Chord Scale Approach

[matt.guitarteacher]

This is also the first time I noticed that my original example is wrong. D dorian and A mixolydian aren't modes of the same scale. Should've been D dorian and G mixo. Maybe that's some of the confusion.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Originally Posted by markerhodes

Found the official Ella Fitzgerald website and among the quotes from her is this gem. "I stole everything I ever heard, but mostly I stole from the horns."

The Official Web Site of Ella Fitzgerald

That's great. You can totally hear that in her singing.

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

There are something like four separate conversations here!

To Matt, thinking mode is harmonically specific, thinking key is harmonically general to put it simply. The tone hierarchy between dorian and mixolydain is different. For example the guide tone b7 in dorian is the "avoid" P4 of mixolydian. The basic/extended tones all change as well.

Think of it like this, if it is all the same key, why bother changing chords even? Just play the chord Cmaj for four measures. The presence of certain notes and chords creates the push/pull of functional harmony within a key instead of just a static tonic. The modes are the same way. If the chord changes the mode changes. Your outline choices should change as well to reflect the differences.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

3) (in my limited way of understanding the subject) seemed to be describing more of a chord tone emphasis that I would have thought to be more in line with anti-CST players' thinking.

I am not anti-CST.

Question 1: Is the chord is going to around long enough to establish itself as a separate tonal center or "mode?"
-Two beats each? Not long enough. Satin Doll, and almost the same thing in theme song from Bewitched. Similar main motif ignores chord change, because it is a vamp.
-Four beats each? Probably not. And IMO, that's why people want "substitute" for G7 with some type of Db7(#11,13).

I also understand that in the endgame harmony and melody aren't seperate entities, but how would one talk to a beginner about how to play in the way described in my original post?

Just like I did.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

I am not anti-CST.

Alright. Withdrawn.

I don't know what the "label" should be. There just seems to be one group that doesn't really like to think in terms of CST as much and tends toward thinking more about playing on or targeting chord tones. A lot of what was described in the discussion on the modal approach in this thread tended to talk about the harmony in terms that sounded like this "chord tone" way of thinking.

I'm just trying to figure out what a CST player is thinking when they play dorian and then mixolydian (understanding that mixo may not be a hip choice over a V7 anyway. Let's call it hypothetical). Again if your thinking of dorian in terms of chord tones/extensions, inside/outside notes relative to a ii7 chord, isn't that pretty much the same thing the "chord tone" guys are describing? If not, what's the difference?

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

This is also the first time I noticed that my original example is wrong. D dorian and A mixolydian aren't modes of the same scale. Should've been D dorian and G mixo. Maybe that's some of the confusion.

I knew what you meant.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

Again if your thinking of dorian in terms of chord tones/extensions, inside/outside notes relative to a ii7 chord, isn't that pretty much the same thing the "chord tone" guys are describing? If not, what's the difference?

I think you are correct. Some see the scale surrounding the chord, others think in terms of the chords / arps inside the scale. Both can achieve the same results. However in both cases it is necessary to correctly target or resolve to chord tones.

It seems that the so called "anti-CST' types don't believe it is possible to correctly resolve chord tones by thinking CST. This doesn't make any sense to me ... I share your confusion regarding the difference.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

I don't know what the "label" should be. There just seems to be one group that doesn't really like to think in terms of CST as much and tends toward thinking more about playing on or targeting chord tones.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, and I don't teach anyone except my son. But I wouldn't want you to latch onto anyone one thing, not CST, not chord tones, not any gimmick, or anything made into a gimmick.

You are reminding me of a quote by a guy I otherwise can't stand (named Neitchke) who said something like - he who would fly, must first learn to stand, walk, and run; as one cannot fly his way into flying. You cannot CST your way into inventing musical phrases. Articulation, phrasing, dynamics, idiomaticism, line integrity, and rhythm are individually and collectively more important what functional relation a given note that last a small fraction of a second has to the current chord (or the larger progression).

Go ahead, say G-Mixo. what note does that translate to? Played what way? Is this a Steven Foster song, an immitation Bach invention, a Sinatra slow-ballad bomb? A 12-note per second Scrapple from the Apple?

Yes, you must practice all the patterns, arpeggios and modes, whatever of the three major chord types (the maj7 family, the min family, and the dom7 family), in all positions (or CAGED), and in all keys. There are books with these excercises, if you can't develop your own. This is where you familarize with your palette. But never mistake this as a substitute or a path to becoming a composer or a the fundamentals of that particular form of spontaneous composition called improvising jazz.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

It seems that the so called "anti-CST' types don't believe it is possible to correctly resolve chord tones by thinking CST.

First off, I think it is non chord tones that might need resolving. Second, isn't it a large part of jazz that we don't resolve what would need resolving in another idiom? Phrases end with 9ths, 6ths. or even b5ths in the melody.

