Question:
Chord scales for secondary dominant chords
The chord scale for V7 is mixolydian.
The chord scale for V7/II is mixolydian b13.
The chord scale for V7/III is mixolydian b9 (optionally #9), b13.
The chord scale for V7/IV is mixolydian.
The chord scale for V7/V is mixolydian.
The chord scale for V7/VI is mixolydian b9 (optionally #9), b13.
[Harmony Workbook 3, Barrie Nettles, Berklee College of Music]

1. Could someone please explain why some has b9, #9, and/or b13?
2. Could someone also explain why V7/VII is not discussed?

Thanks in advance.

Answer:
Those chords simply reflect the tones present based on the scales. Example: If you're working in D minor 7 as II, then A7 would be V7. The scale commonly associated with D minor 7 is D dorian, and this contains an F natural rather than an F#. F natural is the b13 from A.
Chord scale relationships can help with the basics, but when it's taken to this level, I think you're just practicing for practicing's sake. Practicing this type of stuff too early tends to do one of two things for any given player:
1. Hangs them up on theory
2. Gives them some extra vocabulary with which to work (though a little arcane)
I'd suggest going with something more simple for now like the diminished scale. Start it on a half step and you have access to a number of color tones to exercise over any dominant chord. In order, they are: root, flat 9, sharp 9, 3, sharp 11 or flat 5, natural 5, 13, 7th, and root again. Practice to these tones and hanging on them over dominant chords will open up your ears to ALL of the possibilities to the above-mentioned chord-scales. Have fun!

Answer:
Originally Posted by telkim The chord scale for V7 is mixolydian.
The chord scale for V7/II is mixolydian b13.
The chord scale for V7/III is mixolydian b9 (optionally #9), b13.
The chord scale for V7/IV is mixolydian.
The chord scale for V7/V is mixolydian.
The chord scale for V7/VI is mixolydian b9 (optionally #9), b13.
[Harmony Workbook 3, Barrie Nettles, Berklee College of Music]

1. Could someone please explain why some has b9, #9, and/or b13?
2. Could someone also explain why V7/VII is not discussed?

Thanks in advance.
1. The altereded tones occur naturally (diatonic) in the I tonality.
C Maj | A7 | Dm7 |G7 |
Over A7 the book is suggesting to play F natural instead of F#.
2. VII is considered a dominant substitute for V anyway. In the key of C you're talking about tonicizing B with some kind of F#7 chord. By the time you do this, the tonality is so removed from C that it doesn't sound secondary to anything at all. Keys a half step away are quite remote.

Answer:
Bear in mind, too, that this is intended as writing (arranging, orchestrating) instruction, not playing. It all works just fine for playing, especially if you love arcana.

Answer:
Whew!
danarsenault,
What a relief! You've finally made some sense of all the chord/scale theory stuff for me. I was beginning to think that I had to have all this stuff down pat, memorized, and internalized before I could ever sucessfully improvise. I was beginning to lose heart.

So, if I get what you're saying, the chord/scale relationships are most important for composing and arranging purposes. Improvisation, then, can depend on some simpler guidelines. (I hope).:D :D

Answer:
(oops.. double posted, kind'a)

Answer:
Originally Posted by danarsenault Bear in mind, too, that this is inteded as writing (arranging, orchestrating) instruction, not playing. It all works just fine for playing, especially if you love arcana. Arcana?! LOL.
...as in which - especially if you love some mysterious knowledge the average person doesn't know about, or as in a secret remedy?
Getting a bit esoteric in the holiday season are we? :dazed: Originally Posted by saxophrenic What a relief!...I was beginning to think that I had to have all this stuff down pat, memorized, and internalized before I could ever sucessfully improvise. Well, you kind'a do and you don't. Can't speak for Dana but here's a thought about the theory to improvisation equation I posted on another thread:
Specific to theory, from what I read on various forums, it seems to me that there is waaay too much distraction with scales over chords, etc. and too little development of intuition based in a real deep assimilation of the style -aurally.
Just to qualify this, this is coming from a guy with many years formal training in theory and analysis and professional experience as a writer. I value theory. Knowing the context of chord changes is important. Having a variety of colours in your melodic lines (chord/scale theory) is helpful in opening up your ears. It is also helpful in teaching the fingers to react in different patterns.
BUT...as an antidote to what seems to be a prevalent way of teaching/learning, I would almost suggest that people try playing things first without knowing what the heck is going on in the music tonally; explore, seek and find solutions with your ears, and then go to the theory to find out what you might have missed.

Answer:
Who would have time to intellectualize chord scales over fast changes? I have a hard enough time figuring out guide tones for, say, the lead bari solo on Four Brothers. Do you think Serge Chaloff ever thought about secondary dominant chord scales while playing? Learn tunes and their chord scales at your leisure. Play by ear.
Arcana? If the shoe fits...

Answer:
Originally Posted by gary BUT...as an antidote to what seems to be a prevalent way of teaching/learning, I would almost suggest that people try playing things first without knowing what the heck is going on in the music tonally; explore, seek and find solutions with your ears, and then go to the theory to find out what you might have missed.
Oh man, thanks gary!! Now I feel a bit better about how I've been learning to improvise over the years (slowly, lol). I never had the patience to not try playing things before I knew what the hell I was doing and maybe that's paid off to some extent. Now I really enjoy analyzing what notes work & why and learning the theory, but it used to confuse me more than help me.
I still wish I'd learned a few things early on. Here's what I'd suggest is important to know, or start learning, from the git-go:
Major scales
Major chords
Dominant chords
Minor chords
Maj & Min pentatonic scales
All the above derived from major scales
Basic blues changes
I think you can do a lot with the above, and maybe it's even a bit too much initially.

