Up to now my jazz piano teacher has been having me think of CHORD TONES when I improvise RH lines, trying especially to include the 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths (what he calls "upper partials"). So far so good. But the last two lessons he's shifted gears and suddenly wants me to think of SCALES that go with the chords, and improvise using the notes that belong to the scales. So, for instance:

Chord - Scale
CM - C Major or C Lydian
E7 - Half Diminished beginning on E or any of the 3 forms of the A Minor scale
A7 - Half Diminished beginning on A or any of the 3 forms of the D Minor scale

My problem is that, while I can PLAY all the different scales, I'm finding that there is a big leap between being able to play a scale vs. being able to VISUALIZE all the notes that belong to a scale AS A GROUP so I can pick out lines from them instantly.

So, my question is, do any of you jazz pianists have any tips on how to go about developing this ability? I feel like maybe I need an intermediate step between being able to play a scale, especially a more funky one, and being able to improvise within it. My teacher seems to think the thing to do is just jump in and improvise right away, but I'm not sure he fully gets how challenging this is to me. I've only been taking jazz piano lessons for 2 1/2 years (once every 3-4 weeks), so I'm still a beginner at this despite having been a classical pianist since childhood.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Hey Jerry,

You might try looking at the thread "Any takers?" in the sub forum. We're beginning to discuss an idea I had about numbered scales, and this might prove the intermediate step for you.

In short, you need to know the notes in a scale, but to know their positions and the general rules of how to move in a melody is much more useful than just knowing what a half dim scale or c lyd scale is.

here's the link:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1347209/Re:%20Any%20takers?.html#Post1347209

Break the scale half, visualize the bottom half and then the top half. The fingerings for scales are usally in two positions: the lower half and the upper half. Once you can visualize the two fingering (note) clumps, then try to see them as a whole.

3 forms for E7 is too much at first, just work on your favorite one form for a while.

When I was studying, I caught on to the fact that some players went the chord-scale approach (every chord implies a scale) while others used a guide-tone, with approach notes and passing tones, approach. My own jazz mentor used to demonstrate that a really skilled jazz player could move freely in and out from those two methods. Another teacher stressed melodic constructs which may or may not come from the chord-scale approach.

So, JerryS88, to me it sounds like your teacher has you on a good track.

When you say "I can PLAY all the different scales", what do you really mean? For some people, being able to play a scale means that they know how to finger one mode of the scale, monotonically up and down.

But jazz teachers will typically tell you that isn't really "knowing the scale". They might say that you know a scale when you can play all sorts of melodic patterns taken from that scale. One exercise, for example, is to improvise (in one key) for very long periods of time (legend has it that Coltrane would spend 24 hours, without sleeping, on a single scale). Sure, at first that is very difficult to do. You run out of "ideas" after about two minutes. But when you start to dig deep, that's when you start to figure things out. Other people might buy pattern books, and learn how to adapt patterns into their practicing, while others might just transcribe from recordings, while others just turn to jamming.

There isn't any one correct approach. It depends upon you and your learning style.

Guy

Skepticalforumguy - thank you for the suggestion and the link. I'll give it a try - it looks like one good way for me to familiarize myself with whatever scale I choose to work on.

Jazz+ - I like your idea of visualizing the scale in two groups of 4 notes - I think that's going to be very helpful! Yes - one minor scale at a time - also good advice - thank you so much.

Guy - thanks for your comments. I think you hit the nail right on the head - I can play scales from tonic note, up however many octaves and back down. The problem is being able to instantly identify any note that belongs to the scale while improvising without starting on the tonic. I've spent some time practicing different melodic patterns on the scales I'm working on, but I guess I just haven't spent enough time doing it. I'm just not at the point where I can do that instant recognition thing while improvising. Guess it's just a matter of spending more time doing it.

This is exactly why I chucked all
jazz method books and started just
improvising by ear, with no concern
for theory. I had tried to wade through
3 jazz piano method books, as well
as books on classical harmony, both
types of counterpoint, form, and
orchestration, all in an attempt
of learn how to improvise. I
got absolutely nowhere with all
that incomprehensible theory about
Lydian scales, etc., supposedly
matching chords with such and such
intervals added to the basic seventh
chord, and so forth. And moreover,
all that theory wasn't helping
me at all with improvising. I
saw the handwriting on the wall:
I could study jazz and classical
theory for a hundred years and
I would still have not even scratched the
surface of a subject that is
infinitely vast, and getting vaster
by the minute, as various jazz pianists
add to the accumulated method by
their improvising.

