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's *personal*, but above all it's about the song at hand. It ain't
about little two-by four ditties to be played bar to bar just because
they make it thru the changes (run the changes). How we treat the
changes (alterations, etc) is VERY important. It ain't about mere
chord symbols. If the player has no ears, the chord symbols may as
well say "Eat at Joe's." So, what to use, the 'eat at Joe's' mode?
Give me a break. In addition, we must keep in mind that Mock was
primarily addressing beginner/intermediate students. And obviously he
was trying to consolidate their thinking, therefore hearing AT FIRST.
Many schools forsake the ear for formula. Formula is good in racing,
but not 100% for improvising, because you will eventually step on your
joint and be found out. Copy the masters, but don't steal. Learn the
jazz language. The each-and-every-mode-approach might work great for
strictly fusion players, but not necessarily for 'straight-ahead'
players. It may finally be time to stop the nonsense and get with the
program; get humble.
-TD
pmfan57
Hi Rick, what would be your approach if someone handed you a chart of
his/her music and for the blowing it said, at least in part, "A
Phrygian", or something like that? Would you just think Gm6/A?
RB
CRUCIAL, is the following:
Key centering, is the way the human mind "hears" music. The "ear" has
an insatiable craving to "find" and "hear" in keys.
Key centering builds on this natural inbuilt phenomenon and allows a
musician or even non-musician to improvise using their "ears".
Change running is anathema to this natural proclivity....
Gared Haus
You're welcome, Carl. Glad you got something out of it as did I.
Gared :)
ScotGormley
I hung out with Don for a year during 1986 - 1987 (part of the year,
anyhow, when he was in Hollywood). To echo what Paul S said, Don told
me that he sometimes spent 8 - 10 hours working a single 2 bar Benson
phrase, by ear. He also played great blues ala Mike Bloomfield.
I think John McLaughlin, Bloomfield, and Benson were Don's biggest
influences. Don and Scott Henderson were more of the key center type
advocates; whereas players like Ted Greene and Frank Gambale were more
into the modal approach. They all are/were masters, so how can there
be any single "right" way to think about this?
Don and Scott function well in that key center approach because
they're learned a vocabulary of lines that stress chord tones in the
vital places. When I listen to their playing styles, I hear them
improvising off of the melodies they've learned more so that I hear
improv. off of scale forms.
andy-uk
all"? (ever in these discussions...)
pmfan57
I wonder if that's why audiences have voted with their feet re: modern
concert music from about 1923 on.
David J. Littleboy
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:446ace87-ad52-4920...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
I suspect that this whole thread is a misdirected straw man argument. There
is no such thing as a "modal approach" to functional bebop harmony,
especially as in contrast with "key center" approach, whatever that is. The
chord/scale approach as exposited buy JoeyG is infinitely "key centric",
since everything is about function within a key. What you do over a minor
chord is determined by which of the three (four if you count the vii) minor
chords you are over: as long as it's _functional_ bebop you are playing (and
bebop and hard bop are functional musics). Since each of these chords has a
different function, it has to be handled differently. This is a purely "key
centric" concept. The "funny scales" are _names_ for those different things
you can do. And you really need to think about them, because how you handle
the 6th and 7th over a minor chord identifies the key to a discerning
listener.
--
David J. Littleboy
Ranting, in
Tokyo, Japan
jimmybruno
> "pmfan57" <jwrag...@aol.com> wrote in message
What confuses me is why do people want to argue with people who do
this for a living; guys with 40 plus years of experience playing
jazz. Who do think knows more, an academic or a guy who plays jazz
for a living. It is amazing to me.
Gerry
> I suspect that this whole thread is a misdirected straw man argument.
> There is no such thing as a "modal approach" to functional bebop
> harmony, especially as in contrast with "key center" approach, whatever
> that is. The chord/scale approach as exposited buy JoeyG is infinitely
> "key centric", since everything is about function within a key. What
> you do over a minor chord is determined by which of the three (four if
> you count the vii) minor chords you are over: as long as it's
> _functional_ bebop you are playing (and bebop and hard bop are
> functional musics). Since each of these chords has a different
> function, it has to be handled differently. This is a purely "key
> centric" concept. The "funny scales" are _names_ for those different
> things you can do. And you really need to think about them, because how
> you handle the 6th and 7th over a minor chord identifies the key to a
> discerning listener.
I usually have a problem keeping up with these threads, not least of
all because I'm satisfied with my thinking. I studied modes, I studied
scales and I studied the chromatic lydian concept, then I set all that
aside and just played.
Wherever I am in a tune, I know that there is an operable key centre
and an operable harmonic reference. If that happens to be II V I in C,
then I know what the key is. While the II is under way I know where
the chord tones are. If I focus on say, the root of that II, (whether
I am actualy playing it or not), I suppose my "selection of notes" is
modal in conception. If I focus on the 3rd of that chord, then perhaps
it's harmonic thinking or "chord scale". If instead a I ponder where
the 3rd of the key of C is (whether I'm playing it or not), I suppose
my thinking is key-centric.
I have never been able to figure out how this amorphous and
endlessly-shifting set of perceptions is either key-centric, harmonic,
chord-scalic or modal.
If the tune is a blinding flurry of generally diatonic chords or a
single minor chord over 16 bars--either way I'll be playing relative to
the key center as I can't find a harmonic reference of any utility to
play with.
I like to find fun notes, relationships, and sequences instead. Is
there a fun-centric philosophy?
--
-- Gerry
Keith Freeman
> this for a living; guys with 40 plus years of experience playing
> jazz. Who do think knows more, an academic or a guy who plays jazz
> for a living. It is amazing to me.
I understand your amazement, Jimmy, but some of the guys with decades of
experience playing also teach, and they teach using different methods, and
it's only human that every one of them thinks 'their' method is the best.
Take for example Garrison Fewell's dictum 'I used to do it all wrong' with
which he backs up his current teaching approach ;-}
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
Keith Freeman
> there a fun-centric philosophy?
Well, I've tried to introduce an element of that with my 'opportunity
notes' (rather than 'avoid notes'), but no-one's taken me up on the
offer...
jimmybruno
Makes me wonder how Wes and Joe pass were able to play....the answer
is EAR!!!!!!!
Most guitar players don't have a good ear. Playing a Jupiter scale
over a +9 will not get you an ear
Gerry
> What confuses me is why do people want to argue with people who do
> this for a living; guys with 40 plus years of experience playing
> jazz.
I'll make it simple:
1) Since they don't understand, they want to learn. Criticial analysis
("arguing") is important to learning. "Respect" isn't a prerequisite
for absorbing useful information and screening out bad info.
2) There are many ways to play, whether for 40 years or 4 weeks. Not
all ways of playing appeal to all students.
3 ) Playing for many years doesn't make anybody a teacher. It just
makes them a somebody who played for many years; maybe well, maybe
poorly.
> Who do think knows more, an academic or a guy who plays jazz for a
> living. It is amazing to me.
Ah, one of our basic discussion templates, the simplistic reduction of
"teacher" v. "player" as if you can't do both and can only learn from
one.
No point in voting for our favorites, it's not a competition. One can
select ideas from BOTH worthless academics AND people who've played
"Isn't She Lovely" for 20 years of weddings. And then reject it all if
they have the audacity to "argue". I wonder if Bird became Bird by
being a passive observer of either camp...