Answer:
Originally Posted by danarsenault Who would have time to intellectualize chord scales over fast changes? I have a hard enough time figuring out guide tones for, say, the lead bari solo on Four Brothers. Do you think Serge Chaloff ever thought about secondary dominant chord scales while playing? Learn tunes and their chord scales at your leisure. Play by ear.
Arcana? If the shoe fits...
I guess you don't have to learn scales and chords, but guess what most music is made out of? Scales and chords.
Lets say you had to play a tune in whatever key. I'm sure you could make something up in the key, but the better you know the scale, the more that will be at your disposal. If you want to know if you need to learn the scales before you improvise, try this: If you play totally by ear, should be able to hear everything that you play, regardless of key. You know what a scale and arpeggio sound like, so if you start on any random note, can you play the scale and arpeggio without any mistakes at a decent tempo?
Also, learning theory can open up your ears and give you more tools at your disposal. Think about a painter. You can paint if you don't know the names of the colors, but if you want to paint a magenta sunset, it's a lot easier if you have the word "magenta" in your vocabulary and know what colors mix together to make it.
As for theory only being used for writing, and not playing, what is improvising but spontaneous composition?
Of course this is all my opinion, but I think improvisation should be a combination of "ear" and "mind", or "feeling" and "logic". I think that not knowing theory will limit your playing, as will only thinking about theory when you play.

Answer:
Originally Posted by saxomophone I think improvisation should be a combination of "ear" and "mind", or "feeling" and "logic". I think that not knowing theory will limit your playing, as will only thinking about theory when you play.
I agree with your point.

I play in a big band and the second chair tenor is an PHD economics teacher from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo who had taken up playing sax later in life. He's so stuck on scales and chord theory he suffers from "paralysis by analysis". He gets so stuck on following the changes he won't "listen" to what's happening. He site reads charts quite well though.

I'm a little too far the other way. I rely on what I hear and feel more when soloing, but need more polish on understanding the theory part. I've been put on 1st chair tenor simply because my soloing is more pleasant to listen to. Go figure?

Keep on blowin' all!

Glen

Answer:
Actually I don't think anyone is saying you don't have to learn scales and chords. Very few people could improvise well without knowing at least the more commonly-used chords and scales (I know there are exceptions, but they are rare). The point is, you can get overly hung up on the theoretical side of things and not really use your ears. So you need both--ears and theory.
Also, as gary mentioned, it is very important to assimilate the style or genre you are playing, whether it be blues, R&B, jazz (many different styles under this banner!), whatever. It would be worth noting that all these styles, and classical music as well, use the same 12 tones, many of the same chords and scales, and the same music theory. But the different styles sound very different.
I guess the bottom line is, you can't know too much, but in the end you have to use your ear!

Answer:
Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Bill Evans, et al were once told they analyzed too much too...

Answer:
Originally Posted by JL Actually I don't think anyone is saying you don't have to learn scales and chords. Very few people could improvise well without knowing at least the more commonly-used chords and scales (I know there are exceptions, but they are rare). The point is, you can get overly hung up on the theoretical side of things and not really use your ears. So you need both--ears and theory.
Bingo.
As regards Trane, Monk, and Evans, much of the work they did was also involving composition. I'm sure they were familiar with some of the concepts mentioned in the original post from a compositional standpoint. They were also revolutionaries who changed the music forever. As a pianist, which Evans and Monk indeed were, I might want to familiarize myself with strict altered tone voice leading for every secondary dominant. I also wouldn't want to limit myself to that, and then branch out accordingly (which these guys did and THEN some). Lo and behold, I am just a lowly sax player trying to make a buck on the bandstand, so the "arcana" voice leading concepts are not my bag for now. I prefer to devote my time more to learning tunes and increasing my lyrical jazz vocabulary. I DO practice chords and scales every day, and I think everybody should if they intend to learn to play over tunes. Digging too deeply into the aforementioned concepts just seems like a colossal waste of time from my standpoint, and I see fit to getting a feel for altered dominants and developing my own ways to play over them based off of a few intervalic and scalular concepts like 4ths and the dominant-diminished scale.

Answer:
Uhh Ohh
I sense a controversy brewing here.
Play with your head vs play with your heart.
Maybe a little of both.
No matter what - I think it involves LOTS of work and shed time.
:yikes!:

Answer:
In any case, you're playing "with your head" because, hundreds of years of the development of medical science have showed that the heart shares no responsibility in cognitive processes. ;)
In all seriousness... playing music involves both the right and left brain, or, both the logical and the intuitive. Time and great players have proven that the more of both that we put into our craft, the more it will be appreciated.
It's been argued about time and again on this forum and this is usually the consensus that's reached. I used to think that years and years of logical, mechanical practice were necessary before anything intuitive could come into your music, and perhaps that's true for me, but I don't think it's true for everyone. I am very thankful that I learned to read before I learned to use my ears, because my ears are very good now, and I think going in the other direction is a LOT more difficult, based on personal and over-the-internet interaction with many players who have done so/are doing so. Thoughts?
Maybe this is getting off topic but it's been that way for a while...

Answer:
Well.....seeing that we are off topic....(keep it up Razzy!)....I learned "by ear" at an early age with music, and it was a bear to get the reading down.....but, I did get the reading down, quite well....one of the reasons I had difficulty in connecting with reading/music notation is that I had so many stupid teachers! ;) Explaining the context and how reading and the ear fit in with music would've really helped me when I was a youngster......but I figured it out.....I try my best to encourage students to use their ears in listening to music as they play, as well as require them to focus through reading music and studying harmony.........