I am not speaking for anyone else, but nothing I posted was motived by fear of non reslution.

[jbraun002]

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

Aristotle, I do appreciate yours and all of the other replies.



My original question was "Why do players that think about it that way think about it that way. The majority of the replies either 1)came from players who don't think about it that way, 2) were general philisophical ideas as opposed to a specific thought process, or 3) (in my limited way of understanding the subject) seemed to be describing more of a chord tone emphasis that I would have thought to be more in line with anti-CST players' thinking.

As you said, many of the replies had to do with not thinking about them as seperate modes. I didn't get many responses as to why someone would think about them as seperate modes.

I also understand that in the endgame harmony and melody aren't seperate entities, but how would one talk to a beginner about how to play in the way described in my original post?

I'm in danger of responding before reading page 4, but I'll tell you why I _once_ thought that way: I was taught that way.

My guitar teacher taught me to think along those lines. And... there was no reason to think his approach was bad or faulty or "not right for me" - he was an awesome player. Also, all the Jamey Aebersold records I had had books that said play X scale over X chord, and this includes play the Dorian scale over the minor-2, play the Mixo over the dominant 5, play the Lydian Dominant over a dominant with a flat 5, etc.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

First off, I think it is non chord tones that might need resolving. Second, isn't it a large part of jazz that we don't resolve what would need resolving in another idiom? Phrases end with 9ths, 6ths. or even b5ths in the melody.

I am not speaking for anyone else, but nothing I posted was motived by fear of non reslution.

I don't believe I was replying to your post. However I meant resolve to chord tones (as I said in the previous sentence) ....

A 9th can't be a chord tone? Still confused.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

I don't believe I was replying to your post. However I meant resolve to chord tones (as I said in the previous sentence) ....

Sorry, been called anti theory or anti CST about 50 times on this forum in the last month. So, when someone types that, I think I am reading my name.

A 9th can't be a chord tone? Still confused.

Are you replying to my post, now? Because I though my post was clear. In jazz you don't necessarily have to resolve anything that might be a non chord tone and need resolving in another idiom.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

In jazz you don't necessarily have to resolve anything that might be a non chord tone and need resolving in another idiom.

I see your point and I like this straight forward way of thinking. However, I have to say that if a note remains unresolved, it will usually be notated and understood as some chord tone (or scale) by someone and rationalized through some deep dark theory.

Personally, as an aside, I like to leave these nuances out of any analysis and view them simply as an interesting choice by the musician. This IMO is part of the "craftmanship" that really defines someone's voice, which is often lost in analysis. To me, it helps to keep the harmonic thinking simple when improvising.

[Reg]

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

Reg, I guess I just wanted to know more specifically what the thought process was. If you're playing dorian over a ii7, I know that 1, 3, 5, 7 are basically your chord tones. The other scale tones would be your extensions and I know that there are avoid notes and common chromatic alterations as well. Is this what you're thinking about when you play a given mode? If so, it's basically a reference to the harmony. Are you thinking dorian just as a reference to a kind of ii7 tone palette in terms of strong/weak or inside/outside sounds?

If it's something you'd rather address in a video response, those are always much appreciated. :-)

Hey Matt... sorry didn't get back quicker... probable doesn't relate now...

I don't have a thought process... I just play.
If I hear some dorian based phrase in a aeolian situation... I don't care... I play what I hear... if there is a thought process... it's a split second thing. I react and interact to whats going on, or take the music somewhere and make the other guys react and interact. When we're "talking" about what we might do... OK I can go through different methods of determining pitch collections or linear improve concepts. The traditional voice-leading, tension resolve etc...practices have long been gone, that was when I was a kid or student. If your thinking about those type of details... well it's time to take the training wheels off, hell I play tunes where the target tones are the altered tensions. I don't want to sound like a basic chord tone machine... I can sequence any pattern of chord tones or sub-chord tones through changes... might sound cool once, but that's the method playing me... I'm not after that, I want to play what I hear, as always I run the risk of what I hear not being worth hearing.
Sorry... lots of late nights in a row... I'm rummy.
I don't think/hear notes as 1, 3, 5, 7 , 9, 11 etc... there all chord tones, I guess what I mean is I've trained myself to hear characteristic or defining pitches for different harmonic situations, a simple example might be, 13th in dorian, Certain notes set my tonal table as to what harmonic area I'm playing/hearing from. Sometimes I need to set up where I'm going with my solo with context to be heard as I'm hearing. But I don't think about this while I'm playing... maybe once in while, in the bigger picture. And yes... everything relates to the harmony as well as the line, there one in the same to me. There's more, but we're talking melodic and harmonic concepts. And I think... yes to tone palette, strong week etc... I just don't think about it in those terms while I'm playing... I'll put something together in a video and try and go through the different methods of hearing/playing etc... Best Reg
On a personal note have a new CD coming out hopefully early summer, I'll post some of the takes when i get the rough stuff. It's smokin...

