# Help me, what scales for this chords (this is a hard one..)



## Luan (Jun 1, 2007)

Well, I learned the song Loro by Gismonti, and I'm trying to improvise over the chords of it.
It is hard as hell to understand the chord progression.
Here are the chords:http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/Luanfiction/Loro.jpg
I know that there are some secondary dominants.
What do I play over A-(b5) (9)?
D13 (b9) is V7/III right? but it has a natural 13, so I will have to play mixolydian b9 13, right?
The same thing over G 13 (b9)?
What do I play over C sus4 (b9)?
What do I play over A-(b5)(9)?
Eb/Db means that it is a Eb7, but it sounds better if it is Ebmaj to me. That is weird..

Really thanks a lot for those that can help me!


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 4, 2007)

Luan said:


> Well, I learned the song Loro by Gismonti, and I'm trying to improvise over the chords of it.
> It is hard as hell to understand the chord progression.
> Here are the chords:http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/Luanfiction/Loro.jpg
> I know that there are some secondary dominants.
> ...



For the A-7b5(9) try the whole-half diminished scale.
For all the 13b9 chords try the half-whole diminished scale, or a minor pentatonic a minor third up. Actually, for the Am7b5(9)-D13b9 change you could use the same diminished scale over both chords (A whole-half diminished and D half-whole diminished are composed of the same notes).
Over the Sus4b9, try a phrygian or phrygian natural 6 mode.

Also, try just playing appropriate arpeggios, and decorating them with some passing notes. This can be fiddly to visualise, but is a great way of pinning down the changes.

For the rest of it, the general rule of thumb with secondary dominant chords is that over non-resolving dominants (i.e. ones that don't lead to a perfect cadence) you use the appropriate Lydian Dominant scale. For ones that do resolve, use the Altered Dominant.

This is a challenging progression, and there are lots of ways you could play through it. I actually might give it a go myself, as it looks like fun! Let me know if you need any more suggestions.


----------



## Mikey D (Jun 5, 2007)

Luan said:


> Eb/Db means that it is a Eb7, but it sounds better if it is Ebmaj to me. That is weird..
> 
> Really thanks a lot for those that can help me!



I won't go over the rest as Distressed has that covered.

Just want to say Eb/Db is notalways the same as Eb7. Sometimes it is just a plain inversion, but it may be a slash chord and in jazz it usually is. People like Metheny, John Taylor and other model compositions use this alot.

You need to look at how the chord is built from the root up. So from Db the notes you have are Eb-G-Bb, plus the others in the scale whatever they are. so thats the natural 9th, sharp 4/11th and natural 6th. Try playing Db lydian over it and see what it sounds like.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 5, 2007)

This is something that occurs a lot in progressive rock as well. Guys like Steve Howe and Alex Lifeson will often move different triads around on top of an unchanging root note (usually an open string) to imply a particular mode.


----------



## Drew (Jun 5, 2007)

Mikey D said:


> Just want to say Eb/Db is notalways the same as Eb7. Sometimes it is just a plain inversion, but it may be a slash chord and in jazz it usually is. People like Metheny, John Taylor and other model



I would argue that they're one and the same - the composer may not be thinking of it as a Eb7, but no matter how you dice it, an Eb triad played over a Db is an Eb7 inverted over it's 7th, even if the composer's intent was to walk a bassline down along the scale the harmony is rooted in or something, and wasn't thinking of it as a chord in it's own right. 

It's two different ways of thinking about the same group of tones, but it adds up to the same chord.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jun 5, 2007)

Check out the big brain on Distressed Romeo! 

Seriously, I'm such a dunce when it comes to this stuff, even though I love fiddling around with jazz. I've never messed around with altered scales that much, and whenever I confront weirdo chords, I either go "out", pentatonic, or do the arpeggio + passing tones thingy. My favored approach is just to find a non-altered mode that fits, but then I generally prefer the simplest possible approach to these things.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 5, 2007)

jacksonplayer said:


> Check out the big brain on Distressed Romeo!
> 
> Seriously, I'm such a dunce when it comes to this stuff, even though I love fiddling around with jazz. I've never messed around with altered scales that much, and whenever I confront weirdo chords, I either go "out", pentatonic, or do the arpeggio + passing tones thingy. My favored approach is just to find a non-altered mode that fits, but then I generally prefer the simplest possible approach to these things.



