Also,if someone said to me play Db Maj scales i could play it seamlessly no problem.If that same person said to me"Name those notes"i'd have a hard time.How to get around this?Its obviously important because if i have to flatten the 3rd and 7th of Db-7 i would need to know the notes to flatten.I have to think...."ok,so thats the...F...needs to become E...and the ....let me think....C...becomes B" .

The short answer to which minor scales you should know for playing jazz is all of them.

But just to address the issue you bring up on knowing the notes, here's a tip that might help. Memorize all your major scales in scale degrees, to the point you can immediately, without thinking about it, name any scale degree: The 3rd of Db major is F, the sixth is Bb (ok, I had to think of that one so I need to work on it mentally), the 4th is Gb, and so on, in every key. Once you can do that, it's easy to work out the "b3rd", "#5", b9 (b2), etc, in any key.

Obviously you need to get them all under your fingers, which as you point out, doesn't necessarily require thinking about each and every note as you play.

 

But just to address the issue you bring up on knowing the notes, here's a tip that might help. Memorize all your major scales in scale degrees, to the point you can immediately, without thinking about it, name any scale degree: The 3rd of Db major is F, the sixth is Bb (ok, I had to think of that one so I need to work on it mentally), the 4th is Gb, and so on, in every key. Once you can do that, it's easy to work out the "b3rd", "#5", b9 (b2), etc, in any key.

Thanks JL,thats a good way to think of it.Is there a method to learning this?Or just keep walking around all day mentally repeating"Db is 1...Eb is 2...F is 3...etc"

 

Thanks JL,thats a good way to think of it.Is there a method to learning this?Or just keep walking around all day mentally repeating"Db is 1...Eb is 2...F is 3...etc"

Yes, 'mentally repeating' is a good method, although you obviously have to be practical about it. If you wake up in the middle of the night and want to put yourself back to sleep, running scale degrees through your head is a good way to go. You won't be able to do it all at once, so just pick one key at a time for a start. When actually playing these scales concentrate on the sound of the notes, as lydian says.

As to the different minor scales, they each have a certain sound and it helps to focus on the tones that give them a unique sound. For example, melodic minor is characterized by the major 7th on the minor scale. Play the A section of Harlem Nocturne to hear that sound. Harmonic minor listen to the interplay between the b6 and major 7th. For a start...

I also love the sound of the 9th in a minor key, and the b9 also plays a role depending on context (which is sort of moving to the chords rather than scales).

 

I agree with JL. There are not shortcuts. I think of Dorian as the second degree of a Major scale. For all others I do what JL said. Think of them as a modification of Major scales.

 

To improvise=to talk, to have vocabulary etc. Scales are great, but they are the grammar of music.
Did you ever hear Sonny Stitt/Bird/Getz/Trane just play scales? Didn’t think so..
IMHO What should be done is a combination of transcribing, a lot, to learn the language from our great masters. And then, use the scales as warm ups etc, and for analysis later.

 

BTW use the Quote button under the message to quote another reply, else it comes out as part of your answer, confusing to read, as you did above.

 

I agree with what's been said so far. The modal way of thinking (starting on the 2nd degree) works for some, but not me. I think of alterations to a major scale. This carries over to learning chord types as well (b13, #11, augmented, diminished, etc.). But once you learn them, there should be no thinking at all. Just like you don't have to think about your major scales now. I like to compare it to learning your multiplication tables. As you're learning, you have to add in your head to get the answers. But ultimately you memorize all of the answers so that there is no thinking. You should be able to instantly recall that the minor 3rd of Db is E (Fb) without first thinking F then dropping a half step. Even then, I'm thinking sounds, not note names.

In jazz, I hear the harmonic and melodic minor just as much as I hear Dorian, so they're all important and convey different things.

 

I would differ slightly from what others have suggested here only in that I don't think it's really important to focus on memorizing the spellings of all the various minor scales. What I did was to learn all my major scales, then practice them (and the various scale/interval exercises, etc.) starting on each scale degree. Then I proceeded to do the same for the minor melodic scale (initially thinking of the first mode as a major scale with a b3), then for the whole tone and diminished scales. The key is to really get the sound of each in your head and under your fingers. The note names are not that important, at least for improvisation.