Who knows more about eating, a diner or a cook? Or better: Who knows
more about teaching; a teacher, or a non-teacher?
Who cares which one knows more? People trying to learn want to
understand. If people with a lot of experience can't relate the
information then it's just noise. If people can relay understandable
information it doesn't make any different if they don't gig.
Popular musics aren't really rocket-science. You play something
pretty, everybody is happy. And people play something pretty using
every imaginable guiding philosophy. And a few unimaginable ones.
Perhaps that's why many players of note learned from NEITHER an
academic nor a full-time player, but from playing every day on the
bandstand themselves and listening to records when they weren't and
creating their own musical world.
--
-- Gerry
Gerry
> On Feb 15, 12:16 pm, Keith Freeman <x...@x.net> wrote:
>>> I like to find fun notes, relationships, and sequences instead. Is
>>> there a fun-centric philosophy?
>>
>> Well, I've tried to introduce an element of that with my 'opportunity
>> notes' (rather than 'avoid notes'), but no-one's taken me up on the
>> offer...
>
> Makes me wonder how Wes and Joe pass were able to play....the answer
> is EAR!!!!!!!
> Most guitar players don't have a good ear. Playing a Jupiter scale
> over a +9 will not get you an ear
Can't you use your brain AND your ear? Didn't Wes and Joe have to play
a lot of shit to learn what was good and what was bad?
--
-- Gerry
jimmybruno
I'm still mystified. How did they know what was good.... EAR. How
did they play with all those great musicians....EAR. How is it that
never had to memorize a tune...EAR
Joey Goldstein
IMO
The fact that the Western ear is so gravitationally drawn to the
diatonic scale and the chords derived from the diatonic scale, which is
all you folks really seem to mean when you talk about "key-centres" IMO,
is something that a modern jazz musician should be striving to transcend.
Growing up in a Western culture, we all have a subconscious affinity for
the diatonic scale, and for music based upon the diatonic scale, because
it's been around us so prevalently since we were born, especially nowadays.
The problem for me, as a developing musician, has always been about
learning to hear more than that. Otherwise everything I'd try to play
would come out sounding like "Doh a deer a female deer" from The Sound
Of Music. Or I'd sound like some New Age meditation music "artist" or
worse, Kenny G.
How someone goes about expanding their ears is their own business.
But IMO, studying chord-scale-relationships (Is that what you meant by
"change-running?) is right up there with transcribing jazz solos, and
listening to modern classical music as well as a host of other
activities one might participate in.
This whole revolt against the chord-scales concept is something that I
will never understand.
Thankfully, it mostly only seems to rear its ugly head here in this
newsgroup, or elsewhere on the Internet.
Most of the people I play with in the real world know about chord-scales
but have also done lots of other work to become the players they have
become. I rarely hear any of them whining about how learning about
chord-scales in school has ruined their playing, or anything to that
effect. And I'm sure they all teach it to their own students to one
degree or another, based on the individual student's needs at the time.
And I have yet to see anybody put out a valid, logically consistent
alternative.
Some guys say: "This naming of the scale with all those Greek names is
bullshit."
But the same guys will say: "On G7, I use the "G7 scale", which is,
you-guessed-it, just G mixolydian.
Some guys object to naming the scales from the root of the chord.
Any scales that work out to be equivalent to modes of a major scale
should only be named from the tonic of the major scale, as if that major
scale is somehow the parent scale.
Yet when you ask them how, say, the C major scale operates on a Dm7
chord, they'll you that D is the root, E is the 9th, F is the b3, etc.
They don't seem to realize that "Dm7(9,11,13)" is pretty much exactly
the same thing as "D dorian".
The guys who want to always relate the modes back to the major scale, as
if it is some governing factor for all of music, don't seem to
understand that the popularity of the major scale (aka the Ionian mode
of the diatonic scale), and of major and minor key-based music, is a
fairly recent phenomenon. Until about 700 years ago the most popular
mode that composers worked in was Dorian, or so I'm told.
Pythagoras [or his followers (I'm not sure which)] worked out the
*diatonic* scale, not the major scale, and it's the diatonic scale that
all Western music has been based on ever since.
Pythagorean scale-building was based on stacking up what we now call
"Perfect Fifth intervals" (the interval that occurs by dividing
vibrating strings into three, resulting in an interval with the
frequency ratio of 3:2 - a P5th, or 3:1 - A P12th) and then transposing
the resulting pitches so that they all resided within what we now call a
single "octave".
Even the terms "perfect 5th" and "perfect octave" are predicated on the
fact that they found something exceptionally appealing about the first 7
fifths in the stack, which resulted in a 7-note scale that could be
repeated at the 8th note - that they called "the diatonic scale".
Let's call the first pitch in the stack "F" and use today's octave based
7-letter naming system for the other tones in the stack.
F C G D A E B
Placing these tones all within a single octave, and doubling the first
note at the "octave", we get:
F G A B C D E F
or
G A B C D E F G
or
A B C D E F G A
or
B C D E F G A B
etc.
The only reason it's even called an "octave" is because these guys
thought it was important to contain the system within a circle of 7 tones.
So "the diatonic scale" has no single tonic. It has the potential for 7
different tonics or tonal centres.
It is defined simply as any 7-tone scale in which there are 5 whole
tones and 2 semitones - where the semitones are spaced as far apart as
possible.
It wasn't until approximately 2 millenia later that folks decided that
the Ionian mode (C-to-C, aka "the major scale") should be so popular.
And that didn't happen until after they'd gotten around to tempering
Pythogoras' diatonic scale so that the major thirds within it would also
sound as harmonious as the P5ths it contained.
Essentially they made major 3rds conform to the frequency ratio 5:4,
which they arrived at by dividing vibrating strings into 5 equal divisions.
So now they had a diatonic scale in which the 3 major triads it
contained were at pure 6:5:4 frequency ratios.
Those 3 maj triads are Fmaj Cmaj and Gmaj.
The fact that the Cmaj triad sits a P5th above Fmaj and a P5th below
Gmaj has a symmetry that they found appealing and the rest of key-based
music proceeds from this. But major keys (and subsequently, minor keys)
are a relatively recent development in Western music.
Then there's the guys that don't want you to think in terms of the way
chords and scales relate to each other *at all* because they think that
somehow "freezes" the music in some unnatural way.
To these guys, I'm guessing, that calling G mixolydian "the G7 scale"
would even be a bad thing.
But, I digress.
I dunno.
This whole revolt against chord-scale analysis reminds me of the way
some people insist that our schools continue to teach "Intelligent
Design" even though the theory of Evolution has been firmly established.
Chord-scale theory is certainly something that has arisen well after the
music that it seeks to describe came about. So what?
Evolution is also a theory that has arisen to explain things that
happened well before Darwin.
Chord-scale theory works and it is logically consistent. Show me another
way of thinking that works better and is even more logically consistent
and I'll be happy to study it and adopt it.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
> "pmfan57"<jwra...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:446ace87-ad52-4920...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 12:07 am, RB<richardmichaelborn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One of the things that hasn't been mentioned yet, and it's absolutely
>> CRUCIAL, is the following:
>>
>> Key centering, is the way the human mind "hears" music. The "ear" has
>> an insatiable craving to "find" and "hear" in keys.
