Songs to practice modes

[Monk of Funk]

But thinking of other scales is the wrong focus (but see below ). Your instinct about "7 in and 5 out" is the real foundation, pretty much all of the time. The "7 in" depends on the key (or mode) the piece is written in, and which the chords come from (allowing for the constant shifting of key that occurs in jazz tunes).
If your outside phrasing has worked, it's because you've inadvertently applied a familiar pattern to those 5 outside notes (as well as successfully brought them back in).

I use outside notes, but I don't stay outside.

Do you realise they actually form a pentatonic scale in their own right? Eg, the 5 chromatic notes in C major form the F# major pent scale (D# minor pent).

15 minutes ago, I did not, and had never really thought about it. But, after having read the above post, I wondered this exact question. Thank you for answering it for me. [quote]

Well, there are such things as diminished and wholetone scales, which you should know (and of course know their applications).

I am interested.

There are the famous "bebop scales", but those are only diatonic scales with an extra chromatic passing note: more a practice than scales in their own right.

Ya, not so interested in this.

And of course, there are the modes of melodic minor, each with very specific jazz applications.
So maybe you should research those:
1. melodic minor modes, in particular mode VII (altered scale, for V7 chords) and mode IV (lydian dominant, for bII7 or bVII7 chords);
2. diminished scale - two modes, WH dim (for dim7 chords) and HW dim (for 7b9 chords).
These will give you tried-and-tested bebop and post-bop-style sounds, provided you know the correct chord applications. (Should be plenty of lessons and demos online.)
Each of them is a way of handling certain groups of chromatics within a tonal (key) context, that's the point. Resolution - on to a following chord - is still the key (literally!).

I think I'll check this out. I don't know how much I will end up loving it, but I think these could give me a nice option to use sometimes.

Yes, pretty much how I see it.
Except I tend to see the pent of each chord, not just the key. (If that's what you mean, then I'm 100% with you!)
The pent of each chord is still a subset of the overall key scale, but keeps you "inside", whereas the pent of the key will be partially outside on some of the chords.

I think I see it the first way, but I don't think of it as pentatonic "of each chord" and that sounds like it would be a different thing to me. But what I mean does stay within the diatonic scale.

To me, it is like if you take the pentatonic that uses only white notes on a piano, whatever it is called. That's scale stage 1. Add 2 more notes to that, and that's scale level 2. Then you add in the 5 black notes and you have all twelve.

What's odd is that it seems more like this to me on guitar. On piano, I tend to look at the pentatonic more as the pentatonic of the scale that has that bluesy sound with outside notes, but I think actually that has more to do with the song, or style of music, than with the instrument.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by Bern

I think, the topic is moving away from Monk's question.
BTW, theory allows you to know which are the 5 wrong notes at any given time.

It's ok, moving away from it is fine by me. I'm not stuck on a specific thing. I don't care "what it is" I learn really. I just would like to learn something or some things, that would add more colors to my palette sort of thing. It doesn't matter much to me what colors they are. I might not wanna paint skies, but I'll take some blue, because I'm sure I can paint something cool with it. Or at least, that is the hope.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

The problem with stealing licks is that it can be tough to ear them out because they blast by so quick.

Lots of solutions to that. Transcribe, Amazing Slow Downer, etc. Plus almost anything you want to learn these days is out there as instruction videos and transcriptions. Besides collecting licks, taking the time to learn others solos does amazing things for your ear (which helps when you want to play something you hear in your head). You get better at it with practice.

I still find that the 5-7-5 collections of notes are very important to know. It doesn't mean you have to play those, but knowing them and their sound, I find is very important.

I'd say understanding and being able to recognize the sound of all 12 notes is important. The idea that only 7 notes are correct is a bit limiting - only applies to very basic harmony. In the key of C, you have the 7 "right" notes, and then you have the other 5, which are C#/Db (flat 9, nothing wrong with that, if that's the sound you want), D#/Eb (sharp 9, again, fine if you want a #9 sound), F#/Gb (The #11 or b5 - a staple of jazz), G#/Ab (augmented 5th, again, perfectly fine if you want that sound), and A#/Bb (The flat 7, which is going to create a dominant sound, perhaps more iffy than the others over a C major) NOTE: these notes all tend to work best over 7th chords, and do tend to imply "jazz" type harmony. Playing a b5 in a folk tune strumming basic chords probably doesn't work. BTW, I'm typing all this before breakfast - feel like I'm doing math in the morning - hope I got it right :-)

I'd think of these notes as spices. Do you want pepper on your steak? If not, pepper is "wrong", if you want that taste, it's right. etc. The trick is to know what pepper tastes like so you can decide if you want that taste before you put it on. Certain styles of food imply certain spices,and maybe exclude others. Same with musical styles.

I guess this is a place theory can be helpful - just knowing this kind of thing, and also understanding the chord progression so you know when each "spice" is appropriate and when it's not. But you can let you ear tell you.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I think I'll check this out. I don't know how much I will end up loving it, but I think these could give me a nice option to use sometimes.