Today, if you asked me to play a dorian or melodic minor scale in an arbitrary key, I would do so quickly and automatically. However, if you asked me to spell the scale out, I'd have to figure it out, so it would take me a while longer (and would take me less time if I had the horn in my hands). The main point of practicing scales is really so that you don't have to think about them or work them out. Instead, they are already just there under your fingers (and in your ear).

 

I would differ slightly from what others have suggested here only in that I don't think it's really important to focus on memorizing the spellings of all the various minor scales. What I did was to learn all my major scales, then practice them (and the various scale/interval exercises, etc.) starting on each scale degree. Then I proceeded to do the same for the minor melodic scale (initially thinking of the first mode as a major scale with a b3), then for the whole tone and diminished scales. The key is to really get the sound of each in your head and under your fingers. The note names are not that important, at least for improvisation.

I basically agree with you here, at least in terms of the actual playing, where finger memory and especially the sound (intervals) is what is important. But in order to work out scales & chords and to memorize them in the first place it's really helpful, necessary actually, to know the notes and scale degrees. So that's where the 'spellings' or scale degrees come in handy. I find it especially useful to put it all into numbers. In order to know the 'b3', you have to know what the '3' is.

But you are absolutely right on that eventually it's important to get past the thinking part; there's no time for that when improvising. I know a bunch of ii-V7 licks that I can hear and play, but ask me to name all the notes and I'd have to pick up the horn or go to the piano and play the lick to name them!

 

I agree with a lot that has been said... for what it's worth, I think it's important to be able to recite the names in a particular scale, but I agree that a lot of time on the ear is your best bet when it comes to practical, in the moment, usage of the scales/chords.

There's a great free handbook from Jamey Aebersold available here: Free Jamey Aebersold Jazz Handbook: The
Pages 41-45 have some free kind of "tests" for exactly what @JL has been talking about above me. I used to do that kind of thing, and write my own tests are random when I was in High School. Jamey Aebersold even tested me in person, on the fly, once at his house.

-Bubba-

 

Lots of good information here. The only thing I would add is that it's important to learn each scale on its own. So a Dorian mode isn't "a major scale starting on the 2nd degree" or "a major scale with a b3 and b7" or "a natural minor scale with a major 6th" - it just is a Dorian mode.

I used to practice modal improvisation with a drone or a pedal note on a keyboard. Have the root of the mode firmly in your ear, and investigate the sound of each note against the root. This cemented the "Dorian sound" or "Mixolydian sound" in my ear, so that it occupied equal territory with the standard major and minor scales.

In a similar fashion, learn the altered scale on its own, not as "a melodic minor scale starting on the 7th degree".

Relating a new scale type to another, already known, type, is fine to start learning - but abandon that crutch as soon as possible and give the scale its rightful place as an equal member of your sonic territory.

 

A short, relevant anecdote:

I've been focusing on clarinet for the past couple of months, where spelling out the note names for scales and--especially--arpeggios is (unfortunately) still very helpful for me. I'm mostly still reading (or spelling) at the moment, but I'm trying to train myself to get to the point where the names don't help at all and I can work more readily by ear.​

​

More recently, this has inspired my wife, who played clarinet in high school but hasn't really played it since (i.e., in more than two decades) to spend a little bit of time every day practicing with me. So far, we've mostly been practicing our major scales together. She can spell the scales just fine (she's been working on piano for the past year or so, so she had to relearn them). However, the funny thing I've noticed is that when we're not playing the scales together (so that she can't hear the clash between our notes) she'll often mess up a scale by completely omitting a note, and she won't notice anything wrong.​

​

I find this sort of error fascinating, because it's completely inconceivable to me. This is not because I'm some great or infallible player--I could easily play a wrong note even when executing a simple scale--but because I'd immediately recognize the error. When I've asked her about it, she goes through the notes and points out that she's played all the correct sharps or flats, which makes it clear that she's relying on the spelling of the scale rather than the sound.​

 

There are only one set of Major Scales but minor scales:
Dorian
Melodic
Hamronic
Natural

2.What of the minor scales to dig into next(if at all?).

I guess what i'm asking is how do good improvisers think so i can learn that way.

Apologise for the style of question.

@BirdnDiz , when I was pretty deep into scale/chord theory studies, a friend of mine pointed out another version of harmonic theory. If you use a framework that the "7th/8th" of a scale is synthetic, you have reduced not only your necessary notes to memorize by 25%, but you also allow your chords and scales to be built in simple, 3-note-structured terms.

