Knowing what scale to use

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

Lol, or a particular type of green weed that is popular. The other day I was walking through a parking garage in San Francisco and a guy in a tuxedo carting a big doublebass and reeking of weed walked past me. I knew he must be a jazz musician, so I stopped to chat with him a bit. I can't remember which trio he was with.

anyway, regarding this thread, I want to say that improvisation in general, including jazz, is about *Harmony*, it's not really about scales or modes. The scales are just the framework from which the tones are taken that establish the harmony. Thinking in terms of scales tends to confuse matters because it places equal importance on all the tones in the scale, which is not good. Improvisation in jazz has to do with identifying and establishing certain tones as "fulcrums." You don't just pick any random tone in the scale to use as that fulcrum point. The choice has to do with the chord changes.

I agree with your conclusions, but I think that jazz has always been about melody.

It would be incorrect to say that jazz is not about harmony. But I think it is a single-minded focus on harmony that led to Chord-Scale Theory and the obsession with modes — the very thing you're writing about.

Melody is the one elusive thing that can't be taught. One can imitate others and learn licks, but in the end a solo is the invention of something new, the telling of one's own story.

Using the harmony as a "base" is what determines degrees of consonance — playing one note, the melody, on top of a bunch of other notes with varying degrees of tension and resolution — but melody has its own direction, its own challenge-and-response, tension-and-resolution logic.

The question we hear from newbies is often "What scales go with what chords?" but the underlying meaning of the question is really "How do I learn how to solo?"

I like your statement that "You don't just pick any random tone in the scale to use as that fulcrum point. The choice has to do with the chord changes." However, what I would add is that the choice has to do with where the melody comes to rest and where it feels like continuing, so that one does not just leap from chord to chord but is creating a melody line — one that may not always use the same degrees of a chord as a "fulcrum." In a pan-diatonic or truly modal line, for example, the melody may float above the chords without ever making a definitive reference to any of them, except perhaps the tonic.

[jazz oud]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I agree with your conclusions, but I think that jazz has always been about melody.

It would be incorrect to say that jazz is not about harmony. But I think it is a single-minded focus on harmony that led to Chord-Scale Theory and the obsession with modes — the very thing you're writing about.

Melody is the one elusive thing that can't be taught. One can imitate others and learn licks, but in the end a solo is the invention of something new, the telling of one's own story.

Using the harmony as a "base" is what determines degrees of consonance — playing one note, the melody, on top of a bunch of other notes with varying degrees of tension and resolution — but melody has its own direction, its own challenge-and-response, tension-and-resolution logic.

The question we hear from newbies is often "What scales go with what chords?" but the underlying meaning of the question is really "How do I learn how to solo?"

I like your statement that "You don't just pick any random tone in the scale to use as that fulcrum point. The choice has to do with the chord changes." However, what I would add is that the choice has to do with where the melody comes to rest and where it feels like continuing, so that one does not just leap from chord to chord but is creating a melody line — one that may not always use the same degrees of a chord as a "fulcrum." In a pan-diatonic or truly modal line, for example, the melody may float above the chords without ever making a definitive reference to any of them, except perhaps the tonic.

Great points, Jerry. A melody can also point in the direction of harmony that is about to happen, rather than the current chord, one more reason why scale=chord is not really accurate when the question is "how do I improvise?"

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazz oud

Great points, Jerry. A melody can also point in the direction of harmony that is about to happen, rather than the current chord, one more reason why scale=chord is not really accurate when the question is "how do I improvise?"

By accident or on purpose, this happens often — at least to me.

Melodic displacement of the harmonic rhythm (if that's a legit term for it) can add tension or momentum or both, and is one way to avoid getting locked into pat, closed phrasing.

There's a short example of it — not very radical — in Bluesette, where the head turns back into a pickup run on Ebm7 over an EbΔ chord.

[jazzman1945]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I agree with your conclusions, but I think that jazz has always been about melody

.
You certainly had in mind about the melody and rhythm - rhythm in the first place.

Melody is the one elusive thing that can't be taught. One can imitate others and learn licks, but in the end a solo is the invention of something new, the telling of one's own story.