>> Key centering builds on this natural inbuilt phenomenon and allows a
>> musician or even non-musician to improvise using their "ears".
>>
>> Change running is anathema to this natural proclivity....
>
> I wonder if that's why audiences have voted with their feet re: modern
> concert music from about 1923 on.
> <<<<<<<<<<
>
> I suspect that this whole thread is a misdirected straw man argument. There
> is no such thing as a "modal approach" to functional bebop harmony,
> especially as in contrast with "key center" approach, whatever that is.
> The
> chord/scale approach as exposited buy JoeyG is infinitely "key centric",
> since everything is about function within a key.
Exactly!!!
> What you do over a minor
> chord is determined by which of the three (four if you count the vii) minor
> chords you are over: as long as it's _functional_ bebop you are playing (and
> bebop and hard bop are functional musics). Since each of these chords has a
> different function, it has to be handled differently. This is a purely "key
> centric" concept. The "funny scales" are _names_ for those different things
> you can do. And you really need to think about them, because how you handle
> the 6th and 7th over a minor chord identifies the key to a discerning
> listener.
>
--
Mr Maj6th
>What confuses me is why do people want to argue with people who do
>this for a living; guys with 40 plus years of experience playing
>jazz. Who do think knows more, an academic or a guy who plays jazz
>for a living. It is amazing to me.
You can't teach creativity, you can only teach memorizable facts and
analyses of creativity, after the fact. This modal conception grew
into a movement in the early seventies, mainly due to GIT. The
students were duped into believing that they could become creative by
simple memorization and rote playing. They discarded the universities
and the classic music curriculum for a quicker fix in a shorter time.
Once invested in the work and acceptance of the mindset, they were a
victim of it. Now, many are in teaching positions, and perpetuate
this method that they have invested their time and intellect to
achieve. It is the fast food of music instruction, experience takes
time to mature and produce results. Because the earlier generations,
in general, aren't well versed in this new musical concept, their
opinions are avoided like button-up shoes.
I find it ironic that the impetus of this thinking was GIT, who was
started by Howard Roberts as an economic vehicle, a player who was
definitely old-school. It is also interesting to note that another
institution was introduced at the same time and place, Dick Grove's
School Of Music, with an old school approach to jazz guitar; it failed
miserably.
Maj6th
pmfan57
In a William Byrd CDs I have for keyboard, some pieces are indeed in
the "key of" G mixolydian. Of course this is pre-Baroque era so it's
really modal I guess.
Joey Goldstein
Am I the "academic" in this scenario?
If so, then oiy.
The way I see it is that there are lots of jazz players who see things
differently than you and your buddies happen to see things.
I.e. There is no single universally-accepted concept out there that
everyone with jazz playing skills will agree upon.
I make my living as a jazz musician too.
I might not be as busy as you or as well known.
But we are both involved in exactly the same types of activities.
I play jazz gigs with the best jazz musicians in my area.
I teach to supplement my living. So do you.
TD
jimmybruno
All I can say at this point is try both and see what works for you.
Gerry
> On Feb 15, 12:27�pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-02-15 09:22:00 -0800, jimmybruno said:
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 12:16�pm, Keith Freeman <x...@x.net> wrote:
>>>>> I like to find fun notes, relationships, and sequences instead. Is
>>>>> there a fun-centric philosophy?
>>
>>>> Well, I've tried to introduce an element of that with my 'opportunity
>>>> notes' (rather than 'avoid notes'), but no-one's taken me up on the
>>>> offer...
>>
>>> Makes me wonder how Wes and Joe pass were able to play....the answer
>>> is EAR!!!!!!!
>>> Most guitar players don't have a good ear. �Playing a Jupiter scale
>>> over a +9 will not get you an ear
>>
>> Can't you use your brain AND your ear? �Didn't Wes and Joe have to play
>> a lot of shit to learn what was good and what was bad?
>
> I'm still mystified. How did they know what was good.... EAR. How
> did they play with all those great musicians....EAR. How is it that
> never had to memorize a tune...EAR
They sprang from the womb with an ear? I asked a question: How did
they develop that ear? I maintain they played a lot of shit in order
to *develop* an ear. I say every capable musician breathing did that.
You play, you listen, you judge, you correct. You play, you listen,
you judge, you correct.
Is this right, Jimmy, or is this wrong?
--
-- Gerry
jimmybruno
Not at all Joey, I had no one in mind. I teach to get off the road
plus I do enjoy it many levels
TD
I can dig it, I was playing the Pluto scale and all it's modes, but it
was a big disappointment when I was told that Pluto was no longer a
scale. So, all those ideas I was playing before instantly became non-
valid. I was then only left to my own devices.
-TD
jimmybruno
Too funny Tony!
One day when I am feeling inspired I will relate how the design of the
guitar led to me to certain conclusions about ear and harmony etc
Joey Goldstein
Well for me, doing that type of thing most definitely *did* help my ears.
I was totally overwhelmed trying to do jazz lifts when I was first
starting out.
I couldn't even use my ears to figure out the changes to a tune let
alone the heads or the improvised lines.
But after studying harmony (on and off of the guitar), scales,
chord-scale-relationships, and the like - when I went back to trying to
lift things off of records I was able to recognize those same sounds I
was studying as they were being used to make music.
Now, when I listen to something, unless it's Herbie or Brad Mehldau,
most of the time I can tell what chord-type or scale-type is active,
often entire progressions of chords, are being used - without touching
my guitar or any other instrument.
I wouldn't have been able to develop those abilities by doing any one
thing and not doing all of the others.
The chord-scale study is just one aspect of the whole.
It's never supposed to have been the whole thing.
jimmybruno
well at least we're not into calling each other jerkoffs. LOL
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
My wife and I will see you here on the 28th. Maybe, you can hip me
then.
jimmybruno
Tony, I had to cancel the 28th. It's my daughters 20th B day. I will
be there in March. I'll let you know the date as soon as I find out
Gerry
> Am I the "academic" in this scenario?
> If so, then oiy.
NO! You're not! That's what makes this all wacky. You've been
playing the guitar for ~30 years, right? You live in the damn thing.
You ARE a guitar.
So you didn't come up playing with Kenton for 8 years ("every 8 tunes
getting like a four-bar solo" (Billy Bauer)). Oh woe is you! You
haven't played as many weddings and bar mitzvah's as some. But maybe
I'm being too catty. I should say, haven't played as many community
theatres and junior colleges. Does it really matter which. You're a
player.
I sometimes feel at a disadvantage since I didn't really study theory
and mechanics with obsessivfe discipline until I was about 25. I read
an article about Metheny during that time. He started, locked on the
right names and places, when he was in his teens. I call that an
advantage. Is his advantage not one that is focused on academia; the
didactic. "Academic" is a word that's been posited in
liberal/conservative as an alias for "disconnected intellectual". As
an intellectual that is not disconnected, I resent that. Didactic is
intended to teach.
As guitarists we still have no practicable correllary to Alban for
trumpet and Hanon for piano. Nothing remotely like it. This is only
about mechanical mastery, because functional mastery in modern jazz is
one that is anecdotal REGARDLESS of instrument. Oh it's crazy...
At least it's not A/B, we've got a boat-load of vying philosphies.