Thank ya kindly!

Actually, you hit it on the head; the secret behind playing through changes (in my experience...I still consider myself a learner!) is to find the simplest possible way of visualising the music. Even if something looks complex, chances are there's a way of making it more manageable. All great improvisors do this; Pat Martino, for example, as a method where he visualises everything as being based on minor scales strung together with chromatics (I won't try and explain it here, as it's a big topic...check out his website!).


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jun 5, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Pat Martino, for example, as a method where he visualises everything as being based on minor scales strung together with chromatics (I won't try and explain it here, as it's a big topic...check out his website!).



Conceptually, that's not too far from how I look at things, though I'm sure that Martino's way is much more sophisticated. I'm just lazy. 

One reason I like to go pentatonic, or nearly so, over complicated changes is that it often seems to work better from a musical standpoint. The simpler the background, the more 'seasoning' the soloist needs to insert. Some of my favorite Shawn Lane solos were done over single-note Jonas Hellborg bass lines. But with a very complicated background, a simpler top line often seems like the right choice, since it allows the whole thing to breathe. However, I sometimes deliberately choose a pentatonic that is completely "wrong", which leads to some pretty cool serendipity. Or I just unleash a flood of shifting pentatonics, hoping that things don't get too messed up. That's pretty close to playing "out", I guess.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 5, 2007)

You're right. Look at a lot of Coltrane's solos. Over things like 'Giant Steps' where the chords are flying by at an insane rate, he'd often use pentatonic 'tetrachords' (little four-note cells from the pentatonic scale) to naviagate his way through them


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 5, 2007)

TheShredZone.com - Installment #13: Getting Free Using Passing Tones -- Welcome To The Next Generation

Here's an article on the 'wrong note pentatonic' idea. It's possibly an overcomplicated way of looking at a fairly straightforward concept, but it'll make you think a bit...


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jun 5, 2007)

That is an interesting way of looking at it, although I agree about maybe overthinking it a bit. 

I like to think of scales as overlapping circles. If you want to be all neat and clean, you can keep everything within the discreet area of a "single circle." But to me, the interesting stuff happens when the background is in one scale/mode and the top line is in a partially overlapping scale. How much you dart in and out of harmonic tonality, how you resolve your lines, etc. That becomes the creative act. Jazz too easily turns into math. And I hate math.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 5, 2007)

jacksonplayer said:


> That is an interesting way of looking at it, although I agree about maybe overthinking it a bit.
> 
> I like to think of scales as overlapping circles. If you want to be all neat and clean, you can keep everything within the discreet area of a "single circle." But to me, the interesting stuff happens when the background is in one scale/mode and the top line is in a partially overlapping scale. How much you dart in and out of harmonic tonality, how you resolve your lines, etc. That becomes the creative act. Jazz too easily turns into math. And I hate math.



 Good way of looking at it. It really amazes me when you see jazzers who've absorbed so much advanced harmonic theory that they can just blow through difficult changes as naturally as most people would a ii-V vamp! I guess the goal is to develop this stuff to the point where it stops being about maths and musical geometry and becomes pure expression...

This is the thing I love about music...there's always something new to learn!


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jun 6, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> I guess the goal is to develop this stuff to the point where it stops being about maths and musical geometry and becomes pure expression...



Very true. And I am a LONG ways from that point.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 6, 2007)

jacksonplayer said:


> Very true. And I am a LONG ways from that point.



You and me both dude!


----------



## Drew (Jun 6, 2007)

Interesting discussion. 



jacksonplayer said:


> ...but then I generally prefer the simplest possible approach to these things.



It's worth noting that I was jamming over "Summertime" with some people not too long ago, and my ability to play a cohesive, musical-sounding solo increased, like, seventy-five fold when I stopped trying to play through each change, and just treated it as an Am blues with a few substitutions that I just needed to drop in a few chord tones to make fit. 

