Comments on: Matching Scales And Chords In Jazz

By: Hooper

Hooper — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:03:27 +0000

I have a computer program (do people still say “computer program”) called Chord Wizard Gold that has a feature(s) that will generate keys for certain notes or chords etc…

Of course, I’d eventually like to be able to do that in my head, on the fly.

By: greg smith

greg smith — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:10:09 +0000

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Owain. I really appreciate you taking the time to consider what I said so carefully. I don’t think we really disagree, and you are clearly more experienced in Jazz than me (I’m a fingerstyle classical/wannabe jazz guitarist). I would love to have a more extended discussion, but can’t bear to write it all out with my 2 finger typing method.
Why don’t we disagree? Well, two things, for a start:
1. You say ‘What people are used to hearing.”(paraphrase) Yes, I completely accept that in real situations, we mix up conventional sounds with perhaps little risks of unexpectedness, in other aspects of music as well as note choice, to keep people interested. So the major and Lydian over MA7 are usually the thing, and other choices sound more or less weird: as you say, there is a hierarchy of weirdness, but this is culturally subjective (Phrygian doesn’t sound at all weird to me, it just begs to be Spanish!)
2. You talk about a sequence of chords. One example:if we are soloing over 1 followed by ii, those chords include all the notes of the C scale, so it makes sense to use it.

I like the idea of degrees of tension, all the way to ‘avoid’ notes. I have quite a conventional ear, so I certainly go ‘ouch’ when I hit one of these. But other people, especially some jazz musicians, get habituated to things which are far out for me and actually hear them as more consonant, I think.

Very Best, Greg Smith

By: Owain

Owain — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:15:19 +0000

Hi Greg.

While I agree in part and understand what Mark Levine is saying it is not realistic to jump from one abstract scale to another when playing jazz. What you refer to is more of a modal or free jazz idea. If you were stuck on a static Cmaj7 chord for a long time this idea works well and you can use this idea to get more “outside” on the chord. In a practical situation there are logical scale choices that will almost always be used in certain situations.

We can’t agree on a simple approach because every situation must be treated differently. If you have ever played a bebop tune where chords are changing every second or so you will know what I mean by having the need for a system of scale choices.

Also if you are just matching scales based on the scale containing the notes of a chord like you said you improvisation would start to sound very “odd” and would make little sense to the listener’s ear.

You can get experimental on a 7 chord but not so much on other chords. If you try using that approach over a m7 or Maj7 chord it would just sound wrong.

There is a system actually for choosing which scales to use over which chords. In the next lesson I will perhaps write out a chart of scale choices. In reality there aren’t that many choices for Maj7 chords, min7 chords, m7b5 chords etc. The only time we get a lot of choice is over dominant 7 chords where it doesn’t matter so much how dissonant the scale you are using sounds. Let’s look at a major7 chord for example. In a practical situation there are only two real scale choices.

Over a C Maj7 chord 99 times out of a 100 you would choose either a major scale or a Lydian mode. That’s it really. No other scale choices make much sense in the context of a tune or chord progression. The same applies for m7 chord. Again you would choose either a Dorian mode for a jazzy sound, a minor scale for a more basic sound or perhaps a phrygian for a dark and unusual sound. Again there aren’t many choices here.

There is a hierarchy of logic to each scale based on what a listener is used to hearing. For example over a Cmaj7 chord the most obvious choice is a simple major scale followed by a Lydian scale. Although there are “other” scales that “could” make sense from a purely technical point of view they would sound very strange and dissonant to a listener. If you did this too often if would start to sound like you were just playing random notes over each chord.

That’s my take on it.

By: greg smith

greg smith — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:08:59 +0000

Look at Mark Levine’s explanation. Chords are ’simultaneous’ scales, but with connector notes missing. Which connector notes you choose (that is, which scale) will determine the aural effect of your improvisation over a particular chord (leaving aside non-diatonic possibilities). Some connecting notes sound consonant, others less so. You get to choose based on your taste.
For example, CMaj7 is CEGB. You could play any scale which contains those tones with that chord, but with differing aesthetic results.
Partial explanations and people’s personal systems of understanding this stuff have confused me for so many years. I’ve wasted a lot of time trying to get my head around stuff which is actually quite simple, and not set in stone. If the same lack of system was prevalent in science, we’d still be in caves… Why can’t we all agree on a solid, rational approach to these musical basics?

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:38:36 +0000

Thank you for a very simple, understandable explanation!

By: Scott L. Sumner

Scott L. Sumner — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:19:30 +0000

ThankYou,
Your explanation was concise and “user friendly.” I have been a musician for about thirty years, and am excited to understand and apply this aspect of theory in my endeavors towards learning to improvise at a higher or rather more creative level. Thankyou once again and I am looking forward to your next article on this subject.

Scott L. Sumner

By: mark d

mark d — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:30:06 +0000

great info, thanks for the explanation.