Paul... it's one of several symmetrical scales. Symmetrical.
It isn't an A dominant bebop, or rather, it isn't _only_ that. It's a whole helluva a lot more useful to understand the symmetry and how that affects how to use that scale than it is to target that bass note as the tonic. Symmetrical scales don't really have tonics at all. (Forgive me for missing the boat in my first post, by the way... although I identified the intervals correctly, when I was tossing the scale around in my head I inadvertently turned the #4 into a 4... which is how I got all caught up in chromatic blues)
Here are the ascending minor thirds of your scale:
The tonality is entirely ambiguous (and clearly diminished) ... that scale DOES NOT have to be an A _anything_. I'm not going to sit here and lecture an expert jazz guitarist on things he doesn't need to know. But the error here is not mine, or Stone's, its yours.
You're doing something which is fairly common, and fairly annoying to someone like me.
You've been blessed with enough inherent musicality to become an expert guitarist. For someone like you, a lot of theory looks like unnecessary baggage. Moreover, even when there are theory points you misunderstand and misapply you know that all you need to do is trust your ears to find the proper path. You think it has to work this way for everyone, or that it should. You probably can't quite understand or believe me when I say that thinking (not listening, thinking... thinking really hard) about music and theory has helped me _hear_ better, be a better musician... in fact, be a musician at all. Relying solely on my inherent musical gifts did not take me very far.
The natural musician has a very hard time believing that their 'gifts' can be acquired, can be learned... or that theory would actually be involved in the acquiring process. It can be.
You teach, and I think these points are important ones for a teacher. Most music teachers are evaluated on the basis of their ability to perform music. It's actually bizarre, shouldn't a teacher be evaluated on their ability to teach. It's kind of funny. The best music schools are known for having the best most talented students... isn't that backwards? Shouldn't the 'best' music school be the one that can take the _least_ gifted students and turn them into musicians?
There's more than one way to learn music. Paul, I have little doubt that you can do more on a guitar with a scale that you misunderstand completely, than I can with any scale. (Gimme a couple years though, I'm working on it!) That fact, however, does not make your misunderstandings 'right' ... it just means your strengths as a player take you right thru minor intellectual errors.
I wonder which of us, however, would do better teaching a not especially gifted guitarist how to improvise. My money would be on me, despite the fact you can play circles around me.
Tiger Woods takes lessons from Butch Harmon... Butch Harmon never won a major and never will.
You've said elsewhere that improvisation is not a mystery. I agree, but I honestly don't believe you understand it, not _in a communicable way_, and not as well as you think you do, and yes I have read your article.
Try taking your teaching ego down a few notches... it won't diminish who you are as a musician at all.
I think you'll find out that Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was around the time when modes became popular to people
Really? I seem to recall this having been discussed on the fretbuzz earlier... you might want to do a search on "Kind of Blue" in the fretbuzz and read up on it.
It seems most are like sheep and everybody follows the trend setters..
Oh come on! You're getting silly! That's like, um, about 5 trends ago . I haven't seen too many sheep flocking to free jazz! In fact, if there's a trend lately, it's back to the old school with hard bop and swing.