Questions about scales and modes?

[Jazzwee]

Just to offer a slightly different perspective on sus chords. I was taught that they are, in essence, a combination of the ii and the V. It is the ii chord over the bass of the V. Thus in Maiden Voyage the opening chord is A-7 over a D bass. I, therefore, think A Dorian,which is, of course, the same as D Mixolydian.

 

Exactly my point.

 

In practice, I agree we look at Sus chords as the overlaying of the ii with the V. So is it Dorian mode or is it Mixolydian mode? To push strongly as one or the other implies a certain tonality.

 

Whereas, I think the vagueness of it, playing it as dorian and playing it as mixo, and extending it to the qualities of dorian is the whole point.

 

But I think modal confuses the issue. In the functional progression of a standard, mode to me is very specific (it would lack the ambiguity of modal).

 

 

 

 

[Jazzwee]

Modes have tonics.

"D mixolydian" within "Maiden Voyage" identifies the tonic as D for that mode during the Dsus section. And C# dorian identifies C# as the tonic for that mode during the C#-7 chord section.

 

"F mixolydian" within "Passion Dance" identifies the tonic as F for that mode during the Fsus section.

 

That's it? Modes ONLY have a tonic? Are you deliberately avoiding mentioning chord tones?

 

Mind you, I'm trying to be clear here on a complicated topic. I would be talking differently on a modal vs. functional.

 

What about the position of the scale on a beat? Playing a scale from the mode's root causes certain notes to land on the downbeat.

 

You're a very smart guy Jazz+. I'm only getting into this because I think there's a legitimate misunderstanding of this by students. This is only to question the usual explanations, and not your understanding which I know is top notch.

[GovernorSilver]

I can hear D mixolydian and G major as two different scales, even though both have the same pool of notes, depending on the context (eg. the bass, the melody, etc).

 

I tried to demonstrate the difference between E phrygian and B locrian to my friends once. After a couple of test recordings I realized simply leaning a lot more on E for phrygian, and B for locrian was reasonably helpful. It probably would have been more helpful to play a recording of "Inner Urge", which uses locrian heavily.

[Jazzwee]

Good starting point Gov. So now, you'll have to analyze why it sounds different though you picked the same notes.

 

This gets into the idea of the position of notes in a beat. As you know, in jazz, you listen to the masters and they could play all 12 tones for a chord.

 

But depending on where certain notes land on the beat, you can hear the chord. This is why approach notes are often on the offbeat and chord tones are on the beat (in eighths).

 

So when you practice a mode, you intentionally place the root note of the mode in beat 1. And then notice were everything else lands. Every beat (every other note) is a primary chord tone (1-3-5-7).

 

Now this would all be simple if we just played jazz as a scale starting from the root. But since we don't, then the mode itself is an insufficient explanation other than as a general pool of notes.

 

But without consideration for the beat in the lesson, would you play E G B D as the primary tones on D minor? They're all in the scale. If you listen, you know it doesn't sound right.

 

So in essence, a mode, can really be simplified to "playing chord tones on the beat and playing extensions on the off beat". Oversimplification here but this would be the simple diatonic way of playing it.

 

This is the application of it in functional harmony (forget modal for a moment).

 

EDIT: Beats are defined as 1-3-5-7 and offbeats are 2-4-6-8 thinking eighth notes in a bar.

 

 

 

 

 

[16251]

So, on first chord Dsus, I play off of ii/v, a-7/d7 and the same for the other changes, am I really just playing the correct mixo scale? IMO, I can use these familiar shapes as jumping off points. For example I might play a line that doesn't share those notes but in my mind that simple ii/v helps me navigate around it.

 

Each person to some degree has to work out their own way of thinking, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with me.

[I-missRichardTee]

Holy Moly - I thought I was hopelessly aimlessly verbose. You two ought to get married!

-) ( said in a fun spirit, I am a nerd too )

 

OP I and a few others here, are trying to steer you towards a less overcomplicated interpretation.

