Chord Scale Approach

[Aristotle]

Key
Scale/Mode
Basic CS tones
Extended CS tones
Chromatic connections

...IMHO. I am still surprised at the resistance to CST there is here among guitarists.

Since there are maybe two regulars here who are not CST fundamentalists, I surprised that you find that a lot of resistance. Sometimes I don't post for months at a clip. During those times, the surprising level resistance is very close to zero.

Two questions.
What do you mean by chromatic connections?
After I get all those big to small elements straight, then what? Good sounding jazzy improvisations will just flow?

I am surprised you can't grasp the idea that theory is not a method of creating musical lines. For example, it has nothing to do with rhythm.

[Aristotle]

It's also funny how you're being taught to play in position, and I'm being told to break that habit of mine (which I picked up with my years playing classical guitar). Different interpretations to be sure!

Isn't it the nature of the guitar that a certain articulation can only be achieved in one sweet spot?

[Reg]

I tend to play my line, whether it be something from the melody or something from the elevator and pull from different harmonic areas to develop. Like as Dr Boob or Jeff made reference to , but I haven't played much from HM since the stone ages, unless I add #9 to PD... And then I usually end up pulling from alt., That's just my ears. The approach is similar... I just can't play a chromatic note without hearing a harmonic structure... I mean whats the difference... a single note is being heard over something. Or are you able to turn a switch where you only hear the single note... if so I need to get one of those... I'm sorry... I just don't hear any difference between any method for source of note(s), I hear methods of constructing lines, scales, arpeggios, different intervalic patterns... or how ever one hears or makes an effort to express what they hear. Or even using a technique to help create what you play. It's still going to have horizontal and vertical relationships, even if your not aware of them. What is the point... to become the best at sounding like everyone else or constructing a solo where every note is the most logical choice for that moment... Or to play what you hear and hopefully that's worth hearing... No matter what or how you play... some are going to think your the greatest and some are going to think you play like... well not the greatest. The one think you need to do, which no one disputes is become very good at playing all the collections of notes. And if it's chord scales, chord tones, key area or whatever... so be it. At some point you you have to play from what you hear. God I've played Someday My Prince ... in so many keys... Try it in 4/4 as a hard swing... at least around 160... tends to get very blue... best Reg

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

Anti-CST players? Maybe one of these days you will find one to ask. Then the next time you say CST is more economical, you'll know the answer to - more economical than what?

As to the parent scale? That's easy. One this side of quarter-tones, the chromatic scale is the parent scale.

I won't be asking KS anything for one. It is an economical way of playing from a larger pool of notes than chord tones alone... unless you think of all the extensions as potential chord tones... Then you are back to a CS but not calling it by such.

Nice post Reg.

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

BTW, does anyone call you Doctor Boob?

That's Tits McGee to you.

[Aristotle]

velop. Like as Dr Boob or Jeff made reference to , but I haven't played much from HM since the stone ages, unless I add #9 to PD... And then I usually end up pulling from alt., That's just my ears.

You avoid the HM, even on IIm7b5-V7b9? Wow.

Use Foggy Day (key of F) for reference. Almost anything works in the second measure for melody: chromatic (like a Django lick), blues scale, plenty of reharm possibilites. Maybe I am too old fashioned, but I like arpeggiating that mini Harm. Min. turnaround.

Here is the JazzGuitarForum solution to measure 2. C mel min to Eb mel min.
Right?

[Aristotle]

I won't be asking KS anything for one. It is an economical way of playing from a larger pool of notes than chord tones alone... unless you think of all the extensions as potential chord tones... Then you are back to a CS but not calling it by such.

Who's KS?

Well, if asked, I could name the chord and key function of every note I play. And if you want to call that the fruit of CST, fine. That doesn't mean that numerology guided the note choice. How many singers know CST? You think that's how Cab Calloway created variations in Hi De Hi De Ho?

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

I think is the way to go when lines exceed the vocal articulation/interval speed limit. Sometimes you can't literally sing a complex jazz line. Skat a three octave Coltrane run... ain't gonna happen. You'd end up sounding like a jittering slide whistle with indeterminate pitches and register cracks. Trad jazz is cool without over-thinking with CST, but heavy post-bop really needs it, IMHO. Even bop has a vocal vocabulary, but post bop stretches out more and can be way less "singable". Post modern jazz and free-bop are even crazier. They use motifs and superimposed CST to get "outside".

KS is KSJazzguitar... Kevin. He's not into it.

What do you listen to and play? A musicians taste can determine the theory/methods he respects.

