Hi,

I have been looking at this book, and to be honest I just get real confused by a lot of it. The way some things are explained just don't make sense, especially on improvising. I think that sometimes modal playing is a bit over hyped to the point where people just think of modes all the time even when playing bebop.

I'm just starting out on the piano, but I do know that when Charlie Parker was playing, he wasn't thinking of modes, but more of the chord tones, passing tones, substitutions and that he wasn't playing over the harmony, but was playing IN the harmony most of the time. I've heard Pat Metheny talk about this, and he says that there is a lot of disadvantages of the chord scale theory.

Why is that we have to play modes/scales when they don't outline the harmony as well as thinking of chord tones, passing tones and substitutions?

I think I might pick and choose what I want to learn out of the Levine book.

Many Thanks
Tim

That's a very good point. Shelly Berg has a book out called "Goal Note Method" that talks about scales in terms of outlining harmony. Mark Levine's book is good for voicing but it's not the best one for learning how to solo

But I think you are noticing problems that is pretty fundamental to all theory/method book..they are never complete in themselves.. and more importantly that is not how those players learned.. you are just looking at their conclusion on how they learned the music.

In the end the best way to learn is by transcribing, analyzing and coming to your own conclusions about how to play a good solos. I have books of stuff I've transcribed/stole from others over the years, and those things helped me more than any of the method books I studied from.

i've looked through the shelly berg book. it seemed like it was more geared towards getting you to think about weaving in and out of chord structures using approach tones and passing tones and the like. and that is the kind of thing you want to develop if you want to construct good lines. i think that is much more important than just thinking about modes.

Dave,

yea, We used shelly's books in school, and the whole book is basically how consonance.. and how you can make a line more coherent by emphasizing chord tones on the strong beat... but from what I remember it didn't really do much in terms of explaining the bebop language.

I think Bert Ligons book Linear Harmony has examples of how people like Bird soloed over 2 5 1s.

Thanks for the clarification guys, I know you shouldn't discount modes, but a lot of the greats did use chord tones, esp in the Bebop era.

I've tried to wade through 3 jazz piano method books,
and books on classical harmony, both types of counterpoint,
and even orchestration and form, all in an attempt
to teach myself jazz/popular piano, but I soon gave
up on all of them, because of the sheer tedium of
plowing through all of that material. Basically,
what a 300 page jazz piano method book is telling
you is that it all comes down to playing by ear. I
no longer read any jazz piano method books and
just try to do it by ear. For example, you can get
fully-written out scores of jazz pieces, and you can
examine them to see how a basic melody was arranged
for a full jazz version. And so forth.

The way you train yourself to play by ear is by
improvising. There is no set way to do this, you
just start to pound out stuff on the piano, and exactly how
you do this will depend on your individual tastes and
interests. For example, play the three 4-note chords:
D F A C, E G B D, and F A C E on the piano. Using
just those three chords, in any order, you can improvise
all kinds of tunes by using just the white keys in the r.h.
Then you can add more chords. And so forth.

I look at the scales as chord tones and extensions. Of course it's really the same notes as the mode but I don't ever think of modes. The problem with looking at a "scale" is that one assumes that we are supposed to play in a scalar fashion, which we don't. Almost all the time, my fingers are spread out ready to take advantage of a chromatic move or some chord tone.

IMHO, it's hard to visualize a scale as alternating chord tones and extensions (and do it instantly), than seeing the entire scale. So I think it is the next level up of understanding.

You are thinking correctly here.

Let me add to my comment. I don't mean to suggest that I'm dissing modes, which I am not.

The purpose of showing modes, at least analytically is for a player to recognize the "parent scale" of the chord. This way if you're looking at a progression like E-7b5 A7b9 Dm7 then you immediately realize that these are just modes of the same scale (Dm).

This allows one to play "Horizontally" (big picture view), vs. "Vertically" (chord by chord). A lot of cohesiveness is lost in the music when you don't look at the progression as a whole or as a set.

Now beyond this simple recognition, you need to go beyond it and revisualize it as chord tones and extensions within the framework of the scale. In essense the harmony is still brought out by the important chord tones.

If you look at a chord progression horizontally however, you see that the chords can be connected as ideas. And after awhile this is automatic.

There aren't that many of these parent scales. In Jazz, we're mostly concerned with 12 Major Scales (which translate to their relative minor scales), and really just 3 diminished scales. That's just 15 "shapes". Then we need to be able to overlay the appropriate chord over that.

Bebop is mostly a vertical exercise. But going beyond that to Miles Davis shows that there's another way to visualize the music and it creates a different effect (horizontal playing), which shows understanding of the modes.

hey etc,

yeah, the "goal notes" are the chord tones in the berg book. but he talked about how you can weave in and out of the strong chord tones by using chromatic tones and passing tones. i thought that was good because that is a fundamental concept in bebop.

but i agree with you: i think the best way to learn this stuff is by transcribing and copying solos. all these lessons can be learned, i think more effectively, by doing that.