 

Since when did jazz have all these restrictions placed upon it?

And artificial ones as well.

I heard Herbie live with Maiden... not only his amazing solo on All Blues within this thread, he breaks through all rules, restrictions.

 

BTW Herbie wrote out ( atypically, from a Blues players perspective ) 8 or more choruses of Blues, to improve his Blues playing.

He is a genius, and part of his genius involved writing out composed Blues solos.

 

For the last time, put current jazz theory on hold, esp regarding modes and chord scales theory.

Circle gave you good advice. Jazz+ and Jazzwee are just doing their thing.

 

You always want to strive to play what YOU HEAR as you solo. Modes be damned.. they are just references// guides. The ear of the musician is the key thing in jazz. MARRY your ear to the music itself aka Listen daily for as many hours possible to 1950's through 1960's jazz' to the language of jazz.

And sooo much talk about harmony, overlooking the supremacy of rhythm ( for that PM me about Mike Longo who like me, is anti metronome, and deep into jazz rhythm as taught by the Master Dizzy Gillespie ) and melody. Melody boils down to playing what you hear, not what you intellectualize.

 

After a long period of following what I and Circle and maybe a few others have suggested- a simpler approach, more reminiscent of what actual 20th century jazz guys DID; after bathing your mind, ear, fingers, in that, a few major, minor scales, chromatic, diminished, and the Blues

THEN, after having developing the ability to play a basic Jimmy Smith Blues.. you can give some thought to modal tunes, on a need to know basis.. meaning on an individual tune basis.

For decades Jimmy Smith was the main man on B3. His name has hardly been mentioned. Research a documentary on him from around 1965. His playing amazed me. I had forgotten how great a player he was.. he merged perfectly, jazz with Blues. THAT is what you must do. not concern yourself with with the main guy after him who changed the scene did, LARRY YOUNG ( who btw ( alert shameless name drop ) who I had the honor to play with once, on tenor.

Basically, there is Jimmy and there is Larry Young. Those are your two mountain peaks. You are busy and like many of us broke.. a teachers job is to move in time saving direction. That is what this post is about, based on the title of this thread scales and modes.

Spend a few years learning how to play like Jimmy, while at the same time listening to Larry.

 

[Jazzwee]

Tee, I'm not sure you read what I say. I'm exactly in your camp.

[I-missRichardTee]

Instead of discussing this with the other enthusiast, with a similar name as yours 0_0 ,

Break it down for me please! I have always wanted to teach this stuff that I understand intuitively. I have known many jazz players, who have same difficulty I have, verbalizing it.

So my entreaty is sincere.. maybe you have a way of talking about this that will help in some small way!?

[CEB]

Larry Young for me was sort of like McCoy Tyner on organ. He would venture too far out there for me at times.

 

McCoy Tyner is absolutely an undeniable legend and I like most of what he does be every album was guaranteed to have one or two tracks I just couldn't get LOL! Larry Young would do the same thing thing to me also. I really liked Larry when he played synthesizers.

[Jazzwee]

I lately discovered Larry Young (when I started looking at organs). I really enjoyed what I heard. But then I just realized why. My teacher, Alan Pasqua, was Larry Young's equivalent in the Tony Williams Lifetime. I never knew this connection before.

 

(Too bad I never learned Fusion/Organs -- I only studied piano).

 

 

[ProfD]

OP I and a few others here, are trying to steer you towards a less overcomplicated interpretation.

 

Since when did jazz have all these restrictions placed upon it?

And artificial ones as well.

 

The ear of the musician is the key thing in jazz. MARRY your ear to the music itself aka Listen daily for as many hours possible to 1950's through 1960's jazz' to the language of jazz.

 

Melody boils down to playing what you hear, not what you intellectualize.

Tee, I applaud your desire to impart wisdom in these types of threads.

 

Folks have been intellectualizing Jazz since it fell out of mainstream favor, was codified and found a home in the halls of academia. I think it is called job security.