ChroLyd, Harmolodic to name two.
That's what makes this endless discussion #7 (Academic v. The Worker)
so heart-sapping, it's just this confused non-dichotomy. It's not A v.
B. It never was, it never will be.
1) Some great players are good teachers, others are not.
2) Some great teachers are good players, some are not.
3) Some great teachers have pooped out a lot of clones that everybody
thinks have value. Then they either become a player and a pauper, a
pirate, a poet, or a king.
A player learns his instrument and then his music, then he tries to put
it together personally, or moves on.
Many of us are so hung up on these stages that we never express
ourselves in any personal way. That's sad. I wish everybody fussing
over method A or method B, in the camp of the "academics" or the
"workers", I wish they'd all go write a 32 bar line instead. Or
better--a 36 bar line!
All of which speaks in favor of what follows:
> The way I see it is that there are lots of jazz players who see things
> differently than you and your buddies happen to see things.
> I.e. There is no single universally-accepted concept out there that
> everyone with jazz playing skills will agree upon.
>
> I make my living as a jazz musician too.
> I might not be as busy as you or as well known.
> But we are both involved in exactly the same types of activities.
> I play jazz gigs with the best jazz musicians in my area.
> I teach to supplement my living. So do you.
Bravo. I'm always in your corner Joey.
--
-- Gerry
Joey Goldstein
>
>
> All I can say at this point is try both and see what works for you.
At this point in this discussion I don't have a clear idea of what the
two techniques that you're advocating choosing between happen to be.
I kinda know what I think of as being the codification of chord-scale
theory, and that can be found within the Nettles and Graff book, The
Chord-Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony.
But I'm not clear on what you're offering up as an alternative *theory*.
Maybe it's not a theory that you are suggesting but rather a methodology
for becoming a competent jazz player instead, a methodology that
side-steps chord-scales altogether?
If so, that's cool.
The guys who invented this music did not have the tools of chord-scale
theory to help them learn to play.
Bach and Beethoven didn't have Piston's Harmony as a guide either.
Certainly nobody here is suggesting that by merely studying chord-scales
a student will automatically become a competent jazz player.
As a matter of fact, some students who study chord-scale theory don't
want to play jazz music at all. It happens to be a theory that is not
dependant on any one style of improvised music. That's one of its great
strengths IMO.
The chord-scale concept is simply a collection of techniques for
determining the most obvious melodic note-choices on any given chord or
progression of chords. And it does a very good job of that.
Keeping things within the sphere of useful musical theories, do you have
a better concept or theory that accomplishes this *same* goal?
Or is all theory pretty much useless for becoming a jazz player in your
view?
Joey Goldstein
as an "academic" was one of the worst things you could say about someone.
Back then, the guys I knew who had advanced degrees simply couldn't play.
Nowadays, it's a *lot* different.
Most of the guys who are my age, who can play their asses off but want
to make a better living by teaching in the college's, all have Master's
degrees and Ph'D's.
Many, if not most, of these degree'd guys nowadays can play their asses
off too.
I never got a degree.
I dropped out of Berklee after my 7th semester in the Instrumental
Performance Diploma Program and I never went back to college to get any
sort of a degree.
Back then, that was the cool thing to do. If you wanted to be a player,
having a degree was a non-issue.
I've done ok over the years, financially speaking, never really great
though.
If I had a Master's or even a Bachelor's degree right now, I'd probably
be a full-time faculty member somewhere rather than a part-timer like I
am currently.
But being an "academic" in the jazz community these days really doesn't
have the stigma attached to it anymore. IMO.
Paul K
>>
>> What confuses me is why do people want to argue with people who do
>> this for a living; guys with 40 plus years of experience playing
>> jazz. Who do think knows more, an academic or a guy who plays jazz
>> for a living. It is amazing to me.
>
> You can't teach creativity, you can only teach memorizable facts and
> analyses of creativity, after the fact.
Conversely, you can't destroy creativity by learning a bunch of facts.
A lot of sucky players would suck less if they knew more, but no great
player would be greater if they knew fewer facts.
I think this endless debate is also a proxy for a battle between those
who studied music in schools and those who didn't.
This modal conception grew
> into a movement in the early seventies, mainly due to GIT. The
> students were duped into believing that they could become creative by
> simple memorization and rote playing. They discarded the universities
> and the classic music curriculum for a quicker fix in a shorter time.
> Once invested in the work and acceptance of the mindset, they were a
> victim of it. Now, many are in teaching positions, and perpetuate
> this method that they have invested their time and intellect to
> achieve. It is the fast food of music instruction, experience takes
> time to mature and produce results. Because the earlier generations,
> in general, aren't well versed in this new musical concept, their
> opinions are avoided like button-up shoes.
>
> I find it ironic that the impetus of this thinking was GIT, who was
> started by Howard Roberts as an economic vehicle, a player who was
> definitely old-school. It is also interesting to note that another
> institution was introduced at the same time and place, Dick Grove's
> School Of Music, with an old school approach to jazz guitar; it failed
> miserably.
>
> Maj6th
--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
Keith Freeman
> I was totally overwhelmed trying to do jazz lifts when I was first
> starting out.
Me too. I'm a reasonably good reader, but I got hopelessly lost trying to
play early Pat Martino transcriptions from notation until I could analyse
at least part of what he was doing.
335
> > Certainly nobody here is suggesting that by merely studying chord-scales
> a student will automatically become a competent jazz player.
Hopefully not, but I think some beginning/intermediate players do fall
into that trap of over emphasizing theory and giving short shrift to
learning tunes. Perhaps these people just need better teachers. I may
be misunderstanding Jimmy B, but my take on what he's saying is that
using your ear to learn tunes is basic to a person's development as a
jazz musician.
My own take is that you should do both. It's a matter of finding a
balance between tune learning and theoretical study. If I had to
weight one against the other I would emphasize more time for learning
tunes and less on theory for exactly the reason Jimmy cites. Learning
tunes WILL develop your ear. You can study theoretical concepts but if
you're not disciplined in APPLYING them you won't get a lot of ear
training benefit from it.
Paul
Wes was famous for memorizing Charlie Christian's
solos, note-for-note, and was hired for this.
I agree with Gerry, that "Ear" is something you
develop. Sure, there is a certain amount of natural
musical talent that everyone is born with, to be sure,
but having an Ear does not guarantee a good classical
pianist, or a good jazz musician. Lot's of long,
hard work is required.......Bill Evans talked about this
a lot.
ES175_Player
ES175_Player
no simpler"
thomas
>
> This modal conception grew
> into a movement in the early seventies, mainly due to GIT.
No, it came in the 50s and 60s, via George Russell, Jerry Coker, and
eventually Berklee, and from those sources to everywhere else. GIT is
not to blame.
> I find it ironic that the impetus of this thinking was GIT, who was
> started by Howard Roberts as an economic vehicle, a player who was
> definitely old-school. It is also interesting to note that another
> institution was introduced at the same time and place, Dick Grove's
> School Of Music, with an old school approach to jazz guitar; it failed
> miserably.
Dick Grove failed miserably? My impression is that he was doing just
fine until he died. Who taught guitar there?
thomas
> Thread of the year...
..of every year since rmmgj began.