Cool. Just remember the applications:
Altered scale and HW diminished are good to add a bit more "bite" to V7 chords, when going to I - that's quite important, resolving up a 4th.
Eg, on G7 going to a C, either of the following:
G altered = Ab melodic minor (7th mode) = G Ab Bb B Db Eb F (no C, no D).
G HW dim = G Ab Bb B C# D E F (8 note scale = arps of Gdim7 and Abdim7).
The important thing about all those chromatics is they should resolve - by a half-step either way - to notes of C major pent (ie chord tones of a C69 chord). That's in addition to the diatonic half-steps B>C and F>E.

Good tips for use of either scale is applied (superimposed) arpeggios.
Eg, for the G altered scale, Abm or Bbm arps, Bbm7, Abm6, or almost any chord you can construct from those 7 notes. (Not forgetting the resolution to Cmaj.)

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I think I see it the first way, but I don't think of it as pentatonic "of each chord" and that sounds like it would be a different thing to me. But what I mean does stay within the diatonic scale.

Right, but so does the pent of each chord, with the advantage of no "avoid notes".
Eg, in key of C major:
C = C major pent C D E G A
Dm = D minor pent D F G A C
Em = E minor pent E G A B D
F = F major pent F G A C D
G = G major pent G A B D E
Am = A minor pent A C D E G
In practice, of course that's just 3 different pents, but each one gives the 3 chord tones, plus 2 additional consonant notes. And all diatonic, as you can see.
Of course if you only played this it would sound very inside, and might get boring! But it's a useful foundation, good sets of target notes.
If you stayed with C major pent on all chords, the C becomes an avoid note (awkward dissonance) on the Em and G chords. Other than that, it's good.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

To me, it is like if you take the pentatonic that uses only white notes on a piano, whatever it is called. That's scale stage 1. Add 2 more notes to that, and that's scale level 2. Then you add in the 5 black notes and you have all twelve.

Yup. That's for key of C of course .

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

What's odd is that it seems more like this to me on guitar. On piano, I tend to look at the pentatonic more as the pentatonic of the scale that has that bluesy sound with outside notes, but I think actually that has more to do with the song, or style of music, than with the instrument.

Well, yes, it has to do both with the key and the style of music.
So in a blues you might choose A minor pent for an A major key tune - because it gives the clashes we identify as the blues sound (or a shortcut to it at least). In a non-blues tune it should be A major pent.
And still, the A note will sound off on the E and C#m chords; although the whole A major pent will work OK on all the other (diatonic) chords.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Lots of solutions to that. Transcribe, Amazing Slow Downer, etc. Plus almost anything you want to learn these days is out there as instruction videos and transcriptions. Besides collecting licks, taking the time to learn others solos does amazing things for your ear (which helps when you want to play something you hear in your head). You get better at it with practice.



I'd say understanding and being able to recognize the sound of all 12 notes is important. The idea that only 7 notes are correct is a bit limiting - only applies to very basic harmony. In the key of C, you have the 7 "right" notes, and then you have the other 5, which are C#/Db (flat 9, nothing wrong with that, if that's the sound you want), D#/Eb (sharp 9, again, fine if you want a #9 sound), F#/Gb (The #11 or b5 - a staple of jazz), G#/Ab (augmented 5th, again, perfectly fine if you want that sound), and A#/Bb (The flat 7, which is going to create a dominant sound, perhaps more iffy than the others over a C major) NOTE: these notes all tend to work best over 7th chords, and do tend to imply "jazz" type harmony. Playing a b5 in a folk tune strumming basic chords probably doesn't work. BTW, I'm typing all this before breakfast - feel like I'm doing math in the morning - hope I got it right :-)

I'd think of these notes as spices. Do you want pepper on your steak? If not, pepper is "wrong", if you want that taste, it's right. etc. The trick is to know what pepper tastes like so you can decide if you want that taste before you put it on. Certain styles of food imply certain spices,and maybe exclude others. Same with musical styles.

I guess this is a place theory can be helpful - just knowing this kind of thing, and also understanding the chord progression so you know when each "spice" is appropriate and when it's not. But you can let you ear tell you.

I never said that only 7 notes are correct. I said that learning the fretboard as a 5-7-5 pattern is useful. It helps you learn the character of the notes so you can choose what you want. And I find that there are 3 classes of these. The more perfect class, the less perfect class, and then one step less perfect. You can use these however you want, and whenever you want, but acknowledging these 3 classes will help you know when you want what, imo.

Right, I like your analogy. To use that further, I did not mean to imply that there are "good notes" and "bad notes" But, there are "sweet" notes, 5 of those, and then there are "salty" notes, an extra 2, and there are "bitter" notes the other 5.

There is a time and a place for sweet salty and bitter. You decide. But recognizing these 3 classes of flavour, I think is very important.

Just looking at it as 12 notes, each with their own specific character, is a little overwhelming I find, a little too complex. Classifying them into 3 classes like this, I find makes it much easier to understand all 12 notes, and choose whatever you want, whenever you want.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Cool. Just remember the applications:
Altered scale and HW diminished are good to add a bit more "bite" to V7 chords, when going to I - that's quite important, resolving up a 4th.
Eg, on G7 going to a C, either of the following:
G altered = Ab melodic minor (7th mode) = G Ab Bb B Db Eb F (no C, no D).
G HW dim = G Ab Bb B C# D E F (8 note scale = arps of Gdim7 and Abdim7).
The important thing about all those chromatics is they should resolve - by a half-step either way - to notes of C major pent (ie chord tones of a C69 chord). That's in addition to the diatonic half-steps B>C and F>E.