 

Herbie Hancock was child prodigy. He's gifted. That's why he's a school of Jazz unto himself. He is a musical genius. Period.

 

Same goes for Jimmy Smith. King of Jazz organ. He started out a piano player. Decided to shed with a B3. The rest is history. Oft imitated, never duplicated.

 

Natural curiousity will lead other musos to study and emulate these cats. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

I'm just wondering when the next Hancock or Smith will emerge; muso(s) with their own voice(s) instead of emulating or recycling the past.

 

As an aside, it is interesting that there is no discussion regarding the chords, scales and modes used in Pop, Country and Rock music.

[J. Dan]

As an aside, it is interesting that there is no discussion regarding the chords, scales and modes used in Pop, Country and Rock music.

 

Do I need to direct you to one of the Sweet Home Alabama threads?

[CEB]

What key is Sweet Home Alabama in? .

[TrapperJack]

" A persistent myth about sus chords is that the "fourth takes the place of the third." Jazz pianists, however, often voice the third with a sus chord. The third is (usually) voiced above the fourth."

 

Surely, it isn't a myth. Go back to the creation of the suspension: the third of the chord was a delayed resolution of the suspension, 4 - 3.

 

By all means play both the 3rd of the chord, and the 4th, in the same voicing: but the 4th is an added 4th, or an 11th chord, if the 7th is also played.

 

I don't care, one way or the other, except I do love a good myth, and this can't be one, can it?

[TrapperJack]

 

Since when did jazz have all these restrictions placed upon it?

And artificial ones as well.

 

 

Insights, not restrictions.

 

Playing through, and so exploring, these thoughts is one of the jams of creation and, so, of evolution. Is that artificial?

 

And it was during the 1950s, more than any other time, when jazz was codified. Two, three or four bebop scales, two diminished scales, lydian chromatic approach, modes, all alterations and extensions, "rules" about tempo, rhythmic patterns, etc etc. True, all of this was around earlier, (was known), but it became a whole school of jazz in the 1950s, an orthodoxy. Tristano. Russell.

 

Nothing wrong with doing the tough sledding, and talking about the landscape that night around the fire. If you then make a map of the trip for others to follow, that doesn't make the day on the ice more or less noble.

 

(It is when you have never broken camp but set yourself up as a veteran of the dogs that I get really annoyed.)

[GovernorSilver]

But without consideration for the beat in the lesson, would you play F A C E as the primary tones on D minor? They're all in the scale. If you listen, you know it doesn't sound right.

 

F A C E (m3 5 7 9) sounds great to me over a Dmin tonality, but it might be because that was one of the first things I learned from a Frank Gambale book. Of course without the D in the bass, I admit I might be hearing more F major or something.

 

I like to work on ideas for improvising, based on what I like to hear, or some new (to me) deas that I bummed off of somebody (eg. Hubbard) that sound cool. Unfortunately this doesn't always translate to heat-of-the-moment improvising, but the more I work on things beforehand like this, the more it seems to come out. I know some people write out entire solos and put in time practicing them, but it's not my thing.

 

Actually, my latest kick has been improving my jazz-blues playing. Back when I considered myself exclusively a guitarist, I looked down on the blues, but my attitude was misplaced. Today, I know well-played blues isn't just wanking with pentatonic licks, and there's a lot of depth that I missed out on.

[Jazzwee]

Sorry Gov, I used the wrong example. I meant if you're in D- and you play with E G B D, you're in the wrong mode. I'm getting cross eyed.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

I lately discovered Larry Young (when I started looking at organs). I really enjoyed what I heard. But then I just realized why. My teacher, Alan Pasqua, was Larry Young's equivalent in the Tony Williams Lifetime. I never knew this connection before.

 

(Too bad I never learned Fusion/Organs -- I only studied piano).

 

 

I am barely familiar with Alan Pasqua.. but I suspect he's another killer player.

And does he still teach, or did that practice go the way of the Dodo birds.. aka "for the boyds" lol it's late, and I am dopey.