Joey Goldstein
lol
Mr Maj6th
Notice I said a movement, (I should have said,especially for
guitarists,) I didn't say it was discovered by GIT. Their main guitar
teacher, besides guest artists at Grove's, was a fellow with the last
name of Stewart, as I recall.
Maj6th
The Guitar Doctor 1
<travissomewhereinthemiddleharr...@charter.net> wrote:
> In article <4d58fcd7$0$27819$c3e8da3$33a08...@news.astraweb.com>,
> ga...@haus.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi folks,
>
> > I just got a copy of Don Mock's Melodic Minor Revealed book and he
> > writes a very interesting bit in it about the "Key Centres vs Modes"
> > approach.
>
> > He writes:
>
> > "Playing over these two chords (Am and D7) is our first lesson in the
> > two approaches you're faced with when dealing with scales. The "modal"
> > approach would have yo memorize the D7(b5) sound as a new scale or
> > mode. Even though you are still playing an A melodic minor, you would
> > learn it starting on "D" as a different scale with a different name.
>
> > In face, all seven notes of melodic minor scale become roots with the
> > modal approach, which forces you to "think" there are seven new scales
> > (new names) to learn. Using the "key centre" approach, you simply
> > superimpose your original A melodic minor scale over the D7 (or the
> > many other possible chords it works over). It's not necessary to think
> > of seven seperate scales. The trade off to using the simpler key
> > centre approach is you must become proficient at controlling the scale
> > well enough to play lines that reflect the sound of the chord you are
> > superimposing it over. It also requires a good knowledge of chord and
> > arpeggio substitution.
>
> > You've probably figured out by now that I'm a firm believer in the key
> > centre approach. I've seen students able to play with more confidence
> > over chord changes a lot sooner, with a lot less confusion, using key
> > centres rather than modes. To me, if makes more sense to learn only
> > one scale instead of seven. There are so many things to learn about
> > music anyay, the more you can "streamline" your learning, by keeping
> > things simple, the better. I should add, however, that the end results
> > of using eitehr the modal or key centre approaches will eventually be
> > the same."
>
> > So, what do you guys make of this?
>
> > Does anyone here use this particular method in their playing and they'd
> > like to talk a bit about how they use it and think about it?
>
> > If you're using the key centre approach do you think about chord tones as much?
>
> > I'm looking forward to reading some opinions on this topic :)
>
> > Gared
>
> I would certainly listen to Don Mock as he is such an accomplished
> player.
>
> That said, I had never heard of him when I started playing jazz on my
> own. Initially I tried a key center system. It did not work for me,
> especially when more complicated tunes were attempted that had rapid key
> changes. The key center system seemed to be forcing one key over
> another and the resultant dissonance was unappealing.
>
> Instead, I worked on a vertical approach (your modes I think) which
> naturally emphasizes the underlying chord tones. With this system my
> notes were always consonant.
>
> Later I learned substitutions and then some of the key center system to
> add controllable levels of dissonance. I freely confess I never analyze
> a tune for key centers but I do look for familiar chordal patterns and
> failing that, I just play over each chord and try to string them
> together in a story.
>
> IMO it seems that one must learn both systems and more to be an
> accomplished player.
>
> --
> Travis
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/4thstuning
I totally agree with Travis. both are necessary. The key center only
approach is a good way for beginning improvisors to get started. It
appeals to people because it appears to make it easy. I have actually
found its easier to address each chord on an individual basis than
figuring out what the current key center is...........And Im sure Don
Mock knows all his scales and modes. What Hes really talking about in
that book is how to superimpose arpeggios that are normally used for
one type of chord to other types of chords. This brings out different
sounds.
Another reason you dont want to blow off learning the modes is because
there are certain tones in each mode that are important to the
specific chord.
If you only use the key center approach and not the modes your improv
will sound very "vanilla" an example would be using the C scale (key
center approach) over a a 2-5-1 in C of course will sound poor if you
are not using the key notes in Dorian and mixolydian that the modes
give you...
Both are necessary and the modes are nothing to fear, they are easy to
learn...............people fear them for some reason. dont dismiss
them or the academic approach............. your playing will never be
as good as it could be............
David J. Littleboy
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> This whole revolt against the chord-scales concept is something that I
> will never understand.
> Thankfully, it mostly only seems to rear its ugly head here in this
> newsgroup, or elsewhere on the Internet.
> Most of the people I play with in the real world know about chord-scales
> but have also done lots of other work to become the players they have
> become. I rarely hear any of them whining about how learning about
> chord-scales in school has ruined their playing, or anything to that
> effect. And I'm sure they all teach it to their own students to one degree
> or another, based on the individual student's needs at the time.
>
> And I have yet to see anybody put out a valid, logically consistent
> alternative.
>
> Some guys say: "This naming of the scale with all those Greek names is
> bullshit."
> But the same guys will say: "On G7, I use the "G7 scale", which is,
> you-guessed-it, just G mixolydian.
That's my point. Exactly. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. You _have_ to think about what you
are doing over the G7 in terms of the G7, because the 6th of the G7 really
is the 6th of the G7 (it'd be insane to even try to think of it as the 3rd
of Cmaj7 while playing over the G7). At which point you are doing chord
scale work. But what "chord scale work" you do (what tensions you add) to
that G7 depends on the G7's function (dominant (in a major or minor key) or
some random secondary dominant) in the key that it's being used in.
(Truth in advertising: I've only skimmed through the first 2/3 of Nettles
and Graf, but found it amaxingly useful. Flipping great book.)
As pmfan57 points out, there is "modal music", both pre-CPP and post-bop.
But it ain't functional music, so it's a different game.
FWIW, though, I'm not really fond of the idea of noticing that a pentatonic
scale displaced a half step has all the fun color tones in it so you can
wank mechanical, already in your fingers, pentatonic patterns and get fun
sounds. But I suspect were all guilty of that sort of thing to some extent:
I was just noticing that the harmonic minor hits all the chord tones of a
(different) 7th chord plus lots of tasty chromatic approach notes, so it's
an automagic way of getting bebop phrases without much thought.
> Some guys object to naming the scales from the root of the chord.
> Any scales that work out to be equivalent to modes of a major scale should
> only be named from the tonic of the major scale, as if that major scale is
> somehow the parent scale.
> Yet when you ask them how, say, the C major scale operates on a Dm7 chord,
> they'll you that D is the root, E is the 9th, F is the b3, etc.
> They don't seem to realize that "Dm7(9,11,13)" is pretty much exactly the
> same thing as "D dorian".
Yep.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know Jimmy pretty well. He is not putting anyone down for learning
chord scales or anything for that matter. What he sees is what I see a
lot ( although I also see things changing for the better lately), is
students ONLY learning via chord scales and relying a bit too heavily
on chord scale and root of each mode methodologies. D Dorian is really
Cmajor scale "standing" on D, as A. Mathieu puts it. You can look at
it all you want, but it is still a duck. The ambiance and verticals
are different and thus addressed accordingly. I believe this is
pretty much how this thread began. Why mock Mock? He was merely
helping the learner to consolidate at least for the first go 'round,
because ( and I agree with him that) there is a whole universe of
other activities in jazz theory to spend hours on.
