What are Blue Notes?

[tomems]

In a minor blues, the b5 is the blue note.

In a major blues, is it the b5, the m3, both, neither?

[AlsoRan]

In the Major Blues, it is the b3.

R - 2 - b3 - 3 - 5 - 6 - R.

You notice there is not 7th in the Major Blues Scale?

[Runepune]

The real blue notes are in between, to me. The sharp minor 3rd and the flat #4/sharp 4th. And obviously the way they are approached

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Blue Notes. Plural.

[matt.guitarteacher]

b3 in major, b5 minor is the short answer, but the term "blue note" is kind of used more generally to describe other pitches which may be flatted, relative to your reference scale/chord/key etc.

For example, over a major chord, depending on the tune/style etc., you can play major or minor blues. So, you'll often hear people talk about b3, b5 or b7 as being "blue notes".

To be honest, I don't know the true, theory-nerd answer to this....

[lawson-stone]

My go-to reference for all "player theory" is Leon White, Styles for the Studio. A minor pentatonic scale with the flatted 5th creates a chromatic sequence characteristic of the blues scale.

Since major and minor pentatonic scales are the same fingerings or note sequences simply starting on a different degree, the "Major" blues is the identical scale, but played taking the second note as the root: C minor blues: C Eb F Gb G Bb is the same as Eb "major" blues: Eb F Gb G Bb C.

They're basically modes of the same scale.

[ragman1]

In a major blues, is it the b5, the m3, both, neither?

Neither. It's the b3 - but the m3 is the b3, it's just not called a m3 in a major pentatonic scale :-)

It's also confusing because any blue note is popularly thought of as a 'flat 5'. It's a sort of icon that's stuck in the general mind... if you know what I mean.


(I used to live in a Flat 5, which amused my jazz friends no end)

[christianm77]

In a minor blues, the b5 is the blue note.

In a major blues, is it the b5, the m3, both, neither?

Both.

[christianm77]

b7 can be pretty blue too.

[christianm77]

In the Major Blues, it is the b3.

R - 2 - b3 - 3 - 5 - 6 - R.

You notice there is not 7th in the Major Blues Scale?

Tell that to Charlie Christian

The 7 is up for grabs can be flat or natural, depending.

[christianm77]

BTW - the two main blue notes b3 and b5 are the best notes to target (along with 6) when playing on this common progression, here in Bb:

Eb Eo7 | Bb

As this progression has been around since the early days, I wonder what the connection was and which came first?

[goldenwave77]

I don't know that the blues stuff is so "scale precise". I think I hear quarter-pitches and slides, all over the place...like between 4 and sharp 4, on I7 chord.

A lot of this stuff comes from vocals, and the use of slide instruments. The Pan American Exposition of 1915 made Hawaiian style guitar into a sensation in the U.S., and this worked its way back into the U.S., and into the playing of blues players. (Bottleneck and knife edge slide playing was already around, but the Hawaiian guys definitely had an impact. Lots of steel players point to the organic, "touch specific" playing of these older Hawaiian guys, e.g. Sol Hoopi, etc., vs. the more modern, automaticity of the pedal steel...pretty much within a few phrases, they can tell one player from another, whereas with pedal steel, it's much harder...I think this comes from attack/slide technique differences, and sometimes microtones.)

There's the quotation from W.C. Handy where he says he heard blues playing while standing outside a RR station, and it was completely outside of Handy's musical training and experience. (Handy was highly trained and schooled, and he kind of formalized, and imposed some structure on the blues, but didn't invent it.)

[ragman1]

BTW - the two main blue notes b3 and b5 are the best notes to target (along with 6) when playing on this common progression, here in Bb:

Eb Eo7 | Bb

As this progression has been around since the early days, I wonder what the connection was and which came first?

The o is a sub for IVm which is a colour variation of the IV. But what would have been the b3 blue note over the IV (b7 of IV) is then a necessary note over the IVm - and the o - and not really blue. Probably applies to the b7 and b5 as well.

[christianm77]

The o is a sub for IVm which is a colour variation of the IV. But what would have been the b3 blue note over the IV (b7 of IV) is then a necessary note over the IVm - and the o - and not really blue. Probably applies to the b7 and b5 as well.