You can just say that no one can teach anyone anything, and each learn by himself. However, you can create a situation where the student will have no choice. In this case, the best option when all around you improvise: at home,on the street, at work, in shops. Africa and the East.

[80skeys]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I agree with your conclusions, but I think that jazz has always been about melody.

Absolutely. Although, a person may choose more- or less-appropriate chords to harmonize the melody with. The more appropriate the chord, the more it leads - like the melody does - to the next melody note. A weaker or "poorly chosen" harmony would not reflect the intention of the melody.

[Jeff Smith]

The jazz police told me that rhythm trumps all - harmony and melody, and if your approach to improvising does not make major consideration of this, it ain't happenin'. Advanced harmonic ideas sound weak and boring if not used in a rhytmically interesting way. You have to make it groove.

[jazz oud]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

The jazz police told me that rhythm trumps all - harmony and melody, and if your approach to improvising does not make major consideration of this, it ain't happenin'. Advanced harmonic ideas sound weak and boring if not used in a rhytmically interesting way. You have to make it groove.

Good point, and very true. Rhythm is the main reason why Bebop isn't Bach.
Sometimes it's easy to lose focus on what truly defines an art form, and in jazz, that's rhythm.

[jazzman1945]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

The jazz police told me that rhythm trumps all - harmony and melody,

If someone is not sure, he is invited here:
http://www.bopland.org/search
and clicking on the musical example can enjoy with bebop licks , that sound in the rhythm of cheerful polka!

More nonsense in jazz can not come up with!

[mwtzzz]

Originally Posted by jazz oud

Good point, and very true. Rhythm is the main reason why Bebop isn't Bach.

And the reason I never cared much for (German) classical music, even when I had to practice my Bach and all other manner of pre 1880 music during my childhood lessons. Although as a 10 year old I prefered on Saturday nights to lie in bed with my walkman listening to jazz on the local classical station. They played a few hours of jazz every Saturday. It didn't occur to me that there could have been an actual jazz station, so I would wait for Saturday nights to come around. Lol

I was talking to a local Bay Area jazz pianist several months back - Daniel Dillon. The subject of Bach came up because he practices Bach on a daily basis, more for self-torture than anything else, I believe. I'm trying to recall the exact phrase he used: something about it being a perfect example of "depressed German music."

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

The jazz police told me that rhythm trumps all - harmony and melody, and if your approach to improvising does not make major consideration of this, it ain't happenin'. Advanced harmonic ideas sound weak and boring if not used in a rhytmically interesting way. You have to make it groove.

In counterposing melody to harmony I was assuming the rhythm as a given part of the melody.

Melody is not just notes in a certain order; it's the note values as well, which is rhythm.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

I was talking to a local Bay Area jazz pianist several months back - Daniel Dillon. The subject of Bach came up because he practices Bach on a daily basis, more for self-torture than anything else, I believe. I'm trying to recall the exact phrase he used: something about it being a perfect example of "depressed German music."

Nothing personal, but someone who denigrates Bach in that way has no claim to the title of "musician."

[jazzman1945]

Bach is so great that his music can stand under any tortures. But Chopin - another story.

[mwtzzz]

Originally Posted by engelbach

Nothing personal, but someone who denigrates Bach in that way has no claim to the title of "musician."

I'm sure there's plenty of musicians around the world who don't like Bach. I personally don't particularly care for most classical music prior to the Impressionist period.

[mwtzzz]

Originally Posted by engelbach

Nothing personal, but someone who denigrates Bach in that way has no claim to the title of "musician."

That's a bit harsh. The commenter of the "depressed German music" actually practices Bach, and he's obviously a pretty accomplished musician:

http://www.dandillonmusic.com/

http://books.google.com/books?id=xOc...0piano&f=false

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

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

That's a bit harsh. The commenter of the "depressed German music" actually practices Bach, and he's obviously a pretty accomplished musician:

http://www.dandillonmusic.com/

http://books.google.com/books?id=xOc...0piano&f=false

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

It's incomprehensible to me that anyone would characterize the soaring music of Bach as "depressed." My conclusion is that however much he plays it or is otherwise accomplished, he doesn't understand it.

That's not the same as taste. One can like or dislike this or that music for personal reasons. But it's another matter to mischaracterize or denigrate music that is universally acknowledged to be among the greatest ever created.