For example, reharmonization, alternate turnarounds, voice-leading,
planing, ambiguous verticals, modal interchange, REPERTOIRE, ad
infinitum. Many students do not copy from the masters (not stealing,
just learning the language like a baby mimics parents in the
beginning....the baby is not handed a dictionary right away), for
example as the *masters all did*. No one is saying do not learn
anything. Some of us are saying, do not become *only reliant upon
formulas* while the ear and conception is underdeveloped. It is easy
to fall into traps. There are always exceptions. For example:
You can get lucky (usually not in the straight ahead jazz world,
because it's hard to schuck for long), you can become famous and have
a following by doing your own thing based only on chord scales and
individualized two-by four mode hopping to the downbeats of every bar.
The ends of each phrase are often dubious and weak sounding, as if the
true modus operandi is mono-dimensional flash gymnastics aimed at
impressing glorified rockers. I hear lots of that in Fusion players,
who came from the rock side of the fence over to Fusion, as opposed to
Herbie and Chick who came over via the straight ahead side. It's a
lame argument, because there is no argument, just a lot of
misconstruing going on. In the end, no one cares. You do what you do.
It is all personal.
-TD
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein"<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> This whole revolt against the chord-scales concept is something that I
>> will never understand.
>> Thankfully, it mostly only seems to rear its ugly head here in this
>> newsgroup, or elsewhere on the Internet.
>> Most of the people I play with in the real world know about chord-scales
>> but have also done lots of other work to become the players they have
>> become. I rarely hear any of them whining about how learning about
>> chord-scales in school has ruined their playing, or anything to that
>> effect. And I'm sure they all teach it to their own students to one degree
>> or another, based on the individual student's needs at the time.
>>
>> And I have yet to see anybody put out a valid, logically consistent
>> alternative.
>>
>> Some guys say: "This naming of the scale with all those Greek names is
>> bullshit."
>> But the same guys will say: "On G7, I use the "G7 scale", which is,
>> you-guessed-it, just G mixolydian.
>
> That's my point. Exactly. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. You _have_ to think about what you
> are doing over the G7 in terms of the G7,
> because the 6th of the G7 really
> is the 6th of the G7 (it'd be insane to even try to think of it as the 3rd
> of Cmaj7 while playing over the G7).
While I'm glad to have you agree with me about most of my points, i
strongly disagree with your sentiment above.
IMO It's terribly important to be aware of both the E natural's role on
this chord and its role in the key, assuming the music is really in the
key of C major, of course.
--
thomas
>
> Notice I said a movement, (I should have said,especially for
> guitarists,) I didn't say it was discovered by GIT. Their main guitar
> teacher, besides guest artists at Grove's, was a fellow with the last
> name of Stewart, as I recall.
I studied at both GIT and Dick Grove in the early 80s. GIT was like a
buffet back then, where you could take from a wide variety of guys
with different styles and approaches. They didn't impose a chord-scale
orthodoxy at that time. I already knew that stuff, and don't recall
hearing much about it at GIT. It could be that I tested out of those
classes in the entrance exam.
I studied composition and arranging with Dick Grove. He was an amazing
teacher, the best I ever had. I don't know how he taught improvisation
though. Whatever he did, I'm sure it was fantastic.
Joey Goldstein
>
> I know Jimmy pretty well.
I know you guys go way back, to the time when there were gigs and there
was a scene. lol
But I've been arguing this stuff with Jimmy since before you came on to
this newsgroup, as I recall.
He and I have been locked together in this mortal struggle ever since. lol
I'm used to his minimalist writing style and gruff replies and I usually
think that I can parse pretty well what he's trying to express in words.
But (no offence Jimmy) words don't seem to be his strong suit.
> He is not putting anyone down for learning
> chord scales or anything for that matter.
Well, he often comes off as if that's kinda what he's doing.
> What he sees is what I see a
> lot ( although I also see things changing for the better lately), is
> students ONLY learning via chord scales
Personally speaking, after more than 2 decades teaching jazz guitar at
the college level, I've never seen precisely that.
I have seen self-taught rock-oriented players come to some erroneous
conclusions akin to that from time to time though.
There's a plethora of guitar books out there written by people who don't
really know what they're talking about, especially for rock guitar students.
Someone studying out of one of these books without an actual teacher is
going to get the education he's paying for.
Regarding the discussion of GIT within this thread...
GIT started up while I was already at Berklee.
As a matter of fact, Howard Roberts did some clinics in the Boston area
while I was there trying to drum up some business for GIT.
To me, the whole idea of a school dedicated to just guitar seemed
ludicrous and badly formed.
And from what I could see back then of the curriculum that was only
forming at that time, it seemed to be diluted with a bunch of
rock-oriented misinformed material.
I kind of looked at a lot of that stuff as being a
watered-down-for-rockers version of what I was already learning at Berklee.
There are literally tons of similar rock-guitar-modal-wanking books
based on the GIT model on the shelves of every guitar store everywhere
right now. But it wasn't that bad yet in 1971.
Roberts' own stuff (eg. the sight reading book and his Praxis series,
etc.) seemed to be very well organized and intelligent but in some ways
a little bit too dense for most young students to be able to absorb.
> and relying a bit too heavily
> on chord scale and root of each mode methodologies.
Any teacher worth his salt should be tempering his instruction so that
the student doesn't fall into those pitfalls. IMO.
> D Dorian is really
> Cmajor scale "standing" on D,
But D dorian existed first!
What is C major "standing on"?
The modes aren't really "modes of the major scale". They're just modes.
If they're modes of anything then they're modes of the diatonic scale,
and the diatonic scale doesn't have a single tonic. It has the potential
for 7 different tonics.
C is just one of them.
> as A. Mathieu puts it. You can look at
> it all you want, but it is still a duck.
Y'know... Partly owing to your praise of Mathieu I went and bought his
book. Read most of it too.
It has some really interesting ideas in it, but I didn't really get as
much out of it as you have, apparently.
But that's a whole other discussion.
I did write a tune based on one of his ideas though, just to see if the
idea held true.
It didn't really.
But I still like the tune.
These days, me writing anything at all is a step in the right direction.
> The ambiance and verticals
> are different and thus addressed accordingly. I believe this is
> pretty much how this thread began. Why mock Mock? He was merely
> helping the learner to consolidate at least for the first go 'round,
> because ( and I agree with him that) there is a whole universe of
> other activities in jazz theory to spend hours on.
Well I hope I didn't come off as mocking Mock.
I just have this pet peeve about non-precise language being used within
music theory books/discussions, especially regarding jazz music.
And I'm fully aware that language is always imprecise to one degree or
another. But folks should at least try to be logically consistent if
they're going to be trying to instruct other people. IMO.
People literally can and have said virtually *anything*.
And to be fair, that quote that was posted is short and probably out of
context in at least some respects.
I have a feeling that he and I would agree more than disagree if we ever
had an actual conversation.
> For example, reharmonization, alternate turnarounds, voice-leading,
> planing, ambiguous verticals, modal interchange, REPERTOIRE, ad
> infinitum. Many students do not copy from the masters (not stealing,
> just learning the language like a baby mimics parents in the
> beginning....the baby is not handed a dictionary right away), for
> example as the *masters all did*. No one is saying do not learn
> anything.
> Some of us are saying, do not become *only reliant upon
> formulas* while the ear and conception is underdeveloped.