Good tips for use of either scale is applied (superimposed) arpeggios.
Eg, for the G altered scale, Abm or Bbm arps, Bbm7, Abm6, or almost any chord you can construct from those 7 notes. (Not forgetting the resolution to Cmaj.)

Cool. Thx, will check this out.

Right, but so does the pent of each chord, with the advantage of no "avoid notes".
Eg, in key of C major:
C = C major pent C D E G A
Dm = D minor pent D F G A C
Em = E minor pent E G A B D
F = F major pent F G A C D
G = G major pent G A B D E
Am = A minor pent A C D E G
In practice, of course that's just 3 different pents, but each one gives the 3 chord tones, plus 2 additional consonant notes. And all diatonic, as you can see.

to me, in key of C it would be, CEDGA, and that's it. Regardless of what chords you play. I don't find that CDEFGAB are ever wrong notes in any tune in the key of C. Just CEDGA are the stronger ones to me.

Of course if you only played this it would sound very inside, and might get boring! But it's a useful foundation, good sets of target notes.
If you stayed with C major pent on all chords, the C becomes an avoid note (awkward dissonance) on the Em and G chords. Other than that, it's good.

I gotta say, I don't find this at all. I like those sounds.

Yup. That's for key of C of course .
Well, yes, it has to do both with the key and the style of music.
So in a blues you might choose A minor pent for an A major key tune - because it gives the clashes we identify as the blues sound (or a shortcut to it at least). In a non-blues tune it should be A major pent.
And still, the A note will sound off on the E and C#m chords; although the whole A major pent will work OK on all the other (diatonic) chords.

Ya, actually blues is a good common example. In blues you can "freely" switch between 2 pentatonics, on basically any of the chords. Why is that? I feel there must be a number of cases where this would seem right. For different scales also. Sometimes I stumble up one them. But I don't know why some progressions work this way, and some don't.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

to me, in key of C it would be, CEDGA, and that's it. Regardless of what chords you play. I don't find that CDEFGAB are ever wrong notes in any tune in the key of C. Just CEDGA are the stronger ones to me.

I gotta say, I don't find this at all. I like those sounds.

OK, me too sometimes, but it depends how evident the clashing notes are.
Eg, we can use a C note quite freely over a G or Em chord, but a lot depends on how clear the B in the chord is (below our C). If we stress a high C while a B is clearly audible an octave (or more) below, that's the classic "avoid note" sound.
If the lower B is not too obvious, then a melodic C is a useful tension: it will still tend to pull down to B - it usually sounds better to follow an accented C with B than with D (over either G or Em).
If the B in the chord is completely inaudible, not used at all, then a G becomes a Gsus4 when we add C, and an Em becomes a C/E chord.

These may all be subtle distinctions, rarely an issue, but are worth being aware of.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Ya, actually blues is a good common example. In blues you can "freely" switch between 2 pentatonics, on basically any of the chords. Why is that?

Depends which 2 pentatonics you mean.

Blues is an intriguing music, unique in the west, because the core scale contains pitches which are not fixed, or not exactly in tune with western equal temperament. (There are various theories on what true "blue notes" really are.)
For this reason we have problems playing blues properly on fixed pitch instruments like pianos. Guitars are fine, because we can bend notes to find those inbetween "blue notes. (Horns can also "lip" notes into tune.)
But simplistic blues theory falls back on that notion of the "minor pentatonic in a major key" (maybe with the b5 added). Of course that doesn't tell the whole story! It's a rough translation into western terms of a music with strong African ancestry. (It's a terrible cliche to just jam on the tonic minor pent on a blues.)
Real blues players will bend the scale in and out of the chord tones; and they might add other notes such as 2nd and 6th - either played straight or bent up to b3, M3 or b7. Adding the 2nd and 6th - and the bending up to M3 - leads to the notion of the major pent (being combined with the parallel minor pent); but really it's not two scales, it's one scale with some flexible notes.
Scale-based thinking (developed largely from modal jazz) misses the point with blues, and makes it way too complicated.

Here's a chart showing (very approximately) how the tonic blues scale relates to the chords and western scale notes, with arrows showing bend direction:

BLUES SCALE: R           -*--    *  <*>  *          *        *
.
             C       D   Eb  E   F   Gb  G       A   Bb  B   C
TONIC CHORD: 1   .   .   .   3   .   .   5   .   .   m7  .   1
BLUES SCALE: 1   .     <<b3>>    4 >b5< >5   .   . b7>>>>>>>>1
.                        
   IV CHORD: 5   .   .  m7   .   1   .   .   .   3   .   .   5  
BLUES SCALE: 1   .   .  <b3  .   4 >b5< >5   .   <<b7.   .   1
.                        
    V CHORD: .   .   5   .   .  m7   .   1   .   .   .   3   .  
BLUES SCALE:(1)  .   <<<<b3  .   4 >b5< >5   .   . b7>>>>>  (1)