[bluzeyone]

McCoy is playing F mixolydian on Passion Dance:

 

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/1b2x0hzds023qlvg/images/1-8abbd11233.jpg

 

Cool sheet to study jazz+ He is one of them players I have stuffed into my ipod. He's Infinitely intresting! Like Tatum

[Theo Verelst]

I find that in the good Jazz that I know of (which sure isn't like I listened to it more than occasional as a kid, the town I was born and raised in had only one serious Jazz highlight, the famous North Sea JAzz Festival, and I went there only as an adult and graduate), there isn't all to _much_ play with the melodies or the solos (or the bass lines for that matter) in terms of using modes on non-one chords which are related to those chords and even harder: which uses modes of other scales than the obvious on those chords.

 

Like, you could on an organ with mostly perfect equal temperament play an F chord with the song being in C, of course you could play a major or minor (depending on the key) scale of C, or F or possibly a variation of D-dorian, and possibly even a scale belonging to a third or to a fifth (so a G-scale while playing and F chord), but that's about it, unless you look at specific Jazz idiom, which is for instance in the RealBook, and which honestly doesn't take the idea of modes in modulated scales very far, outside of what's obvious, or what belongs to a certain song or Jazz corner.

 

So do I argue scale-trotters are wankers ? Maybe, of course certainly not in general ( ), but you get the idea, it isn't melodically nice to just think about connected scales half- or 3/4- or 1/4-fitting to certain chords and chords progressions, in fact that is what Bebob tries to say.

 

*If* you look in the regular classical theories (I'm sure people with conservatory education are well aware), there is the suggestiveness, or in case of solo guitar or other pitch-bendable isntruments the actual use of pure scales related tricks, that are far more important than this.

 

T.

 

[GovernorSilver]

Sorry Gov, I used the wrong example. I meant if you're in D- and you play with E G B D, you're in the wrong mode. I'm getting cross eyed.

 

No worries, man!

[GovernorSilver]

I know that most everybody says to find a good teacher, but I am quite impoverished at the moment and it will be quite a while before I will be able to afford a teacher. I just figure that in in mean while I can work on fundamentals so that when I can afford a teacher I already have a lot of the basics covered.

 

I think you can start learning stuff by ear without a teacher.

 

One of the first things I learned by ear on the piano was the piano part to "Sarah" by Fleetwood Mac. It's an easy song and I'm not all that talented. If I can do it, so can you.

 

Another easy thing I learned by ear was Lyle Mays' piano intro to "James" by Pat Metheny Group. It's also not that hard, though I had to bring my Walkman into the piano practice room with me and listen to the tape over and over while finding the notes on the piano. I admit though I got one note wrong, which somebody else corrected me on - it turned out he was a gigging jazz pianist and regularly played that tune.

[Melodious Thunk]

After a long period of following what I and Circle and maybe a few others have suggested- a simpler approach, more reminiscent of what actual 20th century jazz guys DID; after bathing your mind, ear, fingers, in that, a few major, minor scales, chromatic, diminished, and the Blues

THEN, after having developing the ability to play a basic Jimmy Smith Blues.. you can give some thought to modal tunes, on a need to know basis.. meaning on an individual tune basis.

For decades Jimmy Smith was the main man on B3. His name has hardly been mentioned. Research a documentary on him from around 1965. His playing amazed me. I had forgotten how great a player he was.. he merged perfectly, jazz with Blues. THAT is what you must do. not concern yourself with with the main guy after him who changed the scene did, LARRY YOUNG ( who btw ( alert shameless name drop ) who I had the honor to play with once, on tenor.

Basically, there is Jimmy and there is Larry Young. Those are your two mountain peaks. You are busy and like many of us broke.. a teachers job is to move in time saving direction. That is what this post is about, based on the title of this thread scales and modes.

Spend a few years learning how to play like Jimmy, while at the same time listening to Larry.