Gyro,

You are right about the fact that most of the books you get my night be helpful.. but I feel like you are seeing only part of the answer. If you want to just do simple improve on C that's fine, but you are not going to play/come up with cool bebop line like Charlie Parker from 'just improvising'. I think flat13sharp11 is asking questions because he wants to do more than improvise on chords in the Cmajor scale.

It's true most of jazz can be learn by ear/aurually, but it's important to realize that it is learned through imitation. If you are starting out, I suggest you pick easy Miles Davis/Chet Baker solos, and transcribe them, analyze them, and learn to play with it note-to-note with the CD.. pretty soon you will see vocabulary common to many jazz and you will learn to internalize it... the more you steal, the more ideas you will discover.. its a lifetime thing and there is no end to this.

Dave,

I have some worksheets I made for students on construction of bebop lines. It's mainly based on consonance/goal note, but I also explain how different alteration like b9, b13 or other devices (turns, surrouding one note) is used with examples.

But I usually urge my students to use that as a starting point and get vocabulary on their own. I am sure they will come to the same conclusion as I would on bebop line if they started stealing stuff.. and I feel like if I give too much, I am depriving them of the experience of discovering things on their own. I dunno if its just me.. but I think jazz students have to a be a lot more pro-active and independent when they are learning.. and I if give too much to my students, I may get in the way of that.. all I can do is guide and point at direction and its not as black and white as teaching classical repertore piano.

Also, I know that I do need to develop good reading skills, but does anyone else struggle with the all the ledger lines involved. E.g, if theres a left hand chord that actually is predominantly played above middle c and there are all these ledger lines. Really hard to recognise.

I was disappointed with Mark Levine's book and even more with the Tim Richard's Jazz Piano book. They may have some good info in them but they are very poorly written. I sold Levine's back on Amazon right after I got it, so I don't remember much, except that it was, like Richards' visually dense, cluttered and wordy. I got the Richards book a month or so ago, and after muddling through it for an hour tonight, I'm listing it back on Amazon.

I've gotten pretty good at ledger lines, but why struggle and strain to read through these dense and overrated books?

I do think that some of these books are way over rated, but for it's not bad for a guideline into jazz piano/harmony. I do find that Levine can over complicate things by his explanations of chords and their functions etc.

But I do agree that transcription is the best way to learn from the masters.

Modes are great, they loom large in modern jazz; dig the Phrygian, Aeolian and Lydian modes. Also 2nd mode of melodic minor "sus b9", and of course the 3rd mode of melodic minor "Maj7 #5"

I think Mark Levine's book is great on theory and jazz voicings. I do admit that he really just presents the whole scale/chord relationship and expect readers to connect the dots as what what to play. I mean, scales are just extensions of chords. It's not that the idea is bad, but he just doesn't stress the importance of chord notes in the interest of melodic freedom. But having taken Levine's idea of improvising, I just got to play a whole bunch of "nonsensical" notes. For a long time I just ramble through a bunch of notes without really having chords in mind, let alone consciously connecting them with the right voice leading.

Also, ditto to all the opinions that modal playing just doesn't work in older bebop tunes. How practical is it the change mode for every chord when it's going at 200bbm? Perhaps when the music is more static harmonically it would work better. Just my 2cents.

Yea, I think modes are only applicable to certain context, and It's not something I would teach to a beginning student who wants to make the changes on a standard. I don't think bird or bud powell was thinking in modes when they were playing #11 or b9 on a V7 chord

I can say the same thing about pentatonic scales too.. to a certain extent. You can make it work if you play it inside, but you can't really do the McCoy Tyner/Chick Corea outside pentatonic stuff on tuness like "Bouncing with Bud". I heard Eldar Dganjirov do a lot of modern, out stuff on "Place St.Henri", and to me a lot of it just didn't sound right.

"place st. henri" is a great tune. but no one can play that tune like oscar can, im my opinion.

Noone can play like Oscar Peterson, period

I don't really get this. Have you heard Chick and McCoy play Bouncing with Bud?
They sound pretty convincing to me. I was just listening to Chick playing Tempus Fugit from the Blue note, he rips it to shreds. Amazing.

Playing modally across a set of changes is only one approach but I think it is a pretty useful one at any level of playing. It can help to play melodically - imagine for instance thinking of rhythm changes A section as just Bb major scale for example rather than outlining all the chord tones - or it can help to go beyond the stated harmony, by flattening it out over several changes and by playing across the chords. It can be great way of making the harmony more abstract as well, and can be used as a way of creating more unusual chord voicings. So it is worth investigating, as are all other possible approaches.
You may be able to play good authentic beebop without understanding a more modal approach but you can never play anything more modern without incorporating it.

Here is a book by a great jazz piano teacher Ray Santisi I studied with at Berklee years ago. I am ordering myself from Amazon and a CD is included to hear the lessons. The link is:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0876390...;pf_rd_i=507846

Long link, yikes! Anyway, this book looks like a good jazz technique source. When I get it, I will review it here and see if it's something that could benefit other jazz piano students.

katt

Mark Levine's book is what made me realize I needed a teacher. He doesn't really fill in the blanks.