The blue 3rd is hotly debated note. It moves around between three pure ratio intervals: 7:6 (just flat of m3); 6:5 (just sharp of m3); 5:4 (just flat of M3). The 7th, meanwhile, is generally considered to be a 7:4 ratio, just flat of m7.
7:6 and 7:4 are what's known as "septimal" ratios (involving the figure 7). The b5 too can be interpreted as a septimal 7:5 ratio, which is midway between the perfect 4th (4:3) and 5th (3:2).
Septimal ratios are not part of western scale calculations, which are historically based on multiples of 2, 3 and 5 - because those figures lead us very close to the 12-equal-tone octave division we build all our scales from. (Modern "equal temperament" has ironed out the minimal discrepancies that arise - such as the difference between 6:5 and m3, and between 5:4 and M3.)
It may or may not be true that blues really is (instinctively) based on "7-limit" tuning, but it clearly loves to deviate from western "5-limit" scales, in a direction that suggests that.

But of course we can play blues without knowing any of this theoretical math! ! All we need to do is listen and copy, and bend until we hear those true "blue" pitches in between our fixed ones. The more familiar we are with blues, the more we know those sweet notes when we find them.
The point is to learn not to worry that some of those notes that sound right are technically "out of tune" (according to our digital tuners). Our ears are not wrong. In blues, it's equal temperament that's wrong.
IOW, it's also wrong to feel bound to one minor pent or another, or to think that various different scales can fit. (Because those are concepts derived from 12-tone equal temperament.) There is only one blues scale; it's just that at least two of its notes are "slippery". There's one "blue 3rd" - it just happens to move around .

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I feel there must be a number of cases where this would seem right.

Yes. Blues is a special case, but its particular kind of expressiveness has found its way into all our popular music, and is in the DNA of jazz too.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

For different scales also. Sometimes I stumble up one them. But I don't know why some progressions work this way, and some don't.

Well, it helps to have an overview of what chord progressions are, why they exist, the different kinds of chords we can use, and the different things they can do.

Traditional, "conventional" western music used "tonality": major and minor keys, employing "functional" harmony, meaning chords built in 3rds, harmonised from fixed pitch diatonic scales drawn from a 12-tone octave: and scales of very limited types too: major, and harmonic and melodic minor. This was an astonishingly fertile musical system, producing all European classical music (up to around 100 years ago anyway), all jazz (up to 54 years ago) and the vast majority of popular music (still).
It allowed all kinds of alteration and chromaticism within its 7-note core scales, provided a sense of tonality (key centre) remained vaguely present.
This music is deep in our collective subconscious. We all know the sound of "do re mi fa so la ti do" when we hear it, and know immediately (without any musical training) when it deviates, when a note is "wrong" or "out of key".
Of course musicians love to play with those rules, pulling and pushing the music as far out of shape as it will go. (It's elastic, it always comes back .) That was the game jazz played, all the way up to the late 1950s, when Miles Davis (in particular) felt it couldn't be taken any further, and wanted to clear the decks - wipe the hard drive if you like - and start afresh.
His new "modal jazz" ditched the old chords-in-stacked-3rds, substituting quartal and random voicings, and ditched the old notion of chord "progression", where chords were chained in predictable sequences, from consonant to dissonant and back to consonant. (What it didn't ditch, to start with, was the old jazz swing rhythms and the old jazz instrumentation. And it often made use of traditional song forms too, although just as often not.)
It was jazz fusion - again led by Miles 10 years later - that moved into rock rhythms and electronic amps and instruments.

Meanwhile, rock combined functional pop traditions of songwriting with modal grooves derived more from folk and rhythm-and-blues than jazz - while fully exploiting technological advances in amps and sound processing.
Few rock composers were theoretically educated, of course, but picked up ideas from anything they heard. Sometimes it would be an old-fashioned chord change, sometimes it would be a brand new effects pedal noise.

I realise this is a terrifically roundabout way of NOT answering your question!
I guess what I'm saying is that understanding comes down to context in the end. If you want to know why something works, take it apart; look at the details. But also keep an eye on the big picture: where did this tune come from? What's its tradition? What else does it sound like?

As an analogy, when you want to understand what makes a person tick, it's not just about examining them in detail, who they are in the present, what they say and do; it's about their parents, and where they come from. (I know this risks going back to our other debate about talent, but let's steer clear of that .)
With a piece of music, likewise, it didn't just appear out of nowhere. The person (or people) that wrote, played and produced it built it out of stuff they already knew. Where did they get that from?
If you like it, if it means something to you, quite likely you come from a very similar place (physically or mentally) to those who made it.

IOW, your question - "why some progressions work this way, and some don't." - could be addressed, in any specific case, using various theoretical jargon. But that wouldn't really explain "why" something works.
Eg, if you asked, very simply, "why does G7 work going to C", the answer "because it's a V-I cadence in C major" only describes what's happening; it doesn't explain why it works. You might still want to know "why does a V-I cadence in C major work?"

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Just looking at it as 12 notes, each with their own specific character, is a little overwhelming I find, a little too complex. Classifying them into 3 classes like this, I find makes it much easier to understand all 12 notes, and choose whatever you want, whenever you want.