I found this interesting since I (the OP) am the one who has the Jimmy Smith doc on my YouTube channel! You can find it here: Jimmy Smith Documentary

[Melodious Thunk]

I should add that the only reason I was asking about modes was that I was following a Tony Monaco jazz organ instructional DVD were he says to learn the chromatic scale, major scales, and then the modes. Then later he says to add arpeggios and the blues scale followed by other scales. Since I learned the major scales, I thought the modes were the next thing to tackle.

 

[Jazz+]

Here you go:

http://tamingthesaxophone.com/pic-jazz/image502-parallel-modes.gif

 

[GovernorSilver]

I should add that the only reason I was asking about modes was that I was following a Tony Monaco jazz organ instructional DVD were he says to learn the major scales and then the modes. Then later he says to add arpeggios and the blues scale followed by other scales. Since I learned the major scales, I thought the modes were the next thing to tackle.

 

I see he has blues DVDs. Those might have been better starting points than the one I'm guessing you got.

 

I notice the good instructors tend to start with the blues before branching off to modes and other intermediate level topics.

[Melodious Thunk]

I actually have all of his DVDs, so maybe I'll look at the blues ones. I've been trying to go in order.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

I should add that the only reason I was asking about modes was that I was following a Tony Monaco jazz organ instructional DVD were he says to learn the chromatic scale, major scales, and then the modes. Then later he says to add arpeggios and the blues scale followed by other scales. Since I learned the major scales, I thought the modes were the next thing to tackle.

 

With all due respect to my fellow musician Tony Monaco... I have not heard his instructional video's. But Blues comes way sooner than Dorian Locrian and all that!

 

ABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGA BCDEFGABCDE

 

It is all a matter of what is EMPHASIZED. In Dorian THE D is emphasized

In Ionian the C is

This is even pre harmony. Even leaving harmony out of it. Its a matter of which tone is central.

I was not clowning with ABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGA BCDEFGABCDE

All of that is available at all times. The issue is emphasis. And the SONG, tips you off to what is emphasized. nomenclature be damned. The SONG, is the hidden diamond here.

SONG is primary

Blues are primary

Rhythm is Primary

Study harmony, sure, you must. But as important as harmony is, Melody is more informative to a soloist, or ought to be.

It's a language.

Also check this out: AN UNPOPULAR PERSPECTIVE ON JAZZ EDUCATION by Chuck Israels. I am not sure I agree with every word. but the first part is right on the money. WHOM do you idolize?

[Melodious Thunk]

I know that most everybody says to find a good teacher, but I am quite impoverished at the moment and it will be quite a while before I will be able to afford a teacher. I just figure that in in mean while I can work on fundamentals so that when I can afford a teacher I already have a lot of the basics covered.

 

I think you can start learning stuff by ear without a teacher.

 

One of the first things I learned by ear on the piano was the piano part to "Sarah" by Fleetwood Mac. It's an easy song and I'm not all that talented. If I can do it, so can you.

 

Another easy thing I learned by ear was Lyle Mays' piano intro to "James" by Pat Metheny Group. It's also not that hard, though I had to bring my Walkman into the piano practice room with me and listen to the tape over and over while finding the notes on the piano. I admit though I got one note wrong, which somebody else corrected me on - it turned out he was a gigging jazz pianist and regularly played that tune.

Maybe Ill start trying to figure out some easy organ tunes. I was holding off on doing so until I had more scales under my belt. I am thinking that I would slowly be able to pick out the bass lines and the melody, but I think that chords will be close to impossible for me to pick out at this point.

 

 

[GovernorSilver]

Chords get easier to pick out over time, the more you do it. I find it helps to identify the chord type first (major, minor, or dominant). Sus chords might be tougher, but even in those cases you'll still have the bass note at least.

 

Yeah, I'd start with the Blues 101. Bill Cunliffe's approach in his book Jazz Keyboard Toolbox starts with the most basic blues form - super easy left hand comping and melody, and gradually adds to that.