I'm sorry, that was a bit vague. Mark Levine's book as I see it now is a sort of outline. From his comments/text it seems he expects the student to listen to a lot of music (he lists recommended recordings) and learn from that. In a way it is ear training, listening and learning and applying. He does not give you specifics but seems to want the reader to develop those by listening. So I personally didn't get enough direction from that and ended up seeking a teacher.

Hmm - that seems you've hit the nail on the head there - well worded. Completely agree.

I recently tried to (re-)read a book I got about a year ago called "Jazz Theory and Practise". It has some interesting points, but there's no way I could 'learn jazz' from it... And some bits are hard to read for a beginner. Has anyone else read/got this? Any opinions?

But what I have noticed is that as I continue my piano lessons with my teacher, and read more on the internet, watch youtube videos, read this forum etc, parts of the book that i previously read will 'click', and building blocks will fall together in my head now & then... pennys drop sort of thing. I think books are great, but only a small part of the big picture.

The other theme in this thread seems to be about learning jazz by experimenting and just by ear... At first I couldnt believe this, but even in these last few weeks, improvising using basic chord notes and scales over basic progressions, I've had a lot of realisations, and definitely do believe now that 'by ear' and just experimenting is a BIIG part of it!

Jazzwee, thanks for your explanation of modes. That is super fantastic and really gave me good insight into understanding them.

okay I may have exaggerated the point here.. you can do some of the modal/pentatonic stuff over bebop tunes but i wouldn't recommend doing them if you don't have your bebop stuff together. I really don't think it's helpful for a beginning student to really think about modes, it's too much information, and I think you should be more focused on just making the changes.

I see too many people who are starting out, and they want to do all these substitution, pentatonic and other out stuff, when they can't even convincingly make the changes to a standard tune. I think learning in jazz is still progressive to a certain extent.. you need to learn to make the changes, learn to use extensions like Bird and Diz did, and once you can do that comfortably than you can think about doing more out or modal stuff.

I mean what's the point of playing phrygian mode over V7 if you don't even know how to resolve it correctly/normally?

.

Jazzwee,

Recently I've got used to not understanding everything you say, but this I would like to understand better:



So, first off, is that an E min 7b5? Is that what the dash means. That would make sense.

Second, what do you mean by the 'parent scale' of the chord? Do you mean what key it's in? A chord can be in lots of keys.

If you look at the progression you mention, it is clearly a ii-V-i in D minor.

But how is a chord a mode of a scale? They contain notes from the scale, certainly, and nothing outwith it.

Yes TLT, E-7b5 is another common shortcut representation of E half diminished, or E minor 7 (b5).



Yes a chord can be in 2-3 keys depending on whether it is major or minor. That's why you search for a context in the progression. In a Major ii-V-I, the "parent scale" would be the Ionian Mode, or mode of the I chord. For example, You could look at Autumn Leaves as just modes of the G scale. It simplifies things greatly if you can see at a glance that the chords follow a circle of fifths progression (4-7-3-6-2-5-1). There are other ways to look at it but this is the simplest view.




When you say notes from a scale, you likely think in terms of 1-3-5-7 of the chord. But when you solo, you may want to also know all the extensions (9, 11, 13). Well when you combine these extensions with the original chord, guess what you get? It will be a mode of the scale. You will then know if the 9/11/13 should be flatted or sharped or kept natural. That's very helpful in soloing. So it is important to know all the notes you can play for a half diminished chord for example (like your E-m7b5). The 1-3-5-7 is obvious but do you play a b9 or natural 9?

Modes are stepping stone to understanding what's going on. But others have memorized all the modes. I don't remember them anymore. I just recall the shape of the scale relating to a Half Diminished for example. I know it looks like a diminished-whole-tone scale. But I can't remember which particular mode it is of the melodic minor unless I open the Levine book. And frankly, I'm not sure it matters, once I get the gist of the purpose. (Though I remember it is the last 2 modes ).

I guess I am the same way too with modes/scales. I know you can play different scale if you are playing G7#11(D Melodic Minor) or G7Alt(Ab melodic Minor) or G phrygian(Eb major). There are tons of possibilities but I really don't think in modes... I just don't really see the point thinking that way. If I want to play out, I guess what I'll do is superimpose different ii-Vs instead of thinking of different exotic modes you can use over the chords.

Sure you can play Modes from D Harmonic Minor on G and call it G7#9#11 or modes,or modes of C melodic minor and call it G7b13 or C harmonic minor for G7b9b13 or Bb melodic minor for G7b9#11b13....etc you can go on forever like this

but to me it becomes more academic. Maybe other people have found ways to use them musically, but I guess I haven't found a use for them.. and when I transcribe solos, I really don't hear people using these exotic modes.

I once met this person who was studying modes.. and she was learning the super-locrian modes from intervals it was made of ..(like half HS WS WS HS)..I thought it was ridiculous.. I just told her that it's a lot easier to just think of the melodic minor scale half step up rather than thinking of it that way.