Sounds like you have it figured out! That all sounds like a good approach to me. You might also like Larry Carlton's "triad" approach, if you haven't come across that. He describes thinking of stacking triads, so you only ever think in terms of three notes. In the key of C, the C triad (CEG) sounds "normal" and sweet. Now go up and create a triad on the E (Em: EGB), that gives you a C Major7 sound. Then G: GBD gives you a C major9, then Bm: BDF#, gives you a Cmaj9#11. As you keep going, you get more and more outside, but you never have to think of more than 3 notes at a time, and you get to pick your flavor by which triads you choose.

I agree, you can basically play any of the 12 notes, but it helps to have some sort of smaller groupings that help you organize them. Modes, scales, triads, whatever way you want to mentally picture them that works for you! A lot of music theory seems to end up just being ways to slice and dice and organize those 12 notes and assign names to them, and there seems to be endless ways to do it.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

OK, me too sometimes, but it depends how evident the clashing notes are.
Eg, we can use a C note quite freely over a G or Em chord, but a lot depends on how clear the B in the chord is (below our C). If we stress a high C while a B is clearly audible an octave (or more) below, that's the classic "avoid note" sound.
If the lower B is not too obvious, then a melodic C is a useful tension: it will still tend to pull down to B - it usually sounds better to follow an accented C with B than with D (over either G or Em).
If the B in the chord is completely inaudible, not used at all, then a G becomes a Gsus4 when we add C, and an Em becomes a C/E chord.

These may all be subtle distinctions, rarely an issue, but are worth being aware of.

I would never look at it this way. It makes no sense to me to consider a chord as separate from the key. To me, there is the key, those are the strong notes, chord progressions will use those, and given that context, in that key, all the key notes will work great. The pentatonics even more.

Whether a given note works with a Em, to me, depends not on the note, but it depends on where the Em sits in the key, and where that note sits in the key.

If Em, is being the 3rd degree of C, then you're good with the notes of C, and you're good with the pentatonic that sits only in C. Those are strong notes for that.

But, Em is 3 notes, so obviously those 3 notes will always work nicely.

It's easy to see when you look at major chords, the tonic works nicely as a major 7, because those notes are part of the key. It does not work nicely as a dominant 7, because that note is not in the key, and the opposite is true for the V chord.

So, to me, it never matters what a chord is. What the note you play is, relative to the chord, whether it is a 9th, or what have you. What matters is what degree of the scale that note is, and whether or not, that's the sound you want, given what's playing in the background.

To me, it's all about the key. The key is the key as it were. And honestly, I think that must actually be how it got its name.

if I was teaching music to somebody, I would say "this pattern is the key to music."

(although, I actually think to "music" rhythm is technically more key, but whatever.)

[Monk of Funk]

Depends which 2 pentatonics you mean.

Blues is an intriguing music, unique in the west, because the core scale contains pitches which are not fixed, or not exactly in tune with western equal temperament. (There are various theories on what true "blue notes" really are.)
For this reason we have problems playing blues properly on fixed pitch instruments like pianos. Guitars are fine, because we can bend notes to find those inbetween "blue notes. (Horns can also "lip" notes into tune.)
But simplistic blues theory falls back on that notion of the "minor pentatonic in a major key" (maybe with the b5 added). Of course that doesn't tell the whole story! It's a rough translation into western terms of a music with strong African ancestry. (It's a terrible cliche to just jam on the tonic minor pent on a blues.)
Real blues players will bend the scale in and out of the chord tones; and they might add other notes such as 2nd and 6th - either played straight or bent up to b3, M3 or b7. Adding the 2nd and 6th - and the bending up to M3 - leads to the notion of the major pent (being combined with the parallel minor pent); but really it's not two scales, it's one scale with some flexible notes.
Scale-based thinking (developed largely from modal jazz) misses the point with blues, and makes it way too complicated.

Here's a chart showing (very approximately) how the tonic blues scale relates to the chords and western scale notes, with arrows showing bend direction:

BLUES SCALE: R           -*--    *  <*>  *          *        *
.
             C       D   Eb  E   F   Gb  G       A   Bb  B   C
TONIC CHORD: 1   .   .   .   3   .   .   5   .   .   m7  .   1
BLUES SCALE: 1   .     <<b3>>    4 >b5< >5   .   . b7>>>>>>>>1
.                        
   IV CHORD: 5   .   .  m7   .   1   .   .   .   3   .   .   5  
BLUES SCALE: 1   .   .  <b3  .   4 >b5< >5   .   <<b7.   .   1
.                        
    V CHORD: .   .   5   .   .  m7   .   1   .   .   .   3   .  
BLUES SCALE:(1)  .   <<<<b3  .   4 >b5< >5   .   . b7>>>>>  (1)

The blue 3rd is hotly debated note. It moves around between three pure ratio intervals: 7:6 (just flat of m3); 6:5 (just sharp of m3); 5:4 (just flat of M3). The 7th, meanwhile, is generally considered to be a 7:4 ratio, just flat of m7.
7:6 and 7:4 are what's known as "septimal" ratios (involving the figure 7). The b5 too can be interpreted as a septimal 7:5 ratio, which is midway between the perfect 4th (4:3) and 5th (3:2).
Septimal ratios are not part of western scale calculations, which are historically based on multiples of 2, 3 and 5 - because those figures lead us very close to the 12-equal-tone octave division we build all our scales from. (Modern "equal temperament" has ironed out the minimal discrepancies that arise - such as the difference between 6:5 and m3, and between 5:4 and M3.)
It may or may not be true that blues really is (instinctively) based on "7-limit" tuning, but it clearly loves to deviate from western "5-limit" scales, in a direction that suggests that.

