Is there a Blues Scale?

[min7b5]

I think many people call the minor pentatonic with the b5 added the "blues scale". I’d be afraid a student would get the impession that if you’re playing a blues in, say, G, that all you need to do is play a G “blues scale” over all three chords and you’re good to go.

I think that’s as much of a false impression for playing blues as it is with jazz and bluegrass. Using one scale over the marco harmony will get you in the neighborhood, get your feet wet, etc, but if you want to play like the pros you’ll need to be able to target the chord of the moment. As with jazz, and bluegrass, if you listen to players like the three Kings (Freddie, Albert, and BB), sure, you’ll hear them threading it all together with the pentatonic, but the important thing is noticing how they hit the 3rd and b7 of each individual chord... same with Tony Rice, Bill Monroe, Charley Parker, Wes Montgomery...

[Tone Gopher]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

It really depends...

If you listen to the old blues guys you will not hear any definitive scale that they all used.

The question is not "What is the scale to use for blues?", it is "Is there a blues scale?" Not just a matter of semantics.

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

1 2 b3 3 4 #4 5 b6 6 b7 7 - are all fair game, just depends on the flavor you're after.

Best just to learn the chromatic scales and leave out the notes you don't need.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Tone Gopher

The question is not "What is the scale to use for blues?", it is "Is there a blues scale?" Not just a matter of semantics.

Hi TG…
Well, it actually is a matter of semantics - at least when you are playing with others. It's important to find out what they mean when they use specific terms. I take the personal responsibility to understand them and adapt to them rather than educating them (unless they are paying for lessons).

There is a huge need to interact with other musicians either musically (playing) or verbally so you not only connect, but play well together. So to me understanding not only the semantics but the individual dialect of the players I play with is important.

Don't think there is a specific 'blues' scale...but I know some folks who do think that.

[Tone Gopher]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi TG…
Well, it actually is a matter of semantics - at least when you are playing with others. It's important to find out what they mean when they use specific terms. I take the personal responsibility to understand them and adapt to them rather than educating them (unless they are paying for lessons).

There is a huge need to interact with other musicians either musically (playing) or verbally so you not only connect, but play well together. So to me understanding not only the semantics but the individual dialect of the players I play with is important.

Don't think there is a specific 'blues' scale...but I know some folks who do think that.

We don't disagree on the need for a shared vocabularly. It is not a matter of semantics. In the jazz idiom, if you were to attend a workshop and the leader asked anyone to play a blues scale, most would respond with the standard as I and others have cited. David Baker, among other leading jazz educators uses that as an accepted and shared basis.

[DupleMeter]

Well - while studying at Berklee, the answer was always "no - there is not ONE accepted blues scale". There is one major scale, minor (and variations), the church modes and the modes of the harmonic minor scales, pentatonic...but the "blues scale" is a loose term.

That is why I answered as I did - you can't define it universally because there is no universal reference for it.

I don't know of David Baker's teaching philosophy, so I can't speak on what he teaches. But it sounds like he's professing the add the #4/b5 - yeah, that's one of them.

And as Min7b5 says - you really need to play off of the chord scales and not the key scale to get the most out of any piece...regardless of genre. More of a "key of the moment" mentality that the best players have already figured out.

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

...Min7b5 says - you really need to play off of the chord scales and not the key scale to get the most out of any piece...regardless of genre. More of a "key of the moment" mentality that the best players have already figured out.

Hi Steve.
Just to clarify my point slightly; I try to move students aways from thinking about scales in general. A little is ok, and it’s important for mapping out the instrument, and they’re very useful for chord construction in particular... but for linear improvisation, generating meaningful single note improvisation, scales can be a bit of a trap in my experience.

Certainly when you listen to great improvisors in all styles, Django, Charley Parker, Miles Davis... in jazz, the three Kings in blues, or Tony Rice, David Grier, Doc Watson, and Bryan Sutton in bluegrass, and countless other masterful players, you’re not really hearing players switching from, say, dorian on one chord, mixolydain on another (though you can sometimes retrospectively analyze parts of lines that way, but...) I think there’s very few players that can make that kind of thing work, and frankly I can always hear it and it mostly sounds like scale running to me.

I always like to get students to take apart a few lines of Charley Christian or Django Reinhardt and show them how those guys where literally tracing out chord shapes or superimposing one chord shape over another... it’s always a huge epiphany for students and from then on, weather they’re play jazz, blues, bluegrass, or rock, they’re no longer trying to mindlessly blanket one scale over a large swath of a tune, or frantically try to stitch a bunch of scales together for each chord or bar.

Again, I’m not entirely anti-scale. They’re useful for chords for sure, it’s a great way to map out harmony and the fingerboard, and of course they can be a useful part of single note playing... But I personally feel thinking about scales as the main approach to generating lines is very limiting, and frankly not how almost all master players create, even though for whatever reason we’re bombarded with endless magazine articles and instructional books telling us that if you want to play blues you just need to play the blues scale, or if you want to play jazz you need to learn the modes...