Yeah, that's right - but I would say more that the #ivo7 and the ivm serve the same function - bridging the IV back to the I chord - their use depending on what is going on in the melody, one is maybe not so much of a sub for the other. Probably splitting hairs. On some tunes, such as the last 8 of All of Me, you can use either of them.

In terms of blowing, jazz players seem to regard them as effectively interchangeable it's true.

The b7 (b3 of the key) is not a necessary note of IVm. In a lot of tunes IVm in fact takes a maj7 (3) in the melody - Foggy Day, Days of Guns'n'Roses, After You've Gone, Stardust and so on...If you play IVm7 on those, well the singer might not call you again :-)

It far more of a necessary note on the IV7 or #ivo7.

Obv. cos 3 is a diatonic melody note and as I constantly bang on about, most standards melodies are basically diatonic to the key.

Obviously in a blowing context, b7 would sound great over either of them.... But then in a blowing context, Lester Young etc is cool with b6 (IVm) on #Io7.

Anyhoo, the biggest baddest example I can think of Bird playing da Blooz on a IV chord (which could equally be a #ivo7 chord) is what he does on the Bb chord in Confirmation. Sounds like the blues to me, it's a full on minor blues scale.

Obv. what jazz improvisers do on changes is not quite the same as what a tin pan alley songwriter would have written, so we can use more chromatic notes to describe the changes. Including the blues phrases which work so well on IV chords of various kinds.

[christianm77]

Progressions that have the blues

IV #IVo7 I
V7#9 I
V7#5 I
II7 I
VII7 I
IIm7 V7 Io7 I
I bIIIo7 IIm7 V7
bVI7 Im
bVI7 I
bVI7 V7 I

A few of these things are more common in the earlier jazz stuff.

[ragman1]

bridging the IV back to the I chord

Or the I chord is subbed with iii leading nicely into the VI7 (b9) before the ii-V-1.

In terms of blowing, jazz players seem to regard them as effectively interchangeable it's true.

I don't. What I play over the o isn't the same as over the IVm. And I nearly always make that a m6.

The b7 (b3 of the key) is not a necessary note of IVm.

Agreed, I'm just saying. Some people like to play the dorian over it which works okay but isn't perfect. The mel m is better - or really just the tonic scale with a b6.

It far more of a necessary note on the IV7 or #ivo7.

Agreed too, especially if the IV doesn't go to the m or o.

full on minor blues scale

Definitely. In fact that sound is implied in using the b7, it just kind of extends the idea.

what jazz improvisers do on changes is not quite the same as what a tin pan alley songwriter would have written

Well, that's just it. Different styles. Anyway, it's basically rhythm changes, right? Or some 8 bar blues. Or a good ol' country tune. Or... Beethoven!

[deselby]

Microtones on m3, b5, 6, b7. Shite, just about any note. Tempo imposes limitations but slight bending of notes allows for a more vocal inflection. Maybe why I prefer a player like Jim Hall to someone like Tal Farlow. Charlie is still the standard, not that he bent. Pure rhythmic propulsion with a genius sense of line.

[christianm77]

Or the I chord is subbed with iii leading nicely into the VI7 (b9) before the ii-V-1.

Yeah that's a sub, too. You can do that. (I mean you can do anything really.)

I don't. What I play over the o isn't the same as over the IVm. And I nearly always make that a m6.

TBH I'm less interested in what you (or I) do than what Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Bird, Miles Davis, Dexter Gordon etc do. IVm6 on #IVo7 is more common, but the converse is not unheard of and I think it can sound great.

Agreed, I'm just saying. Some people like to play the dorian over it which works okay but isn't perfect. The mel m is better - or really just the tonic scale with a b6.

Not sure if I made this clear in my original post, you can do what ever the fuck you want when it's your solo. IV Dorian (bVII Dominant) is pretty common choice.

When accompanying the melody, you need to be aware of the melody notes. Obviously. Blind spot for many guitar players though.

When soloing you can ignore of the melody, or seek to preserve it in some sense depending on your approach.

Agreed too, especially if the IV doesn't go to the m or o.

It really doesn't matter actually. Take some time to look in depth into Charlie Parker's handling of IV chords in various blues progression variants, and tell me how much of a shit he gave about m6, o7 whatever. Obviously jazz doesn't end with Bird, but he comes to mind as the master synthesist between a blues and changes oriented approach.