But of course we can play blues without knowing any of this theoretical math! ! All we need to do is listen and copy, and bend until we hear those true "blue" pitches in between our fixed ones. The more familiar we are with blues, the more we know those sweet notes when we find them.
The point is to learn not to worry that some of those notes that sound right are technically "out of tune" (according to our digital tuners). Our ears are not wrong. In blues, it's equal temperament that's wrong.
IOW, it's also wrong to feel bound to one minor pent or another, or to think that various different scales can fit. (Because those are concepts derived from 12-tone equal temperament.) There is only one blues scale; it's just that at least two of its notes are "slippery". There's one "blue 3rd" - it just happens to move around .

That's an odd way to look at it. Blues is something we created not discovered. If we created it with equal tempered instruments, then it is equal tempered. It may use blue notes, and I get how those are harmonics, but blue notes are not blues to me. I'm perfectly fine playing blues on a piano, and I don't even feel the need to hit those 3 notes where the blue note may be between.

But, even if we look at it this way, I'm still wondering: What is it about that chord progression, where 2 separate scales work nicely to my ears. 2 separate equal tempered scales. It doesn't matter whether it is blues, or whether it is something else.

There seem to be some chord progressions, which for some reason, lend themselves well to 2 separate scales.

I'm not sure why exactly, but i think it must have to do with how a progression can appear by looking at it from 2 different key perspectives or something.

In blues, maybe the dominant is a dominant of one key, but can also be the secondary dominant of the progression, if you look at it from another key or something. Idk, but I feel there must be some sort of explanation of sorts, of a chord progression nature, that can explain why sometimes 2 separate scales work nicely.

I used blues, because it always uses a progression that can do this. It might like lots of bending and blue notes and stuff also, but there is something about that progression that let's in use 2 different scales, almost 2 different keys for some reason.

Yes. Blues is a special case, but its particular kind of expressiveness has found its way into all our popular music, and is in the DNA of jazz too.
Well, it helps to have an overview of what chord progressions are, why they exist, the different kinds of chords we can use, and the different things they can do.

Traditional, "conventional" western music used "tonality": major and minor keys, employing "functional" harmony, meaning chords built in 3rds, harmonised from fixed pitch diatonic scales drawn from a 12-tone octave: and scales of very limited types too: major, and harmonic and melodic minor. This was an astonishingly fertile musical system, producing all European classical music (up to around 100 years ago anyway), all jazz (up to 54 years ago) and the vast majority of popular music (still).
It allowed all kinds of alteration and chromaticism within its 7-note core scales, provided a sense of tonality (key centre) remained vaguely present.
This music is deep in our collective subconscious. We all know the sound of "do re mi fa so la ti do" when we hear it, and know immediately (without any musical training) when it deviates, when a note is "wrong" or "out of key".
Of course musicians love to play with those rules, pulling and pushing the music as far out of shape as it will go. (It's elastic, it always comes back .) That was the game jazz played, all the way up to the late 1950s, when Miles Davis (in particular) felt it couldn't be taken any further, and wanted to clear the decks - wipe the hard drive if you like - and start afresh.
His new "modal jazz" ditched the old chords-in-stacked-3rds, substituting quartal and random voicings, and ditched the old notion of chord "progression", where chords were chained in predictable sequences, from consonant to dissonant and back to consonant. (What it didn't ditch, to start with, was the old jazz swing rhythms and the old jazz instrumentation. And it often made use of traditional song forms too, although just as often not.)
It was jazz fusion - again led by Miles 10 years later - that moved into rock rhythms and electronic amps and instruments.

Meanwhile, rock combined functional pop traditions of songwriting with modal grooves derived more from folk and rhythm-and-blues than jazz - while fully exploiting technological advances in amps and sound processing.
Few rock composers were theoretically educated, of course, but picked up ideas from anything they heard. Sometimes it would be an old-fashioned chord change, sometimes it would be a brand new effects pedal noise.

I realise this is a terrifically roundabout way of NOT answering your question!
I guess what I'm saying is that understanding comes down to context in the end. If you want to know why something works, take it apart; look at the details. But also keep an eye on the big picture: where did this tune come from? What's its tradition? What else does it sound like?

I could try and do that, but that seems like a lot of work, I've got to assume someone else has done this, and the information exists somewhere. I'm sure there are many situations I would not find where things like this work also, so, I'm not even sure I could find an answer. A lot of other people know a lot more theory than I do.