I'm completely in agreement with that statement.
But being able to recognize existing well-worn formulae is important
too, so that you're not always trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.
> It is easy
> to fall into traps. There are always exceptions. For example:
>
> You can get lucky (usually not in the straight ahead jazz world,
> because it's hard to schuck for long), you can become famous and have
> a following by doing your own thing based only on chord scales and
> individualized two-by four mode hopping to the downbeats of every bar.
> The ends of each phrase are often dubious and weak sounding, as if the
> true modus operandi is mono-dimensional flash gymnastics aimed at
> impressing glorified rockers. I hear lots of that in Fusion players,
> who came from the rock side of the fence over to Fusion, as opposed to
> Herbie and Chick who came over via the straight ahead side. It's a
> lame argument, because there is no argument, just a lot of
> misconstruing going on. In the end, no one cares. You do what you do.
> It is all personal.
>
>
For perspective....
If you've studied Newton's theories about physics it doesn't necessarily
follow that you'll be able to design a trampoline or a catapult.
Catapults, btw, existed long before Newton did, just as jazz existed
well before any chord-scale theories had been formulated.
You might be able to study existing catapults, and you may even be lucky
enough to have access to their blueprints, in which case you may be able
to successfully re-create the ones you've studied, perhaps even putting
your own mark on the design to some degree.
But if you've tried unsuccessfully to design your own catapult, without
the knowledge of Newtonian physics, you may not have any idea why your
design failed.
I.e. You don't have to know Newtonian physics in order to make a
catapult, but it's probably a good idea if you do.
To the extent that any theory about note choice for jazz players can be
successful and/or useful, the chord-scale-theory (eg. ala Nettles &
Graff) has done a pretty good job. IMO.
The argument really seems to be about the need for any improv-based
music theory at all.
If I had come up in the 30's 40's or 50's I wouldn't have had access to
these theories.
But I came up in the 70's. These theories were around then, and I would
have been a fool, IMO, to not have taken advantage of them.
David J. Littleboy
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 2/15/2011 5:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> That's my point. Exactly. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. You _have_ to think about what
>> you
>> are doing over the G7 in terms of the G7,
>
>
>> because the 6th of the G7 really
>> is the 6th of the G7 (it'd be insane to even try to think of it as the
>> 3rd
>> of Cmaj7 while playing over the G7).
>
> While I'm glad to have you agree with me about most of my points, i
> strongly disagree with your sentiment above.
> IMO It's terribly important to be aware of both the E natural's role on
> this chord and its role in the key, assuming the music is really in the
> key of C major, of course.
Thanks for correction. Should I take it that since the G7 is leading to the
tonic, one needs to have the tonic in mind and ear to get there?
Another question, on the ii chord; what governs a choice between the use of
the Dorian vs. jazz melodic minor? That "#7" isn't a diatonic tone in the
key.
--
David J. Littleboy
Still figuring this all out, in
Tokyo, Japan
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein"<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 2/15/2011 5:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>
>>> That's my point. Exactly. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. You _have_ to think about what
>>> you
>>> are doing over the G7 in terms of the G7,
>>
>>
>>> because the 6th of the G7 really
>>> is the 6th of the G7 (it'd be insane to even try to think of it as the
>>> 3rd
>>> of Cmaj7 while playing over the G7).
>>
>> While I'm glad to have you agree with me about most of my points, i
>> strongly disagree with your sentiment above.
>> IMO It's terribly important to be aware of both the E natural's role on
>> this chord and its role in the key, assuming the music is really in the
>> key of C major, of course.
>
> Thanks for correction. Should I take it that since the G7 is leading to the
> tonic, one needs to have the tonic in mind and ear to get there?
If the music you are playing is truly based on major and minor keys then
you should *always* have your mind on the tonic chord to one degree or
another, IMO.
> Another question, on the ii chord; what governs a choice between the use of
> the Dorian vs. jazz melodic minor? That "#7" isn't a diatonic tone in the
> key.
Experience and taste mostly.
If there's someone comping for you, and they have a C nat in their
voicing, which is likely, then any C#'s you emphasize are going to rub
with the C nat his chord.
That doesn't mean you can never emphasize a C# on a Dm7 chord.
It just means that you might want to be aware of the sound that doing so
produces.
What you do with that sound and your experience of it is your own business.
And it doesn't mean that you should never make lines up from the D mel
min scale over a Dm7 chord. If you don't really emphasize the C# then D
mel min melodies will probably be fine on Dm7.
On the other hand, a good accompanist, upon hearing you emphasize a C#
on Dm will then play a voicing that helps to justify that sound,
probably by playing Dm6 or Dm(maj7) instead of Dm7.
If there's nobody comping for you at all, and the bass player is not
emphasizing any C nat's, then you can do whatever the hell you want and
it's not likely to clash with anything.
However... The *norm* on Dm or on Dm7 as IIm in the key of C major is
the D dorian scale.
The chord-scale theory deals mostly with the *norms* of
chord-scale-relationships.
I.e. It tells you what the path of least resistance should be on any
given chord. It deals mostly with the idea of default chord-scale
choices for various chords with various particular harmonic functions
within a key.
You are never under any obligation to use only those default scales.
The theory should be able to predict which notes your *ear* is likely to
*hear* most naturally, if it's being used correctly.
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
But D dorian existed first!
Yes, true, but that was back in Medieval times when there were no
keyboards or black keys.
What is C major "standing on"?
Overtone series resultants, triadic harmony and fifth driven cadences.
In a sense, "solid ground."
The modes aren't really "modes of the major scale". They're just
modes.
If they're modes of anything then they're modes of the diatonic
scale,
and the diatonic scale doesn't have a single tonic. It has the
potential
for 7 different tonics.
C is just one of them.
Can't agree, sorry. Although, any note in general is a potential tonic
outside of an organized scale. You differ, no problem.
Sorry you were not impressed by The Harmonic Experience. Mick Goodrick
was amazed by it, I was told. I say this because of your Berklee
mentionings. Diorio was also enthralled with it. Sid Jacobs and I made
a present of it to him some years back. I am sorry. I hope that you
didn't feel like you wasted your money. I am willing to send you a
check. I mean that. I learned a helluva lot from it and still am. I
learned from many books; still do.
Sorry again, I have witnessed scores of students chord/scale mono-
dimensionalized. I have taught several Berklee Alumni. Not the schools
fault. Some students ( some do not) get hung up in the overwhelming
amount of work to be done. They find it difficult to make a balance.
No techer can make a student balance his'her act. It can only be
suggested how to balance.
-TD
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
You answered your own question in your question.
-TD
Tim McNamara
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> But being an "academic" in the jazz community these days really
> doesn't have the stigma attached to it anymore. IMO.
http://www.billytaylorjazz.com/
--
"It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may
judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their
own liberty ‹ to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who
are poorer or weaker than themselves." Samuel Adams
Tim McNamara
<105aefad-3b04-4d08...@y12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Paul <quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:36 am, jimmybruno <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 2011-02-15 09:22:00 -0800, jimmybruno said:
> >
> > > > On Feb 15, 12:16 pm, Keith Freeman <x...@x.net> wrote:
> > > >>> I like to find fun notes, relationships, and sequences
> > > >>> instead. Is there a fun-centric philosophy?