Again the Steve Coleman term 'invisible paths' comes to mind.

Definitely. In fact that sound is implied in using the b7, it just kind of extends the idea.

Which came first, the chicken of the egg? The blues sound is kind of encoded into that IV7 chord.

Well, that's just it. Different styles. Anyway, it's basically rhythm changes, right? Or some 8 bar blues. Or a good ol' country tune. Or... Beethoven!

Country - well that is an interesting one to compare to swing/bop practice. Major/minor blues scale usage etc.

[ragman1]

Christian -

The problem with answering your post is that it might be better said offline! I don't know if I want to wade in publicly, as it were. Otoh, others might find it interesting.

There are contradictions in your answers. On the one hand you say things like 'you can do anything you want' and on the other 'I want to follow what the well-known players do'.

I have to say I don't think like that. I'm wary of the whole idea of following and imitating. It's got nothing to do with arrogance and thinking oneself beyond learning, that's not it. You seem to be saying there are only two options -

a) copying others, or
b) doing anything we like.

I think that's for confused people. Only disorganised people want discipline, to follow and copy, so they feel safe. It reins in their tendency to go all over the place which, of course, feels insecure. Apparently there's either doing whatever you like and getting lost or follow a set line and be nice and safe!

I think there's another way entirely which is much more creative. Doing what we like never works because it's undisciplined. Copying and following heroic examples is only a reaction, a desire to be safe. Both, to my mind, are uncreative.

What is creative is learning, experimenting, trying it out, finding things out for oneself. One needs, obviously, the background knowledge, a certain framework, but not to be tied to it. Nor does it mean breaking all the rules trying to be 'different' and become bizarre and eccentric. That doesn't work either.

Personally I let my ear be the judge. I'm not going to endlessly analyse other peoples' stuff, it's up to them. I'm going to play what sounds right to me. I'm going to play what hits the right spot for me, that has aesthetic value. If one has any taste or flair it'll show. What others do, no matter how brilliant, has nothing to do with it. That way we find ourselves and our own voice.

I think we live too much in our minds, it's probably a common curse. We're all intellect and no heart whereas we want a balance of the two. What we don't need is fear, the fear of going wrong which makes us copy.

[goldenwave77]

I think you're being a little too stark in your distinction.

If we "do what we want"....hopefully, we still like it, after we hear it...if not--- then we won't want to keep doing it. So, not much of an issue.

I heard a funny story, and I can't remember exactly where....it was some guy who thought jazz music and improv. meant just playing anything....just any note at all.

The guy got up on the bandstand, and "played" for about a minute....and then was escorted off...and one of the real musicians said "You don't know your chords at all....do you.?.well go learn them, and then you can try to play."

[christianm77]

Christian -

The problem with answering your post is that it might be better said offline! I don't know if I want to wade in publicly, as it were. Otoh, others might find it interesting.

Let's get it out there. This is an important discussion to have.

There are contradictions in your answers. On the one hand you say things like 'you can do anything you want' and on the other 'I want to follow what the well-known players do'.

Even if that was true how would that be a contradiction? My choice might be to try and play exactly like Charlie Parker (it isn't, but it doesn't matter for the sake of this argument) and it doesn't impact on your freedom of choice one iota.

Of course YOU can do what you want.

What I am trying to do, probably unsuccessfully, is avoid judgemental language and say - if we look at what musicians x,y and z do, they do this, and then if someone goes - aha, counter example, that's cool.

If you aren't interested in that, then it's not a problem, because my reference points are well defined. I hope I am not being hurtful when I say the masters are of more interest to me than your common practice, just stating fact.

But also - flippin' Charlie Parker mate. To my ears he's better at jazz - certainly Blues and Rhythm Changes - than you (and everyone here!). If this causes offence to anyone, well, they need to go do some thinking.

Point is he is a model worthy of study. To whom? To ME.

Someone else might hate Parker and prefer, I dunno, Louis Armstrong or John Coltrane or Albert Ayler. Or ragman1.

I have to say I don't think like that. I'm wary of the whole idea of following and imitating. It's got nothing to do with arrogance and thinking oneself beyond learning, that's not it. You seem to be saying there are only two options -

a) copying others, or
b) doing anything we like.

I think that's for confused people. Only disorganised people want discipline, to follow and copy, so they feel safe. It reins in their tendency to go all over the place which, of course, feels insecure. Apparently there's either doing whatever you like and getting lost or follow a set line and be nice and safe!