The principle is simple: anything classified as Major is within the outer boundaries of a Major 6th (i.e. G to E); anything Minor is within a Minor 6th (i.e. G to Eb). it will explain how dominant sounds can be related to both major and minor, as well as opening up possibilities for finding your own definitions of major and minor when improvising (similar to where @mmichel was going).

regarding the inner notes to work with, my personal favorites are the trichords inside of these hexachords, in this case, G-A-B, and C-D-E, for major, G * * * * E. playing around with the inner options is where the fun really begins -- think of these as your "modes."

I have more information about this if you'd like to read more. the way these scales build onto each other is really remarkable, and wonderful when utilized in improvisation.

best success! and most importantly, enjoy!

jake.

 

There are only one set of Major Scales but minor scales:
Dorian
Melodic
Hamronic
Natural

I concentrate mainly on Jazz so the Dorian(b3/b7)are priority for me.My questions are:

1.Do players think of a Dorian Scale/Chord as "Major with b3/b7" or a scale beginning on the second degree of a major scale?
2.What of the minor scales to dig into next(if at all?).

Also,if someone said to me play Db Maj scales i could play it seamlessly no problem.If that same person said to me"Name those notes"i'd have a hard time.How to get around this?Its obviously important because if i have to flatten the 3rd and 7th of Db-7 i would need to know the notes to flatten.I have to think...."ok,so thats the...F...needs to become E...and the ....let me think....C...becomes B" .

I'm learning the changes to I'll Remember April so Em7 in Bars 5-8 need to be thought of as?

I guess what i'm asking is how do good improvisers think so i can learn that way.

Apologise for the style of question.

Essentially playing over a when minor triad only the tonic and the third are set in stone (unless you play major over minor, which leaves just the tonic).
If it's an m7 chord the b7 is likewise set in stone and you can use the Dorian, Aeolian, Phrygian and Locrian. That doesn't mean open slather (flat, natural or sharp) on the 2nd/9th, 4th/11th, 5th or 6th/13th but you can move between them. Also the extensions/alterations can always be used as passing notes. The altered scale comes into its own on the dominant in minor progressions.
It all depends on how dissonant you want to sound and the context in which you are playing,
Apologies for the style of answer
"Take your dissonance like a man!" as the ever-inappropriate Charles Ives put it.
"It was a crying shame that he spent so much time at music. Otherwise he could have been a champion sprinter". Yale football coach on Charles Ives

 

Like many such questions of how to master something, the short answer is again ”It depends”. Whatever one is learning, it has been shown that people have different learning styles. The general types include visual, kinesthetic, and verbal. Note that music is not a typical subject of study, so one’s optimum learning style for, say, chemistry may not be best for their study of music. But I think that in music we each have differing optimum ways of learning.
I have determined that for most standard subject matter (e.g. Math, Economics, Physics, etc.) I learn best visually (and for some subject matter kinesthetically), and verbally simply frustrates me. Graphic diagrams, schematics, pages of text, etc. tend to have immediate enlightenment and interest factors for me, whereas with a person lecturing at the speed of talking, and my brain trying to process words coming at that slow rate, I quickly find myself looking out the window daydreaming.
Language study is different, and music is a language.
Yes, we native English speakers needed to study English grammar and composition, after learning how to read, but I was talking a blue streak, with a lot of vocabulary, inflection, and vernacular at age four, before setting foot in a school, as I’m sure most everyone was. We developed that ability by simply listening and imitating, without a written word or any training in the structure of the language.
Visual diagrams and well-written text about music theory do very little for me compared to hearing, listening, and imitating, on my instrument. Doing it vocally is very helpful as well, and probably essential, especially for wind players, and is also easier (the imitation part). Doing it on one’s instrument is the end goal, so a lot of time there works best for me.
Because we’re talking improvisation here, all of the above applies, for me, anyway. When we het into being a good reader, technic, composition, etc., that’s different. Here, we are studying spoken, or conversational language, so I have developed it by hearing, feeling, playing... I rarely think in terms of chord structure, note names, “guide tones”, etc. when improvising, except when first learning a tune. When I do “think” of those things, it is more a matter of hearing (through my ears or just in my head) and feeling (both emotionally and in my fingers on the instrument). I develop the ability to “say what I’m thinking” the same way a verbal thought forms, along with feelings, both emotional an in one’s vocal tract... and the words are expessed, as one intends, without too much thinking about the process.
I don’t think about “#9”, F flat, melodic minor, etc. much. These are all feelings, sounds, and fingerings on the horn.
Again, when first learning a tune, some time with theory, etc. is needed, including writing some things out as visual aids (my preferred means for,other subjects plays some part here...). But that process mostly involves thinking and looking at a chart.
Joe Henderson famously didn’t allow any written material or writing instruments in his lessons. I think tape recorders were forbidden as well (?).
When you’re on the stand playing, I won’t be looking at a chart or thinking much. It’s all hearing, feeling, expressing.
That may work for some players when performing but I think it often results in a loss in the “feeling” aspect of playing.