And in the method books themselves
there were hints as to this problem,
since if you read between the lines,
what they are essentially saying is
that it all comes down to playing by ear.
So, if it is all ultimately ear
playing, then why spend even a minute
trying to learn theory?

So around Aug. I gave up on all
theory study and just started
to improvise by ear. I'm a
classical player mainly and of
course I had never improvised before.
It was a revelation. This was
original creation at the keyboard.
I was playing music that had never
been played by anyone before. This
was something I had never done
before and never thought possible.

All your previous music experience
comes into play when you improvise,
no theory is needed. And you learn
about the instrument and what you
can do on it, and about music, in
a way that you can never learn from
a book or a teacher.

Thank you for your input, Gyro. While I think your approach of improvising completely by ear is perfectly valid, I'm afraid I don't share your disdain for learning theory and using it as a basis for improvisation, even if it is at first quite challenging. I see it as the difference between "hunting and pecking" vs. making informed choices. As well, it seem to me that if SO many books on jazz improvisation have been written espousing theoretical knowledge as the basis of improvisation, then there must be something to it (not to mention that my teacher, who is a very accomplished jazz pianist, quite clearly uses it as an essential basis for his improvisation). In my own limited experience I find that I am able to enter "sound worlds" that I might never discover by hunting and pecking - sound worlds that I have the option of choosing to enter at will because I understand the theory behind them. So, in short, I am not in any way looking for an alternative to learning scales well enough to improvise using them - just tips for good ways to go about it.

Problem is, all this so-called
jazz "theory" is just what some by-ear
player discovered by pecking around by
ear on the piano. So it's not really
theory in the sense of being something
fundamental that you can build on
to develop your playing. It is
just the accumulated by-ear playing
method (and only a minute fraction
of it besides) that theorists have
happened to put down in writing.
You can do much better by pecking
around by ear on the piano.

That is kind of true, but the important aspects of theory are very easy to learn. How to make the various chords, how to voice them, basic harmony, basic scale theory, this is pretty easy stuff. At least pretty easy in comparison with the other skills one needs to be a competent improvisor - good aural skills, having a good technical ability, having a good sense of rhythm, and most importantly of all having ideas that are worth expressing. In comparison with these things learning basic theory is simple - it's knowing how to use it that is the difficult bit.

I disagree with the phrase "ideas
worth expressing." Who is to say
that one thing is worth expressing,
while another is not? If you're
an amateur pounding away at the piano
by ear, who is to say that that is
less worthy of being expressed than
what you hear on an expensively
produced commercial recording?
I believe that anything pounded out by
anyone on the piano is worthy of
being expressed.

Well sure, I suppose so, in the sense that no one wants to limit expression. But the listener ultimately determines what has beauty and value.

Same goes for posts in the forum, everyone gets to express themselves, but not everyone earns respect for those expressions.

Maybe we're hard-wired to respond positively to musical expressions that somehow resonate with an innate sense and understanding of beauty.

Jazz piano is not my forte...though I enjoy it very much...I'm classically trained on the piano and I'm a jazz/blues guitarist so I know how frustrating it can be trying to pull leads and solo's out of scales especially recently learned scales...

I can definite handle myself with the improv and the most important aspect, even more so than the scales themselves is knowing where you want to go with it? Like if you listened to nothing but the basic chord progression, you should be able to solo in your head. It doesn't matter if you know the scales as in muscle memory yet.

Make a recording of the chord progression...slowly, and try to play the leads/riffs you hear in your head with the new scales in mind. I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong though) that you're supposed to utilize a specific scale or part of scale depending on where you are harmonically in the chord progression.

You know the "Sweet Spot" obviously you could theoretically play any note in the scale over the progression...but it can sound weak, sterile, or just appear to have no definitive direction harmonically.