[Tone Gopher]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Well - while studying at Berklee...

I don't know of David Baker's teaching philosophy, so I can't speak on what he teaches. But it sounds like he's professing the add the #4/b5 - yeah, that's one of them.

I'm surprised that you haven't heard of David Baker - especially his writings such as "Jazz Improvisation", "Modern Concepts in Jazz Improvisation", and his classic series "How to Play Bebop" (all published by Alfred Publishing).

Here's his wiki bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baker_(composer)

Cheers.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by min7b5

Hi Steve.
Just to clarify my point slightly; I try to move students aways from thinking about scales in general. A little is ok, and it’s important for mapping out the instrument, and they’re very useful for chord construction in particular... but for linear improvisation, generating meaningful single note improvisation, scales can be a bit of a trap in my experience.

Certainly when you listen to great improvisors in all styles, Django, Charley Parker, Miles Davis... in jazz, the three Kings in blues, or Tony Rice, David Grier, Doc Watson, and Bryan Sutton in bluegrass, and countless other masterful players, you’re not really hearing players switching from, say, dorian on one chord, mixolydain on another (though you can sometimes retrospectively analyze parts of lines that way, but...) I think there’s very few players that can make that kind of thing work, and frankly I can always hear it and it mostly sounds like scale running to me.

I always like to get students to take apart a few lines of Charley Christian or Django Reinhardt and show them how those guys where literally tracing out chord shapes or superimposing one chord shape over another... it’s always a huge epiphany for students and from then on, weather they’re play jazz, blues, bluegrass, or rock, they’re no longer trying to mindlessly blanket one scale over a large swath of a tune, or frantically try to stitch a bunch of scales together for each chord or bar.

Again, I’m not entirely anti-scale. They’re useful for chords for sure, it’s a great way to map out harmony and the fingerboard, and of course they can be a useful part of single note playing... But I personally feel thinking about scales as the main approach to generating lines is very limiting, and frankly not how almost all master players create, even though for whatever reason we’re bombarded with endless magazine articles and instructional books telling us that if you want to play blues you just need to play the blues scale, or if you want to play jazz you need to learn the modes...

That's basically what I mean by chord scales. It all comes to what notes are in the harmony & melody and how they interact. You can call that chord scales, chord shapes. I get what you're saying...and I think it's what I'm saying (only from the other side of the fence).

IOW, take, for instance, something like "All of Me", key of C.

First chord C6: so C E G A in the chord, melody is | C G E / | / / C D C |

The strong note choices have been made for you: C D E G A - it's C Major/Ionian...but those are your notes

Then the next chord is E7 (E G# B D) - and the melody is | B G# E / | / / / / |

Strong note choices are: E G# D B - super-imposed on the key, that really is just asking you for a #5 - rather than the E mixo (A major) that many would suggest.

So you end up with this hierarchy:

Key first
Key is superseded by the harmony (chords)
Harmony is superseded by the melody

So - if I understand you correctly: your saying. Take your key and then super impose the chord forms over it (the C6 and the E7 in the example) to create your available note...is that the case?

If so, the example that comes to mind is Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusic (the allegro, that everyone knows). It's nothing but arpeggios (chord forms). Oddly - that always brings to mind The Mexican Hat Dance, which is the exact same arpeggios (I V).

Though, I do feel that scales are important for more than just chord theory - I mean some of the most beautiful melodies in the history of music are nothing more than simple scalar patterns...particularly evident Mozart's work (Sonatina in C & Queen of the Night Aria from Die Zauberflöte to name just two). But that's probably taking this way off topic...and may be splitting hairs on chord forms verses scale patterns. I get the sense we're talking about the same thing, using different terminology.

[min7b5]

I wouldn’t approach things from entirely from a chord form perspective, or from scales. Personally I prefer -and feel strongly that it’s far and away what one is hearing with great jazz, blues, and bluegrass players- a predominately chord based approach, with some scales stitching things together. Of course as an aside, I’ll say the melody comes first. I hate to sound so academic, but that’s just the topic. When I’m doing the gig or recording I’m certainly not thinking “Am7,D7...”, only during practice.