[Monk of Funk]

As an analogy, when you want to understand what makes a person tick, it's not just about examining them in detail, who they are in the present, what they say and do; it's about their parents, and where they come from. (I know this risks going back to our other debate about talent, but let's steer clear of that .)
With a piece of music, likewise, it didn't just appear out of nowhere. The person (or people) that wrote, played and produced it built it out of stuff they already knew. Where did they get that from?

Where do any ideas come from? they occur to us. We cannot choose our own intelligence. Our minds just do stuff. First there are ideas, then you can analyse it and build theory. Of course we are influenced by tools available, and what we experience. Like mozart was brilliant, but he played music that was still of the period, when now we can see how different music can be. He could not just make that jump, no matter how talented he is.

If you like it, if it means something to you, quite likely you come from a very similar place (physically or mentally) to those who made it.

IOW, your question - "why some progressions work this way, and some don't." - could be addressed, in any specific case, using various theoretical jargon. But that wouldn't really explain "why" something works.
Eg, if you asked, very simply, "why does G7 work going to C", the answer "because it's a V-I cadence in C major" only describes what's happening; it doesn't explain why it works. You might still want to know "why does a V-I cadence in C major work?"

"why" is maybe the wrong question. But there must be some observation one can make about the progression and the two scales that fit, and recognize a pattern about it, and that whenever that pattern comes along, this will be possible.

There must be some relationship between those 2 pentatonic scales, that only becomes such a relationship, under certain conditions, where chord progressions are a certain way. It's not just the classic 12 bar blues that does this, I find. You can bluesify lots of other tunes. Take hymn of freedom for example, this works great that way.

The pentatonic scale gets related to the key by that progression, the same way as the 12 bar blues for some reason. It can give it that bluesy sound. You don't need to give that sound to it though, you can give it the "clean" sound too. But, not ever progression will let you bluesify it. Afik, anyway. I don't usually every try it knowingly, but I know sometimes the bluesy vibe just becomes and obvious option, and sometimes not.

Take a moment to reflect that song is cool, and Oscar is awesome.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Sounds like you have it figured out! That all sounds like a good approach to me. You might also like Larry Carlton's "triad" approach, if you haven't come across that. He describes thinking of stacking triads, so you only ever think in terms of three notes. In the key of C, the C triad (CEG) sounds "normal" and sweet. Now go up and create a triad on the E (Em: EGB), that gives you a C Major7 sound. Then G: GBD gives you a C major9, then Bm: BDF#, gives you a Cmaj9#11. As you keep going, you get more and more outside, but you never have to think of more than 3 notes at a time, and you get to pick your flavor by which triads you choose.

This is how I play piano. I usually keep a fairly steady left hand, and then do whatever with the right had. Often times the result is that it is stacking. You can do arpeggios like that too, and in piano, you can run through those very fast, which is cool. So you could have a major playing on the left, as the progression, and then blast through the triad that builds the 13th on the other hand. That's one of the downers about guitar, is that you can't really stack that way, without some else playing with you. In guitar, you basically have to drop something to add something else. On piano you can stack and stack, especially with the sustain pedal.

I agree, you can basically play any of the 12 notes, but it helps to have some sort of smaller groupings that help you organize them. Modes, scales, triads, whatever way you want to mentally picture them that works for you! A lot of music theory seems to end up just being ways to slice and dice and organize those 12 notes and assign names to them, and there seems to be endless ways to do it.

"to name is to know" -Socrates.

I think the misconception with music that most people have, particularly beginners and those that have not studied music at all, but even intermediate players at times also, is that theory is telling you sort of what to do. What can and cannot be done. Like rules. As though music were something you train to do. Nobody really thinks that writing a book is something you train to do, I mean sure there might some tips and tricks in there, but you can break any rules also, and often times, when you do, it adds shock factor which will just help you sell more.

But theory is not what you can and cannot do. Not what you should and should not do.

It is not "how to make music".

Music theory is the naming of things. that is all.

You can name ingredients and their flavours. Even name common recipes. Ingredients that tend to go well together. You can name stages of this, like dough, is a stage of making a pizza, and there are ways to make dough.

But none of that is how to be "a cook". A cook knows all of these things, and decides what flavours he wants and how to mix these things we've named and learnt. The best ones find ways to do this that we have not really thought of before, that are kind of abnormal or unusual, but awesome nonetheless.

Theory is not "how to be a cook" it is the names of ingredients and flavours, and stuff.

But, the pattern that is all the modes. that is a thing. It is an important thing. One should learn this thing, if they want to make music.

But this thing is not "the notes you should play"

I would sincerely recommend treating it that way at first though, to get to know them. But like I said, I would start first with 5, then add 2, then add the other 5.

Like anything. take skiing for example, you can go down the double black diamonds, but stick to the easy runs at first, to get the hang of it.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

That's an odd way to look at it. Blues is something we created not discovered.

"We"?

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

If we created it with equal tempered instruments, then it is equal tempered.

I think you need to study some blues history, and also (perhaps) some actual blues music. It's widely accepted that blues is a combination of ancestral African musical practices (North and West African) with European practices.
The "we" who created it were African-Americans. It's true they used western instruments, but they adapted them to make sounds they weren't designed for.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

It may use blue notes, and I get how those are harmonics, but blue notes are not blues to me. I'm perfectly fine playing blues on a piano, and I don't even feel the need to hit those 3 notes where the blue note may be between.

