You wrote:
> Wim Dijkgraaf,
>
> Please re-read my post, I think you will not disagree so much with it when
> you read it closely. I am trying to cut down on the length of my posts.
> If
> I wrote every possible scenario for this theory it would be a very long
> post, they are already quite long as is.
>
>
I did read you post very well, but it just was not written very well-thought
out. You don't have to write every possible scenario but when you take out a
single subject, please be carefull because your post was not correct.
> >It is not the simplest way, it is THE ONLY way. It is impossible to add
> another tone to the mixolydian scale in such a way, that the R,3,5 and 7
> fall on the down beat. <
>
> You are misinterpreting my use of the word simple, if I had used the
> words "simplest way to THINK OF THIS SCALE is to put the major seventh
> between the root and b7th" I might have been more clear. Also there
> are other ways to rhythmically place the notes so as to get the desired
> effect of the chord tones on the strong beats, if the root is played as
> a quarter note and the rest of the mixolydian scale is played as eighth
> notes the chord tones all fall in the same places as they would in the
> bebop scale. This is often what earlier players in the swing era would
> do to get the chord tones to fall on the beat and is one reason why some
> of their lines sound less continuous eighth notes than bebop lines.
I didn't misinterpret it, your post was too much simplificated for such an
interesting subject as 'the bebop scale'. Also your second reply is somewhat
strange. You reply with the sentences:
> You are misinterpreting my use of the word simple, if I had used the words
> "simplest way to THINK OF THIS SCALE is to put the major seventh between the
> root and b7th" I might have been more clear.
No, it is even less clear. How can one say there is a simple, more simple or
even a simplest way of thinking of a scale? What is simple about your
statement?
I know exactly the construction of scales and I think adding one note to a
seven note scale to make it easier to handle in certain situations because of
its symetrical structure in relation to the rhythm, is a very helpful tool.
>
> >>when played in eighth notes descending from its root starting on the
> one will end with its root on the one of the next measure. <<
>
> >No. This results in a scale which when played in eighth notes
> descending OR ascending from a chord tone, will end on the same chord
> tone in the next measure at the same place where the scale started.<
>
> Yes it does work in both directions, you are right, I have always
> noticed when transcribing that the amount of times the bebop scale is
> used descending is far more frequent than ascending. This is the reason
> I chose to write about it in the descending terms only. By not
> mentioning the ascending I was not intending to deny its existence, I
> was just trying to use the descending as my example.
>
O.K.
> >> Ending on the one of the
> >> next measure is rhythmically important because it allows the next
> octave to start in the rhythmically same place as the previous octave.
>
> >Why is this important? Why should it be important to start (which is
> actually continue) at rhythmically the same place as the previous octave?
>
> It is important for a two octave nonstop continuation of the scale in
> eighth notes. This allows the player to play a more flowing nonstop
> line than just the mixolydian alone would produce, as I mentioned in my
> earlier post by stating:
>
> >>Rhythmically the mixolydian scale when played in eighth
> >>notes descending ends on the "and of 4" in the first measure which
> gives the line a clipped feel, it doesn't have the perpetual motion feel
> of the bebop scale.
> >> When you try to play the basic mixolydian scale over the same amount
> of bars (as the bebop scale) you get a situation where the chord tones
> start falling on the "ands" and the line is weaker harmonically.
>
> >Because the diatonic scales are 7 note construction, they don't fit very
> well in a context with (rhythmically) 8 pulses.<
> That was my point, the chromatic eighth note of the bebop scale was
> added to the diatonic seven note scale for rhythmic reasons.
>
Of course you are right, but the first posting was pure nonsence. You wrote:
> >> Ending on the one of the next measure is rhythmically important because it
> allows the next octave to start in the rhythmically same place as the
> previous octave.
If your aim is "to start the next octave in the rhythmically same place as the
previous octave" and you started the previous octave on beat one, then YOU HAVE
TO start on beat one in the next octave. Your sentence doesn't make sence.