 

Like many such questions of how to master something, the short answer is again "It depends". Whatever one is learning, it has been shown that people have different learning styles. The general types include visual, kinesthetic, and verbal. Note that music is not a typical subject of study, so one's optimum learning style for, say, chemistry may not be best for their study of music. But I think that in music we each have differing optimum ways of learning.
I have determined that for most standard subject matter (e.g. Math, Economics, Physics, etc.) I learn best visually (and for some subject matter kinesthetically), and verbally simply frustrates me. Graphic diagrams, schematics, pages of text, etc. tend to have immediate enlightenment and interest factors for me, whereas with a person lecturing at the speed of talking, and my brain trying to process words coming at that slow rate, I quickly find myself looking out the window daydreaming.
Language study is different, and music is a language.
Yes, we native English speakers needed to study English grammar and composition, after learning how to read, but I was talking a blue streak, with a lot of vocabulary, inflection, and vernacular at age four, before setting foot in a school, as I'm sure most everyone was. We developed that ability by simply listening and imitating, without a written word or any training in the structure of the language.
Visual diagrams and well-written text about music theory do very little for me compared to hearing, listening, and imitating, on my instrument. Doing it vocally is very helpful as well, and probably essential, especially for wind players, and is also easier (the imitation part). Doing it on one's instrument is the end goal, so a lot of time there works best for me.
Because we're talking improvisation here, all of the above applies, for me, anyway. When we het into being a good reader, technic, composition, etc., that's different. Here, we are studying spoken, or conversational language, so I have developed it by hearing, feeling, playing... I rarely think in terms of chord structure, note names, "guide tones", etc. when improvising, except when first learning a tune. When I do "think" of those things, it is more a matter of hearing (through my ears or just in my head) and feeling (both emotionally and in my fingers on the instrument). I develop the ability to "say what I'm thinking" the same way a verbal thought forms, along with feelings, both emotional an in one's vocal tract... and the words are expessed, as one intends, without too much thinking about the process.
I don't think about "#9", F flat, melodic minor, etc. much. These are all feelings, sounds, and fingerings on the horn.
Again, when first learning a tune, some time with theory, etc. is needed, including writing some things out as visual aids (my preferred means for,other subjects plays some part here...). But that process mostly involves thinking and looking at a chart.
Joe Henderson famously didn't allow any written material or writing instruments in his lessons. I think tape recorders were forbidden as well (?).
When you're on the stand playing, I won't be looking at a chart or thinking much. It's all hearing, feeling, expressing.
That may work for some players when performing but I think it often results in a loss in the "feeling" aspect of playing.

Thanks for that.

 

Guy Whiplash (of the Disloyal Canadians): "So you're a musician, eh?"
Dudley Do-Right: "Yes!"
Guy: "Can you read music?"
Do-Right: "No."
Guy: "You're hired!"

 

JL you didn't get anything wrong - but I'd like to stress the point that referring to a scale or chord by its relationship to another (presumably well known) scale or chord is great for learning something the first time, but not so good to get it in your mind's ear. It has to become it's own thing.

It's kind of like describing a wheel as "a kind of a box, but round"....

 

JL you didn't get anything wrong - but I'd like to stress the point that referring to a scale or chord by its relationship to another (presumably well known) scale or chord is great for learning something the first time, but not so good to get it in your mind's ear. It has to become it's own thing.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. I don't think that's what I was saying, but it might have come out that way. The reason I was discussing scales was in response to the OP who asked about minor scales. I brought up chords because chord quality/function is an issue (ie. a min7b5 chord vs min7 chord). Also chords can be derived from scales, of course.

Just trying to address the OP's question.