[FatJeff]

I think is the way to go when lines exceed the vocal articulation/interval speed limit. Sometimes you can't literally sing a complex jazz line. Skat a three octave Coltrane run... ain't gonna happen. You'd end up sounding like a jittering slide whistle with indeterminate pitches and register cracks. Trad jazz is cool without over-thinking with CST, but heavy post-bop really needs it, IMHO. Even bop has a vocal vocabulary, but post bop stretches out more and can be way less "singable". Post modern jazz and free-bop are even crazier. They use motifs and superimposed CST to get "outside".

KS is KSJazzguitar... Kevin. He's not into it.

What do you listen to and play? A musicians taste can determine the theory/methods he respects.

I buy that. I have been listening to a lot of Charlie Christian, but also a lot of Trane lately. I don't approach the two the same way.

[jbraun002]

I think a lot of the resistance comes from the fact that playing using CST is difficult. It takes a lot of brainpower. Let's take the first 3 chords of Someday My Prince Will Come, for instance: Fmaj7 - A7#5 - Bb7#11. When making the transition from one chord to the next, if I'm using CST, I have to think "F Ionian, let's see, that's one flat (Bb), and here comes A7#5, so I'll play A mixolydian and sharp the 5th, so that's 3 sharps for the key of A (F#, C#, G#) minus one for the b7th (F#, C# now), plus one for the 5th which makes 3 sharps again (F#, C#, E#), and uh oh, here comes Bb7#11, so that's gonna be - uh, what is it? - let's use a Lydian dominant on Bb, so that's going to be 2 flats for the key of Bb (Bb, Eb) plus another one to make it dominant (Ab), then add in a sharp on the 11th, which makes the Eb an E natural..." This is the kind of thinking that can drive a man nuts when he's trying to improvise.

OR...I can just think overall keys, on the order of several measures, and play more or less diatonically in the key of F, just using my ear to make adjustments for the alterations. Guess which one is easier, at least for the novice?

Don't get me wrong, I am intensely interested in application of CST, it's just that I fail to see how to actually do it in realtime without putting in enormous shedding effort. As someone else mentioned before, CST really shines in non-diatonic tunes like Coltrane, Shorter, Golson, etc. I would like to get there someday, but to date I've not really found a simple method for doing so.

I'm anti-CST in terms of my own playing, but I don't find the application is too difficult once I've done the scale memorization. My approach to doing CST is to have memorized the major scale, dorian and mixolydian scales for any position based on whether I'd play the root with my 1st, 2nd or 4th finger. Adapting for more colorful dominant tones isn't too bad either (if we're just talking stuff like a b5).

Anyhow, I personally find it more difficult to think/play in terms of keys than CST. But hey, it's really whatever works for oneself. At some point it stops being about the mental schema used to make improv intelligible and just becomes making music.

[Aristotle]

What do you listen to and play? A musicians taste can determine the theory/methods he respects.

Possibly, but as your post pushes the envelope with "post bop" and how three-octave Coltrane lines can become un-singable, you are losing connection with the opening post which is about what is necessary to progress in the beginning, not how to reach another galaxy.

Let me recap
1. The Opening Poster (OP) said he his improv is "sucky." He asked about thinking of a IIm as E-Dor and the V7 as A-Mix, and asked if there is a point to thinking of it as two modes, when it is one key.

2. Others offered advice that I complimented, and I offered a practical idea that is also mentioned by Joe Pass. This is not preaching aversion to or hate of CST or anything.

3. The thread detoured into other stuff, now has detoured again– Aristotle as an anti-CST fundamentalist.

Putting it in perspective
You are not grasping the difference between me saying there is something missing, and me saying what isn't missing is wrong. If someone observes that your fly is open, they are not saying your pants are ugly.

I am not criticizing or praising CST. When it comes to answering the OP, the exact same thing is missing from your embrace of CST as if there is from post 60’s deflection of CST.

The problem the OP poster is describing is being lost. He knows some CST and is asking if manipulating two tonal centers into one whill make is impov be less "sucky." He is asking impliclity where is the bridge from here to executing competently that form of “spontaneous” musical composition known as improvising a single-line melody. And there is nothing in CST per se that teaches spontaneous composition.

Even though post 60 goes the other way from you on CST, and even though the post is not “wrong.” the same thing is still missing. The post pays the usual homage to “whatever works” and then says, “At some point it stops being about the mental schema used to make improv intelligible and just becomes making music.” But it doesn’t say where that point is or how to get there.

The real and hard answer for the OPer is that he probably has to study composition formally, especially theme and variation. If you cannot master some minimum level of spontaneous composition quickly and intuitively (and let’s face, Mozart or Wes Montgomery would not be asking this question), then you need to study it analytically. Otherwise "at some point" may well never come for many.