> >
> > > >> Well, I've tried to introduce an element of that with my
> > > >> 'opportunity notes' (rather than 'avoid notes'), but no-one's
> > > >> taken me up on the offer...
> >
> > > > Makes me wonder how Wes and Joe pass were able to play....the
> > > > answer is EAR!!!!!!! Most guitar players don't have a good ear.
> > > > Playing a Jupiter scale over a +9 will not get you an ear
> >
> > > Can't you use your brain AND your ear? Didn't Wes and Joe have
> > > to play a lot of shit to learn what was good and what was bad? --
> > > -- Gerry
> >
> > I'm still mystified. How did they know what was good.... EAR. How
> > did they play with all those great musicians....EAR. How is it
> > that never had to memorize a tune...EAR
>
>
> Wes was famous for memorizing Charlie Christian's solos,
> note-for-note, and was hired for this.
Uh-huh. He was not hired for being able to play "a Jupiter scale over a
+9."
> I agree with Gerry, that "Ear" is something you develop. Sure, there
> is a certain amount of natural musical talent that everyone is born
> with, to be sure, but having an Ear does not guarantee a good
> classical pianist, or a good jazz musician. Lot's of long, hard work
> is required.......Bill Evans talked about this a lot.
Jimmy's point is that learning modes and scales will not develop your
ear. You develop your ear by listening and by plunking out the notes
until you get them right. You internalize how the jazz vocabulary works
at the aural, intuitive and biomechanical level- that's getting an ear.
Over the years I've talked to a lot of guys whose teachers are showing
them "the modes" but they can't play a line that sounds like jazz. It
might be a line that is technically correct and avoids the avoid notes
and plays the strong notes on the right beats and passing tones on the
weak beats and whatever other rules you think apply, but it's not jazz.
It doesn't have emotion and feeling, it doesn't connect the audience to
the musician.
Pat Metheny, in a GP cover interview I read many years ago (maybe 20+),
pointed out something interesting: when you play a horn the note
physically comes out of you, riding your breath from your belly through
the horn to the audience. A guitar OTOH is a manual process, using your
hands, and it's only connected to your breath and your guts if you learn
to make it so.
The audience doesn't hear a Dorian mode. The audience hears feeling and
emotion. Those are what make music music; the lack of them makes music
an academic exercise.
Gerry
> Jimmy's point is that learning modes and scales will not develop your
> ear. You develop your ear by listening and by plunking out the notes
> until you get them right. You internalize how the jazz vocabulary works
> at the aural, intuitive and biomechanical level- that's getting an ear.
Learning scales and modes will certainly develop your ear, but it's
main intention is to develop your mechanical skills. Listening and
plunking out notes till you get them right won't teach you mechanical
skills. Having a fabulous ear won't give you mechanical skills, an
under-girding of logic that helps direct music they way you want to
direct it (aka, "theory), is goot whether it helps your ear or not.
Pablo Casals played into his 80's. For a PBS interview in his early
nineties they asked him if he still practised. He said yes, that he
did. "Scales and arpeggios. Every day. Every day!"
> Over the years I've talked to a lot of guys whose teachers are showing
> them "the modes" but they can't play a line that sounds like jazz. It
> might be a line that is technically correct and avoids the avoid notes
> and plays the strong notes on the right beats and passing tones on the
> weak beats and whatever other rules you think apply, but it's not jazz.
> It doesn't have emotion and feeling, it doesn't connect the audience to
> the musician.
Sure, I've met a lot of people who can't play, some new modes and some
didn't. I've also met a lot of players that were good and most of them
new their instrument in any number of ways. Knowing modes doesn't mean
you play good or bad. Knowing anything on the instrument doesn't infer
you have lesser skills.
> Pat Metheny, in a GP cover interview I read many years ago (maybe 20+),
> pointed out something interesting: when you play a horn the note
> physically comes out of you, riding your breath from your belly through
> the horn to the audience. A guitar OTOH is a manual process, using your
> hands, and it's only connected to your breath and your guts if you learn
> to make it so.
>
> The audience doesn't hear a Dorian mode. The audience hears feeling and
> emotion. Those are what make music music; the lack of them makes music
> an academic exercise.
You can play with a lack fo feeling and emotion with know theoretical
knowledge at all. Again, having knowledge about theory doesn't make
you a bad or good musician.
--
-- Gerry
paul s
> students were duped into believing that they could become creative by
> simple memorization and rote playing.
GIT opened in 1977. Howard Alden was in the first graduating
class.
Paul S
RB
> GIT opened in 1977. Howard Alden was in the first graduating
> class.
>
> Paul S
Everytime I see "GIT" in this accursed thread, I think Gastro
Intestinal Tract...
Paul K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_invariant_theory
--
Paul K
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
Travis
>
> On 2/16/11 1:18 AM, RB wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 5:11 pm, paul s<pasaw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> GIT opened in 1977. Howard Alden was in the first graduating
> >> class.
> >>
> >> Paul S
> >
> > Everytime I see "GIT" in this accursed thread, I think Gastro
> > Intestinal Tract...
> >
> I think of Mumford's geometric invariant theory.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_invariant_theory
I think of Nazi's. Hopefully that'll end this thread.
--
Travis
tom walls
<travissomewhereinthemiddleharr...@charter.net> wrote:
> I think of Nazi's. Hopefully that'll end this thread.
>
> --
> Travis
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/4thstuning
If you really want this thread killed, I'll need to contribute.
The "this vs that" thing is such a non-issue to me. I guess if I were
just beginning, I may want to know "should I do this, or should I do
that", but, even being as rudimentary a player as I am, I'm interested
in new ways to approach the material. Key center and modal are not
enough. It's jazz, one wants to find new ways of doing things, that's
the point. For one's own enjoyment.
That ought to do it.
Jeff Meacham
"Paul K" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:ijgfgc$bc8$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2/16/11 1:18 AM, RB wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 5:11 pm, paul s<pasaw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> GIT opened in 1977. Howard Alden was in the first graduating
>>> class.
>>>
>>> Paul S
>>
>> Everytime I see "GIT" in this accursed thread, I think Gastro
>> Intestinal Tract...
>>
> I think of Mumford's geometric invariant theory.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_invariant_theory
>
I think of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems:
-all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable
propositions
Maybe you can work out Modal's Theorems?
-no consistent modal formulation of music theory includes every interesting
harmony?
-any modal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own harmony
cannot prove its own completeness iff...something...
I can't finish it. My class in GIT was in the philosophy department. The
math guys who took it ran circles around us. My music theory isn't so hot
either.
andy-uk
>
> If you've studied Newton's theories about physics it doesn't necessarily
> follow that you'll be able to design a trampoline or a catapult.
> Catapults, btw, existed long before Newton did, just as jazz existed
> well before any chord-scale theories had been formulated.
> You might be able to study existing catapults, and you may even be lucky
> enough to have access to their blueprints, in which case you may be able
> to successfully re-create the ones you've studied, perhaps even putting
> your own mark on the design to some degree.
>
The Catapult uses the "electric force" inherent in the elastic
string , the trajectory of the missile obeys Newton's laws
(lol....srry).
daveA
If you know the chords, and you know the melody, you have sufficient
information to improvise without considering how the tune was
originally written. You jutst have to know how. Regards, daveA