Then you're not really playing the blues, IMO.
Of course there are blues pianists, who used "crushed" notes to try to emulate the pitches in between. Ie, they'll play m3 and M3 together, or b5 and P5 together.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But, even if we look at it this way, I'm still wondering: What is it about that chord progression, where 2 separate scales work nicely to my ears. 2 separate equal tempered scales. It doesn't matter whether it is blues, or whether it is something else.

You need to say which 2 scales and give an example of a tune where it works

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

In blues, maybe the dominant is a dominant of one key, but can also be the secondary dominant of the progression, if you look at it from another key or something.

Yes, I7 acts as V/IV when going to IV, but otherwise I7 and IV7 are not functioning as dominants.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Idk, but I feel there must be some sort of explanation of sorts, of a chord progression nature, that can explain why sometimes 2 separate scales work nicely.

Like I say, examples please. (I'm sure you're right, but I need to know what you mean.)

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

"We"?

ya, the humans.

I think you need to study some blues history, and also (perhaps) some actual blues music. It's widely accepted that blues is a combination of ancestral African musical practices (North and West African) with European practices.
The "we" who created it were African-Americans. It's true they used western instruments, but they adapted them to make sounds they weren't designed for.

Instruments are not designed for any sort of music. really. Granted they have been designed to be tuned to play in any key, and have 12 notes and all that. But, that's it. They are just objects like that. You can do whatever you want with them after that. A bucket wasn't designed as a musical instrument, but in the hands of a musician, it is one.

Then you're not really playing the blues, IMO.
Of course there are blues pianists, who used "crushed" notes to try to emulate the pitches in between. Ie, they'll play m3 and M3 together, or b5 and P5 together.

Ok, well then I don't play blues then, according to you. But if you went and asked the vast majority of the population they would answer differently.

You need to say which 2 scales and give an example of a tune where it works
Yes, I7 acts as V/IV when going to IV, but otherwise I7 and IV7 are not functioning as dominants.
Like I say, examples please. (I'm sure you're right, but I need to know what you mean.)

12 bar blues is one, hymn to freedom is another. I posted the YouTube clip. It's not a straight blues. But you can bluesify it, play that outside pentatonic, and also the key of F, and the pentatonic inside it. It's not a I IV V kind of thing, and even has an A7 chord in it, which has a C# that is in neither scale if I recall, certainly not in F.

Almost all, if not all, of Oscar's songs are this way. But he will often play just straight blues as well. Georgia blues is a cool one, it is Bb I think, and whatever pentatonic is all the black notes.

One of Jack johnson's tunes also, off his album in between dreams, but I forget which one it is exactly. One of the good ones.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

ya, the humans. Instruments are not designed for any sort of music. really.

Well, yes and no. Some primitive instruments are designed to just make a cool sound. And then the music is designed around them, around what they can do.
Other more advanced ones are designed precisely to expand and improve existing musical styles. Eg, the piano was an improvement on pre-existing keyboard instruments, fully within a European classical music culture. Of course, its dynamic capacities meant the music could then be developed in a particular direction that wasn't possible before.
Guitars - IMO - are kind of midway. As a box with stretched strings on, it's pretty primitive. Many very different musical cultures around the world have very similar instruments. But the guitar as we know it has been refined for certain kinds of western music.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Granted they have been designed to be tuned to play in any key, and have 12 notes and all that. But, that's it.

Yes, and the 12 notes - in equal temperament - is a particular European idea, and a fairly recent one. (The earliest fretted instruments had movable frets.)
You'e quite right the guitar is adaptable of course. The fact you can over-ride the frets and play slide had a special appeal for early blues players, because it allowed them to achieve the sounds they wanted - the notes that exist between the frets.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Ok, well then I don't play blues then, according to you.

Well, "blues" is many things. You could be playing blues in a sense (eg 12 bars, 3 chords, pentatonic scale), but if you're not bending notes you're omitting one essential element.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

12 bar blues is one, hymn to freedom is another. I posted the YouTube clip. It's not a straight blues. But you can bluesify it, play that outside pentatonic, and also the key of F, and the pentatonic inside it. It's not a I IV V kind of thing, and even has an A7 chord in it, which has a C# that is in neither scale if I recall, certainly not in F.

A7 is a common secondary dominant in key of F.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

Almost all, if not all, of Oscar's songs are this way. But he will often play just straight blues as well. Georgia blues is a cool one, it is Bb I think, and whatever pentatonic is all the black notes.

The black notes are Eb minor pentatonic. Are you sure the tune is in Bb?

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

One of Jack johnson's tunes also, off his album in between dreams, but I forget which one it is exactly. One of the good ones.

OK, but still too vague. Pick one of the tunes you're thinking about, tell us the key (or give us a youtube link), and say which particular two scales will work.

I mean, there's two issues here. If you're asking why something works, you have to be very specific: a specific tune, and a specific scale or scales, inorder for us to give you an answer. If you're just asserting that it does work, that's fine, but a specific example would still be good, because maybe we can learn something!