To say that there are too many people teaching beginners too much CST too soon to students trying to learn wht is a form of composition, at the expense of actually teaching composition, is not a criticism of CST. It is a criticism of the pedagogy. If the goal is primarily to learn spontaneous composition, then why isn’t it better to study composition directly? Most of the CST will fall into place along the way. Early concentration on rote memorization of CST and finger patterns does not by itself necessarily lead to the ability to compose spontaneously. "It's phygian" is not a melodic motif.

[mr. beaumont]

I'm now really curious what these anti-CST players think of and use.

Well, first off, I'm not anti-chord scale. I'm anti chord-scale approach when it overcomplicates things for a beginner.

Secondly, I'm not thinking at all--I'm hearing, visualizing, and playing. The thinking has to be done by that point.

Third, being someone who visualizes in terms of chord tones, that's what I'm seeing on the fretboard as the chords change. I don't have less notes to pull from, they're all still available, I'm just visualizing the "meat and potatoes" and the rest is gravy.

If you really know the fretboard there's no reason there has to be a delineation between "Chord Scale Theory" or another approach--the job is the same, to make a melodic statement over a harmonic backdrop. We can argue it to death, but anyone who plays scales will sound like they're playing scales, and anyone who plays arpeggios will sound like they're playing arpeggios. They're visualization techniques, pools of notes to draw from, not what to play. Arguing beyond that fact is pedantry.

A good player knows the notes available to them at all times, whatever their approach.

[Aristotle]

Well, first off, I'm not anti-chord scale. I'm anti chord-scale approach when it overcompliacates

You are picking up on a key word. It's CST, not CSA. The approach (or method) to making good melody is what's missing, from any "theory."

[Reg]

You avoid the HM, even on IIm7b5-V7b9? Wow.

Use Foggy Day (key of F) for reference. Almost anything works in the second measure for melody: chromatic (like a Django lick), blues scale, plenty of reharm possibilites. Maybe I am too old fashioned, but I like arpeggiating that mini Harm. Min. turnaround.

Here is the JazzGuitarForum solution to measure 2. C mel min to Eb mel min.
Right?

Really... only if I'm playing at an old timers reunion of classical players... I'M Just Having FUN. Pulling from HM is like taking the blues out of Jazz for Me. I sometimes start there, depending on who's on the gig... and usually move on... Once I set up the ears... I'm pretty free to play.Reg

[Aristotle]

Really... only if I'm playing at an old timers reunion of classical players...

Ouch! That's what I get for having Django as a first influence. You can take the boy out of Tin Pan Alley, but you can't always get the Tin Pan Alley out of the boy.

[jbraun002]

Even though post 60 goes the other way from you on CST, and even though the post is not “wrong.” the same thing is still missing. The post pays the usual homage to “whatever works” and then says, “At some point it stops being about the mental schema used to make improv intelligible and just becomes making music.” But it doesn’t say where that point is or how to get there.

The real and hard answer for the OPer is that he probably has to study composition formally, especially theme and variation.

Post 60 author here to flesh out and how I got to the "making music" destination - hopefully this addresses the OP's concerns.

First, I had a great teacher who talked with me about how to build a solo. We started with the blues, and worked on motifs, anticipation, tension and release, and such things. We also worked at singing what we played. Not necessarily to pitch, but that very activity helped put into effect some of the motif/theme/tension/release stuff.

We also listened to some solos and analysed them.

That was great, and worked for the blues, but frankly it didn't help me play over changes the way I wanted to play over changes. I still felt "sucky" to use the OP's language.

That second thing I did, apart from that teacher, was begin to break down the fretboard in terms of arpeggios. I played changes as interconnecting arpeggios. Then I started adding variation, approach notes, some chromatics. Suddenly I felt like I was getting the kind of lines I had been looking for and hearing in other players. And it sounded like I was playing the changes.

I really do think different approaches work better for some. But for me, that was the concrete work that made me pretty much comfortable playing a solo on any tune that gets called. I'm finally at the point where I don't worry about making the changes. But... I'm still working on what I think of as next level stuff (you know, really interesting harmonic stuff, good double-time lines, subbing changes).

I'm probably leaving some stuff out. I did study composition formally for a period many moons ago, so maybe that comes into play more than I think. But honestly, it was getting comfortable with running arpeggios that made it possible to eventually play changes and convincing lines. Frankly, that's why I am anti-CST, because I knew my scales and I couldn't make 'em work out quite like I wanted. When I saw the same notes as chordal extensions they for some reason started doing what I wanted them to do.

[jayx123]

Like yourself, I do not think in modes but in a key center for the progression I used to play like this for many years until this forum encouraged me to focus on the chord tones and now I mix the two together, still the key center remains my main anchor for the improv

[Aristotle]

I did study composition formally for a period many moons ago, so maybe that comes into play more than I think.

