Knowing what scale to use

[JonR]

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

Sorry to disagree, but this is not correct. Each single altered tone you can put on a chord has a different effect and you need to know it. Either your ear needs to know it, or you need some understanding about when it is "more appropriate" to alter a certain tone or not, but either way you need to know it.

True, but doesn't disagree with what Jerry said.
To say the root and 3rd of the dominant are the most important notes doesn't deny that all the others (altered or not) matter too.

Personally I might have said 3rd and 7th, but I see where Jerry is coming from...

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

So in the key of C let's say you're using B7 in front of Em, in which case you would use a B7b13 (G natural.)

I would?
I might, but I'd think of it as a B7#5, because I wouldn't include an F#.

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

This is to say that you don't play the B Mixolydian scale and you don't play Balt. ....

Not B mixolydian, obviously, because it has no relation to the context.
But with Balt, I think you're missing the issue of the tritone sub - an extremely common device in jazz, particularly in minor keys, and which is (arguably) where the altered chord-scale comes from.

Eg, it would be quite common to use F7 to resolve to Em, in place of B7. (It's not relevant whether this is a primary or secondary dominant.)

F7, of course, shares its guide tones with B7 (A and Eb/D#), which is why it works. (That's the real "tritone" of the tritone sub, IMO, not the root difference.)
Plus the F makes a cool half-step descent to E, in place of the classical drop of a 5th or rise of a 4th. And of course the C goes down to B.

Now, what other notes might one use on such an F7 chord? G, naturally (seeing as we're going to Em anyway).
Already we have 5 notes: F, G, A, C, Eb(D#).
We wouldn't extend that to F mixolydian because the Bb sounds wrong in context (and is an avoid note on F7 anyway, if you subscribe to that theory ). Keeping B in the scale maintains the link wth the B7 that F7 is replacing.
Now we have 6 notes: F G A B C Eb. The obvious final note to add is D (although one could argue - feebly - for Db, I guess).
It doesn't really matter what we call this scale. But it all works resolving to Em.

Then, if we put a B bass on it, we have - the B altered scale. And if we build a chord from those notes on the B root, we're going to end up with some kind of B7alt chord. (You can call the G b13 or #5, but you also have a b5, b9 and #9.)

Again, we don't have to use B7alt. But it's actually quite common as a V7 in E minor.

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

Or, to be more precise: if you are harmonizing a diatonic melody in C and you want to insert a secondary dominant in front of a temporary tonic, this choice will best keep the tonality of the key while at the same time providing a dominant function.

Good point. That's ignoring the potential of the various chromatic moves the altered scale presents, but would work.
It's a kind of beginner-level approach, to only alter the notes of the key scale that you need to to accommodate any chromatic chord. (You don't need to understand anything about function.)

So, if you find a B7 in key of C major, you obviously need to change the D and F in the scale to D# and F#; but why change anything else? That happens to give you E harmonic minor (although you don't need to know), and should sound fine. Esp as it's probably going to Em!
A similar strategy on A7 in key of C gives you D melodic minor. Again, seems appropriate given that Dm is probably the next chord.
Likewise, an E7 requires a G#, which gives you A harmonic minor.
And you get the F and G major scales by applying the principle to the secondary dominants of F (C7) and G (D7).

The only flaw here is the issue of the "avoid note" - the unwelcome chord extension (not a note one needs to avoid in melodies). All those scales have a perfect 4th, which we can't add as an 11th because of the nasty sound it makes with the 3rd below. And some have a b6 (b13), bad if the chord has a P5 lower down.
Of course, we don't have to care about that (we can just - er - avoid adding an 11th easy!). Or we can leave out the 3rd or 5th, making the 11 a sus4, and the b6 effectively a #5.
But the idea does go some way to explaining the jazz choice of scales like altered or lydian dominant on dom7s, and the diminished scale on dim7s (which are vii chords in harmonic minor). Those scales have no avoid notes: any note can be added as a chord extension.
And of course if a chord player is going to choose that pool of notes for his palette of possible chord extensions or alterations, then soloists better follow suit...

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by JonR

To say the root and 3rd of the dominant are the most important notes doesn't deny that all the others (altered or not) matter too.

Personally I might have said 3rd and 7th, but I see where Jerry is coming from...