I can't really explain it in more theory like terms...perhaps someone could that knows what I'm what I'm talking about, but the improvisers choice in voicing a lead over the progression is pretty much determines how "good" they are, or well they comprehend the music from an analytical standpoint.

I have trouble with blues and jazz on the piano because of my classical background and when I learned the blues scales with 12 bar, I would literally play the I, or IV, or V with my left hand and just literally go up and down the scale and it sounds rudiment but once your muscle memory takes over you can make little variations and then its alll gravyyyy.

can you record any of this? I feel like I'd be able to help more if I could hear it.

oh yeah and don't use you're eyes or look at your fingers or the keys...music doesn't require sight, just your ears...Stevie Wonder & Ray Charles know there way around the ivory for sure which kind of suggests that seeing your fingers on the keys and the score its self doesn't really matter if you can hear...

my grammar is poor lol

you're 100% correct good post Gyro.

Learning music is all about discriminating in favour of the good against the bad. It is impossible to learn an instrument or even appreciate music without a value judgement about quality. You are free to express yourself in any way you like, and I am free to make a judgement about whether or not I want to listen to it.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

To the original poster:
1. Learn one scale per chord. It is very hard to make the conversion from being able to play a scale to being able to improvise using that scale. I've been studying jazz for several years, and I don't think there are shortcuts. Give it time, but to have more than one scale per chord is way too much.
2. When you play the scales, play them this way: first note, then up a third, then down one, then up a third, etc. For example, D diminished would be: C-Eb-Db-E-Eb-F#-E-G etc. Playing a scale this way (there are may other patterns) will greatly improve your ability to visualize the avaible notes provided by a scale.

A general comment: At the first session of a jazz vocal class I take (I accompany the vocalists) the teacher, a professional and excellent guitarist said: "Jazz is hard work." So true, but soooooo rewarding.

I guess it depends on your end purpose, Gyro. If your goal is to just "express yourself" then I guess hunting and pecking fits the bill. But, on the other hand, if you want to express yourself in a specifically manipulative way, in an intelligible way, a way that has structure - a beginning, middle, and end - in a way that includes ideas that are stated, developed, nuanced, and colored in predictable and specifically chosen ways (all elements of good jazz), all within a specific idiom (jazz) then I believe theory is not just helpful, it is essential. Could you develop all these things by hunting and pecking? I'm sure you can eventually (of course you would need to have listened to a lot of jazz if your goal is to play jazz), but if your goal is to achieve some degree of mastery in manipulating sound to communicate in a specific idiom like jazz, why would you want to go about it in such a reinvent-the-wheel way? I just see it as a very haphazard and more time-consuming way when compared to learning theory and being guided by collective knowledge passed down through generations. I'm also rather suspicious about claims of musicians learning entirely by ear - do we really know that they didn't pick up "theory" in bits and pieces from other musicians along the way? Are they perhaps indulging in a bit of selective memory to boost their ego or impress people?

Jared88 - thanks for your input. Yes, of course, RH lines have to sound good over specific chords. My teacher and I are constantly evaluating my choice of RH notes not just in terms of how they sound over the chords, but also in terms of inventing motifs and developing them, sometimes inventing statements that sound like antecedents and consequences. I know that this is all subjective, but somehow one develops an ear and taste for these things, even if it grows and changes over time with more exposure. I'm not sure I agree with your admonition not to use your eyes specifically for the reason I started this topic - the need to be able to visualize scales as one instantly identifiable collection of notes. At one point I experimented by writing out the scales in an empty lead sheet below the chord symbols, and then looking at those scales while improvising. It worked OK until I closed the book and tried to do without - then I felt like I needed to start all over again.

jjo - great advice - thank you. My practice went much better today because I followed your and jazz+'s suggestions to limit myself to one scale per chord (I get pretty overwhelmed when my teacher gives me so many option and sometimes forget I can just pick one or two things to work on and not worry if it's all I manage). I also pretty much put the whole improvising motifs and developing them on hold today, and instead concentrated on seeing the scales in two chunks as Jazz+ suggested, and just playing a whole lot of different patterns like you advise - worked really well. I keep having to remind myself that just because my teacher assigns me something doesn't mean I can't take a step back and practice what I feel I need to work my way up to his assignment.