>
> >All these aspects are also in the David Baker book, mentioned above so you
> don't need the Barry Harris method for this.<
>
> I mentioned the Barry Harris video method because it is about much more than
> just the bebop scale. It is a great jazz pianist sitting at the piano and
> with a rhythm section to put his concepts into practice. If you have a
> chance it is well worth checking out. I have found that books like Mark
> Levine's and David Baker's are good for reference (I have both of them in my
> library) but do not help in learning music nearly as much as being able to
> hear and see a person explaining a concept and then playing it. His method
> also covers other topics of interest to jazz players like warmup exercises
> and chord soloing.
It is just a matter of HOW you use a book. Just reading is not enough. The
David Baker books learned me what to look for when analysing a solo and learned
me some elementary tools to play the changes. Because I got the little building
blocks, that he mentions in his books, under my fingers and between my ears I
am now able to construct my own lines without even thinking of the underlying
theory. But I still know I had first to practice them for quite a long time.
>
>
> >What do you mean with 'taking the randomness out of them'? Do you mean, you
>
> have control over the usage of chromaticism or don't you use chromaticism
> randomly?<
>
> Random chromaticism in my usage means disorganized or unfocused use of
> chromatics with no specific intent for their use.
> A player like Mike Stern
> who has good control of his chromaticism can add them at will to create
> interesting long lines and textures to his ideas; a player who doesn't have
> control of his chromatics can sound unsure of himself and weaken his lines
> with them. Good control of chromatic notes is pretty important to the
> creation of smooth double-time lines like Pat Martino plays (and he
> definitely has control over his chromatic usage).
>
I completely agree with you.
> In the final analysis you should not think so much about the "Bebop Scale"
> anyway. I have yet to find a musician out playing in public who bases their
> playing on this scale, it is just one of many tools to draw upon. I often
> find that many student musicians become dependant on a method to show them
> the way, remember that most methods have rules which you have to follow and
> a lot of good music falls outside of these rules. Jazz is a music which
> historically evolved through people rewriting or flat out ignoring all the
> rules that they felt constricted by, experimenting with new sounds and not
> trying to conform to a "classical" model that came before them has been the
> motivation of many of the now legendary jazz performers.
>
> Brian Oates
Please be a little bit carefull with these kind of writings about what to do
and what don't etc. etc. I am a proffesional musician and understand all the
stuff you are writing. For me, music is too important to write about in such a
undepth fashion as you did, thats why I wanted to reply to your posting.
Why do you feel the urge of writing :"In the final analysis you should not
think so much about the 'Bebop Scale' anyway." without even knowing my music
and my playing. Your statement is only based on my only reply to your writing
which can be misleading to some degree for the serious student.
You wrote:
> In the final analysis you should not think so much about the "Bebop Scale"
> anyway. I have yet to find a musician out playing in public who bases their
> playing on this scale, it is just one of many tools to draw upon.
I didn't write about ONLY using the bebop scale.
> I often find that many student musicians become dependant on a method to
> show them the way, remember that most methods have rules which you have to
> follow and a lot of good music falls outside of these rules.
That is the period of being a student. Anything wrong with being a student?
I don't agree with your statement "remember that most methods have rules which
you have to follow and a lot of good music falls outside of these rules."
because every serious method is based on musical examples. In other words,
first there is music, then there are methods to learn some portion of this
music. Of course a lot of good music falls outside the rules because it is not
possible and even uninteresting to include every aspect of the music within a
set of rules. By the way, most of the time I only like certain aspects of the
music and not everything so I only need a method for the aspects I like.
> Jazz is a music which historically evolved through people rewriting or flat
> out ignoring all the rules that they felt constricted by, experimenting with
> new sounds and not trying to conform to a "classical" model that came
> before them has been the motivation of many of the now legendary jazz
> performers.
I don't agree with this. A lot of legendary players do sound pretty much the
same. When I listen to recordings of Clifford Brown, Clark Terry and Maynard
Ferguson playing together, there is a very well defined overall jazz sound. Of
course a musician is able to distinct these players but a lot of their playing
is just 'the common jazz language of that moment'. My opinion towards methods
is that they help to get familiar with this 'common jazz sound of a certain
period'. The bebop scale is only one aspect of the bebop sound and is therefor
interesting to be mentioned on this list.
Wim Dijkgraaf
The Netherlands.