Right. We've come to think of the tritone of 3 and b7 as the deciding factor in whether a chord is dominant. What was once considered the "Devil's interval" became standard usage in Western music and continues to be so in jazz. In addition to its textural richness, it's the cornerstone of the ubiquitous dominant tritone substitution.

But we can convincingly suggest a new tonic using just a dominant triad, which is not unusual in four-part chorals. Play the triads C - D - G. There's no question that we've modulated from C to G through the dominant D. We can even suggest the same with just roots and melody.

In performance, pianists often suggest only partial chords and fragmentary scales and still convey the sense of harmonic movement intended. One can play just the roots of C, D, and G, and never hit the note C in the melody (the b7 of D7), and leave no doubt that we've moved into G.

So much is musically possible and convincing without having to adhere to limiting strictures, if one uses one's ears, creativity, and taste.

=================

Your point was well-made in relation to mwtzzz's B7b13. Altering tones within the key to fit the chord but keeping the rest of the key untouched is for many of us a preferable alternative to the one-chord/one-scale approach of Chord-Scale Theory. It's a kind of "quick-start guide" for learners who ask, "What scale goes with what chord."

But it's a bare-bones solution that one must outgrow in order to experience the much more fertile field of chord and scale extensions, alterations, and chromaticism.

[mwtzzz]

Originally Posted by engelbach

The discussion has reached the point of assuming that most people participating understand the rules and know how to use chord tones, key notes, passing tones, approach tones, and various scales to make music.

I think that's the source of the misunderstanding. When someone comes onto a forum like this asking how they can learn to improvise on jazz, I'm assuming they don't know much of anything about it. That's my take on the OP for this thread. In that type of case, it's very helpful to be accurate and detailed, not vague.

I admit I haven't followed the thread, I simply read the original post and entered the discussion from that.

But claiming that one cannot use a 7alt chord or an altered scale to approach a minor chord is not borne out in actual playing.

You misunderstood me. If you re-read my last post you'll see what the qualification was on using a diatonic B7 with a flat 13.

Basically what I'm saying is, you don't just willy-nilly choose "one scale fits all".

In practice I can play in C, play a B7alt, and convincingly end on Em as a tonic. It's quite common.

By "best keep the tonality of the key," you mean conform to eighteenth century norms of smoothness in harmonic texture. We've moved beyond that, and more textured cadences and Alt chords are at the heart of jazz.

I'm going to disagree that we've "moved beyond that." Probably the most accomplished master of what I'll call "diatonic jazz" or "standard jazz" is Beegie Adair and her music is still very relevant. She can do a whole heck of a lot without hardly touching altered chords.

[mwtzzz]

Originally Posted by JonR

But with Balt, I think you're missing the issue of the tritone sub - an extremely common device in jazz, particularly in minor keys, and which is (arguably) where the altered chord-scale comes from.

I'm not missing the issue. In fact I'm not saying you can't play a Balt. I'm just bringing out the issue that a Balt is different than a B7 with a flat 13 and your choice of one or the other depends on what sound you want.


No arguments from me with any of the rest of your post

Good point. That's ignoring the potential of the various chromatic moves the altered scale presents, but would work.
It's a kind of beginner-level approach, to only alter the notes of the key scale that you need to to accommodate any chromatic chord.

Yep you got it! Exactly why I brought it up, because I was addressing the OP and other beginners who are reading the thread. Basically the idea is: starting simple. Making only the alterations that are necessary. This way you (as a student) ease into the process one step at a time. After they get comfortable with those type of alterations, they can move onto more complex alterations, alt scales, etc, and it will be easier for them to digest.

But the idea does go some way to explaining the jazz choice of scales like altered or lydian dominant on dom7s, and the diminished scale on dim7s (which are vii chords in harmonic minor).

Actually that's another pet peeve of mine. There isn't a one-fits-all dim scale to use on all dim7 chords. Actually in many cases a dim7 is a voicing or substitute for a dominant 7b9 chord so rather than using a whole-half or half-whole dim scale (the common choice nowadays) you would have a different (but similiar) set of tones including some "avoid tones".

By the way the "avoid tone" thing I haven't explained fully but I'll save that for another day

[guitarjazz]

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

By the way the "avoid tone" thing I haven't explained fully but I'll save that for another day

Please elaborate. Thx

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

I think that's the source of the misunderstanding. When someone comes onto a forum like this asking how they can learn to improvise on jazz, I'm assuming they don't know much of anything about it. That's my take on the OP for this thread. In that type of case, it's very helpful to be accurate and detailed, not vague.