That and your good teacher. That seems to count as composition lessons. It also depends on how much someone was immersed in jazz music. It helps if you know what the end product is supposed to sound like.

Sorry, to use you for a foil, author of post 60. Just trying to deflect charges that I am Darth Vader on music theory.

[pingu]

But honestly, it was getting comfortable with running arpeggios that made it possible to eventually play changes and convincing lines. Frankly, that's why I am anti-CST, because I knew my scales and I couldn't make 'em work out quite like I wanted. When I saw the same notes as chordal extensions they for some reason started doing what I wanted them to do.

solid .....
there are too many note choices in the scale per chord aproach
it's too easy to end up with a lot of noodling which can be bland
paradoxically if you (initially) limit the note choices to arps only
you automagically make more musical sense
this allows your ears to get up to speed with your fingers

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

Just trying to deflect charges that I am Darth Vader on music theory.

My musician pals around town call me a harmonic jedi. I'm flattered by it.

I don't think you are on the dark side, just a skeptic. I was not sure your musical preference; Django and post-bop are two different worlds of jazz. Performance theory for each will be different, not better really.

Good replies all around. I'm glad to hear different views.

I have been teaching CST to my students this year whenever it seems appropriate. I have found simple ways of getting it to work for noobs. I dig it even in rock/indie/pop music too.

[Aristotle]

Performance theory for each will be different, not better really.

"Performance theory?" Deconstructing and reconstructing the English language does not make chord scale THEORY into "approach," a method or a type of "performance." If I were to try to improvise using CST alone, no notes would come out.

Take my example of Calloway and his variations on Hi De Ho. It wasn't a joke. Rhythm is one of the main variation devices he uses. It would be far more productive for a beginner to take the main motifs of that song, and discover they "work" just fine with a ii-V: starting imitation phrases on different degrees, truncating the phrase, extending them, varying the rhythms. After a while, switch the melody of Tequila and work with that.. These are the nuts and bolts of what they do in Harmony and Composition classes at expensive schools.

We can repeat CST like a mantra until the sun runs out of energy, and it won't put one idea in the head of someone like the OPer about which to notes to push together. That applies to swing, post bop, and post apolcolypse.

there are too many note choices in the scale per chord aproach

It's like reciting every entry in a database.

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

I think we're talking about apples and oranges here.

[Sho-Bud]

I've heard people describe playing with a chord/scale approach in terms like... ...A mixo over the A7. ".

I read that an immediatley thought, A mixolydian (major scale with a flattened 7th interval). That scale over A7 makes sense because that chord has a flattened 7th interval.

Major scale to be played with Amaj7.

[Reg]

Aren't they all just verbal terms...when we play, we don't think our line sounds great because it fits into whatever terms we decide to call our collection of notes... or pattern on the fretboard... I do like the chord scale method for quick complete references...
Bbmaj7, A7b13, Ab13, G7, F#maj7#11, Bmaj7#11, Bbma7#11, pedal a F over each chord until last chord, Bbmaj7#11 resolve F to E... a standard ending. what key area are you going to use, that's a lot of chord tones, or arpeggios, which chord tones or tensions are you going to resolve or voice lead...
Here's a tune called "Ambleside", here's the changes, meter is 3/4 at 192... no key signature.

Abma9 / Ebma9/G / F#mi11 / B9sus /
Ebma9 /Ab9sus4-3 / Dbma7 / G9sus /
Cma9 / Gma9/B / Bbmi11 / Eb9sus /
Abma7 / C9sus / Fma7 / B9sus 4-3 /

Ema7 / Bma9/D# / Dmi11 / G9sus /
Cma7#11 / E13sus /Ama7 / Eb13susb9
Abma7#5 / G13susb9 / Cma7#5 / B13susb9 /
Ema7#5 / Eb9us / " / " / " // (extra bar)

The melody is from notes implied, I'm just throwing it out to see how different methods would work if this tune was called at gig, ( which it was a few weeks ago at one of mine). OK... go you have about 30 seconds...
Best Reg

[Aristotle]

I do like the chord scale method for quick complete references...

Chord-scale "method?" Or "reference" (as in chord and scale spelling book).

Here's a tune called "Ambleside", here's the changes, meter is 3/4 at 192... no key signature.

The melody is from notes implied, I'm just throwing it out to see how different methods would work if this tune was called at gig, ( which it was a few weeks ago at one of mine). OK... go you have about 30 seconds... Best Reg

The short answer is I'd hire you to play it. In the context of an OP that is wrestling with whether Em-A7 is two scales or one, I'd say you jumped ahead a bit.