It's when you try to overcomplicate things that you paralyze yourself.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jun 6, 2007)

Drew said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I just remembered, I once read an interview with Larry Carlton where he said that when he was playing with Steely Dan, and having to navigate some insane changes, he'd (quote, unquote) 'think of everything as a blues and shrink to fit'.
Similarly, Emily Remler apparently had a method where she'd think of everything as being based on the Lydian or Melodic Minor scales. I already mentioned Pat Martino's 'converting to minor' system; apparently Greg Howe did a similar thing when he was getting into fusion after his first album, although according to a recent interview he doesn't anymore.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 7, 2007)

The sad thing is that with too much reading into the changes and trying to figure out what to do over given progressions, Giant Steps is easier than a ii-V or a blues. 

I stopped studying that stuff over two years ago, and I still can't play the fucking blues.

Jeff


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jun 8, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I stopped studying that stuff over two years ago, and I still can't play the fucking blues.



Find a local 'open mic' blues jam and join in. Trust me, you'll learn VERY quickly in front of a room full of drunks. 

Seriously, that's how I did it, and I turned into a half-decent blues player within a few months, maybe even weeks. That was about 20 years ago, though, and I pretty much suck at blues now. I didn't do the SRV thing; Albert King was more my role model.

Since everything is a I-IV-V, blues jamming is great even if you don't know a lot of songs.


----------



## Bartok (Jun 8, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> I guess the goal is to develop this stuff to the point where it stops being about maths and musical geometry and becomes pure expression...



That is the whole point- you have to know so much theory that you never need to think about it in any situation, your hands know what to do so your brain can concentrate on what you plan to play next. I wish I could do it 



> Emily Remler apparently had a method where she'd think of everything as being based on the Lydian or Melodic Minor scales



Isn't the Lydian method similar to Lydian Chromatic or do you mean something else? I'm pretty sure every modal player converts to something though- the way modal theory is taught IME is you start with major and it's modes, then you move to something else, harmonic minor is an easy choice as it fits the major modes nicely with a sharp that counts down from Aeolian #7 to Mixolydian #1 (sort of  ) then Hungarian Minor has 2 sharps etc. That's how I view the fretboard, then you have your pentatonic options where the root sits over Dorian (and it's derivitives), Phrygian (etc.) or Aeolian (etc.) and you can dip in and out of what ever you want whenever you want. I rarely use major scale or it's modes, but I still view more or less all the scales as major with bits added, taken away or moved. Except for more unusual stuff like 6 note scales (Bartok for example, which I use a lot) but that can still be viewed as part of the Hungarian Minor scale (the 4th degree, I forget it's name) with an Augmented 5th and #6, or even just swapping the natural 5 round to being a flat 7 if you wanted.
Good thread!


----------



## jacksonplayer (Jun 8, 2007)

Bartok said:


> I wish I could do it



Me too! 

I'm strictly a modal player, and I really just use the straight-ahead church modes. I rarely find the need to go into altered scales (Hungarian minor, etc.), and when I'm confronted with an altered chord I tend to find a 'regular' mode that fits that particular chord. Lot less stuff to keep in the brain, that way.

I had a good guitar teacher when I started out, but he was teaching me a lot of theory before my chops had a chance to catch up. I wish I had gone on to study jazz theory when I was young and had lots of time to absorb it. I can still pick up bits here and there, but as I get older I want to use my time to actually write/record music and polish what I already know, rather than delve into entirely new areas.


----------



## Bartok (Jun 8, 2007)

jacksonplayer said:


> Me too!
> 
> I'm strictly a modal player, and I really just use the straight-ahead church modes. I rarely find the need to go into altered scales (Hungarian minor, etc.), and when I'm confronted with an altered chord I tend to find a 'regular' mode that fits that particular chord. Lot less stuff to keep in the brain, that way.
> 
> I had a good guitar teacher when I started out, but he was teaching me a lot of theory before my chops had a chance to catch up. I wish I had gone on to study jazz theory when I was young and had lots of time to absorb it. I can still pick up bits here and there, but as I get older I want to use my time to actually write/record music and polish what I already know, rather than delve into entirely new areas.