[jayx123]

Originally Posted by Reg

Hey Matt... sorry didn't get back quicker... probable doesn't relate now...

I don't have a thought process... I just play.
If I hear some dorian based phrase in a aeolian situation... I don't care... I play what I hear... if there is a thought process... it's a split second thing. I react and interact to whats going on, or take the music somewhere and make the other guys react and interact. When we're "talking" about what we might do... OK I can go through different methods of determining pitch collections or linear improve concepts. The traditional voice-leading, tension resolve etc...practices have long been gone, that was when I was a kid or student. If your thinking about those type of details... well it's time to take the training wheels off, hell I play tunes where the target tones are the altered tensions. I don't want to sound like a basic chord tone machine... I can sequence any pattern of chord tones or sub-chord tones through changes... might sound cool once, but that's the method playing me... I'm not after that, I want to play what I hear, as always I run the risk of what I hear not being worth hearing.
Sorry... lots of late nights in a row... I'm rummy.
I don't think/hear notes as 1, 3, 5, 7 , 9, 11 etc... there all chord tones, I guess what I mean is I've trained myself to hear characteristic or defining pitches for different harmonic situations, a simple example might be, 13th in dorian, Certain notes set my tonal table as to what harmonic area I'm playing/hearing from. Sometimes I need to set up where I'm going with my solo with context to be heard as I'm hearing. But I don't think about this while I'm playing... maybe once in while, in the bigger picture. And yes... everything relates to the harmony as well as the line, there one in the same to me. There's more, but we're talking melodic and harmonic concepts. And I think... yes to tone palette, strong week etc... I just don't think about it in those terms while I'm playing... I'll put something together in a video and try and go through the different methods of hearing/playing etc... Best Reg
On a personal note have a new CD coming out hopefully early summer, I'll post some of the takes when i get the rough stuff. It's smokin...

Hey Reg, I agree that's the way to go about it! hear the harmony, hear the melody play the melody...

Good luck with your CD, cant wait to here those takes

[JonnyPac]

I just read a lot of theory books... I went through Jazzology, and all three vols of Ligon's Jazz Theory Resources. The authors point out the pitfalls of CST and "modal" jazz when it is applied to traditional tin pan alley changes, etc. It is unnecessary and was not used until later in jazz history for the most part.

As guitarists there is the trend to play scales and not fully realize the harmonic implications. This is fine for harmonically general sounds, as boob mentioned. The alternative is careful chord-tone/voice leading lines or a mature use of CST that takes in a consideration for all of the above.

Burt's rules:
1. Does it sound good?
2. Does it sound good?

[Aristotle]

Johnny
Burt's rule looks a lot like a question. I like my version of the rule better, because it ends in a period. That and - whatever works. If only those two truisms were enough, college professors could write music instead of books.

As guitarists there is the trend to play scales and not fully realize the harmonic implications. This is fine for harmonically general sounds, as boob mentioned. The alternative is careful chord-tone/voice leading lines or a mature use of CST

Johnny, if there is a trend to guitarist playing scales, it seems to me that would be the result of trying to "use" CST as a compositional matrix.

This is probably just wild speculation on my part, but do you suppose it's possible that guys like Tal Farlow, Jim Hall, and Joe Pass don't sound like they are caught up in a trend to play scales, because they didn't start out in an era where players are evangelized into Chord-Scale Theory.

[JonnyPac]

Jonny w/o H please...

I've said my two cents. CST is the macro pool of notes behind many great modern players. It could be argued that the pre-CST players rely on licks and a vocabulary or cliches. Woody Shaw is great example of a CST player.

I've taught 4000+ private lessons in the last decade. CST is something I teach after intervals and before harmonically specific outlines. It works, and it sounds good.

I'm tired of this discussion. I'm trying to help students, that's all. Believe what you like.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Believe what you like.

I might believe you or boob, if either of you give something to believe or disbelieve; could describe how mumbling all these scale names and chord names to oneself is supposed to translate to playing lines that don't sound "sucky."

Woody Shaw is great example of a CST player.

I am sure you see (hear) CST everywhere. I wonder what the thousands of guys in the guitar lesson mills for the last 30 years getting pounded with modes from day one, who never did learn to improvise jazz (after 4,000 lessons) are an example of.

I wonder why the head of I Got Rhythm still sounds "right," even when the II's and V's are major, or when it's subbed out III, bIII, II, bII, etc.

[JonnyPac]

Hey, I'm done. I gotta lady friend to take out for valentines day. No time for love, Dr. Jones!