This is not what I am trying to say, but it's of interest that you think this is the point I am making.

I think there's another way entirely which is much more creative. Doing what we like never works because it's undisciplined. Copying and following heroic examples is only a reaction, a desire to be safe. Both, to my mind, are uncreative.

Best analogy I could give - would you try and write a novel without reading the classics? Good writers read voraciously.

Otherwise you end up with 50 Shades of Grey (apologies to any fans :-P)

Now you must listen to loads of music, presumably. Cool. What I am talking about is no different to listening - it's about listening in detail. That's all transcription etc really is.

Appropriating licks - well it's kind of silly stuff, but it works. Right I don't know what to play on that Eb7 in Rhythm Changes, what does Bird do - oh I like that phrase, I'll nick it.

I am open to the argument (made by some great musicians) that doing too much imitation is destructive to the creative process. An apparent contradiciton? All things in moderation...

I am conscious of the danger of imitating the past, but I am also very keen to develop my hearing of music and my ability to understand it. That's what being a musician is really.

To give a concrete example, one way I work on improvisation at the moment is put on a track and copy each phrase as best I can. Literally imitation in it's purest sense, like a parrot.

Why? The aim is to get the juices flowing and hone my ability to hear phrases and execute them on my instrument. At no point am I retaining the solo for performance later. It's a different exercise.

If I don't of this - stretch myself in whatever way - I do end up playing my usual stuff.

What is creative is learning, experimenting, trying it out, finding things out for oneself. One needs, obviously, the background knowledge, a certain framework, but not to be tied to it. Nor does it mean breaking all the rules trying to be 'different' and become bizarre and eccentric. That doesn't work either.

Well, what do you know we do agree on the goal.

What rules, BTW? How do you know what the rules are? How do you find them?

Personally I let my ear be the judge.

Then why is it a problem if I say 'this is what I HEAR musician x doing on thing y.'

I'm not going to endlessly analyse other peoples' stuff, it's up to them. I'm going to play what sounds right to me. I'm going to play what hits the right spot for me, that has aesthetic value.

If one has any taste or flair it'll show. What others do, no matter how brilliant, has nothing to do with it. That way we find ourselves and our own voice.

I want to leave you with a perspective I like which may go some way towards squaring this apparent circle - the tradition/progression imitation/innovation paradox.

I think we live too much in our minds, it's probably a common curse. We're all intellect and no heart whereas we want a balance of the two. What we don't need is fear, the fear of going wrong which makes us copy.

Fear? That's again kind of the opposite of the point I was trying to make which was something like:

'Charlie Parker doesn't seem over-concerned with the harmony on passing chords and is actually pretty free with it.' Suggestion - maybe we can be too.

That seems to be opposite, to me, of the fear of going 'wrong.'

Doesn't seem to have come across for some reason.

[christianm77]

BTW Ragman - I'm kind of wondering if you haven't had some bad experiences with pompous jazz teachers trying to force Charlie Parker on you... It does happen a lot.

[goldenwave77]

There's another point about the "imitation...innovation" spectrum, and that is technique.

Technique is important in itself, as a discipline to do something well. It also tells us whether a person "has the goods" to work successfully in that field. To be chosen to be a Jazz Messenger was like being a first round NBA draft pick. To be recruited by the Woody Herman Big Band (a farm system and finishing school for a whole generation of young players) meant something.

Picasso was a gifted draftsman at a young age, and could have been a great representational artist, as almost all critics and students of his art agree. Jasper Johns was very talented, technically. Andy Warhol was also very good technically.


If you try to do something artistic without technical ability, you end up like Yoko Ono, who a friend of mine describes as "multiply untalented."

[ragman1]

I think you're being a little too stark in your distinction.

That's possible. These things aren't easy to put into words clearly.

"You don't know your chords at all....do you.?.well go learn them, and then you can try to play."

Well, quite :-)

I did say one obviously needs the framework, more the better. Having got that, it's a matter of working within it but not being bound by it.

[ragman1]

BTW Ragman - I'm kind of wondering if you haven't had some bad experiences with pompous jazz teachers trying to force Charlie Parker on you... It does happen a lot.

I've never had a jazz teacher, pompous or otherwise :-)