My chord theory is a massive hole in my playing, I really need to work on it- I keep writing riffs, then have to go back to the scale books to find which chords fit which is a really crappy way to be :/
Hungarian minor is worth learning though- it makes far more musical sense to me than major (and most other scales too) because it has so much symmetry, there is only a handful of different shapes per string involved (3 notes per string) and they just repeat over and over so if you think vertically as well as horizontally, it's almost impossible to get lost. It also fits with so many other scales, when you view things chromatically, the Hungarian seems to make far more sense than the major scale as it contains so many triads. Personally, I also find the modes are more individual- the colour is there in each major mode, but to me, the hungarian modes have a more recognisable individual colour and that inspires me when I write riffs and solos etc. I think it's my most used scale 
I had the same thing with teachers though- my last teacher was an amazing musician, his classical, metal and fusion/jazz stuff was all amazing, but he quite often assumed a bit too much of me and it was just too much information in one go. I have to find a lot of the stuff on my own, then realise I was told it 6 months ago, but it doesn't mean anything until I have a way to make it real in my own head.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 8, 2007)

That's also why I have the easiest time using diminished fragments between major and melodic minor modes. Diminished is perfectly symmetrical and it's impossible to get lost if you can find so much as one of the 'root' notes and orient yourself around it. 

I also view three- and four-note chords easier in terms of diminished chords being raised one way or another, rather than a major or a minor being changed - for example, a dominant 7 being a diminished chord with one note lowered to the root.

When I view scales I find it easier to swallow six-note 'clusters' rather than the whole 3NPS position. If I just remember the first six notes of every mode, and then on the 'seventh note' I just go to the first six notes of the next lowest mode, I'm memorizing and planning a lot less. That can be applied to any scale that can be made conveniently into a 3NPS scale, and it's helped me out quite a lot.

Jeff


----------



## Bartok (Jun 8, 2007)

JBroll said:


> That's also why I have the easiest time using diminished fragments between major and melodic minor modes. Diminished is perfectly symmetrical and it's impossible to get lost if you can find so much as one of the 'root' notes and orient yourself around it.



The lack of tonality in diminished can be really useful- as it doesn't have any real tonal centre, it can be used to modulate from more or less anywhere to anywhere else. I find it kind of 'resets' the pallet- how ever strong the tonality of your starting mode, chuck in some diminished runs and I tend to forget and tonality of where I was before. One of my favourite patterns is ascending 3 notes per string, major or minor diminished 1, 3, dim5, on each string, descending across the strings (e.g. starting 12th fret on e, e, major or minor 3 major being my favourite, then dim5, then on the 2nd string, taking Bb 11th fret as the root, then maj/min 3 and so on). Octave displacement can give a similar effect, something I pinched from the Buckethead instructional video on You Tube, I like the sound of 1, #8, natural 2nd, b8, then make nat 2nd the root and repeat up to where ever I want to be.


----------



## Garry Goodman (Jun 9, 2007)

Luan said:


> Well, I learned the song Loro by Gismonti, and I'm trying to improvise over the chords of it.
> It is hard as hell to understand the chord progression.
> Here are the chords:http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/Luanfiction/Loro.jpg
> I know that there are some secondary dominants.
> ...




My perspective:
A G13(b9) or any 13(b9 ) is a member of the V13 chord family.

This family includes G7(b9) , G7(+9) G7(b9+9), G7(+11,b9), G11(b9) , G7(+11,+9), G11(+9,b9) and a few more. It is associated with the natural 11 forms of the chord.
If the chord is G13(b9) ,you can use F melodic minor. You don't wany the dominant 8 note scale(1/2-1-1/2-1 etc.). Here is why-
The chord is spelled G (b) D F Ab C and E. Rearrange these note horizontally and you get F G Ab C D E (b is usually omitted because the B and c form a minor ninth interval and can sound bad). The Bb would be added for a +9 such as G13(b9+9). So use a melodic minor starting on the note a whole step below the root of the chord. D13(b9) would use C melodic minor.

The minor 7,flat 5 chord such as Ami7(b5) is also called a "half diminished" chord. It is it's own chord family. Ami11(b5), Ami9 (b5) etc. Some scale sources for this chord are C melocic minor, Bb major scale, A locrian and G harmonic minor.

A good way to figure this out is to spell the chord, like A C Eb G B, whichich is A mi 9(b5). Then check those notes against scale tones.

C (d) Eb (f) G A B C or C melodic minor scale. When the 4th or sus is added, in this case a D, the scale still works.
I hope this helps


----------