I think scales are good for more than just chord construction, and I have students work on them in a linear way for sure. I just think they’re dramatically over emphasized for teaching people how to improvises and compose. Point taken about Mozart, and many of the world’s great classical melodies. Though I’m way more of a Bach guy myself

When I play All Of Me -which is not one of my stronger tunes for sure- I’m first and foremost singing the melody in my head when I’m improvising, and often out loud. And secondly I’m thinking of the following chord superimpositions:

For the C6 I’m thinking Am7
For the E7 I’m thinking G#m7b5
For the A7 I’m thinking C#m7b5 or A7#5 or Edim7
For the Dm I’m thinking Fmaj7
For the next E7 I’m again thinking G#m7b5 or E7#5 or E dim7
For the Am7 I’m thinking Fmaj7
For the D7 I’m thinking F#m7b5
For the Dm7 I’m thinking Fmaj7
For the G7 I’m thinking G7#5 or Bmin7b5 or Bdim7...

That takes care the A section, and that’s about all the typing I’m up for tonight

[Allman_Fan]

So . . . uh . . . humm . . . which Blues Scale did Mozart use? Was he the guy that had a hellhound on his trail at the crossroads?

Originally Posted by Tone Gopher

If you are just trying to stir it up, have a nice day.

Sometimes the folks like the soup a little bit better after you give it a stir!

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by min7b5

I wouldn’t approach things from entirely from a chord form perspective, or from scales. Personally I prefer -and feel strongly that it’s far and away what one is hearing with great jazz, blues, and bluegrass players- a predominately chord based approach, with some scales stitching things together. Of course as an aside, I’ll say the melody comes first. I hate to sound so academic, but that’s just the topic. When I’m doing the gig or recording I’m certainly not thinking “Am7,D7...”, only during practice.

I think scales are good for more than just chord construction, and I have students work on them in a linear way for sure. I just think they’re dramatically over emphasized for teaching people how to improvises and compose. Point taken about Mozart, and many of the world’s great classical melodies. Though I’m way more of a Bach guy myself

When I play All Of Me -which is not one of my stronger tunes for sure- I’m first and foremost singing the melody in my head when I’m improvising, and often out loud. And secondly I’m thinking of the following chord superimpositions:

For the C6 I’m thinking Am7
For the E7 I’m thinking G#m7b5
For the A7 I’m thinking C#m7b5 or A7#5 or Edim7
For the Dm I’m thinking Fmaj7
For the next E7 I’m again thinking G#m7b5 or E7#5 or E dim7
For the Am7 I’m thinking Fmaj7
For the D7 I’m thinking F#m7b5
For the Dm7 I’m thinking Fmaj7
For the G7 I’m thinking G7#5 or Bmin7b5 or Bdim7...

That takes care the A section, and that’s about all the typing I’m up for tonight

Aaahhh - I see. Yeah...totally get it. It's modal interchange...all based on chord subs. Basicaly the same idea. you're saying "take the left at the fork", I'm saying " when you get the the fork don't go right"

Cool approach. Always cool to think about things from another angle. In fact, that may be an easier way to think about some of the modal interchange stuff than trying to directly equate it back to a parallel or relative key.

And...Bach is just where it all began...right ?

[TomHB]

The blues scale is used in 99.9% of rock and blues songs. You can look at any of the great rock and blues solos and they follow the standard blues boxes. Most of them are in the first box.

All the mixoldian, trioldian, quadolian, dorian, borian, algorian, and obamaoldian etc. is just where you start from, and is an easy way for guitar snobs to make it more complicated. Just learn the blues boxes, add passing notes, and be happy.

http://www.freeguitarschool.com/Blues_Scale.htm

The relative scale is three frets down. Sort of "far away" sounding. Same shapes, but not all the notes work. You just have to figure it out and play what sounds good to you.

BTW, it's also cool to move the scale around to the chord that's being played, but you can just stay in the key chord scale, which is what most players do.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The #4 comes more from the jazz vein - which has it's roots in blues, ragtime & dixieland. adding a #4 to a major scale makes it a Bebop Major (1 2 3 4 #4 5 6 7), carrying that through the modes gets you nice scales like Bebop Dominant (1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 7) & Bebop Minor (1 2 b3 4 5 b6 6 b7). These are very popular in the jazz world (as you might guess form their names).

David Baker's Bebop Major scale does not use the #4. It uses the #5.

[TomHB]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

David Baker's Bebop Major scale does not use the #4. It uses the #5.

Folks like you make me want to stop playing guitar.

But I will not...

[Allman_Fan]

So what is this #4 you speak of? Typically, how and when is it played?

1. Do you use and think of this as a passing note between the 4th and 5th chords, or
2. do you view it as the 4th note bent to achieve the sharp?

I always thought of the bend as a whole step bend.

Now, surely my 4 note bends went through the #4 note (both ascending and descending) and sometimes sloppily played they may have never completely reached the 5th (some may have not even reached the #4!). But really, I never really looked at these "notes" as either #4 or 5 . . . . they were "bent 4" almost a "note" by themselves. Not in the sense that they were defined by a specific frequency (or a place on the staff), but they were defined by a style of playing. Bending the note to an inaccurate frequency was "better" than fretting the note with no bend and achieving the precise frequency.