I admit I haven't followed the thread, I simply read the original post and entered the discussion from that.

You misunderstood me. If you re-read my last post you'll see what the qualification was on using a diatonic B7 with a flat 13.

Basically what I'm saying is, you don't just willy-nilly choose "one scale fits all".

I'm going to disagree that we've "moved beyond that." Probably the most accomplished master of what I'll call "diatonic jazz" or "standard jazz" is Beegie Adair and her music is still very relevant. She can do a whole heck of a lot without hardly touching altered chords.

I didn't say that "one scale fits all," but that an alt chord and scale were among of a number of dominants one could use to approach a tonic.

Earlier you said that there was only one possible dominant chord and scale with which to get to a minor chord. I didn't misunderstand you. But if that's not what you intended, I accept your later explanation.

I don't think Beegie Adair counters the fact that the overwhelming majority of modern jazz players and jazz music theory itself have "moved beyond" simple diatonicism.

[michaelsorg]

Originally Posted by mwtzzz

Only in the context of the surrounding chords (the changes). By itself a chord is almost meaningless.

Sorry to back up so far in this thread, but I had to think at least a week long about a response to this...

Chords were a wonderful new innovation in western music as the composers of polyphonic music started becoming more and more adventurous. And they discovered (rediscovered) combinations of tones which have long fascinated the human race which we now call chords. The Greeks had already recognized chords as a scientific phenomenon, but probably did not employ them directly in their music.

If you want to hear a composer reveling in the sound of a chord, just listen to Haydn, listen to Mozart, listen to Beethoven. They stayed on the I chord as long as they damn well pleased, because it just sounded so freaking good! They reveled in its sound; different orchestrations, different arpeggiations, different inversions, different rhythms, but always that same glorious chord over and over! They were celebrating the way the overtones reacted with one another, in and of itself.

A great composer who had no problem using unusual and new harmonies said this of the major chord: [I translate roughly from the German] "The tones 1-6 of the overtone series (including the octave, the 5th, 4th, major and minor 3rd) and their higher octaves (multiplying the frequencies by 2, 4, and 8) show us the expansion of the major triad, which is, for the schooled as well as for those of simple understanding, one of the greatest things to appear in nature; simple and overpowering as rain, ice, and wind. ..“ Paul Hindemith, from Unterweisung im Tonsatz

The more modern expansion of the major chord was born gradually, first in the so-called French augmented sixth chord (dominant 7 #11) expanded by the impressionist composers Debussy and Ravel, and espoused by Scriabin as the “Mystic Chord.” This is none other than dominant 13#11. This chord, as most of you know, encompasses all of the audible overtones. Anyone sensitive to the entrancing qualities of waves can easily spend hours just listening to the tones of this chord reacting to the overtones of the bass, for instance with a synthesizer with a high-pass filter sweeping through the overtones. The Impressionist composers often used this (the chord, not the synthesizer!) in parallel motion, creating a new kind of organum. Obviously this chord held great meaning for them, as did the various inversions of it, for instance the half-diminished chord with major 9th and 11th, but especially the chord formed by putting the #4 in the bass, known in jazz as the altered dominant 7th chord. These chords were often accompanied by scale flurries (the melodic minor scale, of course) giving birth to the chord-scale (independent of whether one believes in them or not!) George Gershwin immediately recognized the importance of these chords for harmonizing the blues and jazz (Ravel and he were mutual admirers).

Other jazz composers were infatuated with the sound of a particular chord so much (and its corresponding mode, or pitch class, or whatever one may prefer to call it) that they structured tunes around them. One of their techniques was (is) to establish a mode with its irrefutable logic and then to step outside of that framework (which demonstrates that one is not enslaved by a group of tones, rather, that it can help establish a framework of meaning).

Well it’s way too late, and… ‘nuff said!

[mwtzzz]

Originally Posted by michaelsorg

George Gershwin immediately recognized the importance of these chords for harmonizing the blues and jazz (Ravel and he were mutual admirers).

One of my favorite pieces since I was a kid is Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition which for the longest time I did not realize he had composed for piano. I was so used to hearing the orchestrated version that I assumed it was the one he had written. In fact as I found out later it was Ravel who had arranged it.