Thank you everyone for you comments.

You are welcome.

JerryS88, the original jazzers didn't
play from textbooks. They played
by ear, and what they discovered
by pecking around on the piano is
now written down in jazz textbooks
as "theory." But this is not
actually theory, but just the
collected techniques that jazz
pianists developed, by ear. They
didn't say: "Now I start from such
and such chord progression, and then
match such and such scales to it,
based on what they say is the correct
formula in the latest textbook." Nobody
plays jazz like that. They played
by ear.

You're trying to use so-called
"theory" like some formula that
if followed will produce jazz. But
you cannot produce jazz like that,
which is why you're having problems.
Jazz is produced by ear.

The only reason all that "theory"
is written down in books is because
it sells books.

I think I am going to be ill.

Or, as Wynton Marsalis once said:

"Jazz is not just 'Well, man, this is what I feel like playing'. It's a very structured thing that comes down from a tradition and requires lots of thought and study."

I'll put my money on Mr. Marsalis knowing what he is talking about.

Even all classical music was composed
by ear. Bach, Mozart, etc. didn't
say: "Now I plug this scale or chord
into such and such formula to produce
such and such passage in a composition."
It was all done by ear in the style
of that time period.

Gyro, forgive me for saying this, but I think you are sorely misinformed, both about jazz and classical composers. Practically all the great classical composers started out doing serious counterpoint and harmony lessons. Your typical jazz pianist knows so much music theory that they can "speak" it fluently as one speaks a native language. Your description might apply to the evolution of the language of music over centuries, but not to the way most musicians become competent musicians. One may think that this just-do-it attitude toward learning to improvise would be encouraging to wannabe improvisers, but just the opposite is true. It leads to people thinking that you have to be born with the ability to improvise - that great improvisers just have a talent for it - hunt and peck leads naturally for them to great music-making. Nonsense - they worked and studied hard to learn the nouns, verbs, adjectives and pronouns of the language of music, and how to put sentences together - all teachable and learnable. I am having difficulty learning to see scales as whole blocks of notes at a glance because, like anything worth learning to do well, it takes hard work, time and effort.

Gyro,

I mentioned to you in another thread to be careful when extrapolating from you own experience. What you believe needs to be suggested as such, rather than as fact. Otherwise it sounds foolish if given as advice. I'm sure that's not your intent, so it may be wise to step back a little and examine statements like "Even all classical music was composed by ear." Of course there is an element of truth to it, but a very small one. The things that these musicians heard in their heads were most likely based on patterns of sounds they previously heard. Those things that did not fit the patterns then expanded the patterns. Music probably evolved with some hard times along the way (tritone anyone?) and once the ears became accepting of the new sound it was also incorporated into music theory. In any case, the theory pre existed before the composition. Somewhat like someone discovering the theory behind how cooked meat often tastes better than raw (sorry vegans!). One may not be able to explain the chemical process that happens, but it would sure be useful to know some of the rules governing how to cook meat, unless you want to happily continue to produce extremely dry pot roast like my grandma always did, may she rest in peace.

Maybe because we're at a point in music history that many of us have access to an incredible variety of musical sounds, that it seems that it is possible to now say 'you can do anything when you play because everything now is being done.' Well, the little truth there is to that suggestion may not carry anyone too far without leading to disappointment when they realize that they don't sound like anything that they had hoped for. To improvise with nothing in mind, ie not having a certain sound you want to produce may lead to some interesting results, but chances are the more theory you know the more likely you are to produce something that you yourself deem musical.

You must not forget that what what you may know implicitly and cannot explain about why something sounds good does not mean there isn't some theory behind it. And it certainly doesn't mean that you are not using theoretical concepts to improvise or compose. It simply means you are unaware of what they are, and may most likely not be able to easily reproduce what you have done in one key into another.

The theory behind what makes a C major scale sound as it does equally applies to 11 other scales. Whether you know that or not will make the difference in whether you play in anything other than C.

So, if you follow the rules, but don't know it, don't give advice to others about not following rules and wish them the best of luck in doing what you do, because chances are they will not appreciate the misleading advice.